![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
The article currently states:
I think this last sentence needs rephrasing for clarity and NPOV: Are we referring to abortion? the death penalty? euthanasia? contraception? war and peace? stem cell research? Please believe me, I don't want to start a polemic; I just think we should be more specific.
Quartier
Latin1968
20:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it would offend NOR to comment that Gavan Duffy's judgement (in which he applied Ne Temere cannon law rather than the law of the land), had it been take to the Supreme Court, would have been found repugnant to the Consitution. Despite great pressure at the time from the Catholic Church (which had succeed [I believe] in inserting such clauses in the Spanish and Italian constitutions), de Valera specifically refused to include any special place for that Church in the constition. So, whereas it was certainly true in the 1950s that the RC Church was revered in the nation de facto, it was not so de jure. -- Red King 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Could someone reference this? I could not be assed with it. It should be referenced, or the content removed. -- Domer48 ( talk) 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that it's notable enough to be an article. I'm not going to prod it just yet, until I see if somebody can make an article of it, but if it hasn't been substantially expanded in the next week I will. Scolaire ( talk) 07:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the reference as it clearly dose not reflect the source cited. It dose not specify who said it, when and how much used it enjoyed then or now. It is devoide of context and therefore distorts is meaning. For example, was it used because of the Protestant Church’s Disestablishment by the British Government, something the Fenians were also accused of causing?
“ | Like O’Connell’s Repeal, Home Rule in the early stages combined the attractions of national sentiment with the attractions of a social panacea. But no movement in Ireland could effectively become a national movement with out in the end securing at least the benevolence of the Catholic Church. And for a time Cardinal Cullen satisfaction with the British Government for carrying the Protestant Church’s Disestablishment made it difficult for the hierarchy to bestow this, however much individual priests might see that the Home Rule movement was developing a popular dynamic of its own. The gradual withdrawal of Protestant support from the movement made things easier. Increased Catholic support made Protestant withdrawal faster. In stead of the movement being regarded as a movement against Home Rule, the belief that ‘Home Rule means ‘Rome Rule’ now took root as the traditional basis of opposition to the movement. This in turn inevitably made it increasingly sympathetic to many Catholics. | ” |
The sentence dose simply not reflect the information the source is being used to support. -- Domer48 ( talk) 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ammended sentence to reflect source. Removed comment / opinion, with no supporting source -- Domer48 ( talk) 20:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing that this article be deleted for the following reasons:
In short, the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject i.e. it is non-notable. Scolaire ( talk) 09:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why it should be deleted. There are other examples on Wikipedia of phrases being articles ( here and here) and the relationship between resistance to Home Rule and a fear of Catholic domination has the makings of a lengthy article.-- Johnbull ( talk) 23:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The Orange Card was to promote sectarian division, and encourage a fear among Protestants. Who were the Unionists threatening to fight against Home Rule, the British Government? So how can you suggest there was going to be civil war in Ireland? You I would suggest, have a very bizarre view of history. As to the salient point of this discussion, like I have said above, it was a minority view based on ignorance. Ignorance in this case being the real motives of those promoting and encouraging this fear. All of which could and should be covered in the article on Home Rule. The term is not notable, the article is not likely to be expanded, and the source used to support it i.e. John Bright is dubious and I suggest should be checked, since his own article makes not mention of it. As to how often it is used in relation to this subject, please cite sources. I replaced the {prod} tag, simply because the arguments for keeping it were in my opinion spurious, and not based on any of our policies, but on opinion only. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Requested AfD as this thread seems to be going nowhere let the community decide. BigDunc ( talk) 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Following section was deleted on 00:37, 12 September 2011 by "24.11.168.41" on the grounds that:
"I'm removing this because it seems to be an improperly cited quote from one journalist whose reputation is, let's say, "questionable" (e.g. tinyurl dot com/3w8jz) If not, although I agree with it, it's clearly more opinion than objective analysis."
Protestants didn’t make waves, they didn’t cause a fuss, they got on with their lives, and endured whatever degree of Catholic governance that Dáil Éireann wished to impose upon them. citation needed The Ulster Unionist warning had turned out to be accurate: Home Rule was Rome Rule, as draconian censorship, a ban on contraception and divorce and a special constitutional position for the Catholic Church all became state law. citation needed Into the 1960s, many Irish restaurants refused to serve meat on Fridays, the National University made Catholic feast days into holidays, and RTE even broadcast the Angelus twice-daily: all incompatible with a secular republic. Myers, Kevin: Irish Independent p.28 Comment, 4 May 2011.
I am preserving the deleted text here because I am not in agreement with the anonymous deletion for the reason given - "alhough '24.11.168.41' agrees with it!" Osioni ( talk) 10:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Douglas Hyde died in 1949, the first president of Ireland, and was buried from St Patrick's cathedral; the cabinet did not attend but waited at the railings outside because they could not enter a protestant church. See - http://www.stpatrickscathedral.ie/the-state-and-saint-patricks-cathedral/ Hard to believe now in very different times. 78.17.61.105 ( talk) 11:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
To keep on record deleted well quoted section claimed to be devoid of context!:
It is all too often forgotten that immediately before James Craig (Northern Ireland's prime minister 1921–1940) proclaimed that "all I boast of is that we are a Protestant parliament and a Protestant state”, it was preceded by his asking Northern Ireland's critics "to remember that in the south they boasted of a Catholic state". But, in an overwhelmingly Catholic Ireland, the old Unionist taunt that 'Home Rule would mean Rome Rule' had no force because Rome Rule had become more a cause for pride than for shame. ...In Pat Rabbitte's words, the Vatican seems "to misunderstand the earthquake they have set off in [Irish] society. Whatever happens, it is the end of the age of deference."
Prof. Ronan Fanning, Professor Emeritus of Modern History ( UCD) [1]
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
The article currently states:
I think this last sentence needs rephrasing for clarity and NPOV: Are we referring to abortion? the death penalty? euthanasia? contraception? war and peace? stem cell research? Please believe me, I don't want to start a polemic; I just think we should be more specific.
Quartier
Latin1968
20:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it would offend NOR to comment that Gavan Duffy's judgement (in which he applied Ne Temere cannon law rather than the law of the land), had it been take to the Supreme Court, would have been found repugnant to the Consitution. Despite great pressure at the time from the Catholic Church (which had succeed [I believe] in inserting such clauses in the Spanish and Italian constitutions), de Valera specifically refused to include any special place for that Church in the constition. So, whereas it was certainly true in the 1950s that the RC Church was revered in the nation de facto, it was not so de jure. -- Red King 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Could someone reference this? I could not be assed with it. It should be referenced, or the content removed. -- Domer48 ( talk) 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that it's notable enough to be an article. I'm not going to prod it just yet, until I see if somebody can make an article of it, but if it hasn't been substantially expanded in the next week I will. Scolaire ( talk) 07:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the reference as it clearly dose not reflect the source cited. It dose not specify who said it, when and how much used it enjoyed then or now. It is devoide of context and therefore distorts is meaning. For example, was it used because of the Protestant Church’s Disestablishment by the British Government, something the Fenians were also accused of causing?
“ | Like O’Connell’s Repeal, Home Rule in the early stages combined the attractions of national sentiment with the attractions of a social panacea. But no movement in Ireland could effectively become a national movement with out in the end securing at least the benevolence of the Catholic Church. And for a time Cardinal Cullen satisfaction with the British Government for carrying the Protestant Church’s Disestablishment made it difficult for the hierarchy to bestow this, however much individual priests might see that the Home Rule movement was developing a popular dynamic of its own. The gradual withdrawal of Protestant support from the movement made things easier. Increased Catholic support made Protestant withdrawal faster. In stead of the movement being regarded as a movement against Home Rule, the belief that ‘Home Rule means ‘Rome Rule’ now took root as the traditional basis of opposition to the movement. This in turn inevitably made it increasingly sympathetic to many Catholics. | ” |
The sentence dose simply not reflect the information the source is being used to support. -- Domer48 ( talk) 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ammended sentence to reflect source. Removed comment / opinion, with no supporting source -- Domer48 ( talk) 20:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing that this article be deleted for the following reasons:
In short, the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject i.e. it is non-notable. Scolaire ( talk) 09:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why it should be deleted. There are other examples on Wikipedia of phrases being articles ( here and here) and the relationship between resistance to Home Rule and a fear of Catholic domination has the makings of a lengthy article.-- Johnbull ( talk) 23:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The Orange Card was to promote sectarian division, and encourage a fear among Protestants. Who were the Unionists threatening to fight against Home Rule, the British Government? So how can you suggest there was going to be civil war in Ireland? You I would suggest, have a very bizarre view of history. As to the salient point of this discussion, like I have said above, it was a minority view based on ignorance. Ignorance in this case being the real motives of those promoting and encouraging this fear. All of which could and should be covered in the article on Home Rule. The term is not notable, the article is not likely to be expanded, and the source used to support it i.e. John Bright is dubious and I suggest should be checked, since his own article makes not mention of it. As to how often it is used in relation to this subject, please cite sources. I replaced the {prod} tag, simply because the arguments for keeping it were in my opinion spurious, and not based on any of our policies, but on opinion only. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Requested AfD as this thread seems to be going nowhere let the community decide. BigDunc ( talk) 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Following section was deleted on 00:37, 12 September 2011 by "24.11.168.41" on the grounds that:
"I'm removing this because it seems to be an improperly cited quote from one journalist whose reputation is, let's say, "questionable" (e.g. tinyurl dot com/3w8jz) If not, although I agree with it, it's clearly more opinion than objective analysis."
Protestants didn’t make waves, they didn’t cause a fuss, they got on with their lives, and endured whatever degree of Catholic governance that Dáil Éireann wished to impose upon them. citation needed The Ulster Unionist warning had turned out to be accurate: Home Rule was Rome Rule, as draconian censorship, a ban on contraception and divorce and a special constitutional position for the Catholic Church all became state law. citation needed Into the 1960s, many Irish restaurants refused to serve meat on Fridays, the National University made Catholic feast days into holidays, and RTE even broadcast the Angelus twice-daily: all incompatible with a secular republic. Myers, Kevin: Irish Independent p.28 Comment, 4 May 2011.
I am preserving the deleted text here because I am not in agreement with the anonymous deletion for the reason given - "alhough '24.11.168.41' agrees with it!" Osioni ( talk) 10:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Douglas Hyde died in 1949, the first president of Ireland, and was buried from St Patrick's cathedral; the cabinet did not attend but waited at the railings outside because they could not enter a protestant church. See - http://www.stpatrickscathedral.ie/the-state-and-saint-patricks-cathedral/ Hard to believe now in very different times. 78.17.61.105 ( talk) 11:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
To keep on record deleted well quoted section claimed to be devoid of context!:
It is all too often forgotten that immediately before James Craig (Northern Ireland's prime minister 1921–1940) proclaimed that "all I boast of is that we are a Protestant parliament and a Protestant state”, it was preceded by his asking Northern Ireland's critics "to remember that in the south they boasted of a Catholic state". But, in an overwhelmingly Catholic Ireland, the old Unionist taunt that 'Home Rule would mean Rome Rule' had no force because Rome Rule had become more a cause for pride than for shame. ...In Pat Rabbitte's words, the Vatican seems "to misunderstand the earthquake they have set off in [Irish] society. Whatever happens, it is the end of the age of deference."
Prof. Ronan Fanning, Professor Emeritus of Modern History ( UCD) [1]