Talk:Amhrán na bhFiann

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amhrán na bhFiann article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Ireland C‑class High‑importance

	Ireland portal 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
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

De Valera's status in 1932

In the "Governor General" section of the article it states "In 1932, as part of his campaign to abolish the office of Governor-General, new President Éamon de Valera forbade the Army band to play "The Soldiers' Song" in McNeill's presence.[2]"

The article should clarify that de Valera became President of the Executive Council, not President of Ireland (Uachtarán na hÉireann), an office that wasn't established until the Constitution of Ireland (Bunreacht na hÉireann) in 1937. de Valera assumed the latter office on 25 June 1959. De bhal67 (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. RashersTierney (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

President of the Executive Council is already wikilinked in the previous section; I've rejigged it. jnestorius^(talk) 16:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Why is the Gaelic name used as the article title in an English-language encyclopaedia? In English, the Southern anthem is referred to as "The Soldier's Song" or "A Soldier's Song". Mooretwin (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to The Soldier's Song. Here are examples of the English name being given primacy by the Taoiseach's office and the Department of Foreign Affairs. Mooretwin (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Imos#Irish-language_conventions

"when the Irish version of a name is more common among English speakers use the Irish version of the name for the title of articles. Mention the English name in the first line of the article".Murry1975 (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Thus the article should be at the English name. Mooretwin (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be able to agree that in the Republic, English speakers usually use the Irish name of the song, just as they usually sing the Irish words. In other countries, people naturally use the English name, not being au fait with the Irish language. The Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs webpages cited by Mooretwin are obviously aimed at foreigners. I think WP:IMOS and WP:COMMONNAME must both be interpreted in the light of WP:ENGVAR; since this article is about sometihng relating to the Republic of Ireland, the conventions there should be applied, whatever may be the usage of foreign English speakers. jnestorius^(talk) 07:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where's your evidence that most English-speakers in ROI use the Gaelic name? WP:ENGVAR doesn't apply - seems to be about using different varieties of English. The vast majority of readers of this WP article will not be from ROI and will never have heard of, never mind be able to pronounce, the Gaelic name. Mooretwin (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two links one CIA factbook the intel agency of the single biggest English speaking nation [1] and the Irish Indo [2], Irelands biigest circulating broadsheet. Both use the Irish version.Murry1975 (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not very convincing. Google hits for the Gaelic title = About 132,000; and for the English title = About 6,180,000! Mooretwin (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really you are using a search engine to justify your re-naming? Did you "exclude" all other uses of the phrase in English? Laughable and actually as far as I am aware not RS.Murry1975 (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.metrolyrics.com/the-soldiers-song-lyrics-demon-hunter.html Murry1975 (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even allowing for other English uses of the phrase, I think a ratio of 1:47 is rather convincing. Even if we (very generously) assumed that half of the English hits for "Soldier's Song" did not relate to the anthem, the English title is still used more than twenty times more frequently than the Gaelic title! Mooretwin (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{od}The point being the amount of its in searches arent a RS, either way, you show OR in your deduction of the ratio, or are you going to show the math?Murry1975 (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show the math - are you serious? Divide the hits for the English title by those for the Gaelic title and you get the ratio. Mooretwin (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The Soldier's song" (as phrase) 63,600 hits. "Amhrán na bhFiann" 117,000 hits. The 'demonstration' above is a fraud or the editor in question has no idea what they are doing. RashersTierney (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try but you'd need to search for "Soldier's Song" rather than "The Soldier's Song" in order not to exclude all references to the anthem: 210,000 results Mooretwin (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try nothing. You're the one attempting to justify an undiscussed page move. Are you seriously suggesting 'Soldier's Song' as an article title? RashersTierney (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google's first-page counts are not reliable even within Google:

"Amhrán na bhFiann" site:.ie claims "About 16,100 results" but only shows 385
"soldier's song" site:.ie claims "About 6,040 results" but only shows 285

jnestorius^(talk) 13:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is explained: "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 630 already displayed". Mooretwin (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The National Anthem of Ireland is "Amhrán na bhFiann".[3][4][5][6][7][8]F. Gunther Eyck, The voice of nations: European national anthems and their authors; Ireland. Dept. of External Affairs, Facts About Ireland. It is an Irish Translation of "The Soldier's Song". "The Soldier's Song" is not the National Anthem of Ireland. Therefore, the number of Google hits the words bring up is of no relevance whatever. And "This is English language Wikipedia" is an even more absurd argument. The French Anthem is not at "Song of Marseilles" or the German Anthem at "Song of Germany". Scolaire (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the page being at the Irish title, the statement "The Soldier's Song" is not the National Anthem of Ireland is manifestly incorrect, as the body of this article demonstrates, and as both the Dept of Taoiseach and "Facts About Ireland" prove. The English version has on its side the 1926 cabinet decision and the copyright purchase; the Irish version has custom and practice. I think the opening sentence of the article should be altered to "promote" the English title to co-equal status, something like:

"Amhrán na bhFiann" (Irish pronunciation: [ˈəuɾˠaːn̪ˠ n̪ˠə ˈvʲiːən̪ˠ]), or "The Soldiers' Song" in English, is the national anthem of Ireland.

Also It is sung in the Irish language translation made by Liam Ó Rinn is too bald; historically this was not the case, and I daresay outside Ireland at least the English version is still sung at times; why not It is now almost always sung in the Irish language translation made by Liam Ó Rinn?

jnestorius^(talk) 17:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed changes seem fine to me. RashersTierney (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T. F. O'Rahilly translation

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography's article on Peadar Kearney (currently not behind the paywall) says "Several translations of the song were made into Irish, including by the head of the Dáil translation staff Liam O Rinn and the Celtic scholar T. F. O'Rahilly." That wording does not make clear whether O'Rahilly helped out with Ó Rinn's translation or wrote a separate one of his own. If that can be clarified it is worth adding. jnestorius^(talk) 14:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does make it quite clear. It's just bad grammar. The word "several", followed by "including", clearly means that what follows are two different translations. It should say, "Several translations of the song were made into Irish, including one by the head of the Dáil translation staff Liam O Rinn and another by the Celtic scholar T. F. O'Rahilly." I know an alternative interpretation is theoretically possible, but we have to assume that the common-sense one is the one intended. Besides, the cited sources (one of which – "Aistritheoir" – is not now available online) and Ó Rinn's biography on Ainm.ie all say that he was the translator – no mention of him being helped. Scolaire (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

I am removing the sentence about the melody being difficult to play etc. because the cited source, Nationalanthems.info, has obviously got its information from an old version of the Wikipedia article. I removed it in April 2007 as it was pure OR, and I hadn't noticed that it had crept back into the article. The second citation for the first sentence, neohumanism.org is a dead link. It's not archived at the Internet Archive, but a search of other neohumanism.org pages shows that they got their content from Wikipedia too. That only leaves Kevin Myers. Given that he begins his article "At this time of year, I usually reach for my annual national-anthem column, dust it down, put a new crease down its front, pat its bottom, and send it on its way", he seems to be ploughing a lonely furrow here; the more so when the same paper, the same week, published an article by Tim Pat Coogan giving the exact opposite point of view! BTW, thank you to 80.111.76.134 for providing the link to that. I cannot recall any public debate on the "militant", "violent", "anti-British" anthem at least since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. In fact, on closer examination, the whole "Criticisms" section seems to be simply the re-introduction of the 2007 content with a couple of not-very-well-chosen sources added. If these criticisms can only be sourced to a single, stuck-record commentator, they should be removed from the article. Scolaire (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nix the section, given the only source is from Kevin Myers. Snappy (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{improverefs}} would have done, I think. I've merged the "Criticisms" with "Political implications", which made similar points (now that the musical criticisms are gone), and separated out "Ireland's Call". jnestorius^(talk) 21:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amhrán na bhFiann. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Amhrán na bhFiann. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits reverted

The song has three verses in total, but only the choral refrain has been officially designated the national anthem.	"in total" is misleading, it suggests one or two verses are officially designated and one are two are not; in fact no verses are officially designated.
"The Soldiers' Song" was composed in 1907	It was "A Soldier's Song" in 1907
before ever it was adopted by the Executive Council."	The full stop is after the quote mark because the source sentence does not end there. It reads in full "It was adopted by the people here before ever it was adopted by the Executive Council, and I wish heartily to approve of the Minister's proposal here to-day to compensate the authors of this Anthem."
As per copyright law, the lyrics' copyright expired in December 2012	The music's copyright also expired.
intended to restore the state's copyright in the national anthem	"the anthem" elsewhere in the section, no need for "the national anthem" in this one instance

jnestorius^(talk) 16:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extra verse copyright

The extra verse written in 1937 was apparently published in Séamus de Burca's 1957 biography of Kearney. If it was not previously published then it remains in copyright until 2027. jnestorius^(talk) 13:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question, McGarry says it was published in The Irish Press on 7 August 1938, so it's out of copyright. jnestorius^(talk) 20:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1908 flysheet?

Joseph E.A. Connell's article says:

Whelan and Son first published A Soldier’s Song in 1908 and sold it at their shop at 17 Ormond Quay Upper. Bulmer Hobson published the song’s lyrics in Irish Freedom in 1912. It was published in sheet form in 1916

Most other sources, including de Burca 1957 and Sherry 1996 say Hobson's 1912 publication was the first, which leads me to doubt the 1908 publication. There is flysheet EPH A213 in the National Archives. It is undated and has the printed warning "this is the only authorised version of the words of the above Song", which suggests other versions were in circulation by the time it was printed, which is unlikely to have happened by 1908; it would hardly have been sung at all before the Irish Volunteers were founded in 1913, or at least before Fianna Éireann in 1909. OTOH maybe there was a 1908 printing of which EPH A213 is not an instance. jnestorius^(talk) 11:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPA transcription

The IPA transcription has some oddities — I don’t think anyone would pronounce buadhach (modern spelling buach) as buəɣɑːx and the apostrophe in 'S doesn’t represent a glottal stop (ʔsˠ) — but another issue is that at the time it was composed, Munster Irish was a sort of standard. There are rhymes that don’t work without Munster pronunciation and some of the lines don’t fit the music well without Munster stress, so a Munster transcription is probably a good idea. There is a standard orthography for Irish, but there is no standard pronunciation. I’ll try to add this soon. —☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 09:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire transcription is original research and should be deleted. Do any other articles on non-English songs or poems have a phonetic transcription? Those on the anthems of France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands don't. Perhaps the transcription is intended to assist people who want to learn to sing it but dont know Irish? If so, note that Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook. jnestorius^(talk) 10:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An Camán

Sherry says:

At the end of 1933, An Camán printed the text of Ó Rinn’s translation, with the title ‘Amhrán na bh’Fiann’, perhaps as a ceremonial close to the year.

Ó Ceallaigh GAA Collection, Limerick City Library includes issues of An Camán from the end of 1933;* I couldn't find the anthem there. Possibilities:

It is there and I missed it
It is not in the Ó Ceallaigh digitised collection but is in some hardcopy undigitised issue or page
Sherry has the wrong date or journal

jnestorius^(talk) 11:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ direct link to An Camán 1933 issues jnestorius^(talk) 20:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the answer is #2 and the last two pages of vol.2 no.52 (30 Dec 1933) are missing from the scan. jnestorius^(talk) 12:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]