Talk:United Ireland/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about United Ireland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

2011 survey

As other surveys are mentioned, the 2011 Northern Ireland Life and Times survey should be added as well. 2 citations included.Red Hurley (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

'Re/unification'?

The term reunification occurs several times in various forms throughout this article, e.g. "a reunified all-island nation-state". Given that Ireland has never been an "all-island nation-state" surely the correct term should be unification/unified, without the re- prefix? Historically the only time the island has been politically united was as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before 1922. Any objections before I make the edit? --212.118.232.104 (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You are taking the piss right? Prior to partition, Ireland was a single nation. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Prior to partition, Ireland was a politically-united all-island nation-state? Citation please. --212.118.232.104 (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

When did I say that? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, is that consensus? Otherwise, please provide a citation. Anyone else any input? --212.118.232.104 (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You want me to provide a citation for something I never said? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The general point is something that needs to be considered.. reunification would infact be reunification with the rest of the united Kingdom, as that was the state it left. So it should be "unification of the island" or a term along those lines, not reunification. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't need to be considered, as the page history shows. "unification of the island" is a good one, I'll reply more when I've stopped laughing!! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As I've explained above, my position is that, since Ireland has never been a politically-united all-island nation-state, the use of the re- prefix is inappropriate and illogical. If you believe that my assertion is incorrect, please provide a supporting RS citation. Otherwise I should make the edit. --212.118.232.104 (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Try and keep up, we've moved on from there. Perhaps I'd better spell it out.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"unification of the island" is perfectly reasonable. The point the IP is making is use of "reunification" as happens about a dozen times in this article at present is incorrect, because reunification would be to reunify with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which existed prior to partition, not reunification of a "united Ireland". So if we could correct those uses to unification of the island, the problem the ip is concerned about would be dealt with. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Erm, no. Ireland has no intention of reunifying with England, and I can hardly blame them. This is dealing with Irish reunification, so your comments are illogical, irrelevant and off-topic. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The construction "unification of the island" is ridiculous, as the "island" is, and always has been, unified. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 22:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Um no this is an article about a United Ireland.., "reunification" is a bias and inaccurate term, a united Ireland, unification of the island etc is far more neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? Ireland used to be whole, it was split in two, if those pieces join back together that's reunification. That's not even OR, there's thousands of sources for it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ireland use to be part of the United Kingdom, that is what reunification would be with.. not uniting the island.Its about using a more accurate and less bias term. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be British reunification sorry. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(Unindent) Editor 2 lines of K/One Night In Hackney, please engage rather than make irrelevant remarks. Note that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the United Ireland article, not what "Ireland's" intentions may be. I presume you wish to operate by Wikipedia rules, in which case, please cite a RS to support your position. Thanks for your assistance is this. --212.118.232.104 (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again, what do you want a reliable source for? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Read above (it's all up there). In the light of the emerging consensus, I will make the proposed edit shortly. If you wish to provide a reference-supported counter-position, now looks like a good time. --212.118.232.104 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you're refusing to say what in particular you want a reliable source for, this discussion can go no further. When you want to actually spit it out, we can carry on. You might want to read my post of 21:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC) before replying by the way. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't need a RS from you for anything. My proposal is there in black on white above, and if you're happy to go along with it, there is no need for you to do anything and your agreement will be inferred. Your comment of 21:49 does not appear to be of any relevance (bearing in mind "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject" as appears at the head of the page.) --212.118.232.104 (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"I presume you wish to operate by Wikipedia rules, in which case, please cite a RS to support your position" is what you said. That was followed by "If you wish to provide a reference-supported counter-position, now looks like a good time". So kindly spit it out, as this is becoming Kafkaesque. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

One more time: please read the original proposal above. If you have any objection, please support your position with RS, rather than simply repeating yourself. --85.237.212.113 (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And quotes/sources of those who favour unification of the island are not a neutral source to justify the incorrect use of "reunification". BritishWatcher (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, what planet are people on round here? Exactly what part of the article is a reliable source wanted for? I've asked several times, and I've yet to receive a reply. I've read the "discussion", and cannot see what a source is being asked for at present. If you don't want to answer the question then don't bother, but you won't be claiming any consensus on an alleged failure to provide a source if you don't fucking bother telling me exactly what you want the source for. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is consensus, and you are the only dissentor. By your failure to engage in discussion, choosing instead to obfuscate, you are placing yourself outside this diuscussion, and should not expect to be taken seriously. --212.118.232.112 (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Since your initial argument is now redundant, there's no consensus at all. You can either answer the question or your change won't be made, since you're refusing to discuss and are doing nothing but trolling. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

well i can understand the point the IP is making so i am sorry you dont. "Reunification" is an incorrect term and should not be used in this article, it should be replaced with unification or another term. "reunification" implies inaccurately and misleadingly going back to a previous state. Yet that previous state would be reunification with the United Kingdom, not a united Ireland which is entirely different which is why unification rather than reunification should be used. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion. In my opinion unification is an incorrect term. Apples, oranges, swings, roundabouts. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is unification an incorrect term and what sources do you have to backup that unification is an incorrect term? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What sources do you have to back-up that "Irish reunification" may refer to Ireland rejoining the United Kingdom? None? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For the benefit of certain people

The phrase objected to - "a reunified all-island nation-state" - doesn't appear anywhere in the article. Am I still expected to provide a source for a phrase that doesn't even appear in the article? If so, kindly point me to where in WP:V it says that? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

reunification appears a dozen times in this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't what was objected to, read the discussion. The objection was that "Given that Ireland has never been an "all-island nation-state" surely the correct term should be unification/unified, without the re- prefix?" The removal of the phrase negates the argument. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

that is what was objected to. The IP wants reunification changed to unification. As reunification would be to reunify with the former state... the United Kingdom. Not unification of the island. It only says "irish reunification" 3 times, most of the mentions is just reunification.. which is not balanced. the term "reunification" is used to imply a natural state, one that did not exist before as if we go back to before partition, it was part of another sovereign state.. not a united Ireland as a separate entity. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Irish renunification google books result; well, there are sources which use this terminology. Now the question is, do those sources outweigh those sources which use the term "irish unification"? There are even sources which use both [1].--KarlB (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

So according to BritishWatcher just "reunification" means "Ireland reuniting (or similar term) with the UK" but just "unification" means "Northern Ireland joining with the rest of Ireland". That makes zero sense, it is utter codswallop. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the google books search does show far more usage of Irish Unification that reunification. However it only says "irish unification" 3 times, most of the times it is simply reunification which is an even bigger problem and its all bias wording as "reunification" implies more of a natural state of going back to something (yet the thing before was the UK of Great Britain and Ireland. For example.. "Several different models for reunification have been suggested including federalism[8][9] and confederalism, as well as a unitary state" Instead that could simply say for a "united Ireland" which would be in line with the article title rather than use "reunification", or it could say unification or unification of the island etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC) And also related to that point would a "united Ireland" not also happen as part of reunification with the rest of the United Kingdom, and might that need to be mentioned? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to echo what ONiH is saying here, I'm confused about which piece of text in the article is the IP asking to be sourced. I see nothing wrong with reunification, but I can see the since-removed line talked about in the original post was a bit problematic. Mo ainm~Talk 13:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am with Mo ainm on this. The IP's request now makes no sense given that the original, problematic, line was removed. Now, this whole discussion seems designed to be disruptive. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion, for want of a better term, and I'd have to agree with you RJ. This whole suggestion has as much substance as a bottle of smoke. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, doesn't logic impel us to move United Ireland to Reunited Ireland? Any comment before implementation? --212.118.232.108 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you not aware of how exceptionally arrogant your attitude has been throughout this discussion? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 20:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus whatsoever, and any suggestion otherwise is disruptive.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to get a different catchprase. — JonC ^ॐ 20:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Using actual rationale and logic for this discussion, it would be plain to see that either term depends on context:

Reunification or Reunited Ireland makes sense if we are on about reuniting Ireland as an all Ireland political entity that existed either during the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or the Kingdom of Ireland before that.
Reunification can also apply to the reunification of Ireland with Great Britain.
Unification or United Ireland makes sense if we are on about reuniting Ireland into a new political entity such as an all Ireland republic.

As far as i am aware the general use of "United Ireland" today is in the context of an all-Ireland republic. So as we aren't reunifying a previous political entity "united" to me makes more sense. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is because "United Ireland" rings better and sounds more dramatic. But you could argue from the provincial aspect in the context of reunification that you are reuniting all the provinces of Ireland under one entity and its peoples. Sheodred (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

For crying out loud

This talk page is full of mountains being made out of molehills, but that was always a favourite hobby of BritishWatcher to be honest, applies to the IP too (Mountains and molehills actually seems like a good topic for an essay) Sheodred (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.

Boundarylayer (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Could somebody answer this: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Erin_go_bragh#United_Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.11.177 (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Original research

I added an original research tag to a passage in the article, which Johnbod has changed to a citation needed tag. I've no problem with that, but I thought I should explain why I tagged the passage as potential OR. It was the "although it is not the only issue at election time so it is difficult to take this figure as a direct indication of levels of support for a united Ireland" that sounded like original research to me - as if the article itself is trying to make the links between electoral support and support for a united Ireland, rather than reporting on the links made between these two things in reliable sources. If there are sources that support that statement, then that's fine. Intuitively, it seems correct, but we do need a reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what would fall under original research in terms of supporting that exact sentence but there certainly are some opinion polls that ask people what political party they vote for and then separately ask them if they would vote for a united Ireland or not that show substantial proportions of SDLP and Sinn Fein voters who support staying in the UK. See page 19 of http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/tv/spotlight/survey.pdf for an example.SkateTier (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That poll was commissioned by the BBC from Ipsos Mori for the Spotlight TV programme http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21345997 links through to the pdf.SkateTier (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That's all good then - I think we just need sources that explain why there is a discrepancy between the vote share of nationalist parties and support for independence. Maybe we should reword "it is difficult to take this figure as a direct indication of levels of support for a united Ireland", to instead say that electoral support for nationalist parties doesn't translate into similar levels of support for a united Ireland? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation(?) and word salad.

