Talk:Defence Forces (Ireland)

Aircraft
"The Air Corps' two maritime patrol aircraft are equipped with state of the art detection systems and assist the Naval Service in policing Irish territorial waters." What kind of aircraft are these? Could someone who knows add it in - Wardhog 21:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Presumably the author is refering to the two CASA CN-235 - see Irish Air Corps Pdfpdf 00:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (BTW: It is customary to use that "+" tab at the top of the page and add new postings to the bottom of the page.)

This probley has nothing to do with it but im 14 and want to go spetial forces but i have to go through defence forces first what age can i start Clayton cuffe (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

NATO
I removed this from the text: The Republic of Ireland is not a member of NATO and, under Irish law, the Defence Forces cannot participated in any foreign intervention without a specific United Nations mandate.

Because the list of troop deployment at the Irish Defense Force page includes several non-UN missions. Do these missions like Kfor and Sfor have some kind of UN "mandate"? Rmhermen 21:16, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * The quote can't be right, as the referenced website clearly says that Irish forces are deployed on EU and OSCE missions as well as UN ones. Arwel 20:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IDF badge
What is the explanation of the letters FF on the Irish Defence Forces' badge? Do they perhaps stand for the Fianna Fáil / Soldiers of Destiny of the opening words of the national anthem (as opposed to Fianna Fáil the political party, that is)? -- Picapica 14:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As no-one else has come up with the answer, which I have since discovered, I'll reply to myself, just for the record..! Yes, FF on the cap badge does stand for Fianna Fáil. -- Picapica 10:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The Irish word Fál is a poetic name for Ireland, so Fianna Fáil in this context is probably better translated as "Soldiers of Ireland", although the meaning that the Fianna Fáil party traditionally uses is "Soldiers of Destiny".
 * I agree, that [Fál = Ireland] is what I learned at school. --Red King 01:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)  Clarified --Red King 17:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Badge Was designed in 1913 by Eoin McNeil. The Correct Meaning of the Badge is "Soldiers of Destiny" (Fianna Fáil) - "Warriors of Ireland" (Oglaigh Na hÉireann) it was the Motto of the Volunteers. (Info From Bailerweb.com) Incidentally the Correct abbreviation is DFI Badge - IDF is the Israeli's.

Stabilo boss 12:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I will repost here what I posted on the discussion of the meaning of Fianna Fáil on the article about the political party.

':*In no way, at all, in the Irish language does Fianna Fáil mean 'Soldiers of Destiny'. The confusion arises from the Latin name for the Lia Fáil - Saxum Fatale (Stone of Destiny), given to it by Hector Boece in his History of the Scottish People (at least Keating credits him with the neologism). Fál itself comes from the name of a city in the Northern Isles the Tuatha Dé Danann visited and from whence they brought back the stone. Because the stone granted kingship, one of the names they gave to Ireland was Inis Fáil, and through this Fál became a (largely poetic) name for Ireland. Fianna Fáil is the only example of Fál ever being translated to mean 'destiny', although I am unclear about when exactly this came into common usage - whether it was an original error of translation; whether it was a mistake that was allowed to gain currency for political expediency; or whether it was a deliberate mistranslation.' Cripipper 20:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Overall Manpower
In reading the Article I see it never says anywhere what the Actual overall Number of Men/Women in the Defence forces is. It gives 8,500 for the Army (and is that with or without reserves?) but no info on the other branches and no overall figure. I've heard varying figures over the years, I think an Army Recruiter guy once told me the overall number was 12,500, but I also read in some Encyclopaedia years ago that it was over 30,000 (Including reserves, if I remember correctly). Also, the Army article is very bare, it needs some considerable improvement.Hibernian :10-11-05

I was think of add figures for each one as well as more information on there operations that If found on military.ie YeBoiThrillhouse (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

G2 & G3 & Ranger Wing
Military Intelligence dont appear to be mentioned but they have theyre own page at G2 (currently blank), nor are the Ranger Wing. I might add some historical stuff from WW2 to the G2 page if thats ok. Thanks Fluffy999 01:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

