Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Snowded (talk | contribs) at 16:17, 13 March 2009 (For Gods sake there is a massive signpost at the top of the talk page and an active working group). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:IECOLL-talk

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Irish republicanism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:V0.5

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

The King of Ireland?

Getting a completely solid source on this one might be difficult and the whole constitutional order 1937-1949 is shrouded in confusion, but the Treaty gave Ireland the same constitution status as Canada. At that time the head of state in Canada was the "King of Canada" and now the head of state is the "Queen of Canada". It stands to reason that the pre-1937 Irish head of state was the "King of Ireland". Whatever the position of the King post-1937, the title presumably remained until we became a Republic in 1949. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's correct. --Cameron* 13:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Something very similar was discussed here and Mooretwin did an excellent job in explaining the situation. --HighKing (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

ireland is famous for a four leafed clover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.106.3 (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is some reference on Wikipidia in the lineage of English and Scottish monarchy but I cannot recall the changes correctly in title, the dates or, being so many unconnected articles on the matter, can I find which articles those references are on (I have recoursed the English monarchy and nothing although lineage goes right back to the Celts). I reverted a change of King of Ireland but the main reason for my revert was a large and dubious edit(NPOV). It saddens me maybe that there be no provincial kings on the Ireland article, that this article provide the link to the island of Ireland rather than the island of Ireland and that the article Politics of the Republic of Ireland give no link at all to the islands article. With so much editing over the years, hardly are these symptoms of leading a person in general to be well informed. There is a lot of accurate information but it's not all connected up at the minute. ~ R.T.G 15:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The King's title in the Irish Free State (1922-37) and in Ireland (1937-49) was exactly the same as it was elsewhere in the British Empire, being

• From 1922–1927 - By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India

• 1927–1937 - By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India

The reason the King's title changed in 1927 was because the term "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" had been superseded by the establishment of the Irish Free State and the renaming of the UK as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Rather than draw attention to the partition of Ireland, the Kings title simply referred to Great Britain and Ireland. This change did not mean the King adopted different Crowns in his different realms - That development was did not formally occur until 1953 (see also other British monarch articles regarding styles and titles). The King's title in the Irish Free State/Ireland was never simply "King of Ireland". (nor was the King incidentally simply King of Canada during those periods - these separate styles weree later developments). Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

NATO

What support is there for the statement that Ireland's neutrality is the reason that Ireland is not a member of NATO?? Wgh001 (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but I always thought that it why that is the case. Reading the Irish Neutrality page now it is clear not joining NATO is due to Ireland's neutrality and no other political reason.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What section of the Irish Neutrality page makes it clear not joining NATO is due to Ireland's neutrality and no other political reason?Wgh001 (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It also goes back to Irish neutrality during WWII and there are multiple references to NATO in the Irish Neutrality article --Snowded (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

During WWII NATO did not exist so we can discount that. As regards the Irish Neutrality article I still do not see how it makes clear not joining NATO is due to Ireland's neutrality. It does however mention one of the reasons I remember being told at school which is that Ireland would not join NATO (or any other military alliance of which Britan was a member) while Britain still controlled Northern Ireland. And if this article is correct then the fact that Ireland was willing to enter an alliance with the USA and has joined the Nordic Battlegroup would indicate that Irish Neutrality is not the reasson. Another reason I remember was/is a clause in NATO that a country with a border dispute could not join until that dispute was resolved which would prevent membership by Ireland until at least the changes to the constitution post the Good Friday agreement of 1998. (This might also have something to do with why it was not until 1999 that Ireland joined NATO-led Partnership for Peace). Of course the next question is can anybody say that Ireland was ever asked to join? NATO membership is after all by invation only. Either way the real reason this topic has started at all is the fact that Ireland's non membership is mentioned in the Lead of this page. Is this necessary here? How does it enhance the article? Should we attend to the pages of Sweden, Switzerland, North Korea etc. and state in the Lead of those pages their reasons for not joining NATO and specifying any involvement they may have with UN peace keeping? Sorry if this is a bit long winded!!Wgh001 (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Might be helpful. O Fenian (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-ireland/index.html would seem to indicate that relations with NATO are not all bad. It looks like Irish/NATO troops were together in Bosnia and Herzegovina as far back as 1997 even if it was as a part of the UN multinational stability force SFOR see http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0476/D.0476.199703190040.html Anyway does anybody have any objection if I remove the (unneccessary) NATO text from the Lead?Wgh001 (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It frequently comes as a surprise to nationals of NATO countries that Ireland is not a member. It is a significant foreign policy issue and I don't see any pressing need for its removal from the lead. RashersTierney (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I must say that I am suprised at that statement. I have lived in/worked in/visited England, mainland Europe, Africa, North America and Aisia. I have met many people from all those areas as well as from Australasia and South America. I have met people from most of the NATO states. I have been asked many things about Ireland, everything from 'are there really forty shades of green' to questions about The Troubles and even (in England) one night for an explaination of WWII neutrality. BUT I can safely say that no one has ever expressed to me their surprise that Ireland is not a full member of NATO. But if it is such an important aspect of Ireland as to have to appear in the fourth paragraph about the country we better make sure that the reason stated for not being a member is correct in case any potential military allies are using Misplaced Pages to see if we might join up! So again can anybody provide a source to verify that non membership is because of Irish Neutrality. I have sent email to NATO for confirmation that Ireland was formally invited to join. Obviously if that is not forthcoming we will be able to change the statement to 'Ireland is not a full member of NATO simply because it was never invited to join'!!! (go on smile)Wgh001 (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Back again like a dog wit a bone!! How about replacing the non membership statement with

