Talk:Ireland/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

Archived talk

I've moved the old talk page to an archive in anticipation of using the talk page during collaboration week. If I shouldn't have done that, commence yelling at me now. —Rory ☺ 17:10, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

I think its time for another archive, if any one has and oblections, such as some of the issues on this page are still on going then say so, I'll do it on Monday or Tuesday. Fabhcún 16:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

list of topics

  • A recent list of topics has appeared after the Literature and the arts section (most likely with good intentions) - I think this should be removed or moved to other relevant articles (i.e. those in the form Main article: XXX of Ireland linked under the headings) - the List of Ireland-related topics is a more appropriate place for these links - otherwise it is a matter of time before the article and list begin to compete and everything irish gets bunged into the bottom of the article - i rememeber before the list of ireland-related topics was created (i created it) and every article that had the name "ireland" in it had a haphazard list of duplicated items - the ireland articles should not return to this and should just be paragraphs, pictures and links and no lists of topics Djegan 19:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, removed it. What should we do with the footnote and some photos sections? Filiocht 07:57, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • I'd favour removing the footnote and the photos section. Some or all of those photos should still be used in the article at relevant places, but not in a dedicated photo section. —Rory ☺ 11:07, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
        • I agree, and am about to remove the footnote, the photos can wait until there is more article to use them on, I think. Filiocht 11:12, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Put back the beautiful satellite photo!

That satellite picture is beautiful, and perfect for this article. The new map with physicial features and text is not very attractive. I'm not saying it should be deleted, but the first picture at the top of Ireland should be the satellite photo. Evertype 15:59, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

It's difficult fitting it all in! I hope the current arrangement is satisfactory though! zoney ♣ talk 17:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It was all much better before that labelled map got put in. I'd revert to that; the labelled map can go on the Geography page. Evertype 22:27, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Well, I think it's all OK for now. The current labelled map is actually a replacement for the full scale labelled map that was originally inserted. zoney ♣ talk 22:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it rather untidy. I remember previous versions being lovely. Evertype 23:29, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

On my browser, the satellite map overlaps the Table of Contents. I think maybe some of these long section headings need to be shortened. --JW1805 20:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Now that the image and the Table of Contents have been resized, the image is totally stretched - is there any way of keeping the TOC in its smaller form and changing the image back to the way it was? Would this solve the problem for lower resolution screens? Cormaggio 16:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I've just tried removing the 200px tag from the image and it's still stretched in the preview - does this make any sense? Cormaggio 17:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Making it 201px seems to fix the problem. Very odd, some sort of Wiki bug, I think. --JW1805 18:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Fantastic! Well done! Cormaggio 18:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC) PS - the rest of the page is displaying very strangely, ie table of photos with Dev et al and Shaw et al - is this a result of the renaming of section headers or what?

Ulster Scots

With all due respect, do we really need that Airlann? There are more Chinese speakers in Ulster than Scots or Irish speakers. Evertype 23:31, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Agreed, only terms with an official recognised status should be used - an article is not the place for every translation of a term- in such cases link to (or start) a wikipedia project in that language for the article. Djegan 09:41, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ulster Scots does indeed have an "official recognised status". I see nothing wrong with having two translations listed, especially since both Irish and Ulster Scots are recognised under the Belfast Agreement. This article is about the whole island, remember?--Kwekubo 23:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My opinion of Ulster-scots, is, well, low. But regardless I think having it there is a bit pointless - its not a language spoken by even a measurable amount of people in the country. And under the GFA its only Partially recognised and not Fully recognised anyway Kiand 23:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Which of the two translations are official, this is what is important? The words "Eire" and "Erin" mean the same thing - "Ireland" but one is official whilst the other is not and this term has a sense of nostalgia about it and would be inappropriate for any professional article - lets not include a term just for the sake of completeness. Similarily in the Northern Ireland article which translation is official, if any? Djegan 23:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Airlann is made up nonsense. Its a phonetically dubious spelling of Ireland. Any Ulster Scots speaker would pronounce Ireland as they do in their accent. Reduction of nd to n is wide-spread in Ulster English, the quality of the initial diphthong no doubt differs from area to area. None of this can linguistically justify the spelling Airlann - except in a rather sad attempt to imply Ulster Scots differs from English more than it really does. No Ulster English speakers feel the need to write Eyerlann. Gregg gave the phonetic transcription ['@irl@n] (Sampa) for Ulster Scots speakers in Antrim. Looks very much like the local accent for Ireland.

This article does not deal with the Irish state or Northern Ireland, but with the whole island of Ireland. I personally find the status of Ulster Scots dubious, but following an NPOV it must be said that the Belfast Agreement is the only really relevant piece of legislation with regard to the officiality of Ulster Scots and Irish on an all-island basis. That Agreement gave rise directly to the rendering 'Airlann', which is used in official contexts; therefore, it may be taken as an official name for this purpose. --Kwekubo 22:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does the agreement really give any officialness on either language, i have read it but have yet to find the form of words that gives effect? With the greatest of respect it is very easy for agreements to vaguely word to "respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity...all of which are part of the cultural wealth" but this, in itself, does not not place any official status on either language. Theirfore i must conclude that their has not been as of yet evidence of officiality in any part of Britain or Ireland. Djegan 23:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland. (From the Belfast Agreement) Evertype July 1, 2005 17:09 (UTC)

Great Britain v. Britain

Great Britain is the full correct name of the island. In this context Britain sounds unencyclopediac. In case anyone is not aware the "Great" part is there for complicated historical reasons and is not a claim that it is a "great" or nice place to live. 213.202.166.65 23:07, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree. Great Britain is not imperialistic, but comes from the fact that the whole Hiberno-Britannic archipelago was originally called Britannia by the Romans, and Great Britain was the largest out of the islands. See Great Britain. --Kwekubo 23:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I am writing in disappointment about the use of the term "British Isles" regarding page on the Island of Ireland.

Only in modern times has the term "British Isles" entered the English language. Because the 'British Isles' include the whole of Ireland, as well as three crown dependencies which are not a part of the United Kingdom, the term is a source of potential confusion or offense.

Today the term British is usually used to describe people of things belonging to either Great Britain or the United Kingdom. However the whole the island of Ireland, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey are still commonly included in the 'British Isles', despite the fact that the greater part of Ireland has, since 1922, been independent of the UK as the Republic of Ireland, and that the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey are not a part of UK but crown dependencies.

The term British Isles is no longer used in Irish state documents, has been abandoned in schoolbooks in the Republic of Ireland and is being phased out of textbooks. Its usage is also decreasing in official British state documents.

I would rather see ambiguous phrases such as "these Isles" or "the Isles" as more appropriate. Maybe the "irish Isles"

The descriptor British Isles, as used in Wikipedia and elsewhere, is really politically neutral. It is commonly used to describe geography (the Islands) and does not imply political control or ownership. I can see the potential for confusion, but with all due respect to Wikipedians this is not a matter that is for us to solve! So whilst the correct collective geographic descriptor for the islands of Great Britain; Ireland; the Isle of Man; Orkney; Shetland; and the Channel Islands remains the "British Isles" we should continue to use the description (albeit pointing out that there are some who are uncomfortable with this!) PaddyBriggs 16:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

As an Irishman I cannot think of a term more political than that of the "British Isles". It is insulting to our intelligence to claim it as not being political.

Irish

I removed the paragraph "as Gaeilge", as this is the English Wikipedia, so anything beyond a phrase or word or two of another language is too much. There is actually an Irish-language Wikipedia. If someone wants to merge what they can from the text below into ga:Éire they can.

Ainmníter Éire uaireanta "Oileán an Smaragaid". Ta Inis Fóla (no Éireann) suite siar o Mór- roinn na hEorpa, agus in aice leis an Breatain Mór. Is "Inis Fóla", (Éireann as gaeilge, Airlann as Scots na hUladh) an tríu oileán is mór sa hEorpa. Ta sé ar an taobh thiar den farraige gaelach cóngarach leis an Bhreatain Mor. Ta se comhdeanta as Poblacht na hÉirinn sa deisceart is 'an Tuaisceart', ceantar den Ríoga Aontaithe. Is daonra na hOileáin 5.6 milliúin daoine. Sháraigh Daonra na Poblachta 4 milliúin le déanai don cead uair o 1871, mar gheall ar inimirce agus ráta nís airde bhreithe.

zoney ♣ talk 14:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History

May I suggest that the majority of the history section be moved to History of Ireland? The version on this page should only be an outline, with the in-depth information at the main article. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 01:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is supposed to *be* a summary. It's not very "efficient" though, and *perhaps* too long (bear in mind the amount it has to at least mention). But I agree it needs a complete rework - it is too in-depth in places, but also uneven (some periods perhaps need couple more sentences). zoney ♣ talk 19:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this section is far to long. Look at the brief history sections of most country articles for comparison. There seems to be new information that could be usefully merged with History of Ireland. That article still has big gaps. Iota 18:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The history section really is a mess. For the 20th century 1922 comes before 1916! The sections need to be short enough to be easily readable but accurate enough so that the reader, if they never read another article on Ireland, would have some idea about what are the key bits. The current versions are next to useless.

I've tackled the 19th century one, which was appalling. It has a big (dubious propaganda) chunk about the famine, and nothing else. I wrote a longer section, then edited it down so that it mentions in a line or two the key bits

  • Act of Union
  • Catholic Emancipation, Repeal and O'Connell
  • The Famine
  • Parnell and Home Rule
  • nationalists and unionists
  • Physical force rebellions
  • land reform
  • poverty in Dublin

You simply cannot mention the 19th century without mentioning the two biggest politicians (O'Connell & Parnell), the big issues (Union, Emancipation, repeal, home rule, land reform), the big event (the Famine). etc.Taken together they should give a fair overall picture of the key bits of the century. If you don't have them you don't have anything worth including at all. They make up a three minute guide to the 19th century.

The twentieth century needs to mention in a line or two

  • failure of home rule
  • 1916 Rising
  • First Dáil and War of Independence
  • Partition
  • The Treaty & The Free State
  • de Valera & the Emergency
  • declaration of the Republic
  • 1960s reforms under Lemass, Whittaker
  • The troubles
  • Belfast Agreement
  • Celtic Tiger.

Again together they give a short guide to 20th century Ireland. If they aren't mentioned, there is no point having a section on the period at all. FearÉIREANN 23:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Ulster

Although it is true to say that Ulster's borders have varied over time, the modern day situation (one that has remained so for some time before partition) is that Ulster comprises nine counties, Northern Ireland plus Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan. This is not only still the case today, but has a long tradition also.

The term "Ulster" for Northern Ireland is thus not accurate at all. It remains a source of great mirth for many in the Republic when one hears Northern politicians speaking of "Ulster says No" etc.!

zoney ♣ talk 11:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Hi Zoney, I will agree with you that Ulster is the name of an ancient area of Ireland defined by the Anglo-Normans in its 9-county form. I will also agree that it may be used in certain modern day contexts to mean 9 counties (read on).

However, if you were to use the word “Ulster” in a sentence when talking to someone in Northern Ireland today, I very much doubt that they would think that you were talking about 9 counties, unless you were using it in a certain context (see below). I also doubt that using Ulster to mean six counties is solely a unionist terminology, as claimed in certain edits. The word “Ulster” is almost always used to refer to Northern Ireland in many sections of the local and international media, and not 9 counties. Therefore I think that in modern usage, Ulster to mean 6 counties is actually a much more accurate and relevant definition. It is not wrong, neither is the 9 county Ulster definition, depending upon the context of use.

The 9 county Ulster has, as added by another contributor, no modern political or administrative significance. The only context in which I can see it being frequently used in Northern Ireland is in relation to the GAA (considered by some as a sectarian organisation). About 5 years ago I would have also said that 9 county Ulster was also significant for the Ulster rugby team; however, the Ulster rugby team is now a club and the 9 county boundary is no longer relevant.

The term Ulster is not only used by Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland. Examples: Ulsterbus, Radio Ulster, Ulster Televison (though this is now cross-border), Ulster Tatler, Ulster Bank, Ulster Unionist Party, Ulster Orchestra, University of Ulster, Ulster Medical Society, Enterprise Ulster, Ulster Cancer Foundation, Ulster Wildlife Trust, Ulster Hospital. I could go on…

You also state that “the modern day situation (one that has remained so for some time before partition)”. How is the time before partition modern? The border in Ireland has existed for over 80 years – it’s one of the longest standing borders in Europe! (cf other countries after WWII, breakdown of Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia etc.)

I also assumed that people in the Republic associated the term more often with 9 counties. However, a recent experience of mine showed the opposite. I was talking to some girls from the Republic who were in Belfast. I asked them where they were from and they replied “Cavan”. I then remarked in a friendly fashion “It’s good to meet some fellow people from Ulster” (referring to the 9-county Ulster of course). I then got a very dirty look from one who replied “We’re not from Ulster; we’re from the Republic of Ireland”.

Alexmc 23 Mar 2005

I agree with Zoney. Ulster, objectively, is simply a geographic unit of 9 counties and nothing else. Both communities in Northern Ireland use language to 'claim' words and define them to promote their version of history, just as the gay community has claimed and attempted to redefine the word 'queer' with a less offensive, less provocative and less homophobic meaning. Nationalists use the literally accurate 'North of Ireland' as a name of the Northern state or than a description of the geographic location of Northern Ireland, because 'North of Ireland' links the state to the south and so implicitly denies that state's link to Britain. They also use '6 counties' again to link it to the 32 counties for exactly the same reason. Unionists talk about 'the mainland' (as does Albert Reynolds in his linguistically challenged speaking sometimes) to symbolically link Northern Ireland with the UK. Except of course that it is geographic bunkum. Northern Ireland is a co-equal part of the UK so neither GB nor NI can claim to be the other's mainland, while NI most definitely is not part of GB (Great Britain was formed in 1707 with the merger of Scotland with the already singularly governed England and Wales), so GB cannot be its mainland.

However words like 'queer', 'north of Ireland', 'Six counties' or even 'mainland' can in some way be redefined because they are either literally true (n of i or 6 c) or are have no other unambiguous meaning. They are simply laying claim to a word to claim it and have as much right to use it as anyone else. 'Ulster' however is fundamentally different. It has a meaning going back millennia. It exists in ancient maps from the middle ages, in legal documents, in Acts of the old Irish, English, Great British and United Kingdom parliaments. From documents in parchment in the Victoria Tower in Westminster to ancient maps and in hundreds of other sources, it meant the northern province of the island of Ireland. Historically its boundaries may have shifted slightly, but nowhere did it ever refer to the unit that is now Northern Ireland.

What happened there was simple. Unionists originally never wanted a separate Northern state (Carson cried when he heard of the plan!). It was literally a phoney creation manufactured temporarily to separate predominantly nationalist and predominantly unionist parts of the island, for fear that if they weren't separated they would fight a civil war. No-one in the British government expected the state to be anything but a temporary solution to keep the two sides apart - they hoped the Council of Ireland would be an embryonic all-Ireland parliament, hence the Lord Lieutenant in the Government of Ireland Act being chief executive in both Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. But like all artificial states created it developed its own momentum and self-identity and today it is as valid as any other state on the planet. And like new states with no historic existence, its governing elite sought to create some supposed historic and cultural ancestry for itself. "Ulster" was a natural name to claim, given that it covers most of the ancient province. The only problem was that "Ulster" already had a clearly defined widely accepted meaning.

Cultural icons associated with the state, as part of this process, also adopted the name. Some of them were seen at the start as supportive of unionism. UTV in the 1970s was seen within the broadcasting as more unionist than BBC Northern Ireland (a broadcasting version of the Belfast Newsletter). Others did so for practical reasons - Northern Ireland would have been alkward to say in their title (try saying New University of Northern Ireland rather than New University of Ulster - its original title, though the 'new' has been dropped). Ulster Orchestra again was easier on the tongue than Northern Ireland Orchestra. Many companies had had senior executives with senior links to the UUP, certainly at the time when power was in government, and the UUP was in power. The Ulster in the Ulster Unionist Party does not refer to the 6 counties, but the full 9 county province; it had branches and members in Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan when it started. But with the appearance of Northern Ireland it focused on the new state, with southern unionists and non-Northern Ireland Ulster unionists drifting into Cumann na nGaedhael, the National Centre Party or remaining associated with the Irish Unionist Party.

Again to link itself to history, Northern Ireland began to use the word 'province', to create the impression that 'Ulster = province = Northern Ireland'. It is a clever word game, but still runs into the same problem. The province of Ulster, as defined by a millennia of history, in thousands of legal documents, history books and as understood worldwide, is a 9 county geographic and cultural unit. As evidence of that one just has to look at what the British Royal Family indicated when a junior member was created 'Earl of Ulster'. It said explicitly that the word 'Ulster' should not be taken as referring to Northern Ireland but to the ancient province of Ulster, just as the now defunct royal title of Duke of Connaught referred to the ancient province of Connaught (Connacht) and nothing less.

Wikipedia cannot allow subjective propagandistic terms from either community to be used to push their claims or agendas on the Northern issue. We cannot use 'Six Counties', 'Occupied Six Counties', 'North of Ireland', 'Ulster', 'the Province' or any other name that implies accepting the POV of either community. Objectively, Ulster is an NPOV geographic nine county unit, not a POV six county state. That state has one official name and only one, Northern Ireland, and that is all we can use with breaching the rules on NPOV. FearÉIREANN 01:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this clear, comprehensive and, I think, irrefutable exposition. Can we now agree that the name for the part of the UK that sits on the island of Ireland is Northern Ireland and nothing else and that Ulster, except where it forms part of the name of a company or organisation, is reserved for the nine-county province? Filiocht 08:48, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
And in a final point to AlexM who commented before Jtdirl, while it is the case that people in the Republic use "Ulster" at times to refer to Northern Ireland, pointing this out ignores the fact that we firmly put Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal as being in Ulster. It's natural enough that Northern Ireland is referred to as Ulster off-hand even by those in the Republic, for the simple reason that NI is in Ulster, and includes most of the province.
zoney ♣ talk 12:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Before I make my response, let me first of all point out that this discussion was started because I objected to the terminology of "incorrect" being used to decribe Ulster meaning Northern Ireland (which has since been corrected). I do agree with filiocht that Northern Ireland should be referred to solely as "Northern Ireland" in any encyclopaedia article, however this discussion is not about Northern Ireland but about the definition of the word "Ulster". I have never said that people in Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal should be denied the right of to using the term Ulster, however, I believe most people in those counties feel culturally closer to the Republic of Ireland, than to the other 6 counties.

Firstly, let me provide some dictionary definitions of "Ulster":


Oxford Dictionary of English: Ulster A former province of Ireland, in the north of the island. The nine counties of Ulster are now divided between Northern Ireland (Antrim, Down, Armagh, Londonderry, Tyrone, and Fermanagh) and the Republic of Ireland (Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan)

  • (in general use) Northern Ireland


The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Ulster. A historical region and ancient kingdom of northern Ireland. Largely annexed by the English Crown during the reign of James I, it is now divided between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is often called Ulster.


Here is a definition of the word "province" from the Oxford dictionary:

"noun 1 a principal administrative division of a country or empire: Chengdu, capital of Sichuan province.

-(the Province)Brit Northern Ireland

2 (the provinces) the whole of a country outside the capital, especially when regarded as lacking in sophistication or culture."


From these definitions it can be concluded:

  • Ulster was (past tense) a province of Ireland.
  • The 9 counties no longer represent a modern administrative division. Northern Ireland does represent a modern administrative division of the United Kingdom. 9-county Ulster is not a modern administrative division and currently spans two countries. Therefore Northern Ireland is actually more accurately defined as a "province" than the 9 counties!! Therefore I object to the continued use of the word "province" to solely refer to "the four provinces of Ireland". These Irish provinces are most accurately described as "ancient Irish provinces" or "historical Irish provinces" - these names are FACT. Northern Ireland is a province (i.e. administrative region) of the UK - fact.
  • Feareire says Ulster "as defined by a millennia of history" - exactly my point - this definition is in historical contexts.
  • The word "Ulster" to mean Northern Ireland is in common usage, even in the Republic as admitted by Zoney. Fact. This is not only used by so-calleed "unionists". I very much debate whether so-called "Nationalists" are completely opposed to a Northern Irish identity; only in extreme cases do nationalists refuse to admit the Northern Ireland entity exists. Therefore, I do not see the want to create a Northern Irish identity as such a one-sided thing.
  • "Ulster" was never a "geographic unit" as described by FearE. It has always been the name of an administrative and cultural region, not geographic. As I have previously mentioned, the meaning has changed over the years (Louth, Roscommon, Leitrim, Sligo used to all be in Ulster, and I remember seeing a map showing Donegal in Connacht!!), with its current definition still very blurry due to the 3 southern counties. "Ireland" is, however, the name of a geographic land-mass. (Also unfortunately, the Republic of Ireland has taken the geographic name "Ireland" and placed it into its constitution as the official name of the Rebuplic of Ireland - what cheek!!! This is a far worse situation, than using Ulster=N.Ireland, but this is a completely different argument altogether so let's not get into it!)


Also, as a side note. FearE - you try to say that the term "mainland" is a "geographic bunkum". Utter nonsense! Let's take a look at a definition of the word "mainland" in the Oxford English Dictionary:

Mainland noun a large continuous extent of land that includes the greater part of a country or territory, as opposed to offshore islands and detached territories.

Therefore, the island of Great Britain comprises of the largest continuous geographic area of land within the political entity of the United Kingdom. Therefore Great Britain may be correctly described as the "UK mainland". Great Britain has a larger geographical area than Northern Ireland (a detached territory) - this has nothing to do with the politcal status of the constituent parts of the UK as FE describes. Alexmc 17:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Not so.

  • The claim that Ulster as 9 counties is in the past is ludicrous. It is a currently existing term for that landmass.
  • The suggestion that '"Ulster" is not a geographic concept is mindboggling. It has been understood for millennia to refer the northern province of the island of Ireland, with boundaries at the south of Tyrconnell/Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan, bordering Connacht and Leinster. The physical location of the boundaries changed as the precise physical location of counties and their meaning changed, with some counties shrinking, and some by changing their boundaries came to be moved to other provinces. But it has always been a case that it has been a physical entity. If it has had physical boundaries it is by definition a geographic concept. Only one province of the ancient 5 provinces was not a physical, geographical entity but more of a concept. The fifth province is long abandoned. The four, geography-based ones, still do and are current, real, fully existent entities.
  • Regarding the claim concerning the "mainland" - look at the OED definition Alex gave.

Mainland noun a large continuous extent of land that includes the greater part of a country or territory, as opposed to offshore islands and detached territories.

    • Great Britain is a large continuous territory. It is the mainland for its islands like the Isle of Wright, the Hebrides, etc. Northern Ireland has no constitutional, political or geographic relationship with GB. It is part of another large island just as Britain is an island next to France, without being the junior island to the 'mainland' France.
    • Northern Ireland is linked to the United Kingdom, but as the name of the kingdom applies, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the entity is made of two territories, not one, which means that neither part is an off-territory subsidary of the other. The UK is both together, not just one being the mainland, the other the island like the Isle of Wright to Britain or the Aran Islands to Ireland. If NI was part of the UK and the UK was simply, literally The United Kingdom, then NI could be seen akin to the Isle of Wright, etc. But its inclusion in the name of the kingdom means that there is not one landmass in the main part of the kingdom but two, who together form the mainland of various islands. Without Northern Ireland, there is no "United Kingdom", not unless it is redefined merely as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain".
  • Ulster is in common usage as meaning Northern Ireland - yes, among exclusively with one community in the North. It is no more valid as a name for Northern Ireland than Occupied Six Counties, a term used by thousands of others in the other community, is.

The evidence is clearcut and unambiguous. FearEIREANN 23:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Jtdirl,

I think you have a serious problem understanding the English language:

  • I have never claimed that the usage of Ulster to refer to nine counties is entirely in the past - this has been clearly pointed out above. What I do claim is that Ulster is no longer a 9-county province of Ireland, but was a former province (no modern political/administrative purpose - see OED definitions). Let me also retiterate that this discussion was started because of the term "incorrect" being used in context to Northern Ireland being referred to as Ulster, despite the fact that we are agreeing that it has common usage to mean exactly this, and is listed in many dictionaries.
  • As to the "mainland" issue, I think you need to read the OED definition again. It states "the greater part of a country or territory". The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a country. Therefore GB may be corrrectly referred to as the UK mainland because GB constitues the largest continuous extent of land witin the country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Your dubious argument about territories is therefore completely irrelevant.
Alexmc 17:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


"Provinces"

Alex, claiming in the article that Ireland has 4 historic provinces that no longer exist when they patently do is pure vandalism. It is like the guy who insisted on doctoring the Australia page to claim Australia was a republic because the word commonwealth once meant republic. Debate whatever issues you like but don't write in blatent lies into articles to push your inaccurate agenda regarding Northern Ireland's POV claim to use the word "Republic". There is not a credible person on the planet, Irish, British, American or from anywhere else, who regards the four existing Irish provinces as merely historic and in the past.

Until the reorganisation of EU parliamentary constituencies to accomodate fewer MEPs made it impossible, three of the four Euro-constituencies were based on the provinces: Leinster, Munster, Connacht-Ulster (to cover Connacht and the three Ulster provinces not in Northern Ireland) and then a separate constituency because of population for Dublin. Irish Dáil boundaries are drawn where possible to match the boundaries of the provinces. Culturally the provinces are used. They are used in sport, whether gaelic games or rugby. They are used in maps and in state documents in Ireland and elsewhere. Dismissing them as historic is patently absurd and a gross deliberate distortion of facts. People who deliberately add in demonstable fictions get blocked from wikipedia and all attempts at vandalism like this get added to the page reporting vandals. Any attempt to add in such a outright fiction as this in a serious encyclopaediac article will have the attempts reported on the vandalism page and a request will be made to sysops to have the person vandalising the page like that banned from wikipedia. FearEIREANN 23:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you - it is more than obvious that this recent revert exercise is nothing more than an agenda been pushed by the person you mention and the anon user (81.157.50.55, who it must be assumed are one in the same person). Several articles where Ulster has been mentioned have been rewritten to various extents so as to provide a revised perspective on the term. Djegan 00:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)



I think for this discussion we need to refer to the wikipedia guidelines under the heading "Anglo-American focus" - i.e. most articles are written by people from these areas and tend to have a slight POV from these regions. Likewise, an article on "Ireland" will naturally be written mainly by people from Ireland, and in particular the ROI, due to the greater population in the ROI (and are likely to contain a slight nationalist bias, even if an attempt to be neutral is made). Therefore instead of attempting to bully and intimidate others who are trying to inject a perspective from outside the Republic of Ireland, you should perhaps welcome other views in an open and friendly manner, and debate them in an intelligent fashion until compromises have been made and the article is considered as "NPOV" as possible.


The accusation that I have a "political agenda" is completely false. Wikipedia is an excellent resource, and I want to see wikipedia containing neutral and purely factual information. In relation to Northern Ireland (even though this is the talk page for the "Ireland" article!!), I think Northern Ireland should only be referred to as "Northern Ireland" and nothing else in the NI article. I do not like your (jtdirl) edited section entitled "Geographic nomenclature". The NI article is already too political as it is - this is just making it worse. There is too much of "the unionist community says this" and "the nationalist community says that" in the article. While I agree that it is necessary for disputes to include views from both sides, this is going too far, particularly since we are supposed to be going through an era of attempted "peace". One of the main reasons why the Belfast agreement has failed (apart from paramilitaries not keeping their side of the deal) is that political parties must declare themselves as "unionist", "nationalist" or "other", causing further polarisation. I think Wikipedia should avoid terms such as "nationalist community" and "unionist community", and should instead talk about people in Norhtern Ireland as a community as a whole.

Please also note the following from wikipedia guidelines: "Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into a separate section."

I therefore propose that the section on Northern Ireland giving names used by certain "sides" should be scrapped (as a side note, the terms are not exclusive to one side or another as the "unionist community" will very occasionally refer to NI as "The north" or "6 counties" and "nationalist community" and people in the south will occasionally refer to "province" or "ulster" as exemplified by Zoney). Nothing else should be mentioned. Any categorisation of terms only further encourages polarisation and the use of other terms. What does anyone think?

I also found something rather amusing while looking through the archives of this page:

"The word historic is needed because Ulster is often used to refer to the six-county Northern Ireland or the nine county old province. It has no other meaning. The word historic clarifies which one, the geographic or political. I am going to restore the word. STÓD/ÉÍRE 14:52 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)"


I see you are agreeing with me there, jtdirl? You even refer to the "the nine county old province"!! The word historic is necessary for clarity. I also think that you should re-read the edits that I made. I modified a line to read "In historic times Ireland was divided into four provinces:". My change refers to the time in which the provinces were devised - there is nothing disputable about this statement - it is a 100% factual statement and I think should be reinstated. Do you not agree?

Let's take a look at one dictionary defintion of the word "historic":

"famous or important in history, or potentially so."

Therefore, the word "historic" does not necessarily mean that the subject is in the past.

You also mention that "Connacht-Ulster" (Now named "Ireland North West" for EU elections) is an example of Ulster being used for administrative purposes. This is 3 of the 9 former Ulster provencial counties together with Connacht. This is not the whole 9 county former province of Ireland which you keep inaccurately insisting still exists as a province of Ireland. Sport (as I have already dealt with the issue concerning club rugby and gaa above) does not constitute a political/adminstrative purpose.


The accusation that I have now magically transformed into two people is also quite ludicrous!! Perhaps, Djegan, you are just in denial that other people might actually agree with me?

I also don't understand this sentence: "regarding Northern Ireland's POV claim to use the word "Republic"" ?????????

So can we now please stop the bullying and name calling of new users, contribute to a meaningful discussion, and make agreement as to the contents of the article?

Alexmc


As an (almost...) Ulsterman, I *SERIOUSLY* object to any use of the term 'historic' provinces. It still exists. And its not all in the North. Anyone calling the North 'Ulster' *is* incorrect, there is nothing else that can be said about it.

Kiand 23:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC), an (almost) Arranmore Islander

Ulster is a traditional province of Ireland, not by any means historic. Djegan 00:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As an (actual) Ulsterman, I *SERIOUSLY* object to the continual removal of the word 'historic' in relation to Irish provinces. This should not even be a controversial issue - it is something so minor which as escalated out of all proportion in this debate! If you look at my definition given above - the word "historic" should actualy give these "provinces" a greater sense of importance more than anything else! This removal is more an example of a "political agenda" than anything else that others have mentioned - an attempt to remove the accurate description of Northern Ireland as a UK province, and enforce the modernly inaccurate and obscure definitions of Irish "provinces" as the only legitimate provinces in Ireland. (oh how many times to I have to repeat myself! - of course 9-county Ulster still exists in certain contexts, just not as a "province"!)
The alternate usage of the word can't be termed "incorrect" if it has common use and is listed in many sources and dictionaries! (my actual original objection also related more to the context of use and was more complex than this - look through the history page if you must)
Djegan - while I disagree and think the Irish provinces do have an important historical significance, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the description of "traditional provinces". So is that an agreement on terms at last Djegan?!
If we are now in agreement I would like if we could now start talking about more important things in Ireland like traditional industries (linen etc.), Irish stew, wheaten bread, soda farls, potato bread etc!! :)
Alexmc 01:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9 County Ulster still exists as a province. And always will. And you're not going to be able to get any concensous to use 'traditional', 'historical', or any other sop terms to lighten the fact that 'Ulster' != Northern Ireland. There is no agreement, as yet, on this page; and making edits as if there is is inaccurate. Kiand 11:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Kiand is correct. Nobody has agreed with Alex's daft attempt to doctor the article to promote his political agenda in open contradiction with every history book, geography book, map and document. Unionist friends of mine, when they looked at Alex's bizarre edits, burst out laughing. The evidence is clear. The documents are clear. And the consensus here could not be clearer. Hopefully this is the end of this nonsense, here and on all the other pages that Alex had been adding in other doctored rubbish on this point. Alex is clearly a capable contributor. Hopefully now he will focus on writing proper NPOV stuff and not waste time propagandising articles. FearÉIREANN 20:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

plese revert!!!!!!

needs to be reverted quickly! Irland suger fett fult land-skap och dårliga affärer!

Possible PoV

'The paramilitaries, most notably the IRA and their political apologists, like to use the terms "war" or "armed struggle" in an attempt to legitimise their brutal campaign of murder and destruction.'

I fully agree, but isn't that still a little PoV. There's got too be a better way to word that. I could be wrong. I'm pretty new too editing here, so I thought I'd see what you all think. Kyle543 21:19, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)


VERY PoV. Words Like "brutal" and "unfortunately" aren't used much in a place full of neutrality. Wikk

climate

There should be some amount of data on irish climate. Thanks!

Try Geography of Ireland Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:06, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Cork Airport???

"The three most important international airports in the Republic are Dublin Airport, Cork Airport and Shannon Airport. All provide extensive services to the UK, Europe and North America..."

This is untrue; Cork Airport is only soon to start one service to the US.

Population

I removed "Most live on or near the east coast." with comment "most Irish people do not live near the east coast. cf List of Irish counties by population". User:Lapsed Pacifist re-added with comment "1 milllion in Dublin, 1 million in Antrim and Down." Depending on whether you include Meath, Kildare and Armagh, somewhere between 2.5 and 3 million out of 5.7 million live in counties "near the East coast". The upper figure could be interpreted as "most" but I think it's a misleading word to use in the introduction; a reader might reasonably assume that say 4–5 million lived along an eastern coastal strip. A sentence which is both vague and potentially misleading is I think better off deleted. It is also inappropriate to say "the six counties" when the proceeding sentence says "Northern Ireland" - readers have no way of knowing you're talking about the same area. Joestynes 01:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've got Dublin, Antrim, Louth, Down, Wexford, Wicklow, Kildare, Meath and Armagh in that addup, right? Because that makes 'most' by my reckoning... --Kiand 01:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, with those counties, 3m/5.7m is a bare majority. If that's what you understand by "most" then fair enough; I would interpret "most" as meaning a comfortable majority and I suspect many other wikipedians would do likewise. In short, the word "most" is too ambiguous. Rather than a single sentence in the intro, a few sentences in the Geography section could be more expansive about the population distribution. Joestynes 02:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Economy

I think there's room for a section on the economy of the two entities, especially in relation to the EU. - Usesr:Dalta

The article definitely needs an economy section. I came looking for info on Ireland's trade with the US - and found nowt :-( Dan100 (Talk) June 30, 2005 08:37 (UTC)

says a lot that the discussion page is bigger than the actual page!

NPOV Language

My edit [1] was reverted by User:Lapsed Pacifist. Here are my reasons for this edit:

  • The original sentence read: "In 1801 the unrepresentative Irish parliament was coerced and bribed to vote itself out of existence and for a union with the Kingdom of Great Britain (itself a union of England and Scotland, created almost 100 years earlier), to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
  • I don't see how anyone could maintain that this is NPOV. It reads like a complaint.
  • Words like "unrepresentative", "coerced", and "bribed" are intended to (not so subtly) give the impression that the Act (and therefore the Union) was illegitimate. This is an opinion, not a fact. Every pre-20th century parliament was "unrepresentative", and "bribery" was a common practice. If someone wanted to know about the Irish Parliament, they can just click the link. If someone wanted to know the details of the Act of Union, they can just click the link.
  • As far as the controversary, if segments of the population did not like the Union, then their view should be given, and why they didn't like it. But, their view should not be inserted in what should be a simple statement of the facts.
  • So, I'm changing this sentence back to: "In 1801 the British and Irish parliaments enacted the Act of Union, which joined Ireland to the Kingdom of Great Britain (itself a union of England and Scotland, created almost 100 years earlier), to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

--JW1805 17:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The unrepresentative nature of the Irish Parliament was in a class of its own, because of its religious nature. The bribery involved was impressive, even by the standards of the time. "Unrepresentative", "coerced" and "bribed" are facts, and well-known to anyone familiar with this period. Before your edit it was, in your own words, "a simple statement of the facts".

Lapsed Pacifist 17:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, the sentence reads like a complaint. This is an encyclopedia. Unnecessary adjectives that tend to slant towards one view or the other in a controversal issue should be removed.--JW1805 17:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

A complaint to who? Removing the adjectives would imply (and would do so in the first sentence) that the act was the will of the majority and was above board. It was neither. Whatever the "other" view was, feel free to express it.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no implication one way or the other in my version. It is simple statement of what happened, with no political opinions getting in the way. Your statement about the "religions nature" of the parliament making it a class of its own just doesn't hold water, since it applies to probably all parliaments at the time. Should we put "unrepresentative British parliament" or "unrepresentative Dutch Parliament" in all references to those bodies pre-20th century? No, that would be ridiculous, and so is this.--JW1805 21:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
The article on Ireland should not be a blow-by-blow account of the history of Ireland - it should be a summary of history - any detail can be placed in the relevent articles. The article is already too long and it does not need the addition of finely worded opinions for which LP is a real pro at, stick to the important dates and details. Djegan 21:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that many countries of the time had parliaments that barred adherents of the majority religion. I know this was'nt the case for England, Scotland or Wales.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Information on the makeup (who was allowed in it, who wasn't, and why) of the parliament should be put on the Parliament of Ireland page. Please provide sources and keep it NPOV. --JW1805 17:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


Now you want sources? At first you contend the wording is POV. Do you now consider the statement inaccurate? The information is pertinent and shall be NPOV.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It's always a good idea to cite sources when something is claimed as a fact (this is an encyclopedia after all, not a forum for political opinions). But that is beside the point. Your version of the sentence isn't NPOV, any disintrested observer would think so. It is also not appropriate on this page, which should be a brief summery of what happend (as noted by Djegan). It is also vague, using the words "unrepresentative" and "coerced", which are not defined or given any context. Detailed info about these matters should be given on Parliament of Ireland, Act of Union 1800, etc. So far we have 2 for my version vs. 1 for yours. Can we get some other comments here? These revert wars are really getting old.--JW1805 19:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


It is brief. I'll ask again, do you consider the statement inaccurate? If so, tell us why. I agree about the revert wars.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree with djegan. None of these opinionated ramblings should be in a main article. Jonto 21:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

members of the unrepresentative Irish parliament were coerced and bribed to enact the Act of Union

That sentence has no place in that form in an NPOV form.

  • Yes it was unrepresentative - what 18th century parliament wasn't?
  • Coercion and bribing was widespread in parliaments of the period.

Parliaments of the day were unrepresentative for majorities in general. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 20:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


The religious nature of its misrepresentation was unique, even by the standards of the time, and especially in a British context. The scale of the coercion and bribery, and their results, were (to my mind) comparable only to that which occurred during the 1707 union (again, especially in a British context). If you believe there's a less contentious way to phrase this, feel free.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. Most parliaments of the period were unpresentative of society and its major cleavage. It so happened that in Ireland that elite vs society division was religion based. In other societies it was based on class, or economy, or ethnic origin, or culture, or language, etc. If the British had not made such an issue of religion to start of with in Ireland, and so there had not been a dramatic difference between the ordinary Irish person (Catholic) and the elite (Anglican) then it would have been class and economic power (landlord versus peasant). The French Estates General, for example, was no great shakes in the representation stakes. Nor was the British parliament with its rotten bouroughs. Ireland's is just more noticable because it was reflected in what church people prayed in, rather than just what income level they had, what clothes they were, how they lived, how they were educated (if at all), etc. At least, whether in the pre-1800 parliament or post 1801 UK parliament there was some participatory means of shaping policy, however ineffectual. There was none in most of Europe. In the Papal States, the issue too was religion — a clerical caste versus the rest. History is all about context and the old Irish parliament has to be judged by comparison with the time, not our definition of modern standards. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 22:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • We already have a less contentious version: "In 1801 the British and Irish parliaments enacted the Act of Union, which joined Ireland to the Kingdom of Great Britain (itself a union of England and Scotland, created almost 100 years earlier), to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." --JW1805 21:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • article in 'history' april 1997 - 'How Did They Pass the Union?': Secret Service Expenditure in Ireland, 1799-1804 by David Wilkinson - see [2] --ClemMcGann 21:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


And noted, of course, in the main article.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a summary section, there is no need here to go into the details of the Irish Parliament of the time, and their decision to vote themselves out of existence. If you like to emphasise Ireland's suppression, tough, that's not NPOV. Besides, as it is, the history section probably makes that clear enough (British ruling Ireland for 800 years, etc.)
zoney ♣ talk 09:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to go into detail, a few words will suffice. Emphasis can be NPOV, but impartial description? No. Lapsed Pacifist 09:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest dropping the "unrepresentative" as that was not unusual, however the level of "bribery" was great and must be noted --ClemMcGann 13:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

LP's newest version is: "In 1801, after the Irish Rebellion of 1798, members of the unrepresentative Irish parliament were coerced and bribed to enact the Act of Union (enacted simultaneously in the British Parliament), which joined Ireland to the Kingdom of Great Britain (itself a union of England and Scotland, created almost 100 years earlier), to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
The concensus still seems to be to remove "unrepresentative".
On person says keep "bribed", but I think if we leave in "bribed" there needs to be some explanition and context. Otherwise, leave it out, and you can just click Act of Union to find out the details of how it was passed.
"Coerced" I believe is factually inaccurate. Did the British send troops into the Parliament building and force them to vote a certain way? If this did indeed happen, we need to provide some sources for that.
"(enacted simultaneously in the British Parliament)" is also technically factually inaccurate. The acts were not passed simultaneously (at the same instant of time) in the two Parliaments.
So, I'm going to keep reverting LPs edits.--JW1805 16:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Your edit suggests that it was a free decision of the Irish Parliament. It was not. Large bribes were paid and titles given. While this also happened with the union with Scotland, The amounts were, in comparision, trivial. Your words are therefore insufficent. There is a 'three revert rule' on WP. I would hope that rather than reverting that you would ammend your own words --ClemMcGann 16:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you're defining "free decision". The Parliament did indeed vote for the Act, that's all my edit says, in NPOV language. My point (and other above) is that all the details can be better explained in the other articles Act of Union, Parliament of Ireland. You can write paragraphs and paragrahs there about how and why the act was passed, who agreed with it, who didn't, etc., but here a basic statement is all that is required. Putting ill-defined words like "unrepresentative", "coerced", etc. here without any context is not the best way convey this information. --JW1805 17:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Whether it was a free decision or not is a moot point. What is not in doubt was that what can best be described as "unusual" tactics for a parliament were used to reach the decision. The way the sentence read failed to convey that this was no ordinary vote. I've added in the words (the latter controversially) which lets the reader know that it was no ordinary vote with ordinary methods used to influence MPs and peers. It is also important to point out that part of the Union deal was the concession of Catholic Emancipation, but that that was blocked. That then explains the context of O'Connell's campaign. I've added in two sentences which provide the link between the Union in 1800 and emancipation in 1829. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 17:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
That's a good edit. --JW1805 18:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"The British parliament controversially took the decision to go to war in Iraq..". No, "controversially" does'nt convey the singularity of what occurred. Most Irish MPs were dead set against emancipation, anyways. The British government's rapprochement with the Catholic Church was another reason they were keen to take the reins from the Ascendancy. See [3].

Lapsed Pacifist 18:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

One of the problems we have is different versions of this event on several pages (some are exactly the same, some are slightly different, some mention controversy and some don't): Parliament of Ireland, Ireland, Kingdom of Great Britain, Kingdom of Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, History of the United Kingdom, Act of Union 1800, and probably others. Amazingly, the Act of Union 1800 article says nothing about any controversy whatsoever! That's the page where all this should go. --JW1805 18:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from Ireland

The image of the sheep in front of the delapidated castle is nice, but does anyone know where it is? I went to the photographer's website but there's no more detail there either. I feel this image needs some context to justify its inclusion here - otherwise it resembles a generic postcard on sale anywhere tourists do their thing in Ireland. Cormaggio 17:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It's probably there because it's a generically Irish photo (castles, scenery, dreary sky and sheep - how much more Irish do you get :-) It's a castle in County Clare I believe, one I keep forgetting where exactly it is, and then happening upon it on the way to the Burren.
zoney ♣ talk 22:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
But that's what I mean - let's get away from this "generically Irish" stuff and give it some context. I do believe it's typical of the imagery people would associate with Ireland and I do believe it's a good photo, but I don't agree with it just being plonked in there with no context. You're from Limerick aren't you, Zoney - maybe you'd know someone who knows..? (I've included your info, by the way - thanks) Cormaggio 12:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Flag

Can someone please put the flag of Ireland on this page? Rentastrawberry 22:03, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

There isn't one. This page is about the island of Ireland, not the Republic of Ireland. --Kiand 22:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
The most recent flag for the Island of Ireland(circa ~1920) , happens to be the current republic of ireland flag.
Political entities have flags, geographical areas do not. Djegan 10:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the men and women of '16 (all 4 million of them who were in the GPO), and the members of the First Dáil, would deem it only right that the tricolour flows over this noble page.

Tables

I moved all the tables into templates: Template:IrishFlags, Template:IrishPeople, Template:IrishParliaments, Template:Irish police, Template:IrishSport, Template:IrishNobel, Template:IrishArts. That should make them easier to move around the page to try and fix the formatting problems.--JW1805 19:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to do the same. I had already created the Irish police template and installed it on the pages about the police forces, so I deleted the same one you created under a slightly different name and inserted the other one. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 20:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
There are too many tables some are nice but some others are irrelivant and nonsensical, having pictures of John Hume and David Trimble in the culture section makes no sense (although they made important contibutions) and it is confusing to people who are unfamilar with Ireland. Also, the page looks terrible in a 1280 by 1024 pixel screen with the window fully maximsed try it and see. "Some Nobel Laureates" and "Irish Police forces" need to go and "Arts in Ireland" needs a better home.--Fabhcún 12:11, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Trimble and Hume aren't in the cultural section. They are in a box on Irish nobel winners. Irish police forces is directly relevant, as it covers north and south, unionist and nationalist, British and Irish identities. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 20:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Something needs to be done about the formatting of the tables, the way they are set now they weave in front and in back of each other, so it leaves theses nice large sections of white space on the right hand side of the page, and puts some of the tables about a 1/3 of the way into the page from the right hand side, the current way might be great for those that run large resolutions, but not everyone does. I have an idea of how this can be fixed, but if no one addresses this issues or makes some kinda of change then I'll just implement a fix. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 21:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Michael Collins

If this article is going to include a picture of Eamon deValera it should also include a picture of Michael Collins in the notable people section(Irish Notables)--Fenian Swine 01:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Collins wasn't president of the state. De Valera was. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 20:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Jesus someone would think you had an obsession with Mícheal Ó Coileán. Tunney 22:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Michael Collins is a fundamental character in the creation of both Irish states that exist to this day and should of course be included.

Demographics revision

God know, based on past experience, I may be in for a rough ride, but .... I removed the reference to the Celtic origins of the Irish people in the demographics section because, bluntly, we do not descend from the Celts. Anyone who is curious or wonders about my reasoning for doing so is welcome to drop me a line. Cheers! Fergananim 20:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Basques?

Well, that sounds a bit crackpot to me. Got any actual scholarly evidence?

A quick search throws up this news article from the BBC to back up the Irish-Basque link [4]. I think the author is trying to say that the Irish may have been culturally influenced by the Celtic, Viking, Norman and English settlers but genetically we are still the same mesolithic people that populated Europe before the introduction of farming. It is nice to think that the builders of Newgrange looked like the average man or woman you would seen in any Irish street today! Afn

History - too long

I think its a bit bizarre that this article has long sections on modern Irish history, whereas the History of Ireland article only has short summaries. If no one objects I'm going to swap these sections between the two articles. Jdorney 11:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

30 countys?

Can anyone help clear this up for me? Since we now have the administrative countys of South Tipperary, North Tipperary, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal, South Dublin as a number of citys being treated as distinct units in themselves, how many actual countys do we now have?Fergananim 17:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Depends on how you count - their are still 26 "historic counties" of the Republic, as for "administrative counties" we have 26-2+5=29, see counties of Ireland. And of course all cities, except Kilkenny, have a administrative status similar to that of counties - five cities. Djegan 17:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Text and Image crowding

I was working on correcting some asthetic problems at the top of the article and have been unable to correct one of them. Image:LocationIslandIreland is crowding the text to it's left:

Ireland (Irish: Éire) is the third-largest island in Europe. It lies in the Atlantic Ocean and it is composed of the Republic of Ireland, which covers five sixths of the island (south, east, west and north-west), and Northern Ireland; part of the United Kingdom, which covers the northeastern sixth of the island.

and the only way I could get it to stop was to swithch the image to the left. maybe someone with more know-how could come up with a fix. It seems that images are generally on the right and I don't think that model should have to be deviated from here.

Also, I did shorten 5.1's title it seemed redundant and it was the culprit of the satalite image and TOC crowding that others talked about. ( I would suggest that it actually be shortened to just "Irish Independence") Enneagon 17:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What country level is Ireland?

Is Ireland a first, second, or third world country?

see Third World you'll figure it out

First. the Republic of Ireland is 8th on the Human Development Index and is therefore according to Third World a 1st wort country, The reference to Ireland in the history section of Third World does not apply ony more as the Cold War is over. And even though Ireland did offically stay neutral it was allied with the US far more than the USSR - Fabhcún 07:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


The Economy

We really need to write this I feel. The Economist magazine ranked Ireland Number 1 recently on their Index which reflected their opinions on the quality of life, employment, education etc etc. A lot of this is now based on the strength of the economy. I'll try and make a stab at it but lots of input will be needed by others to discuss the Trade Unions for example. The Great Veritas 19:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Not only is it already written, its a Featured Article and has been on the front page. However, its not linked from this page, as this page is about the -island-, not the -country-.
Its Republic of Ireland and the FA on the economy is Economy of the Republic of Ireland. --Kiand 08:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Bud

I noticed this statement in the Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) page "In Ireland, Budweiser is the largest off-premise beer". Is this really correct? My initial thoughts are that it is wrong, but I'm not sure enough to change it myself... Nil Einne 11:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)