Talk:Defence Forces (Ireland)

message: "The Air Corps' two maritime patrol aircraft are equipped with state of the art detection systems and assist the Naval Service in policing Irish territorial waters."What kind of aircraft are these? Could someone who knows add it in - Wardhog 21:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably the author is refering to the two CASA CN-235 - see Irish Air Corps#Aircraft Pdfpdf 00:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (BTW: It is customary to use that "+" tab at the top of the page and add new postings to the bottom of the page.)
This probley has nothing to do with it but im 14 and want to go spetial forces but i have to go through defence forces first what age can i start
 Clayton cuffe (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Aircraft

message: I removed this from the text: 
The Republic of Ireland is not a member of NATO and, under Irish law, the Defence Forces cannot participated in any foreign intervention without a specific United Nations mandate.
Because the list of troop deployment at the Irish Defense Force page includes several non-UN missions. Do these missions like Kfor and Sfor have some kind of UN "mandate"? Rmhermen 21:16, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
:The quote can't be right, as the referenced website clearly says that Irish forces are deployed on EU and OSCE missions as well as UN ones. Arwel 20:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NATO

message: What is the explanation of the letters FF on the Irish Defence Forces' badge? Do they perhaps stand for the Fianna Fáil / Soldiers of Destiny of the opening words of the national anthem (as opposed to Fianna Fáil the political party, that is)? -- Picapica 14:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that [Fál = Ireland] is what I learned at school.  --Red King 01:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *I will repost here what I posted on the discussion of the meaning of Fianna Fáil on the article about the political party.
':*In no way, at all, in the Irish language does Fianna Fáil mean 'Soldiers of Destiny'.  The confusion arises from the Latin name for the Lia Fáil - Saxum Fatale (Stone of Destiny), given to it by Hector Boece in his History of the Scottish People (at least Keating credits him with the neologism). Fál itself comes from the name of a city in the Northern Isles the Tuatha Dé Danann visited and from whence they brought back the stone.   Because the stone granted kingship, one of the names they gave to Ireland was Inis Fáil, and through this Fál became a (largely poetic) name for Ireland.  Fianna Fáil is the only example of Fál ever being translated to mean 'destiny', although I am unclear about when exactly this came into common usage - whether it was an original error of translation; whether it was a mistake that was allowed to gain currency for political expediency; or whether it was a deliberate mistranslation.' Cripipper 20:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IDF badge 

message: In reading the Article I see it never says anywhere what the Actual overall Number of Men/Women in the Defence forces is. It gives 8,500 for the Army (and is that with or without reserves?) but no info on the other branches and no overall figure.
I've heard varying figures over the years, I think an Army Recruiter guy once told me the overall number was 12,500, but I also read in some Encyclopaedia years ago that it was over 30,000 (Including reserves, if I remember correctly).
Also, the Army article is very bare, it needs some considerable improvement.Hibernian :10-11-05
I was think of add figures for each one as well as more information on there operations that If found on military.ie YeBoiThrillhouse (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall Manpower 

message: Military Intelligence dont appear to be mentioned but they have theyre own page at G2 (currently blank), nor are the Ranger Wing.  I might add some historical stuff from WW2 to the G2 page if thats ok. Thanks Fluffy999 01:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: G2 & G3 & Ranger Wing

message: The CIA world fact book   has more recent military manpower figures for Ireland, however their new figures are in a slightly different age range from the old ones (17 to 49, instead of 15 to 49).
So will I add in these new figures? (Which are slightly smaller than the current ones).--Hibernian 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do! Guliolopez 12:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Statistics figures? 

message: :Image:Óglaigh na hÉireann.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Óglaigh na hÉireann.jpg

message: These are completely meaningless, as lots of 17-49 year olds would be no use and there is no conscription.Red Hurley (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Availability" numbers

message: Hi. This is the English language Wikipedia. In the English language, the common name for the subject is the Irish Defence Forces. Can someone move this back? The recent move goes against WP:COMMONNAME and - even if it wasn't - the spelling is more than wrong, it's "silly". (Irish Dence forces? Is this meant to be a joke?)Guliolopez (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of spelling issue, I moved back myself. Even with the spelling issue, I don't think the new title that was applied is appropriate. Under WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia should reflect the "most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things", or (put more simply) "What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?". The simple fact is that (in English), a user is very  unlikely to type in "Óglaigh na hÉireann OPENBRACKET Irish Defence Forces CLOSEBRACKET". When using English, even the Defence Forces themselves use simply "the Defence Forces". See Official Defence Forces website. So the article should be at either "the Defence Forces of Ireland", or "Irish Defence Forces". Convention would give preference to the latter (current) title. Guliolopez (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem about spelling error. Could happen to anyone. With regard to the force's title however, while the official title may be "Óglaigh na hÉireann", the common name isn't. It's "the Defence Forces", or "the Irish Defence Forces". (It's what you'll hear on the street, on the news, in the Dáil during debates/etc and even in government bills.) Even the original bill referred to them as "the Forces". The COMMONNAME guidelines would therefore expect that we use this as the title. The changes you've made to the intro correctly reflect the official name usage, but (on the English project at least) the title is probably best as it is. Guliolopez (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Official name of the force is 'Óglaigh na hÉireann'...just as the Constitution is Bunreacht na hÉireann or the Parliament is 'Dáil Éireann' etc.
It may be that other names occur in common English usage, if this is the case ( bye the way I agree that it is!) then surely the official and the unofficial name should be used. The Garda is commonly called 'The Police' in the English media. In Dublin, I frequently hear people talking about the police...they are referring to 'Na Gardaí' not to the 'PSNI' or other police forces. The Irish police service is  recorded as 'Garda Síochána na hÉireann' in 'English Wiki'.
Notably not as the 'Guards' or the 'Irish Police' yet given that this is commonly heard why is the COMMONNAME guidelines not put to use! How is 'common usage measured? Many unofficial terms are used for 'Óglaigh na hÉíreann'. In Newry, where I live, if one speaks about 'the army', invariably the listner understands that one is speaking about the IRA not the British Army or any other armed force! 
The official name of the State is 'Éire' or in English 'Ireland', yet most English media sources use 'The Republic' or 'The South (the BBC uses 'The Irish Republic' most frequently). In the French Wiki we have 'Irlande (pays)', in German Wiki we have 'Irland', in Spanish Wiki we get  'Irlanda', but in English Wiki we get 'Republic of Ireland'. Why does English Wiki have difficulty with the official names of things Irish?Eog1916 (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

text: For the same reason that the Polish Armed Forces are at Polish Armed Forces, rather than Siły Zbrojne Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Because this is the English language project, and users invariably will look and expect to find the article at the English commonname. (FYI. I don't think that the Gardaí example is comparable because it is a cross-over word that is used in English. IE: The commonname in general English conversation is "Garda". See: Irish words used in the English language.) Guliolopez (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - Given that there have been no comments/rebuttals on the fact that (in English) the common and officially used name is "the Irish Defence Forces", I am going to move this article back again. Guliolopez (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent move

message: I notice this morning that (without much consideration to the discussion above) this article has been moved again. As noted above, the COMMONNAME of the subject is "The Defence Forces". And, in fact, the "official name" IN ENGLISH is also "the Defence Forces". Hence this rename isn't really correct. By way of support/evidence of the "the official name in English is the Defence Forces", I would point to the fact that the official website of the forces (in English) at military.ie use "the Defence Forces" and "the Irish Defence Forces". (In fact - possibly a case of "shame on them" - but there is no mention whatsoever of the official name in Irish on military.ie on the homepage or about sections). Similarly, the Department of Defence website also uses the "Defence Forces" and "Irish Defence Forces". In terms of COMMONNAME, the common name used (in the press and such) is also "the Irish Defence Forces". (See press examples, etc). It is true to say that the official name IN IRISH is "Óglaigh na hÉireann", but this is the English language project. Guliolopez (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - Given that there have been no comments/rebuttals on the fact that (in English) the common and officially used name is "the Irish Defence Forces", I am going to move this article back again. Guliolopez (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisited

message: There are a few references in the article as follows:
    * Army Reserve (formerly An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil)
    * Naval Service Reserve (formerly An Slua Muirí)
Should these statements really use "formerly" (ie meaning "previously known as", or should they use "formally" (ie "officially known as")?  I'm afraid I don't know enough about the subject to judge whether they've been renamed or whether its a spelling mistake. --The Thieving Gypsy (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current text is correct. They were both "previously known" by those names. Their current official (formal) names are the AR and NSR. The "old" names were officially dropped in the RDF in 2005. (They they are still sometimes referred to by their "old" labels). Guliolopez (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Formerly or formally?

message: The name of this article has recently been changed, contrary to WP:NC in my view. Can we have the opinions of other editors please? RashersTierney (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Defence Acts 1954 to 1998 provide that "It shall be lawful for the Government to raise, train, equip, arm, pay and maintain defence forces to be called and known as Óglaigh na hÉireann or (in English) the Defence Forces." Usage on the official website also prefers the term "Defence Forces" as a title. Similar naming formulae (ie not adding the word "Irish" in front of the name, and using "Ireland" within brackets where disambiguation is needed) are used at Naval Service Reserve and Army Reserve (Ireland). --Kwekubo (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi guys. I happen to think that the previous article title was a closer fit to WP:COMMONNAME. I understand Kwekubo's comment on the "official name", but the term "Irish Defence Forces" is actually used quite broadly within the forces themselves. And beyond. If one starts with a Google Search we note that the official site actually DOES use the term "Irish Defence Forces" - it's there in the title. In the same results it's notable that organisations within the forces also use the term - note: "Irish Defence Forces Orienteering Club" whose goal is to promote "the sport of orienteering throughout the Irish Defence Forces". Similarly, if we take a look at the Department of Defence website, we note a definition for the forces: "The Irish Defence Forces consist of the Permanent Defence Force (PDF) and the Reserve Defence Force (RDF)". Anyway, long story short, the term "Irish Defence Forces" provides a more natural DAB term (that is in common use) and should therefore probably be the title. In my opinion at any rate. Guliolopez (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of the article

message: Whatever about the "parens V prefix" discussion, this article should not be moved (as it was today) to any variant which uses the US "Defense" spelling. Using the US spelling is significantly problematic in terms of the COMMONNAME and ENGVAR guidelines. Unless a specific case can be made for using the US spelling (and I can't imagine what that could be), the "Defence" spelling should be used in this article.Guliolopez (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ENGVAR

message: A note of explanation on a wholescale rollback just completed. While reviewing recent additions (by User:MFIreland) I noted that a very high percentage (and possibly all) of content (recently added to replace the previous history/role sections) was totally "copied and pasted" from the Defence Forces website. Namely:
* The detail on the Council of Defence was a verbatim copy and paste from here
* The detail on organisation was a verbatim copy and paste from here
* The detail on history was a verbatim copy and paste from here
* The detail on roles/etc was a verbatim copy and paste from here
* Etc. Etc.
While primary sources are a useful starting point for sourcing data, we cannot just copy and paste that content DIRECTLY into articles in that fashion. Guliolopez (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollback 