New Statistics figures?
The CIA world fact book  has more recent military manpower figures for Ireland, however their new figures are in a slightly different age range from the old ones (17 to 49, instead of 15 to 49). So will I add in these new figures? (Which are slightly smaller than the current ones).--Hibernian 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do! Guliolopez 12:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done.--Hibernian 17:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Óglaigh na hÉireann.jpg
Image:Óglaigh na hÉireann.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 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 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Availability" numbers
These are completely meaningless, as lots of 17-49 year olds would be no use and there is no conscription.Red Hurley (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent move
Hi. This is the English language Wikipedia. In the English language, the common name for the subject is the Irish Defence Forces. Can someone move this back? The recent move goes against WP:COMMONNAME and - even if it wasn't - the spelling is more than wrong, it's "silly". (Irish Dence forces? Is this meant to be a joke?)Guliolopez (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Because of spelling issue, I moved back myself. Even with the spelling issue, I don't think the new title that was applied is appropriate. Under WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia should reflect the "most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things", or (put more simply) "What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?". The simple fact is that (in English), a user is very unlikely to type in "Óglaigh na hÉireann OPENBRACKET Irish Defence Forces CLOSEBRACKET". When using English, even the Defence Forces themselves use simply "the Defence Forces". See Official Defence Forces website. So the article should be at either "the Defence Forces of Ireland", or "Irish Defence Forces". Convention would give preference to the latter (current) title. Guliolopez (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo error..the official title of the Irish Defence Forces is Óglaigh na hÉireann.''It shall be lawful for the Executive Council to raise and maintain an armed force to be called Óglaigh na hÉireann (hereinafter referred to as The Forces), consisting of such number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men as may from time to time be provided by the Oireachtas. Section 22 of the Act went on to lay down that:- "The Forces shall be established as from a date to be fixed by Proclamation of the Executive Council in the Irish Oifigiuil'' (Official Gazette)", lst October, 1924.Eog1916 (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem about spelling error. Could happen to anyone. With regard to the force's title however, while the official title may be "Óglaigh na hÉireann", the common name isn't. It's "the Defence Forces", or "the Irish Defence Forces". (It's what you'll hear on the street, on the news, in the Dáil during debates/etc and even in government bills.) Even the original bill referred to them as "the Forces". The COMMONNAME guidelines would therefore expect that we use this as the title. The changes you've made to the intro correctly reflect the official name usage, but (on the English project at least) the title is probably best as it is. Guliolopez (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Official name of the force is 'Óglaigh na hÉireann'...just as the Constitution is Bunreacht na hÉireann or the Parliament is 'Dáil Éireann' etc.

It may be that other names occur in common English usage, if this is the case ( bye the way I agree that it is!) then surely the official and the unofficial name should be used. The Garda is commonly called 'The Police' in the English media. In Dublin, I frequently hear people talking about the police...they are referring to 'Na Gardaí' not to the 'PSNI' or other police forces. The Irish police service is recorded as 'Garda Síochána na hÉireann' in 'English Wiki'. Notably not as the 'Guards' or the 'Irish Police' yet given that this is commonly heard why is the COMMONNAME guidelines not put to use! How is 'common usage measured? Many unofficial terms are used for 'Óglaigh na hÉíreann'. In Newry, where I live, if one speaks about 'the army', invariably the listner understands that one is speaking about the IRA not the British Army or any other armed force!

The official name of the State is 'Éire' or in English 'Ireland', yet most English media sources use 'The Republic' or 'The South (the BBC uses 'The Irish Republic' most frequently). In the French Wiki we have 'Irlande (pays)', in German Wiki we have 'Irland', in Spanish Wiki we get 'Irlanda', but in English Wiki we get 'Republic of Ireland'. Why does English Wiki have difficulty with the official names of things Irish?Eog1916 (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For the same reason that the Polish Armed Forces are at Polish Armed Forces, rather than Siły Zbrojne Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Because this is the English language project, and users invariably will look and expect to find the article at the English commonname. (FYI. I don't think that the Gardaí example is comparable because it is a cross-over word that is used in English. IE: The commonname in general English conversation is "Garda". See: Irish words used in the English language.) Guliolopez (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok..but! You say that the common name in English for 'Garda' is 'Garda'. How did you arrive at this ....did you do a survey? The reason for the use of 'Garda' for 'Garda' is because the State did not give the force an alternative English name! Thus we have the list of words Irish words used in the English language that you allude to. The BBC uses the term 'Irish Republic' not 'Ireland' or 'Republic of Ireland'....did they do a survey or is there some other reason for their preference? Given that the BBC broadcasts to the World, surely we should adopt the term 'Irish Republic', given that most speakers of English are probably now more familiar with this term than any other. (Maybe we should also thank the 'British Council' and the 'Foreign and Commonwealth Office' for their promotion of this common usage ) Maybe 'English Wikipedia' should try to be less ethnocentric and should instead reach out more and cater for the majority population who use 'World English'?

Eog1916 (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Revisited
I notice this morning that (without much consideration to the discussion above) this article has been moved again. As noted above, the COMMONNAME of the subject is "The Defence Forces". And, in fact, the "official name" IN ENGLISH is also "the Defence Forces". Hence this rename isn't really correct. By way of support/evidence of the "the official name in English is the Defence Forces", I would point to the fact that the official website of the forces (in English) at military.ie use "the Defence Forces" and "the Irish Defence Forces". (In fact - possibly a case of "shame on them" - but there is no mention whatsoever of the official name in Irish on military.ie on the homepage or about sections). Similarly, the Department of Defence website also uses the "Defence Forces" and "Irish Defence Forces". In terms of COMMONNAME, the common name used (in the press and such) is also "the Irish Defence Forces". (See press examples, etc). It is true to say that the official name IN IRISH is "Óglaigh na hÉireann", but this is the English language project. Guliolopez (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - Given that there have been no comments/rebuttals on the fact that (in English) the common and officially used name is "the Irish Defence Forces", I am going to move this article back again. Guliolopez (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Formerly or formally?
There are a few references in the article as follows: * Army Reserve (formerly An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil) * Naval Service Reserve (formerly An Slua Muirí) Should these statements really use "formerly" (ie meaning "previously known as", or should they use "formally" (ie "officially known as")? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the subject to judge whether they've been renamed or whether its a spelling mistake. --The Thieving Gypsy (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The current text is correct. They were both "previously known" by those names. Their current official (formal) names are the AR and NSR. The "old" names were officially dropped in the RDF in 2005. (They they are still sometimes referred to by their "old" labels). Guliolopez (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Name of the article
The name of this article has recently been changed, contrary to WP:NC in my view. Can we have the opinions of other editors please? RashersTierney (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Defence Acts 1954 to 1998 provide that "It shall be lawful for the Government to raise, train, equip, arm, pay and maintain defence forces to be called and known as Óglaigh na hÉireann or (in English) the Defence Forces." Usage on the official website also prefers the term "Defence Forces" as a title. Similar naming formulae (ie not adding the word "Irish" in front of the name, and using "Ireland" within brackets where disambiguation is needed) are used at Naval Service Reserve and Army Reserve (Ireland). --Kwekubo (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi guys. I happen to think that the previous article title was a closer fit to WP:COMMONNAME. I understand Kwekubo's comment on the "official name", but the term "Irish Defence Forces" is actually used quite broadly within the forces themselves. And beyond. If one starts with a Google Search we note that the official site actually DOES use the term "Irish Defence Forces" - it's there in the title. In the same results it's notable that organisations within the forces also use the term - note: "Irish Defence Forces Orienteering Club" whose goal is to promote "the sport of orienteering throughout the Irish Defence Forces". Similarly, if we take a look at the Department of Defence website, we note a definition for the forces: "The Irish Defence Forces consist of the Permanent Defence Force (PDF) and the Reserve Defence Force (RDF)". Anyway, long story short, the term "Irish Defence Forces" provides a more natural DAB term (that is in common use) and should therefore probably be the title. In my opinion at any rate. Guliolopez (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

ENGVAR
Whatever about the "parens V prefix" discussion, this article should not be moved (as it was today) to any variant which uses the US "Defense" spelling. Using the US spelling is significantly problematic in terms of the COMMONNAME and ENGVAR guidelines. Unless a specific case can be made for using the US spelling (and I can't imagine what that could be), the "Defence" spelling should be used in this article.Guliolopez (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
A note of explanation on a wholescale rollback just completed. While reviewing recent additions (by User:MFIreland) I noted that a very high percentage (and possibly all) of content (recently added to replace the previous history/role sections) was totally "copied and pasted" from the Defence Forces website. Namely: While primary sources are a useful starting point for sourcing data, we cannot just copy and paste that content DIRECTLY into articles in that fashion. Guliolopez (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The detail on the Council of Defence was a verbatim copy and paste from here
 * The detail on organisation was a verbatim copy and paste from here
 * The detail on history was a verbatim copy and paste from here
 * The detail on roles/etc was a verbatim copy and paste from here
 * Etc. Etc.

History
I have updated the history section. If there is any snags with it please dont just undo it all just let me know and I will edit it.MFIreland (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem
The link for Colonel Daniel Bryan redirects to the article on Bryan Danielson, the wrestler. Someone please correct this. 109.78.69.30 (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, if this is where you mean. RashersTierney (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy and paste fork instead of following SS guidelines?
Edits today have effectively copy and pasted large swathes of the Irish Army article to this topic. This would seem to be a massively redundant fork, and (save for the overlap between the development and history of the army, and the forces as a whole) I can see no justification for it. Lack of edit summaries make it impossible to see a rationale for these changes. Seems quite redundant to me and not in keeping with the the standard "summary style" MOS guideline. Certainly the history of the army and the history of the broader forces are intertwined, but dealing with this is typically achieved by adding a summary and using a linking template like Template:Main - per WP:SS. Can anyone see a need/justification for this kind of copy/paste - over the standard SS approach? Guliolopez (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Any thoughts on this? If nothing forthcoming, I'll likely summarise the relevant sections per the WP:SS/MOS guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. And doubly so about the lack of edit summaries. RashersTierney (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. It seems that there are no issues that would preclude us applying the WP:SS/MOS guidelines, so I'm going to go ahead and summarise as discussed. Guliolopez (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

List of bases
Unless anyone has a better idea (and given the accuracy/duplication problems), I think we should move the "List of bases" to it's own list article. Perhaps similar to List of French Air Force aircraft squadrons or List of United States Marine Corps installations. In it's current form, the "list of bases" is not particularly useful, and, if it remains as a sub-set of this article, I can't see it taking a useful form. Perhaps if it is moved to its own article, it could be "split" into sub-sections listing the Army, Naval Service, and Air Corps installations....? Guliolopez (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

President as Supreme Commander
I tried to edit the incorrect title on the table.

The president was listed as Commander-in-Chief, however the constitution states that the president in the Supreme Commander. I tried changing this however it won't post. Would appreciate if someone more experienced could fix this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GavRad (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Guliolopez (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Availability numbers (again...)
As I wrote above some years ago, the numbers of young men "available" or "fit for service" is nonsense. There is no conscription nor proposals for it, and it would be very unpopular.Red Hurley (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow. Are you objecting to some particular line in the article? RashersTierney (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. OK. In ref to your earlier removal of some unnecessary infobox parameters. Seems reasonable. RashersTierney (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What is it with your availability numbers? In the USA there are millions of people available to be slaves, but they are not described as available for slavery because the law doesn't allow it. Likewise in Ireland there is no law allowing military or industrial conscription, so there is no basis whatever for estimating what numbers are "available" to serve in any forces. In any case, the numbers are estimates. Even in historical times Ireland never had conscription. Let's stick to facts and not try to count the number of rocks on the moon.78.16.82.235 (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Role
I have amended the role section to reflect that the defence forces are responsible for state security from external threats. They have no remit either alone or with AGS against internal threats. Ags are solely responsible for internal security — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.5.227 (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hiya. It's interesting that you say that, because the Defence Forces website explicitly states that there is a role in this regard. See the "what we do" section. (Also refer to the Department of Defence White Paper Section 3.3) Do you think this is incorrect? Why? Guliolopez (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm deleting this section because it is an internal mission statement. Meesher (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Óglaigh na hÉireann / Fórsaí Cosanta
I've added references for the name of the defence forces. This is defined in the Defence Act, 1954 (and originally in the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923). It is also the name given in the English-Irish Dictionary of Military and Related Terms, published by the Training Section of the Army Headquarters, Department of Defence in 1969. "Fórsaí Cosanta" is used in other circumstances (in both acts of the Oireachtas and in the military's documentation) but not as the name. --Tóraí (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a carry-over from the discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland. Since the "Fórsaí Cosanta" edit has been stable on this article for a month, it should be left just as it is as long as that discussion is ongoing. Scolaire (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That discussion has zeroed in on whether any Irish translation should appear in that article.
 * What I'm disputing here is the recently inserted claim that an Irish-language name for the Defence Forces is "fórsaí cosanta". That term is the Irish for "defence forces", and is naturally used in relation to the Defence Forces in Irish texts, but that doesn't make it the Irish-language name of the forces.
 * See the Defence Act, 1953, where the government is authorised to raise "defence forces" ("fórsaí cosanta") to be known as "Óglaigh na hÉireann" (or the Defence Forces in English):
 * "English: 'It shall be lawful for the Government to raise, train, equip, arm, pay and maintain defence forces to be called and known as Óglaigh na hÉireann or (in English) the Defence Forces.'"
 * "Irish: 'Is dleathach don Rialtas fórsaí cosanta dá ngairmfear agus ar a dtabharfar Óglaigh na hÉireann nó (i mBéarla) the Defence Forces a bhunú, a thréineáil, a threalmhú, d'armáil, d'íoc agus a chothabháil.'"
 * See also the Defence Forces' own Fóclóir Béarla – Gaeilge de Théarmaí Míleata agus de Théarmaí Gaolmhara, which makes the same distinction. It translates "defence force" as "fórsa cosanta". But "The Defence Forces" (definite article, proper noun) as "Óglaigh na hÉireann".
 * As the claim was introduced to this article (about a month ago), I'm going to revert it. The "stable version" is without the claim (as it had been since its creation in since 2004).
 * I see Mownberry (who introduced the claim here) has been blocked for 72 hours relating to activity on another article. In the mean time, if you want to provide evidence that "Fórsaí Cosanta" is the Irish name of the Defence Forces, go ahead. --Tóraí (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * First off, an edit that is not reverted or disputed for over thirty days is stable. If after a month there is a move to change it, and that is disputed, it should be reverted to that stable version pending the outcome of the discussion. I am now going to do so, and I would ask you not to edit-war. The fact that the person who first made the edit is now blocked for edit-warring is not a justification for doing the same thing, but rather the reverse.
 * With regard to the use of "Fórsaí Cosanta", a 2000 number of Irish Jurist draws attention to the fact that 'the Defence Forces are referred to in Article 13.4 [of the Constitution of Ireland] as "na Forsai Cosanta"' (unfortunately, that text doesn't seem to appear in snippet view, but it's there). "Fórsaí Cosanta" is much more than "just a translation", therefore. It carries official weight not only in legislation, but in the Constitution itself. The article cited in the second footnote, Micheál Ó Cearúil's Bunreacht na hÉireann: a study of the Irish text, is not an easy read, and tends to come down on the side of "Óglaigh na hÉireann", but the fact is that the words "Fórsaí Cosanta" appear at least as often as "Óglaigh na hÉireann", showing that it is at least as prevalent in official use. Even the quote used in the citation says, "'The Defence Forces' are officially styled by the Army itself as 'Óglaigh na hÉireann' in Irish, as against 'na Fórsaí Cosanta'." "Officially styled by the Army itself" is not the same as "the only name allowed to be used", and Ó Cearúil's statement is an acknowledgement that "Fórsaí Cosanta" is a legitimate alternative.
 * What we have in Mownberry's version is a statement of fact—that there are two alternative versions of "The Defence Forces" in Irish, both used officially—with references, and with a footnote explaining the two. This is encyclopaedic content, of interest to the reader, and I can see no reason to remove it except some spurious rule that only the official style used by the organisation itself may appear in brackets after the name. If there is such a policy, which I doubt, the particular circumstances around this name would justify invoking Ignore all rules.
 * I would be open to removing "Fórsaí Cosanta" from the infobox. Arguably there should be only one Irish version there, and the one used by the DF themselves is the logical one. Scolaire (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The claim was disputed and reverted two weeks ago. In any case, it is unsupported and may be removed (see policy).
 * What we have on Wikipedia is a policy that can be summarised as "verifiability, not truth". We also have policy against original research. Where is a reference stating that "na Fórsaí Cosanta" is a name for the Defence Forces? Because all we currently have are sources that say it is not.
 * Now, for the sources you cite:
 * Irish Jurist
 * You cite the Irish Jurist. That source refers the Ó Cearúil source. This is what it has to say on use of "na Fórsaí Cosanta" in the Constitution:"'Other unusual choices of vocabulary are highlighted by Ó Cearúil, for example the Defence Forces are referred to in Article 13.4 as 'na Fórsai Cosanta' even though statute (now section 16 of the Defence Act 1954) provides that they shall be known as Óglaigh na hEireann.'"
 * And this is the source you are citing in support of the term? Because all that can be gleamed from that is that "na Forsai Cosanta" is an "unusual choice of vocabulary" because the name of the Defence Forces is Óglaigh na hEireann.
 * Ó Cearúil
 * Can you please quote Ó Cearúil's "acknowledgement that 'Fórsaí Cosanta' is a legitimate alternative"? I see no such statement in the Ó Cearúil reference (neither does the Irish Jurist). Is this some wishful thinking on your part?
 * Now, how about we remove this unsupported statement and move on? No source has been produced to support it in the two weeks since it was challenged (either here and on the RoI article). --Tóraí (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * But that's just hair-splitting! Of course you're not going to find a reliable source that says an Irish translation of a name (that is in frequent and official use) is an Irish name. It's too obvious to be worth saying. Per WP:BLUE, "many editors misunderstand the citation policy, seeing it as a tool to enforce, reinforce, or cast doubt upon a particular point of view in a content dispute, rather than as a means to verify Wikipedia's information." Your dismissive closing line, "Now, how about we remove this unsupported statement and move on?", strongly suggests that that is the case here. You have not even attempted to address any of my substantive arguments: that there is no encyclopaedic reason to remove encyclopaedic content that is both cited and footnoted; that there is no policy saying that only an "official name" can be given in brackets as the Irish version; or that even if there was, the unusual nature of this name justifies invoking IAR. There is therefore no point in my trying to talk sense to you any more. I am going to open it up to the community in an RfC.
 * And yes, 20 days is more than adequate for an edit to be stable. Mownberry's edit was the stable version until you began this dispute, and it should remain until the dispute is resolved. Scolaire (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOTBLUE. And, by the way, the encyclpediac reason to remove the statement is because it is untrue. To quote the Irish Jurist reference you brought up: to refer to the Defence Forces as Fórsaí Cosanta is an "usual choice of vocabulary" to say the least because it is not the name of the Defence Forces in Irish. Anyway, on with an RfC...--Tóraí (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should both Irish versions be included?
Should Fórsaí Cosanta be included in brackets (after Defence Forces and alongside Óglaigh na hÉireann) in the first sentence of the introduction?

Survey
''Please do not add threaded replies to the survey section. Use the discussion section below.''
 * Support: Óglaigh na hÉireann is how "the Defence Forces are officially styled by the Army itself", but Fórsaí Cosanta is also frequently used, not only in general but in statutory legislation and in the Constituion of Ireland. The current edit gives both versions, with references, and with a footnote explaining the unusual situation. This is encyclopaedic content, of interest to the reader, and I can see no reason to remove it. Scolaire (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: I see no reason not to use both. While Óglaigh na hÉireann is "official" term, Fórsaí Cosanta is also used (both officially and unofficially). And is relevant/helpful for reader (esp non-Irish speakers) to give context to both labels. Guliolopez (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove as unsupported (and contradicted by reliable sources). The statement that "Fórsa Cosanta" is a name for the Defence Forces is a claim recently added to the article having never been here before. The name of the Irish defence forces is "Óglaigh na hÉireann" or (in English) "the Defence Forces". This is set out most recently in the Defence Act, 1953:"English: 'It shall be lawful for the Government to raise, train, equip, arm, pay and maintain defence forces to be called and known as Óglaigh na hÉireann or (in English) the Defence Forces .'""Irish: 'Is dleathach don Rialtas fórsaí cosanta dá ngairmfear agus ar a dtabharfar Óglaigh na hÉireann nó (i mBéarla) the Defence Forces a bhunú, a thréineáil, a threalmhú, d'armáil, d'íoc agus a chothabháil.'"Use of "fórsa cosanta" (which is the Irish for "defence forces") is naturally frequent in Irish-language texts on military issues and used in relation to the Defence Forces (for example, "Defence Force Regulations" is "Rialacháin Fhórsaí Cosanta"). However, this does not make it a name for the Defence Forces. I think this is where confusion is arising. This issue is discussed by Micheál Ó Cearúil in Bunreacht na hÉireann: a study of the Irish text, where he states quite planely that, "'The Defence Forces' are officially styled by the Army itself as 'Óglaigh na hÉireann' in Irish, as against 'na Fórsaí Cosanta'." He then goes show illustrate distinction between "fórsa cosanta" and "Óglaigh na hÉireann", with examples. The question is also discssed in an issue of The Irish Jurist (Volume 35, 2000), where it describes referring to the Defence Forces as na Fórsai Cosanta as an "unusual choice of vocabulary" (on account of the name of the Defence Forces being Óglaigh na hEireann). The question of the Irish-language name for the Defence Force is also clearly set out in the Defence Forces' own English – Irish Dictionary of Military and Related Terms, wherein they provide translations for terms such as "defence force" and "The Defence Forces":Defence force: fórsa cosantaThe Defence Forces: Óglaigh na hÉireannGiven that the Irish-langauge name of the Defence Forces is clearly and definitively laid out as Óglaigh na hÉireann. Given that authorative source debunk "Fórsa Cosanta" as being a name for the Defence Forces. Given that no reliable sources have been put forward to support "Fórsa Cosanta" as a name for the Defence Forces. We really shouldn't be putting forward it foward as one.--Tóraí (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, mordern encyclopedia uses modern terms, and up-to-date references, both OnhE and FC are in use today. Murry1975 (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support There is sufficient official use of "Fórsa Cosanta" to refer to the armed forces. The third image on this page managed to change my opinion on this. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 17:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Quasi-support - in some such format as, "sometimes unofficially referred to as Fórsaí Cosanta (defense forces)". -- Orange Mike |  Talk  02:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - use it myself, not as popular as the official term, but still can be found. --HighKing (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as sufficiently verifiable per Defence Forces Act, 1937 (thanks to Guliolopez): "'...cialluíonn an abairt 'na Fórsaí Cosanta' na Fórsaí agus an Cúltaca.' ('...the expression 'the Defence Forces' means the Forces and the Reserve.')"However, it should not appear in the infobox as it is not one of the names defined in the Defence Act, 1953 name. And Óglaigh na hÉireann should be marked out as being the official styling per Ó Cearúil, etc. --Tóraí (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Neutrality of RfC statememnt

RfC should be phrased neutrally. The nub of the RfC is whether "Fórsaí Cosanta" is a name of the Defence Forces. No reliable source has been produce to support this claim. And the claim is contradicted by reliable sources. Yet, the phrasing of the RfC pre-supposed that it is.

I rephrased the RfC more neutrally here. Sadly, that has been reverted to the current biased language. --Tóraí (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have dealt with your attempt to interfere with the section heading (on the pretext that it was more neutral) on your user talk page. To summarise, the nub of the RfC is NOT whether Fórsaí Cosanta is a name for the Defence Forces. It is whether Fórsaí Cosanta should be included in brackets as well as the other version. The section heading is therefore both accurate and unbiased. Scolaire (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Scolaire, that is the nub. You say the defence forces have two Irish-language names. I say they have just one. I showed you reliable sources. You called and RfC. And the heading you gaves to the RfC pre-supposes your position (that there are two Irish-language names). So, yes, the heading is biased. --Tóraí (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I say there are two Irish versions of the name. I called the RfC, as you note. Therefore I get to ask my question. I am not obliged to ask a question that you put into my mouth. So, yes, your edit of the section heading was disruptive. Scolaire (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Size of !vote

It is the practice in an RfC to give a concise reason for your !vote in the "Survey" section. The "Discussion" section is for detailed argument. I won't lay myself open to charges of disruption by moving Tóraí's essay down into this section, but I would ask him to do so himself, and to replace it with a concise and easily readable summary. Putting something that size (four paragraphs and two blockquotes!) as a !vote makes a mockery of the whole RfC process. Scolaire (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sources and policy

Naturally, if the term can be sourced as being a name of the Defence Forces it should stay. The problem is that no source is being produced in its favour.

you say a modern encyclopedia should use up-to-date references, what reference are you referring to? All of sources cited (with the exception of the 1954 legislation prescribing the names) are modern. And even the 1954 legislation is the most up-to-date (i.e. the most recent). They indicate that "Fórsaí Cosanta" is not a name of the Defence Forces. No sources have been cited in support of the term.

are you seriously citing a medal from 1946 as a source? Surely, if "Fórsaí Cosanta" is a name of the Defence Forces then an actual (usable) source can be provided (one that doesn't rely on an original analysis of bric-a-brac). And that's not to mention that the Defence Act, 1953 (which prescribes the name of the Defence Force in English and Irish) comes after the 1946 date and does not provide "Fórsa Cosanta" as a name.

I really don't know what will happen if this RfC ends in support of the keeping the term but without a usable source in support of it. Because, in that event, the term will still be liable to be removed as an unsupported claim (per policy).

--Tóraí (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This bill from 2012. Given as an example already on another tp. Murry1975 (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Where does that bill say a name of the Defence Forces in Irish is "Forsaí Cosanta"? No-one is disputing the Irish for "defence forces" is "forsaí cosanta" (as in the title of the bill).
 * The Ó Cearúil points to both the 1923 and 1954 acts both of which talk about raising "forsaí cosanta". However, as he points out too, both of these acts say the force is to be called "Óglaigh na hÉireann" (or the Defence Force in English).
 * Is the purpose of the parenthesis simply to provide a translation of the phrase "defense force" in Irish? I don't think so. I think it's to provide the Irish-language name of the Defence Forces. That's explicitly set out in law as Óglaigh na hÉireann. If "Forsaí Cosanta" is a common alternative name then surely a source can be produced saying so? --Tóraí (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Its a legal bill, passed by Government, that is about the Defence Forces, it never once uses ÓnhE. You have been shown a legal offical source. You use a point about the 1923 and 1954 acts that use ÓnhE aswell, yet dismiss the one that doesnt, as the different acts all come from the same source, ie the Irish Government means that they all carry the same level of reliability, dismissing the newer source as a mere translation while using the outdated ones is actually against how we are meant to source, and we should use the newer source as it is more up-to-date. Murry1975 (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I read the wrong one but Ó Cearúil translated forsai armtha as the armed forces as roughly the same thingin the same book. In 1999. Pre-dating the bill passed above. Murry1975 (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not a matter of time or shifting terminology (the 2013 act actually uses older terminology to the 1954 one, see page 3).
 * The 1923 act that Ó Cearúil refers to provides for the Irish Free State Executive to raise an armed force ("forsa armtha"). The 1954 act provides for the Government of Ireland to raise defence forces ("forsaí cosunta"). (The armed force is also described as a "forsaí cosunta" in a hading of the the 1923 act.) In both cases, the name of the "forsai armtha" or "forsaí cosunta" is provided as "Óglaigh na hÉireann" (not "forsa armtha" or "forsaí cosunta"). Later acts, of course, make different provisions for these "forsaí armtha" or "forsaí cosunta".
 * That's the difference between the 1954 act and the 2013 one. The 1954 one state what the names of the defence forces are. The 2013 one doesn't. And what we want is a source that says what the names of the Irish defence forces are.
 * So, is there a source that says a third name for the Defence Forces is "Forsaí Cosunta"? Because anything other than an explicit statement is original thought. --Tóraí (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:V has no relevance to this question. "Forsaí Cosanta" is not a statement, only a compound noun. WP:V has nothing to say about nouns; to talk of "verifying" nouns is meaningless. The question in this RfC is whether to include "Forsaí Cosanta", not whether to include "Forsaí Cosanta is a name." None of the "Support" votes so far has stated that Forsaí Cosanta is a name. Including a word or words in brackets is not a statement that it is a name. If anything, it implies that the word or words in brackets is a translation, not a name, although in practice most of the time it is both. But it is not a statement, therefore verifiability does not come into play. With your statement here, that "if this RfC ends in support of the keeping the term but without a usable source in support of it...the term will still be liable to be removed as an unsupported claim (per policy) ", you are on very dangerous ground indeed. I hope you're not saying that you would act disruptively if the consensus went against you. Scolaire (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Then we're thinking of two different perspectives of the same questions. My concern here is the verifiability of the claim that "Forsaí Cosanta" is an name for the Defence Forces (other than that I've no great interest in the matter). And, yes, it is a claim because terms that appear parenthesis in the first sentence are presented as alternative names of the subject (see Manual of Style/Lead section).
 * All material that appears in an article must be verifiable. An RfC doesn't get around the broader consensus that policy represents (see policy on consensus). The simple solution, which is all that was ever asked of you, is to provide a reliable source that (explicitly) supports the claim being made. --Tóraí (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * But I don't provide anything to order. I dislike the mentality of one person deciding that he is the biggest boy in the playground, and is going to decide the rules of the game regardless of anybody else's views or feelings. I will let the RfC take its course, and if you decide to unilaterally overturn the result, you can take the consequences, but I won't lose any sleep either way. Goodbye and happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not deciding the rules of the game. This particular rule existed before I arrived on the scene. Anyone can challenge the inclusion of material and it's up to those who support its inclusion to provide reliable sources. To quote:
 * "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."
 * You're not being asked for anything out of the ordinary. And a RfC doesn't get around it. --Tóraí (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Tóraí. I have been keeping out of this because these types of discussions are energy draining and frustrating, and I promised myself I wouldn't get dragged in. However, I feel I have to add a note at this point. I find it amazingly disingenuous of you to suggest that there is no verifiable and reliable sources to support the assertion that Fórsaí Cosanta is used as a name. There are umpteen acts, government documents and sources which confirm that it is used as A NAME for the force. Nobody is saying (nor does this RfC suggest) that it be referred to as "THE NAME" for the force. But there is sufficient verifiable sources (that meet WP:VER by a country mile) to support a note in the article that it is used as "A NAME". (A name, by the way that also meets tenets of WP:COMMONNAME by a country mile as well). Continued assertions to the contrary border on WP:HEAR or WP:POINT. Guliolopez (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not being disingenuous at all. If someone asks (genuinely, as I have been doing) for a source to verify a statement, the burden is on those who believe a statement is verifiable to produce a source for it. If they struggle then they should not cry foul and appeal to populism. Just find a source.
 * In this case, all that was asked for was a source to verify that "Fórsaí Cosanta" is used as a name for the Defence Forces. The headings of acts don't cut it because the headings of acts may be merely descriptive. Who is to say that by "Acht Fórsaí Cosanta" that anyone intended the Defence Forces be called Fórsaí Cosanta? The same with inscription on medals.
 * But ... amid the sources you cite above above is the following from the Defence Forces Act, 1937:
 * "'...cialluíonn an abairt “na Fórsaí Cosanta” na Fórsaí agus an Cúltaca.' ('the expression “the Defence Forces” means the Forces and the Reserve.')"
 * Now, that's a gem. That sufficiently verifies that the phrase is more than just a description and is intended as an identifier, if not a name.
 * Thank you, I'm satisfied now. --Tóraí (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Defence Forces (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/20101126060051/http://military.ie/naval/roles/index.htm to http://military.ie/naval/roles/index.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Updated information
As you have probably seem I have been going through the the page and been updating information and adding some statistics I’m trying to implement them to page and I am new so im still working putting in the information for the army if you want to discuss plans to update the information id be open to responded here :) YeBoiThrillhouse (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. I did see your additions. You may have noticed that I tempered and changed some of those additions. I added explanatory edit summaries with every one of my own changes. And have referred to a number of policies in those edit summaries. In short:
 * WP:RSPRIMARY - Primary sources are to be used sparingly. Secondary sources are preferred. For various reasons. Not least that a primary source like a press release from the media department of a subject organisation (in this case the PR Branch of the Defence Forces) is likely to be promotional in tone. And so any text which is based on it (intentionally or not) can take on a similarly promotional/POV tone.
 * WP:SIGNATURE - Do not "sign" your edits or additions to the main article name space. You seem to have added your own Wikipedia use name as the "author" of the Defence Forces press release. As you did by adding "|last=Thrillhouse|first=Yeboi" to the ref syntax. Unless you work for the PR Branch (in which case I would direct you to the WP:COI policy), you were not the "author" of that publication.
 * WP:SS - Do not try and squeeze any and all information into every article. An article on the Irish Conservation Box or territorial waters can deal with the area of those marine areas. There is no need to try and cover that in a high-level article like this. In honesty, even if we went one level "down" (to the article on the Naval Service) we'd likely be over-supplying to the reader.
 * Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Yea I wasn’t sure about out the whole signature thing I have been looking for other small sources of information to possibly add as little tid bits of information and how to integrate them into the article YeBoiThrillhouse (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Reference To Ireland In Opening Paragraph
A number of copy edits to change the remove "the Republic Of" from the reference to Ireland have been reverted recently. I'd like to discuss here why WP:IRE-IRL is not seen as being valid here? Cashew.wheel (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * With your edits you suggest that the army is active on the whole island, what is clearly not the case. So for clarity reasons, the reverts are correct. The Banner  talk 13:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no suggestion that the Defence Forces are active across the entire island of Ireland, my edit clearly states that they are the armed forces of Ireland, the country. There is no reference to Northern Ireland or the island of Ireland. Cashew.wheel (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You changed the link into "Ireland" as visible part. This can be mistaken as the island and so it lacks clarity. The Banner  talk 12:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)