Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 4 |

Archive 5

| Archive 6 →

1 Please re-open the poll, you have the wrong name for my country
2 Demographics- What about Polish and other minorities?
3 Wrong Name in Wiki for the state called Ireland
4 Revert war over the map
5 Rewrite of Introduction

Please re-open the poll, you have the wrong name for my country

I have to say that this article now has quite a bizarre opening, based on a mistaken elevation of the Republic of Ireland Act by supporters of the "status quo". The Constitution is the supreme legal document for the Irish state, it constitutes the state and names it. It is clearly of higher logical and legal status that the aforementioned Act. The name of the state in English is Ireland. When the constitution was originally adopted jurisdiction was claimed for the entire island. Since the adoption of the Belfast Agreement by referendum, the claim of jurisdiction on Northern Ireland was rescinded. Please respect the sovereign right of the people to name their own state.Deepsoulstarfish 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your objection, but I don't see how you can call it "mistaken" given that the article states that Ireland is the name and that the Republic of Ireland is the description. The thing I find slightly bizarre is the Republic of Ireland Act itself. If Republic of Ireland is just a description, than why does the Act phrase it like a name? It could have said "Ireland can hereafter be described as a republic." And why is it capitalized, as if it were a name?--if its just a description, it could have been phrased as 'republic of Ireland'? What does it mean to officially designate your country's description? Do other countries have officially desingnated legal descriptions that look and sound like names but aren't names? Republic of Ireland certainly gets used as a name. Why, for example, would one call one's national football team with a description? I just can't help but wonder in reading through this debate why Republic of Ireland isn't made the official name of the state? It would still be shorthanded as Ireland (similar to France for the official 'French Republic,' for example). But...Are the tags at the top of Wikipedia pages officially designated as "Names" for the content of the pages? -- or can they be thought of as descriptions for the content of the page? (If Ireland can do it, I say Wikipedia can do it too!!) 75.43.176.247 17:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am not personally of an Irish nationalist persuasion.

This article purports to be about the state. Ireland is the legal name of the state, and is recognised as such in International law. My main point is that the Republic of Ireland act is legally irrelevant. It is superceeded by the consitution. The Constitution actually legally constitutes the state.The UK government signs international agreements with the government of "Ireland".

The political context of the Republic of Ireland act is quite complex, and must be inderstood in terms of the Irish Civil war and Anglo-Irish treaty, and contentious disputes over symbolism within Irish nationalism. Unlike "French Republic", "Irish republic" has particular connotations in Irish political culture. For instance, this latter formulation would never be used on RTÉ, the state broadcaster. The main thing though is that the Repubilc of Ireland act is just an act of parliament, and is not the primary legal document of the state.

I don't believe Wikipedia should be biased toward any political point of view, I think it should clearly note that certain names and symbols on this island are very politicized. The present solution of elevating the Republic of Ireland Act both misrepresents the actual legal position, and in doing so is insensitive to certain traditions here.

There is indeed a Republic of Ireland soccer team. You might also note that there are soccer teams representing Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England, and none of these overlap with states. Also, note that the Ireland rugby team, does not represent the state - indeed it counts among its members loyal British subjects, who realise that sporting territory and political jurisdiction do not have to overlap. Then there are Gaelic sports which are organised on an all-Ireland basis. The incongruent sporting jurisdictions reflect the island's complex history .

In summary, because the article was named Republic of Ireland, we have to get a big spiel about an obscure act. The article should be called Ireland (state), since the name of the state which the article is about is Ireland. By all means, mention that sometimes people use the phrase Republic of Ireland for clarity. But to use the first paragraph of an article about the Irish state outlining the Republic of Ireland act is really misleading as to the relative status of the act in Ireland's history.

Deepsoulstarfish 02:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, this very article is linked from the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_states_since_1171 and in an accompanying box diagram. The "Republic of Ireland" is being purported to be a successor state to an earlier Irish state, starting in 1949, as if the "Republic of Ireland" (the entity covered by this article) succeeded the state named Ireland in the 1937 constitution. To my knowledge no such entity was created in 1949, and would love to see any scholarly works which imply there was. This is really very misleading.Deepsoulstarfish 03:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If it wasn't replaced by later legislation or ruled unconstitutional, on what basis can the Republic of Ireland Act be called legally irrelevant? I'm not saying the legislation overrules the constitutionally defined name, but the constitution also defines the legislative process, doesn't it? In which case, a legislative act isn't irrelevant in light of the constitution--its an application of that constitution. The Act didn't change the name, but it does provide a different way by which the state can be referenced. Given how common the usage "Republic of Ireland" is I'm not clear on how its Act can be called obscure. Somebody certainly knew about the Act, and it caught on. You say that the U.K. soccer teams don't overlap with states, but the only relevant point here is that the Republic of Ireland team does correspond with its state (that is, with citizenship to its state). And I'm slightly confused by what political bias you are saying is inherant in the use of Republic of Ireland. Are you saying that Ireland (the state) isn't legally a republic or simply that you don't want it to be? Nuclare 06:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has ruled on the matter, this has been ably explained by someone knowledgeable at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%C3%89ire. The case is (Ellis v O’Dea [1989] I.R. 530). So indeed the name Republic of Ireland has been ruled unconstitutional. The judgement goes so far as to rule invalid extraditions not naming the state correctly. The legal position could not be clearer. And the Irish goverment has come to agreements with the UK government to ensure that our state is named correctly by them, after some decades of misnaming which clearly offended sensitivities in Ireland. Yet more recently the government has indicated that the geographical term British Isles is not acceptable in Irish textbooks. As regards sensitivities, it all has to do with the word "republic" in the Irish context, and the history of divisions on the island.

As regards soccer teams, we are talking about the state, and not football teams. I'm not sure how the name of a soccer team has a relevance in the correct naming of a state. A state is a legal entity. It's really a red herring.

I'm just wondering what the motivation is in misnaming the state in this way? How many of those who voted on this are actually citizens of the state?

Based on the link you provided, the court case referenced would appear to refer to the use of the name of the state on legal documents. The ruling may have deemed the use of Republic of Ireland (or any other non-official name) as the name of the state on legal documents unconstitutional, but I see no evidence it does what I referenced: That is, this case didn't render the Republic of Ireland Act "legally irrelevant" And I wasn't trying to make football teams central to this debate, but your inclusion of lots of details about how Irish and British sport is organized was even less central to a debate about the contexts in which it is or isn't appropriate to use the phrase Republic of Ireland. If anything the complexities of the island point out more clearly why the existence of a unique way to definitively differentiate between island and state is desirable. The one sense in which it could be argued that the name of the state's football team is relevant here is only that one can pressume the state's team name was chosen to be Republic of Ireland for similar reasons to why Republic of Ireland was chosen to title this Wikipedia page. Nuclare 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I can see where you are coming from, and maybe I am being overly legalistic. The main problem I have is that the article begins with a speel about the Republic of Ireland Act, rather than saying that Republic of Ireland is an informal way of referring to Ireland, the state, and then getting on with describing that state. By emphasising this 1948 Act, and then the UK's Ireland Act, it drags up a fractious issue in Irish politics, in a rather naive way. If one is to bring up those Acts, then it should be explained at the outset that the constitutional status of Northern Ireland /the North has been disputed for most of the last century, and that Ireland was named Ireland precisely so as to not differentiate between the island and state, since jurisdiction on the entire island was claimed in the 1937 constitution. Much more preferable to say that "Republic of Ireland" is an informal term used to describe the state named Ireland.

I think my points about sport must have been badly explained. That "Republic of Ireland" is the configuration used by our soccer team is controversial. Many on this island would like an all-Ireland soccer team. The origination of the sporting configurations are all influenced by the politics of the island. One doesn't have to take a side to recognise that there are divisions on this island as to where borders should be placed. The symbolism of non-differentiation between island and state is very important to many nationalists. Deepsoulstarfish 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with much of anything you are saying here. There are definately elements of the way the article is written that I don't care for. And I think you may be right about the way the Republic of Ireland Act and the U.K.'s Ireland Act are forefronted. I'm not sure how useful going into that detail is. The article shouldn't be about how the state got its 'official description.' I don't have a problem with the use of that description as the title of the page, but I can see what you mean by the over-emphasizing of those elements. Having said that, the article does state that RoI is a description of a state officially named Ireland. That's in the article. However, I'm perfectly in support of any effort to reword, if one feels they can better articulate and better emphasize the important details. I'm certainly aware of the controversies concerning all elements of naming surrounding these issues. But I think the issue of differentiation/non-differentiation is more complex than your last sentence implies. One could equally argue that differentiation between state and island is important to nationalists. It simply depends on how one is framing the issue. Differentiation can, at times, emphasize that Ireland is divided, but it can equally emphasize that the concept Ireland applies to both sides of the border. But its a complex issue, and, ultimately, I don't think the issue of using language to differentiate state and island accrues to the benefit of either political ideology. The fact is that there is a difference between the state (particularly with the constitution now amended) and the island, and as ways of talking about the state go, I don't think Republic of Ireland is really all that controversial. Its soooo widely used (and by many well-meaning people without apparent political biases), and it does have some official status (not as a name, but as a way of describing the state). Its not as if this page is called the "26 County State" or "Southern Ireland" or some such. :-) Nuclare 06:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I conceed to you on everything you say there. Well thought out and very well argued points Nuclare.Deepsoulstarfish 02:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

~~I'm starting to be convinced about this after initially voting for RoI. Maybe Ireland (state) would be better. --sony-youth^talk 19:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)~~

Sorry, I take that back. Look at France (officially the French Republic), Germany (Federal Republic of Germany), Spain (Kingdom of Spain), United Kingdom (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), etc. --sony-youth^talk 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point Sony-youth, and I yield on that score.

I think I am more concerned at the misleading nature of the notion that some new state was founded in 1948 called the Republic of Ireland. This is just factually wrong. The idea is reproduced in the figure at the bottom of the article, with the Republic of Ireland state founded in 1948 and pointing back to this article called Republic of Ireland. So it's one thing to name an article the Republic of Ireland, it is another thing to insinuate that the name of this article accurately reflects a political entity founded in 1948. The article called France equivalent claims about "France".

As the article also contains references to the Ireland Act which was passed by the UK parliament in response to the Republic of Ireland act, I think the artlicle is clearly biased towards a Unionist interpretation of the Republic of Ireland Act. This was convenienty interpreted as a new state replacing the one of 1937 which claimed all Ireland jurisdiction, the point being to legally copperfasten partition. But the actual effect in Irish law of the Republic of Ireland Act was not at this level at all. No new state was established and the 1937 constitution which claimed jurisdiction over the entire island stood, with the jurisdictional claim standing until the Belfast Agreement referendum. So please, can we have some balance in this article, and not history from a British Unionist perspective. Let us please respect both traditions with parity of esteem.

Deepsoulstarfish 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see where you are referring to. Please change it though if it is misleading.--sony-youth^talk 14:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually someone corrected it at 15.30 yesterday afternoon, in the article on Irish states that the figure box comes from, mentioning that they were merging two items which in actual fact referred to the same state. So the main inaccuracy has been corrected. Thanks to whoever did that.Deepsoulstarfish 00:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My vote is.....for Ireland the country and Ireland (island) for the island. Anything else is simply incorrect. It also causes problems when linking to international lists and ratings (as I recently discoverd); most of them (other than some UK produced ones) use the correct name for RoI - Ireland. I am even wondering should we be having a vote? If someone decided to call Israel "the Zionist Entity" would the wiki editors accept it even if the vote was carried? The State I live in is IRELAND, fact. And the term "RoI" is imposed by FIFA on the football team to distinguish it from the IFA (N.Ireland) team which had title to the original "Ireland".

In common usage our team is usually called simply 'Ireland' by most people; even when playing N.I the games are commonly referred to as 'Ireland v. Northern Ireland' (Sarah777 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

The way I see it the term 'Republic of Ireland' was created for situations like this where the 26 counties it can be confused with the island as a whole. Republic of Ireland is an official description defined by ~~Bunreacht na hÉireann~~ (Edit: My mistake, it's actually in the Republic of Ireland Act. « Keith ^{t^{/_e» 16:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)}}^{). Just because you occupy most of the island doesn't mean you have a monopoly on the name, It's as bad as people who use Ulster. It should also be noted that this article is usually linked as 'Ireland' (using the official name). « Keith ^{t^{/_e» 22:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)}}}

^{Can't agree Keith. The name 'Northern Ireland' was created to make the distinction; and it is the official name of 'the six counties' or 'Ulster'. Ireland is the official name of the South. (Sarah777 00:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC))}

^{'Northern Ireland' was a term created alongside 'Southern Ireland' to distinguish the two parts of Ireland in the Government of Ireland Act. My point is the term is there, set out in law, so why can't we use it? « Keith ^{t^{/_e» 16:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)}}}

^{Whatever opinion one has on how this page should be titled, I think its unfair to imply that 'Republic of Ireland' for Ireland is the equivalent of calling Israel the "Zionist Entity." The equivalent to Zionist Entity would be something like the 'Irish Nationalist Entity' or, given the offensiveness that's often implied by those who choose to use the word Zionist instead of Israel, frankly, something more like 'The Fenian B*stard's Entity' might be a more accurate equivalent. The 'Republic of Ireland' is nothing like that. It is widely used (by people who mean NO offense or negativity). I think this football team issue is probably being overplayed (no pun intented!)--partly my fault--but, regardless of whether the name was imposed by FIFA, it was imposed for a very good reason (the same reason why people are concerned about titling this page 'Ireland') and FIFA didn't invent 'Republic of Ireland.' They didn't pull it out of the sky. Its a legislatively defined way of describing the state. The problem that arises from "Ireland and Northern Ireland" is that it leads to "Irish and Northern Irish." And "Irish and Northern Irish" implies that no one and nothing from Northern Ireland can be Irish. That is simply not factually accurate. I'm not saying this to imply that this justifies using the description Republic of Ireland to label this page, but its something to keep in mind, because I think it goes to partly explain why someone who wants people from outside Ireland (both state and island) to understand the issues clearly might think that labeling this page Republic of Ireland is a good idea. Nuclare 00:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)}

^{This discussion has made no reference to Wikipedia guidelines for article names. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The relevant specific guidelines for this debate are Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). The name of a Wikipedia article is not required to be the name of the entity described in the article. The article title is intended primarily to make it easy to find the article (for reading or linking). The name of the entity described in the article can itself be described in the article; this is much more flexible than trying to encapsulate it in the article's title. jnestorius^(talk) 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)}

Demographics- What about Polish and other minorities?

What about Polish and other minorities (I mean people from new EU countries)? And maybe other Irish people with foreign origin (Asian, Black). About 8% of Irish population are Poles (from Polityka, leading weekly magazine in Poland). And from other sources we know other numbers- over 100,000 Poles, 80,000-90,000.... What do you think? Kowalmistrz 15:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

New facts and numbers from the Polish Internet- http://biznes.onet.pl/0,1463619,wiadomosci.html. "About 100,000-200,000 of Poles in Ireland who love Polish food" ;), by Kinoulty Research. Kowalmistrz 16:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think such stats are relevant and should be included - but I'd like to see a more relaible source than one saying "100,000 to 200,000"; 100% variation is a bit large! Maybe the CSO has some relevant data? Bastun 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The BBC says 30,000 in the North and 150,000 in the Republic.[1] --sony-youth^talk 21:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[2] Here you go! by Polish Information & Culture Centre in Dublin Ltd. 180,445 PPS numbers for Polish citizens, published by Department of Social and Family Affairs. Kowalmistrz 11:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Name in Wiki for the state called Ireland

Isn't the term "Republic of Ireland" a nickname and it's actually used as the official Wiki title of the article about the state called Ireland? Which must make Ireland the only state on English Wiki that isn't given the respect of having its Official Constitutional name (also the name the vast majority of its inhabitants prefer) in the title of the article about it.

Frankly I'm sick of this. It isn't a matter of debate or Wiki voters - it is a matter of FACT. This vast thread above has not produced a single valid argument that Ireland is not legal name of the state referred to in Wiki by the nickname RoI".

I move to change the name the article about Ireland (the state) to "Ireland". To avoid confusion the article about the island can be call "The Island of Ireland" or "Ireland, the Island". Northern Ireland can keep the name it has in British Law.

It is time to end this nonsense where Wikipedians who, in the main, are not citizens or residents of Ireland are imposing a nickname on our country. Enough. (Sarah777 19:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

And btw, the fact that the South is called something else in some British Law decades before our constitution was in place is irrelevant. This NAME MUST CHANGE. (Sarah777 19:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

And I note regarding the "vote" a year ago (presided over by an argumentative partisan) - of the 32 votes for the nickname "Republic of Ireland" only SEVEN were from citizens of Ireland living in Ireland; 18 were foreign and a further 7 indeterminate. If there was a vote on Arabic Wiki to call Israel "The Zionist Entity" and it was carried, would Wiki allow that? No way! And I find the nickname RoI offensive. I want my country called by its legal, Constitutional name. (Sarah777 20:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

I agree. The name of the state is declared in the Constitution, and (in the English language) it is Ireland. The Head of State is the President of Ireland. At EU ministerial meetings, the name plate uses the two recognised language names, Éire and Ireland. When Ireland occupies one of the General Assembly seats at the UN Security Council, the name on the plate is "Ireland". The coinage uses Éire, an Irish word which translates directly to "Ireland". The title "Republic of Ireland" is a legal assertion that the state is a Republic and no longer a Crown Dominion. Continued use of the RoI form is rarely used outside the UK (and in soccer). The policy clearly states "use familiar names" - the name "Ireland" is familiar everywhere except in the UK. The article should be moved to Ireland (state), with RoI just a redirect. If this is not done, then for consistency France should be move to Republic of France and Germany moved to Federal Republic of Germany. The article Ireland can become a disambiguation page pointing to Ireland (island), Ireland (state) and Ireland (rugby team). --Red King 21:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Copy of my post to Talk:Ireland:

On the contrary, as I previously wrote on the Republic of Ireland talk page, very few states have articles headed by their constitutional name in Wikipedia e.g. United Kingdom is the title of the article about the state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France is the title of the article about the state called the French Republic, Germany is the title of the article about the state called the Federal Republic of Germany, Poland, the Republic of Poland, Italy, the Italian Republic, etc. etc. Away from Europe, the article on the United States of America, is titled United States. The state called Nippon is filed under Japan. The Commonwealth of Australia of described in the article entitled Australia. The Federal Republic of Nigeria is in the article called Nigeria etc. etc. Articles about states for which the title of the article is the same as the name of the state are by far in the minority, one example among few is New Zealand.

The Republic of Ireland is not a nickname. Please consult a dictionary before calling it such. It is an officially recognised identifier for the state called Ireland and is the simplest officially recognised means to differ the island from the state. Calling the state the Republic of Ireland, not by name but by description, is correct and internationally understood. It come also with the happy coincidence that it makes it a clear disctinction between the sate called Ireland, the island, Ireland (which takes precedence as it is the originator of the name) and Northern Ireland.

Incidentally, I am a citizen of Ireland and I invite other nationals to enter into this debate. Wikipedia is an international resource. We are writing about Ireland for an international audience. The perspective of international contributors is welcomed and invaluable to our task.

--sony-youth^talk 21:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just visited the City of Derry/County of Londonderry dispute again. Although I don't take back anything I've said above, I've come round to the view that the status quo is tolerable to keep the peace. We have to rub along without rubbing each other up the wrong way. It's wrong but it's not intolerably wrong --Red King 22:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Sony, I disagree. And I'd be obliged if you wouldn't advise me to 'consult a dictionary' in such a patronising manner. But I took your advise anyway and found "substitue for a person or thing's real name". QED.

Red King dealt with some of your other errors; but I will not remain as sanguine as he. In the France/UK/Germany cases the article name is a shortened version of a rather long official name; nicknames in effect. In the case of 'Ireland' the OFFICIAL, Constitutional name is the shortest and easiest.

And "the South" is far more common currency than "The Republic of Ireland" in the day to day language of the citizens of the state - yet it was declared a 'nickname' and deleted from the BODY of the 'Ireland (island)' article!

The Derry judgement in fact makes me MORE annoyed at the continued attempted imposition of British nomenclature on this country; whether the argument is about "the British Islaes", Derry or Ireland.

Enough is enough. The name of this state, the preferred name of most of the citizens of this state, the shortest of the alternatives is IRELAND. Full stop. Change the name. (Sarah777 22:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

Oddly the German version of Wiki can get it right: Irland aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie (Weitergeleitet von Republik Irland) Wechseln zu: Navigation, Suche

Or maybe not so odd; it appears that it is only (part of) the Anglophone world has difficulty calling the country by it's proper name! (Sarah777 23:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

I supect you get annoyed when Unionist politicians use the term Ulster for Northern Ireland, because it is an arrogant presumption that the three Ulster counties that are not in their jurisdiction don't matter. Sauce for the goose etc. The jurisdiction of the State does not extend to the whole island and it is equally arrogant and equally offensive to pretend otherwise. The Good Friday Agreement is a recognition of that - we have to stop pretending that the other lot don't exist but be offended when they pretend that we don't exist/don't matter. [The terms "they" and "we" are interchangeable.] --Red King 00:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Several points.

I think you're reading too much into it. The French-langage version[3] has the same set up as here, as does the Irish-language version[4]. Hardly an Anglic conspiracy, so.

Regarding the "imposition of British nomenclature on this country" - did we not coin the term Republic of Ireland, not the British?

Regarding the "North" and the "South" - as you probably know, I put those back into the Ireland article. Again, not nicknames, euphemisms. But I don't understand why you are bringing it up here - would you like to move the "Republic of Ireland" article to "The South"? Part of my reasons for putting it back into the Ireland article was because I though that this nomenclature would be unknown outside of Ireland (or at furthest the UK), but apparently they have "more common currency than "The Republic of Ireland" internationally? Wow.

I think you missed my point regarding the names of states and the names of articles about those states. What I meant was to demonstrate that the name of an article does not need to be the same as the name of the state that it describes. In fact it rarely is so. However, I'm bemused by your interpretation anyway. You say that for UK/France/Germany etc. to name their respective articles by "nicknames in effect" is okay. But yet for this article a "nickname in effect" would not be okay? I must be missing a step in your argument.

"Derry judgement in fact makes me MORE annoyed" - please don't get annoyed, I don't think anybody would like that.

I'm sorry but I don't see where Red King "corrected my errors" - maybe I'm missing something, but does he not agree that "Republic of Ireland is not a nickname"[5] and that he has "come round to the view that the status quo is tolerable to keep the peace" (above)? (I must be making another "error", sorry.)

"the preferred name of most of the citizens of this state, the shortest of the alternatives is IRELAND" - not everyone in Ireland is a citizen of "this state". Of those who are, they would also acknowledge that their state can be accurately and officially identified as the Republic of Ireland. Also, brevity does not equal clarity: Ireland is shorter, Republic of Ireland is clearer.

Maybe get a better dictionary. See here then look at the fifth definition for familiar here. For a more lengthy discussion, see here.

--sony-youth^talk 01:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"I suspect you get annoyed when Unionist politicians use the term Ulster for Northern Ireland, because it is an arrogant presumption that the three Ulster counties that are not in their jurisdiction don't matter. Sauce for the goose etc." - well, actually I couldn't give a toss what the Unionists call "their" part of the UK; Wiki calls it Northern Ireland, which is the legal name, in the same way that Ireland is the name of the state of which Dublin is the largest city. Don't suspect or assume - that is as bad as patronising. If you want to get into the politics of the Northern Statelet I'm more than happy to go there, and then some. But I won't be the instigator, and I wouldn't have thought Wiki was the place for measuring the illegitimacy of the Sundered Six!

"The jurisdiction of the State does not extend to the whole island" - irrelevant. The LEGAL name of the state is Ireland. We could call it "Tuesday" if we wished; the point is that WE have the right to decide what it is called and no coven of largely British editors in Wiki have any right to dismiss our name on the politically motivated grounds of alleged "arrogance". The referendum on the Good Friday Agreement dropped the constitutional claim to the Six Counties; it DID NOT change the name of the country.

Which, btw, is IRELAND.

(Sarah777 04:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

Comparing Ireland to France and Germany doesnt really work, while French Republic and Federal Republic of Germany may be their offical names they are always called France and Germany, Ireland on the other hand offical name is Ireland that is what most people refer to it as. --Barry^talk 04:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And Sony, while you keep advising me to consult better dictionaries may I suggest you actually read what you are responding to?

"And 'the South' is far more common currency than 'The Republic of Ireland' in the day to day language of the citizens of the state" - that is what I wrote.

"more common currency than 'The Republic of Ireland' internationally? Wow"- is your misrepresentation of what I wrote.

No wonder you can't get the name of the country right.

Which, btw, as I must continue to point out, is IRELAND.

(Sarah777 04:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

OK, So maybe being on a rather boring night-shift finds work for the devil in my periodically idle typing hands to do! But I'm right and ye are wrong....if someone in Europe asks me where I am from it is Ireland, simple. Not Ulster, "the South", the RoI - just Ireland, just as they will say they are from Spain or Germany or Italy. Unless I made a point of saying I was from NI the almost universal assumption (outside the UK) would be that I live in the state that contains DUBLIN. (Sarah777 05:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

Your "clarification" to the Ireland page has made your position clear. --sony-youth^talk 10:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Barry, thanks for some sensible talk.

RE: "while French Republic and Federal Republic of Germany may be their offical names they are always called France and Germany". A state equal in area to the island of Ireland would for certain be unequivocally called Ireland. The state in question however does not cover an equivalent area and thus a confusion arises, which does not exist for France/Germany etc - what are we talking about: Ireland-the-island or Ireland-the-state? Fortunately, an official and internationally recognized identifier exists - Republic of Ireland. My point with listing the titles of other articles was to demonstrate that it is unnecessary (and in fact very rare) to have an article title that is the same as the name of state that it describes.

RE: "Ireland on the other hand offical name is Ireland that is what most people refer to it as" - nobody is calling the state anything other than its name. If they do or it is unclear, fix it. The issue is what the article should be called - not the state. Right underneath the title of the Ireland article is the following text: "This article is about the island of Ireland. For the state of the same name, see Republic of Ireland. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation)." The introduction clarifies this again. The following section goes into even more detail. I cannot see how an even casual reader could make the mistake of confusing the two. --sony-youth^talk 10:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The opinion of an Irish citizen, born and bred: keep the article names as they are now, per the reasons stated by Sony-youth and Red King. Not for a minute, though, do I accept that an article can only be edited or have a policy set by people from that place. Bastun 10:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

IndeedBastun. And not for a minute will I accept that mere numbers should decide the naming of articles based on political bias when their view runs counter to the facts. And Sony as for "Barry, thanks for some sensible talk." – that is a clear implication that my pov is not sensible; unless you have a personal dictionary that defines "sensible" as "agrees with Sony".

So far you have told me to consult a dictionary, then consult a better dictionary (maybe lend me yours), Red King has a whole series of assumptions and political opinions attributed to me – incorrectly, based on my very focused argument about the refusal to name the Ireland article properly.

And I read that politeness is uber ales on these Wiki talk pages!

And as for my correction of the error in the box, that was in part to illustrate that once you start polluting common facts with political judgements you are going to have alternative political views asserted. Perhaps you think Ireland wasn't occupied 1800 - 1920? You seem to have deduced my whole pov from that; all I did was correct a rather obvious omission.

I have still not read any reason, other than a certain political slant, to keep this article called Ireland – rather than the more correct and appropriate IRELAND, with the Island of Ireland called exactly that.

Like it says on the tin. Without the political bias. (Sarah777 21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

Sarah - your logic dictates that the title of the Stroke City should be Londonderry becuase that is what WE call it, its OUR country and WE decide and we DON'T want a foreign power interfering in OUR affairs. (paraphrasing the UUP, DUP and many editors). --Red King 21:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Red, though I must point out the citizens of Derry call it Derry, (you are a bit weak at assigning political pov to people!), there not being many DUP folk living there; and until the citizens of Derry get the legal name-change there will be continued use of 'Londonderry'. The only reason Derry gets into the title of the City in Wiki, not the County, is that until the recent Court case everyone thought the City was renamed bar the rubber stamp. Also, I resent your use of the term 'Stroke City', a needless attack on the good folk of the Maiden City. (Sarah777 22:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

Sarah. Excuse me. I was rude to you. You are right to correct me on the manner in which I addressed you. To summarise in a more deserving tone: the name of the article does not need to be the same as the name of the thing that it describes. Republic of Ireland is a very common phrase, it clearly delineates Ireland-the-state from Ireland-the-island in a fashion that our readers can understand. By my proposal below, you can infer that I acknowledge that there is an issue with the name of the article but think that it is best resolved within the article. The name of the article need not be the word or phrase emboldened the start of the introduction. In short, I see you point but think that moving the article would be more damaging. I think that it is an issue best resolved by other means. --sony-youth^talk 22:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Gracious apology accepted Sony; I do veer into rudeness myself betimes! I will let this issue rest for now as it is using valuable Wikitime; my exciting article on the R747, The Jumbo Road, from Arklow to the N9 has had to be deferred because of all this disputation! (Sarah777 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

Sounds reeeaaaalllllyyy interesting. Good luck with it. --sony-youth^talk 23:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I know this coversation has rather moved on, but there's a statement that was made above that I find to be so false, I just can't but correct it: "Continued use of the RoI form is rarely used outside the UK (and in soccer)." Where one gets the idea that "Republic of Ireland" is some kind of biased British usage is beyond me. I just don't get it. I almost never hear U.K. sources refer to 'RoI.' I know this is random and anecdotal, but for those Irish people who feel offended by RoI, I'm afraid to break it to you but your nation's official tourism agency (www.ireland.ie and the official all-island tourism site, www.discoverireland.com) end all addresses for accomodation within the RoI's counties with just that: "Republic of Ireland." The state is being advertised to the world by its official agencies as Republic of Ireland. The poor tourists are being lured to a country referred to as Republic of Ireland. I also recently saw an official-seeming advert in a trade magazine trying to bring companies to Ireland advertising the "Highly Educated Workforce of the Republic of Ireland." So, apparently, they're even trying to bring companies into the state by referring to it as Republic of Ireland. Nuclare 05:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert war over the map

What's with the revert war over the map? Why are the parties failing to discuss the issue here? --Red King 00:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is some bullshit that's going on over the EU. As far as I know, there is some discussion, somewhere, about changing all of the EU maps but they cannot agree on a style - it started a couple of weeks ago when one guy changed them all to his favourite. Just before writing this I looked at the UK and France and Germany. Including Ireland, four pages, four different maps of the EU. Personally, I can't tell the difference between any of them, but Christ! I wish they stop changing them! --sony-youth^talk 01:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

can we agree to keep the standard one that has been around for ages until the new one is agreed by consensus? that seems resonable to me Fabhcún 09:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of Introduction

I propose that we rewrite the introduction to something like the following:

Éire (or in English: Ireland) is a sovereign state which covers approximately eighty-five percent of the surface area of the island of Ireland, off the north-western coast of Europe. It is a member of the European Union, has a developed economy and a population of slightly more than 4.2 million. It is sometimes referred to as the Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann), an official description of the state. In present-day usage, this is largely to distinguish it from the remaining part of the island, Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom.

This would allow us to use Éire or Ireland as primary identifiers elsewhere in the article and Republic of Ireland where clarity is needed. I've put Éire first as this is the name of the state. The conjunction or in the constitution is important as it mean that in Irish the name is Éire, whilst in English it is Éire or Ireland, and, to me, implies that Éire is preferred ("the name of the state is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland").

Putting this upfront would also, in my opinion clarify, the Ireland, Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland article names without compromising on state names.

What do others think?

--sony-youth^talk 11:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, having Éire as the primary name makes a syntactic break between the state name and the states "description"/name of the article, reinforcing that the name of the article is not the name of the state. --sony-youth^talk 11:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Having the first bolded reference to something other than the article title would would be unusual, I think? It does seem permitted, though: WP:MoS Having said that, I'd be against it. The English-language name for the state is Ireland, and this is the English-language Wikipedia. It really grates when I hear Ireland referred to as 'Éire' on a UK news programme. Bastun 12:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand it, but disagree. Flipping it around, then? "Ireland (Irish: Éire) is a sovereign state ..." Or list both, "Éire or Ireland is a sovereign state ..."? Or some other permutation? (The actual order I personally have no big opinion about.)

I do believe that Éire is an acceptable word in English since the English-language version of the constitution uses the word without a clause to the effect of "in the Irish-lanugae, Éire." I also see that the Oxford American English dictionary lists it, although it gets it wrong: "Eire: the Gaelic name for Ireland; the official name (1937-49) of the Republic of Ireland." 1937-49? (I suppose this last reference only emphasises the problems that exits.)

Belgium, Denmark and Israel are examples of where the article name is not emboldened, but the official name is, and given first. --sony-youth^talk 13:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Like Bastun, before I became so cosmopolitan, I used to be irritated to hear Éire used as it was only used by the British. But in keeping with my view on naming we can hardly complain. WE, citizens of 'Éire Ireland' (as we have now called ourselves in the EU), are the people who named the country officially Éire or Ireland and put Éire on coins, stamps and official documents. So while, not being an Irish speaker, I prefer Ireland, Éire is fine, so long as we make it clear that that isn't the name in the English language. Maybe Éire Ireland - that is what sits in front of our representatives in the EU nowadays, at our own request. (Sarah777 21:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

Mind you, I note that in all three cases cited above (Denmark, Israel, Belgium) the article name is the common name used through the world to describe the countries. As IRELAND is in the case of Ireland; with the almost sole exception of some folk in neighbouring jurisdictions the state that contains Dublin is known simply as Ireland.

The fact that Israel is surrounded by hundreds of millions of people who call it something else does not prevent the article title being the preferred name of it's citizens. And unlike the State of Israel, at least we now know where the borders of Ireland actually are. At least since 1997. (Sarah777 21:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

Oppose strongly. This is en.wiki, not ga.wiki. In all the articles you cite, the English language version is given first, followed by its translation in the national language(s). Check the Constitution. The name of the state in the English language is Ireland; the name of the state in the Irish language is Éire. The proposal is illiterate. --Red King 22:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: What I meant by this proposal was not to get drawn into an argument about whether the emboldened name should be Éire or Ireland. Frankly, in the English language, I think they're equivalent. What I meant by the suggestion was to de-embolden Republic of Ireland and put the name of the state front and centre. Whether that be Éire or Ireland, personally I'm don't care that much. --sony-youth^talk 22:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

So Red, are you strongly supportingcalling the atricle IRELAND? I second that, again. (Sarah777 22:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

To avoid confusion, it is my opinion that (1) the name of the article should remain Republic of Ireland (although it is wrong, it is less wrong than the nest of vipers we will open by changing it). (2) The first paragraph of the article should read

Ireland (in Irish : Éire) is a sovereign state which covers approximately eighty-five percent of the surface area of the island of Ireland, off the coast of north-west Europe. It is also known as Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann), the official description^[1] that marked its ceasing to be a British Dominion and a member of the Commonwealth in 1948. This form is used if needed to distinguish between Ireland (the state) and Ireland (the island). In international protocol, the name "Ireland" should be used. Residents usually refer to the country as Ireland: the usage "Republic of Ireland" is limited to the national soccer team. It is a member of the European Union, has a developed economy and a population of slightly more than 4.2 million^[2]. The remaining part of the island of Ireland is known as Northern Ireland and is part of the United Kingdom.

Are we back on the same wavelength? --Red King 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

People I think its just a bad idea placing emphasis on anything other that the article title in the article. We all know that the official name of the state is "Ireland", but as the article name is "Republic of Ireland" then it is the latter that must be used most prominantly, we can off course mention the official name, "Ireland" but not firstly and more prominantly. If people want to use "Ireland" firslty/prominantly then the only way to achive that is a successful move request (that will effect many articles) and not a confusing mixture of Ireland/Republic of Ireland. Eire is totally out of question as whatever people believe it is an Irish word and this is the English wikipedia... Djegan 01:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think Republic of Ireland should be moved to Ireland and the current Ireland be moved to Ireland (island), but the rewording is better than the current intro. --Barry^talk 01:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Red King: Yip, that's the frequency I'm broadcasting on. I'd cut down on the big explanation of nomenclature - just give the gist and leave the rest for the main body of the article - and wouldn't have RoI emboldened, but overall we're receiving each other loud and clear.

Djegan: There is no need for the name of an article to be the same as the emboldened word or phrase in the opening paragraph. There are many examples of this, not only state names. --sony-youth^talk 02:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd obviously agree with Barry; but as we seem stuck with this "RoI" name for now then Sony's suggestion is a good one. I'd actually go one step further and not embolden "Republic of Ireland" at all - to emphasise that this is more a political disambiguation than a conventional article title. (Sarah777 02:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

I don't have a big problem with only boldening "Republic of Ireland", especially if it is on the second line. I accept crit about long explanation - we want peeps to actually go on to read the article. So here is attempt number two:

Ireland (Irish: Éire) is a sovereign state which covers approximately eighty-five percent of the surface area of the island of Ireland, off the coast of north-west Europe. It is also formally "described"^[3] as The Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann), though modern local usage tends to restrict this to refer to the national soccer team or to disambiguate from the island. It is a member of the European Union, has a developed economy and a population of slightly more than 4.2 million^[4]. The remaining part of the island of Ireland is known as Northern Ireland and is part of the United Kingdom.

Is that better? (Yes, I know it doesn' move the article, but that is not going to happen unless Derry moves to Londonderry). --Red King 20:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Is was unaware that the proper naming of this article is related to the naming of the Derry article; it may explain some of the apparently unrelated stuff written by Red King in response to my comments on THIS article. And may I point out to Red, again, that the vast majority of the citizens of Derry want the City called Derry, as clearly expressed through their elected representatives. (Not Stroke City, or Londonderry).

"that is not going to happen unless Derry moves to Londonderry" Red, do you have some special power in relation to this matter? I was under the illusion we were all writing here as equals?

Ireland (Irish: Éire) is a sovereign state which covers approximately eighty-five percent of the surface area of the island of Ireland, off the coast of north-west Europe. It is also formally "described"^[5] as The Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann), though FIFA refers to the Ireland team as the Republic of Ireland national football team. The term is also one of several terms used to to disambiguate Ireland the state from the Ireland the island. It is a member of the European Union, has a developed economy and a population of slightly more than 4.2 million^[6]. The remaining part of the island of Ireland is known as Northern Ireland and is part of the United Kingdom.

There - that's a much better effort. (Sarah777 07:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

No, no special powers. I was merely pointing out a very similar situation where Wikipedia has had to take a compromise course. The official, legal name of Derry/Londonderry is "Londonderry". That's what it says on its charter and a High Court judgement confirms it. So I'm observing that if you want to insist that this article is moved to Ireland becuase that is its official name, then you have to accept that Derry is moved to Londonderry by exactly the same logic. Now do you see what I mean? The problems are linked - either we have official names everywhere or we don't. I agree with you completely about Derry, which is why I can't agree with you about Ireland, even though you are absolutely right in theory.

Looking at your proposed text, the first problem is that the Wikipedia "House Style" says that the name of the article has to be repeated in bold very early in the opening paragraph. So we have to have Republic of Ireland. In my view, we can also have Ireland/Éire' in bold too (see Londonderry in the Derry article), but some editors query that. I think my most recent version has the effect I intended of showing that it looks silly to have Ireland/Éire not in bold too. I assume you agree.

The second problem is that we don't want to get sidetracked about FIFA in the opening paragraph. The article Republic of Ireland national football team has a detailed explanation of that issue. Like it or not, that is the term that is actually in use in the world cup. What we are trying to achieve in the opening para is something uncluttered and enticing. Look at any newspaper story to see what I mean. --Red King 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article needs to be consistant with the article title and not manifest a manner of confusion; as the location is Republic of Ireland so to should that be used most prominantly rather than Ireland. Been inconsistant with this will only serve to be ambiguous and confusing, particularily with regard to other articles, categories and general usage. What will changing the current text do apart from been ambiguous and confusing? The status quo is an effective way of conveying reality and the only way to vary it is a move request. Djegan 18:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article does not need to be consistent with the title, although most are: "Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity." (WP:MOS quoting the The Chicago Manual of Style). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As the 'Derry' article keeps getting drawn in here I must agree absolutely with Angus and point out to Djegan that Londonderryis in bold in the article with the title 'Derry'. Regarding the name 'Derry', until the very recent court case it was widely assumed that Derry was the new name; as it is now clear that Londonderry will remain the legal name the article should now be renamed Londonderry. (It might even prod the citizens of Derry to take more effective action to get the name changed - if they really care that much). (Sarah777 00:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

Just to make it clear I have said that "Republic of Ireland" must be firstly and most prominant, at no time have I stated that "Ireland" cannot be given in bold (but it cannot be used firstly, and cannot be used prominantly, i.e. using Ireland throughout would simply be nonsensible and confusing and we are not going to use terms like 26/32 counties to differentiate). If people still are not happy with that then read this next and think long and hard. Their is better ways to improve articles than moving the deckchairs around... Djegan 00:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many articles which don't follow the Manual of Style which have nothing to do with the second-largest of the islands off the coast of north-west Europe. Auschwitz Concentration Camp begins: "Auschwitz (German: Konzentrationslager Auschwitz) was...", and Auschwitz is the only bolded word in the lead; Belzec extermination camp is the same, except that Belzec is written correctly: Bełżec. I've written a good few articles where the title appears once, in second place, and is never used again. Making the intro accurate is a Good Thing (Sarah's 07:01 version, with Republic of Ireland bolded seems like a perfect compromise). Moving pages around, on the other hand, is a Really, Really Bad Thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the camp articles is that actually a conscientious consensus issue on the talk page ~~or just poor use of English~~ (how many times, for instance, have I seen the word university incorrectly capitalised by people who need to go back to first principals)?

Rewrite proposed above beginning Ireland is a definite improvement. Another (even better) idea might be to have articles both on Ireland (state) and Republic of Ireland (a description of the Irish State). The latter article could explain the term Republic of Ireland, replete with references to FIFA and the ROI Act. I'm not sure the point about the Irish Soccer team is justified being in the first paragraph of an article about the Irish State. This is the problem, by calling the article Republic of Ireland, the article must get bogged down in that term in the first paragraph. In conclusion - can we please rename, ie move? Just my 2 cents. Incidentally, is Peter Canavan from the Republic of Ireland? Surely he is a Gaelic Football star from the United Kingdom? Deepsoulstarfish 00:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

People I have to stand by my conviction that the name of this article is "Republic of Ireland". Having a opening paragraph that backseats that name is illogical. If I am the "only" person who supports "Republic of Ireland" then have a move request and do it right. But no failed compromises. This issue has been discussed and voted on previously. The name of the article is "Republic of Ireland" - thats the consensus and the article should refect that. Djegan 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If we start rewritting the content of articles in "compromise" language like this then we are essentially endorsing the view that wikipedia is a failed project and we have to cobble togetheir a failed compromise. Djegan 16:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We simply cannot endorse a move away from "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland" (without a WP:MOVE) and expect thereafter that we will clarify matters, in fact we will do the opposite; confusion. Every instance of Ireland will simply become a pov battleground (or is it a country, is it a state no its a failed compromise!) for people on both sides. Lets improve wikipedias content, and Ireland's standing in it, not get hung up on the name attributed to a state therein. Djegan 16:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If their are people here, of real conviction, who support the compromise then I challenge them to endorse the recent judgement of the Northern Ireland courts regarding Londonderry. Because it works both ways. I suspect their would be nearly be no such rush. Djegan 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi DJ, I have no problem with the article about Londonderry. The idea of binding us to an earlier vote (how many voted?) is not really fair. I wasn't around for one, and these things have to be revisited. This encyclopaedia will be around for a long time. A vote among a handful of people in 2006 shouldn't set things in stone. Deepsoulstarfish 19:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)