Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

"also known as the Republic of Ireland

Hi, unsure of the etiquette as I have very rarely edited on Wikipedia before. However, I saw the note that changes to the first paragraph should be discussed here first. I think the phrasing "also known as the Republic of Ireland" is quite contentious as it establishes a kind of parity with the one and only official name of the State in English. Would it not be better to use "also described as the Republic of Ireland" with "described" linking to the Wiki page "Names of the Irish State"? Mutant32z (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Unlikely, it should actually read "the Republic of Ireland (more commonly known as Ireland)" as the "Republic of Ireland" there is the official name of the sovereign entity, and "Ireland" is the WP:COMMONNAME.
--42.112.158.223 (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Correction apparently the "Republic of Ireland" is a fantasy named used on Wikipedia, but unlike "Taiwan" for the Republic of China, or "China" for the People's Republic of China has no real outside world WP:COMMONNAME basis, so it should be removed entirely.
--42.112.158.223 (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read Names of the Irish state or learn a bit about the issue before commenting? DrKay (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Whatever about anything else "also known as" is a fairly common ways of giving an established alias. Which is exactly what its doing here. It even redirects to pseudonym. "Also described as" sounds terribly clunky. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Your point would be a good one if "Republic of Ireland" was a name, but it's not. It's a description. This is a subtle but nonetheless material difference in meaning, one that the State has always deliberately maintained. I don't think my suggestion sounds particularly clunky, but that's subjective of course. It is still a more suitable way to establishing relationship between the two terms. Surely Wikipedia of all places should recognise and indeed celebrate subtle distinctions made in the name of accuracy.... Mutant32z (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


This issue has been discussed heavily in the past and as far as I am aware the consensus was to state "officially described as the Republic of Ireland" considering that is stated as its description in the act that declared the Free State a Republic. So no its not a fantasy name and has been used by the Irih government itself at times. Mabuska (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I seem to remember it being written that way before. I wonder what the reasoning behind changing it to "also known as" was. "officially described as", with a link to Names of the Irish state sounds like an acceptable solution to me. As you've suggested that it's a consensus to use that phraseology, I think I'll go ahead and revert it to that. Mutant32z (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Though I'm still not sure! Reading out the first sentence with "officially described as" instead of "also known as", it actually seems to further diminish the official status of the true name. It's a tricky one to get right no doubt... no wonder there's been plenty of discussion on it before! Would my suggestion (also described as) not work though? The specifics regarding its status as the official description are covered in the Names of the Irish state article, so anyone requiring more clarity on the wording could simply click on the word described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutant32z (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This discussion took place while the article wasn't on my watchlist, and I've only just seen it now. The opening sentence was highly contentious for many years. It was finally thrashed out in this discussion in June-July 2012 (from the first heading down to the bottom of the page). There was overwhelming support for "also known as". "Also described as" was suggested once, if I remember correctly, but never seriously entertained. I have reverted to the consensus wording, and I think another RFC would be needed if it is proposed to change it again. Scolaire (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2017

  • I have to agree but Catholicism is the official religion of ireland JWIreland26 (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Nothing requested. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
And that is wrong. It isn't and never was the official religion of Ireland. There was a recognition of it as a main religion and of other religions till 1972. DeValera would not attend any civic ceremony with just a Catholic priest blessing something - there would have be a number of different religious leaders. Dmcq (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 03:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

GDP vs. GNI

GDP is not very meaningful for Ireland for the well known reasons, the infobox should probably give more prominence to GNI or carry some disclaimer. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD?locations=IE --Nemo 12:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Please enlighten us which these well known reasons are; and why they are particularly meaningful for Ireland; so we at least have something contentwise to discuss. Arnoutf (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, we should replace GDP with GNI* in the statistics table on the right - this is what the Central Bank of Ireland propose. GDP (and even GNP) is no longer a meaningful statistic for Ireland (in fact it is very misleading) Britishfinance (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Why no mention of some topics?

I'm just querying two issues

As stated before, I understand not everything or everyone can be written about or listed, however, I find it strange why these topics I have raised above would not be given even one line or mention, since they are an essential subject and contribute (or relate at least) to culture, tourism, business, and in some cases politics in Ireland as they would in any country, and therefore merit been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.202.203 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're talking about the culture of Ireland probably the Ireland article would be the best place and this article used for the more political and economic things like how is science supported in the Republic. Also if you have a long list of people a separate article might be an idea as in for instance Music of Ireland and summarize it in the Ireland article. Dmcq (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
In fact looking at this article I think a whole lot of the culture section should be chopped out and just put in a short summary redirecting to Culture of Ireland and saying iit is normally considered on an all-Ireland basis. |For instance Jonathan Swift isn't really associated with the Republic. Dmcq (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
While it is a fair comment to recommend the creation of an article on Science in Ireland/Republic of Ireland, I think the comment to keep science out of this article and to put it into the Island of Ireland article because you believe this article should be related to "more political and economic things" is facetious and silly. Science is related to political and economic things (as you put it).
Considering not only the number of scientific companies (including pharmaceutical technological and medical companies) currently in Ireland but also the number of Irish people those companies employ, the number of students that take graduate and post-graduate scientific degrees in Ireland (Both Irish and International) and the funding projects Ireland is participating in through the Irish Government via Science Foundation Ireland and the European Research Area.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
The Ireland article is a geography article based on the Island of Ireland and discusses issues that are shared experiences between Northern Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom and the [Republic of] Ireland which is a sovereign state. Similar land mass articles can be the Benelux article (between Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg), the Iberia article (Between Portugal and Spain and Andorra) or even the Europe article (which includes 50 countries). While many of these countries share some culture and scientific endeavours with others, this does not (and has not) prohibited nor hindered them for highlighting their cultural heritage and the achievements and discoveries by their scientists within their own political borders on their own Wikipedia article. After-all when you look at it with a sober mind, all countries are political and economic. If we apply your logic, then all these articles would have to be altered. When people look at these type of Wikipedia articles, some want to know these type of things and for a variety of reasons. The article should not be restrictive by censuring to some peoples point of views, it should be expansive to capture a wider reception of views, since Ireland is an open-minded state with people of varying views and interests.
I can only assume what you meant in your second comment in relation to cutting the culture section and saying "Jonathan Swift isn't really associated with the Republic", that because he was born under British Rule and not Ireland as an independent state, he should not be mentioned. The fact is most of the sections of this article would be cut down if we were to apply your logic, specifically 1916 where the leaders were born and died under British rule. Actually Jonathan Swift is associated with the republic as are many others who wrote and inspired those to rise up and fight for independence, including the Folklorists I provided in my previous comment. Swift wrote about independence 1 and he appears in postgraduate studies on Irish literature in many Irish universities. Similarly, the names of the scientists I had provided in the previous comment was only an example of Irish scientists from the past to present that have major contributions to science. They were not provided so that they should all be added to the article but rather to show the influence Irish science has had in the world which is what many other Wikipedia articles currently do. While some of those mentioned were born when all of Ireland was under British Rule, many were born in Ireland (the state as it currently is) and therefore this has more relevance here rather than on the Ireland article.
To not have a Science section or paragraph nor mention about Irish mythology and Folklore in the Literature section of this article makes no sense when considering that the Raison d'être of this article is to inform readers searching for encyclopedic knowledge on Ireland as a political independent State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.202.203 (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
How about just taking what I say and not try reinterpreting as if I meant something else thanks. Yes I really do mean I think a lot of this article should be removed and is covered better by the Ireland article. Culture in Ireland is normally considered as an all-Ireland topic. And as I said about the science, yes how the Republic encourages science and its particular accomplishments should be in this article but in the case of say John Tyndall or Hamilton or Boyle I feel they are part of a list of famous people of Ireland and even then an all Ireland article is better. Irish mythology is an all Ireland topic, it has nothing to do with the Republic. I agree there should be a mention but I would confine that to redirecting to the article Irish mythology The Ireland article can have a longer summary. There is no Republic of Ireland Mythology topic or Northern Ireland Mythology topic that could be an expansion of anything here. Dmcq (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Re-wrote economy section