Since 1999, Ireland has been a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace program.

which I robbed from the Military section. Also does anybody mind if I mention Nordic Battlegroup membership in the military section.Wgh001 (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely it goes back to the cold war when Ireland like Austria was a stated non aligned/neutral country Sherzo (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that a similar statement should be placed in the Austria lead? I can switch over there and put it in if you like especialy as Austria has German neighbours and are close to Russia (well closer than Ireland anyway) because according to the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay,

the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down".

Realy I don't think is should be in the Austrian lead any more than it should be in the Ireland or Sweden Lead. But if it must be in the Ireland lead we should at least be truthful about why Ireland is not a full member and that is not because of Irish Neutrality.Wgh001 (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Scholarship on Ireland's non-participation in NATO is thin on the ground, but if you can access JSTOR, Coming Out of the Cave': The First Inter-party Government, the Council of Europe and NATO, by Elizabeth Keane, 2004, might answer some of your questions. Eunan O'Halpín, Dermot Keogh and Michael Kennedy have also occasionally touched on it.RashersTierney (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the abstract:

This article explores Ireland's participation in the Council of Europe following the repeal of the External Relations Act and departure from the British Commonwealth. It suggests that Ireland played a more significant role in international relations than is often acknowledged and contrasts the government's participation in Europeanbased organisations with its refusal to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). It examines why Ireland, under the guidance of Sean MacBride as minister for external affairs, enthusiastically embraced the opportunity to take part in the Council of Europe, the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), and the United Nations, but not in NATO. Partition, and not particular concerns for the preservation of Ireland's neutrality, motivated the government's stance on NATO membership. Though the fixation with partition remained, participation in multilateral organisations nonetheless marked the beginning of an expanding role for Ireland in international affairs.

So now do we have enough proof that neutrality is not the reason why Ireland is not a full member of NATO. Can I go ahead and make the changes? Any objections?Wgh001 (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The above does not constitute 'proof', its an interpretation. If you mean to modify the NATO ref. in the lead, so long as it is sufficiently ref'd, then fine. But I don't think it should be removed. On the point you raised as to whether Ireland was invited to join there is the following :

On 7 January 1949 the United States informally approached the Irish government through its embassy in Washington about issuing an official invitation to consider being a NATO founding member. The United States was still resentful about Irish wartime neutrality, but, as with the Marshall Plan, Ireland's strategic location and close connections to Britain meant that it could not be completely ignored. A CIA report determined that Irish participation would be useful....
A note from Ernest Bevin to the State Department the day before Ireland received the official invitation warned that 'if the Irish raised partition as a barrier to joining the pact' the response should be that it was 'beyond their competence' to discuss the issue.92 The State Department was not as anxious to secure Ireland's membership as MacBride thought, and the American government's response to the aide-mimoire was that the partition issue was 'entirely the concern of the governments of Ireland and the UK' and that the situation was not relevant to membership of NATO.93

At this time, it would appear that Irish Gov. strategy was to trade NATO membership for unification. It can't simply be extrapolated that the reason Ireland has not since joined remains the same. RashersTierney (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont like the wording, its like saying the USSR did not join NATO because it was on the opposing side, i dont see why a country thats not part of NATO really needs it in their introduction. How about its reworded to something like..

"Ireland is a member of the EU, the OECD, and the UN. It has maintained a policy of neutrality since independence, although it does contribute to peacekeeping missions sanctioned by the UN." BritishWatcher (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. At least that is better than an unproven statement about NATO. If we have to start listing all the associations that countries are NOT a member of in the Leads these pages will get very boringWgh001 (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No-one is asking anyone to list reasons. Ireland's non-membership is not a trivial matter and is sufficiently important to be mentioned in the lead. RashersTierney (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So how about

"Ireland is a member of the EU, the OECD, and the UN. It is not a member of NATO or the Warsaw Pact, but it does contribute to peacekeeping missions sanctioned by the UN."Wgh001 (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Drop ref. to Warsaw Pact, a redundant org., and fine by me. RashersTierney (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be better than the current version, agreed theres no need for the warsaw pact. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Change made. Rashers point me to where you got 'On 7 January 1949 the United States informally approached the Irish government..'--Wgh001 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Its pg 179 of Keane's paper that I ref'd above. RashersTierney (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ThanksWgh001 (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Patrick Smyth (29 November 1999). "State joins Partnership for Peace on Budget day". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2008-05-06.
2. "Signatures of Partnership for Peace Framework Document". NATO website. 21 April 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-06.

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Ireland articles
• Top-importance Ireland articles
• B-Class Ireland articles of Top-importance
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• B-Class Irish republicanism articles
• Top-importance Irish republicanism articles
• WikiProject Irish republicanism articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused