Talk:Irish Republic

message: I am still unhappy with the lead stating ".... declared its independence from Great Britain."  It is confusing. It would make sense if it read "....declared Ireland independent of the United Kingdom."... which is what it was did.
Although the UK government DOES use the term Great Britain. It is used to mean England and Wales and Scotland (i.e. the UK minus Northern Ireland, or the UK minus Ireland when ALL Ireland was within the UK). For example the GB driving licence is issued to those living in England and Wales or Scotland. Northern Ireland has a seperate vehicle and driver licencing authority.
Historically, before the union of 1801, the parliament of Ireland was subordinate to the parliament of Great Britain. And before the union of England and Scotland the parliament of Ireland was subordinate to the parliament England. In 1919 all Ireland was part of the UK.
Great Britain is often used wrongly to mean the UK. Sometimes it is used as an abbreviation for the UK. Whatever its meaning is supposed to be in this article it looks like an error. To those who don't know the history of Ireland they may think that Great Britain officially "ruled" Ireland. Some people feel that "England" ruled Ireland even after 1801 when the union was formed but this was not official. AlwynJPie (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Produce a reliable source saying something similar to what you want to say and then we can look at that. All the rest of what you are saying is WP:OR. Dmcq (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is one sourse: http://alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html AlwynJPie (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say anything like what you want the article to say. Find something like for instance  which talks about '... whose first session marked the 1919 start of the War of Independence against Britain'. Surely you can match that fairly low bar at least? Dmcq (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Its the way it reads that I am unhappy about. AlwynJPie (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Read this section and the section before. It has been explained to you several times why "Great Britain" is right. Please stop your disruptive editing flogging dead horses on the talk page now.  Scolaire (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

text: AlwynJPie, I agree entirely. "Great Britain" is an island adjacent to Ireland. This article is about a revolutionary state that fought for independence against the United Kingdom—a state that spanned Great Britain, Ireland, and a number of other islands. It might not be strictly wrong to refer to "Great Britain", but it certainly is unnecessary and misleading. It's also obvious POV use of terminology. "Britain" would be a fair neutral compromise, and probably my preference. There is only currently one source for "Great Britain", but I doubt it would be difficult to find reliable sources for "Britain" or "United Kingdom" since they are both equally, if not more correct. I don't really have the time right now but maybe you can have a look? Then a RFC can probably get a satisfactory consensus on the issue. Else I might have a look when I don't have a dissertation AND a software dev project to finish (although this isn't very high up on my list of crap to sort out on Wikipedia). Rob984 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't sources for United Kingdom. It isn't even as if it was a minority opinion in the sources. That's the problem for what AlwynJPie keeps pushing here. I agree Britain would be better than Great Britain and is supported by the sources so I'll try that. Dmcq (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks Rob. Being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is used by people of all levels of knowledge so we have to be careful how we word things. I wouldn't mind so much if Great Britain was in quotes or highlighted with a link to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; or even if independent of Westminster or even London was used instead. But left bare with nothing but a reference to a source, it implies that Ireland was under the control of the larger island, which may well have been the case, some may argue, but this was NOT the legal status of Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you stop doing changes against what the sources say and against consensus. Your 'logic' is not enough to do things differently in Wikipedia against consensus and sources. Please topic ban yourself as you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to get your own opinions into articles about Ireland. You are being disruptive. Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independence from GB instead of UK 

message: Just to note that  edit of early this morning ("Simplified lead") was in fact a revert to the first paragraph of the version of August 2006. If this is AlWynJPie's idea of improving the article, then I think we need to look at WP:Competence is required and ask ourselves whether he should be editing at all.  Scolaire (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that was plain disruptive editing and not acceptable. I think they can either choose to acknowledge this as a mistake, or otherwise be reported at WP:AN/I. Rob984 (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

text: I'd be happy if they could just learn to WP:Drop the stick after discussing something on the talk page and finding that the consensus there is against what they want to do. There's better things to spend one's life on than arguing with other editors. It isn't as if the matters brought up are even cases of trying to right great wrongs which is the usual case for people going on like that. Dmcq (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: All the edits I have done have been to improve articles. The lead in this article had become a misleading mess; the lead that I changed to was clear and concise and accurate; the way it is supposed to be. And because 24 April will mark 100 years since the start of the Easter Rebellion, this subject is currenly popular and many students' first port of call is Wikipedia when accessing online information. AlwynJPie (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Talk:Irish Free State#Lead. This guy learned everything he thinks he knows from Wikipedia articles. He can't grasp the fact that for all those years the articles he treated as gospel were wrong, and instead of accepting the correct version he wants to take us back to the incorrect one.  Scolaire (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messing with the lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish Republic. 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/20071119184338/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191901210004.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191901210004.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At least on my computer, the Infobox Footnotes are not displaying properly. In other words, when my cursor hovers over superscripts a, b, or c (beside Brugha, Griffith and Cosgrave), no window appears as I would have expected, and I have to go looking for the footnotes. A quickish solution would be to replace them with ordinary footnotes which would then appear as n 1, n 2, n 3 (or nb 1, nb 2, nb 3, etc). However this may be a problem with my computer (its operating system is Windows XP, which is obsolete), or with the way the footnote_a, footnote_b, and footnote_c fields in the infobox have been implemented in this instance, or with how such footnotes are implemented everywhere. And there may be other reasons why a, b, c is preferred to n 1, n 2, n 3. So I'd like to give a little time to get some possible feedback before deciding whether or not to try the above-mentioned quickish solution. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnotes are not linked, they're just letters in superscript, with the footnotes written at the bottom of the infobox. At any rate, they are far too detailed to be in the infobox, which is only meant to be a quick summary. I'm going to zap them.  Scolaire (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Footnotes not displaying properly 

message: The article claims in the lead that the Irish Republic proclaimed in 1916 was somehow different to the subject of this article. This simply isn't the case. In the eyes of republicans, 1916 announced the Irish Republic and 1919 established its parliamentary and other institutions de facto. The Irish Republic was just without a government from its physical extermination by the Empire in 1916 until the sitting of the First Dáil in 1919. This isn't that usual, Belgium recently went 589 days without a government, but Belgium was still a thing. To give a modern comparison; the British public have just voted to exit the EU, Brexit has been "proclaimed" by the British government, but it has not yet fully brought about its de facto separation from the EU itself. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a very recent addition, and the only edit ever by that user. I have reverted.  Scolaire (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing wording in the lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Irish Republic. 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/20110609123341/http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/DT/D.F.C.192008060089.html to http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/DT/D.F.C.192008060089.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070502072425/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/en.toc.D.F.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/en.toc.D.F.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish Republic. 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/20110606104829/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.S.192205190004.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.S.192205190004.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified