Secularism in the Republic of Ireland received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
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, Rosguilltalk21:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, Rosguilltalk00:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
""[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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
