Talk:Republic of Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.

Archives

---

1. Archive 1
2. Archive 2
3. Archive 3
4. Archive 4
5. Archive 5

	To-do list:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Other: Vote in the current discussion

[edit] Wrong Name Issue

This talk page is becoming confused with the Ireland (island) talk page, despite the allegedly wonderful diambig properties and "non-POV" status of "ROI". The argument on the Island page has moved on and there is a concensus evolving for IRELAND to be a disambig page offering Ireland (island) and Ireland (state) as the otions. Much better; removing outrageous POV with just a minute addition of wordage. (Sarah777 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

Don't worry. We will need a vote before a change like that. Are we seriously proposing articles like Education in Ireland (state)? Or a compromise somewhere in between. That proposal will fail, like previous when the realities are borne out. As the ad for mobile phones says "talk is cheap". Djegan 18:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment,Education in Ireland would cause no more a problem than Education in Northern Ireland? Taramoon 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

But fundementally for a user who wants a quick disambiguation (has not bothered to read the talk page, etc) is that the country or state? Djegan 19:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The nuts of the problem here is that WP is calling the nation of Ireland by a title that is not it's real name. Then the first paragraph has to explain that the title of the page is not the official name of the nation. WP then ends up twisting itself trying to explain the real nomenclature of the newly confused issue. The real and only solution for this recurrent problem is to make Ireland a disambiguation page with the various branches of, island, nation, NI listed in order of most referred to. Taramoon 19:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article name at present is not the name is the state, but nor is the name of the state "Ireland (state)", the name of the state is simply "Ireland". But that namespace is not currently available. "Republic of Ireland" is an accurate and unambigous article name. Lots of places in wikipedia are named under technically incorrect titles, is United Kingdom and United States the correct titles of those two countries -- no -- and the countless non-English names? Djegan 19:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as a side point (not trying to be picky) you use the term nation, this is a rather imperfect term as it often transcends the political boundaries. State is a more precise term in this mention, and what about country? But this illustrates the potential bother of a move, each term will have its pros and cons. But do we need to fix what is not brooken? Djegan 19:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, state it is. Broken it is. The opening paragraph is dogged, with Ireland and Republic of Ireland competing with each other. United Kingdom and United States are what those states are normally called, there is no point of view in preferring those shortened useages. Probably the ideal situation is to forget about the disambiguation page and call the state Ireland by Ireland (state). Solves the whole issue. Taramoon 19:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Its all very pov. Normally shortened versions of the two afformented are just pov. In the opening paragraph of United Kingdom their is not less than four variations, and in United States theirs five of the name! Not to say the most pov (and inaccurate) respectively of Britain and America. And you say two compete with each other? Its in human nature. Djegan 19:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing order of name vs. description in opening paragraph

As far as I understand, the only objection to putting the name of the state before the description of the state is that this would contravene the manual of style. The argument, as I understand it, is that the first emboldened term in the opening paragraph should be the same as the title of the page, otherwise a move request would be necessary. This is untrue.

The MOS makes a distinction between the title of a page and the subject of the page. The subject of the page should be emboldened. "The name of the subject is usually identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations." (From here).

The example that the MOS gives is comparable to the issue here. For an article entitled United Kingdom, the opening paragraph should read:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom or UK) occupies part of the British Isles in northwestern Europe ...

(This is wholly different from suggesting that the article should be moved, which I think is wholly inappropriate. From the MOS: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.")

--sony-youth^talk 22:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Having Ireland boldend and coming first in the opening paragraph is perfectly fine you only have to look right to the infobox and see that the name there is Ireland not Republic of Ireland --Barry talk 22:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect to this issue firstly I think their is already a lot of confusion around. Obviously the name of the state is "Ireland" whilst the description is "Republic of Ireland" - their is no arguement their.

However the page is located at the latter. And that is what should be used most prominantly. We can try to weasel word the manual of style but the simple fact is that the decision was made to locate the page at Republic of Ireland and for that their are consiquences. What should we use down the page, or in other articles? Ireland/Republic of Ireland/take your pick?

No. I am very much of the conviction on this one that we must be consistant, if we are not happy then a move request is the only correct way to go about things. We should avoid cobbling togetheir short term solutions to opening paragraphs. Lets face it its going to get changed back sooner than later.

If people are really of the conviction that we should go against the article title then they should also do the same to Londonderry, because let their be no doubt that the official name of the city is just that, the name of the council is imaterial. It works both ways. Djegan 22:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately the best way to resolve this issue maybe through the WP:IMOS. Djegan 22:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• "However the page is located at [Republic of Ireland]. And that is what should be used most prominantly." Please show where the manual of style indicates that this is so.

• "What should we use down the page, or in other articles? Ireland/Republic of Ireland/take your pick?" The IMOS has something to say about matters relating to this.

• "I am very much of the conviction on this one that we must be consistant, if we are not happy then a move request is the only correct way to go about things" Where in the MOS does this conviction comes from?

• "If people are really of the conviction that we should go against the article title then they should also do the same to Londonderry." The manual of style contains specific instructions with regard to Derry and County Londonderry.

• "We can try to weasel word the manual of style ..." Please say where I used weasel words.

--sony-youth^talk 23:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Djegan; Kindly do NOT revert my corrections without any consultation. You do not own this article, as you appear to believe. RoI is ONE of TWO "Official descriptions". One is in the Act you cited; the other is in the Constitution. (Sarah777 23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

Your is somewhat contradictory. Djegan 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way "official description" is not used in the constitution or law, so why retain it? Cam you cite its use in either. I think not. Djegan 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, appologies, I reverted the same edit, before seeing this comment (striking for clarity)your post above. However, what should we do? Quote the constitution and RoI act? "... the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland" (article 2, here). "The name of the State is ... Ireland." (article 4, here) --sony-youth^talk 23:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. "RoI" is a NAME, not a description (certainly not in joined-up English!), even though it is called a 'description' in the Act. "Ireland is a Republic" would be a description. The REAL name of Ireland is Ireland and this is stated in the Constitution. Which is no more or less of a description than "RoI". I notice Djegan has reverted my edit a SECOND time without any discussion, definitely hostile and not in the spirit of Wiki. (Sarah777 00:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

Well, granted, it is a difficult call. Just have a look at Cyprus. The mind boggles. Taramoon 00:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"reverted my edit a SECOND time". Where, please clarify. Djegan 05:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with sony-youth that the official name should come first, and that there is no requirement for the firstlisted name to be the same as the article-name. There is no way to make the fundamental complexity of the name issue disappear, but I don't think it is easier in any way to begin the article: "The Republic of Ireland is the description of the sovereign state which. ... " Articles should begin by talking about the Thing, not the Name of the thing. See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use of 'refers to'.

Regarding Sarah777's arguments, while one might consider "Republic of Ireland" a name of the state, Article 4 of the Constitution gives the name of the state:

The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.

Article 5 of the Constitution is a description of it:

Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state.

But Article 2 of the 1948 Act is the description:

It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.

I accept that putting "official description" in quotes,as the present intro para does, suggests the word "official" appears in the Act, which it doesn't:

For clarity, it is often identified as the Republic of Ireland, the state's "official description."

But something like the following should be acceptable:

For clarity, it is often identified as the Republic of Ireland, the state's statutory description. jnestorius^(talk) 01:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's true. It should be taken out of quotes (or at least put into single quotes) since it's not quoting anything. --sony-youth^talk 08:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "one of the state's official descriptions"

Sarah777 changed "the state's official description" to "one of the state's official descriptions". This really needs to be explained here, so I've reverted until that is done. What other official descriptions are there? (where "official" means statutory - is thast the issue?). If you mean Poblacht na hÉireann, then that is a direct translation into Irish and is another way of saying the same thing, not another description. Explanation required if the edit is to stand. --Red King 23:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It seams that people have not actually read the Republic of Ireland Act. It does not mention "official description", for which the citation is provided, but simply provides for "the description". Djegan 00:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think the article needs to say statutory description because terms like "the Emerald Isle" have been used in semi-official materials, and to that extent Sarah777 is strictly correct in her edit. (in the letter, but not in the spirit). --Red King 00:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

[edit] Category:Germanic culture

Irish culture has been add to the new Category:Germanic culture by an editor (not me by the way - I'm querying this). Please discuss this to ascertain whether this is appropriate or not - and act accordingly.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 13:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

English language, maybe? Otherwise, I'm bemused. No lederhosen or knee-slapping here, danke schön - but I could be wrong --sony-youth^talk 14:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

More Boston than Berlin!Deepsoulstarfish 01:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL (Actually laughed out loud and made a tit of myself at work.) --sony-youth^talk 08:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Lots in common; Work ethic / fondness for beer / north-south division / fondness for being told what to do and think (obrigkeit) / some protestant, some catholic / Celtic artifacts found in both / Roman empire generally kept away / multiplicity of local kingdoms until 1600 (Ireland) and 1800 (Germany) / musical tradition / languages don't travel well / often hard on the neighbours / fondness for Mercedes / members of EU, usw.86.42.209.228 12:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Percentage of the island

The island of Ireland is 84,401 sq kilometres of which the Republic is 70,280 (= 83%) and the North 14,121 (= 17%). These facts are checkable in most atlases! Citation request removed PaddyBriggs 09:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the citation needed because has stood for ages until somebody changed it, without giving the mathematics. I didn't have time to repeat. --Red King 14:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland is a country

Virtually every country in Wiki starts with a statement that XXXX (country name) "is a country...". See (for example) Canada. I think that this Wiki entry on Ireland should do the same. If it is necessary to emphasise that Ireand (the country) is a Sovereign State (as opposed, presumably, to Ireland the island) that's fine - but we should begin "Ireland is a country...).PaddyBriggs 10:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Paddy, the root of this problem is that because of a strong politically-biased POV we are not allowed to call Ireland by it's name. There is a clique of editors who have a problem with calling Ireland a country. For example, 'Georgia' is a country and a US state. Type in 'Georgia' and you don't get 'Republic of Georgia' or some such rubbish; you get a disambiguation page directing you to Georgia (country) or Georgia (US State). (Sarah777 11:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

Hi Sarah. I am perhaps a bit naive about all this but I do really believe that there should be consistency. Ireland is indisputably a country isn't it? Of course it's other things as well and many of us would argue that the country of Ireland (as opposed to the STATE of the "Republic of Ireland") has historically referred to all of the land mass of the island, and that it still should! That's a bit contentious and not what I am proposing! But what ought not to be contentious is that the ROI is a country as per UN, EU and other definitions! PaddyBriggs 11:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Paddy, you are walking into a bit of a minefield here, as I did some weeks back! The EU and UN know the state occupying 83% of the island of Ireland as simply IRELAND. Which is its proper constitutional (and only name in the English language). But Wiki doesn't allow that usage. And you can get abused, characterised, be subject to personal attacks for expressing opposition to the outrageous diktat. (Sarah777 11:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

Yes, and the Irish government website really only ever refers to the country as "Ireland" and not the ROI. But the ROI is still the official descriptor - albeit one that is rarely used. I'm happy with your amendment to my amendment. I hope others are as well! PaddyBriggs 11:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

At the top of this page there is this post: "I have to say that this article now has quite a bizarre opening, based on a mistaken elevation of the Republic of Ireland Act by supporters of the "status quo". The Constitution is the supreme legal document for the Irish state, it constitutes the state and names it. It is clearly of higher logical and legal status that the aforementioned Act. The name of the state in English is Ireland. When the constitution was originally adopted jurisdiction was claimed for the entire island. Since the adoption of the Belfast Agreement by referendum, the claim of jurisdiction on Northern Ireland was rescinded. Please respect the sovereign right of the people to name their own state.Deepsoulstarfish 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)" This is a key point - the anti-IRELAND establishment here use a 'demonarchising' clause in the 1948 Act to substitute the NAME of the country with a description. (Sarah777 11:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

The issue is the difference between a country and a state:

* Country: a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.

* State: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

Ireland is definitely a state. Sarah and Paddy, surely you agree with this? However, not all the nation of Ireland is included in the state of Ireland (i.e. having "its own government" and "occupying [the] particular territory" in question). Why then is it necessary to call it (incorrectly, or at least imprecisely) a country? --sony-youth^talk 12:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ireland is a State. Can't agree it isn't a Country. Based on that argument Germany, Russia, Serbia, China (mainland), Armenia and many many more could not be accurately described as 'countries'. (Sarah777 12:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

If Germany, Russia, Serbia and China jumped of a cliff would you jump off with them? You still haven't explained why it is necessary to describe the state as a "country". --sony-youth^talk 12:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This really is quite daft! To suggest that every other sovereign state that is recorded in Wiki is a country, but that [The Republic of) Ireland is not is, frankly, nonsense. I give up! PaddyBriggs 12:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No so in light of the northern situation. In the case of a united Ireland it would be more clearly so. Right now, its not. With the confusion between Ireland-the-island and Ireland-the-state, is it not better to just describe the state as a state and not confuse matters (at least in the introduction). --sony-youth^talk 12:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Paddy. You clearly think RoI is a country. You've heard my reasons why I say it is not. Please can I hear your reasons why you say it is. RoI, by the way, not Germany, Poland, Botswana, or anybody else. Why is RoI a country? (Also, should you not avoid using the phrase Irish republic in that context as its a little confusing? Incidentally, that would have been a county.) --sony-youth^talk 12:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"If Germany, Russia, Serbia and China jumped of a cliff would you jump off with them?" Well that would certainly solve the global population problem but I'd decline the jump 'cos then there would be one less person to try and get POV removed from the Wiki articles on Ireland!

Your contention that Ireland, the state occupying 83% of the island, is NOT A COUNTRY is bizarre. I suggest the burden of proof lies in your court; why is my country 'not a country'? (Sarah777 13:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

Ireland (The ROI) is a country in exactly the same way that any other member state of the EU or full member of the UN is a country. Partiton and histroy in no way affects this. The status quo is that Sarah's country is as much a country as any other self-governing, sovereign, independent country . PaddyBriggs 13:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"I suggest the burden of proof lies in your court ..." Sweet. I wish we could all unburden ourselves of responsibility as quickly as that. My contention is a matter of clarity - again the age-old problem of the state vs. the island. The island is a country ("an area of region with regard with to its physical features"), and sure, there is a case that the state is a country too ("a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory"). In the case of Germany, for example, both of these terms coincide - German is a country ("an area of region with regard with to its physical features") and a state ("a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government") and a country, again, in different sense ("a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory."). Ireland is a bit more tricky because there is a county ("an area of region with regard with to its physical features"), i.e. the island, and a state ("a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government") that could also be considered a country ("a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory"), i.e. RoI. When we say that Ireland is a state and a country, which kind of country do we mean? "An area of region with regard with to its physical features", more suited to describing the island, or "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory", more suited to the state.

I would prefer to avoid using the word county so as to maintain clarity. It is unnecessary, leaving it out will not cause any damage to the article. However, by avoiding it, we can take some safeguards against confusing our readers. Don't you think that its a bad idea to use ambiguous terms when there are already issues regarding the ambiguity of the word Ireland?

I suspect you believe that I am making a POV edit here. This is not at all, simply for clarity of the written word.

You still have not explained why it is necessary to describe it as a county. --sony-youth^talk 13:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume that SonyYouth meant to say CountRy".

Let me explain the problem another way. Wikipedia has a technical limitation that there can only one article per name, though it has devices to get round it. The name "Ireland" has two meanings: one is the island, one is the state. ("Ireland, the country" probably has the same two meanings, but that is more arguable.) The options open to Wikipedia are (a) give one or other of the meanings pride of place and use an alternative name for the other [e.g., "Ireland and Republic of Ireland" or "Ireland and Island of Ireland"] or (b) use the name for a disambiguation article [as per Georgia example], and offer a choice of two articles: Ireland (island) and Ireland (state). I don't think that there are any other choices. Harping back to the Derry/Londonderry debate, the "Ireland and Island of Ireland" will not achieve consensus (and rightly so. An Ireland that is less than the whole of the island is a 75 year aberation in well over 1000 years).

Personally I would not be happy with Ireland being reduced to a disambiguation article (I think it outrageous that this is what happened to Georgia, but I suppose it is en.wiki and ru.wiki probably has it the other way round). But I accept that it is a credible proposal of change. In fact I think it the only credible proposal for change. So if you want to change it, you have to propose it, make the case for a change, and show consensus in favour of a change. --Red King 14:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Red, the debate here is about whether the opening paragraph should read something like, "Ireland (Irish: Éire) is a country and a sovereign state ..." or "Ireland (Irish: Éire) is a sovereign state ..." Although, I understand your confusion - it demonstrates in fact my argument why it should be the latter. For clarity, "country" should be avoided so as to not increase confusion regarding the state vis-à-vis the island. I don't see the necessity to say that Ireland is a country (in the geo-political sense) and don't see what damage would be caused to the article by not calling it so. --sony-youth^talk 14:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I too would loath to see Ireland a disambiguation page, it's far too notable for that treatment. The only other suggestion I can think of is Ireland (State) as the main page for sovereign Ireland. And then there could be a proper article explaining the term ROI. Any comments? Taramoon 17:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

So. Ireland is an "aberation" (Red King) and is "not a country" (Sony) and you ask why the collective conclusions of the current editorial establishment are unacceptable?

Germany is a country - ("an area of region with regard with to its physical features")- and Ireland isn't? Really? As I say the burden of proof rests with anyone making such a bizarre and ridiculous claim! Ireland (country) is more acceptable than the 'description' RoI when referring to this country.

"I would not be happy with Ireland being reduced to a disambiguation" - it would be far preferable to reducing the country called Ireland to "RoI". That's for sure. (Sarah777 19:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

" Ireland (country) is more acceptable than the 'description' RoI when referring to this country." Why is the official description of the country, laid down in statutory law and used not acceptable as the description. Does the definition of the word description change between sentences or usage? Ben W Bell talk 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

ROI, is a term, it is not a name. It has specific meanings. Taramoon 22:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

*Note, there are 2 main groups who dislike calling sovereign Ireland by the name Ireland. Extreme republicans dislike it because they don't recognise sovereign Ireland as being a "complete country". The other group are extreme unionists, who believe that sovereign Ireland has usurped the name Ireland. Included in the latter would a section of UK nationals. So it's a broad issue. Taramoon 22:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I withdraw that, per below. Didn't mean to aim it at anyone in particulsr. Taramoon 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --sony-youth^talk 02:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And once again we move into "move the article" territory - consensus, except for a minority of determined editors, is to maintain the status quo. If you feel strongly about it, please take a look Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages then see where it goes. This page is taken up with too much discussion of a subject that's going nowhere.

Sarah, please read my post. I said Ireland can be correctly described as a country, but in the introduction to this article it is best not to for the purposes of clarity and to avoid confusion vis-à-vis Ireland-the-island. You still have not said why it is necessary to describe it as a county.

You write: "So. Ireland is an "aberation" (Red King) and is "not a country" (Sony) ..." This is a vile misrepresentation of your fellow editors. I am hurt and offended that you would treat me in this way.

Taramoon, please refrain from categorising others for the purpose of purporting that their contributions are POV. --sony-youth^talk 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Sony-youth, what I wrote is factual, sorry if you have problems with what I wrote. Remember Voltaire's famous words. "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Taramoon 01:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Taramoon, you are implying that I am either an "extreme republican" or an "extreme unionist." Neither of these are factual. I have a problem with people lying about me. Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and remember these famous words, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." --sony-youth^talk 01:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm broadly happy with the beginning of the article as it now appears. There are countries which are not sovereign states (e.g. Scotland or England) so it is fair enough, I think, to say that Ireland is both a country and a sovereign state. The grammar is a bit clumsy as drafted and I might have a go at sharpening it a bit, but generally I think that we've reached a good compromise!! PaddyBriggs 12:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be Ireland (country) instead of Republic of Ireland and Ireland (island) for Ireland. --Vintagekits 13:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Page Ireland is okay. Republic of Ireland is a term, and unlike the UK, Ireland has a constitution, which is the supreme document. Irish laws cannot override the Irish Constitution, and that's a given. In the UK, laws are supreme, that's why there may be confusion about the proper title of the state, by some of the editors. Taramoon 15:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The official description is Ireland. That is in the Constitution of Ireland, which is the supreme document. Any other analysis is flawed. Taramoon 15:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ireland" is the name of the sate (article 4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann). "Republic of Ireland" is the description (article 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act).

Nobody has ever said that "Republic of Ireland" is the name of the state. Due in part to technical limitations of Wikipedia, this article is just titled "Republic of Ireland." This is no big problem - and has the support of almost all editors concerned. It has the advantage that it clearly delineates between Ireland-the-sate and Ireland-the-island. It is not a neologism - nor a POV term - but has a near-50-year history by statute (first in Ireland and then in the UK) as an identifier for Ireland-the-state. --sony-youth^talk 16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I still haven't heard any reason why it is necessary to include "country" in the introduction - or what it adds to the article, or what leaving it out would detract from the article. (Apart from "everyone else is doing it so why can't we.") I also have not heard anyone addressing my concerns with regard to the ambiguity of the word 'country' with regard to Ireland-the-state vis-à-vis Ireland-the-island - and what effect this would have on clarity for our readers.

Paddy, you made the first edit describing Ireland-the-state as a "country" in the introduction, your explanation was along the lines that "everyone else is doing it." What benefit does it add to this article? Can you think of any way in which it detracts from the article? Do the benefits outweigh the cost? --sony-youth^talk 16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What "cost" is it you are talking about? PaddyBriggs 16:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I explained this above. The cost is losing clarity through using unnecessary and ambiguous terms in the introduction. "County" is ambiguous because it can refer to either a country in the sense of a geo-politics and a country in the sense of a geographic region. By way of example, when Tourism Ireland describes Ireland as a beautify country, they refer to the whole island. But when their German counterparts say the same about Germany, the place they describe coincides with the German state. We don't have the luxury of being able to describe Ireland as being a state and a country without risking clarity when ambiguity already exists between Ireland-the-island and Ireland-the-state.

Now that you understand one of my concerns, why is it necessary to include "country" in the introduction. What benefit does it add to this article? Do the benefits outweigh the cost? --sony-youth^talk 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's bring this tedious debate to a close. Ireland is a country but because of the slightly ambiguous nature of this fact ( to some) , and the confusions that some might have with the island of Ireland and with the UK, let's also say that she is a sovereign state as well to make the status crystal clear. That's what we've done. Leave alone. Oh and see this Wiki entry for the final proof that what we have done is consistent with the Wiki precedents: Go to [[1]] to see why. PaddyBriggs 17:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles are not valid sources. You still have not answered any of my concerns, despite making what you knew was going to be a controversial edit (you initiated this discussion). Your only argument for putting it in is because "other people are doing it so why can't we." You post above is cynical and and smacks of "dick-ishness." You appear to acknowledge my concerns and suggest that to resolve them we should ignore them. --sony-youth^talk 17:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Paddy, there has been no debate. Despite persistant attempts on my part to encourage debate on the matter it has been carefully avoided. Please see guidelines on [Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terms_that_are_technically_accurate_but_carry_an_implied_viewpoint|terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint] then explain why "country' should be used here. You made the edit, surely you can explain it. --sony-youth^talk 18:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the logic in for example, of France and Germany, on WP, being described as countries, and sovereign Ireland being described as a state, at User:Sony-youth's insistence. Can that be explained? Taramoon 18:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Taramoon is 100% right. The arguments in favour of saying upfront that Ireland is a country are as follows:

• It is self-evidently true
• Every Nation State entry on Wiki opens with a statement that the entry is about a country
• Because of the potential for misunderstanding where Ireland is concerned it is important to say on this RoI entry that we are talking about the country of Ireland (the one that is independent, a member of the EU and the UN etc. etc.) not about anything else.

PaddyBriggs 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Paddy, I have restored your opening line. There is no need to 'discuss' bizarre claims that 'Ireland isn't a country'. I would call on User:Sony not to engage in edit war as the clear consensus here is that Ireland is a country. (Sarah777 20:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Taramoon, it appears Sony thinks only those opposed to his (in this case rather silly) view have to explain themselves. He can assert 'Ireland is not a country', which has the same truth and credibility as 'The Moon is made of Cheese' and yet believes only those who think Ireland is a country and the moon isn't made of cheese need to explain and 'prove' themselves!!! (Sarah777 20:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

You can hardly call this fact undisputable, when it is being disputed as we... type, lol (dont get me wrong, I'm on your side here). Ferdia O'Brien 20:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ferdia, I was going to say 'undisputable by any rational person' and realised that could be interpreted as 'hostile' or 'abusive'! (Sarah777 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Might have turned the convo in another direction alright, lol. Ferdia O'Brien 21:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

On the specific discussion regarding 'Ireland is a Country' issue (as distinct for the RoI article name) I must say it appears that, judging from this thread, some editors consider their opinions 'consensus', while the vast majority are merely expressing a pov. (Sarah777 21:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Sony, what you're describing as the definition of a 'country' above, as opposed to a 'state', I think most people would instead use the term 'nation'? Bastun 22:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Batsun - I took my definitions from dictionary definitions of "country" (see my post far above for these). In regard to the geo-political definition of country (as it would be used in this article), these do indeed mention the word "nation."

Sarah, please do not engage in personal attacks. Saying that this matter would be "undisputable by any rational person" implies that I am not rational.

Again, please listen this time: I am not arguing that Ireland (the state) is not a county. Just that it needlessly muddies the waters to describe it as so when Ireland-the-state is not equivalent in area to Ireland-the-island. There is already ambiguity around Ireland meaning the state and the island. So what we have is essentially, "Ireland is a country in Ireland." This is reads as an oxymoron because of the ambiguity of the word "country." Why do we need it in there? Is there any "rational" person that is going to answer this question?? --sony-youth^talk 22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

To demonstrate the ambigious/confusing nature of the word with regard to Ireland, see [An Bunreach] where it is at once said the people of Ireland seek "the unity of our country restored" and that "polling at every general election for Dáil Éireann shall as far as practicable take place on the same day throughout the country." While "country" in the first sense refers to the entire island, country in the second sense refers only to the state of Ireland.

This is purely a copy edit. So, why is it necessary to include such an ambiguous word - in the introduction of all places?? --sony-youth^talk 23:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sony, firstly, I didn't refer to you in such terms; I explained to Ferdia, in response to his question, what I didn't say and gave the reasons why. Secondly - why is it necessary to state that Ireland is a country? Precisely because, incredibly, people such as yourself appeared to dispute it!

Therefore it obviously needs to be stated. Especially as the article is titled "RoI", a term which clearly many of us feel is denigrating this country. Surely the fact that one as knowledgeable as yourself disputed the validity of calling Ireland a country (which you appear to have retracted) is the ultimate illustration of the need to clarify this for the Wiki audience? (Sarah777 23:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Whats the song and dance about? That part of Ireland described as the Republic of Ireland is definable as a country in its own right. To omit is peculiar. Djegan 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarah: Yes, we do need to clarify it. "Country" is unclear. My question, from the very start (please look at my posts above if you do not believe me) was why is it necessary to call it a country (in the introduction)? I repeated this question several times, explaining my concerns at the ambiguity of the phrase in many ways. At no time did I say I say that Ireland-the-state was not a country. If I did then please quote me as saying so. Despite many requests, this simple question has not been answered. Instead, I have been continually misrepresented - and again have been so in your post above. I will ask again, why is it necessary? (And in your reply, please do not say that I am saying that Ireland is not a country - I am not, and never have!) --sony-youth^talk 23:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of being bold I put in the following, changed country to democratic.

Ireland (Irish: Éire) is a democratic sovereign state occupying over five-sixths of the island of Ireland,

It may help move things forward a bit. Edit as you wish of course. Taramoon 00:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Have to say I think "country" is a very ambiguous term. State is a more precise term for the subject of this article. Wales is a country, but not a state. Country has a more territorial, but less political connotation I feel. In the Irish context it is very confusing to introduce the term. On another note, I've noticed people on these pages pointing to the Oxford English Dictionary, and Encyclopaedia Britannica as authoritative on the nomenclature of this island. Maybe on the mainland!! Deepsoulstarfish 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wales is listed both in Wikipedia and the Times Atlas of the World as a "constituent nation" of the UK. Wikitionary gives the first definition of a country as "a nation state, a political entity asserting ultimate authority over a geographical area" which fits the article. Its a bit of an insult isn't it to Irish wikipedians (and users of the site) to not simply use the same definition that other European countries eg France, Germany are allowed. Especially when there's no ambiguity as with its neighbour the UK, which is formed of constituent nations. Whether or not the island the Republic is located on is shared between it and the UK is neither here nor there in terms of this argument. Sorry if this has all been resolved before, but I wanted to add my contribution Alastairward 09:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizenship & Northern Ireland

Given what I have read above, I am hesitant to ask this here, but here goes. It appears that Ireland has a somewhat unusual (unique?) citizenship setup. Ireland seems to consider anyone born on the island of Ireland to be a citizen of Eire. A friend of mine who was born in Belfast recently applied for -- and received -- an Irish passport. He emphasized that he wasn't applying for citizenship, just getting a passport. This despite the fact that he has never lived in the "twenty-six counties". Some preliminary research would indicate that Northern Irish residents have the right to live in Ireland, make use of social services, serve in the government (isn't a recent Irish President or Prime Minister from Ulster?), and so forth. My friend (a Protestant) jokingly refers to the north as "the occupied territories" (I realize there are many who would not find this funny at all). So my questions is this: neither this article nor the article on Ireland (the island) seem to mention this highly unusual fact. Is this deliberate or accidental? Semifreddo 22:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Semifreddo, Most of your points are answered are in the Northern Ireland article, specifically nationality and right to an Irish passport. Further details can be found at British_nationality_and_the_Republic_of_Ireland and in the Common Travel Area article. The current President of Ireland, Mary McAleese was born in Belfast. Hope this helps. « Keith ^t/_e» 23:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, the Northern Ireland page does seem to cover it. Don't you think it should be mentioned here as well, though? I mean, it is citizenship in this country. Just asking. Semifreddo 07:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have adverted to the citizenship issue above - it is a consequence of the disputed nature of Northern Ireland / the six counties. As explained earlier, the consititution of this state was enacted for the citizens of the entire island. Nationality is a state of mind, an "imagined community". The nation and the state do not overlap. On a more complicated note: since the citizenship referendum being born on the island of Ireland is no longer enough. Deepsoulstarfish 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change the name of this article

I propose that we change the name of this article. I know what I have in mind but I would like some suggestions first before I outline my ideas.--Vintagekits 22:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggest we change it to IRELAND. (That being it's name). (Sarah777 01:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

And change the Ireland page to what?--Vintagekits 01:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally we don't name articles in all upper case letters. Frelke 06:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is such a proposal, the way it will work is that the article will need to be moved. In this case, it is allso likely that there may need to be a series of moves and other edits to stabilise the various linked articles associated with the naming issue. So a proposal that we change the name of this article is extremely unhelpful as it lacks clarity and just leads to more disagreement. If you want to make a proposal then do so properly. Add Support, Oppose and Comment headings and lets get one with it. Frelke 06:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Per the Ireland Act 1949, it is legally called the Republic of Ireland. Astrotrain 09:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Astro, get with the programme - it has been fairly conclusively established in earlier discussion above that the name of the state is Ireland. Deepsoulstarfish 00:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to describe the country as the "Republic of Ireland", but it isn't the State's name; the State is simply "Ireland". So the Wikipedia article being at Republic of Ireland makes sense (a natural disambiguation phrase if you will), but it should use "Ireland" as the title of the State, and simply explain the term Republic of Ireland. zoney ♣ talk 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats a UK act of parliament! Djegan 11:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And have you even considered the links to the articles? There are over 8,000 links to Republic of Ireland and 23,000 plus to Ireland. Who will take on that responsibility when the status quo works for most people except a few POV-pushers? Please, leave it alone and let's get on with some constructive editing. You know the naming is very simple. The island of Ireland was around long before the state of Ireland existed and will likely be around long after the state is gone, so Ireland (the island) came first and is called Ireland on Wikipedia too and the state of Ireland came next, though long after, so it is called something different here as we cannot have two articles of the same name. Even back in 1937 de Valera, maybe not personally, realised we would have this problem, so he solved it for us by including a description in the constitution, namely Republic of Ireland. Thank de Valera for that and move on to better things. ww2censor 17:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Here is what the very good “Oxford Reference Encyclopaedia” does:

Ireland: “An island of the British Isles lying west of Great Britain.” …then stuff about the soil, climate, peoples, English invasions, revolts against English rule, plantations, Act of Union, destitution of 19th Century, emigration, Home Rule movement, Easter rising of 1916, Anglo-Irish treaty.

Republic of Ireland: “A country in western Europe comprising four-fifths of the island of Ireland to the west of Great Britain”. Then some geographical stuff similar to the “Ireland” entry and an economy section. Then history – and this is all about the developments post 1921.

Northern Ireland: “A unit of the United Kingdom comprising the six north-eastern counties of Ulster…” Then physical and geographical stuff and post 1921 history.

Key learning point to me is that their RoI entry and Northern Ireland entries don't cover pre 1921 history, and that their Ireland entry history bit stops at 1921 (as well as doing all the mapping stuff). PaddyBriggs 10:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concern

My experience this weekend has left me exhausted and with deep feelings of ill-will towards the practice of discussion on this page by certain contributors. Despite constantly requesting nothing more than only the smallest of degree of engagement - simply to explain the necessity of a particular edit - there was what can only be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to avoid discussion of concerns that I raised. Instead, I was repeatedly attacked and, despite making my position clear over-and-over again, my concerns were constantly distorted and falsified so as to purport them to be a different thing. This, again, can only be seen as deliberate given then amount of times that I clarified what I meant.

The effect of this was to nullify any real discussion. While, on the face of it, the exchange appeared to be engaging, in fact through distortion, attacks, lies, avoidance and straw men, no genuine discussion could take place. This, I can only imagine, was the purpose of the strategy adopted by those that I tried to engage.

As Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, genuine, lively and engaging discussion of edits must be able to take place on Talk pages. If they can not, or are false, deadened or avoided, then Wikipedia as a whole, this article included, will decline.

This page cannot be tolerated to be reduced to a kangaroo court, where genuine consideration for edits are ignored and judgment is made through fantastic appeals, irrespective of truth and the concern that is actually raised. --sony-youth^talk 09:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Join the club. Djegan 11:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And that is why i think my solution for the opening sentence would be

• Ireland (Irish: Éire) is a democratic sovereign state occupying over five-sixths of the island of Ireland,
  

There is little ambiguity in that sentence, ie Ireland = Country. Taramoon 16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is a problem with my maths, but according to the figures quoted for areas on Wikipedia, Ireland (state) covers less than 5/6 of the island of Ireland, not more. It's very close, but it's less. Edit: Actually it depends on what figures you use. If you add the RoI plus NI figures and work out then it's more than 5/6ths. If you use the area figure on the Ireland page then it is less. Something is wrong. Ben W Bell talk 17:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

5/6 = 83.33%.... And if one works it out from WP figures it's 83.25%. Not much in the difference, it's just about exact. Taramoon 18:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's just about exact, but it's not more. I think the over should be removed, but the five-sixths should stay. Just being picky. Ben W Bell talk 19:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And have you even considered the links to the articles? There are over 8,000 links to Republic of Ireland and 23,000 plus to Ireland. Who will take on that responsibility when the status quo works for most people except a few POV-pushers? Please, leave it alone and let's get on with some constructive editing. You know the naming is very simple. The island of Ireland was around long before the state of Ireland existed and will likely be around long after the state is gone, so Ireland (the island) came first and is called Ireland on Wikipedia too and the state of Ireland came next, though long after, so it is called something different here as we cannot have two articles of the same name. Even back in 1937 de Valera, maybe not personally, realised we would have this problem, so he solved it for us by including a description in the constitution, namely Republic of Ireland. Thank de Valera for that and move on to better things. ww2censor 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, it highlights proves the confusion. Republic of Ireland is not mentioned in the 1937 Constitution of Ireland. ROI term wasn't invented until 11 years later. And it was John A. Costello who devised the ROI term in 1948. Taramoon 17:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Or it could demonstrate just how common a name it is for the place, technically correct or not. Maybe it's because terms such as these are usually the official name for a country (e.g. the French Republic), while the short form is usually the colloquial term (e.g France). Whatever the reason, its very popular, has official status, though obviously not as much as "Ireland", and does accurately describe what we are talking about. Anyway, good to see that people are taking my "concern" to heart :) --sony-youth^talk 18:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I got the date and person responsible wrong. The concept is still totally valid. These continued discussions, edit and reversions have just become a waste of time and effort so it is no wonder people get exasperated. The issue is so clear, I cannot understand why others can't see it. ww2censor 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Term "country" is problematic

We should be careful to refer to the State of "Ireland" as a state rather than country. The state only covers most of the island, the country and nation are the entire island. It's merely down to political history that part of the country is within the United Kingdom (sitting alongside the other three countries/nations there) and part without.

Using the term "state" unambiguously refers to the 26 counties. Country can be applied in a non-political sense to the whole island.

zoney ♣ talk 10:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the slight complication is that prior to amendment of Article 2&3 of the constitution, the state of Ireland (Republic of Ireland) attempted to claim representation of the entire country and island of Ireland. Indeed in some respects it still does, e.g. wrt. to citizenship rights, the state's name (and description), etc. zoney ♣ talk 10:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Zoney. This is why I suggest it should not be used in the introductory paragraph. Once the subject of the article has been introduced clearly, then it can be used elsewhere in the article unproblematicly. As it stands now the introductory sentence is a tautology: Ireland is a country and a sovereign state - well, doh! all sovereign states are countries! But wait, there is also another entity called Ireland which is a country but not a sovereign state - so we have a sentence which can run, "Ireland is a country in a country called Ireland." Its just bad writing. --sony-youth^talk 11:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this logic. The country/nation is the island. The state is 83% of it. Would those who want "country" in the intro please read Nation and Scotland.

We should keep this debate out of the article - the revert war is getting silly and the attempts at compromise wording are just turning it to prolix. We need to reach broad consensus here and then leave it alone. --Red King 20:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another example

Has anyone considered that the pages on the Dominican Republic and Haiti face a similar naming issue? Two nations share an island. Currently, the Dominican pages says: "The Dominican Republic ... is a country located on the eastern two-thirds of the ... island of Hispaniola, bordering Haiti". The Haiti page says: "Haiti ... officially the Republic of Haiti, occupies one-third of the island of Hispaniola. The country also includes many smaller islands ...". Both articles (and, I think it has been already said, all articles on sovereign states) use the word "country" and "nation" interchangeably. The positions here seem so bitter and so entrenched that I doubt this will help, but it's just a point to be made. For an example (IMO) of what not to do, see Cyprus. Semifreddo 18:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have no problem with Ireland being called a country. Clearly, as with all sovereign states, it is so. The issue I have is with using such an ambiguous term in the term in the introduction (or at least until what we are discussing has been clearly defined), when Ireland-the-island can also properly be called a country.

I suspect the difference between this and the Haiti/Dominican Republic situation is that there is no potential confusion between either of these countries and the island that they occupy, and that the island of Hispaniola is never called a country, unlike the island of Ireland. So, any ambiguity with the term does not exist in that context.

Use the word country as often as you like, just allow what we mean by a country in this context to be defined first. --sony-youth^talk 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dominican Republic and Haiti are not a good example in this case because the name of the island is not called the same as one of the states that are contained on the island. I cannot think of another example that is similar to Ireland's, which is why there was a need to go against the general naming convention and deal with it differently; and has worked fine until recently. ww2censor 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Call for broad consensus

We have two competing views. Hopefully I can summarise them, correct me if you disagree.

Oxford Dictionaries (both British and American English versions) define the terms "country" and "state" as follows:

• Country: a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.
• State: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

Other dictionaries use similar definitions.

[Added after poll started since there is obvious confusion with regard to what the terms mean] --sony-youth^talk 11:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

1 The country and the state are co-terminous. Its status is the same as Haiti/Dominican Republic, it just happens to share the island with another state. The term "country" should appear in the intro.

• Disagree --Red King 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree --sony-youth^talk 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree -- (Sarah777 21:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
• Agree -- Djegan 23:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree -- Ben W Bell talk 08:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree PaddyBriggs 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree - zoney ♣ talk 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - Ferdia O'Brien 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (the "particular territory" isnt necasserally the entire island.)
• Disagree --Frelke 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree --Barry entretien 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree -- Semifreddo 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree - Martin 20:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree -- Mal 23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That makes 8 agree , 5 disagree, as of (Sarah777 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

2 The country and the state are not co-terminous. The country/nation is the island of Ireland. Two jurisdictions/states govern separate parts of it. The term "country" should not appear in the intro.

• Agree --Red King 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Broadly agree --sony-youth^talk 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree -- (Sarah777 21:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
• Agree Frelke 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree --Taramoon 22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment nation is such a vaguely defined term so as to be ambiguous (nation could be a people). Djegan 23:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Country" is a related concept to "nation", see definitions in my posts above and below for what "country" means and how it always being in ideas of nation-hood. --sony-youth^talk 10:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree in so far as country not appearing in intro. Djegan 00:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree -- Ben W Bell talk 08:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• DisagreePaddyBriggs 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - zoney ♣ talk 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree - Ferdia O'Brien 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree --Barry entretien 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree -- Semifreddo 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - Martin 20:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• AgreeDeepsoulstarfish 00:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• 'Disagree -- Mal 23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That makes 7 agree, 7 disagree as of 22:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

3 "Country" is too ambiguous a term to use definitively with regard to Ireland. Use of the word "country" should only appear after the subject of the article has been thoroughly defined.

• Agree --sony-youth^talk 20:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree (this reason may be less contentious rather than the one nation / two nations debate). --Red King 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree -- (Sarah777 21:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
• Disagree -- Taramoon 22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Djegan 23:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree -- Ben W Bell talk 08:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree PaddyBriggs 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - zoney ♣ talk 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree - Ferdia O'Brien 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree --Frelke 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree --Barry entretien 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree -- Semifreddo 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - Martin 20:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• AgreeDeepsoulstarfish 00:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC) sorry for late voting!
• Disagree -- Mal 23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That makes 5 agree, 10 disagree, as of now, (Sarah777 00:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

Let's leave it until Sunday to give others a chance. (As the count stands now, I am tempted to invoke de Valera's "the majority have no right to do wrong" <grin> ). --Red King 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty meaningless give that it's what, not even 10 people expressing opinions on a highly trafficked Wikipedia page. Nevermind that we're already only considering the subset of Wikipedia editors and the further subset of those concerned at all with the subject. Of course, this is a fairly fundamental flaw with most decision-making in Wikipedia. It's usually just a case of the stronger-willed getting their way, or those who can muster up more support for their side of things.

I really think having "votes" is pretty meaningless in this context. At best it merely illustrates to the above editors what the clear positions of the others are.

zoney ♣ talk 11:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree the vote to call the article on The South "RoI" is flawed, but this time around the majority have come to the correct decision. Dev's comments would here apply to the 'RoI consensus'! Once you use majority rule to force through a point you are stuck with the concept for ALL points. Otherwise you are just saying that YOUR judgement is better than mine - which is manifestly wrong!!! (Sarah777 00:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

In fact, if by Sunday the result is reversed, then let's leave it till the end of next week while I organise a few dozen votes to reverse it again! THIS is the problem with such dodgy "majorities" as the RoI one. Of course I'm not really here at all as I've vowed to stay away from all this for another 23 days... (Sarah777 00:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

I think gentlemen should wear waistcoats and hats.86.42.209.228 12:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Options a bit mixed

Options, a bit mixed, especially in Q1. But I cannot really see a major difficulty with putting country in first sentence of the article. Country I see as a purely legal term in this instance. Shall we have a tribunal? And one hundred lawyers!! Taramoon 22:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But you've just voted NOT to put it in the first sentence!!! I give up. Well, not really I guess! (Sarah777 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

Read option1 again. Well if country in this instance is the legal status quo, then it should be mentioned. Otherwise it becomes a debatable subject. Taramoon 23:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Many (most?) Wiki users are Americans where the word "State" has a meaning that is clearly subservient to "Country". In a federal system like the US the hierarchy is from the country level (USA is a Country) down to the State level (a State is not a country - even Texas!). So whilst it is indeed technically correct to refer to any independent self-governing country as a "state", to avoid confusion I think it is essential up-front (also?) to refer to it as a country. PaddyBriggs 09:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually a very good point. This is echoed not just for US readers, but the likes of Indian, Mexican and any other countries that have states within them. Ben W Bell talk 09:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No. "Country" has no basis in law or political theory, although it is related to the theory of the nation state. In the case of the USA, for example, the sate of Texas is not a considered nation state, however the USA as a whole is - the nationality of people from Texas is American (nationality, not citizenship, the two are different again) - they may also have a Texan "identity" though, different again from American, and I'm sure there are Texans nationalists who do call Texas a country. So USA is called a country because it coincides with the nation, while Texas is not. Murky, undefinable stuff, that cannot be removed from nationalism.

Is the European Union a "country"? It is certainly the top-teir above the "countries" of Europe. But, there is little strong EU directed nationalism to make it one. And so it is not considered one. --sony-youth^talk 09:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

By way of evidience, see dictionary definitions for "country" vs. "state". For example, Oxford Dictionaries (both British and American English versions):

• Country: a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.
• State: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

(I cited this from the very start as the reason to leave use of the word until the main body of the article from the very start.)

Other dictionary use the same terminology ("a state or nation", "a political state or nation or its territory", "a nation or state that is politically independent, or a land that was formerly independent and remains separate in some respects")

This is why "country" is ambigious when it comes to Ireland, especially when we have two "Irelands", one the focus of a nation, the other a state. Use the word by all means, but leave it until what we mean by Ireland in this context has been properly defined. This is just for clarity. --sony-youth^talk 10:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not in a vacuum. Wikipedia has articles country, nation and state which discuss these issues. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. I suggest users should cross-post on those Talk: pages to gain a broader (and dare I say better informed) range of views on the applicability of various terms to the entity in question. jnestorius^(talk) 12:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Border information

Border information, as the observable quality of territory, is surely a/the definitive element of a state. Can it really be reduced to a footnote? --sony-youth^talk 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to engage this argument, but I must say that, in contemporary political science terms, you are incorrect. Country is a geographical territory defined by borders, Nation is the people occupying a country, and State is the collection of institutions that exert sovereignity over a territory. The wikipedia article State contains an acceptable, but somewhat poorly-structured, discussion of these terms. It does quote from the Treaty of Montevideo, which defines a state (an "international actor" in law) as necessarily possessing 1) territory; 2) permanent population; 3) government; and 4) capacity to enter into international agreements.

If you want to use these words in correct academic Political Science way, then the Country of Ireland is the 26 counties, the Nation of Ireland are the Irish people (I'm not going to get into how many of these might live in the other six counties), and the State of Ireland is the Republic of Ireland government. Note that I am not (here) taking a position on how these words get used, other than to point out the correct use in academia, and secondly to note (as above) their use in other articles. It seems to me that the fact that the contiguous island of Ireland has the same name as the Nation-State of Ireland is a matter to be simply stated, and isn't a reason not to use the word "country". I think the "co-terminus" language of the poll above is unneccesarily provocative, calling into the argument unstated arguments from Irish history, rather than simply writing clearly for a lay audience. Semifreddo 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant this post as a completely seperate issue, absolutely unrelated to any country/state problems. I think not having border information is strage when talking about a state as territory is crucial to defining such a thing - you mention "terriroty" also.

As a note, having a degree in political science, I have never have seen a phrase "Country of Ireland", or indeed "Country of Anything", or the word "country" being used in the way you describe. Its too loose a word, mixes too much up, and muddies what it is you would mean to talk about. A glossary of political science terms can be seen here, where "state" is described as "Combination of people, territory, and sovereign government", a longer discursive description is [www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/ here]. Notice that terriroty is crucial to all definitions. Country is not mentinoed in these glossaries for the reasons I stated, but probably is in a larger dictionary. I would like to know what it says if you have access to one. --sony-youth^talk 08:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote Semifreddo: "I'm not going to get into how many of these might live in the other six counties"

Well, it's a major part of the problem. They are all describable as "Irish" even if that does not necessarily pertain to the Irish State (indeed not at all for most), and despite all being describable as British (in the UK; controversially you can be legalistic and say they are all British). And indeed the term Irish does not just apply to the island of Ireland, or the State (Ireland/Rep. of Ireland). This may be out of favour with the majority in the six counties, but that is neither here nor there. The nation of Ireland does not match the state, and indeed includes others than those on this island.

The final piece to the problem is that country is usually seem as synonymous with nation. This is why I say we should avoid referring to country, and refer to the state - which is clear and unambiguous.

zoney ♣ talk 15:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of Arms of Ireland

I would like to know why User:Djegan insists in put back the old PNG file of the COA, since the SVG one is exactly the same, appart from the brownish color (which, in my opinion, is not the correct one). I think that it is almost vandalism, since he reverts the editions without reasonable arguments. If there is any problem in the SVG file, it can be corrected, instead of put back the PNG file. --Tonyjeff 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually your version is quite good on a second look and definitely better than a lot of the previous versions that editors attempted to impose. As for vandalism very likely not. Djegan 14:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentially I must congratulate you on a very good reproduction. Djegan 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok Djegan, but please, if you think it can be improved, just tell me! = ) Salut! --Tonyjeff 14:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Declaration of Republic

I have changed the date of the declaration of the Republic of Ireland from 21st January, 1919, to 24th April, 1916. When Dáil Éireann sat on the 21st Jan, 1919, they re-read the Proclamation of Independence from 1916 (on the first day of the Easter Rising). The significance of the 21st January, 1919, in the History of the Irish Republic is that it was the first day that the Republic's legislature sitting - its members being the majority of elected candidates in the 1918 elections, the first since the Republic's declaration. The literature of the time, and the literature of Sinn Féin candidates at the time, make no illusion about this. It is quite clear that the SF candidates who sat on the 21st Jan, 1919, were doing so under the mandate of establishing the legislature for an already established Republic. (Bren, 5/3/2007)

• As far as the Oireachtas archives are concerned, three documents were read out on 21 January 1919, but none of them was the Proclamation of the Republic - they were the Declaration of Independence (an entirely different text)[2], a "Message to the Free Nations of the World"[3], and a "Democratic Programme"[4]. Can you provide a reference for the Easter Proclamation being read? --Kwekubo 14:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, you are quite right in what you say. But, regarding the Declaration of Independence which as you say was indeed read out, that document is very clear on the matter (and I presume the currently stated date on wikipedia of 21st January 1919 reflects that declaration):

...Whereas the Irish Republic was proclaimed in Dublin on Easter Monday, 1916, by the Irish Republican Army acting on behalf of the Irish people...

...we, the elected Representatives of the ancient Irish people in National Parliament assembled, do, in the name of the Irish nation, ratify the establishment of the Irish Republic and pledge curselves and our people to make this declaration effective by every means at our command...

Given the synonomous nature of "proclaim" and "declare", (taking the first entry I found for both on dictionary.com: proclaim="to announce or declare in an official or formal manner"; declare="to make known or state clearly, esp. in explicit or formal terms"), it is quite clear that Dáil Éireann was giving democratic backing (or to use their own words "ratifying") the self-same Republic which they claim was "proclaimed in Dublin on Easter Monday, 1916". From this evidence, it would seem that as far as Dáil Éireann was concerned in 1919, they were merely giving the democratic stamp of approval to a Republic in existence from 1916. Their own belief in the synonomous nature of their Republic and that of Easter Week is beyond doubt.

I will change it to April, 1916, again, but you might like to change the dates to perhaps add something like "Established: 24th April 1916; Declared: 21st January 1919; Recognised: 6th December 1922". Even at that, one would be very likely to say that the Republic was not recognised until 1949. Under the 1922 Constitution there was a Monarch as Head of State (not very Republican), nor did they describe themselves as a Republic in the English rendering of their name. Added to this the fact that "Dáil Éireann" from 1922 on was in fact constituted legally under the auspices of the Government of Ireland Act (1920) passed in London rather than the representitives elected in 1918 and who sat in 1919 as the Dáil, one can not say that the Republic was recognised at all in 1922 internationally. At best I think, you could say the present Irish State was recognised in 1922, but not, as the article title indicates, "The Republic of Ireland". Perhaps it would be better to simply deal with the matter with full references in a paragraph in the article itself to avoid such confusions and leave the dates as they are?

--User:Bren 21:15, 6 March 2007

I have to agree with Bren regarding 1916, although I very nearly reverted it. 1922/1947 is a real problem - I can only suggest something like "1922 or 1947 - see text". Comments? --Red King 23:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 1922-1947, I guess we could say something like "the British backed cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys grabbed power in 1922 after murdering many of their fellow rebels they had taken prisoner, and these war criminals retained power for a decade until Dev took the oath and murdered some more Republicans. Finally, in 1947, the parliamentarians acquired a backbone". Or would that be a tad pov? - (Sarah777 23:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

POV and an unpatriotic slur on this democratic state, yes. Not to mention disrespectful to those who fought and died for independence from the United Kingdom, and later to defend the fledgling democracy of this state; which was acheived despite all the odds being against it (or do you think the UK was anything other than vastly powerful even still in 1922?). The matter of the six counties is a distraction from what was acheived, and in any case the jury is out on their future. zoney ♣ talk 14:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

An unpatriotic slur on this democratic state? Hardly. I am not being disrespectful to those who fought and died for independence from the United Kingdom, and later to defend the fledgling Republic; and I'm not too concerned about the CESMs. Yes I think the UK was vastly powerful in 1922; as it was in 1918-1921. If the men of 1916 had taken that attitude we'd be like Scotland is today. And should the Palestinians give in because the Israelis are vastly powerful? Or the Iraqi resistance because the US is vastly powerful?

Good Lord! NO Empire on Earth could survive without collaborators. Just not possible. (Sarah777 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

It is possible to have more than one formation date in the infobox the UK has four, as should Ireland, Easter Proclamation, Declaration of Independence, Anglo-Irish Treaty, Republic of Ireland Act, and Sarah it took the Irish where with the English for 800 years before they stood on their own two feet Scotland has only been with then for 300 ;). --Barry entretien 00:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We were only part of the UK in the sense that Scotland is for 122 years before we got independence. The 800 years is misleading, denoting the start of Norman (not British) influence. Even later British influence was limited. The flight of the earls 322 years before independence is a significant point, but even up until 1800, people on this island mostly decided the state of affairs (not that they were suitable candidates, one of the reasons for the events of 1800). The final 122 years before independence were the decisive ones. Looking at Scotland, at the same period after Act of Union, in the 1820s, the closest parallel to the events of Ireland in 1916 and 1919- was probably this - and unlike Ireland, it ultimately failed. Maybe that was Scotland's last chance for a long while. zoney ♣ talk 12:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Some points, the Easter Rising failed but led to a environment where a provisional government could be formed that declared independence. However, neither of the states declared on those occasions is the current one, or in fact ever came into being - but would suffice for a declared date. The Free State (6 December 1922) is the closest predecessor, and the current one can in some sense be seen as a continuation of it. However, the Republic of Ireland Act is a total non-starter. It did not found any state just transferred the limited role of the British monarch in some of the external relations of the state to the president. The state as it is now was founded in on 29 December 1937 with the enactment of the Bunreacht when Ireland became a sovereign state. --sony-youth^talk 12:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Some months ago I inadvertently referred to Ireland as the Irish Republic on a talk page and got jumped on. The Irish Republic was a different state to the Republic of Ireland. Bastun 13:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The BBC insist on continuing to use the term "Irish Republic" to refer to the state. They have a newswatch facility allowing you to point out problems and inaccuracies in their online stories (and they do fix them; it's nearly like a wiki!) but they specifically refuse to change instances of the term Irish Republic. As far as they are concerned it is a valid term to use. I can't imagine anyone in the UK being amused if we referred to it as the "British State" or some such nonsensical term. The continued use of "Irish Republic" by the BBC and other British media is just outrageous; it's certainly not befitting of supposedly impartial news broadcasting! zoney ♣ talk 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Grrrrr ... lets start a campaign to get RTÉ to call the UK the British Kingdom ;) --sony-youth^talk 15:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Barry; are you saying you are happy to wait another 500 years for independence??! Anyway; the current English State only really conquered Ireland in the 1600s; starting with Kinsale, via Cromwell and ending at the Boyne. (Several plantations in between). Time you folk got a move on - the oil is running out! (Sarah777 21:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

Well 500 years does seem an awful long time however 2 months is much better and if opinion polls keeping going they way they are, there will be a SNP dominated parliament. --Barry entretien 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we start working the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland article? --sony-youth^talk 15:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would wait I while yet we still have to face the constitutional nightmare of an SNP executive, and I'm not sure that it would still be the United Kingdom as England would be the only Kingdom with NI being a province and Wales being a principality technically it should revert back to the Kingdom of England you could start the work on that. --Barry O'Brien entretien 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

At risk of being abused and misrepresented once again, now that it's clear that we have a hung jury on defining RoI as a "country" maybe we can have a serious discussion on how to resolve the issue. The term was introduced suddenly with no better explanation than "everyone else is doing it so why can't we." Since I don't see any easy way around this maybe it can be worked out through a reworking of the entire lead section - preferable with reference to the Manual of Style on lead sections. At present the lead is woefully short, maybe there's room to incorporate everyone in an expanded introduction. --sony-youth^talk 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Well I may as well start the "abuse and misrepresentation". 'it's clear that we have a hung jury' - nope, we don't! We have the anti-country group trailing behind on all there questions by varying margins. Maybe not consensus, but certainly not hung! (Sarah777 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

Maybe my eyes are failing me. I see a 50:50 split. --sony-youth^talk 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One split; two majorities - but then you only updated in response to my comment. Why do I think that if the vote was the other way you'd be claiming consensus for the silly position? Rhetorical. (Sarah777 23:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

"Why do I think ..." - because that's what you'd do? In you own words, "if by Sunday the result is reversed, then ... [I'll] organise a few dozen votes to reverse it again!" Very honourable.

"... majorities" ... !? In your own favourite word, "bizarre." That "country" means RoI is supported by seven. That country means the island is supported by seven. Five people disagreed with the first statement, seven people disagreed with the second - so the 'country = RoI' people would appear to be slightly more adamant about their conviction. My position, that the term is simply ambiguous and could mean either, had only five in favour and nine against. So it would appear that people generally don't see it in ambiguous terms, but are split split evenly between it being the state or the island, with those seeing it as the state being slightly more adamant about it.

We work with consensus here. What matters is that we can use polls to see a direction that can allow us to move forward, not in circles. That's what I'm asking here, and so suggesting we can work both strands into the lead sections. Any ideas? Or should the contentious edit just be removed? It won't damage the article to do so, just the relationships of those working on it. --sony-youth^talk 01:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"if by Sunday the result is reversed, then ... [I'll] organise a few dozen votes to reverse it again!" I was being transparently (or so I thought) sarcastic/facetious to illustrate the questionability of votes on this forum. Not dishonourable. You are so quick to zip past the point I'm making and straight to the accusations.

I DO want some consistency though. If one article (RoI) is decided on a vote then why not others? And my point was that such votes can be manipulated. Easily.

So I simply ask you and the others - do votes decide or do they not decide? I'm cool with it either way - but not different ways depending on the article. (Sarah777 01:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

They don't decide. They're a measure. Consensus, fairness, transparency, openness, cooperation, compromise, truthfulness and discussion are how things should be decided. Not mob rule, manipulation or bully tactics. --sony-youth^talk 02:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Not mob rule, manipulation or bully tactics - so that's a clear "no". As for bully tactics, I think you'd agree I have been opposing those tooth and nail this past while. (Sarah777 02:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

"I have been opposing those ..." - Not as far as I'm concerned. It hasn't felt like that in our echanges. Sorry if that sounds personal, but you did it bring up yourself. --sony-youth^talk 02:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. So...some definitions:

• Mob Rule - majorities opposed by Sony, Mal etcetera
• Manipulation - open, signed posts by those disagreeing with Sony, Mal etcetera
• Bully Tactics - expression of views opposed by Sony, Mal etcetera.

Nah. I can't go with that. (Sarah777 11:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

Why is my name, assuming I'm the "Mal" you are referring to, even being mentioned here? The last tie I posted on this page was over a year ago now and, other than today, I think I've only made one edit to the actual article in that time. You are on very dangerous ground with this Sarah — I should hope that I don't have to search through your contribs to see if you're bad-mouthing me in other areas of the Wikipedia. Consider this a warning regarding Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy. -- Mal 23:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Setanta747

Mal, I don't distinguish between THIS talk page and the NI talk page on the issue of PROCEDURES for arriving at consensus. My point is that one can't decide on one set of rules for Ireland and RoI and a different set for NI.

As for No Personal Attacks:

"let's make two things clear. Firstly, this is specifically a Northern Ireland-related article, in case you hadn't noticed. Secondly, the encyclopedia is about fact..." - Mal (in response my post about double-standards). This is a clear personal attack. So, you are going down a very dangerous route here Mal - Consider this also a warning regarding Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy. --

Your arrogant dictatorial attitude towards those who disagree with you on the flag/box issue is unacceptable; your refusal to acknowledge votes written on the NI talk-page as even existing makes you 'good faith' highly questionable.

"I should hope that I don't have to search through your contribs to see if you're bad-mouthing me in other areas of the Wikipedia." Couldn't care less what you do Mal; you will find nothing. Except on the issue of "how consensus reached" on Ireland-related articles I have never encountered you before, so far as I know.

But you attempts at intimidation won't work with me. Of that I can assure you. (Sarah777 00:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

Let's not go down the road of swapping personal attacks Sarah. To date I haven't made a single personal attack against you, yet you continue to make attacks on me - and making issues about me (ref: "your arrogant dictatorial attitude" in this section; the fact that this section was created at all; "you attempts at intimidation won't work with me"; "I may have to annoy Mal and the boys a bit" [what boys?!?] and "least you get called all those names Mal has been showering on me" from another section).

I'm not going to discuss the specifics of a different article on this talk page save to suggest again that you appear to be involved in a political campaign on Wikipedia. -- Mal 11:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Mal, would you please read what I have posted above. And please bear in mind the No Personal Attacks policy. Thank you. (Sarah777 13:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Why is "country" even an issue?

I'm sorry, but I haven't read each and every line of this stultifying debate. However, a quick check shows that France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and even Lichtenstein (!) (as well as virtually all other European nations) are identified in the first sentence of their Wikipedia pages as "countries". Many of them are Republics, though some are Principalities, Kingdoms, or other things as well. I don't see any basis whatsoever, in terms of either correct usage or Wikipedia usage, to oppose this. - Semifreddo 01:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I 100% agree, I'm really upset you said that, because not the HOLE thing is just gonna restart. --Ferdia O'Brien 01:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an issue because prior to 1922, the country was quite obviously the entire island of Ireland. There are those who would argue that this is no longer the case, calling even "Northern Ireland" a country, and those who see it not affecting the country of Ireland that only the larger part of it left the United Kingdom to form a new state. Using state is unambiguous and avoids this controversy. zoney ♣ talk 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it isn't 1922, it's 2007, and Ireland is a country that is part of the European Union. Any other description is aspirational rather than reflective of modern reality. I am as Nationalist as the next guy, but Ireland is the Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ireland and Northern Ireland together occupy the island of Ireland. To say anything else is to twist common usage and objective reality to suit a desired political situation. -- Semifreddo 22:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And I am pretty agnostic as to whether the "country" is the state or the island, but can see that it could be ambiguous both to our readers and to other editors here. I don't think its too much to ask that it just be avoided until after the subject of the article has been defined - especially since "sovereign state" covers everything that "country" would in this circumstance. The article did not use the word in the lead section until very recently, causing this controversy. I'm not of the opinion to not call the Republic a country, just to wait until it is clear. --sony-youth^talk 09:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is very clear that my country is a country! No need to wait for anything. The vote is over 2-1 in favour...what, exactly, are we waiting for? (Sarah777 20:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

<spit> <grind> <groan>I hate to admit it but it's fairly clear that the broad consensus supports well broadly confirms well doesn't disagree with Sarah77's position. The Ayes have it. Time to march from the chamber and occupy the Four Courts. --Red King 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't believe the hype. Its 8:7 on "agrees" - that's an even split. What surprised me that that the "ayes" don't discuss it. --sony-youth^talk 22:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sony: To the question "Country" is too ambiguous a term to use definitively with regard to Ireland. Use of the word "country" should only appear after the subject of the article has been thoroughly defined." the vote is: 10 disagree; 5 agree.

I wouldn't call that hype; I'd call that "time to move on". (Sarah777 00:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

• "The term 'country' should appear in the intro" - 8 votes
• "The term 'country' should not appear in the intro" - 7 votes

Time to discuss matters openly and "find a reasonable compromise" (see: WP:CON). This issue has been dragging for two weeks. It's clear we're split on it. Let's work it out. --sony-youth^talk 08:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any Ambiguity is Not Acceptable?

I have been thinking about this. Again. Ireland, the country, can neither have the Wiki article called Ireland or Ireland (country) or Ireland (the country).

And having consigned 'Ireland the country' to 'RoI the Wiki Article' - the same (more or less) editors NOW want to delete any reference in the introduction to RoI being a country, on the rather ludicrous grounds that that might be slightly confusing, to some editors. (Martian maybe?)

Well let's follow the logic. And here I may have to annoy Mal and the boys a bit;

• Somerset is in Southern England
• Manchester is in Northern England
• Bavaria is in Southern Germany
• Hamburg is in Northern Germany
• Waterford is in Southern Ireland
• Donegal is in Northern Ireland

.....ooops! It appears the term "Northern Ireland" is rather AMBIGUOUS, and might confuse our Martian Editor.

Should we all, Sony, take our crusade to eliminate ambiguity in Ireland-related nomenclature to the NI article and get the title changed? It seems we must, according to you.

And Sony; 19 to one is a "split". As two votes appear inconsistent (though the majority are pro-country in both) let's amalgamate them; result:

• Ireland (state) is a Country: 18
• It isn't/maybe isn't: 12

As I said - time to move on least you get called all those names Mal has been showering on me! (Sarah777 22:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

Sarah, your grammar is exceptionally poor. Donegal is in northern Ireland, not Northern Ireland. Remember - in English, proper nouns are capitalised. And I'm very surprised to hear someone so concerned with the proper naming of the state describe Waterford as being in Southern Ireland.

"amalgamate" ? Oh dear. This is a common error among amateur and over-eager statisticians also. The mistake you are making is that you are counting voters twice. The facts are that 8 eight people want the edit to stay, while 7 want it to return to what it was. "Inconsistent"? No consensus. --sony-youth^talk 22:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again - Sarah I'd like you to stop your campaign against me please. If you have something to say, by all means say it. But please stop mentioning my name at every available opportunity. I'm starting to feel as though I'm being stalked.

To respond to your suggestions above, quite clearly you fail to understand the nuances of proper noun in English. To explain: Manchester may be in northern England, but it is not in "Northern England" (there being no such country). Likewise with "Southern England", "Northern Germany" and "Southern Germany". "Southern Ireland" no longer exists (at least that is no longer the name of the region) and Donegal is in the Republic of Ireland but not in Northern Ireland. Donegal is in the north of Ireland, or northern Ireland however.

One gets the feeling you're being deliberately obtuse. -- Mal 12:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal ...

After a couple of terse exchanges between myself and Sarah last night, I had an idea for a compromise. I'd like to propose the following rewrite to the lead, and to hear what others have to say about it:

Ireland (Irish: Éire) is a country in north-western Europe. The modern state is sovereign and occupies five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned in 1921. The term Republic of Ireland, which is also used, is "the description of the State." ...

The main idea in this is to keep the two "Irelands" apart - in separate sentences - so that they don't compete for the word "country." It also hints a kind of "this-wasn't-always-so", while making it clear that when we say "country" here, we mean specifically one "Ireland" not the other.

What think others? --sony-youth^talk 08:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Factual, accurate, neutral and informative. Works for me. Bastun 10:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've only been watching this debate from time to time, but that is undoubtedly the best solution I've seen suggested so far(still some way to go in finishing this lenghty page).

I haven't seen this elswhere on the page yet, but why doesn't the search term 'Ireland' lead to the disambiguation page? Ian Goggin 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed here. However, see below. --sony-youth^talk 21:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Least amount of work, does what's wanted. Fine by me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this a modification to the current article, not a renaming of the article in any way? If so then seems good to me, and probably more accurate than the current version. Ben W Bell talk 08:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Its a modification, not a renaming in any way. --sony-youth^talk 10:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title change straw poll

It's been a year and while this has been discussed lots, why not have a simple straw poll to judge if opinion has changed?

The current set-up is as follows:

• Ireland - this article discusses the island, and has a disambiguation link to the article on the state.
• Republic of Ireland - this article discusses the state.
• Ireland (disambiguation) - a disambiguation page that links to the island and the state and to other things named Ireland.

What I propose is that rather than having a vote with lots of options that splits the various alternative opinions, let's simply test the amount of desire for change. Once that has been tested, if the numbers wanting a change merit it, we can decide on what that change should be. Let's try and leave discussion largely out of the poll at this stage and simply take a litmus test of opinion.

I think that this poll should be let run for several weeks so as to let the largest numbers of editors possible to have their say. --sony-youth^talk 21:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote: "I support the current set-up"

1. - sony-youth^talk 21:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2. - Kittybrewster 21:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
3. - ww2censor 22:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC), Oh no, not this disussion again
4. - Bastun 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC) What Ww2censor said.
5. - Ben W Bell talk 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC) It would be too confusing to change this and an enormous amount of work which would cause great disruption on Wikipedia as not all users would know about an official change. There would be chaos.
6. - Kwekubo 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
7. - Alison^☺ 23:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC) - the current situation works well enough in the main to warrant changing. It's one of those things that will never be right regardless of the config
8. - The current set up is sensible and in line with WP:NAME. It's not so much that I support it - I don't especially care - as that I can't see any benefit from changing it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
9. - Timrollpickering 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
10. - Red King 00:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
11. - PaddyM 01:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
12. - Martin 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC) - the current set-up is in line with Wikipedia policies regarding names, and changing it will not improve matters at all. There's no "correct" way to do this, and the current set-up makes the best out of a complicated situation.
13. - Shudda ^talk 02:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
14. - Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
15. - Laurel Bush 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
16. - PaddyBriggs 15:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC), but with far less counter-productive sectarian debate please
17. - Ian Goggin 22:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC), changed my position after some thought, purely because it's not worth the trouble to change.
18. - john k 16:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
19. - Scolaire 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
20. - Mal 11:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC), haven't we done this already? Calling the article by the country's descriptive name is clearly the more logical method.
21. - The Republic of Ireland is the legal name in the United Kingdom, and the most used internationally. Astrotrain 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
22. - « Keith ^t/_e» 13:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC), not again! The official description is better than some made up Ireland (state).
23. - Jhamez84 13:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
24. - Frelke 21:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
25. - beano 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
26. - Rye1967 10:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
27. - --Guinnog 15:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
28. - --Soetermans 08:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote: "I support another set-up"

1. - IrishGuy ^talk 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2. - padraig3uk 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
3. - (Sarah777 23:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)) (Failing this, Sony's Proposal is pretty creative, and sets things out fairly and in context).
4. - Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman 23:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
5. - Deepsoulstarfish 00:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
6. - Vintagekits 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC) (I am not wild about changing the current situation and think that it would be a lot of hassle and arguements also - however if a decent compromise was suggested then I would be happy to look at that, failing that I am happy to go with the majority !vote.)
7. --Barry O'Brien entretien 11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Do we really have to start this again? --Kwekubo 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's either put it to bed or sort it out. --sony-youth^talk 22:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It has already been put to bed, just some people keep on revisiting it over, and over, and over, lala, lala, againnnnnnnn! ww2censor 22:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we need a permanent strawpoll --- /Name of the article stawpoll --- where anyone can just sign "No change" / "Change", and change their mind as often as they like. If the numbers ever merit it (which they won't) we can actually reconvene for a discussion; till then, you don't need to worry as your signature keeps doing all the talking you need. jnestorius^(talk) 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you are bored with this but some of us were not here a year ago. Mind you, as of now, I could do with a rest from it...in fact I had TAKEN one till the "country" issue popped up and dragged me back in. Like a wasp to a jam-jar!(Sarah777 23:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

Here we go again...de Valera has a lot to answer for! :) Martin 01:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding comments by Astrotrain - I fail to see what relevance UK law has to the name of the Irish State. And RoI isn't, in my view, the "most used internationally. 'Ireland' is. Looking at the way this vote is going I'm glad we established on the "NI Flag" issue that these issues are not decided by votes or "mob rule". (Sarah777 13:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Its also my understanding that Ireland is the only legally recognised name of the state in the UK also following the British-Irish Agreement ... not that it affects us here. --sony-youth^talk 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the legal name of it in the UK is of no relevance to this discussion. One state's rules regarding the name of another state cannot apply. Ben W Bell talk 16:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction again

PaddyBriggs changed the intro to read: "Ireland (Irish: Éire), officially the Republic of Ireland ^[1], is a Western European country bordered by Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom) to the north, by the Atlantic Ocean to the west and by the Irish Sea to the east. The sovereign state of Ireland occupies five-sixths of the island of Ireland, is a member of... etc." I've reverted because the statement 'officially the Republic of Ireland is incorrect. However, the rest of the paragraph looks good. What do ye think? Bastun 13:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To be frank everyone (not accusing any one editor) this last month or two of infighting has done very little to improve Irish related articles on wikipedia. Instead it has shown how petty we all can be, continuously changing and fighting over one paragraph, in one article. Vandalism of Irish related articles is as popular as every, and their are a great many articles that need improvement by, for instance, rewrites to update them or citations to back them up, or category or image refinement. If we cannot agree one the name or description of the state then we really are screwed. Djegan 14:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite being one of the main belligerents in the infighting, I agree wholly with DJ. The problem, as I see it, is that the introduction is far too short. This means that any change, no matter how minor, has a disproportionate effect on meaning. An article of this length should have a three or four paragraph lead section. Currently we have a single short paragraph for a lead. Fix this and I think that many of the infighting over words will dissipate.

(I have also reverted to the proposal I discussed above, since it appeared to have a broad support. I'm a little upset that changes were made to the article itself despite being obviously under discussion here.) --sony-youth^talk 16:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sulking here because of the way the vote has gone - but being a democrat I must now put down my cudgel. Try out the new intro and let's see what it looks like. Go for it! (Sarah777 18:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

How does this look? Its slightly changing the order of words in what's there now, and brings in the 'bordered by' information from Paddy's edit, which, as he says, is often used in country articles:

Ireland (Irish: Éire) is a country in north-western Europe. The modern sovereign state occupies five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned in 1921. The term Republic of Ireland, which is also used, is "the description of the State."^[2] It is bordered by Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom) to the north, by the Atlantic Ocean to the west and by the Irish Sea to the east. It is a member of the European Union, has a developed economy and a population of slightly more than 4.2 million.^[3]

Not making any changes if there's any objections... Bastun 10:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I Think this wording is fine.--padraig3uk 11:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Bordered by ..." looks good to me. I cannot understand why border information was removed before. --sony-youth^talk 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably because I was too hasty in reverting rather than just correcting the RoI bit. Bastun 13:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant long ago - way back in the depths of the civil war. --sony-youth^talk 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It's fine. (Sarah777 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Changes made, so. Bastun 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Name Problem

All you folk who like calling Ireland the RoI - check this out: [5]. I think this will never end till we ban the use of the term "Republic of Ireland! (Sarah777 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

The simpler solution would be to to just stop calling the state "Ireland" and end the confusion all together, would it not? Who's your local TD, Sarah? Get on it. I'll back you all the way :) --sony-youth^talk 16:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Grrrrrr!!(Sarah777 21:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

I still say country is an ambiguous term that should be avoided in the introduction, considering that the article is specifically about the state. The two terms are not synonymous even if you can't agree what "country" means, or disagree about it (e.g. consider the country and state to cover the same geographic region). zoney ♣ talk 17:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's not harp on it. The current edit at least exploits the ambiguity and hints as the historical reasons why country/state do not cover the same area in this case (an oddity in a time where the nation state is the common model). --sony-youth^talk 19:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There I was, twiddling with a stub on Lough Dan in Wicklow when I came across this

Republic of Ireland is part of WikiProject Lakes, a WikiProject which aims to systematically improve lake-related articles using the tools on the Project page. You are welcome and encouraged to edit the article attached to this page and to join the project.

U

   *
     [+] Lakes of Ukraine
   *
     [–] Lakes of the United Kingdom
     [+] Lakes of England
     [–] Irish loughs
     [+] Loughs of Cavan
     [+] Loughs of Clare
     [+] Loughs of Donegal
     [+] Loughs of Galway
     [+] Loughs of Leitrim
     [+] Loughs of Limerick
     [+] Loughs of Longford
     [+] Loughs of Louth
     [+] Loughs of Mayo
     [+] Loughs of Northern Ireland
     [+] Loughs of Roscommon
     [+] Loughs of Sligo
     [+] Loughs of Tipperary
     [+] Loughs of Westmeath
     [+] Loughs of Wexford
     [+] Loughs of Wicklow
     [+] Loughs of Northern Ireland
     [+] Lochs of Scotland
     [+] Lakes of Wales

(Talk:Lough Dan) How do we sort THAT out??! (Sarah777 23:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Gaelic ancestry

I hope this question is interpreted as an academic query and not as an insult to anyone's lineage but ...

The Demographics section opens with the following.

The Irish people are mainly of Gaelic ancestry, and although some of the population ...

Certainly it is true that the Irish traditionally trace their lineage back to the Celtic settlers of the island. But traditions aside, what precisely is meant by this statement? By "Gaelic" does this mean people that are primarily genetically descended from the Celts? Although I'm certainly not an expert I would guess that the gene pool in Ireland is not really that pure any longer. If this means Gaelic-speaking, I don't think this applies either. If it is people who speak with an Irish accent, I think there are many who have the accent and but would identify with another ethnicity. If it is simply people who "think of themselves" as being Gaelic, this may apply to the majority of the population but it seems this has more to do with nationalism than ethnicity. Admittedly there is a blurry line between the two but this statement implies there is a sharp distinction and I'm not clear what that distinction is.

Can someone clarify? Should this be rephrased? --Mcorazao 16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rephrased the opening line of that section to:

The Irish people are mainly of Celtic (Gael) ancestry...

I don't think the gene pool has ever really been 'pure' - Scottish-Irish cross-migration, Viking invasion and settlement, Norman likewise... but the majority of people would certainly have some Celtic forebears. That's what I assume is being referred to in the article. Bastun 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. So to clarify where I am coming from, most socialists and scientists would say ethnicity and race are dangerous things to classify because people tend to intermix so frequently. Most tend to avoid racial distinctions and use ethnic distinctions only in cases where there is a clearly measurable distinction that can be made. So I ask the question from this perspective.

Certainly it is has to be true that most of the Irish populace has Celtic ancestors but so does the rest of Europe (and much of the rest of the world). That's just a statistical reality. The question is, what is the article trying to say that distinguishes the Irish populace here (other than the fact that the Irish take special pride in their Celtic ancestry). If, for example, I talk about the German populace in Switzerland, what I'm really talking about is the portion of the populace that comes from German-speaking communities and the ethnic cohesion that implies. To argue that it has something to do with ancestry and genetics is probably stretching things. That ethnic group may take pride in their German ancestry and may choose to downplay their ancestry from other groups but that has more to do with pride than genetics. Still, though, the fact that they come from a German-speaking group is a meaningful distinction from other other groups in Switzerland. I'm just asking here whether the Celtic ethnic identity for the Irish has any concrete meaning in terms of demographics or is really just a matter of national pride (setting aside those who actual grew up in Gaelic-speaking communities). --Mcorazao 03:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I'm starting an article on Gaelic Ireland - in the political sense, but of course this blends into the social sense also e.g. via Brehon law and disagreements over the role of Pope and religion. I was surprised to see that one did not exist. So far there's no content there as I literally just slapped it up last night following some researh into the various coats of arms of Ireland. Hence the only substantive thing there at the moment is an info box. --sony-youth^talk 09:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just asking here whether the Celtic ethnic identity for the Irish has any concrete meaning in terms of demographics or is really just a matter of national pride (setting aside those who actual grew up in Gaelic-speaking communities). Personally, I would generally assume the latter. Bastun 09:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just spotted what this discussion is really about. Um ... personally, I'd stick with Gaelic as it is not only accurate but actually has some meaning. This is the term which is used to delimint the various "Irish" people historically (e.g. Gaelic Irish vs. Anglo-Norman Irish vs. Anglo-Irish.) It is also the least "weird". Celtic can essentially mean anything and effectively lost any concrete meaning in relation to Ireland somewhere somewhere between around 400-600. Gaelic has a more specific meaning in relation to laws, religion, language, art, social attitudes, history, ethnicity etc.. These were absolutely concrete up until the 17th century when the Gaelic nobility finally lost control over most of Ireland (incidentally this is the 400th anniversary of the Flight_of_the_Earls). However, they are still absolutely tangible in Ireland today in terms of culture, language, art, sport etc. even if they are not so obviously present in legal structures - although the names for Irish political stuctures - e.g. oireachtas, taoiseach, tánaiste etc. - are overtly based on Gaelic terminology (in terms of legal meaning, obviously I don't mean just in terms that Irish is a Gaelic language!) The Gaelic influence is also obvious in religious practice, especially what would be called folk religion e.g. holy wells, Coragh Patrick/Lough Derg/etc., the role of the religious (in schooling especially but also in attitudes towards the religious, as oppose to priests) as well as cerimonial occasions e.g. funerals, weddings, baptisms. Festival practices such Halloween, Bon Fires Night, St. Stephen's day, etc. are also outright Gaelic. There has been a substanital "Anglic" influence on the Gaelic culture of Ireland over the past 400 years, but so too has there been an enormous American influence over the second half of this century, and there always has been a continual stream of wider European socio-cultural/legal/economic/political influence.

Mcorazao asked above if Gaelic can be said to have a concrete meaning. Simple answer, yes. But Celtic ... ugh ... in the sense that Gaelic culture is a subset of Celtic culture, but then its also a subset of European culture. The examples I've given above are uniquely Gaelic and can be contrasted against the practice of other cultures to demonstrate their "concreteness." However, none of them are common among all of the people of Europe who can genetically trace themselves back to the Celts.

Short answer for my vote: use Gaelic, not Celtic. --sony-youth^talk 11:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Short answer - yep, agreed :-) Bastun 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sony - isn't that research saying that immigration was from all of the Atlantic seaboard - Scandinavia down to Iberia - rather than just Iberia? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I only glanced through it. There's similar research [here] that points to Basque. The funny part of it all it that the Gaelic myth for the origin of the Irish speaks of people from Spain being the final settlers of Ireland. These are the people who in legend founded Gaelic civilization in Ireland. --sony-youth^talk 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for ammending that. I modified the language, but it may still be a little murky. We can't really say to what extent it has been found in other European peoples as it has only been studied exclusively in the Irish: so I used the loose term "NW Europe" on the page. Maybe it would be better off in an ancient Irish demographic history section, as it doesn't read so well. Like Oppenheimer's work, you mention Sony-youth above, it is apparent that whoever "got" to a land first, generally is not displaced - particularly if they are a long way from other peoples: hence Ireland's unique links with the Basques etc. It's not that uncommon: the Sardinians, Lapps, Estonians, Hungarians, etc have unique histories as well ... I could go on talk 17:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)