Talk:The Republic of Ireland Act 1948

message: :The Statement The Irish Civil War had been fought in 1922–23 on the issue of whether independence without immediately becoming a Republic was acceptable is totaly incorrect, the Irish Civil War was fought over the issue of the oath of Allegience to the British Crown and nothing else.--Padraig3uk 14:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't that simple, Padraig. The Oath of Allegiance was a symbol used to epitomise divergent views on the Republic versus the Free State. It was also a phoney symbol. As the wording of the Oath showed it there was no "Oath of Allegiance to the British Crown". The Oath was actually "to the Irish Free State". The only mention of the King was a minor declaration of fidelity and even that was not by virtue of the British Crown but the King's role in the Treaty settlement. Republican leaders themselves admitted it was a sham argument. The real issue was not the oath. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no such Oath of Allegiance to the Crown.  That is complete fiction.  Read Anglo-Irish Treaty. --Red King (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It is 100% correct. Ireland is used as a diplomatic name. That is what is being dicussed in the paragraph. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain how it is "patently incorrect". Djegan 18:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oath of Allegiance 

message: A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp.  Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Poll:_Ireland_article_titles|Poll: Ireland article titles]] 

message: I've added a block that was previously in Éire#From Éire to the Republic of Ireland.  It clearly bvelongs here rather than there; but other problems of citations and style have been imported.  I've done a bit of tidying, but there's plenty more to do. jnestorius(talk) 18:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Éire merge 

message: I've decided to WP:Be bold and do a wholesale copyedit and cleanup, making a more logical presentation of the facts.  Comments welcome.
The "Background" and "Introduction" sections should not have been up front - the general reader is not remotely interested in them.  I have strong doubts as to whether they should stay at all.  They reek of WP:original research, wp:weasel wordimg and are seriously undercited.  They undermine the status of the rest of the article. My inclination is to move them here to the Talk page where maybe a future editor will clean them up.  Comments particularly welcome. --Red King (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections should definitely stay, though probably as a single section. The events surrounding the introduction of the bill are essential to understanding how Ireland became a republic in name again, without a revolution and with the assent of the British government.  You are right about the OR and weasel words - the whole thing is written in a style that is fairly typical of Ireland-related articles a few years ago: "Eamon de Valera had replied, "we are a republic",[5] having refused to say so before for eight years."  I would be inclined just to go through the sections and strip off anything that isn't plain fact.  What's left would be very short indeed, and would probably need some expanding e.g. a mention of the Free State constitution and the 1937 one.  That's my tuppence-ha'penny worth.  Scolaire (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  For example, I'd lose all the conjecture about Cosgrave's alleged fit of pique and say something like It is not clear what led to the Bill being drafted.  The cabinet papers do not explain and the memoirs of the two Cabinet Ministers to have writen about it contradict each other.  As the alleged indecision of the preceding Fianna Fáil years, again the hard evidence is very limited and again it reads as so much conjecture. --Red King (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  Good work on the lead, by the way.  It reads far better now.  Scolaire (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup - should the "Background" and "Introduction" sections remain as is? 

message: The "The King" subsection includes the following text:
:By doing so the Act abolished the last remaining functions of the King of Greatbritain, Ireland and the Domionions beyond the Seas, George VI, in relation to Ireland.
Why is "Greatbritain" spelt as one word? Was it referred to as such officially at that time? Loganberry (Talk) 19:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Greatbritain"? 

message: It reads King George, in turn, as "" accredited all Irish diplomats. so a word has been omitted. 2NG (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing word 

message: That  is so unlike Dev that not only does the statement need a 'citation needed' tag but - imo - it needs a dubious too. Astonishing claims need astonishing evidence. --Red King (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ref here. And another. What do you find so astonishing about the position? RashersTierney (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably worth noting (if I can dig out the references) that the post-London Declaration Commonwealth and role of the monarch is remarkably similar to DeV's proposals in the lead-up to the Anglo-Irish Treaty: that the King be declared the President (or some similar non-royal title) of an close association between the UK, Ireland, and whatever other nations wished to join. --Jfruh (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicholas Mansergh wrote extensively on the Ireland Commonwealth relationship, including de Valera's positions at different times. Plenty there to mull over, if inclined. RashersTierney (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claim that de Valera objected to leaving the Commonwealth and considered rejoining a few years later. 

message: The "Introduction of the bill" section is the result of this edit to the Éire article by Jtdirl in July 2003. It has been tagged since 2008, and no attempt has been made since then to source it. I propose to replace the whole thing with something on the lines of "Costello announced the bill in Ottawa, and it was introduced in the Dáil on such-a-date."  Scolaire (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The later comment about minute taking and whether Liam Cosgrave was up to it, is like debating if the moon is made of dusty cheese. Such a major decision would of course have been minuted! This - Given that Cosgrave had never kept minutes before, his minutes, at least early on in the government, proved to be only a limited record of government decisions. So whether the issue was never raised, was raised but undecided on, was subjected to a decision taken informally, or was subjected to a decision taken formally, remains obscure on the basis of the 1948 cabinet documentation.[14]. Noel Browne's view was obviously accurate.PatrickGuinness (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction of the bill 

message: Browsing Documents on Irish Foreign Policy, I found this 21 May 1937 letter from 
Handwritten letter from Joseph Walshe to John W. Dulanty (Free State High Commissioner in London):
:True he [the king]  does not occupy the same formal position as in the other States of the Commonwealth, but that does not detract one iota from the essential fact that he is King of Ireland and is definitely declared so to be by Act 58 of 1936 (12th December). The law can be changed at any time if the people desire it. But the position in South Africa is juridically precisely the same. Our President, however, has special powers of holding up Bills and should the Dáil suddenly take the revolutionary step of repealing 58 of 36 the Senate and the President would undoubtedly make sure that the issue would go to the people by way of referendum. The very fact that the King's position is specifically secured by an Act of Parliament makes it infinitely more secure than if it were secured by some external agency.
Did anyone propose an ordinary referendum in 1948? jnestorius(talk) 18:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting 1937 letter 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Move  Iveagh Gardens (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Republic of Ireland Act 1948 →  – This would arguably breach WP:THE, but I would propose it as being one of very few Irish statutes that explicitly includes the article with an initial capital in its short title, so presumably a conscious choice to reflect it being an act about "the Republic of Ireland". One other instance is The Courts of Justice Act 1924, which I might be open to moving, although as its constitutional significance isn't as great, a little less so. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 September 2021