Talk:History of the Republic of Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Request to move

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

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

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support for reasons that I have given already below --Red King 23:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - already mentioned why below (When is the vote count over?). --ℬastique▼talk 00:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The official length is five days, but if the voting goes on like this (very obviously one direction) then it can be done earlier at an admin's discretion. violet/riga (t) 22:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, as already discussed below. john k 01:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons given by others below. violet/riga (t) 22:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, for the reasons I gave in the previous discussion below. The Republic of Ireland is not really a exceptional case here.--Pharos 22:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] Title of this article

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

Would anyone object to renaming the article?

Iota 18:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

I, therefore, object.

The current title is much better than the suggested alternative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree. "the Irish state", "the Southern Irish state" seem to me to be a very local perspective. I have never, ever, heard anyone itrw refer to it as "the Irish State" (or "the Southern Irish State" for that matter). Where would somebody from (a) Cyprus (b)Sri Lanka (c) New Zealand expect to find it? To be brutally honest, the History section of main article Republic of Ireland is a lot better than this article. Contributors seem to have voted with their feet. --Red King 23:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus for History of the Republic of Ireland, which is the state that exists today and links naturally from main article Republic of Ireland. --Red King 23:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
History of the Republic of Ireland gets my vote, no matter how anachronistic. Iota has done a good job with articles all over Wikipedia, however, I think it was an unwise decision to move this article from the prior name. I vote for returning this article to History of the Republic of Ireland. --ℬastique▼talk 15:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary reversions

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

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

Ruadhraigh

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

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

Iota 02:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] The Emergency

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

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

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

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

[edit] Request that someone knowledgeable deal with this line

"...Nevertheless, between 1911 and 1926, the Free State lost 34 percent of its Protestant population.)"

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

There are a lot of problems with the claim

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

[edit] Irish neutrality during World War II

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

[edit] '1922-1973'?

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