Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you arereplying to if necessary.

Contents

Republic of Ireland is United Ireland

Being trying to get a proper discussion up and going on this subject for some time without any success, so I'm giving it a go here. My question is this: Since 1998 (as part of the Good Friday Aggreement) Ireland/the Republic of Ireland by referendum given up any and all claim to Northern Ireland as part of its national territory. So - does this mean that the Republic is in fact a United Ireland? All thoughts welcome. Fergananim

eh . . . no! A united Ireland would be . . . well, a united Ireland, made up of NI and the ROI. The ROI correctly removed its ludicrous Articles 2 & 3. It is however perfectly entitled to hope that one day there is a united Ireland. It just doesn't have to rely on loopy articles in the constitution that were more of a hindrance than a help. FearÉIREANN 18:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As much of a Republican hater as I am, FearÉIREANN has a point. It is just a united Republic of Ireland, not a United Ireland. RCD Espanyol

No because I don't believe most of us were voting for permanent partition. We were voting to leave it to the principle of consent North and South, such that a majority in both jurisdictions would be a prerequist to reunification of the island. I want reunification for example and never intended my vote to be interpreted as rejecting it. mango2005

  • United Ireland means just that, a unified political territory containing the entire island. --Kwekubo 03:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Just the opposite, by removing the claims of articles 2 and 3, the ROI should no longer be even refered to as 'Ireland' as by the new articles 2 and 3 it no longer claims to extend across the whole Isle. SCVirus 00:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree because the Constitution still calls the state "Ireland" or "Eire". mango2005

Demographics

It would be nice to see some more up-to-date population information, I stay in Dublin and over the past 3 or 4 years there has been a MASIVE increase in imigrant workers (nigeria, poland, romania) the bus system is badly overrun and commuter chaos is a daily experiance. - Variant

Most Irish people are of Celtic ethnicity, though there is a sizable English minority.

Folks, the above is bollocks. We have a culture based on that of the Celts, but we are not genetic or ethnic Celts. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2000/03/23/state0101EST0331.DTL&type=science

and look for related articles to breck it down. It can be boiled down to this: Most Irish people have a descent seperate from those of the known Celtic nations. We have some related culture and a related language, but our descent is different. Think of it like this - just because someone in India or Kenya specks English it does not mean that he is of ethnic English background.

I also disagree with the wording in the second part of the sentence. Would'nt it be better to state something along the lines of along with a sizable section of the population descended from the various Viking, Norman, Welsh, Scots and English populations. ?

However, I would prefer to wait a few days to see if anyone has any comments contrary to this before I change the wording. Cheers. Fergananim 10th Feb 2005.

Although I would agree that there is not any genetic basis for saying that there is any signicent genetic deviation between the Irish and any other Western European people, I would disagree that the descent is "separate". As the article you referenced makes clear, the Irish share genetic ancestors with other Western European/Celtic nations - I say Celtic as the Celts originally occupied Ireland, France, Scotland, Wales, England (later completely Saxonised by the Viking ethnic cleansing), and Spain.
Our culture, our language and our descent are Celtic. Like all things Celtic, it has been enhanced by the interaction and assimilation of Viking, Norman, Roman, Greek and Arabic concepts, culture and genes.
Your comparison to language is also misleading. A majority of Irish speak English fluently yet the specified quote does not sugest that they are of English ethnicity.
As regards your suggestion of "from the various Viking, Norman, Welsh, Scots and English populations", I would point out that the English are a mix of Viking and Norman, that there is little evidence for Welsh-Irish interbreeding, and that the Scots are descendents of Irish colonists known as the Picts from before the submergence of the landbridge between Scotland and Ulster.--Paul 01:39, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

According to dictionary.com ethnic is defined as "Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage". Does that imply that the usage of the word ethnicity is valid?

