From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A cut-and-paste is not the way to go about moving an article. Iota 17:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

ok, we'll do it the hard way :( --Red King 19:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• and a lot of bother could be saved by pointing out the Move tab. I can take a firm RTFM. --Red King 23:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Request to Move 1.1 Vote 1.2 Cross-border rail 1.3 corrections

[edit] Request to Move

I have entered a Request to Move for this page. If you agree, please write Support; if you disagree, please write Oppose. Include a brief statement of your reasons and sign in the usual manner

[edit] Vote

Support  : to do so is a logical follow-on to the decision to move History of the southern Irish state to History of the Republic of Ireland. The arguments are essentially the same: that it it is excessively pedantic in a single article to use anything other than the present day name. --Red King 19:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Support should be moved to present day name. Djegan 19:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Support--What's this Irish state again? ℬastique▼^talk 23:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Oppose--The Irish state was not called the Republic of Ireland until 1949, even now, it's still officially called 'Éire'. Everyone knows what the 'Southern Irish State' refers to, moving it would be to give wrong information. The whole point of encyclopedia's is to give completely factual information. Same goes for the history thing. - Dalta 16:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment "Éire" is the name of the state in the Irish language, and is most certainly not the states official state in the English language - make no mistake about this fact - this is an English encyclopedia. Terms like "Southern Irish State" are at best made up terms and carry no level of officialdom - notwithstanding this this is a historic article and it is often appropriate to use the current name of the state, "Republic of Ireland" is preferable to "Ireland" Djegan 17:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Strongly oppose The southern Irish state has undergone a series of changes on nomenclature since 1922. There have been two names (the Irish Free State and Éire) and one change of description (the Republic of Ireland). The description Republic of Ireland (it isn't the name of the state, BTW) only applies from 1949. So if the name is changed, the all the information in the article that does not apply to the Republic of Ireland (ie, everything before 1 April 1949) will have to be deleted for accuracy sake and put in another article. Irish state is used as a term that can be applied to cover all the name and state changes since 1922. The lowercasing of state makes it clear that it is not suggesting that it is the name of the state, only that it is a 'catch-all' generic term to cover the full period 1922-the present. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and so it needs to be absolutely accurate in its use of terminology. It cannot use names and descriptions that are factually wrong just because they are convenient. If we want this article to cover all the period of the existence of the Irish state since 1922, we cannot use a term that did not exist until 1949 to describe policy in the 1920s (when Ireland had a king and was a constitutional monarchy, nor can it use the word Republic to cover the late 1930s when Ireland had a king and a president. (Don't ask! Only Eamon de Valera could create a legal structure that had a king and a president, not to mention a state with a president who wasn't the head of state and wasn't a republic!!!)

The only accurate names we could use are either Economic history of the Irish Free State, Éire and the Republic of Ireland or use the generic term 'state' as here to dodge ludicrously long names for articles. The name used here, Irish state is 100% accurate, as from 1922 it did constitute a legal, self governing 'Irish state' (hence its then name, Irish Free State!). FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 18:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment Whilst it is agreed that terminology is a ongoing concern the use of "Éire" in any English title should be avoided as it will give credence to all manner of usage of that term - which is purely the Irish language name of the state, as the first official language, and historically a pejorative term outside the jurisdiction (viz "Citizen of Eire", "Government of Eire", Eire, ...). As matter of opinion (and often in professional/authoritive publications) a title incorporating the several official discriptions/names of the state ("Irish Free State, Ireland(/Éire?), Republic of Ireland") is a preferable compromise to anything that is a on-the-fly made up term which could equally give all manner of credence and creation. Djegan 21:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is widely used. The government of Ireland website uses it. [1] FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 21:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

