Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

Date of Formation of Ireland as a state?

This article - List of countries by formation dates - claims that the 'Date of statehood' of Ireland was 1155. Huh? --Mais oui! (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Laudabiliter probably, but that would be a bizarre choice! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
How on earth is a Papal bull interpreted as being the 'Date of statehood' of Ireland? It just beggars belief. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That is on of the strangest errors I have seen here. It is not easy to put a clear date on a unitary-state Ireland but some time under the Brehon Laws, maybe. Laudabiliter has nothing at all to do with the matter - the document had no standing in Ireland at all (even under the assumption that the Pope had some relevant authority under the dubious purported Donation of Constantine, that did not apply to Ireland either, since the Roman Empire did not make it to the island). However, it does now leave the task of correcting the nonsense date - and who will lead off with an initial year...? SeoR (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid became the first genuinely historical High King of Ireland (or King of all Ireland) in 846. I have replaced 1155 with that. Scolaire (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Óenach

Anyone know anything about Óenachs? Any connection with patterns? There was - no surprise - a C20th revival movement; anybody have info on that? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Renaming Republic of Ireland

Republic of Ireland is being discussed for renaming to Ireland (state) on this talk page and may be of interest to some editors here. ww2censor (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


WikiProject Ireland: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 73 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with B. Wolterding because most of these are not notable, or at best questionable, and should have speedy deletion templates added, especially where the notability template has been there for several months. ww2censor (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to plead partly gulity here, because whilst assessing articles I have been busy adding tagging those squillions of {{unreferenced}} stubs, and have tagged some of the most outrageously non-notable. Many of the March 2008 entries in B. Wolterding look like I tagged them.
I agree that many of them should go, but non-notability is not grounds for speedy deletion (see WP:CSD); the appropriate path is to PROD them, which is delightfully easy to do with Twinkle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Surely {{db-bio}} is more appropriate to many of these articles rather than a PROD in the first place? ww2censor (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Drapier's Letters

Could this be added to WikiProject Ireland, and then expanded on in some way? Just like Moyneux's work, it is cited as one of the great pieces that encouraged the Irish people to pursue a constitutional argument that they were independent from England. Although the movement later turned into throwing off the King also, this early movement of having a strong and separate Parliament was a struggle in Irish history that was quite important. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge Ireland related discussions

I have suggested we merge Wikipedia_talk:Irish_Wikipedians'_notice_board to this talk section . Have a look here if you wish too have a say, Please reply on the Notice board to keep this to one discussion Gnevin (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Renaming Republic of Ireland

Republic of Ireland is being discussed for renaming to Ireland (state) on this talk page and may be of interest to some editors here. ww2censor (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Phil Grimes

Phil Grimes place of birth is listed as the free state , do we have any guidelines on this Gnevin (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess if he was born between the betrayal of the Republic in 1921 and it's re-declaration in 1948 he'd be a Stater? Sarah777 (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Or a freebie? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Your saying this should be applied across all Irish(ROI) births 21-48 such as Garret_FitzGerald,Michael O'Kennedy 08:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)?
Strictly speaking, yes. Anyone born in the 26 counties between December 1922 and April 1949 was born in the Irish Free State. The next question is: what about people born between December 1920 (the partition of Ireland) and December 1922 (the commencement of the Free State)? Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
So who wants to open this can on worms ? Gnevin (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be simpler to remove the requirement for the country of birth field from the {{Infobox GAA player}} template? Then you could just say he was born in Waterford, full stop. Crispness (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No thats a total backwards\avoidance solution to the issue and what about {{Infobox Prime Minister}} and {{{Minister for Finance (Ireland)}} they don't have country fields and people still add it to Garret_FitzGerald, and Michael O'Kennedy, I'm happy enough to go with Irish free state but i think others may not Gnevin (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. It adds nothing encyclopaedic to the article on a GAA player to know what was the political nature of the state s/he was born in. Absolutely nothing. It's flagcruft without the flags. Crispness (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you really want to add United Kingdom as the country of birth for most of the six counties players? Crispness (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Every person infobox I know has a country of birth or includes a the country of birth,Northern Ireland is already in common use for NI GAA players as is Londonderry for Category:Gaelic_Athletic_Association_clubs_in_County_Londonderry this is not a political issue .I just asked about IFS here as i hadn't seen this before and wondered was this an once off or the norm Gnevin (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
How many of those infoboxes make it a compulsory field? Not {{Infobox President}}, nor {{Big Brother Contestant}}, nor {{Infobox musical artist}}, to name the first 3 on my watchlist. Its not avoiding the issue. Its avoiding unecessary and unproductive conflict. Crispness (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not compulsory and sure of the 3 you linked too i'd say 99% of the articles included the country , your solution is not workable and even if we remove the county field. We are still back to square 1 what to put for Phil Grimes country wise,its has to be included in the article somewhereGnevin (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Opps sorry it is at moment will fix Gnevin (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Fixed ,so Crispness back to the topic at hand , do you have any objections to the use of IFS in Phil GrimesGnevin (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It adds nothing to the article. Why not just use plain Waterford. Anyone who reads the article and doesn't know where Waterford is, can jsut click the link to find out. It's a no-brainer to me. Crispness (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It's the country this particular Waterford is in see Dublin_(disambiguation),some country has to be used its just standard good practice,I'm inclined to go with historical accuracies Gnevin (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
is in or was in? Why is it in anyway relevant what country Waterford was in when Phil Grimes was born? And what has dabDub got to do with Phil Grimes? Crispness (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Because where he was born is an important fact about a person , dab Dub has nothing to do with Phil Grimes but I'm talking all Irish people born between 21-48 as maybe something that should be added to the WP:IMOSGnevin (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We all know exactly where he was born. He was born in Waterford. Whats uninteresting and irrelevant is which political entity was Waterford part of on the date of Phil Grimes birth. Its a red herring! An irrelevance! And if there is a change to be made to the MOS it will probably be that " ... where the country of birth of irrelevant to the article and its inclusion is in any controversial or disruptive, the most appropriate action may be omit the country of birth from the infobox." or something very similar. Crispness (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't understand why some folk think the state at the time of birth is necessary. Tale the British Isles; the history section deals with stuff that happened long before "British" or "British Isles" was ever invented. So we can just decide to use "Ireland" - pure and simple. This ridiculous flagcruft Wiki-constructionism is bordering on cultishness. A spurious Anglo-American "legality" is used to defy common sense. Sarah777 (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This is bloody mess, fucking wiki politics and nationalistic bullshit come together again to make a simple matter into one which would require the debating skills of a Roman senator, with some users intent to being as disruptive as possible over a none issues,if i could pull the plug on this i would but since i can't and it's already FUBAR ,i'm withdrawing myself from this crap Gnevin (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably wise, if you're going to get that emotional about it! What is FUBAR btw? I haven't come across it before. Scolaire (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you mean FUBAR? Scolaire (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Not emotional just don't have time for this, you know what they say about arguing with fools Gnevin (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

I'm going to straw poll this as Crispness seems to think their is no consensuses. For Irish (ROI) people born between December 1922 and April 1949 should their place of birth be listed as Irish Free State, Republic of Ireland or county but no country such as [1]. Please indicate your support below and reasoning below

Support Irish Free State

  • Support with reservations. December 1922 to April 1949: no problem. Pre-December 1920 should be "Ireland" as the country was united, albeit under British rule. But the period after the coming into existance of Northern Ireland and before the Free State? Tricky! Scolaire (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Republic of Ireland

Support county but not country

Support "Ireland"; no qualification or dab

  • Support - they were born in "Ireland", just as someone born in 1798, 1847, 1910, 1920, 1960 or 2008. Sarah777 (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Ireland the island, would this apply to NI born also? Gnevin (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Why not? Sarah777 (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - agreed, including NI - its easier - the island - a geographic term - ClemMcGann (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As a geographical term. No political terms where unnecessary. --Bardcom (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This seems to make the msot sense. --Sir Ophiuchus (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Remove country of birth field

