Talk:Executive Council of the Irish Free State

"His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State"
This section has been added as a result of an AfD on an article of the same name. It still suffers the same basic flaw that led me to nominate that article for deletion: notwithstanding the number of citations showing the description in use, there is no reliable, secondary source that states directly, "The description was used during the Government led by Cosgrave, and...after the Irish general election, 1932...by the Governor-General." Not only that, but the reference for the description going out of use "at least by 1937" uses as a citation a reference that was originally used only to reference the fact that de Valera had a policy of constitutional autochthony. I cannot help suspecting that the work was not consulted to see whether it said that the description went out of use after 1932. In the absence of any reliable secondary sources stating as fact (as opposed to merely illustrating) that the Cosgrave government used it and the de Valera government used it less, this section is as pointless as the article from which it was merged. Scolaire (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The section is stating factual and notable information in an unbiased and encyclopedic manner, and far from pointless if the artcle as a whole is not pointless. If the section's wording can be improved, perhaps to remove an unintended ambiguity, that is open to any editor to do. It is better to avoid misleading quotation, which may excite needless controversy. The passage partially quoted is not purporting to  state "The description was used ...by the Governor-General." It is the appointment of de Valera that was by the G-G. The year 1937  obviously refers to the change of name by the 1937 Constitution. How could it be otherwise? If there is a problem it is due to the merger, which was opposed by... Qexigator (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is simply that the stated facts (it was used, it was used less, it was not used) are not verifiable by reference to reliable secondary sources. It is building an article section around the occurrence of the description in certain documents, which is original research. This is against Wikipedia policy. Getting around the problem by fiddling with the language, as here, here, or here, does not change anything. If you have searched this long and this hard and still haven't found a source that simply and unambiguously states, "it was called His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State", then that fact is not verifiable.  Scolaire (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And please do not edit-war. I have made the verifiability issue clear in the discussion above. Scolaire (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful edits such as you have been making are hostile. Mine are not. Please refrain from slinging "edit war" about. It does not improve your credibility, any more than use of unjustified expressions such as "rubbish". Qexigator (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You have again removed a "citation needed" tag from an uncited sentence. That is edit-warring. You are also getting dangerously close to 3RR. --Scolaire (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Persistent insertion of the tag which is increasingly irrelevant, and repeated use of "edit war", now coupled with the usual 3RR threat, is not increasing your editing credibility.  Why do this, instead of engaging in collaborative editing? If you have a constructive contribution for improving the article, please go ahead. Qexigator (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The tag is increasingly relevant, as the sentence is now in a paragraph on its own without any citation. Removing the tag three times while it is still under discussion is edit-warring. I think my "editing credibility" will survive undamaged if I merely state the obvious. Scolaire (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge again
The present version of the merged article may seem to some pointless, in isolation from the articles about the Irish head of state from 1919 to 1949. Let us consider merging with Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949 and part of Irish heads of government since 1919, but leaving the list in the latter. Qexigator (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, merge what into what, exactly? If you mean cut the whole section and paste it into Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949 then I'm all for it, because that article is rubbish anyway. But I see no need to start copying all that stuff into Irish heads of government since 1919. Why not Ireland, Republic of Ireland, History of Ireland, History of the Republic of Ireland and Politics of Ireland while you're at it? At any rate, please specify what content you propose to add to which article. Scolaire (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Why "rubbish"? How can a useful comment about it be offered by one who is of that blinkered opinion? Unemotive and constructive comment is invited on the question whether the whole of the present version of the article, with the section on "His Majesty's Government..." be merged as suggested above. Qexigator (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait, merge the whole of the article into other articles? No. I disagree with that. Scolaire (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Executive Council of the Irish Free State. 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/20070713181704/http://acts.oireachtas.ie/zza1y1922.1.html to http://acts.oireachtas.ie/zza1y1922.1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)