As a subtitle to Ireland. Djegan 22:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Further comment (on my support) We had a very similar debate about moving History of the southern Irish state to History of the Republic of Ireland. The essence of that debate was this: the only people who understand why there is a debate already know most of what is in this article already. We have to think about how someone who is not from this island would ever hope to find it (or having reached it by a link, recognise what s/he is looking at.) The only sensible phrase for that context is the current name of the state. We are talking about a period of little more than 80 years here! It would be pedantic in the extreme to have three articles, especially when the economic narrative is continuous throughout that period. And if you want to be really picky, there are at present two Irish states: the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I know of no other encyclopedia that would be this obtuse. --Red King 23:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support violet/riga (t) 14:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even though this hasn't appeared correctly on WP:RM I'm going to move it simply because it meets the >66% mark. If there are objections then a new WP:RM can be filed. violet/riga (t) 14:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You cannot move a page on that did not appear correctly on the WP:RM. And it is abuse of position sufficiently serious to warrant being blocked from Wikipedia to come into a vote and move the page on the basis that it had breached the consensus mark when the only reason it had done that was because you had cast your vote to move it seconds earlier. That is astonishing behaviour. I've moved the page back and am seriously considering a RfC against you for what you did. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 16:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me break this down:

1. Please avoid making such threats as it hardly helps the situation – you're also quite wrong with the severity of my actions
2. WP:RM is not a necessity to move a page
3. The voting period was well over two weeks, more than the 5 that is usual for RMs
4. My vote is based on my opinion and cannot be discounted
5. A majority of 4 to 2 wanted the move, thus being seen as sufficient consensus under standard WP:RM protocol
6. When you move a page please ensure you do it correctly – you only moved the talk page
7. Undoing a page move because you simply disagree is not an appropriate action when you are in the minority
8. I explained the process you could go to move the page back if you objected

I hope that explains clearly my position on this. violet/riga (t) 19:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your behavour on this page was outrageous and broke every principal of behaviour for sysops. It is a gross abuse of your position to intervene in a page where there is not a numerical consensus to change, and where the vote was not properly advertised to start of with, cast your vote, and then announce that as your vote was enough to hit the right number you were going to move the page within a minute of casting your vote. In the past sysops have been demoted for doing that. If you wanted to cast your vote, then you should not have been the one to make the move. If you wanted to be the one to make the move, then you shouldn't have been the one to cast the casting vote. It is hard to see your actions as other than a highjacking the vote. I don't know of any other sysop on wikipedia right now who would dream of acting as you did. And some in the past were slated when they so much as tried to do such a thing. They were seen as having compromised their neutrality and abused their powers. There have been numerous times where when I added my vote the consensus percentage had been achieved but I would never dare then take it upon himself, having just voted, to rule 'bingo, we have the numbers and make the change'. That was such an abuse of your position I don't know what is more mindboggling; that you did it or that you don't see that it is something a sysop should never ever do. I will be taking this matter further. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 22:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see no need for you posting this message here when my user page would be much more appropriate. Your accusatory tone, threats and obvious bias could be seen as a personal attack and hardly makes Wikipedia look good if someone were to just come along to this page. I initially replied here because I feel that a defence of my actions was needed. By all means progress this in any such way you think is appropriate, but I stand by my actions and think that you are somewhat blowing this out of proportion. violet/riga (t) 22:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-border rail

The text "finally closing across a vast swath of Ireland's border area" is rather over the top. Hardly a swath (or swathe). Could it be made more precise? So what lines fell from use? Wouldn't they have done so anyway, given the economics of keeping them open would hardly stack up. Cork/Limerick Junction/Athenry/Tuam/Sligo is long gone, so the last hop to Derry is neither here nor there. Was there a Dublin/Derry/Donegal line? --Red King 21:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] corrections

(Re: above There were NOT 3 elections in one year. There was one mid 1981, and two in 1982; in February and November. Problems began to be dealt with in 1987 with the election of a minority Fianna Fail government and Ray MacSharry as Minister of Finance. There is no mention of 1986 currency devaluation. Indeed the overvaluation of the currency in the 1980s after joining the ERM in 1979 may have been the biggest reason for the malaise, certainly a bigger factor than tax rates. Britain, for example, had tax rates of up to 60% until 1988, yet it's economy grew Another devaluation in 1992 after Britain's own currency trouble provided another boost for the economy and set the stage, along with low interest rates, a well educated, skilled, English speaking workforce, good - though not great infrastructure and very open economy for the boom that has gone more or less since then).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.233.133.22 (talk • contribs) 12:57 23 June 2006.