  • Support - Why not change the infobox to have only a "place of birth" field, which could contain whatever a particular editor thought appropriate. Waterford or Waterford, Ireland or Waterford, Irish Free State. Where it is appropriate to a particular article to include a particular phrase or link then include it. Where not, then don't. Crispness (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment this vote is the same as Support county but not country
Comment - no, it is not Crispness (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment I designed the template and i like to keep information is it 3rd form as much as possible for Category and AWB purposes , Having placeofbirth ,countryofbirth is no than placeofbirth where the country is just added Gnevin (talk)Gnevin (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that you don't actually understand the 3 normal forms. Given that the country of birth is entirely dependent on the location of birth (and not on the article subject), then the 3rd normal form says you should not include it. And the fact that you like to keep information is entirely irrelevant. You seem to have serious ownership issues with this template. Crispness (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no ownership issue with this template,this is about more than the template or Phil Grimes or the GAA , it's a very wide issue which got my attention via the template no more no less as User:One Night In Hackney says below, changing this template will not resolve the underlying issue, you also don't seem to understand that removing the country of birth field will no reslove this issue as people will include the COB information in the placeofbirth field and we are right back to square one Gnevin (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think that would be ideal solution. That intelligent, sentient editors could make an informed decision about the relevance of a piece of information and decide if it should be included or not. Perfect, in my opinion. As I pointed out to ONIH below, I don't believe the faux dichotomy needs to be resolved at all. Crispness (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems to be chucking the baby out with the bathwater. Regardless of whether the infobox has this field anyway, the place they were born should still be in the main article body, therefore the "Irish Free State" vs "Republic of Ireland" still needs to be resolved either way. One Night In Hackney303 15:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - If you knew I was born in Dublin (birthplace) and you knew when I was born (birthdate) why would you need to know which country my birthplace was part of on that date? Unless of course there was something of relevance to that country within the article? Crispness (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Because not everyone is as familiar with Irish history as us , thats like saying if i told you i was born in Bílina and I gave you a date you would figure out the state name at the time ,crap, Wiki isn't in the business of creating guess work and vagueness Gnevin (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
All the more reason to use what the lay reader will understand - Ireland (the island) pure and simple. Sarah777 (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of the time a reader would have no interest in what country the placeofbirth was part of when the subject was born. And where there was something in the article which made it relevant (Phil Grimes seems to be lacking in this respect) it could/should be mentioned. Is there anything about Phil Grimes and/or his article that makes the fact that he was born within the political boundaries of the IFS interesting or encyclopaedic? Crispness (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions

  • This is too big an issue to be decided on a single article/example. I need clarification if this vote is intended to cover just the {{Infobox GAA player}} or is it any infobox with a country of birth field? Perhaps this page is the wrong venue for the discussion. I am also unsure why the proposal would be date limited. It just doesn't make any kind of sense. Crispness (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I would cover every articleas outline above and the date is limited as that is the time the IFS excised simple Gnevin (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't see where there is any outline, list or category of article above. The straw poll doesn't say which articles would be covered. And I cannot understand why you want to limit the discussion/ruling to articles whose subjects were born between those dates. Surely the question that should be considered is "Should we include in the countryofbirth field the country which the placeofbirth was part of at the time of the article subject's birth." If you ask the wrong question you are bound to get the wrong answer. Crispness (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should look then as above I'm going to straw poll this as Crispness seems to think their is no consensuses. For Irish (ROI) people born between December 1922 and April 1949 should their place of birth be listed as Irish Free State, Republic of Ireland or county but no country such as [4]. Please indicate your support below and reasoning belowGnevin (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing in that sentence to say which articles it refers to. To simplify matters, perhaps you could answer this question with a simple Yes/No answer. "Is it intended that this poll only refers to articles which include {{Infobox GAA player}}?" Crispness (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No, all Irish people from the dates above Gnevin (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I understand the all, but my question refers to the context. Are we only talking about the countryofbirth field in an infobox? Or are we talking about inline text? For me I have no problem saying "Phil Grimes was born in Waterford, in what was then the Irish Free State, ..." or something like that, but only where

such a reference has some bearing on the subject of the article. My problem lies solely with putting it in an infobox.

Just to clarify then, that I'm not sure what context we are supposed to be discussing here. Crispness (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:Flags saying no place of birth flags so that isn't an issue Gnevin (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gaelic_Athletic_Association :Good article drive

Can one who who is good with pose have a look at Gaelic_Athletic_Association#Failed_GA and maybe help get Gaelic_Athletic_Association up to Good article standard Gnevin (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving articles from RoI to Ireland

***Sigh!*** -- More articles have been renamed:

I know the background on the name of the state and don't need a tututorial on it, but this moving is just plainly leading to a confused encyclopedia, where was the approval for these moves? Djegan (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's OK DJ. I approve of them; the moves are fully acceptable, even desirable. Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
If people want to move articles en masse then they should first discuss the issue and gain a broad consensus and agreement - and finally, if broadly agreed, have articles moved by an administrator. Not piecemeal moving one, or two, or three at a time. Djegan (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well spotted - moved them back. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I moved these pages. BaTsun has pointed me to this forum. Thank you for that. I think the above pages should be moved. I take it that every one here knows the name of the Irish state is Ireland not Republic of Ireland. This is discussed at length at: Names of the Irish state. Sometimes people say that confusion can be caused by using "Ireland" instead of "Republic of Ireland" because it is the same name as the island of Ireland. Sometimes, that argument is genuine and makes sense. Other times it stems from a POV where people do not accept the name of the Irish state or simply regard the name used as unimportant.
These particular articles concern the civil service, the public service and foreign relations. Islands do not have civil services, public services or foreign relations so, in my view, there is no potential for any confusion. Not to use the correct name of the state would in my view be highly POV. There really needs to be good grounds before an inorrect name for a country should be used. Is there any support (or further objections) to these moves?Redking7 (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Funny, only earlier today someone was claiming that the island had a flag... :-) Yes, I object to the moves. As discussed at length and ad infinitum on Talk:Republic of Ireland, WP uses the official description of the state (RoI) for its article names on Ireland, rather than the official name - and there is no consensus for a move. While these are different articles, they should remain at their RoI names for consistency and to avoid confusion - because while you, I, and probably most others reading this page know the difference between Ireland and Ireland, general readers of WP may or may not. As an aside, while an island can't have a public or civil service (or a flag), there are civil and public servants working for north-south bodies... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Re Bastun's comments above: "they should remain at their RoI names for consistency and to avoid confusion" [There are numerous articles concerning the state that use the name "Ireland", not "RoI" so consistency point is a red herring. Each proposed move should be looked at on its individual merits]; "no consensus for a move" [I am not proposing a move for the "Republic of Ireland" article]; "WP uses the official description of the state (RoI) for its article names on Ireland" [No. Numerous articles refer to Ireland, not RoI. The main article is "Republic of Ireland" because the island of Ireland article already has the name "Ireland" - not because WP will not allow the correct name of the state to be used]; "and to avoid confusion" [This is the nub of the question, what confusion? Please elaborate on how confusion could be cause by the three proposed moves? "general readers of WP may or may not" [Given the context of the three articles readers could not possibly think they refer to the island. Also, readers should not be misled into thinking "RoI" is the name of the state - that is not what encyclopedias should be about. "civil and public servants working for north-south bodies" [Yes indeed but there is no island civil or public service, just as representatives of many states work in the UN but there is no 'earth civil service'.]
RoI is not the correct name of the state so, in my view, the burden should be on those opposed to the move to show good reasons. It is a serious matter to deliberately use the wrong name of the state. So far, I see no reasons why the three proposed moves should not be supported. Redking7 (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree. I think it it's past time we took a firm line on this issue - Ireland is the state that includes Dublin. Let's stop accepting any other bull. Sarah777 (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil, Sarah. Ireland is also the island that contains Belfast. RoI serves as an accurate disambiguation for the articles in question. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ireland (island) and Ireland (country) seems good to me. Or even "for other uses see Ireland (the state)". No problemo. Sarah777 (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate every one's views. However, this discussion only concerns three proposed moves: Articles which concern the civil service; public service and foreign relations. Lets focus only on the three moves proposed. I do not want this proposal to become the victim of a much wider point of contention. Does any one have any genuine reasons why these articles should not be moved? If you support the three moves, please also note your views. Thanks. Redking7 (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I personally can't support the moves. If I take just one example. The proposed title "Foreign relations of Ireland" is ambiguous. It's unclear from the title whether the article covers the relations between Ireland (IE) and Northern Ireland (NI), between IE, NI and the rest of the world, or some complicated combination of both. The existing title doesn't suffer from those issues, as it's clear which state's relations are in question, it meets COMMONNAME, and is consistent with the other titles. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The kernel of the problem here regarding Ireland V Republic of Ireland V Northern Ireland is that Northern Ireland is a mere statelet that was created as a result of Ireland leaving the United Kingdom. Ireland is the state, and it covers 85% of the Island of Ireland. Northern Ireland shouldn't have any weight in the encyclopaedia regarding the title of the Ireland(state) article, and should be merely referred to as Northern Ireland. 78.19.65.254 (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Guliolopez is right. Moving around articles in this piecemeal fashion is nothing short of a fiasco and invites outright confusion and opportunism - we should focus on content not nit-picking titles. Concurrent votes and discussions have indicated that "Republic of Ireland" is the agreed name for the article that deals with the state, notwithstanding the constitution and thus articles should primarily flow from that.
Their is no need to deliberately confuse generic articles (education in, foreign relations of, public service of, etc - note the use of lowercase) that should be "of the Republic of Ireland" with specific articles (Constitution of Ireland, President of Ireland, etc - note the use of uppercase) that should be at "of Ireland".Djegan (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It really is a very silly situation where a mere 15% of an Island is skewing up the Ireland article. This is second rate stuff, and we are talking about an encyclopaedia that is supposedly geared toward the future. Ireland is the name of the country and state, and should be called by its proper name. Forget about changes being a bit troublesome, everything of value can be troublesome at times. Northern Ireland should carry little weight as per naming, it's merely called Northern Ireland. 78.19.65.254 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
See WP:COMMONAME, which incidentally allows Londonderry (official name of city) to be located at Derry (common name of city). Personally whilst I agree that the current naming compromise is not ideal none-the-less it has wide consensus and disambiguates easily. Article names like Ireland (state) would be oka on their own but usage in other articles (for instance Education in Ireland (state)) or categories and templates would be messy and amaturish at best. Djegan (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No, no quite. You'd have Education in Ireland. The state would be presumed, as naturally it would be. A disambiguation notice at the top of key pages can easily deal any doubts. I think some of us are assuming that readers are easily confused. But that is what's exactly happening. WP is confusing the reader with wrong names etc. If the reader is truly interested, they'll grasp the concept of Ireland the state, and Ireland the island, very easily. 78.19.65.254 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Nortern Ireland is a red herring. Its the fact the both the state and the island are called Ireland. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Same with Iceland, then why all the discussion? 78.19.65.254 (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No one has shown how the name change of the civil service; public service; or foreign relations articles would cause any confusion. One user above said "The proposed title 'Foreign relations of Ireland' is ambiguous". [It clearly is not. "Ireland" in this context could not possibly refer to an island]. Other users just relied on rhetoric not reason: e.g "a fiasco"; "opportunism". Other have confused the question, e.g by bringing up unrelated topics such as the Derry article; or proposals to rename the RoI article. Another user tried to make a distinction between articles beginning with capital letters and lowercase letters which made no sense to me.
One user even said this was "nitpicking". Can any one imagine the reaction there would be if I tried to move the article "foreign relations of the United Kingdom" to say "foreign relations of the British Kingdom"? There would be uproar. These moves are clearly not nitpicking. My point is that unless there is a genuine and important need to use the "RoI" descriprion, the correct name of the state should be used in these three articles.
Some good points in favour of the move were made. Please support these three moves. Redking7 (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - no reasonable arguments against this move have been advanced. Sarah777 (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
""Ireland" in this context could not possibly refer to an island" -- tell that to someone reading outside Ireland, or who comes from a country where their is not a large Irish community. Simply stated Ireland is a small country (however you define it) in a large world.
My usage of the Derry article is to demonstrate that the "official name" is not always used, its a fact that the city is actually called "Londonderry", not "Derry", per the legally recognised royal charter.
Consistancy in naming is not nit-picking -- its good policy and practice - the usage of lowercase (whilst you might have missed a very obvious point) is that the three articles do not require capitals by way of proper noun.
If you want to move articles where the move is a contentious move you need consensus. Djegan (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

All of this infighting over names is the realisation that wikipedia is really just a total failure and a total waste of time. Instead of improving articles by content, images, grammer and spelling theirs a ongoing discussion every three months on where to locate the articles. As if moving some articles piecemeal is going to solve anything (well maybe at least for another three months). Djegan (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it feels like that but 99.9% of WP gets on with buliding content - keep the faith! --Red King (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We have Roads in Ireland which is about roads in the island. I would like to think that an Education in Ireland would take a similar all-island perspective: the south and the north have far more in common that either have with Great Britain, in terms of educational values and segregated schools, for example. --Red King (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Education in Ireland would take a similar all-island perspective" - we need to face the fact that the partition of Ireland is a reality - trying to merge two articles will not neccessarily result in overall improvement. Their is actually quite a difference between education in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. What next - legal system of Ireland? Lets get back to reality no matter how sobering it is. Sticking your head in the sand is not a solution. Djegan (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not for Red, but if you did it I think it would solve a lot of problems :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Spending the next two years merging articles isn't an improvement. Djegan (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sobering fact is people that if we move these three articles this week then next week it will be another three and the week after another three, then followed by a similar run on categories and templates over an extended time.

This is just piecemeal moving just because a minority cannot get a consensus on moving Republic of Ireland to Ireland - which is their real prize. The proposed solution is the "runner up" prize. Djegan (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to stop this run say "no" now - otherwise be prepaired for an extended run on the system over the next few months. Djegan (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with callingl them Education in Ireland, and Education in Northern Ireland respectively. Ireland should refer to Ireland the state, (except for the island article). And Northern Ireland should quite simply refer to Northern Ireland. There aren't any problems involved that I can see, it seems to be crystal clear and simple. Or am I missing something? 78.19.216.211 (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Still no genuine reasons have been given why these three articles should not be moved. Every proposed article move should be judged on its merits. Others articles may well be moved in the future but not if the moves would cause confusion. These moves will create no confusion. What is the problem with these moves? None. Say yes. Redking7 (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Redking7: With respect you need to take a step back and actually read other users comments and not just ignore them off hand just because you don't like what you see. Stop continously asking for "genuine reasons" as if the people who said "no" or "oppose" only said "no" or "oppose" - everyone has elaborated, on both sides and all views are valid as such. Stop your selective viewing. Djegan (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
In my comment above, I failed to say explicitly that I oppose the proposal. I am concerned that the consequence will be that most if not all of the existing XXXXXX in [the island of] Ireland will be split into south and north making the situation worse rather than better. Sometimes it best to concede the trivia from a position of self confidence rather than try to take a sledge hammer to the smallest slight. Leave it alone, it doesn't matter. --Red King (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Nor will you get any genuine reasons. There is a group of editors who have too much invested in keeping the mess that is the naming of Irish articles intact. They think "no" is a reason. Sarah777 (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You can hardly argue with the Irish Constitution, can you? Ireland is the correct and official name. The only worthwhile point being made against the renaming is that people would confuse the island with the state. A counter argument is that perhaps if encyclopedia's were accurate, less people would be confused... Bardcom (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! Totally agree. It's Wikipedia that is making people confused. For some reason some editors believe that the readers cannot grasp the concept of "Ireland the island" V "Ireland the state". The encyclopedia will just have to use the proper terms, or else it's failing to do what it is supposed to do, like educate. 78.19.108.110 (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Wiki has this one badly wrong. But Rome wasn't destroyed in a day. Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


This following a very long (possibly dull and unavoidably repetitious) comment. As is apparent from the above, I have proposed the three moves under discussion. This is a serious response to a comment that I needed to “step back and actually read other users comments [rejecting the three moves] and not just ignore them””. It is an attempt to build consensus.

Overview: The name of the Irish State is Ireland not the Republic of Ireland. This is discussed at length at: Names of the Irish state. Sometimes people say that confusion can be caused by using "Ireland" instead of "Republic of Ireland" because it is the same name as the island of Ireland – what I will call the “Confusion Argument”. Sometimes, that argument is genuine and makes sense. Other times it stems from a POV where people do not accept the name of the State; do not regard the name used as important; and/or are not concerned that use of other names are inaccurate and misleading.

Several attempts to use the Confusion Argument against the moves have been made. The central response to each is that these particular articles concern the civil service, the public service and foreign relations. Islands do not have civil services, public services or foreign relations. If a reader comes to the article, the reader could not possibly think that these were institution or foreign relations of a geographical entity. They necessarily have to be institutions of a political entity, i.e. the State. There is no potential for any confusion. Rather than repeating this point over and over, I will call this counter-argument the “Islands Are Not States Response".

CONFUSION ARGUMENT

The following is a response to each particular Confusion Argument raised:

  • “ [the moves will] plainly [lead] to a confused encyclopedia (sic)” – No they will not. See: Islands Are Not States Response; in addition, use of the “RoI” is inaccurate, misleading and itself causes confusion about the name of the State.
  • There are “civil and public servants working for north-south bodies" - Yes there are but there is no island civil or public service, just as representatives of many states work in the UN but there is no 'earth civil service'.
  • “RoI serves as an accurate disambiguation for the articles in question” – There is no need for a disambiguation. See Islands Are Not States Response above. If notwithstanding this, something to address disambiguation is required, there could be a disambiguation notice at the top of three pages. As I don’t know what ambiguity there would be, I don’t know what would go in the notice – possibly a message directing the readers to Foreign relations of the United Kingdom if they wish to read about the foreign relations of Northern Ireland.
  • ”The proposed title "Foreign relations of Ireland" is ambiguous. It's unclear from the title whether the article covers the relations between Ireland (IE) and Northern Ireland (NI), between IE, NI and the rest of the world, or some complicated combination of both.” Firstly, see Islands Are Not States Response above; Secondly, the ‘complicated combination’ you refer to is not even a possibility: The island of Ireland (that is IE and NI) could not possibly have a “foreign relations” policy with other countries because IE is a state and the other is a part of another state. This argument is exactly akin to saying that the title “foreign relations of Luxembourg” is confusing. After all there is also a region in Belgium called Luxembourg: (See: Luxembourg (Belgium)), indeed that region is much larger than the Luxembourg state. Nobody seriously thinks that the Luxembourg article causes confusion just as the “foreign relations of Ireland” article would not cause confusion.
  • “The existing title doesn't suffer from [problems of ambiguity], as its clear which state's relations are in question”. See the response immediately above. The existing title suffers from the serious problem that it uses the wrong name for the State (For brevity, I will not rehash the arguments for the moves but summarise them below).

CONSISTENCY AND OTHER ARGUMENTS

  • “[the articles] should remain at their RoI names for consistency " and [the existing names] are consistent with the other titles”. -There are numerous articles concerning the state that use the name "Ireland", not "RoI" so consistency point is a red herring. Each proposed move should be looked at on its individual merits.
  • WP uses the official description of the state (RoI) for its article names on Ireland" - No. Numerous articles refer to Ireland, not RoI. The main article is "Republic of Ireland" because the island of Ireland article already has the name "Ireland" - not because WP will not allow the correct name of the state to be used.
  • "Republic of Ireland" is the agreed name for the article that deals with the state, notwithstanding the constitution and thus articles should primarily flow from that.” – No this in no way reflects WP philosophy or rules. Lots and lots or articles cannot be given their “correct” names because another article is located under that name. There is absolutely no rule (or in the case of these three moves) against using the name Ireland for the state.
  • "There should not be any “piecemeal moving” of articles concerning the state one, or two, or three at a time." - No. Every article move should be considered on its individual merits. Moving individual articles is an ordinary part of editing. These particular three moves are appropriate. Others may not be. I would not support moves if they would cause confusion.
  • “[the current article names] meet COMMONNAME”. In fact, this is not correct. I do not know how one measures use of the RoI v Ireland names but, I think most people would agree simply Ireland is used more often. Perhaps more importantly, in official contexts such as at the UN or EU, only Ireland is used for the state.
  • ”Their (sic) is no need to deliberately confuse generic articles”...e.g. President of Ireland... "lowercase" letters etc. "Consistancy (sic) in naming is not nit-picking -- its good policy and practice” - Republic of Ireland is uppercase. Ireland is uppercase. President of Ireland would hardly be lowercase just as Monarchy of the United Kingdom is uppercase. Whatever argument underlies this upper-case/lower-case point, it does not undermine the strong arguments in favour of the three moves. It appears to be a consistency argument but it is more important that the name of the articles concerned are consistent with the name of the State.
  • The moves would be “messy and amaturish (sic) at best”. No, there are a range of important reasons why these moves should be made.
  • “we need to face the fact that the partition of Ireland is a reality”....and discussion re all-island movements etc. - Three article moves are proposed so that they accord with the name of the state as no confusion will be caused by the moves – nothing more. It is unfortunate these moves may be the victims of much broader issues to which they have nothing to do with.
  • The ”[s]obering fact is people that if we move these three articles this week then next week it will be another three and the week after another three, then followed by a similar run on categories and templates over an extended time.” – Three articles are proposed to be moved. If other articles in the future are to be moved, they too will need to be discussed just as things always are on Wikipedia. Every move must be assessed on a case by case basis.

SHORT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS FOR THE MOVES

  • RoI is not the correct name of the state, Ireland is. WP should be accurate.
  • The moves will not cause any confusion.
  • The concerted practice of using the RoI description rather than the name, Ireland, even where there is no possibility of confusion is offensive.
  • Ireland is accepted as the name of the State by every country and international body. Where no confusion will be caused, WP should reflect this.
  • The moves will mean that the articles will be consistent with the name of the state concerned and with other articles on the foreign relations of other states (where descriptions such as "Republic of" or "Kingdom of" etc. are generally not used - even where those descriptive terms are parts of the official name of the states concerned).
  • The concerted practice of using the RoI description rather than the name causes confusion about what is the name of the State.
  • The burden should be on those opposed to using the correct name of the State to show good reasons whay it shuold not be used - not the other way around.

In conclusion, please Support these three article moves. Redking7 (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant summary! Support, of course. Sarah777 (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment This user (Sarah777) has already voted. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Straw poll and additional discussion

Another rehash from Redking7.

Moving these three articles would go totally against the spirit of talk:Republic of Ireland that has endorsed a "Republic of Ireland" as the name in wikipedia for the state time and time again (indeed so often one wonders why it reappears every three months a move is proposed only to be defeated). In any case moving these three articles would invariable lead to another (failed?) heave against Republic of Ireland.

Here is the stated positions (feel free to correct me - or add yourself to the respective list if you "vote"):

Oppose All 3 Moves: (8): Bastun, BrownHairedGirl, Djegan, Guliolopez, John Carter, Ww2censor, User:Traditional unionist, Crispness

Support All 3 Moves: (7†): 78.19.65.254†, Bardcom, Redking7, Sarah777, Wikipéire, Melvo, perryn,

Alternate views: (1): Valenciano

Neutral views: (2): GoodDay, ClemMcGann

Support Move for Foreign Relations Article only: (1): Red King.

Oppose Move for Civil and Public Service Articles only: (1): Red King.

†Generally anonymous votes are not considered.

Regards Djegan (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The comment "Another rehash" is not appropriate, and is disdainful and dismissive. I for one thought that it was a very good summary, and a lot of work went into the post. A little respect for his effort should be the minimum reaction, whether you agree with this position or not. It's also very disingenious that whenever this topic is raised here, somebody always says "Oh, this is an old discussion that has already been dealt with on the Republic of Ireland Talk page". Yet, on that talk page, people are directed back here - as a discussion that has already been dealt with. I've looked back, and there has never been a consensus on this topic. I for one applaud the geniune AFG efforts so far on this page. For the record, I do not support using the term "Republic of Ireland" under circumstances dealing with the state. Use of this term encourages and propagates use of alternative terms, and is simply wrong. It's wrong. What else is there to discuss? It's wrong. Bardcom (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly agree with you about the dismissiveness. However, as these issues are decided on the arguments and not the vote, those in favour of moving this article to the correct title (Ireland) have no need to make any further case. Let's just move it. Sarah777 (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
ww2censor (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ireland is the major state in Ireland, 85% of the island, and should be referred to as "Ireland". Northern Ireland, is just another statelet, and should be referred to as simply "Northern Ireland". In my experience, the people who don't want to use the proper name "Ireland", are usually British, Unionist, or extreme Republicans. Are we satisfying all 3 at Wikipedia for some silly "balanced article". It reminds me of the joke about the well balanced guy who had a chip on each shoulder. -78.19.77.76 (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Political ideology is not the question here, its practicality and consensus. Djegan (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
"practicality and consensus", yes, and I hope it's not political. I just cannot see the "problems". Quite simply, Ireland is the name of the state, and a tiny 15% stayed in the UK. Is the tail not wagging the dog? -78.19.77.76 (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Repeating yourself ad infinitum isn't going to win you any arguments. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The argument is already won; the only issue now is whether editors intend to follow policy and move this article or be disruptive and obstructionist. Sarah777 (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Percentages of area are not really relevant, we could also quote population figures Northern Ireland:Republic of Ireland is 1,710,300:4,339,000 which is approximately 1.0:2.5 which makes your arguement a lot less impressive if it were a numbers game. But its not. Its a discussion and consensus. Djegan (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrong again DJ; as you know 40% of the population of NI have no wish for that state to exist - we are talking 1 million v. 5 million; close enough to 15%. Sarah777 (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
"40% of the population of NI have no wish for that state to exist" -- what utter nonsense. At a time when "free" Ireland's health service is falling apart and a subject of daily scandal theirs not too many in Northern Ireland that would give up the National Health Service funded from Westminister. And thats only one example of why most right minded Northerns would stay in a United Kingdom - theirs many more reasons why they want to stay out of a "united" Ireland, and their certainly not going to be forced into one. This is no place for anti-British sentenment. Djegan (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said, 40% of the population have no wish for the NI state to exist. Live with it. 43% vote for Nationalist parties. And the UK is responsible for a million deaths in Iraq; NI is an economic basket case - no place for anti-Irish rants on Wiki DJ. Sarah777 (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
A lot of anti-British vitriol. Ireland played its part in the Iraq war, not least U.S. military planes at Shannon Airport. If theirs Iraqi blood on American hands, then theirs Iraqi blood on Irish hands to. Thats not an anti-Irish rant. Djegan (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Talk not to me about anti-British vitriol, what about your anti-Irish vitriol DJ. Beginning to get into the realms of Godwin's Law here. Ireland is committed by international treaty to allow US planes landing rights, +UN res. Irish fingers did not press those buttons that killed so many. No point pretending either. Have you got a grudge against Ireland DJ. Well, I think you should recuse yourself from the issue at hand. -78.19.77.76 (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
We've had a Master Class in anti-Irish vitriol from DJ and Tharkun tonight. These are the guys who claim, unlike me, that they have no POV!! Lol! Sarah777 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Anti-Irish vitriol, it rampant, even here. Infiltration? ;~) -78.19.77.76 (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"...you should recuse yourself from the issue at hand..." -- No. Djegan (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Leaving aside Iraq (what's that got to do with this page?!) - 43% of NI voters appear to vote for nationalist and republican parties who support the Good Friday agreement and who recognise and support the NI state. Remind me, what proportion voted in favour of the referendum again? Now - can we please stay on topic. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 01:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You think those 43% regard themselves as "British"? Even the 27% who voted for the IRA? (Remember Sinn Fein/IRA?). LMAO! Sarah777 (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. That's an entirely different question. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment, Djegan, I hope you are not revealing a political hand here. What I said about British, Unionist, and extreme Republicanism, is in fact quite true, and is not a political bias. -78.19.77.76 (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, what are you incinuating? Can someone not speak their mind when presented with utterly fantasy figures. Theirs no censorship in wikipedia. Thanks. Djegan (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey! The wit and wisdom of DJ! "This is no place for anti-British sentenment" followed by "Theirs no censorship in wikipedia." Which is it DJ? Free speech - or free speech for British editors?! (There is a difference you know) Sarah777 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a Non sequitur argument that you propose. I don't think Irish people should run down their own country in presenting a case. And it certainly is not Argumentum ad logicam in this particular instance. -78.19.77.76 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Latin - not that I know what it means or have any interest in finding out what it means. But theirs no shame in the truth. Absolutely none. The truth will set you free. Djegan (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not the place for political rants. -78.19.77.76 (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Delusions of a "united" Ireland aside lets get back to the question. Djegan (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
And its not "British, Unionist, or extreme Republican" to say the truth either. 40% - utter nonsense. Were did you come up with that figure. On the back of a Sinn Fein publication (no double subsidised by the British taxpayer) at the last election. Utter nonsense. Djegan (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
40:60 if their were a vote on the subject in the morning. Utter nonsense. Djegan (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I certainly hope other opinions are welcome, and that's my opinion, and actually haven't repeated myself. I'll add no more to this topic for the moment. User:Bastun, I warned you before about "ad hominin" attacks, this one concerning your "ad infinitum" remark. I am well able to absorb your attacks, but that's no excuse to continue. Please read WP:NPA, and please argue your case, and not attack the other editors. Thank you. -78.19.77.76 (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I must also warn Bastun for his ad hominem attacks - he regularily attacks me the same way. No more Bastun - please. Sarah777 (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The phrase is ad hominem - and stating that repeating an argument an argument ad infintum won't it for you is in no way a personal attack. Now, Sarah, care to show me where I've attacked you, or withdraw your allegation. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Add me to the list of opponents of the move. "Civil service of Ireland" is ambiguous (does it cover the north, the republic, or both?) whereas "Civil service of the Republic of Ireland‎" is unambiguous.

Whether or not anyone likes the situation, the fact is that the sate called Ireland dies not cover the whole island: when referring to the state we therefore need to use an article name which makes it clear to the reader what the article is about. "Republic of Ireland" is a description of the state which has been enshrined in law for nearly 60 years, and the alternatives are clumsy artifacts such as Civil service of Ireland‎ (state). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

But the most pertinent fact is, the name of the state is Ireland, and the civil service is an instrument of the state, not the island. The Irish government refers to it as the Civil Service of Ireland. This is the correct name. I agree with you that like it or not, Ireland does not cover the whole island, but who said it was trying to? This is a simple naming issue. Your point on being unambiguous assumes that there is confusion in the first place - please see comment above by Redking as the "confused argument" was dealt with very clearly. Are you suggesting that the Irish government should also change the names of the various organizations too? The only reason people are confused is because clumsy alternatives for the real name are being placed in articles because otherwise people will get confused. It's a self-propagating truth... Bardcom (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Closure of poll - we should consider a definite cutoff point - perhaps a week from the 17th (the original opening of this discussion thread), or a week from the 23rd (the original opening of the straw poll). Djegan (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Let my neutral vote represent the 'uncertain' editors. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Why the rush DJ? This issue has been contested since before I graced Wiki with my contributions and it will remain until it is properly resolved in line with Wiki policy and practice. I strongly oppose any attempt to close this poll before 31st March. Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet elsewhere you're giving users 24 hours - in the middle of an ongoing AfD - before you threaten a "speedy move"? A week is more than adequate for a straw poll. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry - I'm sure an administrator could be found in good time to wrap this up in one week. You can always open it in three months. Djegan (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly if it is closed before 31st March it will be re-opened much sooner that that. My "speedy" is simple enforcement of a clearly stated Arbcom ruling. No equivalence. Sarah777 (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I approve of the move. Ireland is the most common name of the state and the island doesn't have a similar page so according to all the arguments I've heard before, there is no reason to not move the pages.Wikipéire (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I an also for the move. The official name of the country should take precendence. In this case the description is irrelevant and any arguments against this move are irrelevant. Denying this move would be a complete rejection of the state's constitutional official name.Melvo (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also opposed to the move. I would tell you why myself - but BHG seems to be of like mind - what she said. "Ireland" tells an abigious story and not the while story. Republic of is required for clarity.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Would support moving to Civil Service of Ireland (state), otherwise oppose per BHG. Valenciano (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
For me it's a struggle to decide. The fact that the RoI has the same name as the whole island is tricky yet when one looks at France, we noticed it's not called the Fifth French Republic. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes but for example in the UN, France is known as France - while the state called Ireland is known of course as Ireland.And funnily enough, people don't confuse the state with the island! (I don't know who would to be honest).Wikipéire (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes - we all know about the states name - but we can only have either a) the island, or b) the state located at Ireland - not both of them. And by mixing and matching (which is essentially what is been proposed) we will confuse the situation. Articles that deal with topics on countries/islands/states should flow directly from the article on the country/island/state. "Ireland" for "Ireland", "Republic of Ireland" for "Republic of Ireland" NOT "Ireland" for "Republic of Ireland".
X of Ireland should be reserved for topic "X" of the article Ireland not topic "X" of the article Republic of Ireland. What is been proposed is pure confusion masked as clarity. Djegan (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
So because one article has one title then 20~ others have to have incorrect titles? These three title changes are justified as they are matters refering to the state and not the island. Anyway people don't go around saying ' the wikipedia article called Ireland is about the island so any other article with that name must be reffering to the island too.' Ireland is the common and official name of the state. I think official names give more clarity than descriptions in an encyclopedia such as wikipedia. You are making judgements on behalf of readers which in reality wouldn't happen. The term Republic Of Ireland has been agreed to use only in cases of ambiguity to distinguish between the state and constitute part of the UK that is on this island. Northern Ireland isn't mentioned so the term ROI is not needed.Wikipéire (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No need for straw poll

Looking at the discussion above, it seems odd that those who are arguing to oppose the move have not addressed any of the arguments put forward by Redking7. A straw poll just seems to encourage a simple vote without addressing any of the issues. There's no harm in getting more people involved, but there is harm if they just drop a vote and run.

In an attempt to keep this focussed, there are two main arguments as I see them:

  • Ireland is the correct name - An article should be named according to the correct name. No other article uses the proposed term, which is the correct term. No disambiguation. No argument over common name. For me, it's cut and dried that the article should refer to the 'Civil Service of Ireland'.
  • Republic of needed for clarity. Redking7 does a great job of settling this argument. In a nutshell, Ireland (island) and Ireland (state) are the correct ways to disambiguate terms if they are confusing, and follows good wikipedia practice. Bardcom (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We all know the states name, but WP:COMMONAME is a fundemental guideline and the article Ireland already deals with the island and not the state.

Moving the three articles proposed would be confusion. The article on the state is at Republic of Ireland and the vast majority of articles about the Republic of Ireland follow that scheme - for instance (but not just) - Banknotes of the Republic of Ireland | Coins of the Republic of Ireland | Communications in the Republic of Ireland | Courts of the Republic of Ireland | Economic history of the Republic of Ireland | Economy of the Republic of Ireland | Education in the Republic of Ireland | Geography of the Republic of Ireland | Health care in the Republic of Ireland | History of the Republic of Ireland | Languages of the Republic of Ireland | Law of the Republic of Ireland | List of flags of the Republic of Ireland | List of universities in the Republic of Ireland | Local government in the Republic of Ireland | Politics of the Republic of Ireland | Regions of the Republic of Ireland | State-sponsored bodies of the Republic of Ireland.

People just need to accept that discussion and discussion and vote after vote has resulted in keep Republic of Ireland. Theirs a small hardcore majority who push the issue every three months (in one form or another) in the hope that they will get a majority to move.

If we start moving articles in a piecemeal fashion - and it is piecemeal - then the cleanup will still be in operation in twelve months.

Sorry -- this arguement has been discussed time and time again as referenced by talk:Republic of Ireland. Djegan (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Djegan, I'll answer your points one by one
  • WP:COMMONAME - Ireland is still the correct term (a point I made in my first point above). That's a reason for renaming, not a reason for keeping the awkward "republic of".
  • Other articles are not part of this discussion for now, but let's for the purpose of seeing where this would go, assume that other articles need to be discussed. Why would we discuss these now? Let's not distract this argument. Let's keep this tightly focussed. We can examine the impact of this discussion at a later stage.
  • You say this argument has been discussed time and again in talk:Republic of Ireland. But when I visit that page, I get directed back here. And the discussion doesn't appear to be continuing there. And nobody appears to have considered the argument that the correct term is not being used. There needs to be recognition that "Ireland" is the legal correct term, and that the argument should be the other way around - Why are we using the "Republic of" - it's just wrong. Bardcom (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Really, it has (over a dozen times!) Check the archives there. It's not being discussed there now because it was discussed there (again!) quite recently. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats whats really behind this - the "I won't give up until I get what I want" mentality. Djegan (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh c'mon. Would you argue the point instead of moaning? The Roi title wasn't moved because even though everyone accepted Ireland was the common and official name of the state, the island article had the exact same title. However in this case the proposed move is going to bring the common and official name into place because the island aritcle has nothing to do with these other articles so the inclusion of Roi is not necessary. How can you say it will cause confusion. People use the term to refer to the state more than the island. THE island article is hardly referred to in any other pages it is always the country so the move makes perfect sense. I think it is you refusing to budge because you want what you want rather than the factually better article titles for these three pages.Wikipéire (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry -- the issue has been discussed, rediscussed, voted and revoted again and again. Relashing the same arguement is not going to change things. On with the straw poll. Djegan (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No sorry but to correct you there - this has not been discussed before. These three articles have nothing to do with any other page. You really need to take your blinkers off. You are bringing some other agenda into this other than picking the best and most informative titles for these pages.Wikipéire (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me or are the losing side complaining about the system rather than trying to play the game? We're told that voting has castrated the argument by disincentivising people from knocking down the argument for moving the articles. This somewhat misses the point. This is not a democracy, so even if there were a simple majority for moving (which it doesn't look like there will be) it wouldn't happen, because there is no consensus amongst editors. So maybe I haven't systematically deconstructed the arguments, but conversely, you haven't convinced me that the move is a good idea.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"These three articles have nothing to do with any other page..." -- what is this Alice in Wonderland? - all of these pages are related and the title of the state should be reflected in the title of related articles that discuss various topics -- consistancy is a requirement of a good encyclopedia and wikipedia has a detailed manual of style enforcing consistancy -- education, foreign relations, civil service, public service, television, radio, geography, etc, etc, etc should reflect the name used for the state in the encyclopedia.
"You are bringing some other agenda..." -- sorry I will not be silenced, I am acting in good faith (notwithstanding the fact that this has become a flame war at times). Djegan (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The point is that the Republic of Ireland is not an acceptable term. Especially when dealing with instruments of the state, we must use the correct names. As per the case (Ellis v O’Dea [1989] I.R. 530), the name Republic of Ireland has been ruled unconstitutional. This also gives a lot of weight to the reasons for renaming. I enclose the ruling below:
‘In the English language the name of this State is ‘Ireland’ and is so prescribed by Article 4 of the Constitution. Of course if the courts of the United Kingdom or of other States choose to issue warrants in the Irish language then they are quite at liberty to use the Irish language name of the State as prescribed in the Constitution. However they are not at liberty to attribute to this State a name which is not its correct name. It is quite clear from various warrants which have come before this Court from time to time that this is a conscious and deliberate practice. In effect it is a refusal to recognise a provision of the Constitution of Ireland. Every court in this State, and every member of the Garda Síochána is duty bound to uphold the Constitution and not to condone or acquiesce in any refusal to recognise the Constitution or any part thereof. If the courts of other countries seeking the assistance of this courts of this country are unwilling to give this State its constitutionally correct and internationally recognised name then, in my view, the warrants should be returned to such countries until they have been rectified. Henceforth it should be the care and concern of the requesting prosecuting and judicial authorities of another State not to ignore or brush aside the fundamental law of this State. It should be the concern and care of the Irish authorities not to permit the existence of any such a situation.’ (Ellis v O’Dea [1989] I.R. 530)'
This proposal is about 3 articles, and is not part of the "bigger" question of Ireland vs ROI. It's pretty clear that these articles should use the correct name. Bardcom (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If you think "the Republic of Ireland is not an acceptable term" then you need to refer back to talk:Republic of Ireland -- you must have a larger agenda than three "minor" articles with a statement like that? Djegan (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom - no disrespect to the courts or yourself but this is not a Court of Law, nor is it the press office of the state - it's an encyclopedia with an international input and output. Maybe if you read WP:COMMONAME then you would realise the "official name" (or indeed the "constitutional" one) is not always used in wikipedia. Djegan (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To use your same argument why isn't the term Ireland used for these articles? The use of Ireland satisfies all the terms of WP:COMMONNAME for these three articles on discussion. Republic Of Ireland does not!!!Wikipéire (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Its an inconsistant and muddled up style as you well know -- it will be on the road to a new heave Republic of Ireland -> Ireland. Its a piecemeal approach to gradually moving around Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles in a confused mix and match. Djegan (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

But that shouldn't be what's discussed on this page. I acknowledge the ROI page cannot move directly to Ireland as the island has that title. I am discussing these three pages which can be moved as there are many reasons for moving them and not many against. Your main argument of confusion amongst the reader doesn't really hold through as the term Ireland refers to the state more than the island around the world.Wikipéire (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on. If you acknowledge that "Ireland" is reserved for the island so then should "X of Ireland" be reserved for the island and not the state. Anything to the contrary is just plane confusing and contradictory. If you move these articles then it will not be too long before the "big" prize of the "Republic of Ireland" -> "Ireland" will be next on the agenda. Get real. Djegan (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The island article isn't some big category it is simply one page. I do not understand where you could have got some notion. As I explained above the changes are not confusing and they satisfy all of wikipedia's conditions which the current titles do not. You I'm afraid, are not discussing the issue at hand and are reffering to some future edits that you are saying is going to happen. Sounds similar to WP:CRYSTALBALL.Wikipéire (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually you have raised a good point their (and potentially an "own goal"). Category:Ireland is a large category, but the three above articles will remain in Republic of Ireland categories re Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland and Category:Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland. Moving these three articles is at worse a half though out idea and best the road to more rename proposals. WP:CRYSTALBALL is not applicable here in talk, its applicable in article space. Djegan (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
So? Category:Republic of Ireland and it's sub categories are all in turn sub categories of Category:Ireland. A recurring argument for not doing anything is the fact that there will be a ton of work to fix all the links. Sarah777 has already volunteered, and I will also volunteer to perform this mind-numbing work (or a wee javascript will ...). So even if there are more rename proposals in the future, I think that's a Good Thing because wiki will be better for it! Using the excuse of "too much work" smacks of laziness and a disrespect for what wikipedia stands for. Bardcom (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats positively the most outlandish thing I have ever heard but it re-enforces the realisation that the "big shift" against Republic of Ireland is the true prize here and not three articles. The law of the land clearly shows that "Republic of Ireland" is an official description - the Republic of Ireland Act is neither original research nor unverifiable. Try again! Djegan (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Djegan, I quoted from Wikipedia, that's their policies. -78.19.84.250 (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the whole comment was not a quote, but in any case you don't know how to apply policy. Try again! Djegan (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It would also apply to article titles, and not just the body of the article. I am a wee bit concerned about you getting confused. Africa has 50 states, and they're not one bit confused. Ireland demands that it be called by its proper name. This argument will go on until a NPOV title is used. -78.19.84.250 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay - you really do not understand the application or principal of the policies. But who am I - its not my place to explain it to you in detail - its their for everyone to see. But by all means if theirs a policy been broken get an administrator involved and if their is a policy been broken they will have it solved before dusk! Try again! Djegan (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If you think a policy is been violated then its your place to prove. I am not convinced in the slightest. Try again! Djegan (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You try again. There is a vote on this. We'll see what will happen. -78.19.84.250 (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing by Redking7

See here. Five messages have been left on talk pages of editors who supported the renaming of Republic of Ireland in the recent discussion ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). No attempt was made to inform any editors who were against the proposal. One Night In Hackney303 11:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was happy that he let me know, otherwise I wouldn't have let my opinion be known. If you find it a big deal why don't you inform people that you think will vote against that discussion is taking place.Melvo (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Because partisan canvassing is against policy? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Strictly speaking these discussions should be on the talk pages of the three articles concerned though I don't think thats necessary. I did not know about this forum until Bastun told me about it. Others may not know as well. The quality of argument against the moves has been really poor - no rational arguments in reponse to the above arguments for the move - just an attempt to guillotine the discussions by starting a "straw poll" and calling for it to end very soon. Thats not what consensus is about. Consensus is about setting out good rational arguments. Its a good thing if more people get involved. The quality of debate might improve. Redking7 (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with inviting other editors, so long as you either advertise in a "neutral" place in a neutral way, and/or invite ppl from both "sides". As to "The quality of argument against the moves has been really poor - no rational arguments in reponse to the above arguments for the move" - that's your opinion. Many of us expressed ours, and I stand by mine and other comments. You don't have to accept them, of course, but you can't just dismiss them as irrelevant - we (and anyone else coming to the debate) can make our own minds up. Straw polls are a long-accepted methodof determining consensus, and a week-long debate is more than enough time. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Based on what I have read of the above discussion, I think it makes sense for the articles regarding the government of the Republic of Ireland to use the name "Republic of Ireland" rather than just "Ireland", as Republic of Ireland is currently the name of the core article in question. Roads in Ireland seems to include the roads of Northern Ireland as well, and on that basis the name of the island is appropriate. If and when the name of the Republic of Ireland changes, then it would make sense to change the names of the other articles regarding that entity as well. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

John Carter - There are roads in both IRL and NI...However, there is and can be no foreign relations/civil service or public service of IRL and NI. I hope to change your mind. Can you see the difference? Redking7 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support the move of the 3 articles to Ireland, I would love to see all articles moved eventually, but little steps are a start. The RoI does not exist, Ireland as a state does, and the constitution makes this abundantly clear. Just because people use RoI does not mean it is right, WP needs to be corrected and just because it is difficult to do (clean up all the articles) doesn't mean we should not do it. Perryn (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of the their views expressed above, I added the following users to the list of those supporting the moves:78.19.216.211, 78.19.77.76†. User:Djegan deleted them, apparently because they were 'obviously' the same user. Is this correct? Redking7 (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
They are plainly the same person. In any case its not going to make a substantial difference to the outcome as an administrator will not be fooled by three anon votes with very similar ip addresses. Its time to save face now and not continue on the irrational farce of counting votes twice and thrice. Common sense please. Djegan (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Holy smokers, how many IP addresses does that anon editor have? I've counted about 10. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again

