This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Irish neutrality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

Ireland Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the image-needed parameter once the image is added.

I believe the statement on Ireland suffering more casualties than any other country in the UK in this article is factually incorrect. According to statistics available on the web, Scotland suffered more fatalities (147,609) than the total number of Irishmen who volunteered from August 1914 to the end of the war (134,202).

This article, which is entirely the work of User:66.185.84.208, needs substantial work. It is full of inaccuracy - for example, there was no conscription in Ireland during World War I! User_talk:66.185.84.208 seems to have a history of vandalism, although it is a shared IP and the article does have *some* valid material amid the inaccuracy. Blorg 16:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Having read through it, I think it is likely to have been a school project that was donated to Wikipedia; I don't think there was an intention to defraud and the inaccuracies are probably due to inadequate research. I've fixed some of the problems but it still needs attention from someone more knowledgeable about Irish history. Blorg 17:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've copy-edited and added sections and links etc. to the article, hopefully without significantly altering the meaning of the contents which I'm not knowledgable enough to re-write. On this basis, I've removed the 'clean-up' template and replaced it with 'disputed' as I consider this now more accurately reflects what still needs to be addressed in this article. I toyed with an 'attention' marker, but as other editors have commented on inaccuracy I settled on 'disputed' Valiantis 19:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The current policy section seems rather politically motivated "Today, unlike Sweden, Switzerland and Japan, the Republic of Ireland is not officially a neutral country and could join any war it pleases." This is untrue, as for Ireland to participate in any UN missions it must have a UN Mandate from the Security Council (so this could technically allow Ireland to go to war, as the Korean war was technically speaking, a "UN War"), as well as approval from both houses of the Irish parliament.

Also, the mission in Liberia is a UN sanctioned peace enforcement mission. Whatever the political views one may take, Ireland is not in a position to unilaterally enter into any conflict (let alone humanitarian mission, with the "Triple Lock" in place).

Also, the section on the First World War is irrelevant, as the Irish state did not exist in 1914. I say both these sections should be removed, as both seem highly politically motivated.

I expanded this article, it was not a school project, nor did I at any stage say there was conscription in WWI that must have been added by someone else, when I started my changes WWI was already there, I agree it is not important.

I am not a member of any political party nor was my contribution politically motivated.

There is no law or declaration anywhere that says Ireland is a neutral state, and most neutral states do not allow other military forces to use their soil, Ireland does. Ireland also can support a war with UN approval, other neutral states are neutral in all circumstances.

Ireland does have the so called triple lock, this can be removed by law at any time, the constitution only requires the approval of Dail Eireann for war.

It's very important to note there is a substantial diffrence of opinion about Irish neutrality.

There are many political parties in Ireland who want the country to be neutral, they all have a diffrent idea of it.

I am about to make more changes.

I attempted some further edits, I hope they don't conflict. I do not consider the article remotely neutral yet. It is important that the article examine the nature of Irish neutrality, but also recognises that the matter is one for debate (the issue is suitably ambiguous on a number of points). The article should recognise that as far as official policy goes, Ireland is neutral. Even if the situation on the ground runs contrary to some common neutrality principles. zoney ♣ talk 19:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe much of the confusion about this entry (and the debate in Ireland over "Irish neutrality") comes from bundling being neutral with being non-aligned. Neutrality is something that only happens during a time of war, and it simply means that you're not a party to the conflict. You don't have to be non-aligned to be neutral in a given war. Example: Slovenia, a full member of NATO, was a neutral power during the recent Iraq war. It was a neutral power because it conformed more or less to the minimum international standards set out for non-participants (neutral powers) during a time of war in the Hague Convention (V) 1907 (they didn't allow US military overflights or refueling). Same for Turkey, another full member of NATO. Indeed, every state in the world is a "neutral" visavie every ongoing conflict to which it is not a party (attacking or being attacked). Some states have laws binding them to that posture (non-participation, neutrality) visavie particular conflicts or states (like Austria), and some have laws even binding them permanantly that way (like Switzerland or Turkmenistan). Ireland hasn't had any laws binding us to that posture since the Spanish Civil War (Non-intervention) Act 1937. Indeed, two recent Judicial Reviews (Horgan v Ireland 2003 and Dubsky v Ireland 2005) have confirmed the opposite: Ireland is not (ever!) obliged to conform to customary international law, and the minimum international standards of neutrality in particular. --Slackr 16:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I added

1. that German sailors were also interned
2. ‘guests of the nation’
3. no declaration of war – unlike most of South America
4. the shipping paragraph – I must do a separate article on this
5. Belfast bombing
6. Donegal corridor and Shannon

I removed

1. ‘failed’ from the League of Nations, as that was not deV’s opinion.
2. Franco and the book of condolence, as its not relevant
3. Grey and his Derry question

I modified

1. positions of German submarines were regularly reported to the Royal Navy through secret messages – there was no actual ‘reporting or ‘secret messages’ They just reported back to their base. The British could hear. They knew that the British were listening. But the strict letter of neutrality was not broken