message: I have updated the history section.
If there is any snags with it please dont just undo it all just let me know and I will edit it.MFIreland (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The link for Colonel Daniel Bryan redirects to the article on Bryan Danielson, the wrestler. Someone please correct this. 109.78.69.30 (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, if this is where you mean. RashersTierney (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: Edits today have effectively copy and pasted large swathes of the Irish Army article to this topic. This would seem to be a massively redundant fork, and (save for the overlap between the development and history of the army, and the forces as a whole) I can see no justification for it. Lack of edit summaries make it impossible to see a rationale for these changes. Seems quite redundant to me and not in keeping with the the standard "summary style" MOS guideline. Certainly the history of the army and the history of the broader forces are intertwined, but dealing with this is typically achieved by adding a summary and using a linking template like :Template:Main - per WP:SS. Can anyone see a need/justification for this kind of copy/paste - over the standard SS approach? Guliolopez (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Any thoughts on this? If nothing forthcoming, I'll likely summarise the relevant sections per the WP:SS/MOS guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. And doubly so about the lack of edit summaries. RashersTierney (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. It seems that there are no issues that would preclude us applying the WP:SS/MOS guidelines, so I'm going to go ahead and summarise as discussed. Guliolopez (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy and paste fork instead of following SS guidelines? 

message: Unless anyone has a better idea (and given the accuracy/duplication problems), I think we should move the "List of bases" to it's own list article. Perhaps similar to List of French Air Force aircraft squadrons or List of United States Marine Corps installations. In it's current form, the "list of bases" is not particularly useful, and, if it remains as a sub-set of this article, I can't see it taking a useful form. Perhaps if it is moved to its own article, it could be "split" into sub-sections listing the Army, Naval Service, and Air Corps installations....? Guliolopez (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of bases 

message: I tried to edit the incorrect title on the table.
The president was listed as Commander-in-Chief, however the constitution states that the president in the Supreme Commander. I tried changing this however it won't post. Would appreciate if someone more experienced could fix this error.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GavRad (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Guliolopez (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  President as Supreme Commander 

message: As I wrote above some years ago, the numbers of young men "available" or "fit for service" is nonsense. There is no conscription nor proposals for it, and it would be very unpopular.Red Hurley (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I follow. Are you objecting to some particular line in the article? RashersTierney (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Ah. OK. In ref to your earlier removal of some unnecessary infobox parameters. Seems reasonable. RashersTierney (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Availability numbers (again...)

message: I have amended the role section to reflect that the defence forces are responsible for state security from external threats. They have no remit either alone or with AGS against internal threats. Ags are solely responsible for internal security  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.5.227 (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiya. It's interesting that you say that, because the Defence Forces website explicitly states that there is a role in this regard. See the "what we do" section. (Also refer to the Department of Defence White Paper Section 3.3) Do you think this is incorrect? Why? Guliolopez (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role 

message: Please do not add threaded replies to the survey section. Use the discussion section below.
*Support: Óglaigh na hÉireann is how "the Defence Forces are officially styled by the Army itself", but Fórsaí Cosanta is also frequently used, not only in general but in statutory legislation and in the Constituion of Ireland. The current edit gives both versions, with references, and with a footnote explaining the unusual situation. This is encyclopaedic content, of interest to the reader, and I can see no reason to remove it. Scolaire (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, mordern encyclopedia uses modern terms, and up-to-date references, both OnhE and FC are in use today. Murry1975 (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Support There is sufficient official use of "Fórsa Cosanta" to refer to the armed forces. The third image on this page managed to change my opinion on this. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 17:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Defence Forces (Ireland). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126060051/http://military.ie/naval/roles/index.htm to http://military.ie/naval/roles/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A number of copy edits to change the remove "the Republic Of" from the reference to Ireland have been reverted recently.
I'd like to discuss here why WP:IRE-IRL is not seen as being valid here? Cashew.wheel (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: With your edits you suggest that the army is active on the whole island, what is clearly not the case. So for clarity reasons, the reverts are correct. The Banner talk 13:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no suggestion that the Defence Forces are active across the entire island of Ireland, my edit clearly states that they are the armed forces of Ireland, the country. There is no reference to Northern Ireland or the island of Ireland. Cashew.wheel (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You changed the link into "Ireland" as visible part. This can be mistaken as the island and so it lacks clarity. The Banner talk 12:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference To Ireland In Opening Paragraph