Hi - have re-wrote the economy section (in the body) and the summary to update the material but also to correct stuff around using Ireland's GDP per capita as a measure of wealth (or even GDP as a measure of true economic growth). Also wanted to ensure that the material captures how dominant US multinationals are to Ireland's economy. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

And the changes are well cited too I see, thanks. Dmcq (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Name of State

I think the name of the state section should be moved to further down in the article. I don't think it's what a reader expects to encounter when looking for information on Ireland. Suggest it's moved to below the section on the 1937 Constitution. Kevinc565 (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)16/04/18

Republic of Ireland is not the name of the state. The section is fairly short and I definitely think it needs to be made clear that the title used is not the actual name. And by the way I agree with Ireland being used as the title for the article on the island rather than the state. Dmcq (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
i think the name of state section is good up front. it is short and it is an area that people get wrong (myself included, who incorrectly used republic in another article).Britishfinance (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Poor introduction

I don't want to engage in a dispute about facts or bias but the opening paragraph / introduction is obsessed with tax matters. Is this a standard template for all countries on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobalt69 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The phrase "low tax" appeared about five times too often for a start - I removed. I also added the happiness index but a lot more could be done to give a rounder overall impression. --Red King (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

picture

Long Room Interior, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland - Diliff

Hi;

I think we should use this foto instead of mine! best wishes, −A,Ocram (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done ww2censor (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, much better. Canterbury Tail talk 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Official languages

As far as I can gather there is no such thing as a "first" official language; we usually just order them alphabetically so why is this the case here. ImprovedWikiImprovment (disputationem) 18:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

See Article 8 of the Constitution of Ireland.
  1. The Irish language as the national language is the first official language.
  2. The English language is recognised as a second official language.
Link is here: [1]. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Most countries don't have something like this, so that note confused me but thanks for clearing it up. ImprovedWikiImprovment (disputationem) 22:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(republic of) Ireland

Discussion should take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

The following discussion 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.

Can we amend the title of this page and all references to the country in this format.

The details on the page as best I can verify are 100% correct particularly in relation to name, history and description.

The glaring exception is the title. This title amendment will capture all aspects

Name: Ireland (defined in the constitution, no referendum to change that yet) Description: it is a republic since 1948.

Widespread confusion abounds especially outside the Island of Ireland.

My suggested change captures all this and allows people who are looking for Ireland to find the correct information and people who think the name is "Republic of Ireland" will also find their way to the correct information.

This will allow Wikipedia to clarify the situation as the page does but the title actually adds confusion.

Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to the FAQ above "Why isn't this article titled Ireland?" (also note the message in the big splash screen that you see when editing that discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles have to be raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration) thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much, studying your link now. Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello MilborneOne

I have spent some time studying the Project Ireland Collaboration, joined the group and generally researched the area. Much of it appears inactive for almost 10 years.

In light of the current Brexit environment I believe this topic is worth revisiting. The Irish border is a key sticking point in negotiations. I have literally spent half my life in Ireland and the UK (South East England). I have no axe to grind. My intention is to improve accuracy and reduce possible offence. I see my proposed title change was not amoung the suggested names voted on.

I respectfully invite you to comment/reply to my suggestion or please point me to an active area where this is being considered (sorry I am a noob, but trying hard)

P.S. Very jealous of your spectacular flying career, I did start an CPL course, I have flown solo but was advised my time critical decision making was letting me down I would need more flight hours to get to CPL, I had to back out due to financial concerns. Sorry very OT. 

Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


I would check the talk page archives, this has been discussed more recently and usually comes up every six months or so. But the main thing against your proposal is that a wikipedia article name of "(republic of) Ireland" wouldn't fit with our naming guidelines. Ireland we cannot use because the island is very clearly the primary topic, not the country. Ireland (state) has been proposed but rejected on many occasions. As a result the current name which falls under Common Name guidelines is the best compromise that's been arrived at to date. However consensus can change. Canterbury Tail talk 12:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Could Ireland (republic of) fit guidelines, thanks for your time. I will search further for more recent talk and guidlines advice. Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

You've been told where to discuss it already. Both in this discussion and in the big orange banner that appears when you edit this page. Your contention that the appropriate venue is moribund is absurd: the last activity there was in the month before you posted here and the last move discussion there was last year. My opinion since that discussion remains unchanged: Your idea is a bad one. Natural disambiguation is preferred. DrKay (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2018 (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.

Island of Ireland dab

Discussion should take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

The following discussion 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.

The link island of Ireland in the lead links to Ireland so it was changed to island of Ireland. I changed it back as I think having the whole thing as a unit is less confusing in the context. However if others think just having the 'island of Ireland' form is fine I'm happy to go along with that. Dmcq (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is any more confusing than calling the article Ireland, which arguably is confusing and perhaps should be called Island of Ireland. The only confusion would be confusing that article with this one in a third article. I think until then, if ever, we should stay with Ireland because it is an unnecessay changing of the article name, I always remove this type of chnge as generally confusing and using the principle that we should only ever call an article something else when necessary, which it clearly isn't in this case. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The island is just called Ireland, not the island of Ireland so that's why the article is called that as per WP:COMMONNAME. This article should also be called Ireland but there is a clash and the current way with Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland seems to work well, Republic of Ireland is also commonly used and has some official sanction. I don't see the titles of articles as anything special because they are subject to problems like that and see no reason they should dictate how an article is referred to elsewhere. However I do se you might have a point in that 'island of Ireland' isn't its name, it is a description. Republic of Ireland is also a description rather than a name but we refer to it as Ireland and use a dab when there won't be any confusion. Dmcq (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I just had a look at WP:IRE-IRL and it linked the whole of 'island of Ireland' instead of just the Ireland part in the second point. Dmcq (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Could we consider a change of this Republic of Ireland page name (as you say it's a description and not the name).

Would "Ireland (republic of)" work and meet naming guidance? I have been told (republic of) Ireland does not meet guidlines. I don't think the current naming works as outlined in many places on the excellent page itself.

Sorry this is likely a very noob question, what do you mean by "Ireland and use a dab" "a dab" is a dance move in Ireland and the UK. I suspect you are referring to some form of punctuation. Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation, see WP:DAB. If more than oone article would naturally have th same name then one or the other has to have a different name to provide disambiguation. Dmcq (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Got it, disambiguation is abbreviated to DAB/dab. I understood the concept of disambiguation but hadn't understood the shorthand for that DAB/dab. The purpose of my suggestion for the title change is to disambiguate, is this the wrong chat to discuss my suggestion of Ireland (Republic of)/Ireland (republic of) as a less ambiguous term of reference?

I'm trying to capture the name of the country of Ireland as defined in the constitution and the common usage of the definition (of the type of)political structure of the country, (it is a republic as established by the republic of Ireland Act 1948). 

Of course there has been no referendum to change the name as defined in the constitution 1937 Ireland/Éire. I think since FIFA decreed in 1953 that the soccer team of Ireland should be known as The Republic of Ireland many people globally think that is the name of the country. You only have to read the excellent wiki about the Republic of Ireland to then know that the term is wrong. This seem like such a logic flaw that I struggle with it.

I would like some feedback on my Ireland (Republic of) suggestion or a pointer on where to discuss it. Thanks so much for your time. Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is the right place for this. Have a look at the first line in the lead of United Kingdom and see if you want to change the title there as well. Dmcq (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2018 (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.

Demographics

Hi all! I want to update the figures in the Demographics section.

Current paragraph: At the time of the 2011 census, the number of non-Irish nationals was recorded at 544,357, comprising 12% of the total population. This is nearly 2.5 times the number of non-Irish nationals recorded in the 2002 census (224,261), when the question of nationality was asked for the first time. The five largest non-national cohorts were Polish (122,585), UK (112,259), Lithuanian (36,683), Latvian (20,593) and Nigerian (17,642) respectively.[156]

Suggested edit: At the time of the 2016 census, the number of non-Irish nationals was recorded at 535,475. This represents a 2% decrease from the 2011 census figure of 544,357. The five largest sources of non-Irish nationals were Poland (122,515), the UK (103,113), Lithuania (36,552), Romania (29,186) and Latvia (19,933) respectively. Compared with 2011, the number of UK, Polish, Lithuanian and Latvian nationals fell. There were four new additions to the top ten largest non-Irish nationalities in 2016: Brazilian (13,640), Spanish (12,112), Italian (11,732), and French (11,661).[1] --Magentareader (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Just go ahead and dive straight in. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Census 2016 - Non-Irish Nationalities Living in Ireland". Central Statistics Office. Retrieved 2018-10-11.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

Change "Éire pronunciation" as it is wrong. Its correct pronunciation sounds something like this "https://vocaroo.com/i/s1to1QG4wZ60". The current pronunciation sounds like "Asia" when in reality it sounds like "Aira" JustASaltyNinja (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The Éi sound is just a little too short I think. Dmcq (talk)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Spintendo  15:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2019

Dear Sir or Madam, Can you please remove all references in Wikipedia to 'The Republic of Ireland' as this is not and never has been the name of Ireland.

This is a quote from your own article: "Following a national plebiscite in July 1937, the new Constitution of Ireland (Bunreacht na hÉireann) came into force on 29 December 1937. This replaced the Constitution of the Irish Free State and called the state Ireland, or Éire in Irish".

The only reason such a false name exists is because the British insisted on passing a law dictating what Ireland should be called. This abomination resulted in british people being brainwashed into believing that this was the name of Ireland.

Also, Does Wikipedia refer to all the republics of world in this manner, e.g. is France referred to as The Republic of France or Germany as The Republic of Germany? If not why pick out Ireland for this treatment?

I trust that you will respect the 'Will' of the Irish people and call their country by it's correct name. Thank you James McErlain [details removed]84.203.62.127 (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the note at the top of this page. RudolfRed (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Basically the island seems to be the more important entity by usage and the name 'Republic of Ireland' is an officially permitted description of the country. Dmcq (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2019

Add Category:Member states of the United Nations to this page

Source: http://www.un.org/en/member-states/#gotoI Gibbon (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2019

Instead of "This article is about the sovereign state. For related topics, see Ireland (disambiguation).', we use, 'This article is about the sovereign state. For the island of Ireland, see Ireland (Island). For Northern Ireland, a part of the island of Ireland which borders the Republic of Ireland and is under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, a separate sovereign state, see Northern Ireland. For other topics, see Ireland (Disambiguation). Dannytellurian (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Not done - due to the issues relating to the naming of Ireland related articles you will need to gain a consensus for the change and re-submit request, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Prevent abuse of this page to support usage of "Southern Ireland" for the state

In the Name section Replace As well as "Ireland", "Éire" or "the Republic of Ireland", the state is also referred to as "the Republic", "Southern Ireland" or "the South". with As well as "Ireland", "Éire" or "the Republic of Ireland", the state is also erroneously, or casually referred to as "the Republic", "Southern Ireland" or "the South".

by adding "erroneously, or casually"

This sentence is regularly used to provide false authority for referring to the state as "Southern Ireland" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.129.84.38 (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you'd need to provide evidence that what is there is being misread as providing authority for calling it Southern Ireland, or something saying that it is definitely wrong to do so. I know it is called that, and that is not its name, but I haven't seen anything actively saying it is wrong to do so, and it is important not to stick our own thoughts into Wikipedia, so that's why some citation would be useful before doing anything along those lines. Dmcq (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
It is sometimes referred-to as 'Southern Ireland' in order to distinguish it from Northern Ireland, which is a different country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.216 (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The current state should never be referred to as Southern Ireland, a state that no longer exists and even then existed for less then a year, but, if needs must, as "southern Ireland". ww2censor (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Use 'Republic of Ireland' if you need to distinguish it from Northern Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Or just Ireland. You’ll hear people talk about Ireland and Northern Ireland all the time these days. It’s in the Brexit press. No one gets confused. The ‘confusion’ idea is just politics. FrenchMalawi.
I have to say, having read through the article for other reasons just now, that I do think that this section needs work. I think we do need to distinguish the common names, Ireland, RoI and Eire, from "Southern Ireland" or "the South" which are mostly used in a very limited context. At least they should be in a separate sentence, as the sometimes-republican tags like "the 26 counties" already are.SeoR (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Is Irish Free State still a common name too? Eire is on your list there. Where do we end it! Leprechaun Land?

Pronunciation

There is a link to an audio file with "Eire" pronunciation. But it is wrong. Completely wrong! --62.18.205.106 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I would not go as far as "completely wrong" - but it is a poor, mis-inflected, rendering, and I have removed the link. I am sure one of the many interested editors can record and upload a well-pronounced Éire. Thanks for the alert.SeoR (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the pronunciation was all that bad. It was better than a proposal from last December Talk:Republic_of_Ireland/Archive_20#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_1_December_2018 which I though was just not good enough. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
In fact I think the pronunciation was acceptable and so am replacing it. I'm sure there must be a tag around for requesting an improvement. Dmcq (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
There's pages for requesting pronunciations at Wikipedia:Requested recordings and Commons:Pronunciation files requests. Dmcq (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have to disagree - I'm no expert, but I've been hearing and saying Eire all my life, and this is not a good version (while, as I conceded above, not completely wrong, I've heard worse), and with such an item, I'd say better none than badly done. But I leave it to others to consider, and I think the easiest source for a well-pronounced version is our Wikiproject Ireland community...SeoR (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
You could always ask someone you think says it well to let you record them so you could try putting it up on Commons. A smartphone can do that well enough I'd have thought. The ogg format is preferred, see Commons:Audio/en. Dmcq (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I speak the language, and to me it sounds like a Japanese interpretation of the word. That's how far off this is. Mike Galvin (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The last person who was so dismissive had something like the start of "arrah you're a complete eejit". But if you can find someone who you think pronounces it well and can get a free sound sample to put into Wikipedia Commons as described above that would be great thanks. Dmcq (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Creation of the IPP

The IPP was formed by Isaac Butt rather than Charles Stewart Parnell, yet in this article the latter is credited with its creation in one of the sidebars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.217.81 (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Provinces?

Out of curiosity, why are the provinces not even mentioned? --Doradus (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, a little surprising. But attached as we are to our provinces, they have neither local importance - we address by street, village / suburb / town, and traditional county - nor legal function. Still, I will review to seek a suitable way to include a mention.SeoR (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
They don't really have any purpose or influence in the history of the Republic of Ireland. Sure they are used for GAA and other things, but they are not institutions of the Republic of Ireland. Mabuska (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

“It was officially declared a republic in 1949, following the Republic of Ireland Act 1948.”

Above appears in the article. Doubtless, it echoes tonnes of sources. All, unfortunately, incorrect. You can readily find sources that will confirm that no such thing happened. The Irish government didn’t declare the state a republic in 1949 at all. The Irish government regarded the state as already being a republic. Is there an appetite to correct a common misconception? User talk:Seor, what do you think? User: FrenchMalawi.

Source? Dmcq (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the point is that all the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 (which came into force in 1949) actually did was to sort of rename the independent state of Ireland and completely sever the ties with the British monarch. Per the constitution, the state is called just Éire, or in English, Ireland, and this couldn't be changed by a mere Act. Instead, it said that "the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland" (my emphasis).
In a sense, the Act itself is a source showing that FrenchMalawi is right. The Act doesn't explicitly declare Ireland a republic, which it had been for a considerable time anyway. It just gives it a 'description' from which it is clear that it is a republic.
On the other hand, it appears that at the time, the Act had been announced as declaring Ireland a republic, and in a way that is actually what it did. Repealing the External Relations Act implicitly made Ireland a pure republic, with no connection to a monarch. From the simultaneous declaration that Ireland can be described as "the Republic of Ireland" it followed that it must be a republic. In this sense it was a declaration of this consequence.
This is a bit like "I would like to invite you" can be interpreted as technically not being an invitation but just a statement of intent. Yet everyone normally interprets it as an invitation, and that's how it is intended, too. I think slightly more guarded language than "It was officially declared a republic" would be in order to account for this minor complication, but it seems inappropriate to me to draw much attention to this point. And saying it is a misconception doesn't seem accurate to me. If I am told "I would like to invite you", it's not a misconception that I have been invited, just a failure to engage in pedantic hair-splitting. Hans Adler 03:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
QUOTES from Dail debates on ROI Bill in 1948:-
Taoiseach John Costello: “We were not since 1936 a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. We are not leaving it [the Commonealth] because we left it a long time ago. In my view we left it in 1936.”
Leader of the Opposition Eamon de Valera: “We here today are not proclaiming a republic anew; we are not establishing a new state....there is no doubt whatever about it that our state is a republic.”
User talk: Hans Adler you say “it appears” the Act had been announced as declaring a republic. Well, it appears that’s not how the Government or Opposition billed it (see above). Though no doubt that’s how many regarded it. But it’s also besides the point. The legal effect of an Act is what matters. The Act, as you rightly points out, does not purport to declare Ireland a republic. It does no such thing.
You won’t need me to point out that there are many republics whose name doesn’t include the word republic. Why indeed, perhaps the greatest republic of them all, the USA being one. So adding a description to the statute book in addition to the name doesn’t change its constitutional status. I’m sure that’s well understood by you anyway.
User talk: Hans Adler you say Ireland had “already been [a republic] for a considerable time anywa”. Yes indeed. You are certainly correct as a matter of Irish law. The then Irish Government and Opposition would agree with you there. You are bang on correct.
Hans Adler, how you get from that conclusion to the total opposite one, that Ireland was “officially declared a republic” when it clearly wasn’t (you’ve acknowledged as much) does not make sense to me. Maybe that’s something you can develop on for us.
The laws of Ireland and the laws of the United Kingdom conflict as regards what happened in 1949. Irish law and the Irish position is quite clear, there was no creation or declaration of a republic as there already was one. The UK position is enshrined in the Ireland Act 1949 which purports that Ireland was part of His Majesty’s dominions until 1949; a matter not accepted in Irish law whose constitution was very clearly republican.
If we are going to describe what the whole thing is “a bit like” something, I’d say it’s more than a bit like ‘straightforward inaccuracy’. Something repeated so often that persons no longer question it. If the article is concerned with sharing knowledge and the like, it could describe what happened in 1949 and acknowledge that Irish and UK law conflict on the interpretation of what happened. It’s not hair splitting or pedantic. It’s a historically important legal point. FrenchMalawi.
In any case, I immediately found numerous Irish sources (such as this one) claiming that Ireland was declared a republic in 1949, and none doubting it. Without a strong source saying that's a misconception (which you still haven't offered), we can't say it is one. With such a source we would have to find some kind of balanced statement. What I meant to propose is finding some more accurate language, in line with the plain text of the primary source (the Act), that we can use instead of saying Ireland was declared a republic. That could be done without additional sources, provided there is a consensus. Hans Adler 11:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
It was not declared a republic before then and nobody at home or abroad said it was one before then and Britain dealt with its foreign policy. Afterwards it was clearly acknowledged as a republic both at home and abroad. What the leader of the opposition said when the act was being passed is really quite immaterial. I really can't see a good reason here for saying it became a republic at an earlier date. And being recognized as a republic is quite an important part of he business, nobody thinks the proclamation in 1916 made Ireland a republic for instance so why was 1922 or 1937 anything different? We should just go by the sources. Dmcq (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The interpretation of laws must be informed (if possible) by the debates that led to them. I found the most relevant debates for the Republic of Ireland Act linked from this page, where the act is summarised using the kind of nuanced language I have in mind, as follows:

"The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 declared that Ireland could be described as the Republic of Ireland. The Act also ended the role of the British monarch in the Republic of Ireland, transferring the power to exercise the executive authority of the State in its external relations to the President of Ireland."

The debates can be found here. Here are some relevant parts of the Taoiseach's introductory speech:

"[...] This Bill will end [...] this country's [...] association with [...] the British Crown and will make it manifest beyond equivocation or subtlety that the national and international status of this country is that of an independent republic. [...] We will emerge from this House, when this Bill has passed, [...] with closer associations with Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Great Britain, as an independent republic [...]. What I want merely to direct attention to is this, that the passing of [the External Relations Act 1936] has led to what I call a barren and futile controversy, even a disreputable conflict and unending arguments as to [...], whether we are a Republic, whether the President of Ireland created under the Constitution is the head of our State or whether the King designated in the [1936 Act] is recognised as our King here for any purpose. [...]"

So far, the speech supports the idea that the 1948 act declared Ireland a republic. However, it goes on:

"Under this Act of 1936 the test that I applied to myself when I was asking: 'Who is the head of this State? What can people say about us when we have here a President of Ireland in a republican Constitution and in a State which was declared by the Government at that time to be a republic?' was: 'What will foreign jurists say when they find that a foreign King, an outside organ, was the organ who was King in this Act of 1936 to enter into a Heads of State Treaty?' I want to mention that as one of these fundamental matters that cause confusion and difficulty in international affairs when foreign jurists saw that foreign representatives were accredited to this country through the medium of this organ of the King."

This says rather clearly that Ireland had already been declared a republic earlier, but that at least internationally its status as such was in doubt because for international relations – crucial for questions of sovereignty – the British monarch still had functions normally reserved for a head of state. He went on to explain that there was doubt as to who was the head of state of Ireland (the President or the King). He even quotes from a 1945 Dáil debate:

"Mr. Dillon: Are we a republic or are we not, for nobody seems to know?
The Taoiseach: We are, if that is all the Deputy wants to know.
Mr. Dillon: This is a republic. That is the greatest news I heard for a long time. Now we know where we are...."

The Taoiseach (predecessor of the one whose speech I am quoting) then explained the situation before the Republic of Ireland as follows:

"[..] The position, as I conceive it to be, is this: We are an independent Republic, associated as a matter of our external policy with the States of the British Commonwealth. To mark this association, we avail ourselves of the procedure of the External Relations Act just quoted, by which the King recognised by the States of the British Commonwealth therein named acts for us, under advice, in certain specified matters in the field of our external relations. [..]"

Another earlier Taoiseach quotation in the speech is as follows:

"[..] The Constitution is a republican Constitution. That we are a republican State here nobody can deny. We are a republic. [..]"

Later, the speech explains the motivation of the precise wording "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland":

"[...] There is the name of the State and there is the description of the State. The name of the State is Ireland and the description of the State is the Republic of Ireland. That is the description of its constitutional and international status. [...] It declares to the world that when this Bill is passed this State is unequivocally a republic. [...] We now have the unambiguous position that the President is head of the State and, if there are heads of State treaties to be entered into, if he goes abroad, he will go abroad as the head of this State, the head of the Republic of Ireland. [..]"

The following contributions by others, including the opposition, make clear that they also understood the Bill as declaring that Ireland was a republic. For instance:

  • "[...] I do not think that after 26 years of an Irish Government we can be proud, or take any pride to-day in proclaiming a republic for only a portion of our country. [...] It is my personal belief, a belief which I think is also strongly held by very many of our citizens, that rather than declaring a republic now we should take a step or two in the other direction [...]"
  • "[...] My only regret is that we are not in a position of declaring on behalf of this Assembly a State which could be described fully as a republic for the whole of Ireland with its jurisdiction effective throughout the entire of our 32 counties. It is for that day that many of us have worked. That has been the dream of generations. Perhaps we shall live to see the day when we shall be able to say that our State is a republic and that its jurisdiction is acknowledged over the whole of its national territory. [...] I went on [in 1933] to point out what the actual situation was in which we found ourselves and then I said: 'Let us remove these forms one by one so that this State that we control may be a republic in fact and that when the time comes the proclamation of the republic"— which I referred to as a republic for the whole of Ireland—"may involve no more than a formal confirmation of a status already attained.' [...] We here to-day are not proclaiming a republic anew; we are not establishing a new State. The Bill does not purport to be establishing a new State. We are simply giving a name to what exists—that is, a republican State. As I pointed out when that question was asked some years ago, there is no doubt whatever about it that our State is a republic and if I wanted to prove that it was, I would only have to point to the terms of this Bill, because there would be no use in giving a description of the State as a republic as this Bill does if it was not so in fact. You are not declaring a republic, but you are declaring that the State that exists is a republic." [my bold]
  • "[...] We do not regard this, nor do we think that any Deputy in this House can regard this, as the declaration of the republic for the Twenty-Six Counties. [...] Relating this Bill to that Article of the Constitution, we endorse it as a redeclaration or a restoration of the republic proclaimed in arms in 1916 and ratified by the votes of the representatives of the people on 21st January, 1919. [...]"
  • "[...] reinforce and reiterate throughout the world again in a very singular and effective way that the real fundamental claim of this country is to be a sovereign independent republic. [...]"
  • "[...] Our opponents outside the country did, on occasion, hold the Republic of Ireland, as it stood under the External Relations Act, up to ridicule. We heard talk of the 'Royal Republic' and of the 'Republic with the King in the midst of it'. [...]"
  • "[...] We had a King in the Statute Book and a republic in the Constitution. I remember that at the time of the introduction of that Act, they laughed at us in the British House of Commons—at the dupes who believed and the knaves who pretended to believe that one could have an Irish Republic with a British King. [...]"

Based on all this, I have come to the following conclusion for myself:

  • Ireland had been declared a republic in 1916, and in 1919, but as of 1948 it was a different Ireland, so the declaration wasn't relevant any more.
  • The state existing in 1948 was internally and effectively a republic, but with a special role for the British monarch that made its legal status unclear.
  • The 1949 act did not declare Ireland a republic, but it declared that Ireland already was a republic, while removing the special role of the British monarch.
  • The reason Ireland did not declare itself a republic was that in the minefield of Irish politics, this would have raised the question of whether Northern Ireland was a part of the republic. It was better not to get anywhere near this question at the time.

Based on this, I think it would be most appropriate to say something like this: "In 1949, it was declared that Ireland was a republic." (Without the emphasis, obviously.) Hans Adler 12:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

More precisely, based on the above I suggest replacing "It was officially declared a republic in 1949" by "It was officially declared that it was a republic in 1949". This strongly suggests today's most common POV that the Act made Ireland a republic (which in a sense it did by completely discarding the king), but leaves a bit more space for the alternative POV that was actually the prevailing one of politicians at the time: that Ireland already was a republic before and this was only a clarification. Hans Adler 12:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time and effort to give it all some thought. You do seem to be a thoughtful editor who tries to understand the facts. I don’t wish to sound arrogant...but I was fully familiar with every one of the quotations you’ve set out. In that regard, there are two points to recap on from my earlier posts here: (1) I’ve never doubted for a second that there are absolutely tonnes of sources saying Ireland declared itself a republic in 1949 (I said as much in my initial piece and said they were all inaccurate); (2) I’ve stressed that many people, indeed that includes some politicians too, considered it ‘declaring a republic’ but that that’s ‘besides the point’; what people or politicians say doesn’t speak to what the legal effect of a law is. What was the legal effect of the law change is the question we need to consider, agreed?
United Kingdom legal theory on the question is apparent from the terms of the Ireland Act 1949. The Supreme Court of Ireland has criticised that United Kingdom statute. The Ellis v O'Dea case is a critical judgment that I know about. There may be others I don’t know about. In the judgement in that case the Irish court described a particular provision of the Ireland Act 1949 as containing “an erroneous statement of the law of Ireland”. The particular provision in question was a provision in the UK statute that said that Irish law had given the Irish state ‘Republic of Ireland’ as its name. Which it hadn’t. The very same UK law purports to ‘recognize’ that Ireland was ‘part of His Majesty’s dominions’ until 18 April 1949. Irish law does not ‘recognize’ this claim. The laws of the two countries directly conflict. Irish law, the Constitution of 1937, provides that the people are sovereign, not a King, nevermind the British King.
So on your conclusions:
  • ”Ireland had been declared a republic in 1916, and in 1919, but as of 1948 it was a different Ireland, so the declaration wasn't relevant any more.” Agreed. Totally irrelevant.
  • ”The state existing in 1948 was internally and effectively a republic, but with a special role for the British monarch that made its legal status unclear.” Disagree. That just doesn’t reflect the conflict in the laws of the two countries. Irish law was quite clear that Ireland was a republic. It wasn’t “unclear”. It had a republican constitution. The agency role permitted by one of Ireland’s statutes provided for the King sat within a republican framework. The constitution of 1937 provided that the people were sovereign, not any monarch. United Kingdom law is equally clear that it regards Ireland as being part of His Majesty’s dominions until 1949. We in Wikipedia should acknowledge this conflict of laws and report on it in the article. It is a little complicated, messy perhaps...but so things go.
  • “The 1949 act did not declare Ireland a republic, but it declared that Ireland already was a republic, while removing the special role of the British monarch.” Disagree. It declared nothing of the sort. It’s a very short statute and I’m sure you appreciate why I disagree with you here. Simply because it says nothing at all in that vein. It declared that in addition to its, by then already long established name, the state had a particular description too. That’s it. Nothing about the constitutional status of the state is ‘declared’.
  • “The reason Ireland did not declare itself a republic was that in the minefield of Irish politics, this would have raised the question of whether Northern Ireland was a part of the republic. It was better not to get anywhere near this question at the time.” You do not need to ‘declare’ something in order to be a republic. It’s a legal status. Was Ireland under a King before the 1949 ROI Act came into force? Where in its Constitution did the King fit in, if at all? The Irish eliminated the King from their Constitution in 1936. That only thing ‘declared’ at the time was the law. The law eliminated the King from his position as sovereign in Ireland.
So, again my view is that we should recognise the conflict in laws and report on it in the article. Specifically, I would revise the current lede sentences (you know the ones) with something along the lines of the following:
’The state was created as the Irish Free State in 1922 as a result of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. It was established as a Dominion within the British Commonwealth of Nations. It eliminated the British king from its Constitution in 1936. A republican constitution was passed in 1937 changing the state’s name to "Ireland" and providing for an elected non-executive president as head of state. Ireland severed its last ties with the Commonwealth in 1949.’
Elsewhere in the article, outside the lede, some of the detail in the above would be explored. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
For the present discussion, I am not so interested in the conflict between Irish and British law. I think this doesn't belong in the present article, although it's inherently quite interesting and should be mentioned in a more specialised article. It's clear to you that Ireland was a republic already in 1948, and the debate shows that Irish parliamentarians at the time mostly saw it the same way. However, they also pointed out that the special role for the king, in external relations, no less, was a problem in this respect. Since external relations are where sovereignty manifests most clearly, this suggested that either Ireland wasn't sovereign or it had the British monarch as its head of state. One purpose of the 'description' of Ireland was to get rid of these doubts. (Of course it was even more significant that they got rid of the source of the doubts.)
I like your proposed text. As far as I can tell it's slightly more accurate than the current passage it would replace. Hans Adler 00:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you guys have any sources? As of now looks like a large rant with zero implementable action.--Moxy 🍁 14:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. What is here so far just looks like WP:OR to me. Quotes from a load of politicians do not change that. There's always politicians saying 'I do believe I do believe' like the lion in the Wizard of Oz film. They could be in some subsection about controversy on the status if there is enough sources specifically talking about there being such a controversy. No sources above however have been shown saying anything different about the main point though. If they want a source on this they should go off and write a paper or book on it. Dmcq (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't interpret these things to mean one thing or another, we only put in things that have been said by others and reference it. This smacks of individual interpretation and original research. Canterbury Tail talk 21:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
'Original research' is totally proper when its goal is to understand why sources contradict each other. My 'large rant' starts with this reference. That's not some random website. It's the 'Notable debates' page of the legislative body of Ireland, which passed the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 that is generally considered Ireland's declaration as a republic. Therefore it's quite relevant how it handles the question that we are discussing here.
Just in case it really wasn't clear: I am not approaching this article in the spirit of hostile parties fighting a war by digging up contradictory secondary sources. The only thing this achieves is conflict. I am convinced that the best approach is to fully understand the situation by referring back to primary sources in order to be able to judge the accuracy of the secondary sources. On this basis it is usually possible to find formulations that everyone can at least tolerate. (The only reason I even have this article on my watchlist is that I was once involved as some kind of inofficial mediator back when there was a huge messy dispute about the titles of the main Ireland-related articles.)
So far I have not seen any secondary sources saying it is a misconception that Ireland was declared a republic in 1949. However, it is clear from the primary sources I quoted that the situation was in fact more nuanced than it is commonly presented.
I think it would be inappropriate (and typical Wikipedia weirdness) to inflate this minor point to a big controversy explained in detail in the article. (For the main article about the country, more than a sentence or two about whether or when it was declared a republic would fall under WP:UNDUE.) I believe my suggested formulation would be totally sufficient to hint that it's not as straightforward as today's simplified accounts often present it. To prevent it from appearing mysterious to readers one could add a one-sentence footnote, but for that, one should ideally have a secondary source explaining the problem. Sourcing for my suggested tweak to the text is no problem as it just tones down the mainstream view minimally to make it agree better with the original source. (Still not perfectly, as Frenchmalawi pointed out.) Hans Adler 23:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Hans Adler. DMCQ and Moxy, I am of course very happy to provide secondary sources for the minor changes to the article that I have suggested.

(1) I suggested that the article say: “[The Irish Free State] eliminated the British king from its Constitution in 1936.” A source that backs that up is “AN AMBIGUOUS OFFICE? THE POSITION OF HEAD OF STATE IN THE IRISH CONSTITUTION; JOHN COAKLEY; Irish Jurist; Irish Jurist; New Series, Vol. 48, 2012 pp 43-70. It includes QUOTE: “Two important Acts redefined the relationship between the State and the King. The first, the Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act, which went through all stages in the Dail on 11 December 1936, terminated any role for the Crown in the domestic affairs of the Free State and removed all references to the functions of the Governor-General (whose last official act was, indeed, to sign this bill into law the same day) but left space for the Government, for purposes of international affairs to avail of any “organ” used by the other dominions. The second, the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, enacted the following day and signed by the Ceann Comhairle made provision for the King to “act on behalf of the Irish Free State”, on the advice of the government “for the purposes of the appointment of diplomatic and consular representatives and the conclusion of international agreements.” In line with de Valera’s earlier thinking on the place of the King in the Constitution, then, this matter was now resolved: provision for the King would be made only in legislation, not in the State’s basic law.” Is that source clear enough! It is explaining that the King was taken out of the Constitution - ‘eliminated’ was the word I’d used. An alternative analogous word is fine by me too if preferred. Is anyone seriously disagreeing that that’s not correct?

(2) Next, I need to defend my suggestion of adding the sentence “A republican constitution was passed in 1937 changing the state’s name to "Ireland" and providing for an elected non-executive president as head of state.” The only bit that is new that I’ve suggested is that it is called a “republican constitution”. The rest of the wording about the change to the state’s name and it having an elected non-executive president is already in the article. So here “A Federal Republic: Australia's Constitutional System of Government” By Brian Galligan, Cambridge University Press page 122, QUOTE: “After the French Revolution the constitution for France’s First Republic was passed by referendum, as was Eire’s republican constitution in 1937 after that country finally won independence from Britain” That’s an impartial source clearly describing the Irish constitution of 1937 as a republican one. I’m sure dozens of other sources in a similar vein could be dug out too. Again, are any of the editors here suggesting that it wasn’t a republican constitution? Where is the objection to this sentence!

(3) Next, I suggested the sentence “Ireland severed its last ties with the Commonwealth in 1949”. Here’s a source for that too - “From War to Neutrality: Anglo-Irish Relations, 1921-1950, G. Boyce, British Journal of International Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Apr., 1979), pp. 15-36, QUOTE: “There was little to choose between Sir James Craig’s now notorious statement “a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people” and de Valera’s nearly forgotten declaration “We are a Catholic nation”: the drive towards more radical independence between 1921 and 1938 finally completed by Costello’s government’s decision in 1948 to sever the last links with the Commonwealth were hardly compatible with Irish unity.” Is anyone suggesting Ireland still had a connection with the Commonwealth after 1949? Ireland head used the King in appointing ambassadors until then. But the repeal of the External Relations Act saw that link severed. It was the last link. Again, is anyone disagreeing with the accuracy of teh sentence I’ve suggested?

(-) Overall, what I’ve suggested is hardly radical. Very modest indeed. It’s just about eliminating a couple of inaccuracies from the lede. Thanks Hans Adler for the words of support. Moxy/DMCQ, what are the objections to the minor changes? Perhaps you can elaborate on why you think the existing wording is better if the above sources haven’t persuaded you? Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, Frenchmalawi's citations and proposed text certainly convince me. --Red King (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources to the rescue!

… when a new constitution was adopted, in which the state was named "Ireland" and in all essentials became a republic, declared ″sovereign″ and ″democratic″, and with constitutional authority derived from the people.[1] The actual word ″republic″ that had been deliberately omitted from the Constitution by its framer,[2] was finally employed in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948.[2]

— 
  1. ^ Chubb 2014, p. 42.
  2. ^ a b Chubb 2014, p. 43.

