Talk:President of Ireland/Archive 1

Archive 1

older entries

Eob: If after 1937 Ireland no longer had the British Monarch as its head of state, what was the point of the declaration of the 'Republic of Ireland' in 1949? -- SJK

If I recall correctly the 1937 constitution created a de facto republic which omitted any reference to the British monarch. However for some reason there was some fudging of the issue, probably so as not to offend the British who held onto the "treaty ports" until 1938. In fact the British continued to regard Ireland as part of the British Commonwealth. (See http://www.guardiancentury.co.uk/1930-1939/Story/0,6051,127133,00.html for an interesting contemporary newspaper article.) The constution of 1949 on the other hand was unambiguous and was internationally recognised (even by the British). --Eob

Its is debatable whether Éire (as we were called in Article 4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann) had the President of Ireland as head of state between 1937 and 1949. Section 3 (1) and (2) of the External Relations Act, 1936 sought to use 'the king' for specific purposes, ie, foreign affairs, but you can't have a 'half king' for some purposes. In legal terms, George VI was proclaimed king of Ireland, acknowledged as such implicitly by the External Relations Act in Ireland and explicitly as such the world over and remained so until the passage of the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 and the resulting amendment of the Royal Titles Act to remove the title 'King of Ireland'. Technically, a head of state is the person who is the legal personage who represents a state on the international stage. Under the External Relations Act, which operated from 1937-49 by Article 29 (if I remember correctly) of Bunreacht na hÉireann, the person who represented Ireland in treaties and accrediting ambassadors was George VI, even though he was described merely as an 'organ' to be used.

So according to the world's governments' legal advice, he, not presidents Hyde and Ó Ceallaigh, was Irish head of state. Then taoiseach John. A Costello in his speech to Seanad Éireann in December 1948, introducing the Republic of Ireland Act, agreed, saying in effect that whomever was the Irish head of state, it wasn't the President, as he had absolutely no international legal or symbolic status; he was merely the state's internal first citizen and chief appointments officer. President Ó Ceallaigh agreed, as did deV's previous attorney-general, future president Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh, when he drafted the President:International Powers and Functions Bill for deV (which in the end, deV never introduced, afraid that it confuse everyone even more! But deV as usual disagreed with everyone, most especially his own legal advisors, bizarrely!

But the situation was a legal mess, one of the many deV created with his mathematical genius for dreaming up complex formulae to solve problems that ended up being impossible to make head or tail of in law. President Ó Ceallaigh celebrated his new status as head of state thanks to the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 with a series of international visits abroad to the French President and Pope Pius XII in 1949-50. (Sean T. then got Pope Pius into a row with Stalin by saying something tactless!) He planned to visit King George VI as well (the King enthusiastically backed the idea, according the late Queen Mother (with whom I checked some years ago) but timetabling problems in the Áras forced the abandonment of the planned visit to , as Sean T. put it "do the decent thing and call upon Your Majesty!")

Hope that clarifies matters (in so far as it can be clarified. I've spent ages researching the issue and I'm still not 100% sure. And going by the various contradictory answers (and regular refusal to answer) of deV's between 1937 and 1948, I'm not sure if anyone will ever know for sure.) JTD

I deliberately used 'her' because the constitution uses 'he'. Rather than gender-neutralise the words of the constitution, it seems logical to use 'she' and 'her' (as well as 'he and she' etc elsewhere), in describing the current working of the presidency, given that the current president, Mary McAleese is female. The overall effect is to gender-neutralise the overall article without clumsy PC correctness or tampering with quotes from the constitution. JTD 00:55 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me! I've corrected the article in line with your advice. Pete 01:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How many more times does this have to be said on wikipedia: Ireland does not use the Alternative Vote electoral system but a complex version of PR.STV. And even when a two candidate election takes place, it is never, ever, ever called anything but PR.STV because due to unique features in the methodology used in Ireland it is not Alternative Vote and not Instant Runoff. And wikipedia's continuous putting of all threee terms together is simply wrong, but all efforts to separate them is constantly undone by individuals who do not understand that they are different, in some contexts dramatically so. They are not simply different names for the same thing, but systems that can be very similar but are not identical.

Also - Six Counties is a perjorative term, as is North of Ireland, Irish Free State (after 1937)and so breach elementary wikipedia requirements of NPOV. (Otherwise, an excellent article!) FearÉIREANN 16:39, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

STV versus Alternative Vote

Jtdirl,

Please forgive my slightly grumpy comment on the edit history. You obviously know what you're talking about. However I'm afraid I have to disagree. Firstly, although there is room for a lot of argument as to whether we can say that the president is elected by STV it is simply not correct to use the term "proportional representation" or PR-STV. This can only meaningfully apply to the election of more than one candidate (such as to the Dail). Confusion is added to this by the fact that the constitution itself uses the term PR to refer to a presidential election but this is now recognised as a mistake. In fact the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution has recommended (in its 6th Progress Report) that the phrase "proportional representation" be removed from Article 12 so that it simply states that the president is elected by STV.

Yes STV is a family of electoral systems and the version used in the Republic for both the President and Dail has unique characteristics. However in my experience the "Alternative Vote" describes any STV election to a single seat. A vast amount of electoral systems literature and reports of parliamentary committees refer to the Irish presidential system as the Alternative Vote. There are also many who argue that the term STV should only be used to describe the system when used for multi-seat (i.e. PR) elections because this version is very different in operation to single seat elections (e.g. quotas are not necessary, and there are no transfers of surpluses). I'm sympathetic to this view but i also agree we have to recognise that the term AV is almost unused in Ireland. The new wording i have put in includes both the terms STV and AV and i think it makes an acceptable compromise. The term AV is one that ive made the hyperlink because currently the STV article on Wikipedia is exclusively about the PR 'version' of STV.

-Iota | talk 19:00, 8 May 2004 (GMT)

Garryq wrote:

Article 12.2 of the Constitution requires that the President be directly elected by secret ballot on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, although as there is only one position to be filled the effect is that of using the Alternative Vote. European Union legislation allows EU citizens to vote in other countries of the European Union under certain conditions, therefore the franchise for the election of the President is limited to Irish citizens qualified to vote in elections to Dáil Éireann (the lower house of parliament), (Constitution Article 12.2.2). This means only Irish citizens who are at least eighteen years old may choose the President.

Sorry to be the pedant again but as i explain above on this talk page the reference in the constitution to the election of the president under "proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote" is simply incorrect and has been found to be such by a committee of the Oireachtas. To use this quote from the constitution in this way is going to confuse people and to repeat this error. I also dont think we need to bog readers down with a lot of legalese from the constitution or with the nuances of electoral system nomenclature. The fact is that single-winner STV (if there actually is such a thing) and the Alternative vote are not the same in "effect", they simply are the same system so the original wording is not incorrect. Ive added a new, detailed footnote on the whole usage issue but i dont think it is a subject that should clutter the body of the article.

The other thing is EU law only applies to local elections so has no relevence to the election of the president.

Iota 00:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

EU law is irrelevant at the moment, but I tried to show that the franchise for the President is limited, and confirmed by the plebiscite of 1937. Article 16.1.2.ii allows the Dáil to change its own franchise as it sees fir. (If EU law was changed then of course it is the constitution that should fall) If STV and AV are the same then your wording too ("form of the Single Transferable Vote system known as the Alternative Vote"). is incorrect, as would "form of proportional representation known as the Alternative Vote" As the wording used in the constitution is the same when describing the voting method for Dáil & President I wonder if the idea was to present a consistency not always seen in the British constitution or show that the president is elected fairly, by a majority as AV was not used in the Dáil because it doe not give proportionality, and can be even more distorting than under First-Past-The-Post. That is, the unusual wording used not so much because it was the usage of the 1930s but to avoid De Valera the problem of having to explaining why a system condemned as unfair for the Dáil was OK for the President --garryq 09:35, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

---

8 May 2004 (GMT) Iota said "The term AV is one that ive made the hyperlink because currently the STV article on Wikipedia is exclusively about the PR 'version' of STV." Is this because there is a non-pr system of STV or because AV and STV are different?

---

By "form of the Single Transferable Vote system known as the Alternative Vote" i mean the single winner form of STV. The sentence goes by the logic that there are two kinds of STV: (a) PR-STV (multiple winners), (b) STV-with-one-winner (aka the Alternative Vote).

With respect to "PR 'version' of STV" there are two naming conventions about STV. Either (i) single-winner-STV and AV are the same in which case single-winner-STV is indeed a non-PR version of STV or (ii) the term STV can only apply to PR-STV in which case there is only 1 kind of STV and no such thing as non-PR STV. My wording in the article goes with convention (i) because that is closer to usage in Ireland. I hope i'm making sense.

You may be right about Dev. Personally id kind of doubt he gave the matter more than a few seconds thought. Despite the vast importance of choosing a voting system politicians are usually the last to have any interest in it, except when its likely to effect their own hold on power.

Iota 15:28, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

title

from the article: "As a result of the repeal of Articles 2 and 3 as part of the Good Friday Agreement, though technically Mary McAleese's title is 'President of Ireland', in reality she is strictly speaking the 'President of the Republic of Ireland." This dosent make much sense to me (if technically she is "of Ireland" how can she be strictly speaking be of "the republic of..."?) unforunately I dont know sufficent about the issue to clear it up. Iain 12:19, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Her title remains "President of Ireland", and before the GFA the constitution laid claim de jure to the whole of Ireland while accepting that de facto it only covered the "26 counties". Since the constitutional amendments after the GFA, the constitution no longer claims that the state covers the whole island, hence it's fair to describe her as "President of the Republic of Ireland". -- Arwel 12:44, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah - I got that from the rest of the article, but I want to clear up that particular sentance. Are we saying that (after the constitutional reforms) the title as refered to in the constitution is still "The President of Ireland"? Or was that changed? Iain 16:24, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See Bunreacht na hÉireann (pdf file) -- the President's title is defined in article 12, para 1. The version shown here includes the amended articles 2 and 3. -- Arwel 19:42, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The presidents title, official and otherwise, is and remains the "President of Ireland" - irrespective of constitutional changes. The constitutional referendum changed little except ensuring that the constitution was no longer weasel worded. Their is good reason for deletion of the disputed sentence as the phrase "Republic of Ireland" has no constitutional status and is mearly a discription of the state and as such when used with the presidents title is somewhat mischievous. Djegan 19:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

President?

The article refers to the "president" of Ireland. I believe the proper term is "Uachtaran", not "president". Eamon de Valera himself used to refer to the office of taoiseach as "president" when he was in America, and "prime minister" in England... which goes to prove that the terms are not complete synonyms.

In English, the title of the position is "President" - see the Constitution, Article 12, hence that is what we call it here as nobody who didn't already know the title would look under "Uachtaran". As to what de Valera called his job, the important point is when he said it -- before the passing of the 1937 Constitution, the "prime minister's" official title was "President of the Executive Council", "Taoiseach" only became the title with the new Constitution. -- Arwel 13:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

De Valera created a number of Irish language names with english alternatives for a number of key offices and entities of state. In 1937, both tended to be used. Over the years one or other gained predominance. Today the head of government is rarely called 'prime minister' in Ireland, but 'Taoiseach' (unlike in 1937, when 'taoiseach' was not even used in some newspapers, who instead wrote 'prime minister'). In contrast 'uachtaran' never took off as a term, with the office-holder from day 1 invariably being called 'president'. Indeed 'president' has even come to used in Irish also. Recently I heard a Irish news bulletin stating that 'Duirt an president, Mary McAleese . . .! (I cringed! But it shows that 'uachtaran' is now effectively a dead letter in english and is even declining in use in Irish.)

In addition wikipedia policy is to use the most common name in english. Taoiseach is used because it has become accepted as the title of the office in Irish and english. Uachtaran is not used in english, president is, so under wikipedia rules that is what should be used. FearÉIREANN 18:41, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rearrangements

Shouldn't the "Former Presidents" and "List of Irish Presidents" sections be placed together? It would make more sense if they were. Joolz 00:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Irish President's right to speak

Contrary to political myth the Irish president does not have to submit every speech to the government for approval prior to delivery. An exceptionally narrow-minded civil servant in the 1930s, Michael McDunphy, who served as Secretary to the President, claimed that everything they said needed government approval (or rather, most things did, so everything should be submitted to the government so that they could tell the President what needed their approval. Of course everytime the government saw a speech it wanted to stop it just said 'sorry that needs approval' and then did not give it!). Generations of presidents had McDunphy's words quoted to them ad nausaum every time they disagreed. But as they were not lawyers and he was a barrister and renowned civil servant they couldn't disprove it, however much privately they thought the claim ludicrous. The two lawyer presidents, Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh (number 4) and Mary Robinson (number 7) knew the claim was a heap of horse manure and refused point blank to go by it, to the fury of governments. Under Robinson, governments finally admitted that the idea that the President had to get every little word approved was bunkum. They simply used McDunphy's nutty claim as a means to shut up presidents. McDunphy's petty (and utterly inaccurate) set of rules that tortured generations of presidents have now been binned, something that should have happened long ago. President Childers, driven to fury by McDunphy's endless rules about everything, spoke of the presidency being haunted by the ghost of McDunphy. Thankfully those rules have been jetisoned, and that fact is one of the key reasons why a previoiusly moribund office has come so successfully to life under Marys Robinson and McAleese.

The only time approval is needed is when a president is making delivering an address or sending a message to the people or the Oireachtas. In those instances they also must consult with the Council of State. If everything needed government permission then the Council would have to meet every day to discuss every single speech. In reality there have been only 3 addresses to the Oireachtas and I think only one address to the nation (Erskine Childers in 1974). So, of the hundreds of thousands of speeches given by presidents over fifty years, no more than perhaps 4 needed to go to government for approval. FearÉIREANN 00:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reserve powers

It is wrong to talk about the President having 'reserve powers'. That terminology comes from the Commonweath system, and reflects special powers possessed by HM the Queen and various governors-general. The Irish powers may amount to the same, but they cannot really be called by that term, any more than his or her signing of a bill into law can be described as the Royal Assent, even though in practical terms they are almost identical. In the Irish system they are simply 'presidential powers' and so should not be called by a term that is not used in Ireland (and indeed has not been used since the abolition of the Irish governor-generalship in 1936). FearÉIREANN 00:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reserve powers are those that are exercised without advice from a ministry. They are reserved to the head of state, regardless of whether that head of state is a president, a governor-general or a monarch. Pete 23:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

List of presidents table

I've returned the table to the form it was in until recently. The current table is useful and informative but more or less duplicates a similar table found at Irish presidential election. It also leaves us without a more simple list of all office-holders in the order in which they held office of the kind found on most other articles about political offices (including the articles on offices such as the Taoiseach and the various Irish ministerial portfolios). Iota 02:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know the colour scheme within this table is meant to mean something, but what? Can I suggest that actually it looks pretty naff. I think an alternately coloured row scheme migth be better. Frelke 08:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting English translations of Irish text

The previous version had: this power must be exercised by the President's "absolute discretion" (or, under the Irish language wording of the constitution which gets legal priority "under their own counsel").

As the Irish version has precedence, there is no need for two differing English translations of the same text. Simply use the one that is closest to the true sense of the statement. Pete 23:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Your ignorance of constitutional law plummets new depths (which, given that your ignorance of Australian constitution had led the Arbitration Committee to ban you from editing articles on the topic to do with Australia, is saying something). Both are valid. The Irish one takes priority in the case of a clash. The courts have never had to interpret what the Irish one means in English as there has not been a case about it yet. Political scientists believe that there appears to be a clash in the wordings, but it has not been judicially reviewed it is standard to show both. Fear�IREANN\^(caint) 23:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Please skip the abuse, Jim. The article doesn't need two translations of the same text in one paragraph. That's just common sense. You've been warned by the ArbComm not to blindly revert valid edits. Pete 23:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Using the relevant sections of a constitution is standard. There are two relevant sections, one in English, one in Irish. Deleting them as part of your campaign of harrassment of people is not. You were banned from Wikipedia for one week for stalking me and Petaholmes and deliberately changing things we wrote. As those who observed your behaviour noted at the time, you simply focused on our edits to try to intimidate us. It did not work. Your ban is barely over a day and already you are back to your old stalking habits, voting to delete articles written by your targets and changing their edits, as in here, on a topic you have in the past shown scant knowledge of, and only feined interest when those you were stalking edited it. I simply re-inserted a correct quote from the Irish constitution. Fear�IREANN\^(caint) 23:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to harass you, Jim. I'm going over my watchlist and making edits in order to improve the articles. I can see why you added an English translation of the Irish text, going by the previous history, but surely you must agree that we don't need two different translations in this paragraph to make the point that the President makes this particular decision alone. My interest, by the way, is not in constitutional law, which is what high or supreme court judges do, but in constitutional practice, which is what applies to politicians and presidents. Pete 23:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

As you well know, heads of state are obliged to follow constitutional law, so in deciding to use Article 13.2.2. they use both the Irish language and English texts. If a conflict exists, and there may be (but that is a matter for judicial review) they go with the Irish language version. As it has not been judicially decided that there is a conflict, it is important to state both here. Fear�IREANN\^(caint) 23:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

But it isn't important in this context. The point you are making is that the President accepts no counsel on a dissolution, and we don't need two translations to make this one point. Pete 23:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Not so. The President first of all formally is advised to dissolve by the Taoiseach, so s/he accepts their counsel for a start. They then discuss the matter with the Secretary-General to the President, their chief aide, so there too they are discussing the options. (President Hyde discussed the issue with Michael McDunphy, the then Secretary, in 1944, while President O'Kelly discussed the matter with McDunphy in 1948 and President Hillery discussed the whole issue of the President's role with then taoiseach Garret FitzGerald in 1987. President Robinson received detailed memoranda on the issue from third parties in 1994. Haughey and others deliberately tried to force their opinions on President Hillery in January 1982, so what the wording is, and the possible existence of a clash between versions, is supremely important. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that we don't need two translations of the same text in this summary of presidential powers. If you want to talk about finer points of constitutional practice, please do so in the appropriate article and make a link to it. You are making this article on the President needlessly long and complex. Just compare the two versions and you will see what I mean. Pete 00:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I had forgotten your love of endlessly dragging out pages to whine about your latest gripe. You filled 6 archives on one page alone with your ramblings, when everyone else proved you wrong at the start. Issue closed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You have needlessly inflated the article and in talk addressed everything but the point I am making, and you accuse me of rambling! You are being abusive, when all I want to do is improve the quality of the article. Pete 01:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Presidents of Éire as opposed to Presidents of the Republic of Ireland.

As there is a debate over what the titles of the Irish Presidents have been, I would like to clarify my position on the issue. I reckon that the Presidents of Ireland from 1938 to 1949 should be referred to as 'Presidents of Éire', because Ireland was really a Dominion within the British Commonwealth under King George VI until 1949, when the Republic of Ireland was declared. Sean T. O'Kelly was the only President of Ireland to have been both President of Éire (1945-49) & President of the Republic of Ireland (1949-59). What do other members think? - (Aidan Work 01:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

Article 12 of the Constitution of Ireland makes it quite clear what the presidents title is, viz:

There shall be a President of Ireland (Uachtarán na hÉireann), hereinafter called the President...

Their is often a misconception on the states name, Éire is simply the official name of the state in the Irish language and is not the official English language name which is Ireland - Éire was adopted by several nations outside the state but that use does not change its internal usage. Republic of Ireland is the official discription of the state and not the same as the official name and was adopted after the Republic of Ireland Act and its adoption has not changed the official titles of officers and servants of the state. Theirfore, in summary, the presidents official title has always and is currently as stated in Article 12, viz, President of Ireland, irrespective of the status of the state. Djegan 09:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Confusing wording on style of address

In Section 6, "Official residence, salute, style and address," I found this confusing sentence: "The President is formally styled as 'President' or 'Uachtarán', rather than 'Mr/Madam President' or Uachtarán." The current wording makes it read as "The President is formally styled as 'Uachtarán', rather than Uachtarán." Is there an appropriate Irish equivalent for 'Mr/Madam'? If not, then perhaps it would be more clear to say "... rather than 'Mr/Madam President' or 'Mr/Madam Uachtarán.'" Lincmad 23:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

List of presidents

Should't the lists of presidents have it's own page like all the other countries I can [1]--Johnny 0 02:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Irish grammar

"A Shoilse (female: A Soilse)" - as I understand it, the editor is confusing the term of address here, with "his excellency" or "her excellency". --MacRusgail 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

An election for President

Here is what the constitution says (of course if their is one candidate only then their is no vote (Article 12.4.5)) it could be made clearer but is assigned to a footnote:

1° The President shall be elected by direct vote of the people.
2° Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann shall have the right to vote at an election for President.

3° The voting shall be by secret ballot and on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.

— Article 12.2 - Constitution of Ireland

Djegan 23:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ceremonial functions / query

Surely these should include her state visits abroad?Red Hurley 20:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

errors in Irish on page

"# The President is formally styled as 'President' or 'Uachtarán', rather than 'Mr/Madam President' or Uachtarán. Sometimes people use the version 'Your Excellency' or, its Gaelic equivalent: A Shoilse (female: A Soilse). The President's style in English is normally His/Her Excellency."

There is a number of misconceptions here, so I'm going to change the text. As an aside, The President of Ireand is 'An tUachtarán na hÉireann', but that's not the problem with the above. To address someone in Irish, one uses the vocative case, or if the noun does not allow this, a vocative construction. Uachtarán, been masculine, has a vocative form (Uachtaráin), so one places this after the vocative particle (a) to get 'A Uachtaráin' as a form of address. This is then extended to 'A Shoilse'. There is no seperate variable male and female ascribed gender to most nouns in Irish, as gender is a grammatical dimension, no a sexual or gender one. Soilse is feminine and so one just lenites the noun. Even if it were masculine, the fact that it ends in a vowel would mean the same thing, result wise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.220.148 (talk) 15:56, June 27, 2007

You are correct as regards "A Shoilse" being the only correct form, but your "An tUachtarán na hÉireann" is extremely ungrammatical Irish. The correct version is "Uachtarán na hÉireann"; it is impossible to use the article twice in this way, regardless of whether the English version has a "the" at the beginning or not. See a discussion of this point here. --Kwekubo 17:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on reading over the section you have quoted, you're not entirely correct about the "Excellency" styling either. "A Shoilse" is the only way of saying "Your Excellency", but there is a difference between "His Excellency" (A Shoilse) and "Her Excellency" (A Soilse). In these cases we are quite obviously not dealing with the vocative case, so the "a" here is not the vocative particle, but rather a homonym that simply means "his/her". The difference is indicated by leniting the following word if the person is male (i.e. by adding a h). I refer you to the headings "a² and "a⁵", on page one of the Irish-English dictionary Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla by Niall Ó Dónaill. --Kwekubo 18:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why just ceremonial ?

Unlike most popularly elected heads of state — such as those of America, France and Russia — the Irish President has little executive power. That power is entrusted with the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) who is appointed by the President.

The President's role is largely ceremonial — like those of Israel, Greece or Germany.

Can anyone explain the historical and practical reasons for this and include it in the article, preferably as a new section in itself?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktreut (talk • contribs) 12:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Robinson's initiative

"President Robinson (1990–97) chose unilaterally to break the taboo by regularly visiting England" . Perhaps a bit unlikely if she needed Government permission to leave the State. A bit more likely that it was either the Government's idea, or that it least had a significant input, whatever the former Aras incumbent would have us believe about what a grand gal and taboo breaker she was.

