Talk:Cities in Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] ROI population figures

The more I look at these figures (for "city and suburbs") the less I become convinced that they are of good standing. The GDA figures and city proper are oka but is suburbs a definable term; and relevant? Djegan 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This link gives that official 2002 census figures for the major cities and their respected suburbs/environs. List of towns in the Republic of Ireland/Largest 100

I am not so sure they are authoritive. Djegan 21:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am convinced they are skewed as Limerick and Waterford have much larger populations than suggested given their proximities to their respective counties Clare and Kilkenny. It is a pity really. I'm sure other cities could go out 5 miles and include seaside towns like Tramore in Waterford and add another 10,000 here and 10,000 there...

Waterford is slightly larger than Cork, but its population is about 1/3 of the latter; its all about population density not so much a town here and there. If this was the case then surely Blanchardstown, Dun Laoighaire and Swords (to name a few) would be included in the city of Dublin to bump up the values? Djegan 11:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Blanchardstown, Swords, etc. are included in the figures for the "Greater Dublin Area", which extends beyond the limits of County Dublin (or the "Dublin Region"). The population inside the city proper is only .5 million. But the urban area extends beyond this. Jvlm.123 09:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City Status

I have removed the major and minor divisions as they are somewhat artificial. The charter date for Armagh seems to be 1613 not 1992. Also the Waterford charter date is somewhat ambiguous and could be 1195 - but more likely the same year as Dublin with the visit of the King. Djegan 21:23, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is the source for the date given for Cork's charter? According to Cork City Council the date is 1185Irlchrism 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Lisburn and Newry are chartered but they otherwise are bona fide cities and theirfore I have entered them. Djegan 21:38, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Armarh definitely was not considered a city before 1994 - see [1].

It looks like it is one of those bishopric seats that didn't end up becoming cities. See also: St David's (also 1994) and Southwell (never). Morwen - Talk 12:04, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wonder how a town in the Republic of Ireland would go about obtaining city status now? Morwen - Talk 12:29, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, the major towns that should be cities are - Dundalk, Drogheda, Sligo, Wexford, Ennis & Tralee, and maybe in any town with a cathedral (Monaghan, Tuam, etc...). How? I don't know.

You have to draw the line somewhere... Kilkenny is smaller than both Dundalk and Drogheda so I would suggest it be removed and the line be drawn at Waterford for cities in the republic.

The fact that it is smaller than two places that are not cities is irrelevent. Kilkenny has a Royal Charter and that is good enough and the law recognises this[2]. We don't set arbitrary cut offs. Djegan 11:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
From the Dundalk Council website: "Designated City Status - Dundalk has been selected as a Gateway Centre for Development under the Irish Government’s National Spatial Strategy. This will position Dundalk as a primary centre of growth, alongside the four cities of Ireland outside Dublin." (http://www.dundalk.ie/cms/publish/area_profile.shtml) In other words... watch this space :) GreatGodOm [[User talk:GreatGodOm|&Theta;<small>''talk''</small>]] 18:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure if that term is not more then a marketing tool then a official desigination, as it is being touted by the Chamber of Commerce to bring businnes to the town and surrounding area. BTW the council website is http://www.dundalktown.ie/. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think if Dundalk was made a city, it would have been in the news. It would have been the first city in ROI for hundreds of years. Jvlm.123 09:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's get the facts right - Kilkenny CITY, Dundalk TOWN, population doesn't matter.

Okay, why are charters being used to determine what is a city and what isin't? There is a perfectly good account of affairs in the Local Government Act 2001 [3], which is linked above. All charters issued to cities and towns in the Republic of Ireland have been superceded by the Local Government Acts of Ireland (and indeed earlier Local Government Acts iirc.), the latest being 2001. In this document, the cities of Ireland are clearly enumerated: Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford.

From the Local Government Act 2001:

"PART 2 Cities

  Cork
 
  Limerick
 
  Dublin
 
  Waterford
 
  Galway"


Kilkenny, we are told, is still allowed to use the title, but is clearly not a city.

From the reference above:

"(7) This section is without prejudice to the continued use of the description city in relation to Kilkenny, to the extent that that description was used before the establishment day and is not otherwise inconsistent with this Act."


The extent that is "not otherwise inconsistent with this Act" is a very small extent within the document, as is clear from the above enumeration of the cities. It is essentially allowed to use the title but does not have the status. This seems clear.


In the same way, elsewhere in the same document, we are told that Dublin and Cork may continue to refer to the mayors of those cities as Lord Mayors, despite the fact that there is currently no difference between a Mayor and a Lord Mayor. In the cases of Lord Mayors and Kilkenny city, the title is allowed for decoration only, and for the sake of consistency. (And possibly so as not to ruffle any feathers.)

There is a further case that weighs against the use of charters, and that is that the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford pre-date the Norman invasion and the rule of the kings of England. This cities didn't just become significant urban areas as soon as Henry arrived, and the year they were awarded a charter is completely arbitrary. In fact that the cities of Dublin and Waterford (at least) had kings of the their own from the 10th century, and were considered cities internationally.

I think that as wikipedia has grown we should not allow any codology to get in the way of the facts, and we should just go with the latest Local Government Act, which is the definitive reference.

Any (serious) objections to a change? merlante 15:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what changes you propose but I assume that it means removal of Kilkenny. It is important to remember that the status of city is largely just honorific and it is the status of county borough (which is separate and distinct to that of city) is what traditionally gave the administrative status in Ireland separate to the county - but the law has been recodified. I am no so sure if an act of parliament can withdraw the effect of a royal charter without specifically mentioning that it is doing the same. It was only in 1985 that Galway was granted county borough status, separate from the county, but was a city prior to that. If the law says that Kilkenny shall be recognised as above then that is good enough for me for inclusion rather than making our own arbitrary decisions and removing it. Djegan 18:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that maybe there be two sections, the first with those towns that are considered cities in the sense of Local Government Act, as in the ones listed above, which I would consider the only non-arbitrary standard; and another section with the towns that have been awarded charters and can claim the use of the title 'city'. Incidentally, the term 'county borough' seems to have been made (intentionally) obsolete in the Local Government Act 2001, in favour of the term 'city' (no longer honorific it would seem). The most natural interpretation of this is that the state intends to define 'city' (as in county borough) as 'city' (as in town status).
I think that when we speak of status, the Local Government Act is clear. It is true that it is not incorrect to use the term Kilkenny city, but to me this is for decoration only, as with the term 'Lord Mayor', however the terms 'city' and 'mayor' also have real and current meaning in the modern local government system. In the meaningful, current sense of the act, Kilkenny is not a city.
Also, I think that as the acts of parliament can/could modify or replace laws/statuses? made by absolute english monarchs, prior to John, and as Dail Eireann can/could modify or replace laws/statuses? made by the english parliament prior to the formation of the state, there is a direct line of legal succession (not that one would necessarily be needed) from the old charters right up to the current Local Government Acts, with the latter superceding the former. Since 'city' is still a legal construct, which has been if anything re-inforced in the 2001 Act, I think it should be used in its most modern interpretation. Furthermore, if new cities were to be created, there obviously could not be any more royal charters: it could only be done by amending the Local Government Act. Unless we are to cede that the Irish republic has no power over creating or dissolving cities. To me that's hogwash, for the aforementioned reasons.
As I said before english charters are also problematic for determining city status because they only apply for the duration of english rule in Ireland. This definition cannot be international, and does not recognise the existence of any Irish city prior to 1171.
I fundamentally believe that if the question were to be put to the government of Ireland, "Can you enumerate the cities of the Irish Republic?" that the answer surely has to be 'yes', and that this enumeration is not merely arbitrary. For me, the Local Government Act 2001 provides this enumeration. Therefore I think this enumeration should be foremost on a page entitled, 'Cities of Ireland'. merlante 16:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This list is about cities that exist now, and their is only one city that does not have a city council - but if a city was once a town is irrelevant here. The Local Government Act does define the administrative law and boundaries of the state on a sub-national level, and the types of councils in existence but a city is a city irrespective of the model of local government. Section 7 makes it clear that the city of Kilkenny may still be described as city ("This section is without prejudice to the continued use of the description city in relation to Kilkenny, to the extent that that description was used before the establishment day and is not otherwise inconsistent with this Act." - emphasis added)
The Oireachtas can change the law within the terms of the constitution but remember that what existed before the 2001 Act was a complicated structure of British and Irish law and I have to see anything yet that convinces me that the original charters have no legal effect whatsoever or somehow became unlawful by accident. If we are to claim a place is not a city then we need something substantial and sourced that can prove that beyond doubt and not interpretation of the law (no specifics yet given on the arrival to said opinion) in accordance with republican principals.
As far as I know a Royal Charter has effect (I believe your opinion is fundamentally flawed in this regard, re: Geoghegan v Institute of Chartered Accountants), even within the republic, until the Oireachtas do otherwise - not just for the duration of British rule. If Royal Charters could so easily become unlawful then the whole bottom of some of our greatest institutions would fall apart overnight. For instance, is the National University of Ireland, created by Royal Charter, still a university? - absolute and undissolvable until the Oireachtas do otherwise is my answer - and the consitution confirms as much.
Finally, on a lighter matter, the Irish Republic no longer exists, the state has one name - Ireland.
Djegan 19:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I am not saying that charters have no legal affect, I am saying that city charters have been entirely overridden by Local Government Acts. Your argument hinges on the fact that Local Government Acts (all of which must go through the Oireachtas) have not superceded these charters, but I believe they have.
We can both agree at least that the terms of these charters have been superceded by Local Government Acts: for example, the functions of mayors, aldermen and councillors have all been refined. The powers and scope of councils have been overhauled; borough councils have become cities, councils can't raise rates anymore, etc.
But the Local Government Act 2001 goes further and presumes, as we both have indicated, to pronounce on whether or not Kilkenny can use the title of 'city'. It seems to me that there is nothing that could have been defined in a royal charter that cannot be changed by a Local Government Act, including what can have the status of city and what can use the title of city.
It seems to me than the intent of the above act is to make the towns with the status of 'city' synonymous with towns that have a 'city council'. Otherwise, why have an additional clause, just for Kilkenny, that allows it to use the title where it is 'not otherwise inconsistent with this act'? This surely implies that for a portion of the act the use of city with regard to Kilkenny would be 'inconsistent' with the meaning intended. Particularly when the act often uses the terms 'city' and 'city council' interchangeably.
You can argue otherwise, that this statement is somehow an endorsement of Kilkenny's status as a city, but it does not look like much of an endorsement to me, and no such endorsement is seen to be required for any other city, whose statuses are considered by the act to be beyond question. I think the complete avoidance of the term 'city status' in this act is to allow people to come up with their own willfull interpretations, and to allow supporters of Kilkenny's city status some wriggle room in arguments such as these, in an attempt to avoid upsetting anyone; but I would argue that the most honest and compelling interpretation of this act is that from now on, only cities with city councils are to be considered cities.
I don't know how to resolve this other than having two sections, one with a 'places that can claim the title of city' heading and another with a 'cities with a city council' heading: In that way, people can feel free to interpret the act in either of the two ways discussed, since I don't think we are going to agree on an interpretation. Please surprise me! ;) Perhaps a little note on the division that we can all agree on could also be inserted by way of explanation. merlante 15:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your whole believe hinges on one thing - the complete and utter inability to accept that Kilkenny is a city - descriptive or otherwise at any cost. You need to accept also that "city" and "city council" are not one in the same thing - the former is a place, the latter a form of administrative structure. Sectioning the article would be a bogus method of doing things - their are only six places that can be described as a city and only one of these does not have a city council. Sectioning for that reason is simply posturing and over complicating issues, nothing less - you can make the local government status (which is clearly not the same as city status) clear in brackets or a footnote. If the Royal Charters have lost legal effect then where is the section of the act that makes this clear and also says that Dublin, etc shall continue to be a city and have not lost it? Is Dublin no longer a city because of a vague detail of the act? I don't think so. If their is a vast conspiracy to claim that Kilkenny is a city when it is not, then sources, not personal beliefs. Sources please, anything else is original research - and not allowed. If anyone requires sources on Kilkenny been a city then I will be only to happy to oblige. Djegan 23:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

After everything I have written on this subject, your implication that I have some agenda against Kilkenny is ridiculous and an insult. You have clearly been reading my responses with rapidly declining interest and now continue to make statements that I have already addressed, in some cases twice!
I NEVER said that charters have LOST legal affect, but that as I have demonstrated using arguments that you have not disputed, the Local Government Acts have superceded their terms, particularly the Local Government Act 2001, which re-defines almost every ancient institution, such as 'county borough' and 'lord mayor'.
I NEVER said that 'city' and 'city council' were the same thing. I said that the most honest and natural interpretation of the 2001 Act is that the two are now considered by the Act to be synonymous.
I give the following evidence:
From 2 (1): "administrative area" means an area which continues to stand established under section 10 for the purposes of local government and which is ... b) a city in the case of a city council
--Where is the amendment that says, 'or borough council in the case of Kilkenny'?
In fact if we look at section 10 we see that Kilkenny is not among those considered to be 'established'
(2) The State continues to stand divided into local government areas to be known as counties and cities which are the areas set out in Parts 1 and 2, respectively, of Schedule 5.
--Part two lists the five cities of Ireland: Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford.
--And now the fateful clause:
(7) This section is without prejudice to the continued use of the description city in relation to Kilkenny, to the extent that that description was used before the establishment day and is not otherwise inconsistent with this Act.
--The use of the word 'description' here and the phrase 'not otherwise inconsistent with this Act' clearly indicates that Kilkenny is entitled to describe its town as a city but that it is NOT a city, since it is NOT listed in section 2, and should NOT be considered a city for all intents and purposes throughout the Act.
There are many, many clauses which talk of cities, where Kilkenny is clearly NOT intended to be among them.
From 31 (1): (b) in the case of a city council, in the Irish language "Cathaoirleach Chathair ......." and "Leas-Chathaoirleach Chathair ......." followed by the name of the city in Irish, and in the English language "Cathaoirleach of the City of ......." and "Leas-Chathaoirleach of the City of ......." followed by the name of the city in English,
whereas
(d) in the case of a borough council, in the Irish language "Cathaoirleach Bhuirg ......." and "Leas-Chathaoirleach Bhuirg ......." followed by the name of the borough in Irish, and in the English language "Cathaoirleach of the Borough of ......." and "Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Borough of ......." followed by the name of the borough in English.
--Here it is clear that Kilkenny must use the term 'borough' and not 'city'.
From 129 (1): There shall be established, by order of the Minister under this subsection, in each county and city a body to be known as the ".......County Development Board" or ".......City Development Board" as the case may be (in this section referred to as the "Board") with the name of the appropriate county or city prefixed.
--Here, as is the case throughout the act, 'city council' is used to mean 'city' and vica versa. The two terms are used synonymously. It is clear we should not understand Kilkenny to be a city for this purpose.
From 144 (1): For every county and city there shall be a manager to be known as "the ....... County Manager" or "the ....... City Manager", as appropriate (with the name of the county or city prefixed) who shall hold employment under that county council or city council, as the case may be.
--Again, it is understood here, that Kilkenny is not considered a city for this purpose.
The state does not consider Kilkenny to be a city in any functional respect. This is 100% clear from the Local Government Act 2001. It allows it to continue to use the title 'city' in the same way that the Cork mayor may continue to call himself 'Lord Mayor'. Both titles are merely for decoration, and have NO practical significance.
Your have disingenuously interpreted the clause, 'This section is without prejudice to the continued use of the description city in relation to Kilkenny, to the extent that that description was used before the establishment day and is not otherwise inconsistent with this Act.' to be an endorsement of Kilkenny's city status. This to me is unbelievable: I can't find any other interpretation of this clause (and its surrounding section) other than that Kilkenny is not a city, but may continue to use the title. Although no mention is made in the act of 'city status', we do not find the act talking about any of the 5 listed cities in section 2 as if the the use of city in their case might be inconsistent with the act. Only in the case of Kilkenny, does the act consider the use of the term city with regard to Kilkenny to be inconsistent with portions of the act.
In summary, I believe that the Local Government Act 2001 makes it clear that Kilkenny is not a city.
Nonetheless, you consider that two sections would be a bad idea. I only suggested two sections, plus a note, as a compromise to all sides, and a reflection of the genuine confusion that is out there. But or me, the situation is perfectly clear: there should be one section and Kilkenny should not be on it. And furthermore, I would downgrade the significance of royal charters because of all of the reasons I have outlined earlier, in particular their inapplicability to Ireland pre-1171. Furthermore, the use of the term 'county borough' is obsoleted by the 2001 Act, and should be replaced with 'city', although I can see why you used the former term!
If you won't at least consider my compromised solution, then I suggest that this article be considered to be 'in dispute' or whatever the wikipedia phrase is. (Particularly since I am not the only one who has disputed its content.)
(As a side note, people come to wikipedia to find useful information, such as the largest population centres in Ireland; in doing so they may well search for 'cities in ireland'. Sneaking in Kilkenny, on the back of technicalities and confusion, when it is only the 12th largest centre in the country, and only a fraction of the size of the smallest city, does not help anyone. I have no problem with a section for 'chartered' cities, as long as people know what actual, functional cities are.) merlante 10:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The best way forward, at this point, would be something similar to City status in the United Kingdom#Cities now in the Republic of Ireland. It explains the facts simply, this article is about cities not about the detail of local government. Creating a new section for just Kilkenny is not a dispute just a bad idea, just as its removal would be. Djegan 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The crux of the problem is as follows: you believe that any city that once had a charter is a modern day city. I believe that the modern day cities of Ireland are listened in section 2 of the Local Government Act 2001. (And yes, I fully understand the difference between city council and city status.)
The UK situation is different to us, because they didn't have our Local Government Act 2001 (obviously). There are no other arguments I can make, other than the fact that I dispute your definition of a city. The current section is not clear. Many others have been confused about your definition of city: this is clear from the comments. I don't think that your definition is correct. It would be far more clear to have two sections. It's not like giving extra information is a bad thing -- particularly when the extra information clears up confusion! merlante 11:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay I've been having a further think about it. I think that quite apart from the city status question, we have to ask ourselves what people are looking for when they click on a link to 'cities in Ireland'. I think you make a fair point in that the cities of the UK article is well laid out and clear. I think if we are going to have one page called 'cities in ireland' than than it should cover all of the questions that people may have on the topic. e.g. 'what are the chartered cities?' 'what can call itself a city?' 'a note on city status -- about the confusion that exists and the possible interpretations' 'what are the gateways? (maybe a link to a gateways page)' 'what are the cities, as in city councils, as in what the local government act means by city?' 'a note on charter dates and founding dates of cities'.
I think we can make a very informative article about cities in ireland, cover all bases, so that when people click on the link they will get fully qualified answers to their questions. Such a resource does not exist anywhere at present it seems! The alternative is to turn the page into a mini-portal for info on irish cities, but I'd prefer a single article, personally.
Incidentally, I sent an email to the department of the environment asking them to give me a list of the centres that currently have legal city status, and if they could point me to documents containing this information, so it is possible we might be able to get closer to the truth. :) merlante 13:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since nobody has posted any comments in the last few days, I'm going to start on a revamped page, since I have a head of steam at the moment. merlante 10:48, 02 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that their is no consensus for change I have reverted, my reasons explained below. Djegan 17:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explained reversion

I have reverted primarily because their is/was no concensus to make a subtantial change (1 for, 1 against). Also the wording is pov "City status, while a legal concept under British rule, is no longer so in modern Ireland (see talk page)" (citations?), "it is not one that the governments of Ireland have seen fit to clarify"(their is no responsibility on the government to do so), "It is incorrect for any other centre to use the title, 'city', although it is done frequently for marketing purposes, to give the impression of an up and coming urban centre with aspirations of becoming an important centre."(examples?) - abeit just three samples. Secondly their are not two different forms of city in the republic. Either a place can be discribed as a city or not, within reason of the law. The local government act does not identify two distinct types of city certainly not "Administrative Cities" and "Chartered Cities" - to say it does identify such is original research. The fact that a place has a city council or borough council is something different. Djegan 17:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, for a start, how am I supposed to gain consensus when nobody bothers to reply to comments?
Secondly, considering I have received clarification from the department of the environment and local government, and, until I am told otherwise, interpreted it fairly, it was not clear that anyone would be in disagreement.
Your nitpicking of the text I used can be fixed easily by yourself, as is the wikipedia way, and therefore I will not regard your specific questions as being reasons for this reversion.
The sentence "a place can be discribed as a city or not, within reason of the law" is your own opinion: it is 100% clear from the email below that there are TWO interpretations of what a city is, and that there is NO legal definition.
I picked two categories, "Administrative Cities" and "Chartered Cities" in order to describe these TWO interpretations -- feel free to suggest different categories!
Please let me know how I can get my more informative and clearly superior version back in place, without having to get you to agree to it, because that, it seems, is not going to happen? This would honestly turn me off doing anything for the wikipedia ever again. I fundamentally believed that people would respond to cogent argument and proper evidence and not willfully misinterpret all data, but clearly I was mistaken.
I trust you will not wait another couple of days before replying again! merlante 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Your interpretation that the law sets "Administrative Cities" and "Chartered Cities" is point-of-view - the article is about cities, not ordering them by governance, charter, population etc. As I said previous this is I think as far as any interpretation should go. The Local Government Act sets the standard on local government, not city status - and it does not fundementally redefine the nature of a city; city status and local government are two different measures. Just present the facts, sourced externally as required. Djegan 19:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is about cities, you're article takes a very limited and creative interpretation of the facts in order to give pride of place to Kilkenny. My article clears up all confusion, and adds more information.
My two categories of what can be considered a city can be given whatever title's you want: that is not important. The pertinent point is that city status is NOT a legal concept in modern Ireland: SEE THE EMAIL BELOW! Thus, there are 'cities' as the Local Government Act refers to them, i.e. places that have city councils, and centres which may use the title of city. I am not making any legal inventions whatsoever, it is you that is making the legal invention by insisting that there is one legal definition of city. The department of the environment disagrees with you!
The facts, which are thin enough on the ground, need to be fully contextualised: this I have done. I have invented nothing. You're article is incorrect by omission: it assumes a 'particular' interpretation of the facts which I would not agree with, but which I am nonetheless happy to present, along with other interpretations. People who read my version of the article will find whatever information they were looking for AND will get a better understanding of 'city status' in Ireland. Obviously, the wording can be altered if desired, to fix minor mistakes, or any biases that you might think I have.
I am not going to argue this with you anymore. This debate should be looked at by others, and if they want any clarification or further arguments from me, then I will gladly give them, but repeating myself to you is just a waste of time. merlante 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email exchange with the Department of the Environment press office on 'city status'

(Initial query is at the bottom, quoted response from the department is the middle, interspersed with further query for clarification of Kilkenny's status, final clarification is at the top.)

(I don't know what to make of the notice at the very bottom of the mail. I presume that no harm is being done by publishing this email here, considering the exchange is between a private individual and a public institution, and the private individual has chosen to make it public.)

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:24:41 +0100
From: Press-Office <press-office@environ.ie>
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: Re: Cities of Ireland


Unlike some countries, Ireland does not have a formal designation
process for an area to become a 'city'.
The Local Government Acts are relevant in this regard in that this
legislation provides for establishment of city councils as entities
separate from county councils for the purposes of local authority
administration - there are only 5 'city councils' for the purposes of
this legislation. The local government act recognises that Kilkenny has
historic associations with the terminology (city) and clarifies that
there is nothing technically wrong with this as a description.
Essentially, other than in relation to the establishment of city
councils in the local government act there is no other legislation on
the books that defines cities.


>>> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX <XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX> 31/07/2006 14:13:14 >>>
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 01:39:09PM +0100, Press-Office wrote:
>
> Under the Local Government Acts Cork, Dublin, Galway, Limerick and
> Waterford have city councils.


Many thanks for you prompt response.


I wonder if you could just clear up one more thing for me. I realise
that
Kilkenny does not have a city council, but there is a clause in the
Local Government Act 2001, '(7) This section is without prejudice to
the
continued use of the description city in relation to Kilkenny, to the
extent
that that description was used before the establishment day and is not
otherwise inconsistent with this Act.'


I take this to mean that Kilkenny can continue to use the title,
'city'.
However it is not clear to me whether Kilkenny actually has the legal
status of city or not. Could you possibly clear this up for me?


Regards,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


> >>> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX <XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX> 31/07/2006 12:14:09 >>>
> Hello there,
>
> I was wondering if you could help regarding a query about the cities
> of
> Ireland?
>
> Could you please list for me the urban centres in Ireland which
> currently
> have legal city status? Could you point me to any documents where
they
> are
> defined?
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>
>
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify
> the system manager.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
by
> Anti-Virus Software for the presence of computer viruses.
>
>

[edit] Interpretation

Okay, I think this pretty much restates the ambiguity that surrounds the vexed question of city status. :)

When first asked about the cities of Ireland, the five cities with city councils were mentioned: possibly as the staff member in question's best estimate of what I meant (or what I was looking for) when I asked the question.

When clarification was sought on the status of Kilkenny, the bigger, more ambiguous picture was given.

What we have learned is that, as far as the department of the environment & local government is concerned, there is no legal definition of city status in modern Ireland. Instead, there are two acceptable categories: centres with city councils and centres which can use the title city. The latter category tallying with centres that have been granted a charter in the past.

This is not surprising, since the Local Government Acts have studiously avoided the term 'city status', though nonetheless changing every aspect of the local government structure as specified in the old charters. I'm not even sure, come to think of it, whether the old charters were entirely specific about city status, or whether it just listed the terms of incorporation. In any case, I stand by my suggestions of timestamp: 13:49, 31 July 2006 above. merlante 16:04, 31 July 2006

[edit] Armagh

This page says 1994 for it officially becoming a city, the Armagh articles says 1995. Which is correct?

zoney ♣ talk 10:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have some publicity material (not near at hand at the moment) on armaghs city status and was intending to incorporate it into the article soon but I would say 1994 - armagh was considered a city for many years before, if you check their site or email then you should clarify. Djegan 10:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Census

I know that the next census in the Republic of Ireland is on April 23 2006, but when is the next one in Northern Ireland? Jvlm.123 09:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City Status & What is a city? (An attempt to break down the arguments to their most basic terms.)

Since nobody has been exactly eager to help sort out the difficulties we've been encountering on city status in Ireland, I will restate what I see as the reality of the situation is as pedantic and brief a form as I possibly can, so that this situation can be sorted out.

[edit] The disagreement

(Please feel more than free to amend what I have written -- don't want to misconstrue any positions!)

  • Djegan believes that there is a single, inalienable definition of a 'city in Ireland'. He believes that irish cities became such at the time they were issued with a royal charter, and that nothing in the intermining years has done anything to change this.
  • merlante believes that whatever may have been the case prior to the present day, there is no inalienable definition of a 'city in Ireland', that 'city status' is undefined in the present day, but you can call call a centre a 'city' if one of two criteria hold true.

[edit] Djegan's argument

Basically I believe that discribing a place as a city is distinct to the form of local government that is in operation. The local government act simplifies the structures of government (this is without doubt) and creates city councils in the larger cities but I do not believe that this has any fundemental impact on what place is a city. In particular the local government act makes it clear that to discribe Kilkenny as a city is acceptable[4], Section 7 merely makes it clear that a city council could not be established by accident ("...not otherwise inconsistent with this Act...") and that such a place for local government purposes is not on the same subnational level as a city or county implied in Section 2.

I think that we should have a well written section that discribes the rationale and detail of cities from foundation to modern times. I do not subscribe to the belief that a royal charter can become ineffective by chance, royal charters came long before modern notions of local government. Like it or not some of our greatest institutions have been founded by British principals of law. Nor do I subscribe to the notion that their are different categories of city, only that their are different forms of local government - the two are not mutually dependent.

The way forward for categorising cities is such as this table. Simple and factual. Djegan 19:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whats wrong with the current text?

In a nutshell its unworkable, lets reproduce it here and whats wrong with it, my comments are in [square brackets].

City status, while a legal concept under British rule, is no longer so in modern Ireland (see talk page)[why refer to the talk page, where are the citatations? when did this myster occure when it became unlawful(we must assume this as it was once but is no longer a legal concept)?]. Successive Local Government Acts, culminating in the 2001 Act [1], have modified all aspects of local government in Ireland, but without broaching the specific question of city status[so it was never made unlawful as it was never broached??? what about the first sentence again]. Although a question that interests many[and your point is], it is not one that the governments of Ireland have seen fit to clarify.[why do they need to clarify, has the government been unjust, or even incompetant, pov non sense]

Having said that, there is a valid answer to the question, "What are the cities of Ireland?" albeit a qualified one.[wikipedia does not publish original research, publish in an academic journal if this is your goal] There are two respects in which the word 'city', with regard to an urban centre in Ireland, has any meaning:

1. A centre with a city council is a city, in the context of the Local Government Act 2001.[but did the first paragraph not say the act never approach the issue, full of contradiction] 2. A centre which has received a city charter from the British crown, in effect†, can legally use the title, 'city'.[but the first paragraph implies its unlawful "no longer so in modern Ireland"]

† The Local Government Act 2001 implies that centres with city councils can use the title, 'city', and states specifically that Kilkenny can use the title; thus confirming that all chartered cities may use the title.[so are we really admitting that 1. and 2. are non sense?, I'm confused???]

It is incorrect for any other centre to use the title, 'city',[so we are admitting something of legal effect] although it is done frequently for marketing purposes,[but if its no longer legal surely the whole concept is unlawful, first paragraph] to give the impression of an up and coming urban centre with aspirations of becoming an important centre.[pov, either a place can be discribed as a city or not]

Motivations for achieving city status include, having a centre known as a major urban entity in Ireland, allowing its citizens a sense of civic pride, and providing a basis for positive marketing of the centre to business or to potential tourists; or having a centre incorporated as a 'city', which is an administrative county in Ireland, with access to county-level institutions, such as a city manager and a city development board; or using the status as a platform to lobby central government for funding for local projects.[again this contradicts the first paragraph, anyone reading this would be confused and frustrated by the end of it, "no longer so in modern Ireland"]

Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.

Why have we these two concepts, not lawful, of "Administrative Cities" and "Chartered Cities" - why would one table not work? Irish wikipedians are really doing themselves a severe injust if this section remains. Better nothing than a contradiction. This article is a Fail. Djegan 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm starting to be disgusted by your behaviour on this. You are distorting the debate, which is about 'city status', by inserting a huge blob from the current text (which I did not reinstate btw.). I am not averse to changing the detail in this article, but the main thrust of it will be verified, or not, depending on the outcome of the poll. If you have any technical criticism to make then please make them against my rigorous development below. I suggest you remove this sub-section, and re-state your argument, if you feel you need to, so that others can compare like with like! merlante 20:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If you think the current text (of the article page, not the talk page) is fundementally wrong then revert it. This section will remain, its valid critism. Djegan 19:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Childish... It is NOT valid criticism, because it does NOT address my rigorous development below, but only the current article, the specifics of which can be changed. Furthermore, this section was NOT meant as a place for criticism, but as a place where we both make our arguments so that both can be judged by third parties. It seems that there is nothing I can do to stop you filibustering and saboutaging this process. merlante 20:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
My attempt is not that of "filibustering and saboutaging" but that of ensuring that a vigourous and proper review process is carried out. I would expect the same of anyone, who passes these pages and knows about the issues. I could not, in good conscience, ignore what I think is wrong. Djegan 23:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I believe Merlantes interpretation is flawed

Merlante has a fundemental non acceptance of Kilkenny as a city, and royal charters, its just an flawed agenda. Its a one way street of turn backs. Some of the relevent comments (verbatim) by the editor:

"Kilkenny, we are told, is still allowed to use the title, but is clearly not a city."
"In the cases of Lord Mayors and Kilkenny city, the title is allowed for decoration only, and for the sake of consistency. (And possibly so as not to ruffle any feathers.)"
"There is a further case that weighs against the use of charters, and that is that the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford pre-date the Norman invasion and the rule of the kings of England. This cities didn't just become significant urban areas as soon as Henry arrived, and the year they were awarded a charter is completely arbitrary. In fact that the cities of Dublin and Waterford (at least) had kings of the their own from the 10th century, and were considered cities internationally."
"I think that when we speak of status, the Local Government Act is clear. It is true that it is not incorrect to use the term Kilkenny city, but to me this is for decoration only, as with the term 'Lord Mayor', however the terms 'city' and 'mayor' also have real and current meaning in the modern local government system. In the meaningful, current sense of the act, Kilkenny is not a city."
"As I said before english charters are also problematic for determining city status because they only apply for the duration of english rule in Ireland. This definition cannot be international, and does not recognise the existence of any Irish city prior to 1171."
"Okay, I am not saying that charters have no legal affect, I am saying that city charters have been entirely overridden by Local Government Acts. Your argument hinges on the fact that Local Government Acts (all of which must go through the Oireachtas) have not superceded these charters, but I believe they have."
"But the Local Government Act 2001 goes further and presumes, as we both have indicated, to pronounce on whether or not Kilkenny can use the title of 'city'. It seems to me that there is nothing that could have been defined in a royal charter that cannot be changed by a Local Government Act, including what can have the status of city and what can use the title of city."
"You can argue otherwise, that this statement is somehow an endorsement of Kilkenny's status as a city, but it does not look like much of an endorsement to me, and no such endorsement is seen to be required for any other city, whose statuses are considered by the act to be beyond question. I think the complete avoidance of the term 'city status' in this act is to allow people to come up with their own willfull interpretations, and to allow supporters of Kilkenny's city status some wriggle room in arguments such as these, in an attempt to avoid upsetting anyone; but I would argue that the most honest and compelling interpretation of this act is that from now on, only cities with city councils are to be considered cities."

Djegan 19:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Djegan has decided to re-hash my arguments over a number of days here in a manner of his own choosing. Please see below for the full development of my argument. I suggest that he takes a deep breath before he dives into another rash of edits. :( merlante 21:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I did not re-hash, but simply copied paragraphs and statements in full, and verbatim - they give a good summary of your rationale. Similarily you make take issue with any statement of mine, as appropriate. Additionally you may re-summarise your main points if you wish, making it clear were you stand currently. Djegan 23:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Constitution & City of Dublin

Whatever Merlante may say about the city status its mentioned twice in the Constitution of Ireland, but the bogus theory that Royal Charters when out the window with independence contradicts this.

Here is what the constitution has to say (is the constitution unlawful - I think not):

Article 12.11.1:

The President shall have an official residence in or near the City of Dublin.

Article 15.1.3:

The Houses of the Oireachtas shall sit in or near the City of Dublin or in such other place as they may from time to time determine.

So it does not really matter what a civil servant in a Department of State thinks. Its clear from the above that the City of Dublin exists, in itself, as distinct from Dublin City Council (...in or near the City of Dublin..., i.e. a place with a status of city). Is the Local Government Act unconsitutional? (thats just original research and not allowed here, like too many of the presented theories on invalid charters and Kilkenny been a bogus city). Djegan 20:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My points in summary

  • We should not confuse the fact that a place is a city with the fact that its local government is is that of a city council or borough council, as applicable. The two are distinctly different. This article is about cities, to use the terms "Administrative Cities" and "Chartered Cities" is simply a contradiction with other opinions on the Local Government Act and also original research.
  • We should not write a whole article merely to present our predudice and procrastinate that Kilkenny is not a city or cannot be discribed as such. We should not spilt the article into two bogus sections one without Kilkenny and one with Kilkenny. This is the crux of the issue, have one unified table giving all the facts in a summary. Not a "lets kick Kilkenny down" agenda.
  • If we are naive enough to believe that Royal Charters went out the window with independence then we are simply fooling ourselves. Republic or not many institutions are based on Royal Charters in Ireland, re: Geoghegan v Institute of Chartered Accountants, the failed republican agenda will not change this.
  • We should not form our beliefs from the opinions of one civil servant; the constitution is clear, the City of Dublin exists as a place ("...in or near the City of Dublin...") ; if this is not city status what is?
    • I cannot accept the Constitution of Ireland is unlawful - city status legally defined or not it clearly mentions a place - "City of Dublin" - not a local government entity, but a place that has the status of a city, viz: "city status".
  • The current text of the article is confused and irrational. Its original research, and that is not allowed here. I only leave it not to start a revert war and to remind us of how bad the alternate proposal to mine is. Scrap what we have and revert to this and start again.

Djegan 21:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative Cities vs. Chartered Cities

This terminology is simply muddying the waters, its not used in any act and has no legal effect. Reading the article someone might think it was common currency, which it is not. The law does not differentiate as to the type of city but simply "divided into local government areas to be known as counties and cities"[5]. Nothing about "Administrative Cities" or "Chartered Cities". Nothing.

The terminology of "Administrative Cities" vs. "Chartered Cities" is simply a bogus terminology to have Kilkenny in one table and not in the other. Merlante made it clear from the start that he was not willing to accept Kilkenny, "Kilkenny, we are told, is still allowed to use the title, but is clearly not a city." and this terminology is just a compromise created by Merlante who needs a get out clause to implement as much of his original agenda as possible.

I am sorry but their will be no compromise on the facts and no original research. No interpretations of the law that lead to invented terminology. Provide citations or two sections becomes one. Vote or otherwise.

Djegan 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent comments

Firstly I am not going to apologise for getting involved here. Whatever way the vote goes it was a scandal to hold one in the first instance. This issue never should of went by vote, consensus and verifiability come first. Facts are not determined by mickey mouse votes. The current text is pov heaven, a strangled and confused text - full of original research.

Secondly we are not going to have two sections just because someone has a hissy-fit and insists that Kilkenny is not a city. Wikipedia is a laughing stock on the claims they have made (see my detailed comments and citations above). We were told that Kilkenny is not a city, we were told that Royal Charters had lost legal effect (somehow).

Merlante is simply complicating the issue by introducing his own terminology as he goes. The latest is "gateway cities". This is unhelpful. Stick to the facts. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Merlante needs to stop confusing city status with local government councils. He is getting hung up on "city status" been legally defined or not - if a place has a Royal Charter that allows it to be called a city then it should be in this article, in one unified section.

If Royal Charters have lost legal effect (with respect to city status) then show us the evidence, because if they have lost legal effect then a law somewere would indicate explictly that city status was not lost and is in continuance. The relevent sections of the constitution quoted above mean this is a foregone conclusion of any relevent act. It states explicity "in or near the City of Dublin" - a place (city) not a thing(city council).

What if someone discovered in the morning that "university status" was not defined in the law - would the National University of Ireland and the University of Dublin be no longer universities because they are based on Royal Charters which merlante believes have no legal effect? This rationale is laughable and flawed.

Merlantes proposal to create two tables is a affront to common sense - it is an affront to the city of Kilkenny. A footnote explaining that whilst it may be called a city but does not have a "city council", unlike the other cities, would do the same thing as what he is proposing in two tables and a stranged and point-of-view text.

Make no doubt about is misinformation is vandalism. Better nothing than misinformation. Djegan 09:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The current text is still fundementally flawed

The current text is still fundementally flawed, again my comments in [square brackets]:

City status, while a legal concept under British rule, is no longer so in modern Ireland.[Rambling on about the holy grail of "city status" is pointless, either a place can be bona-fide discribed as a city or not - would the absence of "county status" make the counties somewhat illegal - absolute non-sense this section]

Having said that, there is a valid answer to the question, "What are the cities of Ireland?" albeit a qualified one. There are two respects in which the word 'city', with regard to an urban centre in Ireland, has any meaning:[having essentially admitted in the first paragraph that their is no such thing as a city this is original research; an attempt to formulate - thats the only word for it - ones own answer]

1. A centre with a city council is a city, in the context of the Local Government Act 2001 [1]. 2. A centre which has received a city charter from the British crown, in effect†, can legally use the title, 'city'. [this section is an affront to common sense as it ignores the first paragraph - this section is a fail]

† The Local Government Act 2001 implies that centres with city councils can use the title, 'city', and states specifically that Kilkenny can use the title; thus confirming that all chartered cities may use the title.[so at last an admission or contradiction of the first paragraph - is anyone confused - cause I am]

It is incorrect for any other centre to use the title, 'city', although it is done frequently for marketing purposes, to give the impression of an up and coming urban centre with aspirations of becoming an important centre.["frequently" - any examples if its so frequent this should not be a difficult one]

Motivations for seeking city status‡ include, having a centre known as a major urban entity in Ireland, allowing its citizens a sense of civic pride, and providing a basis for positive marketing of the centre to business or to potential tourists; or having a centre incorporated as a 'city', which is an administrative county in Ireland, with access to county-level institutions, such as a city manager and a city development board; or using the status as a platform to lobby central government for funding for local projects.[I think this section is a narrative from merlante on why he thinks Kilkenny should not be a city - discriptive or otherwise - in any case it is point-of-view]

‡ Although 'city status' is not a legal term, it is nonetheless used informally to mean either, or both, a centre with the title 'city' or a centre with a city council.[who cares if the term "city status" is a legal term, the article is about cities not "city status" the holy grail and false god of merlante - anyone that thinks that the term "city" - which it implies - is not legal needs a reality check]

I am not going to reiterate my problems with the "Administrative Cities" and "Chartered Cities" non-sense. Pure pov.

Djegan 15:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)"

Wow, okay. I wasn't going to follow up to anything else quite yet, but I'd just like to say that the 'wannabe' cities I was thinking of were Sligo and Dundalk (I have references, but does the article really have to bash places specifically?) not Kilkenny. I have no problem with Kilkenny being called a city. (City status and description are not the same thing, btw, no contradiction.). merlante 21:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
More contradictions of ones self. Djegan 21:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
*lol* merlante 23:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merlante's argument

1. There is no current, legal definition of city status.

a) There is no reference to 'city status' in any of the Local Government Acts that I have looked through, including 2001 [6].

There are references to the noun 'city' (unaccompanied by city name) throughout the Local Government Act. It is plainly understood that the act is referring to those centres with a city council. The single exception to this is a clause [7] 10.(7), which grants the 'continued use of the description city' with regard to Kilkenny, where it is 'not otherwise inconsistent with this Act'. However, this appears to be the only clause in the Act where describing Kilkenny as a city is consistent with the act.

The act uses the word 'city' to refer to certain centres, it says that a centre may describe itself as a 'city', but nowhere does it deal in 'city status' as it is often conceived of, and as it still exists in the UK.

(Although I do grant that, on this basis, I cannot be 100% sure that some definition of 'city status' is not legally valid, and is preserved in some obscure document somewhere, or somehow not obsoleted by documents that seem to me to obsolete it. This is why I sent an inquiry to the department, below.)

b) A query on this matter was sent to the Department of the Environment & Local Government. The transcript is its own section above. The pertinent extracts from the second reply (from a staff member) are as follows:

"Unlike some countries, Ireland does not have a formal designation process for an area to become a 'city'"

and most importantly,

"Essentially, other than in relation to the establishment of city councils in the local government act there is no other legislation on the books that defines cities."

These two statements, and in particular the second one, make it absolutely clear that, essentially, outside of what the Local Government Act has to say about cities, there is no 'other legislation on the books that defines cities'.


2. A centre can be called a 'city' if one of two criteria hold true.

We know from 1. that the term 'city status' has no meaning outside of an administrative context, as laid out in the Local Government Act 2001. But what then, if anything, can be called a city?

a) Kilkenny is allowed to be described as a 'city', and hence is allowed to use the title of 'city'. That is clear from [8] 10.(7).

b) Centres with city councils are called cities throughout the Local Government Act 2001. However, we see that the obsoleted term 'county borough' is replaced, from this act onwards, as 'city'. Therefore, one of two interpretations are possible: i) The term 'city' is used to refer variously to the urban centre and to the city council area (old county borough). or ii) The term 'city' is used to refer to the city council area (old county borough) only.

The former conveys a title (city) and a local government status, the latter conveys only a local government status.

We know from a) that Kilkenny can use the title 'city', however, to my mind, none of the centres with city councils can use the title 'city' if interpretation ii), above, is preferred. In this case we would have the preposterous scenario where only Kilkenny can call itself a city and the centres Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford may not. This is obviously false, and no instrument of the government or the media pursues this line: hence interpretation i), above, must be correct.

Therefore centres with a city council hold both the title 'city' and the local government division 'city' or 'city council'.

c) From a) and b) we see that Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford and Kilkenny (I'll refer to this list as L1) can all be called cities, but that only Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford (I'll refer to this list as L2) are cities in the administrative sense.

From 1. we remember that there is no universal, legal concept of 'city status' under Irish law, as exists in the UK, therefore it remains for us to flesh out the above information to build an article called 'Cities in Ireland'.

d) We remember from b) i) that the L2 cities, which have city councils, also gain the title city by implication, however, Kilkenny, which is not an L2 city, was explicitly allowed to use the title, to confirm that, "the local government act recognises that Kilkenny has historic associations with the terminology (city)," from the Department of the Environment & Local Government.

It strikes me that if there had been any other L1 cities than were not also L2 cities, i.e. cities that do not have a city council but have a historic claim to the term, in the form of a city charter, that they would also have been listed alongside Kilkenny in the clause named in 2. a). In any case, it seems more than a coincidence L1 cities are exactly those cities that hold a city charter.

For this reason, the following two categories seem natural interpretations of the information summarised in c): i) Those cities, which for the sake of argument I will call administrative cities, which are listed in L2. ii) Those cities, which for the sake of argument I will call chartered cities, which are listed in L1.


Conclusion

The two categories in 2 d) are convenient because they illustrate the differences between 'title' and 'local government division' which the present article does not do. They also give us a good opportunity to elaborate on the demographic information of the administrative/L2 cities, which are important centres in modern Ireland, and an opportunity to elaborate on some historical facts (such as year of foundation, charter issue, etc.) of chartered/L1 cities whose significance are of a more historic nature.

Although it would be possible to merge both lists into one, the significance of why any of the centres are listed there at all then becomes blurred (since there is no single legal definition of city status) and less information is transmitted to the reader.

Furthermore, the article, as it currently stands, is not only insufficiently informative, but misleading as to the nature of city status, and simply incorrect in the primacy it gives to charter dates.

Therefore I submit the following (reverted) article as my improvement, subject to the changes that others may have in the specifics: [9]

[edit] The Vote

There needs to be somewhere to cast a vote to indicate where consensus lies. That place is here.

  • I am disappointed that voting should be the basis of the whole content of a section. See Wikipedia:Voting is evil. Consensus, discusion and facts come first, not a straw poll.. Djegan 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • All the facts are on the table, are they not? People can ask questions if they are not sure about something. We have had something like a week's discussion already, and the discussion has been brought to general attention a number of times on the noticeboard. I am not seeing many people with the time/inclination, or the expertise (without a fair amount of independent research), to discuss this article to the depth that we've been discussing it. I think the best we can hope for is that people read the summarised arguments that we've prepared and say which one they agree with, if any. I suggest we stick with the poll and go with the result if there is a supermajority as discussed here: Wikipedia:Consensus. If there is no supermajority we can cross that bridge when we come to it. merlante 20:15, 4 August 2006
  • I had intended that the previous section be used to state both cases clearly and precisely, so that third parties could read both, perhaps check references, or ask questions if required, but Djegan has started to fill it with criticism, and my attempt to move this criticism to a new section was reverted. :( I suggest that people ignore the criticism, which I have not responded to, and try to gauge the individual merits of both arguments for themselves. I don't want this to degenerate back into an endless shouting contest. :( merlante 21:16, 4 August 2006
    • This is not intended as a person attack but your current arguement is anything but clear and precise - its confused and contradictory. Like the current fiasco that is the article. Djegan 20:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well I had intended that this section should be an area to vote to indicate consensus. This is not an AfD or whatever. But there is an edit war going on on the basis of a lack of consensus. Instead the talk page has disintegrated into an incoherent mess of arguments. I think that both of you need to back off. Go away and come back in a week and see if the rest of us have managed to agree on anything. Frelke 07:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that the amount of bile you have injected into your arguments, the amount of 'filibuster' criticisms you have made, combined with your distasteful insinuations and allegations toward me, the fact that you have reverted any improvements I have made to the article to address some of the concerns you have -- presumably in order to make it and me look bad -- makes it obvious that you are not being balanced in any way shape or form. You would fill the talk page to infinite size in order to obscure the content of my arguments and to imply (to say the least) that my motivations for making changes to this article are anything other than to get to the truth of the matter. I will not be responding to any more of your comments until we can get a third party to adjudicate on this issue. As you'll no doubt have seen (since you are tracking my every edit) I have placed a request for third party arbitration on the noticeboard. merlante 23:02, 4 August 2006

[edit] In favour of Djegan's argument

Agree with DJegan. Guliolopez 23:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Need to temper (and possibly largely revert) some of the "commentary" in current version ("original research") on what constitutes a city, and what does not. It may be appropriate to cite WHY a particular city has that status (whether by charter from an English Royal or Mael Seachlainn II several hundred years ago, or by local government act in last decade). However, I don't think it's appropriate to create 2 separate "lists", or to enter into a discursive argument in the article about the appropriateness of city status in any given case. Such an approach may be appropriate to an essay question: "Kilkenny is not a real city under the laws of the Republic of Ireland. Discuss.". But it is not an appropriate structure for a wikipedia article, as it is discursive, lends itself to POV, and may not represent fact. Guliolopez 23:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In favour of merlante's argument

  1. For merlante Frelke 11:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In favour of a different argument

[edit] Still none the wiser

Having read the above, I'm still none the wiser. Would I bre right to summarise the arguments as

  1. Dublin, Kilkenny, Waterford, Cork, Galway, Derry and Belfast are all cities
  2. Dublin, Waterford, Cork, Galway, Derry and Belfast are all cities but Kilkenny is only an honorary city.

Surely the simple definition of a city is that it has a City Council with Aldermen etc. The LGA then goes on explicitly to add Kilkenny to the list. You can argue that it is only an honorary member, but that only counts as your opinion. Wiki can only report what the law says. I think that people are getting hung up on the fact that an English king took a backhander five hundred years ago for a piece of paper, when really it doesn't matter how we got here. What matters is that we are here. I might be agreeing with Djegan, but I'm not sure! --Red King 23:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - whatever we do lets limit the discussion to the Republic of Ireland, for simplicity. Djegan
Comment The Local Government Act does not add Kilkenny to the list, it simply recognises the fact that the Royal Charter that gave it city status still has legal effect and that this has not changed. The act states only the following with regard to royal charters:
Subject to this Act, royal charters and letters patent relating to local authorities shall continue to apply for ceremonial and related purposes in accordance with local civic tradition but shall otherwise cease to have effect. - emphasis added
That section applies to local authorities, this is something that is distinct and different to that of the city as a place - discriptive or administrative. In effect this section simply makes the royal charter of the old corporations ineffective, it has no bearing on the city. I agree with Red King honorary membership or status is just an opinion.

Some cities have city councils, ONE does not. Lets not have two tables just to make that clear when a footnote would do the same.

Djegan 10:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Clarification from the Department of the Environment & Local Government (above) is very clear: "Essentially, other than in relation to the establishment of city councils in the local government act there is no other legislation on the books that defines cities".
The clause, "Subject to this Act, royal charters and letters patent relating to local authorities shall continue to apply for ceremonial and related purposes in accordance with local civic tradition but shall otherwise cease to have effect," can be interpreted in many different ways. djegan is only interested in interpreting specific clauses in specific ways and is not interested in engaging with the document in a genuine way. The only interpretation of the document that stands up is that 'Kilkenny is not a city under the act, but that it can use the title'. I have no problem with Kilkenny being listed under those cities that can use the title. But that should not be the same list as the one who specifies the modern administrative cities. I would draw editors attention to the 'Email exchange with the Department of the Environment press office on 'city status' above: don't listen to me, listen to the department. Browse through the local government act 2001 yourselves. Judge for yourselves. Don't be swayed by the shouting game.
Legal city status is a myth. There are only cities for administrative purposes and for the purposes of being able to describe a centre as a city. Read the act. Read the email. I don't want to spend my entire weekend repeating myself on here because djegan has filled the entire talk page with his propaganda. I created a section below for responses to comments here. djegan has ignored it and decided to inject his comments in here, in a more prominent position. So I am forced to do the same. merlante 12:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Their you go about Kilkenny again. Contradicting yourself, again. Its your obsession, face the facts; the law says, whatever your flawed intrepration is:
This section is without prejudice to the continued use of the description city in relation to Kilkenny, to the extent that that description was used before the establishment day and is not otherwise inconsistent with this Act.
The constitution clearly places the status of city on Dublin (re: "in or near the City of Dublin"), it does not matter what a half-assed civil servant thinks. Djegan 14:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Discussion

I think it is not helpful to have huge tracts of discussion within a "vote" section. Perhaps we can discuss this in a civil fashion here. Red King has suggested that the argument is about whether the list is 7 cities or 6+1 cities. As I read it, its not. I think the argument is about whether there should be reference in the article page as to how a city is defined. It would be helpful if Djegan and merlante could simply comment here if they think Red King or I is closer to the nub of the argument. Frelke 07:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, nobody is suggesting that Kilkenny not be listed. (My response is in the next section.) merlante 09:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A way forward

We have a big problem here. There are no two arguments for editors to judge. As soon as an argument appears, it comes in for a hail of criticism and even innuendo. My initial attempt to isolate well stated arguments to one section, without criticism (or innuendo) has failed. Attempts to have the vote section without comments have failed. Attempts to confine comment on the vote section to another section has failed.

What are editors left to judge? A mass of hysterical post and counter post with the arguments lost in the mix. I do not feel that my side of the argument can be clearly ascertained from the current mess. I doubt djegan feels that either. We are trapped in a spiral of edits and re-edits without a resolution in sight. We have people logging on asking questions and getting a hail of comments, responses and counter-reponses, which is intelligible to no one.

This talk page probably needs to be completely purged. It is a disaster. Yes, I have contributed to this state of affairs, but the rules of this consensus building process appears to be, "He who shouts the loudest and longest wins." What chance do I have of conveying a point when it is lost in a forest of edits 2 hours later. And of course when I feel my position has been misconstrued, what can I do but respond. But really, I have better things to be doing.

[edit] So, a solution

  • We need an individual or individuals to take charge of this process.
  • These individuals should then ask both parties to submit their rationale for having their version of the article instated.
  • Both parties should stick to their arguments and not resort to damaging the other argument. Editors are perfectly able to work the truth of arguments themselves.
  • Both individuals should be questioned and/or references checked to tease out the detail of the disagreement, and the way forward.
  • This individual or individuals should then make a statement that makes the situation clear. And one version of the article can proceed, perhaps with caveats.

It is completely pointless for myself and djegan to argue anymore amongst ourselves. It is completely pointless for one of us to be allowed to bowl people over by shouting louder and longer than the other. I don't want to be in an edit war.

merlante 12:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

All editors are free to contribute. Wikipedia is not about committees of investigation. Editing is by consensus, but this does not overide any policies including, most notable Wikipedia:Verifiability. Whatever version is arrived at then Wikipedia:Verifiability is the standard by which it is judged not x votes for and y votes against.
Note: it is within my discression, but I choose at this time not to act on it, to revert the current version to [10] because the current version does not pass Wikipedia:Verifiability#The policy. That policy is not negotiable, straw poll or not. Djegan 15:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, we 100% agree on Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you can back up everything you say, then I'm sure the jury will go with your version over mine. It's just that I get this sneaking suspicion that no matter what happens, no matter how many people support my view or consider my article to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability (it's a work in progress at the moment) you are still going to persist in your campaign. (Bear in mind also that there is much that needs to be verified in the old version of the article.) Will you submit to the concensus view if you lose and the article is deemed by others to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability? merlante 17:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The only thing I am going to affirm is wikipedias policies. Djegan 16:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You do realise what was in the old version is in the current version, just presented differently. So what is your point. That the standard dropped? No doubt their. Djegan 16:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What I am sorry and frustrated about...

I am very sorry and frustrated that a straw poll is going to be used to endorse a version of the page that is full of point-of-view and original research. If this is the way forward for wikipedia then I say the people at The Register are abolutely correct, Wikipedia is a non-sense. Sources people or the current version is going to have to go.

I am very sorry and frustrated that one person, who cannot accept Kilkenny as a city, is allowed to determine the content of an article on the cities of Ireland and turn it into his own personal blog, as he says "Kilkenny, we are told, is still allowed to use the title, but is clearly not a city."

I am very sorry and frustrated that we are creating terminology as we go ("Administrative Cities" and "Chartertered Cities"; "Gateway Cities" appears to be next if merlante gets his way) and that we are proposing two tables when their should just be one and a footnote that explains the differences in local government. Duplication so that some ones hissy fit can be appeased.

Consensus is not about straw polls. Djegan 12:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Djegan, what I am suggesting is not a straw poll but a consensus of other irish wikipedians -- minus the two of us. It is sickening to see you use this plea for a balanced solution as a way to get in digs: you well know that these claims of 'point-of-view' and 'original research' are your own opinion. Your other points are Ad_hominem. Anyway. No matter. Is my solution amenable to you or not? And if not, why not? I am sensing a certain reluctance on your part to let the arguments go to an impartial jury! merlante 16:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
If "'point-of-view' and 'original research'" are my own opinion then cite the appropriate source to back up your claims, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. The burden of proof is on the editor who makes the claims. Thats the rules, for all. Djegan 15:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, are you in favour of my suggested solution or not? And if not, why not? merlante 16:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion arising from queries from editors from the vote section

[edit] merlante's reply to comments made by Guliolopez and Red King

First of all, are we voting on the same thing? See 6.1 for the disagreement that we are voting on. This is the crux of the issue. The current article is irrelevant, since I am happy to amend any aspects (aside from the core argument under discussion, i.e. the two city lists plus explanation, hence the vote) that jar with others.

The rationale for two lists:

  1. Lists by context I think when people arrive at the 'cities in Ireland' article they may be looking for many different things: cities with city councils, cities with charters, gateway cities (informal -- not introduced yet), etc. Typically, they'll want a list that corresponds to what they want, and they'll need to be told why such a list is not universal. We could either have one long list (particularly if you merge it with the so-called gateway cities) and a hundred footnotes describing each qualification, or, we can have context specific lists with a title that says, "If this is what you're looking for, then here's your list."
    1. Separation of the administrative and historical I think that cities deriving their title from history can be dealt with in relation to historic data, such as charter dates and foundation year, etc. Modern, administrative cities can be dealt with in relation to modern, demographic data, such as population statistics, etc.
  2. Clearing up confusion A user viewing an article on 'cities in ireland' with a single list will not know why cities are on the list, particularly since there is no modern, legal definition of 'city status'. All we can say is why a city is allowed to use the title. Again, rather than have a single table with many footnotes on it to point out why every centre is on the list, we could just have separate lists.

Red King, from my reading of the LGA, and the clarification I have received from the department of the environment & local government (see email above), there is no definition of city status. So the question is, "What do we know?"

  • We know that the LGA refers to centres with city councils as cities.
  • We know that Kilkenny is allowed to be described as a city.

I think that it ought to be cleared up for people viewing the article that there are administrative cities in Ireland but also that Kilkenny, which historically used that title, can still use it. I consider the most eloquent way of doing this to create separate lists for administrative cities and chartered cities. The chartered cities provide a list of all of the cities which can still use the title city. This avoids the situation where we have to think of whether to take Kilkenny off the list of (administrative) cities and put it in a separate place, or keep it on and confuse people as to why it's there. On an article entitled, 'cities in ireland', everything should be explained to the fullest, rather than creating one artificial list that is meaningless and confusing. (See previous article for an example of an article which explained nothing.)

  • Bear in mind that the word 'city' can be used in 3 ways:
  1. To mean city status, which is undefined.
  2. To mean a city council city.
  3. To mean a city which may be described as a city. (Which I have discussed as chartered cities.)

I don't think we are disagreeing (in the main) as to why a given city is called a city, just how the information is being presented. For me, the original article [11] is totally confusing because I don't know where the list comes from or what it means. It does not mean the administrative cities, for example. In actual fact the list only corresponds to djegan's definition of city (original research in actuality) which is a city that has received a charter. Aside from anything else, this is a very royalist, historic centred view, considering that 5 of the cities are still cities in the modern, administrative sense, but no info is given on their modern status!

merlante 09:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

A footnote explaining that all but one city has a city council would explain this more simply. Djegan 10:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merlante's reply to comments made by Frelke

For me the issues with this article are as follows:

  • If I go to this article, I want the whole story on cities in Ireland. Not a historic centred view or merely a modern, administrative view. I want all questions answered.
  • I want information separated and contextualised where there might be confusion. I want someone to be able to bring up the article and say, "Yeah, that's exactly what I want, the cities that can be called a city, I don't really care about city councils.", etc., etc.
  • It matters to me that cities with city status should be given pride of place on this page. Unfortunately, they do not exist. So our lists must be qualified if they are to be useful.
  • I didn't want to turn this into 5 versus 5+1 versus 6 cities. Two lists end the dispute and the context is clear.
  • Also, not to labour a point, but there was NO information on the previous article. Little did I know what I was getting myself in for when I suggested changes! :)

merlante 09:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

A footnote explaining that all but one city has a city council would explain this more simply. Djegan 10:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

The article was such a mess of qualifications and ifs and buts and chatty style that it need a major cleanup to sift the wheat from the chaff. Well, taking the be bold instruction to heart, I've done it. I think if we have a bare bones article, we might get somewhere. We really needed to start over. --Red King 20:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, at least there's some explanation in there, which is a definite improvement on what was there before I made my edits. However, having two lists is rather pointless when the same cities are in both. (There is also the factual error that Kilkenny is listed as having a city council population.)
What I really want to know is, does anyone else see the benefits of listing cities by context at all, or am I the only one? e.g. 'cities with a city council + pop', 'cities with a charter + dates'. We could have a sub-section with gateways, since they are often called gateway cities, and maybe a link to the national spatial strategy or whatever. Basically, I am a big fan of this sort of thing, and I don't really see why we have can't have a few lists and have a decent sized article. I really don't get why having one list with Kilkenny not on it is such a bit deal, if it makes the context clearer.
Still, I am really glad to see someone else get involved on this article. :) merlante 22:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, there's a few superficial mistakes there, but I won't make any edits until others have had their say. The sight of my name on the edit list seems to make some see red. :) merlante 22:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
"a few superficial mistakes there" -- lol
"gateway cities" --more pov
Its about time you accepted you cannot have everything your way. Djegan 21:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to improve this article[12] and you just see a blind wall and revert. Thats just unfair. If you are going to accuse me of vandalism[13] then quote the relevent policy. I am tired of your turn abouts. At least be consistant.
Djegan 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
How many times have you reverted my edits over the past few days? Get real. No, I will stand firm on this one until the matter of the tables is sorted out. I will accept consensus. You won't bully me.
Gateway cities is POV: are you kidding me? Gateways most definitely exist and are referenceable, as are the usages of the term gateway city. I'd love to see you pull out a reference to show that city status still exists in the legal sense, outside of the LGA. That is the greatest invention and piece of 'original research' in this whole debate. (Your reference to the city of Dublin from the constitution was a sign of admirable determination to find one though, and admirable 'original research' in the way you've been throwing around the term!)
I think it's people like you that will eventually drive good contributors away from the wikipedia. You inflict your point of view on all and sundry, and when you meet your match, when someone is able to stand up for themselves, you play dirty. You resort to Ad-hominem attacks when you have a disagreement. Your little wikipedia edit tricks to put people off are despicable. You have no interest in debate, outside of name calling and shouting others down. You have made wikipedia a thoroughly unpleasant place for me, at least, over the past few days. I only hope that your behaviour has not escaped the attention of others. merlante 22:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to apologise for reverting the non-sense the article became. "Gateway cities" referenced or not are clearly not cities, in accordance with the law, please stop procrastrinating and misinforming. Misinformation is vandalism. Djegan 22:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Reading and quoting the constitution is not original research. Also read WP:POINT. Djegan 22:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • please stop slagging each other off. The simple solution to this barney is to restrict the article to only such material as can be verified. Cite your sources. If you can't cite it, don't include it. (See #Gateway cities below: I tried to find some formal legislation or regulation to support Merlante's position, in the aim of making peace, but I couldn't find it. But if Merlante can find a formal source (parish pump politicking won't do), then it absolutely must go in. --Red King 23:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have pulled together that last version by Merlante and the last version by Djegan, which were really not that far apart. All Merlante's verifiable material is there, Djegan's wikitable is more accessible than raw HTML tables. So you have both lost. Or both won. Whatever. On the scale of things, there are no dead children in the streets. --Red King 00:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done RK.It looks good. Can we also remove the {{disputed}} tag now?
Indeed, can we ditch it?
Red King, the issue of gateway cities was not the issue at the heart of this discussion. Far from it. It was just something I would have considered including as part of a longer, more discursive article. (See below.)
I am reasonably happy with what we've ended up with. I am not 100% happy with the single table, but because nobody has given me any support for the longer sort of article with the contextual lists that I was proposing, that's fine. Not sure about the 'Mayor' column though, but I am not going to start an edit war over that (since djegan does not compromise -- until forced to). I am happy with the note on city status, it is better than my one. :)
As a final note on this, assuming and hoping that this is over, I think that the approach that has been used to sort this debate out has been pretty poor. I suggested a new version of this article. It was reverted, stalled and vandalised. And similarly with the talk page. It seems like you can win and lose by attrition on wikipedia. At no point do people say, "ok lads, stop arguing between yourselves, we need a third party to go over things". As a result, I've had to spend a ludicrous amount of time on wikipedia, just to keep my views alive, and to respond to outlandish claims. I am quite sure that if I had been busier over the past week, the original article would have remained in situ, and probably would remain so forever. The solution was then for other contributors to 'have a stab' themselves: fair enough, it turned out okay, but basically there was never any consensus as such, and we could just as easily have ended up with 3 competing articles! Surely, some kind of arbitration could have been used, and surely week long shouting matches are not the way forward!
Now, as I accept the compromise that has been made, I expect also that djegan will too. I will be monitoring this article until the end of time. ;) And if I see that he is subtlely maneuvering or massaging the note on city status back to his own version over time, I will intervene. I would not put anything past him. He will note that I too could edit the note further in my direction if I so wanted, but I will not engage in such tactics. If things end here, I assume there is concensus for the note on city status, so I will be keeping a VERY close eye on it. (Against vandalism, not valid modifications, obviously.) merlante 08:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry merlante but you need to face the fact (and accept some responsibilty, not least) that why I intervened was because the article was substandard. Its as simple as that. If you feel that I have unduly injured you then be specific. Nobody, but you, challenged my insertion of the templates to indicate a dispute and original research and the version you proposed is not coming back. I have no problem with the version as of this morning. It is not what you proposed, no matter how you try to twist it.
Posturing or not. I reserve the right to contribute. Your comments have been duly noted. Read WP:POINT.
Djegan 10:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, some hopefully final comments. My article had a few issues, as with any other article that is basically new. You had a particular agenda in pointing out the mistakes (and non-mistakes) rather than trying to fix them, and that agenda was for a reversion to your version of the article. Since you ask, I don't appreciate Ad-hominem comments in arguments -- too often you attack the man and not the words.
I'm delighted you are happy with the latest version. I will bite my lip on seeing words like 'twist' in your parting line. You're a class act to be sure. Hopefully that will be that, and nobody will tempt me back with any smart comments. merlante 12:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gateway cities

A google search tells me that lots of politicians have used the phrase "gateway city in the National Spatial Strategy". But if you search the strategy itself(web site here), the term only occurs once as a description of the existing cities. The plan is very careful to refer to Sligo, Athlone, Wexford/Rosslare etc as "gateways and hubs" or "county towns". --Red King 23:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Gateways are defined here (and I'm sure other places) [14]. A reference to Sligo being called a gateway city in the media is here: [15]. An official reference to gateway status being said to apply city status to Dundalk is here: [16]. I was not for a moment suggesting that 'gateway city' was a legal term. I was merely suggesting that as part of a longer article on cities in Ireland that there would be a 'common usage' section, or even a common 'mis-usage section'. I had envisaged the sort of article that would settle disputes between people, i.e. Dundalk is a city, see the Dundalk chamber of commerce site, and of course it's impossible to discover what is propaganda and what isin't.
I'm happy enough not to have any reference to gateways in there though. Concensus has shown that there is no support for a larger, more discursive article. Or, at least, of the 3/4 people that have commented, nobody seemed particularly interested. merlante 08:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source needed for royal charters

Is there a source for this:

The six cities in the Republic of Ireland by ancient royal charter are Dublin, Kilkenny, Waterford, Cork, Limerick and Galway

becuase if there isn't, I'm a gonna delete it. Whether it's true or not it must be verifiable or it's gone. see WP:VER Curtains99 00:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The psychology of Irish city status

The discussion on this page reveals the tortured insecurity of some people unhappy to have been born in rural Ireland and desperately seeking to self-identify as urban. Designation of a town as a city is clearly not an exact science, so I took the trouble to email the Dean of overseas urban classification in Harvard.

Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 15:24:41 +0500
From: Dean's office <xxxx@harvard.edu>
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: Re: Cities of Ireland
Dear Dr Curtains
Many thanks for your missive regarding the exact classification of cities in Ireland.
I fully understand the urgency of your request and I have had my best men working on it.
It may surprise you to discover that the Republic of Ireland has barely one city, Dublin.
Indeed, Dublin only made city status on the basis of being a capital and which of us would
be cruel enough to tell a people that even its best attempt at urbanity was sub-urban?
In regards to the other locations mentioned, while not cities, these places do have agreed
designations as follows:
  • Cork SM/GA (Small minded / God-Awful)
  • Limerick VSH/NRF (violent shit-hole / No redeeming features)
  • Galway HIPI
  • Waterford SBT/QS (Single bridge town / quite scummy)
  • Kilkenny WTN? (where's that now?)
In the hope that we have been of some small help to you,
Yours etc.
The Dean

Curtains99 00:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Doctor" Curtains - I'm not sure your particular brand of sarcasm (humour?) is going to be well received by those contributors who obviously felt strongly about this. Guliolopez 10:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I doubt I have amused anyone beyond myself. I am amazed by a religious war breaking out over this topic. Curtains99 11:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If references are required then they will be supplied in due course. Djegan 18:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galway's "city" charter - oh dear!

Main article: History of Galway

The primary source - Hardiman's History of Galway covers all the charters except the murage charter of 1396. All of them refer to the "town of Galway", not the city!

This map of 1651 shows the walled Borough
This map of 1651 shows the walled Borough
  • 1484 Richard III This is the charter that Galway claims to be its city charter and after which the "Quincentenary" (500) Bridge and fountain are named.
  • 1545 Henry VIII
  • 1551 Edward VI
  • 1579 Elizabeth I
  • 1610 James I This one is probably the best because it explicitly makes Galway independent of its county. But just to make life entertaining, it grants Drogheda the same privileges!
  • 1676 Charles II This application was favorably received by the lord lieutenant; and accordingly the king, by charter, dated the 14th of August, 1676, ordained and granted that the town of Galway should, at all times, for ever thereafter, be one entire and free borough of itself, to be known by the name of the "town and borough of Galway;" and that the town, and all within two miles of it, in a direct line, should thenceforth be a county of itself, corporate and separate from the county of Galway, and be known by the name of the "county of the town of Galway;"

The fact that Galway never had a Cathedral does nothing to help its case. Your witness! --Red King 20:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. my feeling is that the latest request for verification may have set an impossible task. One that we can only stumble on. Notwithstanding the though that these places only became cities by an Act of the Oireachtas is fanciful at best; difficult to swollow or not these places became cities by a monarch who was not Irish. Djegan 21:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Galway City Council's web site, in its of teh City Council declares that the the 1484 Charter granted authority to appoint a mayor and that that makes it a city. However, the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act cancelled its charter. It asserts that the (Oireachtas) Local Government (Galway) Act reinstated it as a city. Article 4 of that Act reads

Formation of the Borough of Galway. 4.—On the appointed day the District shall become and be a municipal borough by the name of "The Borough of Galway" and as such Borough shall remain and be part of the administrative County of Galway in like manner as the District is now part of the said County.

So the assertion they make, and it throws a new light on the big debate above, is that a city in Irish Law is defined by the act that makes it a Borough. Is there a better definition? I think I've opened Pandora's Box! --Red King 21:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (scrubbed after better source at #Found it! below
Good work, Red King! My sincere apologies for making unfunny jokes and I promise to desist in future. I'm sure you've all read WP:VER, specifically this bit:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

So, I presume you accept that unverified statements may be deleted, regardless of their truth.
Curtains99 22:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Some hits on the Irish Statute Book [17], [18]. Djegan 22:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Found it!

The LOCAL GOVERNMENT (REORGANISATION) ACT, 1985 establishes Galway as a county borough explicitly refers to the "City (sic) Council" Article 6 declares

(2) On and from the appointed day there shall be a Galway City Council (elsewhere in this Part referred to as "the City Council") to fulfil the functions assigned to it by law and it shall consist of a Mayor and the same number of aldermen and councillors as did the Borough Council immediately prior to the appointed day, and the persons who were members of the Borough Council immediately prior to the appointed day shall on that day become and be the members of the City Council and shall in relation to the City Council, hold the same offices as they held, respectively, in relation to the Borough Council.

So the assertion they make, and it throws a new light on the big debate above, is that a city in Irish Law seems to be defined by the act that makes it a County Borough. Is there a better definition? I think I've opened Pandora's Box! --Red King 22:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Declaration of cities in Irish Law

Found another gem in the Local Government Act (2001). Article 10 says:

Local government areas. 10.— (1) On and from the establishment day and for the purposes of local government, the State has local government areas in accordance with this section. (2) The State continues to stand divided into local government areas to be known as counties and cities which are the areas set out in Parts 1 and 2, respectively, of Schedule 5. [...] (3) Within the county in which they are situated and of which they form part, there continue to be such other local government areas as are set out in Schedule 6 which— [...] (b) The boundaries of a city referred to in subsection (2) are the boundaries of the corresponding county borough as existing immediately before the establishment day.

and then Schedule 5 goes on to define Dublin, Waterford, Cork, Limerick and Galway as cities. I haven't yet found where it says that Kilkenny can call itself a city. --Red King 22:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Section 10, Para 6 (7) This section is without prejudice to the continued use of the description city in relation to Kilkenny, to the extent that that description was used before the establishment day and is not otherwise inconsistent with this Act. --Red King 22:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'primarily an issue' POV phrase?

Cities in the Republic of Ireland are primarily an issue of local goverment organisation, but six historic cities have the right to ceremonial usage.

Who says that cities in the ROI are primarily an issue of local government organisation? Can this be proved? Maybe cities are primarily defined by common usage. This is an unverifiable phrase and must go. Curtains99 22:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No. The Local Government Act 2001 says precisely that - see above. --Red King 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Would it be better to say something like

Legally, cities in the ROI are defined by The Local Government Act 2001

? As far as I can see, there are legal, ceremonial and common usage cities. I would have though that all should be described in this article to satisfy all readers. Curtains99 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
But what is "popular usage"? Why is it not simply PoV? By any international measure (excl USA where a no-horse town is a city), Sligo, Drogheda, Dundalk are nowhere near being cities. And do we rule out Athlone, Naas? Why? We have to stick to the legal definitions. Yes, it is galling that Newry is declared a city but who said that life had to be fair? --Red King 22:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you are right. Maybe common usage has no validity in this context. Common usage is used to determine correct naming of articles in wikipedia but this is not relevant here. I dunno. I am off to bed. Curtains99 23:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First line of this article is suspect

This is a list of the cities in Ireland.

If this is so then why does the article title not have the word list in it? Is this article an attempt at defining which towns in ireland qualify as cities under different definitions of a 'city in Ireland'? Also there are two lists in this article; one for ROI and one for NI. Curtains99 22:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the opening line, but you are right about the "ceremonial usage" bit - that is wrong and needs to change. I'll do it as soon as I source the assertion that Kilkenny is listed explicitly. --Red King 22:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Section 10, Para 6 (7) This section is without prejudice to the continued use of the description city in relation to Kilkenny, to the extent that that description was used before the establishment day and is not otherwise inconsistent with this Act. --Red King 22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Six cities have received royal charters

Did you not just show above that Galway did not receive a city charter? Curtains99 22:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. It certainly received a borough charter. I'll make a note that the jury is out. It doesn't look good - the judge is cleaning the dust off his black cap! --Red King 23:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the word 'citie' was always used back in those days. I suggest that until someone can say definitively one way or another that it was or wasn't always used, that the Galway charter be considered to indicate city. County borough or borough is what was used more consistently, I think, although I could be wrong. 'City' only came (back -- if it had been there before) into administrative use with the Local Government Act 2001, I think. Was there ever a town or village charter? I don't think so. I think the article was fine the way it was (before the Galway edit). We're in danger of going over board here I think. Merlante 15:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, 300 years prior to Galway's borough charter, Cork was granted a city charter which did indeed use the word 'city'...

I have granted and given, and by this my charter confirm, to the citizens of Cork all the fields held of my city of Cork and the ground on which the city is, now. for my benefit to increase the strength of the citizens. This is to them and their heirs to hold of me and my heirs, and to remain in frank burgage, by such custom and rent as the burgesses of Bristol, in England pay yearly for their burgages; and to secure my city of Cork I grant this to the same my citizens of Cork all the laws, franchises, and customs or freight which are in Bristol on whatsoever sails. And firmly commanding that the aforesaid my citizens of Cork and their heirs and their successors have the aforesaid city of Cork of me and my successors as is aforesaid, and have all the laws and franchises and frank customs of Bristol; and as those were wont to be used and written in my court and in my hundred of Cork, and in all business. And I forbid that any wrong or hindrance be given to the aforesaid laws and franchises, which gift from us are given and granted

Curtains99 22:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so 'city' in mentioned in one Cork charter. Even if it is mentioned in all Cork charters, that still doesn't mean it was used in all charters -- perhaps other words like 'borough' were occasionally used to mean city? Siting examples where is was used does not prove anything. Besides, the terminology may have changed over the centuries. I think we need an expert on city charters to answer this one.
I have to say though, I didn't think they had different types of town in the middles ages. I thought they had just cities and small towns/villages/settlements (that didn't require local government). I would be surprised if there were cities as well as other things called boroughs. Can anyone clarify? Merlante 16:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I think this brings us back to the fundamental problem with this article: there are differing definitions of what makes a town a city and without explaining these definitions and then listing which towns meet each definition, we are shoehorning several lists into one. Curtains99 21:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I said before it was a shoehorning exercise, which is I why suggested lists by context. In any case, opinions on towns and cities are irrelevant, these things are defined in the Local Government Act 2001 (and other documents). We decide only how to talk about them. What we need here is an expert in medieval charters, simply because we speak a version of English from a different era. None of us here know for sure what exactly was meant at the time by 'city' and 'borough'. But that doesn't mean that nobody knows -- there are experts out there.
My humble suggestion was that in the absence of such expertise, I think it might be fairer in the interrim to say that Galway's city status was conferred by charter. I don't know what else a medieval city/town charter would confer otherwise. Merlante 11:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you mostly. Yes we are lacking expertise in understanding the significance of medieval charters, but is the primary purpose of this article not to list cities in Ireland in 2006? Of secondary importance would be the history of city status in Ireland. Charters may be granted and withdrawn, or in the case of Ireland, may be replaced by a new administration (the Irish government replaced the monarch and UK government). A charter is an ephemeral constitution for a town and not an eternal definition of status. Note that Rochester does not feature in a list of cities in the UK having recently lost its royal charter. Similarly, Babylon does not appear in the list of cities in Iraq.
You point out that the word 'city', 'borough' and 'town' are likely to have had different meaning in medieval times form their definitions today, but does this not underline the pointlessness of comparing a city now to a city then? How can we say that a city traces its status to a charter hundreds of years ago when the definition of a city has changed so much in the interim?
As regards the medieval definitions of town, borough and charter, here is a link with some relevant discussion. Here the author suggests that there is no clear agreement over what constituted a town in the middle ages and that various contradictory perspectives are commmonly used. I would prefer if the charter stuff were relegated to a subsection rather than clogging up the list of currently legally constituted cities with a load of historical footnotes. In other words, I would favour a return to the earlier structure of the article with two lists, the first containing current cities in Ireland (including Kilkenny with a footnote), the second list containing towns with charters, clearly indicating it was of historical interest only. Curtains99 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Well you'll get no argument from me on that one, given that I was the one who introduced the two lists. :) Merlante 21:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cities in Northern Ireland

There's been a short discussion on City status in the United Kingdom's talk page about whether cities in the Republic of Ireland should be included in that article. One of my suggestions was a combined 'Britain and Ireland' article. Another was two articles, one on the U.K. and the other on the Republic of Ireland. As these two suggestions would both affect this article (and as other suggestions also have implications about what should be included in this article) I thought it only fair to raise the issue on this talk page. Surely though it is unsatisfactory to duplicate material on two separate articles, because then whatever of the duplicate material is edited in the one has to be edited simultaneously in the other.GSTQ 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To me it is not unsatisfactory to have duplicated information, even if that does lead to double edits. There are only 5 or cities in NI so it would only require change when there was something that affected one of these. Otherwise we get into an unproductive discussion about whether such articles should be delimited by geography or politics. Who would benefit from such an abstract discussion? Real users of Wikipedia? I doubt it. If you wish to include NI cities in the UK article then you should do so. But please don't suggest it would be inappropriate to also list them here. Frelke 13:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

All other articles on "Cities in ..." are delimited by politics. It's not an abstract discussion. It's one that affects the content of articles, particularly this one and the U.K. article. Your statement that edits would only be required when something affected one of the five Northern Irish cities is misguided. Edits are often required to improve an article, even when nothing has happened to affect the topics it describes. I have suggested a merger of this page and the U.K. one, which would benefit users of Wikipedia in that they would have a single article which would be capable of covering the similarities and differences of city status in the two islands throughout their history. Nobody has responded to that suggestion. Should I take it that nobody would care if I did merge the pages? By the way, I would suggest that all discussions about content of articles are (or at least are capable of being) productive. Why else do we have talk pages?GSTQ 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

People are very often interested in 'Cities in Ireland' in particular, and it would not serve them well to have to find the information in this article in a much larger article. Also, to state the obvious, the Irish Republic is a separate jurisdiction, with different local government law entirely, so there should at least be a separate article for cities in the republic. Although I accept that currently, the article is geographical as opposed to political. Merlante 07:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I take it that unless Frelke or anyobody else has any more to say the consensus is that this article should be about cities in the Republic only. I'll wait a day for any comments anyone wants to make and then in default of anything else I'll make the necessary changes.GSTQ 22:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, my reading is that there is no consensus here at all - indeed, User:Frelke and User:Merlante appear to be supporting the status quo. I abstain myself as I'm not a regular editor of this page, however I don't really see any major problem with such limited duplication of content in two articles. Cheers, DWaterson 22:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, DWaterson, I was using the term "consensus" very loosely, to mean "consensus by all those who are (presuming no subsequent discussion takes place within a day or so) continuing to contribute to the discussion in question". I don't want to be too bold, but I'm not going to be too timid about edits either. If we waited until all contributors to a discussion indicated their agreement on a talk page then hardly any edits would get made. My reading of Merlante's post, however, is that "there should at least be a separate article for cities in the republic". How do you read the status quo into that? As for duplication, well, even if you're not convinced about that being a justification for elimination of material, what about the pattern followed in all other articles called "cities in ..." being political?GSTQ 23:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I was reading from Merlante's first sentence, "it would not serve them well to have to find the information in this article in a much larger article" (ie a merged article with City status in the United Kingdom). That reads to me as the status quo. Their second line, "there should at least be a separate article for cities in the republic", implies a second (third?) article, not a change to this one. Perhaps Merlante could elucidate for us? :-) Cheers, DWaterson 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If there is a proposal for a merge, it should be marked using {{merge}} template. If there is a proposal for something else, can someone please make very clear what that proposal is. Is it to rename/move this article? Is it to remove the information about NI cities from this article? And waiting a day for either of those things - both of which are controversial - is hardly a way to gain consensus. Personally I don't see any problem with leaving things as they are. Neither do I have any problem with including the list of 6 cities in the UK article, although I would suggest that it might be useful to also include an xref to here. But I have yet to hear any convincing argument for a move or deletion. Frelke 12:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
My current proposal is for deletion of Northern Irish cities from this article & moving this article to "Cities in the Republic of Ireland".
Reason one: it tallies with the pattern of "Cities in ..." articles all being based on political entities. If you look at the list of cities by country, "Cities in Ireland" is marked with an Irish tricolour, which is representative of what you'd expect from all the other articles listed there. Rather than add a Union Jack next to the link, why not make the article fit the expectation of the reader?
Reason two: this article does discuss city status in the Republic. There is no discussion, however, of the situation in Northern Ireland, indeed there is not even any discussion here of those cities in Northern Ireland which were cities before partition. The N.I. section of this article is just a stub, and it looks like an afterthought.
Reason three: the problem of double-editing articles is pretty well borne out by the fact that two dicussions are currently taking place on two different talk page articles about essentially the same thing. It is not the easiest thing to keep track of both, and you can never be sure if everyone contributing has read both discussions. The same thing will happen in the future about edits to the Northern Irish sections of each article.GSTQ 22:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify what my views are. I think it is 'nice' from an Irish point of view to leave the status quo, because people can take view Irish cities in an all-Ireland context. Many people associate with 'Ireland the island' as opposed to merely 'Ireland the republic', for various reasons. However, I do accept that the status quo involves duplication, and it also involves making the 'cities in Ireland' article more geographically orientated, whereas, judging from what has been said, most of these articles tend to be politically orientated. If the Irish article really jars in this respect, then it is probably correct to make it a 'Republic of Ireland' article. Where this is not really the case (that it really jars), I'd be in favour of maintaining the status quo, since the article is not huge and perhaps info on UK cities status could link to the UK article rather than be repeated.
In any case, if the decision is between merging the Ireland and UK articles or changing the Ireland to a Republic of Ireland article, I would choose the latter. Merlante 23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Given that we don't use Cities in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, nor Cities in the Republic of France, Cities in the Federal Republic of Germany, nor even Cities in the Libyan Socialist Peoples Arab Jamariyah, why do you think we should change the Ireland page to Cities in the Republic of Ireland. There is already a major outbreak of edit-warring on the Republic of Ireland article for very similar POV reasons. Whenever anyone asks me where I am from, I reply "Ireland" and everyone understands exactly where I am coming from. The name of the political entity is Ireland, so the name of the cities page should be Cities in Ireland. Although on WP we currently have the article for the political entity at Republic of Ireland the MOS for Ireland related topics suggest that in most instances that should be piped to Ireland and this is done across a huge number of Ireland-related articles. Moving the article will achieve nothing except another useless bout of POV edit warring and flaming on the talk pages. People who use WP are not going to be helped by moving the article. We are not going to hear a huge sigh of relief across the WP user base as people say "Phew. Finally I can allow my children to use Wikipedia now that the Irish cities article is at Cities in the Republic of Ireland". Its unnecessary, meaningless and useless.
If you want to include the cities in NI on the UK page then do so. We could even add at the top of the NI section
Main article: Cities in the United Kingdom#Northern Ireland
And why not add a para expalining what extra information is available over there, say ...
Further detail on the cities of Northern Ireland can be found on the UK list, including vast quantities of information on city status, history and 360° Google Earth flybys.
or whatever. That way we can abide by the WP standard of keeping duplication to the minimum necessary to be useful to the user. The users are the people that matter here, not the editors. And users will expect all the cities on the island of Ireland to be listed on a page entitled Cities in Ireland. And that is the correct title for the page. Frelke 07:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I think your interpretation of the Manual of Style's suggestion is a bit self-serving, Frelke. Here is what it actually says:
"A large number of Republic of Ireland towns and villages (and other types of articles too) state that they are in Ireland, not Republic of Ireland in the opening paragraph. This is misleading as it creates the impression that Ireland is one state. A compromise has been proposed at WP:IWNB that the form "is a town on the coast of County Cork, Ireland" should be used. This is already widely used and will allow it to appear as Ireland whilst linking to Republic of, as per Follow_local_conventions."
Now that is the proposed convention for introductory paragraphs for town articles. It says nothing about other articles. I think we've got a good analogy with List of towns in the Republic of Ireland - just see where List of towns in Ireland takes you - do you think we should have the same set-up for "Cities in Ireland" just being a disambiguation page?
Your analogies with France and Germany are false. Those countries' names do not give rise to ambiguity. A better analogy would be with List of cities in the People's Republic of China and List of cities in the Republic of China (Taiwan) or List of cities in the Republic of the Congo and List of cities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Your point about the name of the state being Ireland, while valid in Irish constitutional law, is contradicted by your own assertion when you say that "users will expect all the cities on the island of Ireland to be listed on a page entitled Cities in Ireland". The description Republic of Ireland is routinely used to avoid ambiguity both within and without the Republic. And needless to say, the 1948 Act has no legal force outside the Republic. The Republic's legal name in the United Kingdom, and thus in Northern Ireland, is Republic of Ireland (or Eire): see the Ireland Act 1949.
No other article in the list of cities by country is listed by island rather than by political entity. Ireland is anomalous in this respect to what appears to be the house style in this area. Even more anomalously and misleadingly, the list shews an Irish tricolour next to the link to Ireland.
I am not going to reply to your "unnecessary, meaningless and useless", "not helping the user", "sigh of relief", "para explaining... Google earth flybys" and "children sleeping at night" comments. If you have something rational to say, please say it without the fluff.GSTQ 23:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
No one has (yet) suggested that there should be a Cities in Northern Ireland article, which is why the List of towns stuff and the Congo/China stuff is irrelevant. The Congo and China articles all need unambiguous article titles because there are 2 of each. What was proposed here was that there would be an Ireland article and a UK article. No need for puffed up articles titels to dab those is there? The term Republic of Ireland is not used routinely except in the U.K. Its a piece of POV. Go anywhere else in the English speaking world and people use Ireland It doesn't matter a damn what the countries legal name is in the UK or NI. Thats not what decides the WP name. Fortunately WP looks a little wider than that.
If you want to ignore WP's raison d'etre - the readers - in favour of a particular group of editors POV then by all means feel free to do so. Just don't expect to be successful in persuading the rest of us of the validity of your case.
BTW, can we please have a recap on exactly what the proposal is again. Is it that there should be a Cities in Northern Ireland article? Frelke 06:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Recap: my proposal is to remove Northern Irish cities from this article & to move this article to "Cities in the Republic of Ireland".
By saying that the country's name is "Ireland" are you saying "yes we should remove the N.I. cities because they're not in Ireland (defined as the Republic of Ireland)"? That's a pretty eccentric position to hold. If, instead, you're actually saying "No we should make this article anomalous by basing it on a geographical entity rather than a political one" then I think that's a result which confuses rather than informs the reader. Either way, I don't see where the POV accusations are coming from. I've declared my hand on my userpage. I expect a little good faith in return.GSTQ 22:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well there doesn't appear to be consensus in the strict sense of the term, but nobody has contributed to this discussion since my latest post a week ago. Any further posts?GSTQ 03:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I had missed your earlier reply. I thought you had gone quiet. Can I clarify what my position is then:
  1. That the title should remain at Cities in Ireland.
  2. That the page should list ALL cities in Ireland.
  3. That any other page that wants to list some or all of the cities can list them.
HTH Frelke 07:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I say leave it as it is. We can have ontological arguments all day, but having an 'Ireland' article, I would argue, makes sense to 'most' people, and having that article refer to the island of Ireland, I would argue, is what most people expect to see, or at least is a superset of what most people expect to see; the article does after all give the political context. Legally, and in normal speech, the label 'Ireland' is ambiguous, but it is not meaningless. That fact that it is meaningful to so many, and the fact that the article is not problematic to maintain in its current form, leads me to say that I think we should leave it in the current format, but perhaps add a note, explaining the geographical/political scope of the article, particularly for those familiar with similar articles elsewhere on wikipedia that are familiar with a mainly political treatment of the subject (although surfers of 'cities in ...' articles are likely to be in the extreme minority of those viewing the article). Merlante 09:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded, for three reasons, overlapping in some respects.

  1. The discussion on this page centres on cities in the Republic & ignores cities in the North. The current stub section on N.I. is not warranted given this topic is covered much better in the U.K. article.
  2. This article is anomalously based on a geographical rather than political entity, and yet the content of the article shews a strong bias towards cities in one political entity rather than another. In other words, the content doesn't justify the anomaly.
  3. If we were to address the imbalance in the article then there would be unnecessary duplication, which follows directly from the fact that if you base almost all articles on a political entity, and then base one on a geographical entity, it's bound to create an overlap because geographical boundaries don't follow political ones.

How about we put in a request for comment, and see if we can get one or more outside views? If either position is based on a POV position, then the outside opinion consensus is likely to be all one way. If it's not a clear-cut question, then the topic would benefit from more discussion from disinterested editors.GSTQ 22:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your first reason seems to ignore the point made by bothMerlante and I, that anyone coming to a Cities in Ireland would expect to see, at least, the (linked) names of ALL cities in Ireland. The average user would expect that. Pehaps you would disagree with that contention? The reason that this article ignores (as you see it) cities in NI, is because those who have an interest in those cities and their status have not got any meaningful content to add, or if they do, they have added it on the UK page. I have already suggested adding a {{main}} template to point readers to all the extra content. It is a very useful editiorial device, that template.
The article, as has been pointed out to you many times, is not based on a geographical entity. It is based on the political entity of the country of Ireland. Ireland is one of those places where language, terminology and symbolism cause huge disruption, discussion and debate. If you really want to engage in that debate, it is at its fiercest right now over on the talk page. I'm sure they would welcome another voice in the debate, especially one as knowledgeable as yours. As a sideline, the country and the island of Ireland share a name, if not a land mass, and the political distinctions can be somewhat hard to comprehend for many people. To that end, as a service to readers, we include a short list of the cities of Northern Ireland on this page so that the reader can find a handy set of links to 'ALL the cities on the island in one place. I hope that helps to explain the situation.
You have suggested the article is imbalanced. Well there are many ways to address that without unnecessary duplication. The template suggestion above is one. Moving the NI list to the bottom of the article is another - although I don't doubt that such an act would be seen by some as Republican POV. There is a huge amount of overlap in an encyclopaedia like this. Most of it is for the good. This is such a case. It is in no way devaluing WP.
I cannot stop you doing an RFC but if you do it the reviewer will need to be aware of the delicate balance that exists in Ireland related articles. That balance is "negotiated" amongst the regular contributors and achieves its on stability. Having an uninvolved eye impose a solution will not be helpful. Frelke 09:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
GSTQ, your argument is basically that the current article is unbalanced (top heavy toward the republic) and that in balancing it there would be too much duplication. I don't see any problem with balancing it as Frelke says with a template suggestion or linking to the main article, which would cause no additional duplication.
You have not commented on whether or not the 'Cities in Ireland' article gives the information that most users expect to see, which I believe it does (as well as clarifying the scope of both jurisdictions). In any case, it is a fact that Ireland is used to refer both to the republic and to the island as a whole, and regardless of whether you think people should be searching for 'Cities in the Republic of Ireland' or not, people will continue to seek out an article called 'Cities in Ireland', either because they live in (rep. of) Ireland and are in the habit of referring to the country as Ireland, are nationalists north or south that take an all-Ireland view, or, more importantly in terms of numbers of visitors, are people from the wider world that know that there is a place called 'Ireland', but have only a scant idea, if any, about the jurisdictions on the island. Merlante 10:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure you can't stop me putting a request for comment, I was just kind of hoping you'd be happy for someone without an interest in the whole Irish situation to comment on this specific article. You shouldn't be just saying "this is to do with the whole Irish conflict" and throw a smokescreen down. Every facet of Ireland needs individual treatment, that is what an encyclopaedia is about. As for the article being "based on the political entity of the country of Ireland"; frankly, no it's not. The Republic of Ireland does not exert sovereignty over Northern Ireland, and yet those cities are being included in this article regardless. So it is not based on a political entity. As for what people would expect to see on this article, unless it's renamed, they ought to expect to see a disambiguation page just like List of towns in Ireland. Whether the main article for N.I. be Cities in Northern Ireland or Cities in the United Kingdom is really immaterial as far as whether they should be included in this article. I'd say this is going to be my last post on this topic, I really can't be bothered if editors are going to say "I disagree with your view because it's biassed" and then say "Nobody who isn't familiar with Ireland can make a worthwhile comment on this article". Because by saying both of those, you're really saying "The view I am espousing is the only unbiassed informed view on this article". It's just a rhetorical attempt to shut down the argument while sidelining the issues by saying there's no possible way of judging the right (except yours, of course). The encyclopaedia is worse off for it. That's all.GSTQ 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)