Jump to content

Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Untitled

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

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

Language

It seems that this page sidesteps the language issue! I'm not too familiar with the specifics, what are the statuses of the Irish and English languages in Ireland? I think this would be a valuable section to add to the article.

Comment: the article also stipulates that the teaching of the irish language is "not" compulsory. IT IS (both at primary and secondary level)!!!!!!! English is also compulsory by the way.

Hi there,

Due to the duplication of countries in both EU and Europe footers, I created a new Template:European_countries_not_in_EU for those European countries not in the EU. This need only be put on pages which have the EU footer - other european countries should probably stick with Europe footer.

Before I change all other EU country pages (I've only changed UK and Ireland), I'm just looking to see if there's any major objections?

Zoney 21:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:EU countries Zoney 23:35, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added a bit about the Civil War since it was quite a glaring absence from bit about the history of the Republic. Kinda like doing France without mentioning the Revolution.

GDP?

Why does it say '3rd place' for GDP. Even if this is correct in some context, both lists of GDP maintained on wiki, the list of countries by GDP (nominal) and the list of countries by GDP (PPP) place it at 32 and 47 respectively. --Paraphelion 10:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to "GDP per capita."

Infobox

Apparently their has been a number of inbox changes on the page, i believe that we should keep it as the template, it will free up some room for more info, and keep the page code looking a bit cleaner. Nay comments? --Boothy443 04:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One of the problems with the "one-size-fits-all" infoboxes of the type that seems to have proliferated in Wikipedia of late is that they are impossible to edit to allow for the correction of particular infelicities. For example, the standard "Infobox country" template produces for many countries (and particularly so for Ireland) a small national flag outsized by a huge coat of arms. This is because nearly all flags are oblong (Ireland's is especially long) while coats of arms tend to be squarish: so giving the two equal widths is going to lead to large discrepancies of area.
Now if I were to go changing the "Infobox country" template this would, of course, affect all countries using that template, and I should be inviting possibly outraged reaction from all around. So I have created a modified template "Infobox country I" to demonstrate what I think is much better appearance for the flag and c.o.a. in Ireland's case.
What I should like the techies to tell me, though, is: Is this the only way round the problem - or do you know how some more flexibility can be put into the standard template (in respect to the dimesnsions problem: it is fine in most other regards). -- Picapica 4 July 2005 10:03 (UTC)

Opening sentence

From LaurelBush 16:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC):

I suggest the article's opening sentence should read:
"The Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann) is a state and sovereign power centred on Dublin in the island of Ireland, off the coast of northwest Europe. It covers about five sixths of the island, and it is the western-most state of the European Union."
The expression "sovereign power" places the state on a map of sovereign powers, including the UK (centred on London or Westminster), France (Paris) and the US (Washington DC).
The phrase "Sovereign power" is not used in the articles United Kingdom, France, and United States, and is, so far as I am aware, not in common use in English generally. If you want to change "state" to "sovereign state", I wouldn't object. I don't understand "centred on Dublin" either. john k 05:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ireland (republic)

I've moved this page to Ireland (republic) because this independent state's official name is not Republic of Ireland but simply Ireland. I'm aware that this has been discussed before, but unfortunately a wrong decision was made when this page was renamed Republic of Ireland. When you name this page Republic of Ireland, start the intro with Republic of Ireland, and name every subpage as ... of the Republic of... you're sending the wrong message that the country's name is Republic of Ireland which is not. I believe naming this article Ireland (republic) is the most NPOV, clear and correct way of handling this particular naming "issue". If this change is accepted by the community, I will begin renaming the subpages to ... of Ireland (republic). —Cantus…☎ 07:14, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I for one would prefer Ireland (state). Yes we are a Republic, but the more basic description is country (ambiguous) or state (unambiguous).
This is a whopping HUGE change. I am moving back until we get discussion.
zoney ♣ talk 09:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Republic of Ireland actually saves a lot of hassle and argument - but I'm willing to see out a discussion and move it elsewhere if people are happy with that. zoney ♣ talk 10:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The state has officially resolved this matter with the Republic of Ireland Act, intended to clarify the sometimes ambiguous use of "Ireland". That's been around since 1948 so it seems very well established at this point. The naming section adds further detail to clarify the difference between the current official description and the name used at founding. Jamesday 10:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Cantus is wrong. The country's name, both official and commonly used, is Republic of Ireland Seabhcán 17:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually he is right. "Republic of Ireland" is an "official description" as per the Republic of Ireland act. The state's official name remains Éire (in Irish) or "Ireland" in the English language.
But I don't agree with the move, and this is the sort of situation that the official description was created for. zoney ♣ talk 19:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Ireland" is the official name, in English of the state; please consult and endless list of treaties, documents (eg passports) and such. "Republic of Ireland" is an official discription. I believe however, and it is a pov, that "Republic of Ireland" is a better alternative to weasel titles like "Ireland (republic)", "Ireland (state)" and such other terms as we could endlessly propose to condem to the brackets, not to mention the mother of weasel words recently introduced to articles titles "southern Irish state". I propose leave it as it is their is enough difficulty with various names past used, viz Irish Republic. Is anyone proposing that the official title is policy and a must? Should "United Kingdom" be moved to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", "France" to "French Republic" - shall i continue... Keep it simple and explain it properly. Djegan 20:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Boroughs

Under a reform of local government initiated by Noel Dempsey the only name for city or incorporated towns' governments, Corporations was replaced. Many Irish incoporated towns now describe themselves as boroughs. Personally I think Dempsey's renaming was a bit of pointless historical vandalism - the needless wiping out of ancient city government names. But then the Fianna Fáil-PD government's contempt for Irish heritage is no secret, as evidenced by the decision to run a motorway through the unique and internationally renouned Tara-Skyrne valley when the road could have been built around it. (Curious how some FF-leaning property developers just happen to own property on the chosen route. 5000 years of history can be sacrified to make money from developers who are household names in the tribunals and are big money doners to Fianna Fáil!)

As evidence of the change in name from Corporation to Borough Council, see

Under the Local Government Act, 2001

Section: Establishment, titles and administrative areas of local authorities and consequential provisions.

11.—(1) On and from the establishment day and for the purposes of local government, the areas referred to in section 10 shall each have a local authority as provided for in this section. 

 (b) The local authority for each of the towns set out in Schedule 6 shall be known by the name of the town followed by the words—

(i) in the case of a town set out in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of that Schedule, "Borough Council" and

(ii) in any other case, "Town Council", 

    and references in this Act to "town council" shall be construed accordingly.

QED. FearÉIREANN 19:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Demographics - constitutional amendment re Catholicism

i've changed back the change by Cantus where he replaced the word 'deleted' by 'eliminated'. Articles removed from constitutions are described as deleted not eliminated. I also reworded the lines on the absence of abortion in Ireland to give it the accurate context. The previous wording was inaccurate and not exactly NPOV. I've used exact terms and also qualified the quote of a line from the relevant article to make it clear that the paragraph takes neither a pro-choice or pro-life stance but just explains what happened - ie, a constitutional amendment, judicial interpretation of the constitutional amendment, failure of the Oireachtas to legislate for that judicial ruling, and subsequent amendments. FearÉIREANN 23:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of writers in culture section

I removed Herminie T. Kavanagh and Lord Dunsany from the list of writers in the culture section. No offence to these writers, but if we're to add names to this summary list of Irish writers there are at least a dozen others that would have a stronger claim, e.g. Bram Stoker, Flann O'Brien, William Trevor, John Banville, Colm Tóibín, Louis McNeice to name just a few off the top of my head. It's only a summary list, and seems to cover what most people would consider the "giants", so I don't think any additions are necessary. --Ryano 14:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

irish gdp

i looked at the world gdp/cap list and the irish are right behind the yanks in gdp/cap. i never knew the irish were so rich. does anyone know what method irish use to make so much money? i always thought the japanese were richer than irish.

While stereotypically seen as slightly backward and rural, the truth is that the Irish economy has grown enormously in the last 10-15 years. Net emigration has been replaced by net immigration. Richness is relative though, as the cost of living, the cost of land/houses, commuting times, etc have all soared too. Due to the recent and rapid growth, the national communications and transport infrastructure are not as developed as the position in richness league tables would lead one to expect. There are arguments over whether GDP or GNP is a better way of measuring this, and one (can never remember which) is skewed by the amount of US corporations that have invested here and report their profits here before repatriating the actual profit. I suppose you could see Economy of the Republic of Ireland for more info. jlang 23:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

We learnt from our neighbours to a degree i.e. Thatcherism. We didn't copy everything she did, but we did start standing up to the more extreme demands of the unions in the 80's e.g. give us 20% pay rises etc. Also, we cut Corporation-Tax to 12%, and loosened up the rules on hiring and firing. We also privatised parts of the public-sector, and introduced lots of tax-breaks to encourage the building-industry etc. for example. In 20 years the taxation revenue of the Irish governments has increased 7 fold and exports 10-fold. We also cut taxes from 54% top rate to 42% and the bottom rate from 28% to 20%. Also, our social-welfare system isn't anywhere near as generous of France, Germany and Italy. Welfare isn't linked to previous income during employment - unlike those countries. This kind of link in these countries whereby unemployed people are paid 75% of their previous earnings is a serious disincentive to Germans and French people to work. mango2005

Éire

Is this the official name in Irish Galic? 23:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Zntrip

Yes. Article 4 of the Constitution states: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." --Ryano 09:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes but there is no need to use Éire when speaking english. People tend to make that mistake. Dmitry 12:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Mistake? It clears up the ambiguity inherent in naming the state Ireland when the state doesn't have jurisdiction over the entire island of Ireland, in effect creating two Irelands. Using the state's official name, Eire, would seem logical. If it's really just for gaelic use only, why does the English translation of the constitution not say "The name of the state is Ireland" ?

Opening paragraph/names

Can I propose the following revision?

The Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann) is the officially-designated "description" of Ireland (Irish: Éire), an independent state which covers approximately five-sixths of the island of Ireland, off the coast of north-west Europe. ~ Dpr 4 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)
I would support that, as including the official name as well as the description in the first sentence of the article. I do, though, dislike the use both here and in what we have at present of quotation marks around the word description, as if there is something so called or faintly not-quite-true about the term. The Republic of Ireland Act does not use any quotation marks:
2.—Dearbhaítear leis seo gur Poblacht na hÉireann is gnéthuairisc ar an Stát.
2.—It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.
Part of the problem, perhaps, is the rather wishy-washy nature of the word description. The Irish word used in the Act, gnéthuairisc, is more precise, literally meaning "form-account". In other words, Poblacht na hÉireann / Republic of Ireland are the terms to be used to indicate the form and nature of the state named Éire / Ireland by the Constitution.
My slightly amended proposal is therefore:
The Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann) is the legally designated description of Ireland (Irish: Éire), an independent state which covers approximately five-sixths of the island of Ireland, off the coast of north-west Europe. -- Picapica 10:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Opening

Why is this sentence For an explanation of often confusing terms like Ulster, (Republic of) Ireland, (Great) Britain and United Kingdom see British Isles (terminology) on the page.Should it not be left on the Ireland page?--Play Brian Moore 15:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

To me it makes sense to have it on both pages - a reader might have come to the Republic of Ireland article looking for just such an explanation. --Ryano 21:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, this is an encyclopaedia. Should be kept on both pages. --81.79.128.56 07:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
No, I think this clarification should be kept on both pages. This helps the casual reader who may be entering imprecise terms or just performing casual research. --195.251.204.42 10:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
the fact that someone would specifically search for Republic of Ireland means they clearly understand the difference between 'Ireland' and the 'Republic'.So I think it should be left on the Ireland page only.--Play Brian Moore 16:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Try searching for only Republic Ireland - this clarification is needed on both pages. Strengthens the encyclopedia. --Me or a Robin 16:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
But I specifically said Republic of Ireland.It is pointless having it there.I can understand having it on the Ireland page but not on this page.Republic of Ireland is too specific a search for links like this.Anyone agree?--Play Brian Moore 17:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You may understand the difference, but other readers may need some clarification. That is the point of an encyclopedia. Readers are here to be informed, they want information not someone elses POV. It might be pointless having the sentence there in your opinion, but uninformed readers will benefit from it. I think the sentence must stay. --Me or a Robin 19:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with leaving it on the Ireland page.That makes sense but if someone specifically writes Republic of Ireland then they are clearly not looking for anything else.So if any one else has an opinion could we hear it please.--Play Brian Moore 22:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Not everybody who arrives at this page will have specifically searched for "Republic of Ireland". Many will come to the page by following a series of links. This information is important for readers and should be left in place. As you say, let's hear from others on this issue. --Me or a Robin 17:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Other

I didn't understand much out of this phrase:

However, through the lack of an effective command structure by its opponents, the anti-treaty IRA, and IRA units' defensive stand through out the war, Collins and his commanders were able to build up an army which was able to overwhelm them on the battlefield.

