Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 6

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.

Wrong Name Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the problem here is not really within Irish/Northern Irish POV,but with assisting outsiders in understanding things. Isn't that the whole point of WP? From speaking to USian friends, they tend to be very confused when "Northern Ireland" isn't part of "Ireland". The nearest analogy would be comparing "Ireland" to "America", and explaining that "Ireland" is just short-hand for two different things: the Republic of Ireland or The Island of Ireland, without (usually) any intent to confuse or lay claim, but simply to abbreviate long-winded, commonly used terminology. I think WP should try to make this distinction as clear as possible though, and to me, starting a Republic of Ireland article by referring to it as "Ireland" isn't the best course available. At the very least, I would suggest something like "Republic of Ireland, sometimes ambiguously abbreviated as simply Ireland...". Jel 08:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlike "America", Ireland isn't "sometimes ambiguously abbreviated as simply" Ireland. Ireland IS the name of what Wiki dis-abbreviates as "The Republic of Ireland"! (Sarah777 10:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

And if Jel's USian friends would bother to read the first few paragraphs to any of the topics they would have everything explained to them with great clarity. ww2censor 14:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. Sorry, my mistake; I felt sure the official name was "Republic of Ireland". --- Jel 08:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It cannot be the case that after all this discussion, "Ireland" brings the WP user straight to the island. It's incredible that a small number of crazy POV-wreckers have got their way. Can this not be fixed? It's really shoddy. User:Pleidhce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.69.90 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As countless contributors have tried to communicate, the official as well as de facto name of the country is Ireland. The entry has been hijacked by a small but frenetic band of extremist ideologists, with the resultant nonsense that "Ireland" first directs to the island, without even passing though a disambiguation page. There is simply no justification for the status quo apart from one particular particular ideology. All official bodies -- the Irish Constitution, the UN, the EU -- and all common use use the name "Ireland" to refer to the State. It's deeply wrong to have it the way it is. Pleidhce —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleidhce (talk • contribs) 18:50, February 1, 2008)

The only reason the irish constitution refers to the state as Ireland is because they maintained their constitutional claim to the north at the time of it's drafting, and all other documents have followed suit. It's confusing to refer to the state as simply Ireland since the island is under two different govenments. If you people in the republic care so much about calling your country Ireland, you shouldn't have agreed to partition in the first place. The state should remain the Republic of Ireland.Goblinman (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not the function of Wikipedia to arbitrate on what might be or ought to be, but only report what is. The consitutional name of the state is Ireland. That is how it is represented in international law and international fora. That is what Wikipedia must reflect. --Red King (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All you're saying is that the Republic of Ireland has an outdated constitution. The state being called after a larger area is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goblinman (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that what is, is. You are saying what ought to be. You have to campaign for an amendment to the constitution if you want it to say something else. You have to persuade the EU, the UN, the WTO, the IMF and host of other TLAs that they are wrong. It is pointless to try to persuade me, I can't change reality. --Red King (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You're not really mate, I don't have to persuade any of those institutions. And I'm not trying to persuade you of anything.Goblinman (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I see this has been discussed at length before. However I feel obliged to raise this issue once more. To quote the name issue wikipedia article - This has meant that the Republic of Ireland is the only name for the Irish state officially recognised in domestic UK law and The Irish government continued to insist that the name of the Irish state was Ireland. This makes the title of the state of Ireland article quite a serious issue and should be at least moved to Ireland state. I will let some discussion take place before applying for the move. And one may discount the arguement there will be dead links as I have no qualms of going through the list of articles that link to this page. I welcome any other arguement to why this move shouldn't take place, however I can't see any good reason opposing this move. Wikipéire (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing order of name vs. description in opening paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 5 of the Constitution is a description of it:

Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state.

But Article 2 of the 1948 Act is the description:

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

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

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

But something like the following should be acceptable:

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

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

"one of the state's official descriptions"

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

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

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

I am about to post a much shorter "name" section. I anticipate there will be criticisms (some, most likely valid). However, rather than simply reverting, please may I suggest you help edit the section. In my view, it is currently much too long and much of its material belongs in the more specialist "names of the Irish state" page. What do you think? Redking7 (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

Category:Germanic culture

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

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

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

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

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

Percentage of the island

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

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

Ireland is a country

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

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

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

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

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

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

You sold us down the river just like Michael Collins and Eamon Devalera.Goblinman (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I assume that SonyYouth meant to say CountRy".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PaddyBriggs 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, this might be mentioned already but it just occured to me & I haven't read the whole of the above argument. Éire is the historic name of the island but it is the offical name of the state. If this logic applies in Irish, shouldn't it apply in english or vice-versa. Everytime 01:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Article 4 of "Bunreacht na hÉireann", the Irish constitution, reads: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." Available: http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/html%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland%20(Eng)Nov2004.htm Accessed: 16th July, 2007 [[User:Peter O'hAdhmaill] 10:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted it from 'country' back to 'state' to reflect this very clear and indisputable reality. If the British created ten states in Ireland in December 1920 it wouldn't mean there were ten 'countries' in Ireland, as convenient as that clearly would be for particular agendas. 86.42.77.166 (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship & Northern Ireland

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

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

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

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

Change the name of this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Term "country" is problematic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another example

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

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

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

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

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

Call for broad consensus

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

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

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

Other dictionaries use similar definitions.

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

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

• Disagree --Red King 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree --sony-youth^talk 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree -- (Sarah777 21:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
• Agree -- Djegan 23:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree -- Ben W Bell talk 08:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree PaddyBriggs 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree - zoney ♣ talk 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - Ferdia O'Brien 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (the "particular territory" isnt necasserally the entire island.)
• Disagree --Frelke 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree --Barry entretien 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree -- Semifreddo 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree - Martin 20:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree -- --Dissidia 06:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree -- Mal 23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree -- SSZ 06:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That makes 10 agree , 5 disagree, as of (Sarah777 07:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

• Disagree -- Ben W Bell talk 08:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• DisagreePaddyBriggs 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - zoney ♣ talk 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree - Ferdia O'Brien 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree --Barry entretien 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree -- Semifreddo 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - Martin 20:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• AgreeDeepsoulstarfish 00:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• 'Disagree -- Mal 23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree --Dissidia 06:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Caomhan27 06:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That makes 7 agree, 8 disagree as of (Sarah777 07:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

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

• Agree --sony-youth^talk 20:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree (this reason may be less contentious rather than the one nation / two nations debate). --Red King 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree -- (Sarah777 21:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
• Disagree -- Taramoon 22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Djegan 23:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree -- Ben W Bell talk 08:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree PaddyBriggs 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - zoney ♣ talk 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree - Ferdia O'Brien 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree --Frelke 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree --Barry entretien 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree -- Semifreddo 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - Martin 20:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• AgreeDeepsoulstarfish 00:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC) sorry for late voting!
• Disagree -- Mal 23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree--Dissidia 06:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That makes 5 agree, 11 disagree, as of (Sarah777 07:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Options a bit mixed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Border information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coat of Arms of Ireland

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

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

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

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

Declaration of Republic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK. So...some definitions:

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

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

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

User:Setanta747

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

As for No Personal Attacks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure which addition above you are referring to Sarah, so I cannot comment. As drawing my attention to WP:NPA, I'm aware of the policy. After all, I drew your attention to it not so very long ago after you had made some personal attacks against me (see this very section, above). --Mal 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is "country" even an issue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any Ambiguity is Not Acceptable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title change straw poll

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

The current set-up is as follows:

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

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

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

Vote: "I support the current set-up"

1. - sony-youth^talk 21:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2. - Kittybrewster 21:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
3. - ww2censor 22:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC), Oh no, not this disussion again
4. - Bastun 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC) What Ww2censor said.
5. - Ben W Bell talk 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC) It would be too confusing to change this and an enormous amount of work which would cause great disruption on Wikipedia as not all users would know about an official change. There would be chaos.
6. - Kwekubo 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
7. - Alison^☺ 23:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC) - the current situation works well enough in the main to warrant changing. It's one of those things that will never be right regardless of the config
8. - The current set up is sensible and in line with WP:NAME. It's not so much that I support it - I don't especially care - as that I can't see any benefit from changing it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
9. - Timrollpickering 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
10. - Red King 00:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
11. - PaddyM 01:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
12. - Martin 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC) - the current set-up is in line with Wikipedia policies regarding names, and changing it will not improve matters at all. There's no "correct" way to do this, and the current set-up makes the best out of a complicated situation.
13. - Shudda ^talk 02:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
14. - Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
15. - Laurel Bush 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
16. - PaddyBriggs 15:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC), but with far less counter-productive sectarian debate please
17. - Ian Goggin 22:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC), changed my position after some thought, purely because it's not worth the trouble to change.
18. - john k 16:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
19. - Scolaire 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
20. - Mal 11:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC), haven't we done this already? Calling the article by the country's descriptive name is clearly the more logical method.
21. - The Republic of Ireland is the legal name in the United Kingdom, and the most used internationally. Astrotrain 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
22. - « Keith ^t/_e» 13:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC), not again! The official description is better than some made up Ireland (state).
23. - Jhamez84 13:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
24. - Frelke 21:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
25. - beano 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
26. - Rye1967 10:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
27. - --Guinnog 15:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
28. - --Soetermans 08:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
29. - MAG1 23:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
30. — Seems most logical and in-line with WP:NAME Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 16:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
31. - --Patar knight 20:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC) as per WP:NAME, and tons of less busy work to do.

Vote: "I support another set-up"

1. - IrishGuy ^talk 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2. - padraig3uk 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
3. - (Sarah777 23:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)) (Failing this, Sony's Proposal is pretty creative, and sets things out fairly and in context).
4. - Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman 23:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
5. - Deepsoulstarfish 00:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
6. - Vintagekits 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC) (I am not wild about changing the current situation and think that it would be a lot of hassle and arguements also - however if a decent compromise was suggested then I would be happy to look at that, failing that I am happy to go with the majority !vote.)
7. --Barry O'Brien entretien 11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Apollo Crua 08:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
9. --Dissidia 06:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fact that Ireland is the name of the state recognised by the UN and the EU is of little worth either?What about the 26 Counties or the Free State?We then can call Northern Ireland the 6 Counties , and everyone in this wee country should be equally happy or unhappy! Lughlámhfhada 81.129.68.58 20:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You !!!! PaddyBriggs 17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Name Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{Lake project}}

U

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

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

This DEFINATELY needs to be sorted out to avoid confusion between us and the UK. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  23:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gaelic ancestry

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

The Demographics section opens with the following.

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

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

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

Rephrased the opening line of that section to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There were people in Ireland before the Celts. Do you just forget about them? Who built Newgrange!! - Culnacréann 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Extension of territorial waters

Taken from http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0407/breaking1.htm --- Ireland can extend territorial waters

Ireland has become one of the first countries to be permitted to extend the boundaries of its territorial waters. The State has received final and binding recommendations from the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf that it could increase its continental shelf off the south-west coast beyond the standard 200 nautical mile limit. The move means the seabed, which is believed to be rich in minerals and hydrocarbons, can now be explored.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern said: "I am very proud that Ireland has become one of the first countries in the world to successfully complete the process leading to international recognition of its right to extend its continental shelf. This is especially fitting given the leading role that Ireland played in the 10 years of negotiation that lead to the Law of the Sea Convention, in particular in relation to the legal regime governing the rights of coastal states on the continental shelf."

Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, all coastal states are permitted to claim a shelf up to 200 miles in breadth, subject to the exercise of the same rights by their neighbours. States whose continental shelves naturally extend beyond this distance must establish their limits to the satisfaction of the UN commission on the basis of scientific data. A coastal state exercises over its continental shelf the sovereign right to exploit its natural resources, including oil and gas deposits as well as other minerals and biological resources, located on or under the seabed.

The recommendations allow Ireland to exercise these rights exclusively in the claimed area of extended seabed, which amounts to an additional 39,000km of Irish shelf., representing approximately half the size of its land territory. This first Irish submission to the UN commission was a partial submission which concerns the undisputed portion of Ireland's outer continental shelf. Other areas in which Ireland's claims overlap with those of other states are the subject of separate exercises. ---

Perhaps this should be worked into the article. -- Evertype·✆ 12:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Declared Independence {fact}

Why is 86.12.249.63 marking the date of declared independence with {fact}? Is this disputed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sony-youth (talk • contribs) 10:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Dont feed the troll sony!--Vintagekits 10:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Got you. --sony-youth^talk 10:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, a quick look actually shows this may not be so clear cut: "The bloody repercussions of the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin was a critical turning point. After winning a large majority in Britain's 1918 general election the Irish republicans under the leadership of Eamon de Valera declared independence and formed their own assembly which promptly bought on the Anglo-Irish war (1919 – 1921)." Makes sense, the first Dail could be a better date for independence. Maybe change the event names and use terms like "Easter Rising", "First Dail", "Anglo-Irish Treaty", "Current Constitution". --sony-youth^talk 11:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the 1916 declaration refers to the Irish Republic, an entirely seperate entity to the current RoI, if I am wrong about this, then evidence to that effect should not be particularly difficult to find, and a citation could be easily provided. (There was a similar type discussion in June 2006 Talk:Republic_of_Ireland/Archive4#Year_of_Independence) 86.12.249.63 14:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is called "Republic of Ireland" but this incorporates the Irish Republic history - technically the country isnt even called the republic of Ireland, its just Ireland. The initial declaration of independance was on the step of the GPO in 1916, the Dáil in January 1919 then issued a Unilateral Declaration of Independence - it wasnt until 1937 that the term "Ireland" was officially introduced in the Bunracht.--Vintagekits 15:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Kwekubo changed the date from 1916 to 1919; I reverted and asked him to make no further changes till the issue is resolved here. (Sarah777 15:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

I like the changes that User:Barryob just made to the infobox re. ratification vs. declaration. It clarifies things rather well and establishes a clear timeline - Alison^☺ 15:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree and congratulated him for it on his talk page - problem solving at its best imho.--Vintagekits 15:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Wish I thought of that!(Sarah777 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

I would have been quite happy with the old wording regarding dates if applied to the Irish Republic, my issue was that that I am unaware of any definitive connection between the Irish Republic and the modern 26 county statelet. Could someone provide a reference linking the two entities, Thanks 86.12.249.63 09:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It was the Dail of the Irish Republic that accepted and ratified the 1922 treaty with the UK. In doing so that Dail was never prorogued. Only in UK constitution law was in necessary to have the parliament of Southern Ireland convene to ratify the treaty also. Its memebers consisted essentially of the same membership as the Dail but with borders drawn between Northern and Southern Ireland, but is unrecognised in Irish constitutional law. The current Dail is the unbroken, direct decendent from that 1919 Dail. Its papers, records, membership and standing orders reflect this to be the case. --sony-youth^talk 10:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Counties of Ireland - New Table

Dia daoibh, a chairde,

I am currently making a table of the Irish counties for the ROI page, and was just wondering if you could take a look on my talk page and give me some feedback. I also plan to rebuilt the Irish_counties#Alphabetical_list.

• I can't firgure out how to {valign} text for individual table cells. Can anyone tell me?
• Is there a better way to represent the administrative counties of Dublin & Tipp?
• I will have to upload more county crests from the council websites.
• Are there any columns you would add/remove?

Thanks guys, and please go easy on me, I'm new here! CaoimhghinOCionnfhaolaidh 23:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Minorities

Regarding voting in the French elections, a newspaper (Irish Independent) today said that there were 44,000 French citizens in Ireland. If this is true they should be on the minority list! Everytime 02:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the CSO (see: Census 2006 – Principal Demographic Results), on census night in 2006 there were:

• 3,306 people usually resident in France present in the state
• 3,375 people who, one year ago, were usually resident in France
• 9,307 people who were born in France
• 9,046 who have French nationality

Moral of the story, don't read that rag. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Redesign of the "Irish states template"

I'm proposing a redesign of the "Irish states template", you can see my proposal at the talk page there. Please let me know what you think, good, bad, or indifferent - and also suggestion to improve it. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Southern Ireland"

"Often in the United Kingdom the state is referred to as Southern Ireland". Umm, 40 year old Englishman here. I can't remember people ever using that expression. I've changed it to "rarely" because I am happy to believe the expression might be used, but no, everybody I know just refers to the Republic of Ireland as Ireland. --mgaved 18:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As an Irishman living in the UK, I can safely say I've heard it quite a lot. Perhaps it depends on whereabouts you are? Dan Kerins 14:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A search of the BBC website brings up quite a few. Many are "southern" with a small 'S', but many also are specifically "Southern Ireland" (some are simply geographic description, rather than a "name").

Personally, I don't see the notability of the point, however, and think it should be removed. If it were politicians persistently using the term, it would be notable, but it seems to me to be a relatively natural thing and I doubt that many using the term are aware of the "real" Southern Ireland, and so don't mean anything by it. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I see it's now "Sometimes" - I guess that's probably a nice cheerful compromise, grin! as you folks say, maybe it depends where you are or the company you keep! (and as sony-youth notes, it's not a show-stopper)--mgaved 13:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As well as seeing it, i have heard it, especially from people in British Commonwealth countries such as Canada and New Zealand. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  23:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just Commonwealth countries - I work for a company with business in both the UK and the Republic, and only 2 weeks ago received an application form from Enniscorthy, Co. Wexford, where the "country" field was filled in as "Southern Ireland"! -- Arwel (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone must have long-term amnesia!! Or are they a confused British ex-pat now living in Enniscorthy? ww2censor (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's definitely an Irish trucker! I've spoken to him on the phone about his direct debit mandate (our junior staff didn't notice where the form was being sent to, and enclosed a UK direct debit form instead of an Irish one, which he then proceeded to fill in. "If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" is a statement I've tried to get my bosses to appreciate on more than one occasion! -- Arwel (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Living in England, I encounter the "Southern Ireland" label more often than I like. Sometimes, I grit teeth, and sometimes I correct the speaker, but every now and then I find a conversation where I refer to Cork or Galway or Sligo or some such civilised part of Ireland, or even Dublin, and get asked "is that in Southern Ireland?".

"Its in the Republic of Ireland", says I

"Is that North or South" comes the reply.

No wonder Britain has spent three decades panicking about the state of its schools. The country I currently live in is called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Is it really all that hard to figure out that a Republic is not a Kingdom, so the "Republic of Ireland" must bge the bit that's not part of the UK?

Anyway, sorry for digressing. I came to this section heading fearing that someone was proposing renaming this article to "Southern Ireland", and wanted to verify that before beating my head to a pulp. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish neutrality during World War II

The article Irish neutrality during World War II has been nominated for deletion. Please add your opinion to the discussion on AfD. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Gay rights

"Ireland has since moved to the forefront in recognising equal rights for its gay citizens" Um, how exactly has Ireland "moved to the forefront". Same-sex marriage - illegal. Civil partnership - not only not legal, but a bill seeking its introduction was defeated last year. Gay adoption (by couples) - illegal. As far as I'm aware, all that's been done is decriminalisation and sexual orientation being covered under equality legislation. That would qualify as... well, "some things done, a lot more to do." *ahem* Can we change this to something more neutral? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But I'd go further than that. The Culture section (in which we find this weirdly isolated snippet about gay rights) is interesting in that, while it covers some aspects of POPULAR CULTURE (IE: What society produces in arts) in "list of notable Irish bands" kind of way, it doesn't deal with CULTURE (IE: Society's mores/patterns/beliefs) in any real way. It just seems to:

• list some "notable bands" (several more than once for some reason)
• skirt the POV line very closely in some areas
  • Take the following for example: "The Frames are a popular band in Ireland who are on the rise world-wide, although their status as possibly the most well-liked live band in Ireland is under threat from newer bands like Bell X1." The "most well-liked live band in Ireland". Can you apply such a label like this? Without reference to ANY source? I wouldn't have thought so.
  • And: "The Blizzards are a ska-pop band from Mullingar, who gained a sudden surge of popularity following their 2006 album release." Did they really? I've never heard of them then? (That I havn't heard of them doesn't mean they didn't "surge in popularity". But no source leaves it dubious).
• scan awkwardly in places
  • Take: "A famous bareknuckled boxer although he was not born in Ireland, John L. Sullivan, born 1858 from Irish immigrants was and is historically the first modern world heavyweight champion". There Must be a better way to say this.
• refer to "non cultural" notables. Like Boyle and Walton. Notable? Sure. Relevant in a cultural context? Possibly. But only if introduced in that context. (The current wording looks like someone spotted a list of notable Irish people, and said: "Boyle and Walton belong in there". Without paying attention to the context.)
• inexplicably refers to Ireland's record on gay rights. Without any lead-in. And - while possibly more cultually relevant than a "list of bands" - the sentence looks very very odd indeed given the preceding text. (And the lack of source there too).

Unless any objections (or alt suggestions) I will try and tackle this entire section with a view to creating something more akin to a summary of Culture of Ireland. We can certainly do better than a list of bands and an inexplicably isolated comment about gay rights. Guliolopez 22:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, Guliolopez. It looks very disjointed. - Alison ☺ 22:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I've already tweaked the wording of this while you were typing your talk page comment. I've added some cites to support. How does it look now? Regarding LGBT rights;

• No same-sex civil partnerships nor marriage. See Civil unions in the Republic of Ireland / Same-sex marriage in Ireland
• Equality legislation still leaves a lot to be desired and discrimination based on orientation is still allowable in certain circumstances.
• Transsexual people cannot have their birth certs amended (the Foy case); leaving cert changes were forbidden until just last week.
• There are still many issues around same-sex housing.
• Adoption amongst same-sex couples is a no-no.
• Major issues over healthcare benefits / visitation rights / inheritance amongst same-sex couples.
• etc, etc

The Irish Government are still dragging their heels over the civil partnerships even though the LRC and the Oireachtas Commission reported ages ago. Bertie pretty-much shelved it until after the General Election. And on it goes ... - Alison ☺ 22:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alison. While I was writing my little essay, you were actually solving the problem :) (With that bit at least). Per note above, I'd still recommend (and will start in the morning) a bit of a rewrite of the rest of the section. For example:

• will slim down the expressed impact "The Blizzard's" had to Ireland's culture over (say) language, media, and community/family structures (Which might be hard to do in summary but will give it a go).
• sort out the wording/context around Mssrs. Sullivan, Boyle and Walton, etc :)

Beir bua. Guliolopez 23:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep my eye on this one. I've no problem with simple statements of fact, but be very careful not to word this in a way that implies, for example, Gay adoption is "good" in some moral sense. (Or, indeed, bad). Certainly that is the POV that is ingrained in this discussion! (Sarah777 07:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Um, no. People have been pointing out that the clear POV in the article, "to the forefront in recognising gay rights" is, in fact, not the case. I think we're capable of coming up with a neutral and factual wording. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was a bit OTT; just that what replaced it was worse! (Sarah777 18:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Writing "same sex marriage", without a qualifier, into the article is POV, it just cannot exist according to many people. The pill was always available in Ireland; what is the point in deleting that? Also, adoption by gay couples is not universally supported by the gay community, and not necessarily seen as "good". Needs another qualifier. Gold♥ 11:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is talking about adding in the points Alison or I listed (which would be properly to the Gay rights in the Republic of Ireland article) , just that there's a contradiction in what had been written in the article and what the reality is. Um - yours is the first mention of the pill, I think - where is someone talking about deleting reference to it? (By the way, it, like condoms, used to only be available to married couples with a doctor's prescription - which was by no means universal availability). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent)Well, what's wrong with "first mention", only that my edit was undone. It's just another snippet of information, that's what WP is about! Gold♥ 12:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's true that there hasn't been any statuory recgonition of gay marriage etc, but it's important that the article doesn't implicitly presume that this is some kind of desirable end. Secondly, there has been a substiatial increased acceptance of gay people in Ireland in the last twenty years. The culture tolerates openly gay people, there are many gay bars and other entreprises and gay issues are a part of the political discourse. Not so long ago sodomy was illegal, so it is legitimate to say that there has been progress in this areas.AleXd (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning Sarah777

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Sarah777. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777, where you may want to participate. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of Ulster Scots in the Republic

Two other languages are spoken by the Irish people [...] Ulster Scots by the Ulster Scots population in Ulster.