Various topics

Well, I've edited the article to make it fit once more into the agreed upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries template. I know, JTDirl is not going to like it one bit (see Talk:Republic of Ireland/temp). Jeronimo was right though on the points he raised and I've edited the sections accordingly, though Politics and Counties still need to done. The excellent and detailed information that was here is not lost, but has been moved to more appropriate pages. Before we start Round Two of JTDirl vs. the Template, I'd like to point out that this is not the page for any in-depth information on Ireland, excellent though it is, but rather a summary of the more important facts and a repository of links to articles that go deeper into a particular matter. Now I'm off to bed. -Scipius 00:11 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oh great. Scipius is back. What is his pre-occupation with trying to force in here a version littered with inaccuracies and simplistic nonsense onto this page? He ignored everyone else the last time, now he wants to do it again. For the record, Scipius, the temp version here was worked on by people, was agreed with a consensus behind it and hence installed here. You tried to bulldoze your version through last time and failed. You tried to get this article put in under the wrong name and failed. This version has been agreed after a discussion. FearÉIREANN 02:48 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's a pity that it looks like we're not going to have a more constructive discussion. My "pre-occupation" is simply that we have agreed to apply a certain template to all the main country articles. This template is meant, as said, as a collection of the most vital information on a country, embellished by links to articles that delve deeper into a subject matter. Ireland is of course no exception and I think my version offers a reasonably good overview of the Republic, without being overly specific on certain subjects. Certainly, there's always room for corrections or improvement and feel free to edit the page further, though keep in mind that for this page, (relative) brevity is desired.
As for things being decided, that's not exactly true. The /temp talk page consists of Jeronimo pointing out what is needed for the template and your rebuttal, but no agreement on the part of Jeronimo at all. The template was agreed upon in July/August 2002 and has since been applied to a great many countries. The version that was on the temp page unfortunately does not comply with it, in particular the history section is far too long and I think we can all agree on that it had to shortened. -Scipius 21:13 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Just read the first part of this talk page that included arguments by Larry Sanger and also many mailing list posts made at about the same time. This horse has already been beaten to death. --mav 21:55 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The earlier discussion was about the name of the article, which is not now the issue. There was no objection then to the history section. The issue at stake here is the template itself. -Scipius 22:26 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
No. The whole point was about which entity the article should be about (Ireland or the RoI). The name was just the most obvious issue. --mav
I do find Scipius' version odd; the text, esp in the history area, seems to be about Ireland and Irish culture instead about the far more recent political entity known as the "Republic of Ireland" (although that is not the official name). In this case we cannot associate Ireland with its thousands of years of history with the RoI in the same way as we cannot associate Korea and its thousands of years of history just with S. Korea. --mav
This is the way we've been doing it for all countries up till now, mav. We do indeed refer to the more extensive history of Korea in the article for South Korea, but when I added the two templates, I added the same text regarding the combined history to the article for North Korea. All country articles refer to events that were prior to the current incarnation of the country and I would say that a historic background is helpful to someone wanting to know more about a country.
I'm entirely open to suggestions that we limit country articles to only the current form of the state and create a general meta article for the greater entity (such as here) or for past forms. This should probably be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries though, where I raised the issue before, and until then I'd say the template as is stands. Consider this: the /temp article contained a wealth of excellent detailed information on the history of Ireland 1919-1949, but did not mention Saint Patrick, the arrival of English and Scottish settlers, the Famine, or the Easter Rising. Even if those issues can be seen as pre-Republic, there was also no mention of the Troubles or the Good Friday Agreement. The template version mentions all of these and more, at the expense of detail on a certain period, however crucial it was. Which would you rather have? -Scipius 21:13 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
"All country articles refer to events that were prior to the current incarnation" Only when there is a one-to-one relationship between the current nation and its past history. The pre-history of the United States, for example, only starts with the colonial period - not with the Native Americans. Also the pre-history of Mexico starts with the Spanish conquest, not with the Aztec Empire. Lumping all that together is confusing and especially wrong in cases like Korea and Ireland. It is also bad database design to have the same information copied in two different places (the history of North Korea and the history of South Korea). It is best to simply start the split histories when the countries split and have everything prior to that at History of Korea. Then both the North and South articles would link to History of Korea. That way there is only one place for us to maintain text on the history before the split. This is good design and it makes things clear and easy to follow for our readers. --mav
And how do we deal with relationships that are supposedly not one-on-one, but still help to give the background to why a country is what it is? Both our articles on Mexico and the US do mention the situation prior to statehood. Do you suggest we do not mention any of the background history for any country article? -Scipius 22:26 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Please read what I said again about "pre-history". What you propose would be the same as having the history of the Milky Way galaxy in an article about the earth. --mav
But you would still like to mention just who the Spanish conquered, right? It doesn't need to go into detail, but some links to a substantial part of a territory's history would seem useful. Your analogy is not entirely apt, I get the point, but that would be like describing the history of Asia in an article on Korea, which no-one is suggesting. Local territorial history does seem somewhat relevant to me.-Scipius 22:11 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
After reading it over, I have to concur with mav and JTD. The text in Scipius' version is a bit too focused on the culture and identity of Ireland as a whole, as opposed to the newer Republic of Ireland. And if according to a person formally educated in such matters there are many inaccuracies in Scipius' article, why is this even an issue? -- goatasaur
As said, we do not yet limit the history of a country to only the current state. For the RoI this necessarily means we then talk about Ireland in general in certain cases, but as the Republic came forth from and consists of most of the island of Ireland, some overlap is only natural. As for supposed inaccuracies, JTD is more than welcome to correct them (he is after all likely to be far more knowledgeable) and I've paid attention to correcting some myself. However, I would like everyone to compare the two versions to see which you would deem more informative in general. Wiki-articles are never quite finished, but I would suggest we use the template version as a basis for further improvements. -Scipius 21:13 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

