Talk:1918 United Kingdom general election in Ireland

message: What is the source for this claim about the placing of a gun to an electoral officers head and the discovery of new ballots? Also, where did it happen?--John Carroll 11:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Note One

message: :Sinn Féin treated the result as a mandate from the Irish people to immediately set about establishing an independent, all-Ireland state, and to initiate an undeclared war of separation from Great Britain. 
This isn't really true, is it? My understanding was that the media and the government incorrectly blamed SF for the militancy? Is the article being too simplistic in believing that SF and 'physical force republicanism' were one and the same? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  12:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mandate for war? 

message: Please stop adding Elections in Independent Ireland category to this page and to Irish general election 1921 page. Yes, Irish independence was proclaimed in 1916 and was declared by the 1st Dáil in January 1919 but that does not make it a reality. The Irish Republic states it existed from 1919 to 1922. The 1918 election was a UK one, run by the British government, how is this an election in an Independent Ireland? If a county is independent then it can run its own elections as the Free State government did in 1922. Also what about the people in Ireland who didn't recognise the Irish Republic and thought they were continuing to live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Another thing, the Irish War of Independence started in January 1919 (and ended in 1921), so how could an election in December 1918 be held in an Independent Ireland?
But rather than get into a revert war and discussions on when Ireland became independent, I think the categories should be re-organised.
The current structure is:
 Elections by country 
   [+] Elections in Ireland 
   [+] Elections in the Republic of Ireland 
       [+] Elections in independent Ireland 
A better arrangement would be:
 Elections by country 
   [+] Elections in Ireland (all elections up to and including 1921)
       [+] Elections in independent Ireland (all elections from 1922 to 1948)
       [+] Elections in the Republic of Ireland (all elections from 1949)
It's not perfect, but the 1918 and 1921 elections would then reside in the Elections in Ireland only, conveniently, side stepping any potential POV issues like actual date of Independence. There are other issues like presidential elections, the first 2 are in independent Ireland, the rest in RoI category, not exactly ideal, they should surely be in the same category. The difficulty is in trying to come up with categories for the following periods of history:
*British rule, until 1916/1919/1922 (take your pick!)
*Irish Republic, 1919-1922
*Irish Free State, 1922-1937
*Ireland/Éire, 1937-1948
*Republic of Ireland, 1949-
All suggestions welcome! Snappy56 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we using British electorial history or are we using Irish Electoral History, Independence was declared in 1916, reconfirmed by the First Dáil Éireann after the 1918 General election, trying looking at the Dail database.--padraig 21:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the "Elections in Ireland" template, categories and similar items should include Northern Ireland elections (and UK & EU elections in Northern Ireland). Then we could, without distortion, have a smoother series starting with or before Grattan's Parliament, continuing with elections in Ireland under the Union of 1801-1922, and covering all the elections on the island of Ireland without having to make judgements about the legitimacy, coverage or jurisdiction of the individual bodies or referendum decisions they produced. See for comparison the templates for constituencies in individual Irish (including Northern Irish) counties and for elections from Irish universities. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Elections in Independent Ireland category

message: This article is currently titled Irish (UK) general election, 1918. I can see a reason for the  parenthesised "UK", since the election was organised as an election to the UK Parliament, but it's superfluous because there was no other general election in Ireland that year.
So I propose that the article should be moved to Irish general election, 1918, which is currently a redirect to Irish (UK) general election, 1918. Any objections? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that move as the 1918 election was the first election to Dáil Éireann.--padraig 11:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No thank you, as disruptive trolls do not get to dictate that policies to not apply to their edits. O Fenian (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text: During your lengthy time as a disruptive troll, you have received countless warnings about unsourced content. I suggest you take heed of them .O Fenian (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Your current additions are original research. I have also checked Laffan, and your edits are unacceptable. Please provide quotes and page numbers to substantiate any changes you wish to make prior to making them. O Fenian (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: That does not source the changes you have made, and it is not from Laffan. You allege Laffan supports the changes you made, either provide quotes from Laffan or it will be assumed you are falsifying sources and further action taking accordingly. O Fenian (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: This article should be merged with the United Kingdom general election, 1918 article. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you thought it through? There is no possible way this article should be merged with that one. O Fenian (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is before 1922, the entire Ireland sent MPs to the UK Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? Try reading the article you are suggesting merging to. O Fenian (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At least we can link the articles. Though I still think they should be merged. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Link the articles? And you are honestly suggesting merging a 32K article into a 19K article, considering a large part of the latter is tables? That would cause the main article to be grossly unbalanced and needing to be split, which would lead us right back to having two articles. O Fenian (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It already has 'links' to the related article-in-question. Therefore, it's alright. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles. Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment simply per the reasoning of someone else is an arguement that should be avoided according to one Wiki policy whichever one it was. 
*Support Name of article implies there was a seperate independant Irish general election despite the fact it was part of the UK and that it was a UK general election. If this article is to focus on the election in regards to Ireland then the proposed new title is more along the lines of something more relevant. Mabuska (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :The current title is not unsupportable, as noted in the discussion above. --Domer48'fenian' 13:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose, though what we are dealing with here is the "1918 general election" or "general election of 1918", (insofar as it took place) in Ireland; so I would slightly prefer not to put the year right at the end, separated from the words "general election". But your suggestion is still an improvement over the current title.--Kotniski (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