--Zimbricchio 21:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Have to agree with that Zimbricchio, but feel free to edit it to make more sense. Regards. --Meiers Twins 17:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea of what it means. I don't know Irish history. I can't do anything. --Zimbricchio 21:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go at re-writing the paragraph. I am no history expert and I didn't write the original. So I invite everyone to read it to check for accuracy. Robertbyrne 06:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Much more readable now, thanks Robert. --Meiers Twins 07:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Population

where does the popultion figure of 4,130,000 come from, it's 4,015,676 (July 2005 est.) according to the cia factbook did it realy jump 100,000 in a month? Fabhcún 17:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Should we be using estimates from external sources, it is perhaps more appropriate to cite official censuses and reports of national agencies? We should not quote external sources merely because they are larger (and often not authoritive). Djegan 19:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
There is a space for estimates in the table so I think that we should provide one I went back and checked who made the increase in population and it was an anon with no reason. I am going to change back to the old figure as it has a source (and it's the source most of the estimates are from). Fabhcún 12:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Around 8.5% of the population are now expected to be non-Irish. Around 3.779 million are Irish and the next largest group are Poles (120,000 have come since EU Enlargement) followed by British and nationals of other Eastern European countries followed by Americans. Eastern European immigration from the new EU states has brought most of these new EU migrants here in the past year and a half alone. I think around 33,000 went home so there may actually have been even more here until recently. To work in Ireland you need a PPS no. and the CSO is estimating that 137,000 non-Irish citizens are working in Ireland, though it's hard to be sure given the black market. Census 2006 will give us a better picture though. mango2005

Rewording first two paragraphs of "Economy"

Seeing as how they were lifted almost word for word from the CIA website [1] I thought it would be a good idea to reword Wiki's paragraphs.

Agree with your changes, good work. --Me or a Robin 10:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

POV?

"The erroneous egoistical policy of large landowners caused famine in 1845-1847 in which 1.5 million Irish died, followed by enormous emigration. "

This sounds terribly POV to me, as well as being a huge simplification and incorrect. To that end, I'm amending the wording. Fergananim 02:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Good god! Who wrote such rubbish??? Well spotted. Delete it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I think the landlords can be partly blamed for the scale of the starvation given their stubborn enforcement of rack-rents and mass evictions of around 500,000 people. The British Government also shares the blame for refusing to halt agricultural-exports from Ireland and for refusing to import food unlike the French government and some German governments in similar crises in the 19th century. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury Charles Trevelyan stated that the main problem wasn't the Famine, but the laziness of the Irish and that giving them food paid for by the State would exacerbate this problem. It illustrates the kind of racist and cruel mindset of those in power, and helped destroy Irish faith in the Union. Even the mainly Loyalist Irish Parliament (from which Catholics were excluded) reacted to the earlier 1740-1 famine more humanely, halting agricultural exports for example. I disagree with you Fearganim and FearEIREANN.mango2005

Education in Irish language

Their has being some recent changes in the article regarding just how compulsory or not its (Irish language) teaching is in schools. My understanding has that the compulsory teaching of the language is only in schools that recieve public money (with a few exemptions for returning expats/learning disabilities). In particular the State cannot set compulsory minimum standards in education that would be enforcable in a court of law because of the wording of the Irish constitution, and that this would extend to Irish. Any takers. Djegan 19:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No, its compulsory everwhere, i am in a school which recieves no state money, and everyone has to do irish. (except those from other countries and with learning dificulties.) Raemie 00:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If your school really receives no state money (most private schools have their teachers paid for by the state), then it is almost certainly a "grind school" whose purpose is to prepare students for the Leaving Cert, a state run examination. One of the requirements for obtaining the Leaving Cert is a pass grade in Irish (except in the case of exemption), which is probably why you are being "compelled" to take the course. --Ryano 11:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Their is no requirement to obtain a pass grade in Irish in the leaving certificate, in order to recieve the certificate itself, and certainly this has being the case since 1973. The dark days of an automatic fail in the leaving certificate because one failed Irish are long gone. Studying it, bar exemption, is still a requirement however; this, like all things, may change. Djegan 21:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
In addition to the above (those recieving public money) Irish is compulsory in schools recognised by the Minister for Education (with regard for exemptions), but beyond these two cases their is no such thing as "compulsory" Irish. The state can insist on what it wants in schools it pays for or decides to recognise but beyond this compulsion is certainly by consensus and not the law. Djegan 01:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A Reply to Paul (see above)

Paul, the Celts never occupied Ireland! You are confuseing a culture with a people and/or ethnic group.

