Talk:Oath of Allegiance (Ireland)

message: This page will at some point have to be renamed Irish Oath of Allegiance Andrew Yong 16:58, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

message: Thought some comment should be added and this historical formula mentioned in wikipedia.Stamboul 11:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crown in Ireland

message: There's an issue in the "Reaction" section with the outline of the anti-treaty campaigner's objections to the oath. Before 1931, it literally was to the British king that politicians gave their allegiance. After 1931, it wasn't, though the campaigners may still have perceived the monarch of the Irish Free State to be the British monarch. Maybe something like this would work: "The oath was widely condemned by the anti-treaty campaigners for requiring Irish politicians to give allegiance to the British king, who the campaigners continued to consider was monarch of the Irish Free State even after the enactment of the Statute of Westminster 1931." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better the way it is. DrKiernan (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it is misleads readers into believing the oath was always to the British monarch or it confuses readers by making a claim that doesn't align with information found in many places elsewhere on Wikipedia. That's not better than clarity and accuracy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with it. DrKiernan (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear or accurate to discuss events that happened five years later in the midst of a discussion about events five years before. Events should be presented in a logical chronological order to facilitate understanding. DrKiernan (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph doesn't speak of the end of what it's describing. It thus isn't just about a specific point in time "five years before", it reads as a description of feelings (against an oath to the British monarch) that arose at a point in time (the implementation of the oath) and continued thereafter; the implication from the rest of the article is it was until the issue triggering the feelings (the oath) disappeared. Hence, it's not contrary to chronology to mention a relevant change (the end of the British monarch's reign in the IFS) that took place between those two aforementioned moments. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction 

message: This article is heavily pov, essentially blaming Collins and the Irish for the Oath/fidelity idea. Yet, it doesn't answer the more obvious question of why an Oath of any sort was necessary and why the British were so insistent upon it given the clear Irish opposition to it during the Treaty negotiations (See, for instance, Childers to DeValera 21,10.1921 and Dev to Griffith, 25.10.1921). Can anybody answer why the British didn't just drop the idea/ why did they insist upon humiliating the Irish? 188.141.10.11 (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Why did British insist on it?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Oath of Allegiance (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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110721130127/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.T.192112190002.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.T.192112190002.html
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) 22:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified