Talk:State visit by Elizabeth II to the Republic of Ireland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Some news stories to use as sources

[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

As it's a four day visit, it would seem logical to have a section for each day of the visit. Another possibility is a section on international reaction to the visit, should there be any. Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change of title?

Perhaps the title of the article should be changed to "Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland as seen by the Guardian"? --89.216.218.134 (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, other sources are available, as they say on the BBC. Feel free to add some yourself. Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Good one. Perhaps you need to edit it, with references, to restore the
WP:NPOV which you think is missing. But I do like your turn of phrase. :) DBaK (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Elizabeth II

To me the repeated references to "Elizabeth II" read very, very oddly indeed. OK I am not the most fanatical obsessive about royal matters (I fear I read the wrong newspaper, in fact ^^) but surely it's normal, without subscribing to any particular school of thought or PoV, to just call her "the Queen" since I think we've established which particular queen the article is about? "Liz" would seem a bit informal and "the Queen" does seem to be a pretty common usage. Well, not common common, that would be vulgar of me, but you know what I mean. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe just plain "Elizabeth" would be fine after the first reference.
Hot Stop (c) 16:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
No, the correct form of address is either "Her Majesty" or "the Queen", once it has been establised who she is and what she does (this in done in the lede). Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to her as "Elizabeth" is as crass as referring to President McAleese as "Mary" or President Obama as "Barack", but then this entire page reads as if it has been edited by Gerry Adams.--Wessexboy (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with that Gerry Adams assessment at all, but you might want to try to improve the article. I do agree that "Elizabeth" is no good, I don't think that it's up to Wikipedia to feel bound to call her "Her Majesty", so I return to "the Queen" as being appropriate, descriptive and inoffensive - it is, after all, basically the gig that the old dear has got, no? I think I might be
WP:BOLD and just do it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Using the term "Elizabeth II" is no different from using "Obama", imo. Right now the term "the Queen" is overused. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

Hot Stop (c) 04:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

On that last, no, perhaps not. But we do say "the President" and it works fine, it just being a description of the job the bloke does, which is similar to the queen's position. Nor are we in this article calling her "Mrs Windsor" (or whateverthehell) or Queen Elizabeth (apart from the first one where it establishes who she is). So these are pretty weak arguments, as are bringing historical figures like Henry Whoever ... just weak, irrelevant, time-wasting. My point remains that "the Queen" is a very commonly used way to refer to her, Compare where the pussy cat pussy cat has been: "I've been up to London to visit the Queen"/"I've been up to London to visit Elizabeth"/"I've been up to London to visit Elizabeth II"/"I've been up to London to visit Queen Elizabeth II"/etc. They are all garbage in normal speech except "the Queen", and to pretend to not notice or understand that is ... bizarre. You really have to ask yourself if you want a decent article that makes sense when you read it, or one which follows some weird rule you've got in your head about how it should sound. And yes, it does say "the Queen" far too often now; despite efforts from some of us to word it into something better. This clearly needs more work. But just remember that before that it just said "Elizabeth II" far too often instead, so it was previously laughably bad instead of just a bit feeble as it now is. Now, do please enjoy your fun, as I really can't be arsed with this one any more. Cheers! DBaK (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may have escaped people's notice that while "the Queen" is correct while she is in Britain (and I assume Commonwealth states), but it is not correct while she is in Ireland. She is not the Irish monarch. O Fenian (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No she is not. Oddly, I think you will find that many editors are aware of this. But if you write that the president of the USA is in London and then later say "the President had a nice cup of tea at my auntie's" you are not suggesting that he is the president of the UK. Or maybe you would be? Another stupid argument, but, sorry, I said I was going to keep away from here so I reckon I really should. Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your exact words were "Compare where the pussy cat pussy cat has been: "I've been up to London to visit the Queen"/"I've been up to London to visit Elizabeth"/"I've been up to London to visit Elizabeth II"/"I've been up to London to visit Queen Elizabeth II"/etc. They are all garbage in normal speech except "the Queen",". All of those are only relevant to when she is in London, so it would appear it is your argument that is stupid if anyone's. O Fenian (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason to object to the usage "Queen Elizabeth II" is that, while she is Queen Elizabeth II of England and Wales, she is Queen Elizabeth of Scotland. Maproom (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just popped back in to say: By George I've got it! RTE tells us "2029 The Queeb said the record between the two countries had not been benign." I definitely think it should be the Queeb from now on. It is positively mellifluous. :) Cheers and goodbye again DBaK (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the article

Hot Stop (c) 14:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Impartial?

Reading this article and remembering what I have seen deleted, edited and derided in other articles, I am surprised that the lack of balance has managed to escape the usually vigilant eyes of all those scissor happy editors. Can it be that the criticism that this is a Guardian article or edited by Gerry Adams isn't far off the mark? This is supposed to be a factual encyclopedia not an exemplar of current political correctness. User:jkslouth 00:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of writing, the

talk) 09:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

There seem to be a lot of people pushing an Irish republican agenda here to the point where the page appears to have been hijacked, with all edits that attempt to restore non-POV removed almost instantly. --Wessexboy (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "vandalism" is getting banded around wrongly and very quickly here too, in violation of
WP:AGF. The persistent re-adding of a POV section unrelated to Elizabeth II's visit (it would find better place in the UK-Ireland relations article) is very troubling, no pun intended. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Yep it is blatantly obvious that there is an agenda to make this article as negative as possible so it is inline with certain hardcore republicans views. Sad to see but id expect nothing less on wikipedia which has a long track record on this sort of thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I've tagged it accordingly. Also quotes from random people stopped by papers do not belong in an encyclopaedia. A newspaper, perhaps. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Lot's of POV stuff is included and implicitly justified because it has a source. NPOV cannot be ignored just because a reliable-ish source is available to support a given POV - Estoy Aquí (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the whole responses section needs a massive cleanup. Its clearly very one-sided, the rest of the article looks fairly anti-Queen too. I've seen a lot of positive coverage about the visit - the BBC has been very positive - so there are plenty of places to address the issues. I'm sure its expensive etc. and that should be mentioned too, but that shouldn't be the only thing that's mentioned. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At times its not even that. It just gives disproportionate attention to anti-visit groups (which are a small minority). Obviously it has to mentioned anyway, but the article at the moment sounds like nearly everyone in Ireland is of this opinion. Also the problem remains of non-notable quotations being carried. - 46.7.141.61 (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also parts of it are written like an essay. A well-written essay but an essay nonetheless. The criticism section, particularly "noted one such criticism" to me smacks of an essay-like "I hold this point of view because of X. Mr. Y noted this example of X". If there is only one which is cited on the page it shouldn't be phrased in the way it is - its current phrasing unambiguously suggests there are more, without citing what they are from RELIABLE sources. Plus, I'm not convinced being James Connolly's great-grandson makes his opinion any more noteworthy than anyone else's. Son maybe. But even grandson seems pushing it. - 46.7.141.61 (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article has been transformed - well done guys. It was a total cake-and-arse party yesterday so congratulations to whoever sorted it out.--2.96.93.8 (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • There appears to be a new subsection in the article dedicated to protests. While not written in a POV tone, its inclusion in the article imo slants it back to an anti-visit POV overall. I've slapped a POV tag on the section as I feel it's one-sided and undue coverage of anti-visit protests. This needs to be balanced out, or the section removed or reworded or split to a reaction article (which we need, from the original POV problems last week). Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin and Monaghan bombings

I've removed the one blatantly POV-pushing section as it's totally unrelated to her visit. The very first line of the section said it all: something "coincided" with her visit. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd bothered to read past the first line you'd see how this whole thing has been timed to coincide with her visit. ~Asarlaí 09:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is blatantly POV. Please discuss it here before re-adding as I'm not the only one to have raised this point, c.f. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Queen_Elizabeth_II's_visit_to_the_Republic_of_Ireland. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sweeping claims like "this whole section is POV" just won't do. Please point-out exactly where one can find the non-neutral POV in this section:

The Queen's arrival in the Republic of Ireland coincided with the 37th anniversary of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. On 17 May 1974, 33 civilians were killed and almost 300 wounded when four car bombs exploded (three in Dublin, one in Monaghan) without warning. A loyalist paramilitary group, the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), claimed responsibility for the bombings in 1993. There are allegations, however, that members of the British security forces colluded with the loyalists.[52]

An inquiry into the attacks was published in 2003. However, the inquiry was hindered somewhat by the British government's refusal to release its official documents about the bombings.[53] An Oireachtas Committee found that the alleged involvement of British security forces could not be ruled out unless the files were released.[53] Victims' group Justice for the Forgotten called the visit a "golden opportunity" for the British government to release the files. Its spokeswoman, Margaret Urwin, said: "As prime minister David Cameron will accompany [the Queen] and is due to meet our Taoiseach Enda Kenny tomorrow, we believe this occasion affords Mr Cameron...a golden opportunity to make a genuine significant gesture of reconciliation".[54] The group appealed to the Queen and Cameron in an open letter that was issued on 16 May.[55] In the Dáil, Sinn Féin put forward a motion urging the Taoiseach to discuss the matter with PM Cameron when he arrives to accompany the Queen.[53]

~Asarlaí 12:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a monarchist and I don't find anything non-NPOV in the section. It's a fact that there have been numerous and persistant allegations that British security forces assisted in the bombings, despite the attacks having been a UVF operation. The 2003 Barron Report concluded that the man who organised the bombings, helped transport the bombs to Dublin, ordered the drivers to park their bomb cars in the city centre was Mid-Ulster UVF brigadier Billy Hanna, who served as a captain in the UDR, which was a British Army regiment. In addition to this, he was a former regular Army lance-corporal who was a war hero having won the Military Medal in the Korean War. He was served as weapons instructor in the UDR and he allegedly oversaw the construction of the Dublin and Monaghan bombs. Hanna also had links to British Military Intelligence who operated out of Lisburn. I would consider this to be British involvement although there is nothing that indicates the government officially sanctioned anything or was aware of what went on in Northern Ireland. It's a fact that the UVF were made a legal organisation one month prior to the Dublin bombings. For the record, I've nothing against the Queen's visit to Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem I see here: the paragraph is, in itself, written fairly neutrally. However, taken in context with this article, the section slants the entire article about the visit with an
undue focus on an otherwise irrelevant fact (as has been pointed out in the section itself, this involves Kenny and Cameron, and only tangentially involves Elizabeth II through the open letter). So while the writing is indeed NPOV (although an opposite view could be included in the section for context), and I would strongly suggest including this in the article on Irish-UK relations if it hasn't already, its inclusion into the article results in -at least from my point of view- the article having a bias (not to say the article doesn't already have one). Perhaps UNDUE is more appropriate to cite than NPOV, but in either case I find the section troubling. I welcome further debate, in any case. StrPby (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I was in Dublin on the day of the 1974 bombings, heard them and was as shocked as anyone else, but a rogue UDR nut-case acting outside of UDR orders, and not specifically ordered by anyone in the British government to blow up parts of Dublin in 1974, is quite remote from a state visit in 2011.
My Lai Massacre in 1968, and nobody mentioned that when Obama visited. Until a direct order is proven - and god speed the day - it's all speculation.Red Hurley (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Does
WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES
apply?

What is everyone's opinion about this page's place in relation to

Wikipedia:ARBCOM/TROUBLES#Final_remedies_for_AE_case? Would this article "reasonably" (second point of the AE ruling) be construed as being related to "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland"? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I'd say that it does. It may be the aftermath of The Troubles, but IMHO the article does fall under the remit of the AE ruling. Mjroots (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes youre right, but its on content disputes, im not insisting on adding back what you reverted after my
WP:AGF doesnt mean accusations of "stop disruptive eidting" where there i s non.(Lihaas (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply
]
?? I've not reverted anything. Mjroots (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not Troubles related at all, unless every contemporary international contact between Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is somehow Troubles-related. Time to move on.
talk) 00:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The issue can be discussed on this page, or via a
Request for comment. I feel that it does fall under the aftermath of The Troubles, and therefore should fall under the relevant restrictions. However, any editor is free to open a discussion on the matter. Mjroots (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Only just, in the sense that the historical Troubles are being laid to rest yet again. It may apply to any guff written about pre-1998 and the visit, but not about the actual visit in 2011. Hardline
Irish republicans have had some sport mentioning her as "Mrs E Windsor" and "the English Queen", but this was for their own audiences and was not mainstream. For that matter, why should it apply also to Roger Casement??Red Hurley (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Attempts to link this to Scottish independence

I take a dim view of edits like this which attempt to draw a link between the irrelevant SNP electoral victory, its promise for Scottish independence, and this visit. They are totally unrelated. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the same point, I oppose linking this to Fianna Gael's electoral victory as well, at least in the structure of that edit (that the visit "follows" FG's win). This visit follows an invitation from Mary McAleese, not FG's victory. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair on the SNP stuff (unless we find an RS source), but i think the context of FG is relevant, b/c something under FF was never going to happen.
incidentally, not im NOT adding that back till consensus (if it emerges()(Lihaas (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Shocking. that is an absolutely irrelevant and in no way appropriate for this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um...Mary McAleese IS Fianna Fáil. Elizabeth II was invited by a member of the Fianna Fáil party and it was promisingly on the cards before FG entered office. I'm not trying to say kudos to FF - I hate both those parties (actually I hate them all) - but you have no basis for saying "something under FF was never going to happen". --‣Mac Tíre Cowag 20:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and you should learn the difference between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. "Fianna Gael"....seriously??? ‣Mac Tíre Cowag 20:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Censored??

Why was this REMOVED when sourced [26]?And the refs? [27](Lihaas (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Read the edit summaries. DrKay (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Will this be put back up for AFD when it is removed from the main page? I personally don't think this should be its own article, but rather incorporated into an article about state visits by the queen or from monarchs of the UK if such an article exists. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd register my complete disapproval against any AFD attempt. This is a historic and notable event in itself and many sources could easily be referenced to that effect. --Breadandcheese (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I was sort of ignoring the fact that it is the first visit since 1911. I still think I would later support some sort of a merge into a new article describing important state visits by the Queen or a monarch of the UK Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

I pulled this from the from page because of the NPOV tag, any chance of resolving the issues soon? RxS (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't progress by the end of the day I'm going to remove the entire responses section, as that's the best place to start fixing these POV issues. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That section could be made into a separate article, as was done with the
2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Eraserhead1, I think that's a great idea. If that happens I'll pull the tag and put it back on ITN...RxS (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the section and the tag, and stuck it on
WP:ERRORS so it can go back on the main page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Itinerary?

"Two water cannon have been imported to deal with any disorder that may arise."

This information is not about "itinerary". It is about security arrangements. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, moved to Security issues. Bobadillaman (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"During the visit, the Queen was to visit sites of republican significance in Dublin, such as the Garden of Remembrance"

This is potentially misleading, this was not specifically planned. It is protocol for every visiting head of state to visit the Garden of Remembrance and lay a wreath, see here for example. O Fenian (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone fix the article please

[28]. The Irish Free state ceased to exist in 1937, so a sentence reading "while the Irish Free State had by 1949" is totally wrong. Like I said when I reverted it, but it got changed to something wrong yet again. O Fenian (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.
talk) 23:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

the Queen's speech

Just thought I'd mention that the main bit of coverage on the BBC day 2 seemed to be about the Queen's speech. That she'd started in Gaelic "A Uachtarain agus a chairde (President and friends)"[1](which drew the Irish prime minister to say 'wow' under her breath) [2] - and that seemed a pretty significant 'concession' from the Queen (as it was suggested she could 'not' apologise).

The other relevant tagline that kept being repeated was that 'with historical hindsight we can all see things which we would wish had been done differently or not at all' [3]

I'd think that the Queen's speech could make a subsection of this article - but I am not so 'bold' as to jump in there without a bit more time spare to write it out nicely in very neutral wording :)

EdwardLane (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea. Go on, you know you want to! Egg Centric 20:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the other words heard (or misheard): maith thú.Red Hurley (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]

One sided

Opinion polls showed a strong opposition to this visit, which is not reflected in this article. I also believe a bomb has just gone off in (London-)Derry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.115.178 (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a referenced figure for the % of people opposing the visit included in the article. Number 57 19:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the vast majority of Irish people welcomed her visit. Also, there is no mention of her impromptu walkabout in Cork, where unlike Dublin, she met members of the public up close.
talk) 22:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Gardai or Police?

In the article the Irish police force are referred to as the 'Gardai' but this would seem to be out of sync with general Wikipedia practice of simply referring to local police as the 'police' (

Gardai = the police force of the Republic of Ireland). On other pages about non-English possible or terrorist attacks (e.g. Piazza Fontana bombing) the simple term police is used rather than the local word for such. Thoughts? Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) 22:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumpkin (talk • contribs
)

I think Gardai is the usual term used for them in Ireland - even by English speakers, and we usually use local dialects. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you see a page such as
Rome and Vienna airport attacks the simple term 'police' or 'Austrian police' is used - for someone unfamiliar to Ireland the term Gardai could certainly be unnecessarily confusing and I think its use reflects the interests/circumstances of current editors. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) 22:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumpkin (talk • contribs
)
The thing is that per
WP:ENGVAR we respect local varieties of English. For example on the article on the Mumbai metro the cost of the metro is described as being 2,356 crore, even though crore as 10 million isn't used outside of South Asia. The difference with Rome and Vienna is that neither of them are English speaking countries. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Gardai). Therefore I think you support my point. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
If you expand that quote fully it says "The former English language name of the force was the Civic Guard, but this title is no longer used." (emphasis mine), so I don't think it does. The point is that English speakers in Ireland refer to the police force as the Gardaí so that's the local English name for them, and thus what we should use here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I resent the implication that I debiberately misquoth the page, I felt the word 'former' (included in the quote) was sufficient to make the same point more succinctly. You forget that the majority of English speakers do not live in Ireland and that therefore the word Gardai is extremely confusing, yet I am unlikely to receive much support for this view on this talk page given the apparent bias of the editors' interests who would pay this page any concern. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of English speakers don't live in India either, and we still use the word crore in India related articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the exclusive use of Gardai which is so troubling here. If this were an article about France or Italy, police would be used interchangeably with
WP:NPOV. Gardai can be used if and when a Gaelic language Wikipedia is established. Yet this remains an english-language page and as such I am in favour of the use of the neutral term police. It is akin to Swansea being replaced by Abertawe on an English encyclopaedia, despite the majority use of the former by English speakers. Earlymorningcans (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes and next to it a value in US currency, and its meaning is perfectly clear given the context and the currency symbol preceding it. Gardai could be army, police or special forces and to one unfamiliar with Ireland one could not tell, forcing them to go to that page, thus breaching wikipedia policy on simplicity and ease of access. I would be happy to compromise by putting the word police in brackets afterwards as is done with 'crore' but I think that would be somewhat ungainly. Let me also point out that most tourists to Rome would refer to a branch of the police as the Carabinieri but it is not referred to on Wikipedia pages as such, for simplicity's sake. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thank you Earlymorningcans, it seems we use the same example! If we gain another voice of agreement (3v1) I will edit the page to reflect our consensus.Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gardai is the normal English language use in Ireland, so per common use it should stand. Oh and Trumkin, wikipedia is not a democracy, you would have to show that the balance of references use Police not Gardai --Snowded TALK 17:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would remind Snowded that I am a respected Wikipedia editor of five years and that his attempts to remind me of Wikipedia policy are laudable, but amusing. The terms used in references does not bear upon wikipedia terminology unless this is of bearing upon factual content, otherwise we would carry forward typos and grammatical inconsistencies. Rather than misquoting wikipedia policy please attempt to counter the strong arguments already presented: in that Gardai is not spelling, grammar or punctuation; that in similar instances elsewhere on wikipedia the term 'police' is used; and that the term Gardai is misleading and confusing to those not versed in Irish separatism. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also remind Snowded that Wikihounding, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work" constitutes harassment as set out under
WP:HA. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
On watch since the second day of the visit, sorry --Snowded TALK 18:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given
Snowded
's inability to take criticism on his talk page, I shall re-post the following here:
"On
WP:NPOV. Earlymorningcans (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)" Earlymorningcans (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
It is not often I feel the need to intervene on such matters, but I have to agree that the term Gardai is confusing and inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. Hellohenry57 (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock investigation has been endorsed for checkuser against Earlymorningcans (who lists lots of B&I sock masters on his page), Trumkin has around 20 edits in 2006, 2 in 2008 then a sudden recent flurry in parallel with the sockmaster.

WP:DUCK applies. --Snowded TALK 18:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Snowded, please state your conflict of interest here, given that a checkuser has been approved against you, and you are merely trying to discredit the complainant. Earlymorningcans (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know about the report until I saw it mentioned here. I'm sure regular editors on B&I issues will be amused by the idea that I am a sock of Ghmyrtle --Snowded TALK 18:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think editors of all creeds with see nothing funny whatsoever in your egregious violations of
WP:Sock. Earlymorningcans (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I have to warn you Snowded that accusations that I am a sock puppet are completely untrue and that accusing me of such with the flimsiest of evidence not only reflects badly on yourself but is a serious violation of wikipedia policy. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have enacted agreed changes on the main article following the broad consensus reached here. If anyone takes issue with this please attempt to continue discussion here rather than unconstructively reverting. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The strength of consensus here demanded that edit, and may I say that I fully support and commend you for it. Earlymorningcans (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I have had to give Snowded a warning for reverting said edit against consensus and following his own policy of wikihounding myself. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I constructively reverted. You don't have a consensus, Hellohenry57 was just created and has a single edit to his/her name, namely the comment above. So at the moment even on a vote basis its 2-2; critically you have not provided sources top support your proposed changes. --Snowded TALK 18:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sources were provided for the original form either. In addition, this is a
manual of style dispute, and nothing to do with content per se, and the sort of "sources" you approve of are therefore, in this case, otiose. Earlymorningcans (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry Snowded but since when did length of existence on wikipedia have bearing upon intelligence or indeed common sense; and even following your logic does my length of existence give me a right over other editors? I would never have it so. Please desist from bullying, wikihounding and harassment (wp:ha). Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Earlymorningcans has been revealed as an evil sock puppet, as such I would agree that unfortunately no consensus has been reached. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that the article Lansdowne Road football riot uses the term "Gardai". Maproom (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon not cannons British English plural

The word 'cannon' on the page (water cannons) seems to keep being reverted to 'cannons'. The word cannon is the British English plural which would seem more appropriate (see cannon - "Cannon serves both as the singular and plural of the noun, although the plural cannons is also accepted in American English"), could people make sure that this does not keep getting reverted? Thanks Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) 22:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumpkin (talk • contribs)

A most sensible suggestion, if I may say so. This is after all an English-language encyclopaedia. Earlymorningcans (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Protest section biased?

I fail to see the relevance of placing a NPOV tag on the protest and counter demonstrations section. It really is just a list of protests and I fail to detect any bias in the section. Exiledone (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my rationale in the #Impartial? section above. The section on its own is not written in a biased manner, but the inclusion of the section on a whole tilts the bias of the article, at least imo. A good way to counteract this would be to give relevant due coverage to the pro-visit camp. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's biased, and I don't support any of the groups involved. The protests were such a non-event, and joined by so few people, that mentioning them amounts to negative propaganda. The people involved are too blinkered to know the difference anyway.Red Hurley (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The English Queen"

I want to put a [sic] after this (in the quote by Adams) because there is no

Talk 06:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Seems very factual to me, she is not the queen of England in terms of her role and position, but she is often referenced to, even in the UK, and the US, as the "Queen of England" for some reason. Sigh. But this is a direct quote from a known "English" hater and sounds like a dig at the English. Adam's knew Exactly what he was saying, I see no need for [Sic] --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but it doesn't make it correct. If I referred to Barack Obama as the prime minister of the United States, do you think if I was quoted it would be without a sic? Of course not. +1 to Adams choosing his words deliberately, though. 86.54.129.163 (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was me. Forgot to log in.
Talk 12:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not quite the same thing as no one uses the term "prime minister of the United States" but Queen of England is still a fairly common term.
Hot Stop (c) 19:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
It's commonality does not, in any way, make it correct. Whether the inaccuracy was intentional or not, it's still an inaccuracy and should be marked with a sic, as an assistance to our readers. --
MIESIANIACAL 14:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
QOE is incorrect and that should be made clear where ever possible. Just because mistakes (sometimes politically motivated such as by Gerry Adams) are made is no excuse. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have anything to add?

Talk 15:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Protest section tag, time to remove?

Can we re-start the discussion on this now? Such a tag makes small sections like that very untidy indeed too, esp when it seems to be unessential. The only bias that was there has now been removed from what I can see --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name of State the Queen Visited

"THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS ISSUED BY THE PRESS SECRETARY TO THE QUEEN - The Queen has been pleased to accept an invitation from the President of Ireland to pay a State Visit to Ireland this year. The Queen will be accompanied by The Duke of Edinburgh." Source: [29]

Does the fact that Her Majesty herself respects the name of the Irish state matter at all here? NelsonSudan (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. She's visited Ireland plenty of times but she's only visited the Republic of Ireland once. ~Asarlaí 21:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nelson on Wikipedia we can't use the correct name for the country she visited and are stuck with ROI as apparently editors are not very bright and would get confused if we were to call it by its correct title. Mo ainm~Talk 22:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A title that's inherently wrong. It's like France naming itself "Europe" and expecting everyone to go along with it.
Talk 22:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Exactly JonChapple. It's nothing to do with intelligence. If I write "Ireland is a part of Ireland" you hav to hover on the link to find-out what's meant by that statement. Thankfully, Ireland the state has an "official description" that can be used in such cases: Republic of Ireland. ~Asarlaí 22:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mo ainm; Your's is a concise explanation. I think a new section called "Official State name used by Queen". The Section could explain that the Queen was invited to visit "Ireland" by the "President of Ireland" and accepted the invitation on that basis. It could proceed to explain that the Queen never once (yes - not once) referred to the State as the "Republic of Ireland" in public during her visit. It could further explain that she called it "Ireland" in public on several occasions, notably in her Speech in Dublin Castle. But other places too. That it Buckingham Palace refers to it as the Queen's trip to Ireland etc. It coulf end with an explanation that it is the policiy on this Wikipedia article of Wikipedia editors to use the term "Republic of Ireland". NelsonSudan (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. The use by the Queen of the official name hasn't had any notable coverage that I know of. The article uses the description solely to disambiguate from the island, not for any underlying political reason. DrKay (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one here is talking about original research...Thanks. I will get started with a few edits. NelsonSudan (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the 1998 source about a visit by the Queen, and nothing in the 2011 source about the name of the state. So, the sources do not support the contention that the Queen's visit was only possible after the United Kingdom's recognition of the name. DrKay (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind all editors that there is a large notice at the top of this page warning that the article is under the one-revert rule. Contentious edits should be discussed before they are made. DrKay (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

  • 1 - The article should not describe Ireland as the "southern state"...It includes Donegal the most northern part of the island; why has "Irish state" been deleted? NelsonSudan (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 - If we are going to get into the Good Friday Agreement and the disputes it settled, it seems apt to include reference to it settling the dispute over state names. NelsonSudan (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement Section

I've added this in near the top - NelsonSudan (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Visit announced The Queen's visit was formally announced by both Buckingham Palace and Áras an Uachtaráin simultaneously on 4 March 2011. The Queen's announcement read simply:[1][reply]

The Queen has been pleased to accept an invitation from the President of Ireland to pay a State Visit to Ireland this year. The Queen will be accompanied by The Duke of Edinburgh.

The announcenment came as no great surprise in so far as the visit had been signalled by both Governments as likely. The

United Kingdom Ambassoador to Ireland, Mr David Reddaway, as early as 2009 had described a visit by the Queen as "imminent".[2]

References

  1. ^ "State Visit to Ireland announcement, 4 March 2011" (Buckingham Palace Website)
  2. ^ The Cork Examiner "Visit of Queen Elizabeth II would be inappropriate and unwelcome"

Importance of what flags were flying outside Hotel

The Article says: "The

flag of the European Union outside the Merrion Hotel opposite Government Buildings as she touched down on Irish soil."[1]
I've deleted the sentence because I don't really see why it deserves mention....The Merrion Hotel is just a private hotel in Dublin. NelsonSudan (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Emer McLysaght (17 May 2011). "Union Jack flies across from Government buildings as the Queen touches down". thejournal.ie. Retrieved 2011-05-17.

Suggestion to re-order the Article

I think it would be far better if the Itinerary sections were brought up to just under "Visit Announced" and all the background followed the Itinerary. There are several reasons; this is an article about the visit.........Why should a reader have to wade through all this historical background stuff (most of which they will be well familiar with if they have found their way to an article so specific as the Queen's visit)...But they wont know what she actually did in the country. Its pretty well written and concise and I think it should be brought up...

The background etc and media stuff etc can all stay in but should follow affter the itinerary. Thats my suggestion.....There is little of interest in it compared to the itinerary...After all, hordes of media always follow the Queen...but the Queen has only visited the Rock of Cashel once....! NelsonSudan (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title improvement?

Wouldn't a better title for this article be "Queen Elizabeth II's state visit to the Republic of Ireland?" As the first sentence in the lead paragraph of the article shows that it was a state visit, surely it would be an improvement to include this fact in the title? Glenmeister (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

Queen Elizabeth II's state visit to the Republic of 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
}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—

Talk to my owner:Online 03:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on

Queen Elizabeth II's state visit to the Republic of 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Simplexity22 (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Queen Elizabeth II's state visit to the Republic of Ireland → State visit of Elizabeth II to the Republic of Ireland – The title doesn't look encyclopedic because it uses an apostrophe for the possessive. 2601:183:101:58D0:21FA:6823:6996:3DB1 (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_visit_by_Elizabeth_II_to_the_Republic_of_Ireland&oldid=1208355346"