"...where either the entire song (not just chorus that is the actual anthem) is played - this occurred at the Los Angeles Olympics, for example - or the right part is played but at the wrong speed..."
Which Olympics would these be? I'm guessing 1984 Summer Olympics, but this requires confirmation. -- Itai07:07, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland did not win any gold medals in the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Games, so it is unlikely that the anthem was played. John Treacy did win a silver in the Marathon, but an anthem would not have been played. That sentence needs editing. Eurokraut.
-- does this refer to US citizens, to British citizens or to whom? Can somebody clarify?
It refers to all who have Helped, almost certainly not Americans or British, who never helped, But Napolean's French and the Spanish, the Canadians, The Rovers and Wild Geese. --195.7.55.146 09:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It also refers to the Irish expatriates who returned from America, Britain, Scotland, and Australia in order to join in the fight for independence.
Since when has Scotland not been part of Britain? Britain = England, Scotland, and Wales.
Actually, as the song references the 1798 rebellion (as far as I'm aware)it would be the French and United Irishmen who were based abroad such as Wolfe Tone.
Typical Yank Question
It does indeed refer to Spanish and French forces, although there was more than a little support from scotland/ wales at the time. As said earlier, there was hardly any American input at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.159.26 (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Amhrán_na_bhFiann article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Amhrán_na_bhFiann}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would suggest that Fianna Fáilnot be linked to in the text!!! zoney♣talk 18:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It would be interesting, though, to know the original (literary?) source of Fianna Fáil as an expression, since it appears not only in the anthem and as the name of the well-known political party but also (as FF) on the cap badges of members of the Irish Defence Forces. -- Picapica 10:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As far as i'm aware the cap badge of the Irish army has 'Oglaigh na Eireann' on it - which is also what the IRA call themselves in Irish - Paddy
Note also, that for that very reason, one version of Amhrán na bhFiann starts off with Sinne laochra fáil ... I learnt this version in school (Dublin, 70s) at one point - Pete C ✍22:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Fál" is a literary name for Irish, used in a few expressions. So "Fianna Fáil" means "Soldiers of Ireland" (though they use the translation "Soldiers of Destiny"), "Inis Fáil" means the island of Ireland, et cetera. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo23:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fal means destiny not soldiers. the plural of fal would then be Fail. The fianna were and ancient band of warriors in Ireland and it is also used as a word for warrior in Irish (gaelic). Hence Warriors of destiny or soldiers of destiny. Inish Fail does definately not mean island of Ireland either. Please learn a bit about the lingo before making pronouncments on it. While I'm at it can i just point out that laochra means heroes doesn't it? - Paddy
Fáil is not the plural in this case but the genitive 'of destiny'. 'Inis Fáil' or 'the Island of Destiny' is indeed a name for Ireland. Fianna is more akin to 'hunter', though the Fianna have made it mean warrior. Laoch (pl. laochra) is the more standard version of warrior/hero (at least where I'm from). "Please learn a bit about the lingo before making pronouncments on it"...I think you just did the same thing there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.50.10 (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The National Anthem was WRITTEN in English (at least according to every source I can find, and the copyright on it). If anything, its the IRISH translation we use. Article should be fixed, but I'm slightly too tired and emotional to do so... --Kiand 01:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Its not a translation. The Irish version it the translation. The original English used "Bearna Baoghal" as far as I can tell, it definately didn't use "Gaps of Danger" however. --Kiand01:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it looks really weird for an Irish word to pop up in the middle of an English text. Not that it matters too much, just a stylistic problem. --Arbiteroftruth20:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously the author thought it was artistic to have it there. Its definately there in the original English anyway. --Kiand20:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amhrán na bhFiann is pronounced "ow-rawn na veean"
Meaning "gap of danger" and pronounced "vair-na vwhale"
Can someone possibly translate these pronounciations into IPA? This would be seriously useful to many, I'm sure. Also, bhFiann is maybe more like vee-uhn, IMO - Ali-oops✍17:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Noone rewally wants to replace the anthem with Ireland's Call? There is a certain amount of controversy (not much - and in my opion its overstated by being mentioned at all in the article but as i like it I'm biased and shouldn't edit) but even still i've never heard anyone propose replacing it with Irelands Call - Perhaps someone heard 'with an anthem like Ireland's Call' and got confused!
no-one wants to replace Amhrán na bhFiann with Irelands call, but to maintain happiness in the ranks of the rugby team, which has players from all sections of the community North and South of the boarder, we use both songs at home games. its not the official anthem, more the anthem of Irish rugby, which is the only time it's used on an international setting for the country.
It's also used for other sports where all of Ireland is represented, such as international competitions in Hockey and Cricket. --Ryano12:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is just the chorus, are there lyrics available for the full song? And should there be a "Chorus:" in the lyrics section
Re 1984 olympics, the song comment isn't in the Ireland at the 1984 olympics article, is there any online reference for it?
I think it would be nice to have it mentioned in the main article about the use of this for RTE shutdown, as well as a link at the end. (which brought back memories!) When did this stop? Was it when broadcasts went 24 hour MartinRe23:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)?[reply]
I was disappointed to see that Wikipedia didn't already have the full lyrics up, so I took the Liberty of adding them (in Irish and English). I think it is very important to have the full Lyrics here as much of the article talks about these lyrics but they didn't appear here, (i.e. talking about the Anti-British-ness without having the relevant line "the Saxon Foe"), well it's there now. (Oh and the English version contains the "gap of danger" line translated, unlike the first version).
Also I'm pretty new to editing so I would suggest someone more experienced should clean up the format of my edit a bit, specifically I think it would be good to have the Irish and English lyrics side-by-beside (instead of on top of one another like now), but I don't know how to do that.
I formatted all the lyrics (including the complete version) into tables, but I wonder if we could perhaps merge these lyrics so that we don't have so much redundancy. I want to keep the phonetic version, but I also want to have only the complete set and simply mention that only the chorus is sung normally. So it would help a lot if someone could give a phonetic version of all the lyrics.--Jitterro04:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "The suggestion has been made that, as occurred in Germany after World War II, the government might change the words of the anthem while keeping the original melody."
The Germans did not in fact change the words of the anthem. "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" was (and is) the third verse of "Deutschland Uber Alles". What the Germans did was to drop the first two verses of the anthem and retain the verse about unity and rights and freedom (compare God Save the Queen and the omission of "rebellious Scots to crush").
Besides which, the suggestion may have been made, but it has not been seriously entertained by anybody. The melody is synonymous with the lyrics, both for its adherents and its detractors.
Scolaire19:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 04:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any chance of someone giving a direct translation of the Irish lyrics on this page? Because the one "as Gaeilge" is the one in use as the national anthem, and the lyrics don't directly translate. For example the first line, "Seo dhiabh a cháirde duan Óglaigh" certainly does not mean "We'll sing a song, a soldier's song". I don't have near the Irish necessary, but if there are any who do, it would certainly be interesting. Because given that the page is entitled "Amhrán na bhFiann" and the Irish national anthem is sung almost exclusively through Irish, it'd be fitting to translate as well as give the original. The translation to Irish was obviously a poetic one, but this is an encyclopedia. Karlusss19:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Irish Political History Series" should be removed as it should not be in the article - unrelated/misleading. The article is about the national anthem of Ireland, not Republicanism. Objections? --sony-youth23:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe, but the Anthem is defiantly a part of Irish Political History, and it certainly is related to Republicanism/Nationalism. --Hibernian15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but the template is solely about Republicanism while the article is about the national anthem. Having the template there feels a little like POV pushing. (In fairness, if it was only A Soldier's Song being sung over and over again in the GPO, I think they would have surrendered a lot sooner!) I'm taking it down, also on God Save Ireland. --sony-youth11:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Soldier's Song was translated into Irish by Liam O'Rinn (Letters February 24). It was not translated into Irish by Bulmer Hobson. It was first published as Abhran na bhFian on November 3, 1923, in the army magazine An tOglach. The first line of the chorus (curfa) was "Sinn-ne Fianna Fail ata fe gheall ag Eirinn."
This magazine is available to readers in the National Library.
The Fianna Fail political party was founded in April 1926, three years after the first publication of Amhran na bhFiann.
The translation which eventually became known and used was written - perhaps as early as 1917 - by Liam O Rinn, later Chief Translator to the Oireachtas. This translation was, notably, first published in the army magazine An tOglach on 3 November 1923."
The song lyrics were published by Bulmer Hobson in 'Irish Freedom' in 1912.
I am changing the opening paragraph accordingly, and I propose to delete or radically edit the whole "the anthem has been hijacked by the Fianna Fáil party" paragraph as soon as possible.
Scolaire15:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Lord Longford's biography of Eamon de Valera, Fianna Fáil was used by some Irish speakers to refer to the 1913 Volunteers, and was incorporated into the Volunteer badge. I'm going to go with that chronology.
I'm going to edit some other dodgy assertions at the same time. I'll do them in separate edits so if anybody wants to revert them, they can do them individually.
Scolaire12:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I find the IPA version even more irritating. I would have no problem with both of them going. I checked a dozen articles from the National Anthems of Europe template, including the Welsh and Manx anthems, and none of them concern themselves with pronunciation. Scolaire11:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree - they are a very useful resource. Just because they're not on the other pages doesn't mean this article is wrong. I'm putting them back and think a wider discussion should have been entered into before deletion. AaronS11:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least make the respelling consistent with the IPA. [t̪ˠiːn̪ˠ] is not "tinn"; nor [woːdʲvʲɛsˠiːɾˠ] "vode veh say-or"; etc etc. Better would be a soundfile of someone reciting it (not singing); dunno about copyright for that, though.
I also restate my contention that the "literal translation" is Original Research. I'm not fluent in Irish, but I can spot several mistakes. It should suffice to note that the Irish version is a free translation of the English; I've made this more explicit in the "Fianna Fáil" para.
I've also put the table into rows per line, because corresponding lines weren't aligned across the different columns. It looks pretty ugly now, but I felt utility trumps prettiness. Of course, removing the extra three columns would solve that problem... jnestorius(talk)21:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AaronS, I allowed time for a 'wider discussion' but neither you nor anybody else contributed until after my edit. I would make two points: (1) This is not "teach yourself Irish". People who want to know about the National Anthem come to an encyclopedia. People who want to learn to sing it go to classes. Pronunciation guides are inappropriate to WP. (2) IPA is used throughout WP for names, titles and short phrases. To have a whole song in IPA is just silly IMO.
jnestorius, I don't understand how having several mistakes makes it OR. Can you not just correct the mistakes? Other articles on national anthems have translations which presumably aren't from a copyrighted source. It adds to the usefulness of the article to say what the anthem actually says as well as what the original song said. Scolaire (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree if the original words were radically different from the translation, or the translation had been the subject of controversy or significant comment; but I don't think either of those applies. To say that "’Mid cannon’s roar and rifles’ peal" was translated to "With gun's screech under fire of the bullets" presents two problems:
So what? Are they really that different?
A literal translation invariably sounds clunky and unidiomatic. Any nuance of genuine difference will be drowned by the waves of clunkiness. jnestorius(talk)23:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that a sound file would be better than a written version. I can't see how there could be a copyright problem; the National Anthem must surely be in the public domain. Scolaire (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think three votes out of four is as good a consensus as we're going to get. I am removing those columns again. I'll leave the translation (tagged) for another while to see if anybody else wants to comment. Scolaire (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've added footnotes for the Irish lines which significantly depart from the English text. That's fine, but I've moved them from the English to the Irish text. Having them on the Irish text makes it look as though the English is a translation of the Irish, rather than vice versa. jnestorius(talk)01:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a large number of edits to the lyrics of Amhrán na bhFiann, most of them changing back and forth between "fén", fé'n" and "faoin" or "a tá" and "atá", all of which are equally valid and acceptable spellings. A further complication is the fact that the Dept. of the Taoiseach web site has published a version in its "Youth Zone"[1] that has a horrifically large number of errors, and some editors have taken this in the past as the "official" version. I am proposing that we agree a "standard" version, to be put here on the talk page, and that any future changes be reverted with a pointer to the talk page. The version I have chosen is the one in the Amhrán na bhFiann article in Vicipéid, which obviously has a consensus among Irish speakers (I'm going to change to that one in the article now, but only in the spirit of bold, revert, discuss; feel free to amend it where you think necessary). It is as follows:
Objection. Not a reliable source, and/or original research. I've redone the chorus, from the sheet-music picture in Ruth Sherry's History Ireland article, which might be from "Facts About Ireland". I don't have a published source for the verses, but I suggest finding one and citing it rather than relying on any bogus consensus on Vicipéid.
Throwing around words like "objection", "original research" and "bogus consensus" doesn't alter the fact that a problem exists, nor does it help to resolve it. The facts are: (1) There is no one official, legal or mandatory version of the words; (2) "fén", fé'n" and "faoin" etc. are all equally valid alternatives - it is the nature of the Irish language; and (3) neither the DFA website nor Sherry's article have any official sanction. Further, if you don't have a published source for the verses then we're going to have to rely on consensus, aren't we? If you thought for whatever reason that an alternative version was better, you would have done better to post it here and allow discussion than simply change it on the article page and put snotty comments here! Scolaire (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just being bold, like you. The problem is that the version on the Taoiseach's website is crap, but the solution you offer is inadequate. Explicitly stating in the article that other versions exist is more informative and helpful than a hidden HTML comment warning against changing the text. The DFA version is not official-official, but I'm sure we can agree it's more official than any ga:Wikipedia version, as well as a more reliable and stable source. It's a JPEG of a long-establish musical arrangement, whereas the Taoiseach's webzone version was probably typed by a dogsbody with no Irish. Likewise, the verses should be based on a single published source, and explicitly state "this text of the verses is based on [whatever]; other sources may differ slightly". I haven't changed the consensus version yet, since I don't have a reliable source yet. (Actually, I have the Freeman's Journal version, but Ó Rinn's spelling is highly nonstandard — e.g. veh for bheith.) It shouldn't take long to dig up a citable source. If anyone has one they should use and cite it. jnestorius(talk)18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are not unreasonable, but there are still a few things I would disagree with. "I'm sure we can agree it's more official than any ga:Wikipedia version". I can't agree on that, since I say above, and your article edit confirms, that there is no such thing as an official version. What you presumably mean to say is that the DFA website is a reliable source, and that's fine - let's put it up here, and let that be our agreed standard version! "Explicitly stating in the article that other versions exist is more informative and helpful than a hidden HTML comment warning against changing the text." Those two things aren't even related, unless you think it's a good idea to rotate the different texts regularly in order to reflect the fact that different versions exist. What I proposed here is quite simply that one single version be agreed, and editors be asked (and a hidden comment is an effective way of doing that) not to change the text without prior discussion - in other words, a stable version based on consensus. Why exactly is that "an inadequate solution"? Finally, "it shouldn't take long to dig up a citable source." The text has been here since at least October 2001. How long is too long? Scolaire (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
National Anthems of the World (6th ed.). Poole: Blandford Press. 1985. pp. 234–7. ISBN0713715251. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
Seo dhíbh, a cháirde duan Ógláigh,
Cathréimeach bríoghmhar ceolmhar,
Ár dteinte cnámh go buacach táid,
’S an spéir go mín réaltógach,
Is fonnmhar faobhrach sinn chun gleo,
’S go tiúnmhar glé roimh thíocht do'n ló,
Fé chiúnas chaomh na hoíche ar seol:
Seo libh, canaídh Amhrán na bhFiann.
(Curfá:)
Sinne Fianna Fáil Atá fé gheall ag Éirinn,
Buidhean dár sluagh Thar tuinn do ráinig chúghainn,
Fé mhóid bheith saor. Seantír ár sinnsear feasta
Ní fágfar fé'n tíorán ná fé'n tráil.
Anocht a théam sa bheárna bhaoghail,
Le gean ar Ghaedhil chun báis nó saoghail,
Le gunasgréach, fé lámhach na bpiléar,
Seo libh, canaidh Amhrán na bhFiann.
Cois bánta réidhe, ar árdaibh sléibhe,
Ba bhuadhach ár sinnsear romhainn,
Ag lámhach go tréan fé'n sár-bhrat séin
Tá thuas sa ghaoith go seolta.
Ba dhúthchas riamh d'ár gcine cháidh
Gan iompáil siar ó imirt áir,
’S ag siubhal mar iad i gcoinnibh námhad
Seo libh, canaidh Amhrán na bhFiann.
Curfá
A bhuidhean nách fann d’fhuil Ghaoidgeal is Gall,
Sin breacadh lae na saoirse,
Tá sgeimhle ’s sgannradh i gcroidhthibh namhad,
Roimh ranngaibh laochra ár dtíre.
Ár dteinte is tréith gan spréach anois,
Sin luisne ghlé sa spéir anoir,
’S an bíodhbha i raon na bpiléar agaibh:
Seo libh, canaidh Amhrán na bhFiann.
The 8th edition has only the chorus. Clearly the spellings here predate the Caighdeán Oifigiúil of the 1950s.
What I suggest, then, is that we adopt the exact text of the Facts about Ireland version, cited as you have cited it above, and then add back the note that you deleted, to the effect that "faoi" can be written "fé" etc., in the form of a "ref group" note, citing National Anthems of the World, thus:
Sinne Fianna Fáil, atá faoi[fn 1] gheall ag Éirinn,
^faoi may be written fé (National Anthems of the World (6th ed.). Poole: Blandford Press. 1985. pp. 234–7. ISBN0713715251. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help))
^faoin may be written fé'n (Reed and Bristow 1985)
^canaíg may be written canaídh (Reed and Bristow 1985)
I don't know if it's possible to put a "ref" inside a "ref group" so as to shorten the note, but anyway you get my drift. Scolaire (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see the need for a specific faoin/fén caveat, still less individual footnotes. Other words may also vary. A general warning should suffice:
The text was written in 1923, when Irish spelling was very nonstandard.
Even since the 1950s standardization, variation is tolerated and persists.
No official text has ever been promulgated.
Therefore, different versions use different spelling (and punctuation).
If we give a single sourced text, those who know Irish will know which words' spellings may vary; those who do not know Irish don't need to know.
The other problem about the Facts about Ireland version is that it only gives the first verse, so we would need another source for later verses; which might use different spelling conventions. jnestorius(talk)16:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of this discussion, if you look back at the beginning, is that editors are regularly changing faoi to fé and back again, as you yourself did a few days ago. We have now established that both forms of the word can be referenced, so your choice of the Facts version is as arbitrary as any of the previous edits. Unless you are content to see it being reverted on a regular basis, there needs to be some sort of a footnote, so that both the faois and the fés will be satisfied, and we have to agree among all the editors which version is to be printed, and which is to be in the footnote. There doesn't have to be a citation if you don't want - I only put that in because I thought you were insisting on reliable sources. Scolaire (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 issues:
How to stop editors toggling between faoi and fé. Options:
Have footnotes saying either is acceptable
Have a headnote saying Irish spelling is variable
What version of the text to use. Options:
Look at Vicipéid and use their consensus
Look at published sources, find a consensus as to which is the most authoritative, and use that, with citations.
My impression was that you favoured options 1.1 and 2.1, though maybe I was mistaken. I favour options 1.2 and 2.2. If the text says "this is the version in source X; other sources may use different spellings", and somebody makes an edit which does nothing but change faoi to fé, then we just revert it since it turns a true statement into a false one. jnestorius(talk)21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're entirely mistaken about my "favouring option 2.1" - that's just a bee in your bonnet. I proposed that a standard version be adopted by discussion. I didn't have a published source to hand so I threw out the Vikipéid version for discussion. I said that clearly at the time and I've said it several times since. I even said about your current version, "that's fine - let's put it up here, and let that be our agreed standard version!" To suggest that I am against published sources is ludicrous!
As for the other issue, in one sense headnotes or footnotes make no difference, but (a) there already are footnotes so why use a headnote for this one thing? (b) "Slight variations exist in published versions" conveys precisely zero information, either to those who are aware of the variants or those who are not. Since obviously there are a number of people who care enough about fé and faoi to change it back and forth, what can it possibly hurt to mention them explicitly?
I am going to add a footnote just to illustrate. Please do not revert it automatically; let it sit for a few days and see if it grows on you. Scolaire (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(a)There already are footnotes so why use a headnote for this one thing? Good point. I favour removing the other two footnotes to the Irish version as well. I can only surmise that the point of these is to highlight where the Irish text is not a literal rendering of the English text. If so, it should be discussed in the "Irish version" section, as "Sinne Fianna Fáil" already is. There is no need to mention that "For love of the Gael, towards death or life" does not quite match "In Erin’s cause, come woe or weal"; otherwise, why not also mention "With screech of gun, under firing of bullets" v. "’Mid cannon’s roar and rifles’ pea" , "sing" v. "chant", etc. etc.
(b)"Slight variations exist in published versions" conveys precisely zero information. You exaggerate. What it says is, "if you see a slightly different version somewhere else, don't assume the Wikipedia version is incorrect and needs to be changed". The picky details are too specific for an encyclopedia article; add them at Wikisource if you like.
I have not reverted it, but I intend to rework it as outlined. Let's see then whether the fé/faoi editwar resumes. Any such editwarring is unreasonable in any case, and I oppose changes which uglify an article if their sole purpose is to forestall such unreasonableness. jnestorius(talk)09:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no edit-war, and there never has been an edit-war. What there has been is users periodically coming along, saying "Oh, that faoi should be fé" or vice-versa, and changing it. The purpose of the footnote is not to forestall anybody's edit (we have a hidden comment for that), it is to inform users that two different spellings are in common use for certain words. That is what encyclopaedia articles are supposed to do: inform. I repeat, "Slight variations exist in published versions" conveys precisely zero information. You might as well say "Variations exist between a cow and a chicken."