194.46.252.63 (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Ireland

Whats the point of having 2 separate articles, one detailing the history, functions and powers of the office and the other containing a list of past and current presidents? The List of Presidents of Ireland article has been a redirect to here since Jan. 2004. Furthermore, this article is a Wikipedia:Former featured articles and contained the List of Presidents within it when it was featured. Snappy56 (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This removal is totally unnecessary and the latest reinstatement is by Ivan Bogdanov who has been blocked for disruptions. I wonder is there any connection between him and the anon-IP editor who kept removing the list of Presidents from the article yesterday and today. Just revert it again and if it get reinstated again, we shall have to ask an admin to intervene. Indeed it was an FA and I did some edits during its last FAR and there was never any mention that the list should not be there. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP 89.216.91.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Ivan. If he continues disrupting this article please feel free to let me know on my talk page and I'll take care of it. Sarah 01:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I already suspected they are the same and am watching them both, as well as this one. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I extended the block on the IP to one month because he used it to evade his block and I'm going to reblock his account if he doesn't give me a reasonable explanation. Cheers, Sarah 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ww2censor (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Patrickhillery.jpg

The image Image:Patrickhillery.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A picture of Mary Robinson

A picture must be added to the table of president; surely an appropriate one can be found and uploaded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.192.200 (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, there should be an image of Mary Robinson, but we have been unable to find a freely licenced image of her. There was an image but it was deleted because it was copyrighted and did not comply with the non-free content criteria #1, because it was replaceable which is a criteria that applies especially when people are still alive. ww2censor (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Styles

The President's actual style was missing - it is "President" or "Uachtarán". "Excellency" is little used. I have added in "president" and "uachtarán". In effect it is used in spoken address the way "Mr President" is used in the US, as a way of addressing the office-holder. (The "Excellency" variant of rarely used. In dealings with presidents of Ireland I have never heard it used. But then technically "excellency" also applies to the US president, even though it was last used a century and a half ago.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

non consecutive term

does anyone know whether the president can serve a second non-consecutive term? if he/she completes one full term and then leaces office after losing an election,can he/she return seven years later and run for a second term? I believe Mary Robinson could do it, maybe in 2011? she only serced one term. John Martin, Ballinagh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.227.215 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cost of the office

I don't see anything on the salary and associated costs of the Presidency - a major omission.86.46.192.170 (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

Can someone please explain to the great unwashed why a picture that exists on one wiki page can't be used on this wiki page. Also could someone explain why if a user has a problem with pictures used on this page from other wiki pages that they don't get off their high horse and remove the pictures from the other pages as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.111.194 (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Image policy might be specific to certain contexts. Non-free images cannot be used arbitrarily, anywhere some editor thinks they should be. Instead, they can only be used in extremely limited places. "Okay in X" definitely does not mean "okay in Y", nor does "not okay in Y" mean "not okay in X". DMacks (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

All non-free images must comply with all 10 non-free content criteria and for each such use must have a properly completed fair-use rationale to justify its use in each article and every where it appears. Use in lists is not permitted but use in articles about a person may be permitted if they are dead. ww2censor (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Intro para should make Republic more clear

The introduction paragraph should make it more clear that the subject of the article is not the President of the whole island of Ireland. Andrew Oakley (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

How could it be clearer? It doesn't even mention "island of Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. The title of this role does not distinguish between the island and the republic, which are easily confused. The intro para should make it clear that this role pertains to the republic alone. Andrew Oakley (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed to intro to a previous version which makes it clearer. Ireland (the official constitutional name of the state) is linked to Republic of Ireland (the long form description of the state, and also the article title of the state on en.wikipedia). Snappy (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is also obvious that only states have heads of state, islands or any other geographic/geophysical areas dont. --Red King (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Many people, especially in the United States, think Ireland (the whole island) is a state. Mooretwin (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Any references? Cos I think most people - and especially in the US - have heard about "Northern Ireland" and "The Troubles", etc, etc, and know that this isn't the case. --HighKing (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Under IMOS, where the use of "Ireland" may confuse, "Republic of Ireland" is to be used. Therefore, the opening sentence should state president of the Republic of Ireland. This office relates only to the Republic, not to the whole island. This should be made clear to readers. Mooretwin (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it another few days. If there are no objections, I'll restore the edit. Mooretwin (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be President of the Republic of Ireland, for clarity sake - per less familiar readers. GoodDay (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely should not. And GoodDay, try quoting policies - you've been asked before to stop making useless comments on Talk pages solely designed to inflame a situation. There's no problems in this case in using the official title since islands can't have heads of state, etc. Please stop trolling on this, there is absolutely no consensus for this editing, as the comments indicated. --HighKing (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is trolling. For the sake of less familiar readers, clarifcation is required as the country & the island have the same name. GoodDay (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Not everyone knows that the island and state are not territorially contiguous. Mooretwin (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully then they've also come here to get educated, not even more confused. Taking an imaginary offense on behalf of so-called less-familiar readers is a weak argument, and I can't fit it with your other arguments at Derry to use the "official name". --HighKing (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What does Londonderry (or Derry) have to do with this article? GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I know it's less fun being consistent with your arguments as it's less fun is you're not trolling. But at least go back to Talk:Derry and look up the arguments you've used in relation to using the "correct" name. --HighKing (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

My stance hasn't changed on that article. As for this article? Yes, Ireland is the country's name - which is made quite clear in the article title, infobox title & bolded opening line (as it should be). Therefore, I see no problem with avoiding the pipelink concerning the link to the country's article. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification is required? For what? To explain that an island doesn't have a president? You're trolling, plain and simple. Your position on this is the complete opposite of the position you've adopted at Derry where you're arguing for use of the "official name" - and the only thing in common is that you enjoy a good troll at articles where your inane comments serve to inflame arguments and propagate edit warring and disruption. Please stop. --HighKing (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, clarification is required to explain that the president's jurisdiction is not over Ireland (the island), but merely the Republic of Ireland. (There is no contradiction with GoodDay's position on Derry, because the official name in that case, Londonderry, is not ambiguous. Mooretwin (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ireland is wikilinked to Republic of Ireland, which conforms to WP:IMOS. Who are these readers that can't click on links? It should of course be linked to Ireland (state) but that's another debate. Snappy (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to rely on readers hovering over a link. Let's write the encylcopaedia so that it's clear and obvious and helpful to readers. Mooretwin (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not relying on readers hovering over a link. We're using the correct name and linking to the appropriate article. --HighKing (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The "correct" name is ambiguous, therefore unhelpful to readers. Why do you not want to have a clear and unambiguous intro to the article? What's the problem? Mooretwin (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There's only one state called Ireland, so how can it be ambiguous? Regardless, you don't have consensus for the edit, and much of this discussion should either wait until the Republic of Ireland naming kicks off again, or the IMOS. But it doesn't belong here. --HighKing (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There is indeed only one state called Ireland. Its jurisdiction, however, extends over only part of Ireland. Hence the need, per IMOS, to clarify by saying the President of Ireland is the head of state of the Republic of Ireland. This makes it clear. What's the problem? (Discussion about this article certainly does belong here.) Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is about the President of Ireland being the head of state of Ireland. If people are genuinely confused about the island and the state (and it's reasonable to believe that some are, although that "some" remains unquantifiable), the lede already mentions the Republic of Ireland act, a read of the article provides ample clarification, and clicking the pipelink provides even more. --HighKing (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are you apparently determined to expect readers to do a lot of work rather than just let them read a sentence? We shouldn't expect readers to be following links through to other articles. Just tell them in the first sentence here that the President is head of state of the Republic. This appears solely to be an irrational objection to the use of the term "Republic of Ireland" as there can be no rational objection to the very reasonable suggestion, in line with IMOS, of clarifying that the office (the "official" title of which is given in the article title) does not extend over all of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead is fine as is, the official name of the state is Ireland, the President is head of it, and the name of the state wikilinks to its wikipedia name. Snappy (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Snappily and accurately put. --Red King (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Snappily - I like it! I agree also. --HighKing (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The name of the state is misleading. That's why IMOS says use Republic of Ireland. ENough of this irrationality. Mooretwin (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus to change the intro. Snappy (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Clearly not, given the irrational reactionary input from irredentist editors. Same as it ever was. "Consensus" (meaning "majority rules") trumps common sense every time. Mooretwin (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Consensus states "Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken." This is what has happened in this case, which you could accept with some good grace. Snappy (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:IRL-IRE, I'm with GoodDay and Mooretwin. The current lead is unnecessarily confusing. JonChapple^Talk 10:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a majority (4-3) in favour of changing the lede, then, which, according to Snappy, means the lede changes. Mooretwin (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, more than a simple majority is generally required for major changes. You've not demonstrated how the lede is confusing, especially in light of the complete text of the lede. --HighKing (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Finally, for all those (mis)quoting WP:IRL-IRE, it equivocally states

• An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating states, politics or governance) where Ireland should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the island of Ireland, or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland").
• Regardless of the above guidelines, always use the official titles of state offices (e.g. "Douglas Hyde was the first President of Ireland").

@Mooretwin, et al, you know there's no consensus for this edit (and a majority is not a consensus either), and that it's not supported by IMOS. The quality of your argument relies on acceptence that the lede is "confusing", yet you've not provided any evidence or facts to support this. --HighKing (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Irish state forms a major component of this article and so it should be referred to as Ireland (per the MOS).