Need to add some material on deV and the League of Nations and how that shaped neutrality. --ClemMcGann 00:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in an earlier version that got edited out, the Dongeal corridor was used by the RAF prior to the US entering the war, it was used by the recce plane that spotted the Bismarck. It must have been fairly common knowledge that they were overflying Donegal since it did not make sense to have a flying boat base on Lough Erne otherwise. PatGallacher 08:33, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

why was it removed? --194.125.111.194 10:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The Irish government did not take a position on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, although most of the population were against it"

This is almost certainly true but there are no official statistics or sources cited to back it up. Perhaps it should be changed to "...although a majority of the population appeared to oppose it". It's a bit cumbersome but it's important to maintain the article as NPOV.Dmitry 21:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insertions of "seemed/appeared", like the Passive of Non-Attribution, do not create neutrality in contexts where it does not already exist. If the remark were about public treatment in the press, however, it would gain some authenticity. --Wetman 02:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the following statement from the Current Events section because it's unclear or untrue:

Today, in theory, Ireland could join any war it pleases, through an Act of the Oireachtas.

What does the author mean by "join any war"? Does "join" mean to send Irish troops? Does "any war" mean even a conflict which was not on all fours with the UN Charter and International Law (e.g. Iraq War)? Does "war" mean an armed conflict? Slackr 15:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I overrode User:Clem McGann but I was responding to my (and other editor's) work being overriden for no valid reason by User:Ali-oops. The fact is that there are varying and disputed estimates of Irish volunteers (from 50,000 to 300,000 that I have seen on the 'Net) and that must be borne in mind in any encyclopaedia. I deleted a reference to Irish Americans bringing America into the war in the event of another German attack on Belfast (or the Free State -- although the bombings in Dublin and Carlow which killed roughly 40 people have not been included in the article) as it is hypothetical and not entirely convincing since most of the supporters of American neutrality publicly rested their case against entering the war on the claim that there was no threat to American interests. I do not know if Irish Americans (despite their admitted clout and prodigious lobbying skills) could have done what was claimed so I deleted it.

Marylou 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let the edit history for this article tell its own tale [1]. Please stop removing content without first discussing here. For example, why did you remove this line;

"But neither could the government of Taoiseach Éamon de Valera bring itself to support [[Nazi Germany]"

The version you are reverting to contains a lot of POV. It's already been discussed on this talk page. If you don't know if a group of people did or didn't do something, it's probably best not to simply delete it but try to verify first. Furthermore, another editor has provided a reference which you saw fit to revert over. Why?

Nice to see, however, that you've discovered that talk pages are for more than complaining about editors! - Ali-oops^✍ 23:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"However many Irish ships were attacked by belligerents on both sides." Could we have more details or a reference for this? While I can see it would be easy for attacks to occur by accident, and I can even see the point of German U-boats attacking Irish boats (which could easily be bringing supplies to Britain) and then denying it, I can see absolutely no point for the Allies to deliberately attack Irish ships. I could be wrong of course. DJ Clayworth 18:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes they did! I'm not saying that either side was instructed to attack neutral shipping, but individuals did. For example, consider the Kerlogue with a cargo of coal bound for Cork. 1pm on 23rd October 1943 an RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) flying boat circled overhead and departed. t 4pm two unidentified planes, without warning, dived out of the sun, firing cannon. The attack continued for twenty minutes. At 6pm the RAAF flying boat returned. The Kerlogue signalled by lamp requesting medical assistance and escort; her lifeboats had been destroyed; she was taking on water; her radio and compass were destroyed. The request was refused. The RAAF did even pass on an SOS. Through extradionary good fortune she made the 130 miles to Cork. Britian denied any responsibility - until her cargo of coal was discharged, canon shell fragments were found. They were of British manufacture. ClemMcGann 21:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I keep going, This will be an article. ClemMcGann 21:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User 81.170.13.118 has mentioned Churchill's tirade against deV and deV's reply, referencing another wiki. The other wiki gives a short quote from deV's speech and incorrectly claim it to be complete. Quotations from Eamon deValera by Proinsias MacAonghusa isbn 08853426848 has a much longer extract. ClemMcGann 21:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the referenced sub heading (pasted below)the following statement is made: <As a member of the UN Security Council, Ireland voted yes to Resolution 1441>. As far as I have been able to determine, Ireland is not a member of the UN or a member of the UN Security Council. So I think this statement is erroneous. I will leave it up to someone else to correct this. teekey 17:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent conflicts Ireland supported the campaign known as Operation Allied Force, part of the Kosovo War, and the invasion of Afghanistan in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks known as Operation Enduring Freedom.

The Irish government did not take a position on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, although most of the population were against it, and USAF planes were allowed to refuel at Shannon Airport even if they were on their way to Iraq. As a member of the UN Security Council, Ireland voted yes to Resolution 1441 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teekey (talk • contribs)

• Ireland was a member of the UN Security Council between 2001 and 2002 (List of elected members of the United Nations Security Council) and has been a member of the United Nations itself since 1955 (United Nations member states). Demiurge 18:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article, although generally true, is badly under referenced. Sources that are reliable need to be found - www.reform.org is not such a source becuase it is a partisan organization and violates policy on using online sources. Of particular concern are the assertions in the section Current policy - most of the points made are, I think, generally accepted by Irish people but there is no proof cited to back-up these claims. Can anyone help this page by referencing it?--Cailil 00:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Irish neutrality during World War II has been nominated for deletion. Please add your opinion to the discussion on AfD. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever it ends up, the World War II section of this article should be merged with any useful additions from User:Sony-youth's essay. The way, the truth, and the light 02:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculous piece of political correctness, What possible influence could Eire have made in the 1940's. The Irish State in the Emergency had no policy and no intent, either by design or accident that influenced the fate of the Jewish People in Germany, it seems en vogue these days for Governments around the world to apologise for something that they never did. What Rubbish, over 3000 + FULLY INTEGRATED Irish Jews lived in and around Dublin during the war and none of these people were ever at the receiving end of any specific Irish Government Policy pertaining to their beliefs. in Fact they remain to this day Irish first and Jewish Second.

Utter tosh, remove please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.124.108 (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objectively and in reply to the above I disagree. Had the Irish state allowed the allied nations the use of airstrips and ports then conceivably the Atlantic air gap COULD have be filled earlier and the transfer of men and materials across the Atlantic COULD have been faster and therefore France COULD have been invaded earlier. Each day of 1944 and 1945 was measured in tens of thousands of people killed and gassed . One could understand if the Jewish people held a grudge against any nation that did not actively help end the holocaust. After 1943-44 Ireland was in little risk from German invasion and therefore allowing the allies to use ports and airstrips for the protection of Atlantic convoys would have been a low risk move and COULD I stress could have helped the invasion of France to happen earlier. Therefore your question “What possible influence could Eire have made in the 1940's” I think Eire could have helped influence the situation. Sams37 (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What utter crap. No one knew the holocaust was happening during the second world war apart from the Nazis themselves, so to say Ireland should have helped stop it is utter revisionist bullshit. You are looking from hindsight with all the known facts and applying your moral judgments when, for Ireland at the time, such moral judgments could not have been made. Also the "air gap" was extended by no more than a couple of hundred miles out of more than three thousand miles by Ireland's neutrality, so again nil points. There was no moral obligation on Ireland to take take any side during WW2, as far as the Irish were concerned it was just the big powers slugging it out and they were going to try and keep out of the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.39.0 (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the WWII section of the Irish Neutrality article to add citations for some of the several sources easily located with a Google search referencing Michael McDowell's speech at the first Holocaust Memorial Day in Jaunary 2003 where he "apologised publicly for Ireland's acts of omission and commission at the time of the Holocaust." Lex20735 (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"the severe mid- April 1941 raids on Belfast, which so taxed the Northern fire brigades that they perforce asked help from Dublin. Dublin sent up their resources to Belfast, breaking neutrality - the only instant in the War," -- 172.173.17.25 (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Article is so bad (full of inaccuracies and primary-school type commentary) that I think it shoule be deleted. Any support for this? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not from me, though I agree it could co with improvement. Perhaps you can get a hold of the recent book That Neutral Island by Clare Wills, which has quite a lot of good info which I feel could help. I just don't have any time for this right now myself. ww2censor (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with the despair. However that is not a reason to give up. I'm reading "Guarding Neutral Ireland" by Michael Kennedy (he gave an excellent talk "U-boats in the Irish Sea", a month ago) ClemMcGann (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also try Censorship in Ireland, 1939-1945 by Donal Ó Drisceoil. I have this and must review it again to see if it is of use to us. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands it is so inaccurate that it is positively misleading. However, good luck with trying to improve it ClemMcGann. When you have done some work on it, I will no doubt come back and have another look....One thing I would mention for starters is that the opening line is most likely....Did the Irish Free State always have a neutral policy...I do not think so!....Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't volunteering. Its not top of my list. I agree with you, neutrality started late in 1939. deV as president of the League of Nations offered Irish troops to take on the Italians in Abyssinia. Another issue - the North Strand bombings - the Germans were just lost - the dumped their bombs to gain height to escape our anti-aircraft fire. In the meantime in Dublin on Sunday 23rd and in Cork on the 30th remember those who died on Irish Ships during the Emergency. ClemMcGann (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill later conceded that the raids might have been the result of a British invention which distorted Luftwaffe radio guidance beams.--Wgh001 (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ireland applied to join the United Nations in 1945, but this was blocked by the Soviet Union until 1955 because of the wartime policy of neutrality." If this is so, could some explanation be added as to why neutral Sweden joined the UN in 1946? 86.176.184.100 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged that claim with citation needed. I'll add a dubious too. --Red King (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

afaik, Ireland was initially blocked because of neutrality - by UK & US. Later Ireland was blocked by USSR because they considered that Ireland would vote with the west. cite required ClemMcGann (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an "everybody knows". I've just been through a search of the National Archives for the Department of the Taoiseach (search term: 'United Nations'. Also 'United Nations, Organisation, Membership' in the full archive) and there is no reference to it. Unfortunately, the records are not in date order so the task is fairly painful. If you think a search of the Dept of Foreign Affairs is worthwhile, then go ahead. In the meantime, the conspiracy theory remains dubious. --Red King (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Until the mid-1950s. Ireland was excluded from the League's effective successor, the UN. because of a Soviet veto." - page 156 - Irish politics today - Neil Collins & Terry Cradden - Manchester University Press, 2001 - isbn 9780719061745 ClemMcGann (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another: http://books.google.com/books?id=3bmvc0t_ODoC&pg=PA14 ClemMcGann (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the UN Security Council's 186 Meeting, 18th November 1947, page 2041:

"APPLICATION OF IRELAND

Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : In considering an application to admit a particular country to membership in the United Nations we must, of course, take into account the way that country behaved before, or especially during, the war ,years. In considering the behaviour of Ireland during the war years, we cannot fail to observe the following: As we all know, Ireland was on very good terms with the Axis Powers and gave no assistance whatever to the Allied nations in their struggle against the fascist States. Apart from this,Ireland has not and has never had normal relations with 'the USSR, whose part in the war against the aggressor States and in gaining victory over them is well known. For. these reasons the USSR delegation feels unable, again this year, to support the proposal that Ireland be admitted to the United Nations.

Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : My comment on that is exactly the same as the comment I made on the application of the Mongolian People's Republic. The arguments used by the representative of the USSR are not new; they have been rebutted already. Neither of his principal arguments is really relevant because those are not the criteria in the Charter for the admission of a State to the United Nations."

Votes for: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, Colombia, France, Syria, United Kingdom, United , States of America. Vote against: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Abstention: Poland.

Found at: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.186202.248.41.90 (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged as dubious the claim that Ireland did not join NATO because the UK was a member and its dispute over the status of NI. This reads like somebody made it up. Non-membership of NATO was entirely consistent with the neutrality policy. Sweden took the same view. Unless somebody produces a citation very soon, I shall delete it. --Red King (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i agree ClemMcGann (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lolza ya didn't delete it..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.83.224.244 (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a citation re: the Dáil Éireann Debate Vol. 114 No. 3, 23 February 1949, about membership in the Atlantic Pact (NATO). The Irish Minister for External Affairs stated, in part, ″Partition is naturally and bitterly resented by the people of this country as a violation of Ireland's territorial integrity and as a denial in her case of the elementary democratic right of national self determination. As long as Partition lasts, any military alliance or commitment involving joint military action with the State responsible for Partition must be quite out of the question so far as Ireland is concerned. Any such commitment, if undertaken, would involve the prospect of civil conflict in this country in the event of a crisis.″ Lex20735 (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC) ^[1][reply]

Started moved section At ceremonies for the first Holocaust Memorial Day in Ireland, 26 January 2003, Justice Minister Michael McDowell openly apologised for an Irish wartime policy^[2][3] that was inspired by "a culture of muted anti-semitism in Ireland,"^[4][5] which discouraged the immigration of thousands of Europe's threatened Jews. He said that "at an official level the Irish state was at best coldly polite and behind closed doors antipathetic, hostile and unfeeling toward the Jews".^[6][7]

End moved section

To facilitate the discussion I have moved the entire section out of the article to this talk page. I noticed today that an editor claimed that (s)he had checked the sources and that there was nothing dubious about this section. But I disagree with this. To my opinion this is a typical storm in a glass water, giving undue weight this subject. Most clear point is that it is based on sources unfit for this purpose, like an facebook page and an op-ed. And sorry, I can not find "TotallyJewish.com" in this case sufficiently independent.

i like to hear other opinions about this section. The Banner talk 21:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Lugnad (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Irish neutrality. 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/20110609131240/http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0149/D.0149.195503290016.html to http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0149/D.0149.195503290016.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071118211933/http://www.forumoneurope.ie/eng/index.asp?docID=1099 to http://www.forumoneurope.ie/eng/index.asp?docID=1099

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Adducing"? really? this is why there are less and less new editors, because of the unnecesary ever-increasing complexity of the language in articles. 66.81.170.3 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LaMarmora1854: added here a section about the possible negative effects of Irish neutrality. Seeing how negative the section is, I like to have it reviewed by others. The Banner talk 16:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to rely a lot on opinion pieces, and those from explicitly non-neutral sources like the European People's Party. I think it's pretty obviously part of an SPA campaign to promote a particular viewpoint of European defence. DuncanHill (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with that. I doubt about the SPA-status as the editor but a quick look on the prior edits over multiple articles and talk pages makes me not happy. The Banner talk 17:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner, while this particular section may be written in a manner that is relatively unfavorable towards the concept of Irish neutrality, I nevertheless believe that sensible and justified criticism of the current Irish government's approach towards European security and its lack of adopting effective and decisive measures to contribute to the protection of wider region from Russian cyber war, sabotage operations across Europe, violations of European countries' airspace, etc. should be included. The stark difference between measures adopted by Poland, Estonia, Romania, Lithuania, Finland, or Bulgaria on the one hand and those that were adopted by Ireland on the other hand should be taken into consideration, especially when taking into the account each of the above-mentioned countries' defense expenditures (as a share of national GDP).

Moreover, if I am not mistaken, there was only one source that originated from the European People's Party (which is not only the largest political group in the European Parliament but has also been generally considered as the most credible, moderate, and trustworthy political group in the European Parliament), while there were several other sources that include, among others Politico or Financial Times. Do these two have any connection with the European People's Party?

Additionally, I would kindly ask you whether you can justify and explain the reason for being labeled as a "single-purpose account" (by you and @DuncanHill). Do you imply that I am editing Wikipedia with the explicit intention of engaging in malevolent, propagandistic, or biased activities? If so, can you please provide the basis for your (apparently unfavorable) view and what exactly "makes you unhappy" with my work as a Wikipedia editor?

Kind regards,

(LaMarmora1854 (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that you were an SPA. Please read carefully.

And I requested the review because it was a rather negative piece based on opinion pieces. Not on reliable sources. The Banner talk 18:22, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then, why was my entire edit reverted? After all, if you take a look at the article's history, it is clear that I didn't just add that particular paragraph but also made numerous other changes and corrections to the article, including correcting grammatical mistakes.

Additionally, it was not a "negative piece" but rather a critical and realistic presentation of the downsides of Irish neutrality from the contemporary geopolitical point of view, especially in the light of the Russian full-scale invasion and occupation of Ukraine, alongside an alarmingly increasing number of acts of sabotage, airspace violations, hybrid war, espionage, etc. conducted by Russia across many European countries. This was also the reason that I didn't just stacked a few negative opinion pieces one over another but rather presented in a coherent and justified way how, in comparison with other European countries (such as Finland, Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, or Romania) that have been (as a result of their geographical position) a target of Russian hybrid war, acts of sabotages, airspace violations, espionage activities, etc., Ireland evidently falls behind in regards to adopting proper countermeasures.

This is not "a negative piece based on opinion pieces" but a hard fact. If Poland allocates approximately 5% of its GDP to defense and Ireland approximately 0,2%, saying that "Ireland has done comparatively less to confront Russian military threats" is not "a negative piece based on opinion pieces" but a presentation of factual reality that can be measured in an objective way, that is, by comparing Ireland's defense expenditures with defense expenditures of other European Union and NATO member states, including those that have been targeted by Russian hybrid war, acts of sabotages, airspace violations, etc. "1 + 1 = 2" is not "a negative piece based on opinion pieces" but a factual reality that is not subjective but objective. Likewise, "5 > 0,2", "4,5 > 0,2", "3 > 0,2", or "2 > 0,2" are not "negative pieces based on opinion pieces" but examples of a factual reality that is not subjective but objective. :::(LaMarmora1854 (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It shows a clear disrespect towards Irelands stance on neutrality. Something that is indeed not appreciated in Britain and the USA. But it also ignores the long standing participation of the Irish in Lebanon and other United Nations peace keeping efforts. The Banner talk 08:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis of your claims that "Ireland's neutrality is not appreciated in the United Kingdom and the United States of America? Even if that was true, I did not make an edit based on any unconfirmed and supposedly negative attitudes towards Irish neutrality that you claim to be present in the UK and the US but based on the current geopolitical situation, primarily in connection with Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine, alongside Russian intelligence agencies and secret services' acts of hybrid war and sabotage, which have enormously increased since the beginning of 2022 Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Kind regards, :::::(LaMarmora1854 (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The very sources you had used. The Banner talk 09:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The sources I have used refer to the issues that Irish neutrality presents in the current geopolitical circumstances, not related to the US or UK public opinion or stances of these countries' governments. LaMarmora1854 (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not refer to the governments, please read more carefully. The Banner talk 09:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I did not refer to the US or UK; please read more carefully. LaMarmora1854 (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your own sources. The Banner talk 14:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To which sources are you referring specifically? I checked my own sources, and Politico or the Financial Times are not perceived as unreliable sources. Additionally, if you (or any other editors) disagree with this paragraph being placed in the middle of the text, I can put it at the bottom and reword it, so that (if you believe that it is written in an improper way), it would present this issue in a more balanced way. LaMarmora1854 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the most recent edits by LaMarmora1854, and they seemed to me to be pushing a certain viewpoint with regard to European defence. The admission that the section is "written in a manner that is relatively unfavorable towards the concept of Irish neutrality" is an admission that it fails NPOV. Comments like " its lack of adopting effective and decisive measures to contribute to the protection of wider region" are also explicitly POV. Likewise your claim that the EPP is "the most credible, moderate, and trustworthy political group in the European Parliament". The Belfast Newsletter is a Unionist paper, an opinion piece in it is unlikely to be an RS about the Republic, and may also stray into contentious subjects territory. I could go on, but you have made it very clear here that you are not here to edit in a NPOV manner. DuncanHill (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill, no, it isn't. If anything, it can be put in a different place in the article, for example, under a particular paragraph titled "criticism" or "controversies," but offering a viewpoint that is critical towards a certain subject is not automatically a failure of NPOV manner. By that analogy, you (or anyone else) can also claim that any article on Wikipedia that includes a paragraph titled "criticism" or "controversies" automatically fails to meet NPOV standards. On the other hand, you are the one who made it very clear that you lack sufficient arguments for removing an entire paragraph, which is why you resorted to cherry-picking certain aspects of my conversation, alongside pointing out only one or two sources that I used, in order to present me and my work in a distorted manner. LaMarmora1854 (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This talk of "freeloading" needs better sourcing than opinion pieces, even if some of them are from quality publications. The very term comes from a publication by a conservative (that is, POV) think tank, which was taken over by other commentators--so "an excuse for the country's freeloading" is clearly not acceptable in Wikipedia's voice, for starters. These are all opinions that need to be ascribed, and why we would value the opinion of UnHerd enough to cite it in this context is not clear at all. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, @Drmies, I will therefore use another, more appropriate, and less controversial term. I checked the definition and meaning of the term "freeloading" on the websites of Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (one of the most commonly used and generally highly acclaimed English dictionaries worldwide) and Merriam-Webster (the oldest dictionary publisher in the United States). The former described the term as "an action of using money, food, a room in a house, etc., given by other people, but giving nothing to them in exchange," while the latter's description of the above-mentioned term was "to impose upon another's generosity or hospitality without sharing in the cost or responsibility involved". With that being said, I will rephrase the paragraph in a more neutral way, using one of those definitions.

Considering the sources I used, here are the sources that I intended to cite when adding that part of the content to the article (apparently, I forgot to cite some of them). I strongly believe that all of these sources are generally regarded as trustworthy, neutral, professional, unbiased, objective, and apolitical; however, if you or anyone else believe that this is not the case, I have no problem with that, as I welcome your constructive disagreement and explanation for why any one of them should not be regarded as trustworthy, professional, or objective.

- TheJournal.ie (the exact link to the article that I intended to use is https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/europe-defence-plans-6507661-Oct2024/)

- MSN (the exact link to the article that I intended to use is https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/other/opinion-europe-is-tired-of-ireland-s-low-defence-investment-here-s-a-step-towards-fixing-that/ar-AA1SMiRu?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds)

- Atlantic Council (the exact link to the article that I intended to use is https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/as-europes-neutral-states-shift-closer-to-nato-ireland-approaches-a-turning-point-for-its-security/)

- UK Defence Journal (the exact link to the article that I intended to use is https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/ireland-branded-the-ultimate-defence-freeloader-in-report/)

- Deutsche Welle (the exact link to the article that I intended to use is https://www.dw.com/en/ireland-rethinks-neutrality-in-wake-of-ukraine-war/a-65330418)

- Foreign Policy (the exact link to the article that I intended to use is https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/08/ireland-military-neutrality-russia-ocean-communication-energy-infrastructure-sabotage/)

- Politico (the exact link to the article that I intended to use is https://www.politico.eu/article/ireland-defense-freeloader-ukraine-work-royal-air-force/)

- Royal United Services Institute (the exact link to the article that I intended to use is https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/irelands-defence-deficit)

- Financial Times (the exact link to the article that I intended to use is https://www.ft.com/content/4748d385-877b-40f3-a1ca-0b8ed5177658)

- Policy Exchange (the exact link to the article that I intended to use is https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/closing-the-back-door/)

- https://www.breakingnews.ie/ (the exact link to the article that I intended to use is https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/entirely-true-that-ireland-is-freeloading-on-european-defence-td-says-1586393.html)

- The Times (the exact link to the article that I intended to use is https://www.thetimes.com/world/ireland-world/article/neutrality-no-longer-excuse-for-irelands-casual-attitude-to-defence-d3qntdp2j)

- Yahoo News (the exact link to the article that I intended to use is https://uk.news.yahoo.com/neutral-irelands-defence-gaps-exposed-060536073.html)

Last but not least, can you please explain what you meant by "why we would value the opinion of UnHerd enough to cite it in this context"? Are you suggesting that there may be something qualitatively wrong with this source, and if so, what exactly are your counterpoints for disproving its use?

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.

Kind regards,

(LaMarmora1854 (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LaMarmora1854, I don't know what you are going for. We all know what "freeloading" means. you're missing the point: you seem to argue that this is somehow a neutral term because it pops up so frequently, and I am not going through that ridiculous list of articles. I clicked on one, DW's "Ireland rethinks neutrality in wake of Ukraine war", where indeed I find that one person, Cathal Berry uses that word. So? It's opinion, it doesn't make it factual. If the word is used at all, it should be properly ascribed, but I'm also wondering about this desire to get this term in.

Yes, I believe we should not use Unherd and you are welcome to take it to RSN. It's a conservative opinion site. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Drmies,

With all due respect, but there has clearly been a misunderstanding. Not only do I have absolutely no desire to "get the term in," but, in fact, I even stated by myself (precisely speaking, in the first sentence of my previous reply), that "I will therefore use another, more appropriate, and less controversial term."

By publicly writing down that sentence, I made it clear not only to you but also to anyone else who may notice any issues with my editing work that I am evidently aware of making a mistake, as I also consider the term "freeloading" to be relatively inappropriate and controversial. Apart from that, my statement also doubtlessly declares my intention of refraining from using this term in the future when editing Wikipedia articles (regardless of whether I will be editing the article about Irish neutrality or any other article).