The peoples (notice the plural) who called themselves Celts as we know them principly lived in what is now central, southern and eastern France, parts of western Germany, Switzerland, the far north of Italy, and one or two other places such as Spain and Galatia. In what's now France, they were bounded in the north and east by the Belgae and Germanic peoples, and in the south by the Vascones.

There are the names of maybe half-a-dozen peoples or nations, known to inhabit Britain and Ireland either side of the first century A.D. (Menapii, Atrebates, Belgae/Fir Bolg) who did come from the Celtic/Belgae/Germanic borders, but only in very small numbers. Certainly there is no trace whatsoever in the archaeological record that such an occupation of Ireland by anyone took place at that time, let alone the Celts.

" England (later completely Saxonised by the Viking ethnic cleansing)." That's one humdinger you are going to have to explain! How could the British be Saxonised by Vikings???

"Our culture, our language and our descent are Celtic. Like all things Celtic, it has been enhanced by the interaction and assimilation of Viking, Norman, Roman, Greek and Arabic concepts, culture and genes." Paul, frankly this sounds disturbingly racist.

"Your comparison to language is also misleading. A majority of Irish speak English fluently yet the specified quote does not sugest that they are of English ethnicity." Exactly.

"I would point out that the English are a mix of Viking and Norman" - actually the English were, up to c.1066, mainly of British and Anglo-Saxon descent, with the culture and language of the latter being dominant.

"there is little evidence for Welsh-Irish interbreeding" Actually there is. Check out the Attacotti, the Desi, Irish kingdoms in Dark Age Wales, not to mention them returning the favor from 1169 onwards - hence surnames like Bhreanach, Brannagh, Walsh and Welsh.

All the best in 2006! Fergananim 21:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"the Scots are descendents of Irish colonists known as the Picts from before the submergence of the landbridge between Scotland and Ulster" Sorry, no cigar. The Picts were in what we now call Scotland long before the Scotti turned up in force from c.498 onwards.


"Paul, the Celts never occupied Ireland!"
Huh? No Celts in Ireland? No archaeological evidence? Are you mad? Look at the culture, google "Celtic Ireland", look at all the Celtic crosses around the place, look at the wiki entry for Celt!
"How could the British be Saxonised by Vikings???"
I quote the wiki article on Anglo-Saxons: "Prior to King Alfred there had been the Hiberno-Saxon culture (the fusion of Anglo-Saxon and Celtic techniques and motifs) which had ceased with the Vikings." The Saxon culture quickly became dominant among the 'natives' as a result of the Viking raids.
"Paul, frankly this sounds disturbingly racist." Re-read the statement. It is not even remotely racist. In fact, it is even politically correct.
"the English were, up to c.1066, mainly of British and Anglo-Saxon descent" I am talking about present-day English, not those from 1066. There was no "British" people in 1066. You are correct in mentioning Anglo-Saxon. Indeed I said as much earlier in the post.
"Actually there is. Check out...." I concede that point.
"The Picts were in what we now call Scotland long before the Scotti turned up in force from c.498 onwards." That isn't what I argued. I argued that the Scotish people are descended from Picts and that the Picts may well have had Irish roots.
Icegunner 21:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Eireann, Eire, Ireland (see above)

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

Apparently the name is derived from a people known to the Greeks as the Iverni and to themselves as Érainn. They took their name from their ancestor Goddess or tribal deity, Ériu. They were spread all over the coastal regions of what is now Munster, and further inland. Regional nations (i.e., the Kingdom of Osraige, dynastys (i.e., Éoganacht and lower-class groups or peoples (Attacotti, the Dessi) were either known to be or most probably of Érainn descent.

As these were the peoples Greek and later Roman merchants came in contact with in the centuries B.C., their name came to be applied to the whole island. Fergananim 21:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Éireann is the genitive case of Éire. So Éireann means of Ireland and Éire means Ireland. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Ireland/Archive_3&oldid=1137121732"