An article titled "Republic of Ireland" should not try to discuss the history of Ireland from the early Middle Ages. It is, among other things, offensive to the people of Northern Ireland, and needless - the article History of Ireland can cover that easily enough. john 21:19 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree and so do several others so. Only one person disagrees so IMO the case is closed. --mav
Well, what I would like to know is how this effects other countries. I may have to make a lot of changes if we make this policy. As for the history I added, as I said, it is a basis. I personally think it could be shortened in itself, but I would say JTD is more suited for it. Given the desire for more on the creation of the Irish state, why not expand that and cut back on the first two paragraphs? I maintain that the history section as it is now is not suitable for the template. -Scipius 22:26 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It makes sense in a case as complex as Ireland, where an article is called Republic of Ireland to focus on the history of that republic. If instead it focuses on the history and culture of the entire island it risks not only offending people but also unnecessary replication in Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Éire, Irish Free State, and Ireland. I have also from time to time encountered a degree of ignorance and misunderstanding as to the status of Ireland with regard to Britain, and the current version makes it very clear how the current state evolved. In reference to the lack of mentioning Saint Patrick, the arrival of English and Scottish settlers, the Famine. Saint Patrick is the patron saint of Northern Ireland as well as the republic. The settlements mainly happened in the north, and all of these including the famine pre-date the republic. The Easter Rising was a failed declaration of independence, which affected the whole Ireland and pre-dates the republic. The troubles (of Northern Ireland) and the Good Friday agreement (for Northern Ireland) do require some mention perhaps in that particularly the latter has affected the constitution of the republic. Mintguy 22:07 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Northern Ireland could not also include parts of the shared history of Ireland? Why does linking some cultural and political history of the entire island to one of its resulting parts necessarily constitute an offence to the other, which after all shares it and should mention it as well? We certainly shouldn't claim the Republic is all of Ireland, but it does have a history that goes beyond 1919. -Scipius 22:26 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If you have to ask that question, Scipius, you are simply showing how little you understand the topic. The majority of people in Northern Ireland do not see themselves as Irish but as British, and believe their history should be on a page on the United Kingdom. The minority see themselves as Irish and would want their history put on an Irish page. Doing either on wiki would be taking sides, offensive to one side or the other, and so POV. That is why this page is on the Republic and why there is a separate page on Northern Ireland. It is to ensure that wiki is not perceived as talking sides in the debate over whether Northern Ireland is British or Irish. As a nationalist, I would perceive it as Irish, but wiki cannot make such a POV judgement. This point was explained to you in depth MONTHS ago when you last tried to do this. How many times does it have to be repeated before you get the message? You wouldn't listen to anyone last time. Please listen to people this time. FearÉIREANN 23:38 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Obviously it would be best to have a separate page like History of Northern Ireland, which mentions in more detail and correctness the past history of that territory. We do not yet categorise pages, so pages do not have nationality. My point is that it would not necessairly prohibit us from mentioning some relevant information from prior to the formation of the Irish state. Such as when English involvement in Ireland began, which is after all why an Irish state had to be created in the first place, just like the NI page mentions the arrival of the settlers. And again, the issue of having separate pages for Ireland and the Republic is long over, so there's no need to imply this is what this is about. The only relation is that the separation need not be this strict and in my view can overlap to a small extent, increasing the usefulness of an article, provided we avoid potential confusion and inaccuracy of course. Consider also the Culture section you apparently had no objection to, is it uncontroversial to mention pre-Republic Irish writers there?
As for there being a consensus, that's not entirely accurate. Certainly, it's always good to ask other people for their opinion, but obviously a consensus is not something where those holding the opposing view to your own (such as Jeronimo and myself) are mostly ignored. This is supposed to be a country template page and thus this view is entirely relevant no matter at what point it is brought up. Issues with the template can be discussed at any time as far as I'm concerned.
Let's explore two issues you mentioned elsewhere: the status of the languages and the name on the table. You accused me of ignorance and what not because I deleted your text that described English as a secondary language, thereby wanting to imply they are equal. That's not exactly the case. If brevity is desired in the article, it is absolutely essential in the table, so I limited it to a simple enumeration of both official languages. The primary reason I deleted the note however was because it unnecessarily lengthened the table and created ugly whitespace. Some preference was already given in that Irish was mentioned first and we usually can explain the linguistic situation more extensively in the Demographics section, but I've now edited that part to an extent that should be unambiguous, yet still neat and tidy. If you would still like a more explicit mention that we can add it as a note similar to that to the euro, but we shouldn't do it in that cell.