Why not also mention "With screech of gun" etc.? There was an English translation here already, which you opposed because "the original words were [not] radically different from the translation".[2] The footnotes were substituted to inform readers where the Irish tranlation departed significantly from the original English words. Again, that is what encyclopaedia articles are supposed to do: inform. Do you seriously believe that people read this article only to learn what de Valera's attitude to the office of Governor-General was? Why should people not be interested, or why should they not be told, what the Irish words mean or what two variations in spelling are in common use?
I am not going to contribute any more to this debate. I am unwatching this page. It is clear that you are just going to do what you please. You have taken ownership of this article and you have no interest in the opinion of other editors or the requirements of users. So be it! My time is too precious to go on fighting with you. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The footnotes, by drawing attention to one particular difference, imply that this is significant and that any other unnoted differences are not. That is Original Research. The particular translations given are also unsourced. I am not aware of any reliable sources that back-translate from the Irish to English. If any such source draws attention to any particular point of difference, that would be a valuable addition to the article.
I don't own this article, but if the occasional user innocently changes fé to/from faoi in contradiction to whatever source is cited, I have no compunction about doing a speedy revert. My original concern about the HTML comment was that it suggested a cabal of users would negotiate a consensus text on the Talk: page, with footnotes. That is clearly unacceptable; users can negotiate a consensus about which source-text to use, but that source must then be quoted verbatim. Since it seems that was not your intention, I don't mind restoring the HTML comment, if you think that will help. jnestorius(talk)19:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we include why particularly at football to why the players stand to the right when other national teams face forwards, this will give insight to people who dont know why the players face that way. Pro66 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
the players turn to face the flag at the end of the stadium paulmcg1983 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcg1983 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as mentioned in the 'Political implications' section, laochra can mean warriors, but a more common use of the word laochra is Heroes. (Laoch = Hero). Maybe it should be edited to read: "for “Sinne Fianna Fáil” (laochra also translates as heroes or warriors)". I'll change it in a while if no-one objects.
BWalsh-Dublin (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The opening line of this article states: "Amhrán na bhFiann is the national anthem of Ireland". This is a highly misleading statement, as it is, in fact, only the anthem of the Republic. I attempted to remove the disguised link to ROI, but a sock started an edit-war and now Rockpocket has reverted. Why can we not have some common sense on Wikipedia? Mooretwin (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, It should be changed to Republic of Ireland, as Ireland includes Nothern Ireland, where this is not the national anthem.
Mooretwin: While the involvement of a banned editor here is certainly a problem, this does not give you the prerogative to continue to change ROI-pipe-Ireland to ROI across the entire project. As you well know, the matter is not a simple as you suggest above. As you also well know, there is an ongoing, central discussion of how to deal with this issue. Unilaterally (or with the support of editors in the first edit) making the change from article to article undermines the good faith efforts to reach a consensus. Common sense is to reach a compromise that will result in stability across all articles. You were blocked just days ago for edit warring on exactly the same issue. I suggest you learn from that, because If you continue in this vein, ignoring the central discussion and ploughing on with your own agenda, I will invoke ArbCom remedies to restrict you. I'm cross posting this to your talk page. Rockpocket23:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second, I have not changed, nor is it my intention to change, ROI-pipe-Ireland across the whole project. Mooretwin (talk)
Third, the block "of a few days ago" was lifted because reverting the edits of a banned sock is not edit-warring. In other words, there should not have been a block, and you should not use it against me. Mooretwin (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally (at last), on the merits of this article, as noted above, it is misleading to state that the anthem is the anthem of Ireland: it only relates to the Republic. Disguising the link to the Republic of Ireland is therefore misleading and stupid. Mooretwin (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know what canaig / canaíg / canaídh (according to the various sources) means? It's a verb tense that I have never encountered anywhere else. The nearest I can think of, canaigí, is the imperative command "sing" directed at a group. Has the final í been abbreviated out? If so, is "canaídh" an archaic form of the same verb?
Also, should it be "anocht a théam sa bhearna baoil", or "sa bhearna bhaoil". Both versions are given in various sources. I would have thought that "sa bhearna bhaoil" is correct, because the adjective should agree with its noun and "sa" causes the noun to take the H. Or is there a reason why some sources print it without the H? --anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.228.167 (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Canaidh" is one of those parts of the verb that we did at school, the participle maybe? It means "the singing" as in "here for you is the singing of the Soldier's Song". "Sa bhearna bhaoil" is correct, as all of the versions reproduced in the discussion above show, but apparently it's a mortal sin against WP:RS if you write it correctly. Scolaire (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