text: By that logic, any title would be fine.  But this title is obviously not fine, since it misleads as to the facts.--Kotniski (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bizarre comment!  Any title would not be fine. The current one is, per the reasoning in the previous move discussion.  Scolaire (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Even looking at the above discussion, I'm not seeing any justification for using the present title, just dissatisfaction with the idea of including "United Kingdom" in the title, which I agree is unnecessary. The fact is that this is not the article about an "Irish general election", just the Irish part of a general election, so I don't see how anyone can reasonably want to keep the present title.--Kotniski (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you can see or not, reasonable people want to keep the present title. Each of us has stated our reasons; if you can't understand them it's not our problem. I count seven times now that you have said the same thing, as though by endless repetition you could convince people of the truth of your argument. You won't. You need to step back and allow others to have their say.  Scolaire (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be delighted if others would have their say; but all they seem to be saying is "I like the present title" without responding to the very serious objection to it that I presume we can all see. Can you finally tell us what is the justification for a serious encyclopedia's referring as an "Irish general election" to something that was not a general election, but only part of one? If some actual arguments were advanced, I might be persuaded.--Kotniski (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But the purpose of an RM is not to persuade you, Kotniski. The purpose of an RM is to seek consensus for a move. As of now that consensus seems to be wanting. Neither you nor anybody else has the authority to move an article simply because you aren't persuaded by the arguments against, or to demand that a !vote or a response includes the answers to specific questions.  Scolaire (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take it from that response that you have no arguments. I conclude there is probably some PoV motivation behind keeping the inaccurate title. I know from experience that we encyclopedia-building geeks can never win against the forces of nationalist fervour, so I hereby give up.--Kotniski (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you would conclude that, since it is always the knee-jerk reaction of "encyclopedia-building geeks" who have there own PoV disputed. Now, if you were to post on my talk page in a friendly way, and ask me as a personal favour to help you understand the logic of the article title, I might do so. My objection is only to being told, by a geek or any other person, that my contribution to a discussion is unacceptable and I must do better.  Scolaire (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Providing the arguments that support your position is considered an optional favour? This really is a bizarre new idea.--Kotniski (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Declining to respond to strident demands from one individual. Not exactly novel.  Scolaire (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm not going to respond any more. The closing admin ought to ignore all these devoid-of-argument "opposes", but I suspect they won't, so once again, you win. --Kotniski (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it as a "win". It is only you who have talked in such combative terms.  Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Just thought that I would put a word in edgeways here. There is no consensus for the current title at all, that much was established in the previous discussion. What that discussion however did glean was that the change I was making was not considered by many users to be an improvement and therefore to them it was worthless to change from one bad title to another. The closing admin of the last discussion actually called for a new discussion on finding an alternative name which had both consensus and was accurate, to claim otherwise is a falsehood and a perversion of the facts. Shatter Resistance (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The is no consensus to change the title and that was established in the previous request. That is all that was established. --Domer48'fenian' 14:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And so far there is no consensus to change the title in this request either. Domer, Mo Ainm and myself joined the new discussion in good faith. Shatter Resistance did not, until now. To talk of "a falsehood and a perversion of the facts" is uncivil. It should be withdrawn.  Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I have participated in this discussion, look near the top. And there was a request by closing admin in the clising comments that they saw a considerable support for the current proposal but would like to see a full discussion to establish whether it achieved enough support for consensus. To deny that is a faslehood and I won't deny it or withdraw my previous statement, if you want I will even directly quote the closing admin to prove it. Shatter Resistance (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. I have struck it. However, since you obviously knew it was a mistake (or you wouldn't have directed me to look near the top), calling it a "falsehood" is a second personal attack. You needn't directly quote the closing admin. He said that there may be more support for "1918 general election in Ireland", but he would like to see a focused discussion on the merits of that title before moving the page. I won't accuse you of falsehood or perversion, but I think that you may have misread his summary as saying that there was "considerable" support or that the current title had no consensus. I think you ought to withdraw your personal attacks now rather than dig a deeper hole for yourself.  Scolaire (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The restrictions template clearly states:
All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. 
Please stop being disruptive.--Domer48'fenian' 19:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well okay, that is the criteria, thats nice, but why wasn't it there until you decided I was breaching 1RR? And more to the point I'm not convinced it does fall under that criteria (or more precisely, what is meant by the criteria, in a literal sense obviously it applies) as this is not an article which is focussing on Irish/British nationalism but rather who people voted for, whilst some of the parties involved were nationalist parties it doesn't automatically follow the article is protected under these guidelines. Shatter Resistance (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: SR, please! You're out of your depth. If you want to know what the criterion is, you need to read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. Specifically, it says, "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." Please try to understand: nobody's trying to hound you, but if you keep pretending you understand things when you don't, you are going to end up blocked for a long time. This is not a threat, it's a plea. You cannot win if you don't even know the name of the game!  Scolaire (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I placed the notice at 19.58 and informed you on your talk page at 20.02 to inform you of the sanctions and your violation of WP:1RR. You made your third revert at 20.03 and your fourth revert at 20.49. You are all out of excuses. You were made aware of it, you were repeatedly ask to self revert by a number of editors and you decided to ignore everyone. That is why you were reported! --Domer48'fenian' 19:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  resistriction template  

message: The articles last line states, “ The two major parties in the Republic of Ireland today, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, are both descendants of Sinn Féin, which first enjoyed substantial electoral success in 1918.” However, in the most recent Irish General election Sinn Féin received the most first-preference votes, and won 37 seats,(also in Northern Ireland’s most recent assembly election Sinn Féin became the largest party.) Up4grabsnow77 (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent election results 

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 1918 Irish general election →  – This article is about the portion of the 1918 UK general election which was held in Ireland, similar to December 1910 United Kingdom general election in Ireland. It was not an election to the Dáil Éireann like 1922 Irish general election, as the Dáil Éireann did not exist at the time of the election, but was formed in the aftermath of the election. So the current article title is incorrect. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Support, makes much more sense when considered with the other articles DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 May 2024