Talk:United Ireland

message: Hey , could you explain further your comment about my short desc revision? My main goal is to shorten the number of characters to 40 or less, per WP:SHORTDESC, and I'm not sure what issue you had with the phrasing I introduced.--Cerebral726 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I imagine you are new to the subject. Why not read the article? Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the article. "Proposition to form Ireland into a single state" and "Proposition that all of Ireland should be a single sovereign state" are both phrases that imply Ireland is not currently a single sovereign state, so I'm unsure how your comment "According to some it already is" only applies to the shorter, closer to 40 character version. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

text: I don't follow the problem either. Neither sentence is totally satisfactory in its precision, but that is to be expected when trying to compress it toward 40 characters. The important point here, I assume, is whether the proposed shorter version is communicating essentially the same notion as the present longer version. Each reads identically to me as a proposition for one state to comprise the island of Ireland. The only notable word lost is "sovereign", but sovereignty is implicit in being a state, so I don't see how it affects the meaning of the sentence. --Scuoise (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a fairly large body of opinion that Ireland is already "a single state", & has been since 1916/18 etc. Since the readers of this article are disproportionately likely to hold this view, I see no reason to needlessly piss them off just for the dreadful WP:SHORTDESC.  "Proposition that all of Ireland should be a single sovereign state" does not prejudge this issue, but the other does. I can't agree each "reads identically ". Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand the reading of "Proposition that all of Ireland should be a single sovereign state" as meaning Ireland already IS a single sovereign state except in the most contrived of interpretations. Regardless, the lede specifically states "At present, the island is divided politically; [...] Ireland has been partitioned since May 1921[...]" and the short description should reflect this understanding of the current situation. I believe it already does (but needs to be shortened to meet WP:SHORTDESC), but even if you don't think it already meets that understanding, it is clear the article considers that Ireland is currently NOT a single sovereign state and "United Ireland" is the concept of forming it into one. Ireland clearly does not meet the definition at Sovereign state of " a political entity represented by one centralized government", so there is no need to leave the short description ambiguous just to not bother someone with a specific political leaning. --Cerebral726 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn!  Of course Ireland is not now "a single sovereign state" in reality, but quite a lot of people think it is in a notional, theoretical sort of way. What is the "ambiguity" at present? Don't you think "form" an odd choice of word?  Why should a short desc needlessly upset people with a "specific political leaning" when there is no need? Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think there is ambiguity, which is why I wanted to change it to the phrasing "Proposition to form Ireland into a single state" which to me is unambiguously synonymous but less wordy than "Proposition that all of Ireland should be a single sovereign state" . However, you seem to think the current form has a level of ambiguity that allows people who already believe Ireland is a "notional, theoretical" single state to be satisfied. I think that is not the case, and am looking to shorten it down to around 40 characters per WP:SHORTDESC. Do you have a suggestion that is better than "form", which does not strike me as odd. Perhaps "Proposition to merge Ireland into a single state"? --Cerebral726 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That is even more POV to old-school Nationalists. The advantage of the current wording is that it takes no position on whether Ireland currently is or is not a single state, which imo in a shortdesc is different from being "ambiguous". If any reader is puzzled by this, reading the first para of the article will soon set them straight. How many characters is it currently? Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused why you think the shortdesc should be neutral on the issue (though I still strongly disagree it is) while the article is not? The short desc should match the judgements of the article, which clearly is about a proposition to form Ireland into a single state, a state of being which is not currently the case. The current shortdesc is 66 characters, the proposed is 47 characters. What verb do you suggest better fits than "form"? We should avoid "unify" since it is part of the title. Perhaps "join" is sufficiently neutral. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken out "sovereign" as not really needed. There is now barely any length difference. A flat 40 char limit is just silly, & frankly you should be doing something useful with your editing time, rather than WP:SHORTDESC  stuff. The article is neutral - it has the space to be, and is written by people (not me) who understand the subject.  I think we have discussed this enough now. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it is appropriate for you to tell me how I should spend my editing time, it really is quite poor WP:ETIQUETTE and reads to me as condescending, even if that is not the intended tone. In hopes to wrap this up, a quick summary: my understanding of your argument is that you think the short desc is neutral in its stance on whether Ireland is a single or multiple states, a position I and  have disagreed with, and that this neutrality is an advantage.  My argument is that if that is true and the short desc can be read either way, than it should be edited to unambiguously take the position of the article, which is clear that Ireland is not a single state. If the short description can only be read that Ireland is not a single state, than the two proposed short descriptions are identical. I'm not sure which aspect you disagree with. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  short desc 

message: Or at least not necessarily so.  Irredentism is, according to Merriam-Webster (cited in the irredentism wikipedia article) defines irredentism as "a political principle or policy directed toward the incorporation of irredentas within the boundaries of their historically or ethnically related political unit".<<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irredentism>>  An irredenta is "a territory historically or ethnically related to one political unit but under the political control of another".<<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irredentas>> A key term here is "political unit;" it presupposes that irredentists hope to annex the irredenta to an existing political unit.  This may be true for some advocates of a United Ireland, but certainly not all.  Some concepts of a UI, such as Ó Brádaigh's Éire Nua, do not involve the annexation by the current Irish state but instead involve abolishing all current political entities on the island, including the Republic.  This is a revolutionary goal as opposed to an irredentist one, and although Ó Brádaigh is no longer a leading republican the presence of such ideas in the movement past and present mean that it is dishonest to classify the very idea of a United Ireland as "Irredentist." 173.15.152.245 (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, if you would categorize such concepts as mentioned above as irredentist simply because they involve transferring territory from one state to another not-yet-existent polity then you would have to accept that Kurdish nationalism is irredentism (and, by the logic of the recent editors of this page, mention so in the first line) as a Kurdish state would necessarily have to absorb territory from at least one of four non-Kurdish existing states. 173.15.152.245 (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Irredentism 

message: I'm going to add a heading/sub-heading on constitutional discussion including references to Ireland's future aince there is no real mentions of potential contituional arrangements and/or discssion. Is this agreeable? ThanksTitus Gold (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitutional proposals and "Ireland's future"