Is there really a significant number of people in the Republic who speak Ulster Scots, or should this be under Ireland or Irish people instead? Marnanel 00:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

East Donegal has a handful of speakers, I think in the low thousands, also north Monaghan too, I think (although, in reality, it gets blended in with accent and dialect rather than a structured language). The relevant section of the Belfast agreement reads: "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." The Ulster Scots Agency is all-island, although I've never heard of them doing anything south of the border. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's interesting. Thanks especially for the swift response! Marnanel 00:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot be 100% sure but I believe that the Ulster Scots Agency actively promote their culture in Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal, due to a significant Ulster-Scots population living in those counties. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  23:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

New European vector maps

You're invited to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to move this article to Ireland

Following on from the debate on Talk:Flag of Ireland I would like to propose that this article is moved as follows:

Ireland For the state

Ireland (island) for the island

Ireland (disambiguation)

--padraig3uk 17:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the state is more notable than the island and therefore fully support this, it would be like calling Honduras Republic of Honduras and states are eminently notable and should be given priority, SqueakBox 17:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Padraig/(SqueakBox). Please scroll up a few lines, and you will see there was a straw poll here not 8 weeks ago, and the vast majority agreed that the current set-up (Ireland = Island, Republic of Ireland = State, Ireland (disambiguation) = DAB) was preferred over the model you propose.

Scroll up even further and you will see a similar debate in February. Same result.

Scroll up even further, and you will see links to the archives of this discussion page. And you will find dozens of similar discussions. All with the same result.

It is not my place to discourage healthy discussion, but - frankly - we do this every couple of weeks, and - generally - Republic of Ireland is agreed to be a "natural unambiguous" title for this article.

These types of debates have "lost us" several valuable editors over the years (because they normally degrade into flamewars), and I would rather avoid another. Please. Guliolopez 18:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The official name of the state is Ireland not Republic of Ireland, WP is suppose to represent fact not make up names.--padraig3uk 18:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the time has come for a move, it is understandable that a number of editors will be frustrated at yet another poll, but will the "failure" of yet another poll stop the next one, and the next one, and the next...? Also it is clear that the name of the state is not "Republic of Ireland" and a whole series of articles are placed in misinformed names, flag of Ireland is the latest of these that was moved several times last evening. I believe, however, that this article would be best located at Ireland (state), with Ireland as the disambig. Djegan 18:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone would give an example of another sovereign state that is not called by its common English name please bring it here, SqueakBox 18:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

NO, no, no, please don't drive us all crazy with this discussion again. This has been hashed to death SEVERAL times already and it works the way it is. Just leave Ireland the island, and Ireland the state, as they are. If you want to, marginally more accurately call the flag article by the description that is in the constitution, instead of by the name in the constitution, so ahead but you will be wrong. There is no issue where two flag articles are vying for the same title as the island and the state are. However due to the curious situation of the state and the island using the same word, the convenient solution to use the state description, as is in the constitution, resolves that problem and it has worked fine so long as it is explained to people clearly and properly. Go back to the previous discussion where the final consensus was to leave it as it it because, it is fine as it is. Again, stop, no, no, no, just leave it alone. User:SqueakBox you are likely correct about other state naming. it would not be like Honduras because there is not an island and a country with the same name, Ireland is unique in that respect and there is a unique, workable, consensus solution - just the way it is. ww2censor 19:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If your not interested in the debate then don't become involved in it, Ireland is the name of the State and that should be the name used.--padraig3uk 19:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with padraig3uk. Yes, every 8 weeks the topic seems to cause discussion, and we have lost good editors in the past. Well, let's put this one to bed once and for all, because, if not, it won't be the last time this issue is discussed.-Gold♥ 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. As it has been raised again, I must support the proposal, again. The Flag of Ireland debate illustrates, yet again, the crazy situation that arises when we decide to call a state by something other than it's official and common name. (Sarah777 00:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

Comment One thing that should be a consideration in this discussion, how many article will need to be changed because of it. The links and names used in thousands of articles would need altering as they'd be going to the same place otherwise you'd get cases where Northern Ireland is now part of the Ireland state (I know some would like it to be but I'm just pointing out that the move would create false information unintentionally). Historical articles that refer to Ireland would most likely be routing to the wrong article extremely falsely. There are loads of other examples. Ben W Bell talk 07:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I oppose a move from "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland" on the grounds that the island has held the name much longer than any state. Not everyone and everywhere that uses the term "Ireland" is talking about the state, many talk about the island. See my comment above for something to be taken into consideration. I have no objections to moving to "Ireland (state)", and that actually seems more sensible to me. Then you could have "Ireland (island)" and Ireland would rather sensibly be turned into a disambiguation page pointing people to the place they want to go (which would also deal with the issue I've mentioned above as it wouldn't be giving people false impressions and information on the thousands of pages that link to "Ireland." Ben W Bell talk 07:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree - In principle, I think Padraig's and Squeakbox's proposals are much more logical than the current set up. Ben's point about the number of other articles that will be affected does need consideration though. Dan Kerins 08:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - all we'd need here is a volunteer to change all the links. Do I see Ben's hand up??(Sarah777 09:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

Comment - Um no. My life will be busy enough over the next few months as it is, to busy to go through many thousands of links and see if they're pointing the right way. Ben W Bell talk 11:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment A large part of those links come from various templates on articles, so they are easily dealt with, as for the rest they can be dealt with by editors, I have no problem spending time correcting these, if it means that the articles are correctly named.--padraig3uk 18:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose It is fundamentally wrong to take a position like this that is calculated to offend a minority. Particularily in this case, when they've been victimised by a terrorism bigger than 911. PalestineRemembered 16:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect, would you clarify your comments - people were victimised by terrorism on both sides and in any case this is not what is been discussed and it is hard to see the link "calculated to offend a minority". Let us be reasonable. Djegan 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment What are you on about, I fail to see what this dicussion has to do with terrorism, the State is officialy called Ireland that is the only issue here.--padraig3uk 18:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Hey man! We aren't talking of changing the name to Israel! Have you wandered in from another debate? (Sarah777 18:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

Firstly guys, don't feed the trolls (or anyone else who tries to bring "800 years" style argument into play here). Secondly, and I feel I have to reiterate this here, I oppose this proposal. Padraig's pro-proposal argument here seems to be that Ireland is the official name of the state, and so should take precedence over the application of the term to refer to the island. I strongly disagree with this. While I am not from NI myself, making "Ireland" (and by corollary "Irish") equivalent to the state (without a qualifier of either "(state)" or "Republic") does not take into account the use of the term to apply to both jurisdictions. The current set-up nicely handles the naturally ambiguous use of the term. For example, if "Ireland" means the island (which I believe it can), then community members from both jurisdictions can use the terms "Ireland" (and by corollary "I'm Irish") with equal validity. If the term is changed here to apply to a "subset" of the community (overriding it's use to cover the superset without a qualifier of "(island)"), then the whole thing becomes unnecesarily complicated. And in my view, "unfair". As above, while the state name maybe Ireland, Republic of Ireland is officially sanctioned as it's description, is a naturally formed DAB term, and doesn't presuppose supercedence over any other use of the term. The current forms of the intro for both articles (formulated after I can't remember how much debate) handles any further DAB problems. So can we not just leave it as it is? Please? Guliolopez 19:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, if you check his details you'll see PalestineRemembered is not a troll. I think he did wander into the wrong thread. Secondly, our view of the "fairness" or otherwise of this excellent proposal is irrelevant. We must seek to reflect both official and common usage; in this case both coincide, so the course ahead is clear. We must support Padraig's proposal and then close the door on this issue. (Sarah777 23:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

OK. Maybe PR did wander in here innocently. The comments did seem somewhat intruigingly disassociated from the topic. Still need to watch the flaming though.

With regard to whether or not "fairness" comes into it. Maybe my choice of words was poor. My point really is that it's not scientifically sound to apply a term used to describe the superset to an inherent subset. It'll just add to the confusion.

Essentially, the first part of the argument (which you have repeated above) is that "we must reflect official usage". There is no all emcompassing "official" entity which uses the term "Ireland" (the island). The "official" bodies - the B/I intergovernmental conferences, N/S ministerial cm'tee, etc - all use the "these islands" style diplomatic descriptions. With no "officals" to sanction the term for use in application to the island, does that mean that its use by "officials" in a subset jurisdiction has precedence? Not in my view. As a result, I don't think it appropriate to say that "Ireland" (the state) takes precedence over it's use to describe the island.

With regard to the second part of the argument. That "we must reflect common usage". Again, I would argue that "common usage" (both within and outside Ireland) allows for the term Ireland to be used to describe BOTH Ireland (the island) and Ireland (the state). In my view (as above) the "common use" of the term to describe the "super set" (the island) takes precedence.

Anyway, if we are absolutely hell bent on retiring the "Republic of Ireland", then I would concede "Ireland" as a DAB page, and "Ireland (state)" as the new name of this page. But renaming this page as "Ireland" is not correct as it does not take account of the use of the term to describe the island.

Even doing this however is a waste of time in my view, as - as noted ad nauseum - the "Republic of Ireland" title includes a natural DAB (much better than "(state)"), fits your criteria for having "official" meaning (if not official titular status), and a substantial level of "common usage".

Beir bua. Guliolopez 01:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That was my original proposal, that the island of Ireland would have precedence for the name in an encyclopedia, then Ireland (state). ROI is a mere description of the politique of the sovereign state of Ireland. It's the Republic of Sovereign Ireland, not the Republic of the island of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland does not physically exist, no more than the French First Republic physically existed, it merely represents the politique. That's why this change is necessary. Gold♥ 18:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

'Oppose As per Guliolopez. This has been discussed to death regularly and on each occasion the views of the vast majority was to keep the current set-up. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

How many lives will this one have:) . Just refuses to die, been discussed to death, LOL Gold♥ 22:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a time the vast majority thought the world was flat too. (Sarah777 20:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

What??? You mean it's not?? ;) - Alison ☺ 20:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for offending members of the Flat Earth Society! (Sarah777 22:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

No worries. We can accept when we're in a minority. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose -per Guliolopez. Basically same rationale as last time this came up. Ugh - WP:PEREN - Alison ☺ 20:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose the suggested re-location of the state (aka ROI) at "Ireland" per Guliolopez's case. Even if the use of ROI as a page title one day goes, I still don't think that should mean that the state lays claim to the "Ireland" location Nuclare 23:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Not one editor that is opposed to this proposal has given a valid reason why the move shouldn't be made. Ireland is the name of the state, why shouldn't it be treated the same way as all other counties on WP.--padraig3uk 01:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • IMO this needs taking to a wider forum, ie Wikipedia:Requested moves, SqueakBox 01:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, there are two differing scenarios being talked about in this section, and it's all rather confusing. Gold♥ 01:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

First, can you clarify what move you are referencing, Padraig? The "Get rid of the title 'Republic of Ireland'" move? Or, specifically, the "Locate the state at 'Ireland'" move? If you mean #2, perhaps those who support that move need also address why they feel Ireland needs to be treated the same as other states in this specific regard? What if the concept "Ireland" is different? Are you totally convinced that it isn't different? The use of the word Ireland to mean the island (rather than the state) is incredibly common. It's by no means a given that "Ireland" page should be given to the state rather than the island. And there are also those numerous instances where one simply can't assess whether the island or the state is meant by the use of the word Ireland.

I'm rather a newbie in these debates, but it's possible some of the editors here who voted 'Opposed' to your suggestion have already been through these issues (#1 and #2) so many times that retyping their full rationale here doesn't seem appealing. There's always the archives at the "Ireland" and the "Republic of Ireland" discussion pages to read through...uhm, if you dare... :-) Nuclare 04:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for all the reasons stated above in this _ and all the previous _ debates. --Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bitterly oppose for all the reasons stated above in this – and all the previous – debates. -- Evertype·✆ 15:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as Evertype. beano 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote count update - first preferences

(Please vote above the line; update the count only down here)

• Option A - 3
• Option B - 9
• Option C - 16
• Option D - 4

as of 15.39 Western_European_Time, 25th July 07.

PRSTV

Since we have votes with second choices in perfect Irish style we can de PRSTV. sony-youth^pléigh 22:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No we can't, seeing as nothing was said about the vote being multiple choice/PRSTV when it was called. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Awww ... always the spoil sport Bastun! In any case, WP:NOT a democracy - so UK-style first-past-the-post seems more appropriate :)) --sony-youth^pléigh 22:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

second round(sic)

As the combined votes of A and D cannot excede those of the next least popular otpion, both are eliminated

• Option A - 3 (two transfers)
• Option B - 8 + 0 =8
• Option C - 14 + 2 = 16
• Option D - 4 (no transfers)

• • "Having exceeded the quota, Option C is declared elected."

*caution* nothing was said about the vote being multiple PRSTV when it was called

Comment & Interpretation

That is currently 12 for the status quo and 15 for a version of change. Very early days yet. (Sarah777 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

No - summarise the results of the question actually asked, not your interpretation. That is 9 for the status quo, 4 for Options A and D, and 7 for Option B. You cannot translate people's intentions to match your desire for a particular outcome. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I count 9 for the status quo. Are there two that don't count for some reason? Nuclare 02:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please update as you see fit, don't question the good faith of the counter, I'm just trying to put some structure here. It's a Virgo thingy. (Sarah777 03:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Uhm, I wasn't questioning your good faith. I'm new to these vote thingies. It was a sincere question. I grant you, a somewhat dumb question in retrospect, but a sincere one nonetheless. Nuclare 11:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for being snappish Nuc, there is a WP rule about not biting the newcomers which I have ignored. As you are new - some advice: basically almost anything you say can be regarded as breaching WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA or some other WP:OFFENSE and we spend a lot of time accusing one another of such breaches or warning against doing so. So apologies - I forget you were new! Regards (Sarah777 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

It's worth noting that we need a consensus to change. At the moment, the status quo is the most voted for of any single option. As such, if we closed now, the result would be "no consensus/no change." To actually make the moves, we'd need at least a super-majority (>60% of total votes cast, I should think) for one of the other options. We don't look anywhere near that. john k 05:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with that -- after all, many people *HAVE* included second and third preferences, so the sensible thing to do would be to redistribute those votes when the vote is closed. —Nightstallion 14:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not how WP works. If you call a vote, you set out the terms and conditions in advance. This isn't a PR:STV election ;-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

While a consensus is desirable, if none can be reached then other means of resolving the issue, including votes, can be applied. Times change. Years ago when this article was first misnamed there were only a few Irish Editors around and they may have "compromised" on issues, even where such compromise was wrong. I think we can even note a distinct shift in attitudes in the past year, as more and more people take an interest. This is an evolving situation. (Sarah777 14:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

O RLY? No, sorry, I think I'll stick with WP policy and rely on consensus. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I notice that if we do an instant run-off, we first eliminate option D, none of whose first place choosers chose a second place pick, and then eliminate option A, which gets us to 10 for Option C and 7 for Option B. Given that A and D are tied, and nobody picked both A and D, this happens whichever one we eliminate first. So even taking into account second choices and such, that leaves us with a majority for the status quo. An alternate thing would be to just count a vote for each option that any person mentioned as acceptable. That gives us - 9 for A, 8 for B, 11 for C, and 7 for D - so C appears to not only have the most first choice votes, but also to have the most people who find it acceptable at all. And don't give me this nonsense about "misnaming". Calling the Republic the Republic is not a misnomer. It is how it is normally called when one is trying to distinguish it from the island as a whole. Which is exactly what we're doing here. john k 17:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I said the misnaming was unfortunate, and it is. There will be a huge amount of work to be done when the issue is resolved, and the longer it goes on the bigger the problem will become. It is clear there is no consensus for the current state :of affairs which is supported by only 33% of those voting so far. (The simplest analysis can often be the clearest, don't you think?)(Sarah777 20:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Yes, and the simple analysis, proven time and again by the multiple votes on this issue is that people are happy with the status quo. Give it up. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit of breach of WP:CIVIL there perhaps Bastun. I most certainly will not give it up; if someone calls a vote I shall partake in same. Are you suggesting I shouldn't? Clearly people are not the least bit happy with the status quo or we wouldn't be having all these votes. And the current vote shows 66% favour changing the status quo. Maybe we should accept that verdict and move on to deciding the best change; A, B or D? As I said, I see a clear trend here in the past year as more ordinary folk become involved in WikiIreland. (Sarah777 23:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Been eating too many beans lately, Sarah? The vote shows nothing of the kind, as you well know. What sort of twisted logic sees the most popular option discounted? By your reasoning: 83% are in favour of something other than Option A, so that must be discounted; 74% are in favour of something other than Option B - so that must be discounted; and 83% are in favour of something other than Option D - so that too must be discounted. I guess that leaves us with - oh my, Option C... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous! It takes some balls to suggest that we throw out the option which is not only the most popular, but also the status quo. john k 23:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the rules for counting the votes ought to be established before one begins a vote. Are there established Wiki guidelines for all such votes? Or is it done differently all the time? How one votes can depend on their understanding of how the votes will be counted. One such as myself who isn't as passionately behind one view or another on the ROI issue might possibly have voted differently if I'd known my vote was going to be used as a lumped-together 'anti-ROI' vote. I'm more interested in seeing the "Ireland" page kept at its status-quo than in what becomes of the phrase 'ROI.' (This is not to say that I'm not interested in the ROI thing, but I'm conflicted about that issue.) BTW, do those of the anti-ROI variety, do you oppose ALL use of ROI or just the titling of pages, labeling of maps at Wiki with ROI? Nuclare 00:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Votes

I remember during the Nice treaty Bertie told the electorate we would keep having referenda until the treaty was passed! I feel this is the tactics people are using on this article, can we agree a minimum time restriction between these votes (3 in 3 months seems excessive)? The Fashion Icon 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We'd definitely need a "super-majority" for that suggestion! (Sarah777 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Sounds sensible, Fashion. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We certainly don't need a "supermajority". This is common wikipedia practice - if a move, or delete, or whatever, is repeatedly proposed, and repeatedly fails, there's generally meant to be a moratorium for quite a while - I'd say at least six months or so, before it's proposed again. Voting, in general, is frowned upon, especially when it's done repeatedly in the obvious absence of consensus. john k 17:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is very clear movement on this issue and the article title is manifestly wrong; so I reckon it's best to keep the issue under review. Every time a new Irish editor comes along and sees the misnomer we start all over again. This is inevitable I think. (Sarah777 20:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Sarah has a point, we are steadily moving towards apathy! How many times after voting, having your opinion accepted as the concencious point of view, and then being ignored in favour of another identical vote, before the average wikipedian gives up? I think we should have at least waited until the previous poll had closed before opening a current The Fashion Icon 22:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't call this vote; I'd have waited a few more months. But when one was called I feel I have no choice but to participate despite calls for me to "give it up". (Sarah777 23:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Give up voting - of course not. But do please give up putting your own spin on the results. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

More breaching of WP:CIVIL Bastun, I really must ask you to modify your tone and assume good faith. I am presenting my view of the vote. It is no more "spin" than any of the other views. I have supported my view with analysis and argument. (Sarah777 23:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

More beans? Your "analysis and argument" amounts to proposing that the most popular vote be discounted because you don't like it. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have asked you to remain civil now on three occasions. Please heed WP:CIVIL. 66% are opposed to the status quo. Let's work with that and move on. (Sarah777 00:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Ask me 15 times if you want - I still haven't been uncivil. Your facile "66%" argument has already been rebutted - please drop it. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fourth time: please observe WP:CIVIL. The "rebuttal" you cite was no such thing. Please drop your incivility. Thank you. (Sarah777 01:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

There are somne interesting views on democracy out there [6], I guess there is just on qualification needed to overturn the concensuss! The Fashion Icon 10:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Two separate issues

There seem to be two separate issues that people have with the current set-up of the various Ireland articles, which have, I think, unwittingly been mixed up:

1. Is it appropriate for the article on the state to be called Republic of Ireland?
2. Which meaning of "Ireland" - the state or the geographical/cultural entity - is the primary meaning?

To take the second question first, I think this is a valid question. Obviously, both meanings are used quite frequently. Obviously, there's also some complicated political meanings involved here, since many Republicans/Nationalists believe that the Republic and the island should be coextensive, or, in some sense, are coextensive, even if the UK has de facto control over the six counties at the moment (at least, that's my understanding of the Sinn Féin position.)

That being said, if any primary meaning is to be established, it is highly dubious to give it to the modern state, rather than to the island as a whole. "Ireland" is not only a geographical term for the island as a whole. It's also a term for a political entity that existed up until 1922, and a term which even has some institutional relevance today - note the Ireland national rugby union team, for instance. Also note that, while Northern Ireland may not be part of the republic, it would be absurd to say that "Northern Ireland is not part of Ireland." Note that many Northern Ireland institutions simply calls themselves Irish - the Irish Football League, for instance. To assign Ireland to the republic is essentially to deny that Northern Ireland is part of Ireland, which is ridiculous.

So the question becomes the simple one of whether Ireland should be a disambiguation page or should refer to the island. It seems to me that using it for the island is a lot simpler and more sensible. Everyone would agree, I think, that Belfast is in Ireland, and so long as the article on the island has a disambiguation link at the top to the Republic, and also explains clearly in the intro the political situation, I don't see much problem. That being said, I don't think it would be an enormous disaster to make Ireland the disambiguation page, and to move the current article to Ireland (island) - although I think it's silly and unnecessary.

Having considered this, however we decide that issue, we then have the rather simple choice of whether the article on the state should be at Republic of Ireland or Ireland (state). I don't see how that can possibly be in doubt. We ought to prefer natural disambiguation to parenthetical, and Republic of Ireland is perfectly natural, as it's exactly the way one disambiguates when one is trying to specifically refer to the state rather than the island (well, one might say 'the republic', but that clearly doesn't work as an article title). When such terms exist, it behooves us to use them.

Anyway, I hope this little discussion has clarified a bit what I think are several separate issues here. john k 23:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it clarifies nothing John. Every point you have made opposing Ireland being called Ireland in the article about the state has been rebutted many times over. Perhaps you should read the full discussion on this issue, as recommended in the boxes at the top of this page? And yet again, this time to you John, may I point out that - "Outrageous! It takes some balls to suggest that we throw out the option which is not only the most popular, but also the status quo." - is not conducting this debate in a civil manner? There is nothing "outrageous in observing that 66% are opposed to the "status quo", when this is a clear, observable fact. (Sarah777 00:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

• sigh* Ok, then - other "clear, observable facts":
• 83% oppose Option A;
• 74% oppose Option B;
• 83% oppose Option D.

As only 66% oppose Option C, then by your logic that'd be the winner at the poll's conclusion. And Bertie Ahern isn't Taoiseach as the people only elected 78 FF TDs and 88 non-FF-ers... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* Bastun; are you now suffering from "sleeplessness" too? It certainly doesn't improve your reasoning! (Sarah777 01:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

I'm happy to see that Sarah can't get past her disagreement with me on the merits to completely ignore my attempt to clarify the issue by separating out two separate issues that seem to concern people. Beyond that, I've read over this before, and I don't think it's even possible to "rebut" my argument for why the Ireland article shouldn't be about the Republic. One can disagree that my viewpoint ought to be dispositive, certainly, but I don't see how you can rebut the claim "the term Ireland is used very frequently for both the state and the island," since it's pretty demonstratively true. I admit that one can feel that this oughtn't to be sufficient to rule out having the article on the Republic at Ireland, but that's not the same thing a s "rebutting" my point. And Sarah's constant claims that, essentially, she is definitely right and everyone else is definitely wrong do not particularly make for civil debate, nor does her clear intention to ignore all normal standards for surveys. john k 00:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So, John. You are implying that to be more acceptable to your rather odd taste in debate I should occaisionaly advocate positions I believe to be wrong, just so that I can then concede them? Is that what you do? It would certainly explain some of your positions! And I claim that "everyone else is definitely wrong", do I? Hardly, when 66% of those who have thus far expressed a view agree with my contention that "C" is not the best solution. Or have you got your very own definition of the word "everyone"? Seems to me that I am in agreement with more of those who have thus far expressed a view than you are!! So just how uncivil does that make you? (Sarah777 01:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Two further points: A) 15/24 is not 66%. It's 62.5%. B) That 62.5% do not "oppose" the status quo. 62.5% have expressed a preference for something other than the status quo, but they cannot agree on which version they prefer. We have no particular notion that such a large percentage actually disapprove of the status quo. john k 01:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I'll run with ONLY 62.5% being so uncivil as to dare argue with the status quo! (Sarah777 01:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

There's nothing wrong with arguing with the status quo. Arguing on the basis of complete certitude is obnoxious, as is this constant "voting until it goes the way you want it to". I don't expect you to advocate positions you believe to be wrong. But I do expect everyone to at least take a good faith look at the positions of their opponents, and at least try to understand what their concerns are. My post above was an attempt to try to separate out what I saw as several different issues that had become mixed up. I certainly had no expectation that my particular analysis of the right solution to those issues would be accepted by everyone, and I think I went to some lengths to indicate which of my own opinions I felt were more strongly based in the factual evidence. I did think that, even for people who don't agree with me, it might be useful to separate out the various different issues and try to look at them separately, even if you disagree with my analysis of them. Certainly you can't disagree that the issue of "is it appropriate to call the state the Republic of Ireland" is not the same issue as "which entity has a better claim to the title of 'Ireland,' the island as a whole or the republic which occupies the majority of it." By separating the issues out, I was hoping that we could try to have some discussion of t his, and perhaps work towards a consensus, given that your beloved vote is clearly not going to come to any consensus. But I can see that there's no point to any of this. You are not interested in trying to find consensus, or in finding common ground with people who disagree with you. So why should I bother? john k 05:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

John, may I remind you of WP:NPA? "Arguing on the basis of complete certitude is obnoxious" is not the sort of language to encourage any sort of consensus. "You are not interested in trying to find consensus, or in finding common ground with people who disagree with you." - that is failing to assume good faith. It is impossible to continue this discussion with you as any attempt by me to reply in kind would be seized upon by certain agenda-pushers here. "your beloved vote" - it isn't my vote and I don't "love" it. I will restrict myself to addressing your arguments, rather than you personally, perhaps you'd do likewise in relation to me? Please. (Sarah777 09:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

I'd just like to point out that the entire vote can technically be called invalid anyway. Option D was added late in the day after many people had already cast a vote. You can't just add options to a vote and hope for it to remain valid. Not that it matters anyway, Wikipedia consensus is based on consensus and not voting. Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus is gained by discussion not weight of numbers. You can have 95% of people for something but the other 5% put up a well reasoned argument and the other 95% do not. See WP:VOTE. Ben W Bell talk 06:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I presume when you say "You can't just add options to a vote" you are speaking in general terms as I I'd just like to make it clear that I neither started the vote nor added Option D. As for technical validity, it seems that this is more opinion poll than vote because it is clear that some defenders of the status quo find even questioning it to be distasteful and are very unlikely to pay much heed to an ad-hoc vote. And reading your take on WP:VOTE you prove my point though I don't think you advance your case as it is fairly obvious that the former majority for "status quo" is losing the argument precisely because those seeking a better solution are the ones making well reasoned arguments. (Sarah777 09:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Arbitrary section break - hopefully to get back to the subject

Regarding (1), I don't see there being a problem with that. WP:NAME is fairly clear that "popular names" override "official names". As far as (2) is concerned, this is a bit more tricky. People tend to talk about countries more than islands, (politics more than geography), and so I would expect that "Ireland" is used more frequently as a reference to the country than to the island. But, in my experience at least, the country is more often referred to as the Republic of Ireland than simply Ireland. I guess another question is, is there a commonly-used alternative name for the island of Ireland? The answer to that is, yes - but then, what to do with the pre-existing article there? And to use Éire instead of Ireland would breach WP:NAME (since "Ireland" is more common), landing us in all sorts of trouble. On a similar (and somewhat silly) note, we couldn't even use Emerald Isle since that's already taken too! So anyway, that's my brain-dump for the time being :) Waggers 14:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The other thing to mention about naming conventions, is the structure of articles about other divided states, such as Germany, Korea, China, Vietnam and Yemen. These articles are about the whole of Germany, the whole of Korea, the whole of China, the whole of Vietnam and the whole of Yemen. The separate states, East Germany and West Germany, North Korea and South Korea, People's Republic of China and Republic of China, North Vietnam and South Vietnam, and North Yemen and South Yemen are given their own articles. Ireland-related articles should follow the same convention. DrKiernan 14:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on my observations (1) Ireland is more common (popular) than RoI and (2) Ireland usually refers to the Southern State. So - "Ireland" makes on both counts. Also, Ireland is not a divided state in the sense of the countries above. In each case above both parties recognise they are politically part of the whole - just they think their bit is/was the real Government. Officially, and by the lights of the Unionist majority NI - that is a completely different state; part of the UK. Much better comparison would be Cuba/Guantanamo. (Sarah777 20:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

I agree with you on (1). I don't agree on (2). And I'm having difficulty grasping the analogy between Guantanamo Bay and Northern Ireland. Isn't G.Bay just a military base? I don't even know what its actual political status is, since I think the U.S. has a lease on it, rather than it being a U.S. possession. And I don't know that there is a single Cuban in it. How is it analogous to Northern Ireland and all, currently and historically, that can be termed Irish that's in it? Nuclare 23:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the way Wikipedia deals with China is clearly the best precedent here. Even though "China" most commonly refers to the PRC, the article on China refers to the civilization and geographic area and People's Republic of China is the main article on the state. That would imply Ireland is used for the geographic area (like China), and another name (whether that is Republic of Ireland or Ireland (state) doesn't matter to me) is used for the state. Andrwsc 20:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But PRC is the name of the Mainland State of China; RoI isn't the name of the main state on the island of Ireland. (Sarah777 13:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

It is one of its names. Just as PRC is also called "Mainland China", "China", "Communist China", etc. and ROC is also called "Chinese Taipei", "Taiwan", "Republican China", "Zhōnghuá Mínguó", etc. The choice of article title is not based on official names, otherwise Libya would be at "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya". DrKiernan 08:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's just called Libya, the common name. As Ireland should be simply called Ireland; doubly so because Ireland is also the official name. (Sarah777 12:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

There's nothing else commonly called Libya besides the present-day state (all other uses are archaic). This is not the case with Ireland. Note also People's Republic of China. john k 23:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ireland is both the common and official name of the island. Indeed, it is fully accepted as such by everyone. Whereas, the term "Ireland" is not fully accepted by everyone as the name of the country. DrKiernan 12:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Waggers wrote: "People tend to talk about countries more than islands, (politics more than geography)" -- But is it just a tendancy or is it definately true in the specific case of Ireland? That's the question, I think. I also think that this issue can't be defined simple in terms of being politics vs. geography. Interestingly, on the China and Korea pages they don't define those pages in terms of landmass, they speak of the page being about Chinese/Korean 'civilization,' and, while I'm not advocating that the Ireland page use that word, it points in the direction of why I think the concept of Ireland that extends beyond the state is not just about geography. It's tied up with history, culture, people. Nuclare 00:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A thought from a simpleton: how do the uninformed find the right article? Given that the understanding of words and names depends upon context (when my mother-in-law asks if I'm coming to Ireland, she really means her house), I suspect that an English speaker without knowledge of the background might type in "Ireland". At present, that would access the geographic island, which may or may not be right for them, if not they would need to use the right links. If I were asked, I'd suggest that "Ireland" should be a disambig page pointing at pages for the island, the political entity and anything else that qualifies. I would then make sure that each article summarises the different understandings of the name (since this is also a fact worthy of record). Not bothered what each is actually called, but ensure that redirects capture the known versions (eg, RoI, Republic of Ireland, 26 counties, Free State, southern Ireland, etc, etc) so as to aid the user. I accept that this cuts across much informed argument but many of us are not up to speed on this and, bluntly, are more interested in the information in the article. An alternative might be to aggregate everything that could be titled "Ireland" into a single article. I shall now retire to a safe distance. Folks at 137 14:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to take shelter F@137! What you have suggested is actually Option A I'll mark up your vote!

  Ireland for the island
  Ireland (state) for the state
  Ireland (disambiguation)

(Sarah777 12:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

No. F@37 suggests Ireland for the disambiguation page. You should not add votes yourself, it is up to users to add themselves. DrKiernan 12:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Man on the Clapham Omnibus, on visiting the current article Ireland will be told within a few sentences about the sovereign state with the same name taking five sixths of the island and the jurisdiction of the remaining sixth. I think we should credit the MotCO with some ability to work out what is going on - after all he has been expected to decide on far more taxing problems. --Red King 23:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is not a state, and Ireland is the most popular name for Sovereign Ireland, that is with the exception of Britain who have a problem with it, and of course the soccer team. Let's be real here, this is somewhat a British pov/npov issue. From Eurovision, to the Olympics, to the EU, Sovereign Ireland is simply known Ireland. GH 14:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Northern Ireland part of Ireland or not? DrKiernan 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Then again, people from Northern Ireland have performed for Ireland in Eurovision (god help 'em!); the Ireland Olympics team often has Northern Ireland athletes on it and the state now has some double English/Irish name in the EU...just for the record, I guess... Nuclare 02:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

... Kiernan, get with the picture! - we're talking about Sovereign Ireland, Northern Ireland is not Sovereign Ireland, Ireland is Sovereign Ireland, and Sovereign Ireland doesn't include Northern Ireland because that's not part of Ireland, which is Sovereign Ireland and not Northern Ireland so Northern Ireland can't be in Sovereign Ireland because its not Sovereign and its not Ireland, that Sovereign Ireland, Ireland not Northern Ireland - don't dare say Southern Ireland! --sony-youth^pléigh 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Northern Ireland is part of Ireland - it says so here. Bazza 15:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah but Northern Ireland is part of Sovereign Ireland as it has a sovereign, in this case a Queen. Northern Ireland is technically the only part of Ireland that is Sovereign. Whereas the talked about Sovereign Ireland isn't Sovereign Ireland as it doesn't have a Sovereign. Just to confuse things. Just goes to show how word usages change from their original usage. Ben W Bell talk 17:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, LOL, it could only be happening on WP. Should you guys be editing such a complicated issue? :) -GH 17:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And just to make it more simple
Ireland = Island or state named Ireland
Sovereign Ireland = State named Ireland
Northern Ireland = Province of UK

GH 18:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone remind me which rugby team clobbered England at Croke Park last year. Also which cricket team put Pakistan out of the Cricket World Cup. And while I've got me head above the parapet, what sort of spirit is made at Bushmills? Off on hols so in case I'm being obscure - the meaning of "Ireland" depends upon context - this is known only to the individual reader, who may never even know where Clapham is. So, as long as someone can type in "Ireland" and be guided to the stste, the Ireland, the team, or whatever, that's fine. BTW, my comment above was not a vote - more a spoiled ballot, it only encourages. Plz excuse grumpiness, I'm being hassled at home Folks at 137 16:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"...what sort of spirit is made at Bushmills" - Hmm, Six Counties Whiskey? Ulster Whiskey? Nuclare 02:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Norn Iron Whiskey obviously. (212.180.75.26 00:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

Actually, that old meaning of sovereign is no longer relevant. No it just means that it has its own independent government and that it is recognized by other nations. Only Ireland fits that, as Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. I think this series of articles should follow the example of China (like Ireland, can be used as a geographic term or the name of a country). The Ireland article should go to the geography,history and culture of the island, while the two seperate entities should be serperated into their own articles, just like the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China are. Like in law, we should make judgement on precedence, and since that is already set in iron, why not follow it? It's very NPOV and reasonable. --Patar knight 00:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There's 2 sides to any argument/ sea

If anyone wishes to chill out a bit, try this. And keep your humour switched ON. Folks at 137 17:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed UK manual of style

This a proposal for a UK manual of style. This will of course cover the entirity of Ireland during the period 1801-1922 and Northern Ireland since 1922. I don't know how this will effect the current WP:IMOS but input would be welcome: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles). --sony-youth^pléigh 14:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore it when writing about Ireland at any time.

France and its 5 republics

Sorry but the Republic of Ireland was founded in 1949. Like France there were some earlier also-ran republics, but that is the reality. Of course 'Ireland' is a country, but it is a much bigger cultural thing than the RoI, and this page is just on RoI. The history section should link off but give the essential background. When we become the Irish Province in the EU, then the page will be closed off as say Republic of Ireland 1949-2065.86.42.206.158 22:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello? France? Five Republics? No idea what you are on about. Unless you speak clearly I'll not respond. Also, please sign your contributions. (Sarah777 01:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Anons can say basically anything here (apparently) - but the date of the founding of the RoI is irrelevant (never mind France) - Ireland is the official name. Anons seem to be increasing in number....I suspect most are regular editors trolling. Sorry for not assuming good faith, but you need some basis other than dictat for that in the real world. (Sarah777 01:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

I believe this anon editor in Dublin means that: the article "France" covers the whole of France, and the whole of French history from year 0. Similarly, the article "Ireland" should cover the whole of Ireland, and the whole of Irish history from year 0. An article "Ireland" that only covers the state comprising the 26 counties since partition/foundation of the republic is unacceptable to those who view the 6 counties to be an integral part of the history and geography of the island of Ireland.

I agree that it is essentially a repetition of the arguments made previously, but that doesn't negate their contribution. DrKiernan 09:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am agog at how you can wring meaning from the obscure! (Sarah777 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Military

'This is principally due to Ireland's policy of neutrality, and its "triple-lock" rules governing participation in conflicts.' - what the hell's the 'triple-lock'? This isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. Can someone familiar with the subject either add an explanation or a link? Because otherwise, the sentence doesn't make much sense. --24.58.3.248 16:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Added explanation and ref to main text. ww2censor 16:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Partitioned?

The intro now includes The modern sovereign state occupies five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned in 1921.. The island wasn't partitioned - it was the political entity which occupied it which was. A rewording eludes me at the moment, though... Bazza —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Pedantic at best, Bazza. See here. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at all - it just didn't read right. If I'd been in pedant mode, I'd have just changed the wording. Bazza 15:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Bazza - wrote than in a bad mood. Just read over it. Was ill-tempered. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A clarfication please

Having been away from Wikipedia for a while, and slowly catching up on this argument, can I please have something cleared up. From my readings it appears that all sides of the argument attach a different emphasis on the term Ireland. Some think the state should have priority, some the island, and so on. Thinking of compromises, and consensus is the way of Wikipedia (not in a Zen way). So what is known as Option D was suggested, with 'Ireland' directing to a disambiguation page (disregarding that other names given in that option for the moment). It necessarily places an equal emphasis on the state, the island etc., and as a result seems a sensible compromise, and allows for a platform from which the items within the disambiguation page can be named more accurately (e.g. Country or State). It is a compromise.

I'd just like to know why this is not an acceptable solution, even as an initial building block? Sorry if this seems stupid or annoying. Ian Goggin 22:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Very good question Ian. And there has never been a sensible answer from opponents of the idea. (Sarah777 20:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

GDP??

Why is it in dollars? Euro is our currency and I see no good reason it should be dollars, especially since the exchange rate can change and the value of the dollar go to the wall.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.183.241 (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy, I believe. In any event, international standard is to display these kind of stats in dollars. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, just checked Wp:mos#Currencies, and from that it looks like it ought to be in euros. Dppowell 15:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but for international comparisons, a single yard-stick (or even metre stick) has to be used. So all the country articles have GDP in USD. Of course, now that the dollar is in free fall, maybe every country article world-wide ought to be updated to express its GDP in a stable currency such as the euro. Or we could use The Economist's Big Mac Index? --Red King 22:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Per RedKing, GDP is (and should be) shown in USD for comparison purposes in those templates. Every country article from Pakistan to Peru lists the GDP in USD for this reason. (Otherwise comparison is very difficult, and the value of the inclusion of GDP data is greatly reduced). See List of countries by GDP (nominal). If this is seen to be a problem, maybe move for a discussion on the Template:Infobox Country page about creating a "local currency GDP" field. Guliolopez 15:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sports in Ireland

Currently the sport section just lists Irish sportsmen who have been successfull it doesn't even say which sports are the most popular. It should describe particpation in sport at all levels in Ireland. As far as I know Gaelic Football, Association Football, Hurling and Rugby Football are the most popular, in that order. AleXd (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a point. However, instead of listing all sports, or trying to summarise sport's place in life in Ireland, it may be safer to link to the "main" Sport in Ireland (Which covers RoI and NI and deals with the detail you note). Have added it under a {{main|Sport in Ireland}} template. Guliolopez (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)