As for the name on top of the table, that is reserved for the local official long name of a country. The local official name, given the preference for Irish, would be Éire, as is explained in Republic of Ireland Act. Combined with its constitutional superiority, this is probably what should come first, being the most promiment >local< name (and there being no real "long" form AFAIK). Now, the above article also mentions that the constitution also gives "Ireland" as its name in English and that is where it gets messy of course. Normally we would use "Ireland" as the second name, being constitutionally the English and other local name, rather than the description of "Republic of Ireland", which is at any rate already used as the article title and is mentioned in the first paragraph, which is normally reserved for the official long English (local or not) name. But given that this too appears to be undesirable I've replaced it with "Republic of Ireland", cutting out "Ireland" all together, but I'm open to suggestions.
One other thing remains and that is the naming of the subarticles. I've restored the links to the normal subarticles "of Ireland" as this is where most of them remain at the moment. They usually contain only Factbook and State Dep. info on the Republic though and so most could be moved to "of the Republic of Ireland", but I thought I'd first ask if there are some that need to be kept at "of Ireland" (I'm mostly thinking of Counties of Ireland here).-Scipius 22:11 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The history of Ireland on this page needs to be shortened. It is the same as the page History of the Republic of Ireland. LittleDan 17:32 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree. This page should give a broad overview and the detail should be at the daughter article. If the ~230 history and ~150 year pre-history of the United States can be introduced a longish paragraph, then the history of this far younger republic can also be cut to the basics for this article. Think of the intro material in each section of this article as a hook to get people interested in reading the far more complete material presented in each daughter article. --mav 19:35 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I concur, as I had said before. Given his feelings on this subject, I'd say JTD is eminently the best man for the job. Would you please consider writing a, say, three paragraphs long appetiser on RoI's history? -Scipius 22:11 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. It will be difficult to do it in three paragraphs without producing paragraphs so dense and complex that people without the basic facts may not be able to follow them, given that it is highly complicated subject.(Even trying to explain the difference between Ireland, Éire and the Republic of Ireland is complex: one is an constitutionally inferior term often used but only by some, not all international states. Another is a constitutionally superior term whose usage in some cases offends Irish people, and the third name isn't a name but is used as a name to avoid using a name that in certain usage causes offence. Follow that? It is all thanks to the warped twisted mind of Eamon de Valera, a mathematician who thought he could apply mathematical formulæ to the creation of the names (I kid you not) and in one occasion so confused everyone that even his Attorney-General gave up in frustration and quit to become Chief Justice (he had been AG for only 1 month!), the Governor-General deV had 'sacked' wasn't sure if he had been sacked (deV's advice to him was in effect 'we think you are sacked, but just in case you haven't been sacked, act as though you have been sacked and hide from the public! The GG ended up sueing deV!), the state's main civil servants and law officers held meeting after meeting to try to make head or tail of it all, and fifty years later deV himself admitted that he himself couldn't work out what he had done! What I've been doing here is trying to get the facts right (which by the way is a first in any encyclopædia: everyone else gets them wrong, to the fury of Irish people, who know they are wrong but don't know do you actually get them right!!) while not making it too confusing to follow. I can understand that it looks too long and I will start chopping but it may require a number of daughter articles that could turn the page into a jigsaw. But just be thankful de Valera only worked on the Irish constitution. Image the chaos wiki could have if he had done the same to other world constitutions!!! :-) FearÉIREANN 01:54 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll work out. If you're worried about length, you could, if possible, try to keep the paragraphs in roughly the same order of length as those of the current politics section. The problem is that the History section is necessarily a little narrower due to the table next to it, so paragraphs will appear differently in the edit window than on the final page. I suspect we both work at fairly high resolutions, but a longish paragraph at 1280x1024 can become a dense slab of text at 800x600, so you may want to narrow your browser window to see the layout at lower resolutions. As for deV, it sounds like you could add yet more to either the article on the Constitution or on the man himself or perhaps a separate article of its own...;) -Scipius 19:10 18 Jun 2003 (UTC).