Section (2.4) Public opinion in the United States, appears to be almost identical to a few paragraphs in the source cited, and, in some cases, identical. Some sentences have a few words changed, but even that is done poorly, and, in one case, results in a sentence phrase doesn't even make sense in English ("it remains prevalent in the US to ensure"). 50.0.205.143 (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

United States

I have no dog in this fight. I have no opinion about a United Ireland or Northeren Ireland. However I was extremely surprised to see a section that said there was "strong support" from the US for a United Ireland and sourced to State legislatures. First, State legislatures are not representative of the US Republic, that is the domain of the Federal government. Second, State legislatures passing non binding resolutions have no teeth, even if the resolution is passed into state law, which none of these resolutions seemed to enjoy. It is highly unlikely that the citizens of these states were even aware of these resolutions, and more likely they were the result of lobbying.Which Hazel? (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Which Hazel?: I hear what you're saying, but I think your concerns could better be addressed by adding a caveat or two than by removing the whole section. The phrase was "strong support in the US" (not "strong support on the part of the US federal government"). Moreover, that section was under the heading of "Political support and opposition for unification", not "Public opinion". A reader from, say, Nepal might be surprised and interested to hear that there was even this kind of non-binding and lobby-influenced support from state legislatures in the US. Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The section is WP:COPYVIO direct quotation from an article by a Sinn Fein (presumably Irish) intern for the US pro-unification website. If there needs to be a section on US attitudes it should be balanced and properly sourced. Martinlc (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, never mind then! Good grief. Thanks, Martinlc. Q·L·1968 ☿ 05:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how did you learn this was a copyright violation?Which Hazel? (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it with Google. I also found another copyright violation, which was also being used as a source, even though it was an opinion piece. Furthermore it was unattributed as such, so I removed the whole section. This is rather disturbing.Which Hazel? (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

union

For the first time since the Norman invasion, Ireland could be said to be united in a way similar to most European states.^{[dubious – discuss]}^{[citation needed]}

Similar to most other european states - Italy and Germany were only united in the last 150 years. hence the comment is inaccurate and misleading

Ireland was not united until 1800. (LoweRobinson (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

1918 UK General Election

The General Election in December 1918, which the Conservatives won, was not a referendum on independence even if Sinn Fein pretended it was. (LoweRobinson (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

I think I'll just wait for you to be banned and have all your edits reverted as you seem unable to follow policy. Dmcq (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked. --Scolaire (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150710033704/http://www.jstor.org/view/00346705/ap050158/05a00060/0 to http://www.jstor.org/view/00346705/ap050158/05a00060/0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

26+6=1

The abovementioned 26+6=1 redirects here but is never mentioned in the article. Could someone include it somewhere? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United 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/20100823123158/http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Plain_English_Summaries/governance_and_citizenship/structure/index32.aspx?ComponentId=17242&SourcePageId=11746 to http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Plain_English_Summaries/governance_and_citizenship/structure/index32.aspx?ComponentId=17242&SourcePageId=11746

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead section size

The intro seems long and unwieldy. Is it justified? Can some information be moved into the main parts of the article? 1-555-confide (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

United Ireland in Irish

Is there any reason we shouldn't have the Irish for united Ireland as is the the case for many, many more Ireland related articles.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You edited Cromwellian conquest of Ireland today; why didn't you put the Irish for it in? Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a red herring Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Not according to red herring. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Explain its relevance.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not in favour of ga: in this instance in the en: wikipedia. Fine for Bills, Acts and Official Bodies with official ga: names Wikimucker (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Irish names should be restricted to those are actually used. Neologisms don't count and we shouldn't go around inventing them. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Mabuska. Unless it's sourced and actually in use we should avoid neologisms. Otherwise we might as well include Claught Airlann in Ulster-Scots too. — Jon C.^ॐ 17:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be fine by me.Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Has nobody ever spoken or written about a United Ireland in the Irish language? Surely there's no need for WP to 'invent' anything here. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

There most likely is though does everything need an Irish form attributed to it on the English WP? Mabuska ^(talk) 20:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Should this page not be called a Re-united Ireland?

Or have a mirror page called re-United Ireland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The term is not in common use (Google it), and it's not a common search term. So no point. We do say "reunification", though. It's just one of those things. Scolaire (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Existing redirects include Irish re-unification, Irish Reunification, Irish reunification, and Reunification of Ireland. I suppose we could make a couple for "re(-)united Ireland", but as Scolaire says, it isn't the usual expression. Q·L·1968 ☿ 00:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The EPP just call it “united Ireland” like in «we welcome Taoiseach Enda Kenny’s initiative on a “united Ireland” in order to find a solution in the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.» 77.193.103.42 (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)