Talk:Secularism in the Republic of Ireland

Is the title original research?
I'm concerned about the extent to which "quiet revolution" is actually used to refer to the events described in this article, and whether this is actually a distinct concept from or merely a reference to the Quiet Revolution of Quebec. It seems that Leo Varadkar was the first to have used the term in the context of Irish secularization, but would like to see more evidence of other sources referring to the various movements described in this article as a/the "quiet revolution", beyond simply quoting Varadkar. signed,Rosguill talk 21:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wondered the same. Moreover, even if the "Quiet Revolution" is broadly recognized, many of the citations (I checked one the other day, but I'm going to guess "many" :-) don't make a connection to the "QR" and in that sense their use is also OR/synthesis. (Update: Cites 1, 4, and 9 mention the QR in the title, but I can't find the term in any of the other linked sources.) Outriggr (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Even of the ones that mention it in the title, it's not clear that they're not just echoing Varadkar, and it's not clear whether QR is just the pro-abortion vote, a wider set of changes, etc. I think a pertinent question, though, is what should be done with this article if the QR title is found to be OR? I notice that there's no article for Secularism in Ireland, so perhaps we could move this article there and do a rewrite to make it fit better? signed,Rosguill talk 00:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , it would be good to hear your thoughts as the main contributor to this article. signed,Rosguill talk 00:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thank you for your comments. In requested articles I found a request titled “Quiet Revolution (Republic of Ireland)”. The request had some links to sources included in this article and suggested it as comparable to Quebec. I understand if this does not fit the regulations, as the term Quiet Revolution is unofficial - could cause some controversy. Perhaps the best way to go is, as you suggest, to retitle and rewrite it on Secularism in Ireland instead? Mle4028 (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article to Secularism in the Republic of Ireland and cleaned it up a bit. It still has alot of OR in it, and needs more work. Spleodrach (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Five years on, it had a lot of tags, which on quick reflection I have removed. The discussion above was when the article was called Quiet Revolution (Republic of Ireland). It seems broadly ok to me now, but if not, it's probably best to start again. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The title was fine in the sense that there was huge social change brought on by the EEC/EU, the decline of the churches, the newer tech industries, companies like Ryanair, the end of the Troubles, the growth of NGOs - so many factors. Dates 1980-2020? The article needs a rewrite to deserve "Quiet Revolution".PatrickGuinness (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Original research (in body)
Hi. While (as above) the title may not have been original research, the lead contained a significant amount of editorial that wasn't supported by the linked references. While I have sought to address some of it (see below), there could very well be issues that need review. For example, the lead previously stated that the: In honesty, based on this cursory review, I wonder if additional review is required. Before the issue tags are fully removed... Guliolopez (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ""[move to a more secular society] involved no violence or force". I have removed this. On the basis that neither source makes any mention of violence or force. Or presumed/assumed that violence or force would have been required to reduce the cultural/societal influences of churches or religious institutions (I mean, why would it have?).
 * "[prayers said in the Dáil are] In contravention of the constitution's requirement of neutrality on religious questions". As above, the linked source doesn't describe this practice as a "[constitutional] contravention". The source, rather, just appears to juxtapose the practice with the constitutional text. Without describing it as a "contravention". I have tempered this text.
 * "Other [constitutional] violations include that hospitals, like schools, enjoy religious patronage and may discriminate against non-religious people". As above, the linked source doesn't describe this practice as a "violation". And doesn't describe schools or hospitals as "enjoying" patronage. The source, again, juxtaposes the constitutional text with the provisions of the "Equal Status Act and Employment Equality Act [..] which allow state-funded schools and hospitals to discriminate on the ground of religion". Again not using the word "violation". I have also tempered this text.
 * "a non-religious person cannot lawfully be president". This is an incredible claim. And not one that is supported by the source. Even the source, a Humanist International article, gives that oaths of office (incl. for the president) "effectively preclude conscientious atheists and agnostics from holding these important positions". There is a significant difference between someone being "effectively preclude[d]" and "lawfully [precluded]" from taking an oath or holding an office. I have, yet again, updated this text to reflect (with a quote) what the source actually says. To close the 10 mile chasm from a practical consideration or personal decision to a "lawful" disbarment.


 * Review is welcome - imo tags are pretty useless, as the history here shows. If you want to restore some, you should specify why here, as should always be done. It's usually better just to edit, with explanations here, as you have done. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi. As I said I would, and while I haven't gotten "all the way to the end" as yet, I have undertaken further review. And have added specific and focused inline tags. While I understand the point about "infinite tagging" (where the tags remain and the issues remain indefinitely and unaddressed), if some of these inline (OR and VER) issues cannot be addressed, then I wonder whether the text should be removed. As, otherwise, this article becomes something of an editorial essay (where the opinions expressed within it are unattributed and [largely] unsupported)... Guliolopez (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)