There's more from Chubb, including why de Valera deliberately omitted the word, which Chubb gives in de Valera's own words, that you can go into in the rest of the article. Find more scholars. Improve. Edit. Uncle G (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources to the rescue my *&^%.
At the end of the day to quote @Frenchmalawi: "The Irish government didn’t declare the state a republic in 1949 at all. The Irish government regarded the state as already being a republic. Is there an appetite to correct a common misconception?" regardless of whether they declared it or not there is a huge difference between declaring a republic and actually being one. No doubt many such as de Valera felt that Ireland was a republic since the 1916 declaration but that doesn't mean that it was. There are many people in the world in denial over actually political reality just like Sinn Fein to this day being unable to say Northern Ireland. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist because it does in political reality. In regards to this issue the republic didn't exist in political reality until the 1948 act. Mabuska (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Uncle G:: To quote your provided source "in all essentials". In all essentials is ambiguous and it doesn;t state that it actually became so. It just implies that it basically acted like one but officially was not. Thus the source is redundant. Talk about misreading and misrepresenting sources. Mabuska (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Manuska,thanks... I think we are discussing the wording of the article. Not wider philosophies. Do let us know if you have a reason for disagreeing with any of the three or so minor changes I’ve suggested. If you think the existing wording is better, share with us why you think so. I guess given how minor the changes are, it’s best to be very specific like I have been. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Manuska, in case it’s helpful, ,this is the wording (contained in the thread further up) that we are specifically discussing including: “’The state was created as the Irish Free State in 1922 as a result of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. It was established as a Dominion within the British Commonwealth of Nations. It eliminated the British king from its Constitution in 1936. A republican constitution was passed in 1937 changing the state’s name to "Ireland" and providing for an elected non-executive president as head of state. Ireland severed its last ties with the Commonwealth in 1949.” Again, let us know your specific thoughts on anything in that which you disagree with or want to suggest alternatives etc. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel a hint of ad hominem and smart assery in your response especially as you twice get my name wrong. Feel free to respond to my previous responses which put reasonable key question marks over parts of your argument/reasons. I see no reason to change what is there at present as your argument falls flat in convincing me otherwise especially when so much is being hinged on wishful thinking and thoughts and not actual declared and recognised political reality. Mabuska (talk)
It is not Wikipedia's job to correct common misconceptions unless there is some good source that specifically says otherwise. Occasionally it is done but it would require an RfC advertised widely. In this case most of the arguing is immaterial to that but the Basil Chubb source is I believe definitely good enough to alter the bit about Ireland being declared a republic in 1949 and replace it by something supported by Chubb as a source. I consider the politicians' own words as not comparable in reliability to a good source but if they are quoted by a good source as confirming something then that is a good source. Dmcq (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The phrase in all essentials stated by Chubb is hardly the stuff of concrete evidence to back up an argument that it made it political reality. Is only suggests that it acted like a republic but was not officially one. Better wording could be proposed that takes that into account. Otherwise that source isn't good enough unless a RfC or the reliable sources noticeboard says so. Mabuska (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
User talk:Dmcq, would you like to suggest wording changes in the article? The following was my suggestion (again). At this point, I am not clear if you agree with all the wording I’ve suggested or if you disagree with some of it. If you disagree with some of it, I’m not sure which bits: “’The state was created as the Irish Free State in 1922 as a result of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. It was established as a Dominion within the British Commonwealth of Nations. It eliminated the British king from its Constitution in 1936. A republican constitution was passed in 1937 changing the state’s name to "Ireland" and providing for an elected non-executive president as head of state. Ireland severed its last ties with the Commonwealth in 1949.” It would be good to keep the discussion focused on specific wording. Frenchmalawi (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Dmcq is not the only contributor. Your proposal is problematic in several ways: 1) reads like a list rather than proper prose. 2) states a "republican constitution", which would need reliable academic sourcing (and more than one source at that) to back up. 3) it presents false reality as reality. It aims to portray Ireland as an actual republic in 1937 when it was not officially so and no sources have been provided that actually state this.
Thus I oppose entirely your proposal. Mabuska (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
To add onto that, "eliminated" is a very strong politically motivated term to use. "Removed" would be a far less problematic and POV. Also your proposal leaves out the fact it was the 1948 act that made Ireland a republic de facto and de jure and first describes it as such. Mabuska (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The only thing I can see worth doing is adding the Chubb citation to 'and effectively became a republic'. Dmcq (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Or even direct quote Chubb by stating "in all essentials" with the quotation marks. Mabuska (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Mabuska (1) I have not objection to ‘removed’ - that’s absolutely fine; (2) list v prose, maybe you are right there but the same problem is in the current text - would you like to take the time to suggest better language? I’m all ears. (3) “the fact” you refer to is not a fact! See discussion above. Indeed, it’s that point which kicked the whole discussion off. Irish law does not accept that Ireland became a republic in 1949 or that the Republic of Ireland Act made it so (see sources above too). But really, please suggest some new language for us to consider if you don’t like mine. We all agree that there are shortcomings in the current language. Same goes for you on that point User:Dmcq. It’s tiresome and hard work trying to improve an article where there are objections without suggestions... So suggestions that are new wording welcome! Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Dmcq provided a suggestion and I suggested a slight amendment to that. That would seem to be all either of us sees worth doing out of your proposal. What you provide above does not prove what is in the article is wrong. The onus is in you to convince us for the need for your changes. You have not. Mabuska (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Also here's something that can be called incorrect in the paragraph in question... how was the Irish Free State, which was founded in 1921, made a dominion of an entity (Commonwealth of Nations) that didn't exist until 1926? Surely it was a dominion of the British Empire upon creation. I also note that you haven't tried to use your edits at Commonwealth of Nations (now reverted) to back yourself up here. As this seems to be a personal cause for you to spread around Wikipedia I am raising the issue at Ireland WikiProject for broader input. Mabuska (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The 1921 treaty specifically refers to "the British Commonwealth of Nations" as does article 1 of the 1922 constitution: "The Irish Free State (otherwise hereinafter called or sometimes called Saorstát Eireann) is a co-equal member of the Community of Nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations." DrKay (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. If only others could provide such definite sources. Mabuska (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

When did Ireland legally become a republic? This is a question of law so we must look at the law. Well, United Kingdom law is very clear. United Kingdom law says that it happened in 1949. This is expressly set out in the Ireland Act 1949. In that Act it is provided that “It is hereby recognized and declared that the part of Ireland heretofore known as Eire ceased, as from the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, to be part of His Majesty’s dominions.” So there is no doubt whatsoever that insofar as United Kingdom law is concerned, Ireland became a republic in 1949. Should we stop there? Should we accept that as the final answer and not consider anything else? Well, I don’t think so. The question, of course, is about Ireland so it makes sense that we also have to look at what Irish law says too. So, here goes, let’s look at Irish law:

1. Irish law removed the British king from its constitution in 1936. A secondary source that backs that up is “AN AMBIGUOUS OFFICE? THE POSITION OF HEAD OF STATE IN THE IRISH CONSTITUTION; JOHN COAKLEY; Irish Jurist; Irish Jurist; New Series, Vol. 48, 2012 pp 43-70. It includes QUOTE: “Two important Acts redefined the relationship between the State and the King. The first, the [Irish] Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act, which went through all stages in the Dail on 11 December 1936, terminated any role for the Crown in the domestic affairs of the Free State and removed all references to the functions of the Governor-General (whose last official act was, indeed, to sign this bill into law the same day) but left space for the Government, for purposes of international affairs to avail of any “organ” used by the other dominions. The second, the [Irish] Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, enacted the following day and signed by the Ceann Comhairle made provision for the King to “act on behalf of the Irish Free State”, on the advice of the government “for the purposes of the appointment of diplomatic and consular representatives and the conclusion of international agreements.” In line with de Valera’s earlier thinking on the place of the King in the Constitution, then, this matter was now resolved: provision for the King would be made only in legislation, not in the State’s basic law.” This is very clearly explaining that under Irish law teh King was taken out of the Constitution in 1936; long, long before 1949.

2. Internationally, the constitution of the Ireland is often described as a republican one. Here is another source describing it in those terms: “A Federal Republic: Australia's Constitutional System of Government” By Brian Galligan, Cambridge University Press page 122, QUOTE: “After the French Revolution the constitution for France’s First Republic was passed by referendum, as was Eire’s republican constitution in 1937 after that country finally won independence from Britain” That’s an impartial source clearly describing the Irish constitution of 1937 as a republican one.

3. Am I the only one who says that Irish law and United Kingdom law do not agree on when Ireland became a republic? No, of course I am not. There are secondary sources explaining that Irish and United Kingdom law do not agree on the point. Here is a secondary source in that vein: “In the ast thirty years, there have been three distinct experiments in the ordering of Anglo-Irish relations. Two of them have failed. The first was the experiment of Commonwealth membership embodied in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 in which the status of the Irish Free State was specifically associated with that of the senior dominion, Canada, and generally with that of oversea dominions. That experiment MAY BE SAID TO HAVE COME TO AN END IN 1936-37 when the External Relations Act was passed and the new Irish constitution enacted with the sanction of popular approval in a plebiscite....THEN FROM 1936-49...EIRE OWED NO ALLIEGANCE TO THE CROWN AND WAS NOT, IN THE IRISH VIEW, A MEMBER OF THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS, BUT A STATE WHOSE ASSOCIATION WITH IT FROM WITHOUT was symbolized by the King’s signature to the letters of appointment of Irish representatives to foreign countries.” Ireland: The Republic Outside the Commonwealth by Nicholas Mansergh, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 28, No. 3 (Jul., 1952), pp. 277-291, Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [My EMPHASIS is added in parts of the above quote].

CONCLUSIONS: Secondary sources support the view that Irish law regarded Ireland as already having left the Commonwealth well before 1949. The British law view conflicts with that. There is a conflict of laws. One can properly say that as a matter of United Kingdom law Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949. One cannot say the same thing as a matter of Irish law which holds that Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1936-1937. This is nothing new that’s being raised by me here. I have never suggested that either view must be accepted as correct. We on Wiki, simply have to report these historical matters, damn complicated though they may be. I’m sure we can all agree that law is often not simple. And simply saying that Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949 doesn’t actually address that the position is more complicated than that. Setting out the above here too, so all editors can refer to relevant sources. Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion being moved

I have raised this issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#When_did_Ireland_become_a_republic?. It is clear there is a broader campaign by Frenchmalawi to impose their OR and POV on this issue and a concensus needs to be agreed for it or rejecting it. Mabuska (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Mabuska, please assume good faith. It’s nasty to describe my modest contributions as a “campaign” to impose something. Or that it’s OR. Let’s be respectful of each other. We should both be united in simply wanting better, more accurate content. You’ll see I’ve just now fixed a previous edit I made on foot of a helpful suggestion from you. That’s the spirit I’m interested in; not personality clashes or lazy editing / lazy discussion. I’ve also just now made my contribution to the worthwhile discussion you have re-started on the other page (it was started here, but happy to pick it up on another page too). Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The issue is wider than just this one article so this article's talk page is not the place to have this discussion. Mabuska (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

More detail in the religion section?

Recently I made some updates to the "Ahmadiyya in the Republic of Ireland" page and after pursuing this page, the Ireland page, it has come to my attention that potentially the religion section needs more information, especially about non-Christian religions, as Ireland is a country of nearly 5 million people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkling peach (talk • contribs) 18:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

That would be a topic for the Religion in the Republic of Ireland article, not here. Considering the number is potentially less than 500 adherents, it's definitely not for mention on the country's page. Actually considering the really small number it's likely only relevant on the Islam in the Republic of Ireland article. Canterbury Tail talk 19:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Southern Ireland: anyone got a citation that says it is erroneous/inappropriate/undiplomatic/wrong usage

In the section 'Name', the article says:

As well as "Ireland", "Éire" or "the Republic of Ireland", the state is also referred to as "the Republic", "Southern Ireland" or "the South".[1]

References

  1. ^ Acciano, Reuben (2005). Western Europe. Lonely Planet. p. 616. ISBN 1740599276. Retrieved 12 February 2015.

We need some text to say that the usage "Southern Ireland" is generally considered inappropriate (as well as inaccurate – the most northerly part of the island (Inisowen) is in the Republic, and misleading – Irish people will think you mean Waterford, Cork and Kerry). But to do so would need a supporting citation. Anyone? --Red King (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You say it is generally considered inappropriate; it is generally considered inaccurate; it is generally considered misleading – how do you know? You don't like it, one or two other Wikipedians don't like it, but that's not the same thing. In real life, I have only ever heard one person object to the use of "South" (she was a Donegal woman), and I have never seen any objection to "Southern Ireland" in print, either. There are discussions at Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 18#Consistency, Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 18#'Name' section and Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 19#Name v description. That was a lengthy series of discussions lasting over a month, but nobody produced any citations for "Southern Ireland" being erroneous/inappropriate/undiplomatic/wrong usage. I've stated my own view at Talk:Southern Ireland#Still erroneous. I won't re-state it here. Scolaire (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Without a citation, it doesn't really matter what I think. (I hadn't seen the earlier discussions, I was on an extended wikibreak). --Red King (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
IMO, #1 is better and can be wlinked to the Act. Red King (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Red King: did you mean this to be in the section below? There is no #1 in this section. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
You haven't addressed the question. It was not "officially declared": there is no Act or Constitutional Amendment that did so. By repealing the External Relations Act, it did so in effect - which is the basis for the RSs to say (reasonably) that it was declared a republic. My challenge is over the word "officially", which is both inaccurate and redundant. So why is it there? Who needs it? Why? --Red King (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no question to address, in this section. Why do you keep posting in the wrong place? Scolaire (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Article Name

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.
This is a discussion from March 2019. Continuing to post in April 2020 or later just to express your outrage is pointless. Scolaire (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The page should be moved to Ireland (country), because that is its official (constitutional) name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3974:4028:B84A:9907:9F7:AEBD (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If yoiu read the FAQs at the top of the article an note "Many discussions have been had on this matter, and current consensus is to use Ireland to describe the island and Republic of Ireland to describe the state. By order of WP:ARBCOM, all future discussions of this article's title must take place at a special project set up to deal with this issue. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration) MilborneOne (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
It should be at "Ireland" or "Ireland (country)" (like Georgia's); the island article should be at "Geography of Ireland" or "Ireland (island)". But, for now we're stuck with this unfortunate arrangement. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 05:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
While you're at it you could try renaming the United Kingdom article to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or France to the French Republic. Dmcq (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
No, that comparison doesn’t work. We’re talking about shortening the name to 1 word. You’re talking about increasing a title name from two to eight. And to a name no one uses, whereas Ireland is the common name for Ireland. FrenchMalawi who doesn’t know how to use tildas on an iPad.
A successful attempt to effectively silence debate on this seems to have stifled progress on this. Since the debate kicked off the Myanmar article has moved on. We’re all hearing about the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland these days. It’s so ridiculous that the article title hasn’t moved on too. User:Illegitimate Barrister, is there any current concerted effort to get this back on the agenda? I don’t know how to use tildas on an iPad so I don’t know how to sign my posts these days. Apologies for that. It’s FrenchMalawi here.
No attempts to get it back on an agenda, as no one has presented anything new. Additionally please don't make edits that change Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state). Just because that's your preference doesn't mean it can be changed and it's against policy. It's considered disruptive. Canterbury Tail talk 15:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you are the editor who left a message for me on my personal User page today accusing me of disruptive editing or something like that and saying I could loose editing privileges. That seems a rather OTT, don’t you think? What on earth in the above was so dispruptive as to warrant such a threat? I don’t agree with you on the principle you mention though. One doesn’t need new things to discuss old matters. Imagine how far the world’s philosophers would have gotten if they were prohibited from discussing things that weren’t new! The Burma/Myanmar discussion was the same old discussion it always had been for many years until the article was renamed. It’s the same logic for the Ireland article.
Separately, if Canterbury, you could be kind enough to tell me how to use tildas to sign off on an iPad, that would be appreciated and you could tell me that here or on my talk page - I know my edits look a bit messy withou being properly signed with tildas. FrenchMalawi.

Wikipedia can stuff their requests for funding until "Republic of Ireland" is moved to "Ireland" and "Ireland" is moved to "Island of Ireland"~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.236.246 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. The pushing of a chauvinistic and blatantly incorrect title has been whitewashed as some sort of "consensus" on the basis of polling which was astroturfed by anti-Irish editors. Likewise the use of "British Isles" throughout the site - Rhodesia used to be "consensus" too, didn't make it right. Disgusted with Wikipedia's endorsement of this as policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.246.196 (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Ireland/Archive_20&oldid=980022015"