The Irish state and the island of Ireland share the same name (we all know that). That can be confusing in some circumstances. In this case, however, there is no immediate danger of confusing the Irish state with Northern Ireland or with the rest of the island - nor is there any grave consequence if a reader did. We do not need to impress the distinction here. It doesn't prevent the reader from understanding the subject of the article.

Also, this is not a vote. --RA (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

But just in case it is, I agree with RA --Snowded ^TALK 17:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As does Fmph, judging from their last edit. Note this is not a cue for anyone to round up their pals to come and vote here, cos its not one. I didn't expect a quote from WP:Consensus to be twisted in such a way in such a bizzare way but I shouldn't have expected anything less from someone who constantly misquotes Imos. Snappy (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the 2-year freeze on page move discussions concerning the related articles Republic of Ireland, Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation) is approaching expiration. Any possible changes to those articles, will likely effect this article's intro, so it's likely best to put a freeze on this discussion until the results of the other pending discussion. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Snappy, consensus "ideally ... arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken." Mooretwin (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the potential confusion, get your heads out of the ideological sand and stop pretending that there is no confusion involved in having a state and an island using the same name. Try viewing things from outside your own paradigm. Most people around the world don't have any kind of understanding of the constitutional, legal, jurisdictional, political and geographical details of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is potential for confusion and I haven't seen anyone deny that. However there are also cases where there is no danger of being confused such as this where the proper name of the state should be used. Just as you can argue that there might be confusion with the island if Ireland is used for the state, so you can argue that there might be confusion with the state if Ireland is used for the country. That's why we look at the context and its also why we have pipelinks. --Snowded ^TALK 09:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think there is "no danger of being confused" in this article? If someone was unaware that the state and the island weren't contiguous, how would he or she know that the president was president only of part of Ireland? For goodness' sake, enough of this ideological grandstanding - write the article for the reader, please. Why are you people so scared of the term Republic of Ireland? Seriously, what's the problem? Mooretwin (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Geographies don't have Presidents last time I looked Mooretwin and if the UK Government now also uses the proper name of the USstate (and they were the only one using RoI) then wikipedia should follow. As to "ideological grandstanding" Matthew 7:5 comes to mind. --Snowded ^TALK 11:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No-one said "geographies" have presidents; no idea what you're reference to the US is about; and your reference to Matthew is another indicator of your own inability to recognise your own bias (Just to remind you: opposing the imposition of one POV does not mean one is pursuing another POV. I'm not pursuing or defending any ideology. Quite the opposite.) Mooretwin (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll spell it out then, a geography can't have a President so there is no danger of being confused. US should have read state, OS-LION is providing useful on predictive text but a pain sometimes. I see you claim not to be defending or pursuing any ideology, but editors who disagree with you are engaged in "ideological grandstanding". You claim would be a little more credible without that throw away piece of invective. With it Matthew I think comes into play --Snowded ^TALK 15:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is a danger of being confused if one doesn't know that the state confusingly calling itself "Ireland" doesn't actually extend over all of Ireland. As the use of "Republic of Ireland" would avoid this confusion, yet a group of editors is absolutely determined to avoid the use of the term, the obvious conclusion is that the determination is motivated by an irredentist ideology. As for the UK government's usage, it is determined by the political and diplomatic niceties and imperatives of the day, rather than a desire to be clear and unambiguous. Mooretwin (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny really, the question of the name of the state is not a problem for any international agency or for the British Government. With the Good Friday Agreement the British Government agreed to use Ireland not ROI. Since then it has been a matter of extreme unionist ideology to insist on the use of ROI. Of course it is possible that all those agencies are irredentist and its even remotely possible that you are not aware of the implications of use; somehow I doubt it. --Snowded ^TALK 15:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong there, and the resort to hysterical language merely reinforces the view that your insistence on ROI is ideological. And still no good reason as to why ROI shouldn't be use in the opening para. Mooretwin (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Snowded is not wrong, there is no good reason why it should be used. Snappy (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I can't see any good reason to not use the correct name of the state. But I'll be amused(?) next time someone who refuses that arguement here uses that argument over at Derry. --HighKing (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There's obviously no consensus to remove the pipelink, therefore the discussion on it has run its course, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay on that. Snappy (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for once I do to. Oh and Mooretwin the language was ironic not hysterical, its an important difference and one I recommend you pay attention to --Snowded ^TALK 22:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I can't see any good reason to not use the correct name of the state. I see no ships. How about the good reason of making it clear to readers that the President of "Ireland" is not president of all of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In a few weeks, the community will be engaged in discussions about those related articles-in-question. Should the article Republic of Ireland end up being moved to Ireland, the pipelink usage will become un-needed. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And the ambiguity would be even worse. Mooretwin (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus for avoiding the pipe-link, thus it's not likely to be removed. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. The ideologues are always quick to congregate. Mooretwin (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There are not that many of you around really. Fmph (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1