Moving on to the next point, you labeled the list of articles that I presented (together with the websites, newspapers, broadcasting agencies, etc., where they were published) as "ridiculous". May I ask you to adhere to Wikipedia's Code of Conduct and refrain from describing my good-faith edits/parts of conversations in a disrespectful manner? According to Wikipedia's community standards, "civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars," which means that "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." Referring to that, in the article that offers an in-depth explanation of "civility" (Wikipedia:Civility), the article's paragraph "Avoiding incivility" explicitly states that editors should "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment."

Moreover, despite stating that "you are not going through that ridiculous list of articles," you obviously took a look at one of them, precisely speaking at Deutsche Welle's article (available at the following link https://www.dw.com/en/ireland-rethinks-neutrality-in-wake-of-ukraine-war/a-65330418). Maybe I am wrong, but when you read the above-mentioned article, did you also search for the word "freeloading"? As I have already said, I am sincerely not engaged in editing this particular article (or any other article) to, as you described it, "get the term in." My intention of editing this specific article was to correct numerous grammatical mistakes (which were present in it - that is a fact) and add some text (make no mistake, in a manner of good-faith editing) to update the article, in order to describe why the concept of Irish neutrality (alongside with comparatively low share of the country's GDP being dedicated to defense expenditures) may objectively pose security challenges in the current geopolitical circumstances (especially considering Russian military invasion and occupation of Ukraine, coupled with hybrid war, airspace violations, and acts of sabotages across several European countries).

I appreciate your assistance and all of your suggestions for improving my work.

Kind regards,

(LaMarmora1854 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I looked at that one--I said so. You have done nothing to alleviate the concern uttered above in this thread by User:DuncanHill, as far as I'm concerned. There are so many words and long sentences in your response that I kind of lost track. Yes, I thought that list was pretty ridiculous. You could have started by rewriting your own text, to make it align with secondary sources, and to make clear what is opinion and what is not. And while you are doing that, do not mix up your grammatical fixes with a big revision of one single section: it's an invitation for having your edits undone.

While we're on the topic--you corrected "webite" to "website". Thank you. However, in that same paragraph you "correct" something that wasn't wrong: the quotation mark, which in Wikipedia typically precedes punctuation. The comma after "the forum was disrupted" is not a matter of grammar, but of style. In that same paragraph you added commas after "Cork" and "security", imposing what seems like US punctuation on an article that's not on a US topic. None of your edits in the paragraph starting "In March 2023" are necessary and, again, they impose US punctuation rules. There was nothing wrong with "who called it 'unnecessary'". OK, that's enough: I'm not going through the whole thing, but I have not yet found a grammatical mistake you fixed--just one spelling error. That I'm having to write two paragraphs on two really different topics, that's thanks to you, in making that one huge edit. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Drmies,

I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that I have done nothing to alleviate the concern uttered by @DuncanHill. In fact, your latest response, in which you stated that "There are so many words and long sentences in your response that I kind of lost track" suggests that you are less interested in my alleviation of @DuncanHill's concerns about a supposed "promotion of a particular viewpoint of European defence" from my side than in nitpicking a good-faith edit that I made and to which I dedicated a considerable amount of my free time.

This is precisely the reason I presented you (and other editors who are involved in this conversation or may be interested in engaging in it in the future) not only with all the articles (sources) that I used (or, better said, that I have been using so far) and, most importantly, that I will be using when making a good-faith edit to this article once again (but, in this case, by refraining from using the word "freeloading" and using sources like UnHerd, News Letter, or even The Daily Telegraph) but also websites, broadcasting agencies, newspapers, etc. in which these articles were published.

In other words, I did all of this in order to let you (and all the other editors who are involved in this conversation or may be interested in engaging in it in the future) know that I was mistaken to use UnHerd and Belfast Newsletter as a sources of information for the edit that I made to this article and I truly apologize for doing that; however, I found enough other reliable and trustworthy sources on this topic that prove my point, which is, that adding some sentences about the challenges that the concept of Irish neutrality may be posing in the face of the current geopolitical situation (which includes contemporary threats to European countries' national security, including military threats, sabotages, hybrid war, and airspace violations by Russian military forces, paramilitary organizations, intelligence agencies, hackers, mercenaries, etc.).

However, I would like to point out another issue that I have been facing ever since I made an edit to this article (Irish neutrality) on 29 December 2025. I may be wrong, but I have repeatedly noticed that some of the good-faith edits I have made to other articles on Wikipedia (that are not either directly or indirectly associated with the Republic of Ireland or the concept of Irish neutrality) have been reverted by editors who participate in this discussion. Consequently, whenever I have been editing some Wikipedia articles during the past week, I have not been able to do that without worrying that my good-faith edits would be shortly afterwards reverted with the explanation that is mainly based on cherry-picking minor issues and irrelevant details, eventually shattering my work (a good-faith edit) to which I dedicated hours of my free time. It should be noted that Wikipedia's List of Policies (see Wikipedia:List of policies) clearly indicates that such conduct falls under the category of harassment, as it explicitly states under the paragraph "Harassment":

"Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information."