Added one wee little sentence in the intro so it now reads:

The country's official constitutional name is Éire or, in the English language, Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is the official description of the state.

Think it needs to be clear from the outset why "Republic of Ireland" (with a capital R) is the title and is being used throughout the article.

Broke it up so its clearer.

Will231 (4 Mar, 2004).

Association of Irish Humanists http://www.irish-humanists.org

Representing the interests of the largest ethical minority in the Irish Republic, 138,000 non-religious community. Distinguished Irish Humanists include Conor Cruise O'Brien and Owen Sheehy Skeffington.

Éire/Éireann

Excuse my ignorance, but is it not the word "Eireann" that translates to English as "Ireland"? What is the origin of the word "Eire"? (08/04/2005 Unkempt Hair)

"Éireann" means "of Ireland" that is "Irish". Irish grammar can get a bit confusing as we usually twist the rules if the word or phrase sounds awkward. For example the prefix for Irish naval vessels is L.E. or "Long Éireannach" which means "Irish Ship" while "the President of Ireland" is called "an t-Uachtarán na hÉireann".
Éire comes from Ériu, a mythical goddess of the Tuatha Dé Danann. She was one of the 3 patron gods of Ireland.
To be more precise, "Éireann" is just "Éire" in the Genitive case (the dreaded tuiseal ginideach). "Éire" is the nominative case, and thus the name of the country is Éire.
The example of "twisting the rules" given above is not actually very apt. "Long Éireannach" translates pretty directly as "Irish Ship", while "Uachtarán na hÉireann" translates directly as "President of Ireland" - you could say "Uachtarán Éireannach", but this would mean "Irish president", which is not necessarily the same thing as "President of Ireland". --Ryano 17:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the literal translation of Poblacht na hÉireann ("Republic of the Irish") as whilst it may be the literal translation it is of academic interest at best here. Secondly it may give more confusion than is warranted as Poblacht na hÉireann is itself a translation of Republic of Ireland and the Irish term has no official santion (certainly no more than that of the English) - the literal translation is a footnote at best. Discussion welcome. Djegan 17:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Names

The country box had been changed, and ended up a mixture of the state name and its description. Rather than merely revert I added both the name and the description. Cumbersome, but the italics make comparison between languages easier, and the naming problem is the first section of the main article.

I changed head of government back to Prime Minister because this is the English term and is used in other countries' pages, unless the English term is translated (as in Germany, which uses Chancellor). Bunreacht 28.5.1 also uses the term "Prime Minister", although only to say that the term "Taoiseach" will be used instead, and is not otherwise used in Ireland. --garryq 07:24, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I removed "Poblacht na hÉireann" from the table - I believe it is merely a translation of the official English description – i.e. it's not an official term itself. It's not common, and is at any rate, in the first sentence in the article as a translation of the Republic of Ireland. Zoney 11:35, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The national and first official language is not used to produce mere translations of the "official English description". Both terms are official, and if both official languages are too cumbersome to be used then neither should be, as the table is for official names and not descriptions. The first section of the main article adequately describes the reasons for the nomenclature. --garryq 18:17, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Three points. First, the Republic of Ireland is one name of the Irish state and is used as such by most Irish people as well as throughout wikipedia. The whole naming issue and the unusual status of the phrase "Republic of Ireland" is explained in the second paragraph of the intro as well as elsewhere in the article so a reader will understand that it is not the official constitutional name.

Second this is the English wikipedia so Irish (including the phrase "Poblacht na hEireann") should be translated. Words like Eire, Taoiseach and Oireachtas are exceptions to this because it is the intention of the constitution that they should be used even when we are speaking english. For example the preamble reads "we the people of Eire". No-one ever uses Poblacht na hEireann when speaking English.

The other thing is that "prime minister" is being used in the table as a generic term so should not be capitalised. There's also the fact that many people think "Irish Prime Minister" is an official term and we dont want to perpetuate this. -Iota 00:02, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)