Talk:Communist Party of Ireland

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Socialism

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Metadata

Fair use rationale for Image:Unity 270371r.jpg

Image:Unity 270371r.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Snappy, I'm concerned that you're letting differences elsewhere get the better of your judgment. You reverted my last edit in full, giving as your reason "Irish Free State ceased to exist in 1937 so referencing it in 1941 is factually incorrect and sloppy edtiing.". How do you suggest we refer to the state then? The Republic you refer to did not come into being until the end of the decade, which in my view makes your version "factually inaccurate", but to call it "sloppy" would be an insult to sloppiness. You just can't anticipate the future as if it was all predestined! Nor does any of this explain your breaking of fifteen valid links and deletion of a reference to anticommunism in Ireland, among other things which betray more than a little ignorance about Irish history. Please try and put a little more thought into your edits in future. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well? If you're not prepared to defend your edit, I'm going to assume you've thought better of it. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Free State ceased to exist in 1937 with the coming into force of the Constitution of Ireland. Since that date, the county has been, and continues to be called Ireland. Try taking your own advice about putting thought into edits, because referring to a political entity that had ceased to exist several years earlier as existing in 1941, shows little or no thought at all. Snappy (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't cease to exist in 1937; rather, it adopted a new constitution and changed its name. Mooretwin (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics, from IFS article - The Irish Free State came to an end in 1937, when the citizens voted by referendum to replace the 1922 constitution. It was succeeded by the entirely sovereign modern state of the Republic of Ireland. Anyway, it wasn't around in 1941. Snappy (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, the southern state was no longer called the IFS in 1941. But neither did the Republic exist in 1941. Therefore I've edited to refer simply to north and south at that point. Mooretwin (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your edits make it clearer and are factually accurate. Snappy (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Job done. Mooretwin (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Now Snappy, can you address the other points I raised? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What other points? Snappy (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The breaking of valid links and the deletion of content referring to Irish anticommunism. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is that what you were referring to, I see now. Snappy (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, if you're not prepared to defend it I'll assume you've thought better of it. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defend what, I was correcting your edits about the Irish Free State in 1941. In fact it took two editors to do it. You could use your time to edit this article instead of whinging about it here. Also, you added this - Many Roman Catholic priests were fervent anti-communists, and right-wing Catholic organisations such as Maria Duce were common., it was unreferenced, uncited, vague and somewhat pov, so whether true or not, its removal was justified. Snappy (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's more like it. And the broken links? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More like what? Are you admitting you added unreferenced and unsourced material? If so, please don't do so again. 21:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I admit it freely. I don't always have time to look for the sources myself. This is a collaboration, after all. You could try using citation requests if you come across informtion that seems dubious to you. Can I take it you don't have a problem with those articles being linked? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add your links back in. You don't have time to find sources, meaning you are too lazy to find them and hope others will clean up after you. Collaboration means everyone doing their best to improve the encyclopaedia, not relying on others to do your work for you. You have a long history of adding unsourced pov to articles; like the Shell to Sea ones, well until you were banned from them. Snappy (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I don't have time to find sources, I said I don't always have time. I have added sources to other people's material, just as I have seen sources added to text I wrote. I no more rely on others than I would have them rely upon me. If you felt what I wrote was slanted in some way (although you didn't specify how), why didn't you rewrite it? Surely you don't doubt the existence of anticommunism in Ireland? You seem to be going off-topic a little with your last sentence; please try to stay focused. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Surely you don't doubt the existence of anticommunism in Ireland?" - Yes I do! So prove me wrong by getting a reliable reference. Snappy (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary. I gave you more credit. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be waiting for that reference! Snappy (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anti-communism sources

[1] appears on point, and the later material on O'Duffy as well. The source is, moreover, a tad POV, but RS. See also some stuff by Ken Bradley. And [2] might also be usable. Ditto [3] Collect (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, thanks. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dit.ie/icr/media/diticr/documents/4%20Horgan%20ICR%20Vol%208.pdf

http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/CXXVI/521/878.abstract

http://irelandscw.com/docs-CHsiege.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.232.143 (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Sure If This Link Helps But I'll Put It Here In Case It Is

http://www.rte.ie/archives/exhibitions/688-elections/691-general-election-1973/139425-election-1973/?page=1 86.41.81.235 (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Socialism"

Misclicked before I finished my edit summary again (just like at Communist Party of Britain). Regarding this edit, "socialism" is, in the context of the content in the article, a reference to the socialist stage of society as envisioned by Karl Marx. The CPI is not a "socialist party", it is a communist party advocating for a transition to socialism and eventually communism. CentreLeftRight ✉ 05:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be split in two?

@Spleodrach, Iveagh Gardens, Bastun, Guliolopez, Ser!, and SeoR:

Hello, I've pinged you because you are active on Irish political articles and I'd like your opinion on the following:

After reading Talk:Maple Leaf Pro Wrestling#Split article and seeing how seriously the continuity (or lack of) between two organisations of the same name can be taken, I feel that this article might need to be split into Communist Party of Ireland (1933) and Communist Party of Ireland (1970).

The original Communist Party of Ireland was disbanded in 1941 and it's members told to join the Labour Party, which many of them did (to great controversy). The "refounded" Communist Party of Ireland did not come along until 29 years later. Other than the name and ideology, and the membership of Michael O'Riordan in both, there is no direct link between the two organisations (as far as I can see). While the second organisation would enjoy the right to claim the CV of the first organisation, I'm not sure we on Wikipedia are supposed to reflect that.

The very tentative link between the "1933" and "1970" CPI is that (SUPPOSEDLY, the following is based off info taken from 1970 CPI's website) members of the 1933 CPI who didn't join Labour created the Irish Workers' League in 1948. That organisation merged with the Communist Party of Northern Ireland to create the "reformed" CPI in 1970.

Am I just creating busywork or is this an actual issue? Is the 29 year gap a massive disconnection between the two entities? Or is there enough overlap that it's fine?

Note: The Socialist Party of Ireland (1904) was also called the "Communist Party of Ireland" for a period in the early 1920s. Thus, some sources call it the "first" CPI, the 1933 organisation the "second" CPI and the present day CPI the "third" CPI. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split Good call. They are not institutionally the same, which is what matters. If someone founded the Progressive Democrats today and a certain senator attended a meeting, it wouldn't amount to a refounding. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split Agreed - two separate organisations with a name in common should mean two separate articles, with hatnotes. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split Agreed - and well caught! These are distinct and should be clearly handled accordingly. SeoR (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split - yeah, good shout. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]