Additionally, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines leave no doubt that "Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others" constitutes a violation of these policies and guidelines, as such conduct falls under the scope of tendentious editing (Wikipedia:Tendentious editing). Under this paragraph, it is explicitly written that:

"There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information. Instead of removing pertinent, referenced statements, you should remove off-topic statements and original research. If you think the sentence(s) do not accurately summarize the cited work, but the source is reliable and relevant, try to improve the accuracy by rewriting the sentence rather than removing it."

Make no mistake, I do not intend to accuse or blame you in some way and I have no desire to "point fingers" at anyone; however, the fact is that I experienced hours of my editing work being spoiled by other users, who nullified my (good-faith and relatively sizeable) edits by automatically reverting the entire edit, offering little explanation, which was mostly based on nitpicking, subjective views, or vague and unspecified claims. Sometimes, this happened to me just a couple of minutes after publishing an edit; even though this was not the case this time (several of the edits that I made in the past week were reverted after one or more hours), it can not be denied that disruptions of my editing work have enormously increased over a relatively short time period.

On a side note, I appreciate your prompt responses to my comments, arguments, and proposals during this conversation. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with you (or any other editor) on certain points/issues, I always highly respect timeliness by conversational partners.

Kind regards,

(LaMarmora1854 (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to accuse me of harassment, do so at ANI. If you want to get content in when it's challenged by other editors, get consensus on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Drmies,

I clearly stated in my previous reply that, "I do not intend to accuse or blame you in some way and I have no desire to "point fingers" at anyone." However, since your actions and conduct clearly indicate that I am clearly not the first editor whose edits you have been automatically reverting without presenting a clear and coherent explanation or doing so by nitpicking good-faith edits, that's also something that I have seriously considered.

Moreover, when having a conversation with other individuals on a certain article's talk page, which is intended at achieving consensus on one's edits that may be written in an improper or too subjective manner, all the participants in the debate should adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as well as the code of conduct. Additionally, the same applies to the conduct and action of Wikipedia editors elsewhere (not just on articles talk pages), including on pages that display the history of edits made to a certain article ("View history").

From your activities and conduct, it is evident that you have been regularly engaged in reverting good-faith edits of different editors, shattering numerous people's editing work (this pattern has been obviously clear from your reverting of edits made by many other editors, including @Shiloh1914, @SportsNut87, @Sascho Jovanoski 70329, @Gferrerworld, @Jena Fi, @Mediterranean dragon, @Sanya34453)

Kind regards,

(LaMarmora1854 (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you're going to go sleuthing around, why stop there? Such a short list of shatterings. You didn't tag User:VelvetHowl, whom I also reverted at Chiara Ferragni. User:ScottishFinnishRadish, at which point does pinging editors who've been reverted by a certain editor become canvassing, and when does it become hounding? LaMarmora, please, by all means, take this to ANI. User:The Banner, look what you got me into! Drmies (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LaMarmora1854, a talk page is a place to discuss content. If you want to discuss editor behavior WP:ANI is what you're looking for. Furthermore, reaching out to a list of people who've been reverted by an editor is canvassing, so if you do take it to ANI don't do that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @ScottishFinnishRadish,

Wait, do you mean that, if one experiences disruption to his/her edits (in my case, with relatively extensive edits that I made being subjected to several consecutive reverts) that may be perceived as slightly suspicious, it is strictly against Wikipedia's policies & guidelines and code of conduct to point out to the fact that you are not an isolated case, as it is clear that there have been many more examples of such a potentially disruptive conduct (which can raise suspicion that there may be a pattern of someone possibly nitpicking good-faith edits)?

Is it against Wikipedia's policies & guidelines and code of conduct to even point out to a possible pattern (by saying, for example, "it is obvious that this is the case because other editors faced the same issues in the past as I am facing right now) or is only forbidden to tag usernames of specific editors who may be facing similarly disrupting and unwanted actions?

In any case, if any of my actions in the previous reply were truly against Wikipedia's policies & guidelines, and code of conduct (apparently they were, as I was not aware of this being prohibited under the policy of "canvassing"), I sincerely apologize to @Drmies for my actions. Regarding this, is there a way to delete my previous reply from this talk page, in order to at least partially correct a mistake (policy violation) I made?

Kind regards,

(LaMarmora1854 (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An article talk page isn't the plane to discuss editor behavior, so it's generally never a good idea to avoid focusing on editor behavior in a situation like this. It's also bad form to dig through someone's contributions and present reverts as misbehavior. Reverts are a common part of editing. As for the message, leave it, as there are replies to it. Just please don't do it again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @ScottishFinnishRadish,

I understand that, which is why I will absolutely take this into consideration and, therefore, avoid discussing any other editor's behavior or conduct whenever having an argument about the article's content on the article's talk page in the future.

Additionally, I would like to once again publicly and sincerely apologize to @Drmies (and to all the others who have participated in this conversation, including you, @DuncanHill, and @The Banner), as I am now aware that my conduct (digging through his contributions and presenting his reverts as misbehavior) was indeed clearly inappropriate and impolite. All I can say is that I promise to do my best to avoid misbehaving and be more deferential in debates with others from now on; considering that, I wish that I could redeem myself for my inappropriate conduct, and if this implies receiving a warning or some other disciplinary measure from the WP:ANI, I will concur.

Kind regards,

(LaMarmora1854 (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]