Redking7 has proposed a move at Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Proposal_to_move_article. Is their no end to these disruptive proposals? Really we just need to get real and accept that their is no concensus to move. Djegan (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuous polling until "I/We get the result I/We want" is very distructive of the community, it shows (all) Irish editors and Irish articles in a negative light. Their have simply been endless discussions and votes on this showing no consensus for moves away from a Republic of Ireland approach and moving "some" articles will not resolve the issue finally. A piecemeal approach will just encourage the issue to come back again, and again. Djegan (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think DJ that characterising completely legitimate attempts to improve the project as "disruptive" is a breach of WP:Civil. You may not be aware of recent trends but there are moves afoot to clamp down hard on incivility. Perhaps we could focus on reasoned argument in each case rather than a negative characterisation of the work of other editors? Sarah777 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If you think I am disruptive then its your right to report me. But that right is not their to silence people when you don't agree with them. Djegan (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
DJ, I didn't say you were disruptive I merely felt you were possibly, in my estimation, breaching WP:Civil as I explained above. I am strongly opposed to "silencing" editors on Wiki and only wish that feeling was more widely shared. Sarah777 (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What Sarah calls "legitimate attempts to improve the project" are of course fine, but this is tendentious editing. These renamings are all spinoffs of the core discussion on renaming Republic of Ireland, and per WP:MULTI, discussion should be centralised. There wasn't consenseus at Talk:Republic of Ireland, and taking the same point to countless articles that use the same is forum-shopping. Taken together with the blatant canvassing outlined above, I think it may be time to raise the conduct of Redking7 (talk · contribs) at WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi BHG, the reasoning for the main ROI article is that it is necessary to distinguish the island from the state, and that the article concerning the island already exists at Ireland. This does not mean that a consensus exists such that the state will always be referred to as ROI in wikipedia - and not only where there is a possibility of confusing the island with the state. Recently, somehow, many editors have been trying to expand this to distinguish Ireland from Northern Ireland, and I object to this usage. Nominating individual articles, where no confusion between the island and the state can occur is fine. That's the line between politics and geography. Otherwise, we should use the official name of the state. Bardcom (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposals

Its possible that a consensus around these three moves will never emerge. If so, it is likely that this discussion will rumble on intermittently indefinitely. Would there be any support for a compromise? Two compromises appear to have been suggested so far.

I think User:Valenciano suggested that moves to "foreign relations of Ireland (state)"; "Civil service of Ireland (state)"; and "Public service of Ireland (state)" would be ok. I will call this the "(State) Compromise".

User:Red King suggested that the "Civil Service" and "Public Service" articles remain where they are but the "foreign relations" article should be moved to "foreign relations of Ireland". I think Red King's compromise of treating the "foreign relations" article differently from the other two was because this would have the additional consistency advantage of making the article consistent with the names of the foreign relations articles of every other European state - as descriptive words such as "Kingdom of" or "Republic of" are not used in the names of those articles (e.g. Foreign relations of Italy). I shall call this the "Foreign Relations Compromise".

I'm genuinely trying to find common ground. Is there any support for the "(State) Compromise" or the "Foreign Relations Compromise"? Redking7 (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I accept your trying to find common ground, or at least some proposal you deem "suitable" its very clear at this point that its a no consensus of the current straw poll or a marginal oppose.
New proposals, whilst they might suit one or two people now are just as easily likely to mean that some people will change from "support" to "oppose" as they find the new proposal unsuitable. I dont think "X of Ireland (state)" will be a runner for most, indeed previous experience shows it will fail after an initial thinking. Thus we can almost guarentee a no consensus again or marginal oppose.
I see little point in moving around a few votes to win the battle when the war has resulted in stalemate. Djegan (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I applaud your suggestion for compromise - it is what wikipedia is all about. It is not about "winning the battle" - there is no battle, there is no single truth. I support a compromise if that is the way forward. Entrenched views on either side results in articles that nobody is proud about, and these articles reflect our culture and our heritage and who we are and how we think about ourselves and others as much as anything else we do. Bardcom (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As RedKing7 himself admits "Its possible that a consensus around these three moves will never emerge. If so, it is likely that this discussion will rumble on intermittently indefinitely." -- and this is honest and blunt, but the same thing could be said or even realised of a proposal that was only marginally passed.

We are all agreed that articles that relate to the State are of fundemental and paramount importance, and a move that was of itself seen as having marginal support could soon become an object of a proposed move. Get it right first time. Djegan (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I follow you DJ. Surely the problem with the current arrangement is that it has, at best, a narrow margin of support? Therefore by your own reasoning (if I am understanding it correctly) we should all be looking for a different solution? Sarah777 (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't need my approval if you want to go a different way. Djegan (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is more aware of that than me DJ. It seemed that your arguments were contradictory and I was politely seeking clarification. Sarah777 (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Afd of List of monarchs in the British Isles

A notice to anybody that may be interested in an AfD of the list of monarchs in the British Isles [8] The proponents of the term "British Isles" argue that the term is purely geographical... Bardcom (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WOW!! Umm, yes a political term indeed, List of monarchs in the British Isles, some of these editors want it both ways!! -78.19.108.110 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Of course they do because currently they can have it both ways, due to the preponderance of British (v Irish) editors on Wiki. So no rules need apply - except what the British majority want in each situation. Sarah777 (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Remember people, though British Isles is annoying to some, Irish Sea is also annoying to some. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I have never heard that (re Irish Sea) before. How very silly. - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename article

It's unlikely to be a controversial move. Now you've posted there, I'd leave it for a couple of days to make sure. Then just move it. First, click 'What links here' to see what pages carry links to the article. Then just click on 'Move' and enter the new title. Then you can manually fix the links on other articles. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

2nd opinion with this article

I found an essay on WP:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom and I found that the essay duplicated many parts of other articles, and also veered into dealing with the nationality of people from Ireland. I removed the duplicated parts. Now two editors have reverted the edits, and are talking about expanding the article from United Kingdom to British Isles. I don't believe articles like this are being created in good faith. I'd like a 2nd opinion on the matter, and I don't want to start an edit war. Can you take a look and tell me if I'm over-reacting or being too sensitive. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Freedom?

Surely this change is fair and inline with WP:NPOV? I've had it reverted once. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. You can't change a dedication because you object to the wording. One Night In Hackney303 18:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not a quote, therefore it must be NPOV.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to agree. The term "freedom" adds no value to the caption/article here and I think it's fairly clear it's a breach of NPOV. May I suggest a speedy self-revert Hackney? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. If it was dedicated it to "...Irish freedom", that's who it's dedicated to. Basic fact. One Night In Hackney303 18:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
But the caption is a statement, not a quote. Statements must be NPOV.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I suppose WP:V trumps here too. Can you cite your sources Hackney? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It isn't dedicated to those who gave their lives for Irish independence, it's dedicated to those who gave their lives for Irish freedom. No amount of misinterpretation of policy will change that. Where's your source for who it's dedicated to? I've got mine, you're the one wanting to change it after all! One Night In Hackney303 18:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Simple solution, include quotation marks The Garden is dedicated to "all those who gave their lives in the fight for Ireland's freedom." Cite source. Problem solved! Valenciano (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, on the understanding there is a source of course. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you like throwing WP:V around like confetti, what's your source for the change you made? One Night In Hackney303 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Calm down please Hackney, Wikipedia is not a battleground and there's no need to be combattative. I'm here to improve the article. As stated, the caption is currently a statement written by a Wikipedian, not a quotation. Statements should adhere to WP:NPOV and a source is not required for this. I think Valenciano has offered a reasonable compromise. You've said you have a source... care to share it with us please so we can work together? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm perfectly calm, it's just I'm aware that the garden was dedicated by one Éamon de Valera, therefore his dedication stays how it is and doesn't get reworded based on a spurious application of policy. So, you're admitting you don't actually have a source for what the dedication is? Good, now we've got that out of the way, on to the sources. Official Irish government website and paper by a former lecturer at UCD. There's plenty more besides that, but those are enough to prove what the dedication is and who dedicated it. One Night In Hackney303 19:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and that's fine. Can I suggest we use quotation marks please and cite the source to tighten this issue up? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think a reference or quotes is necessary. It was never an issue until you made one for no reason.Wikipéire (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not helpful. Re-read Wikipedia:Introduction Wikieire: "Facts that are unreferenced are routinely removed from the encyclopedia." Also, from WP:CITE: "Quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged need a reliable source". Without a source I think there was more than enough reason to bring this up for discussion. Citation for quotes "need" a source per policy, but also to help other understand what is verifiable and neutral, and what is not. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What was wrong with using independance? GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It's explained above. -78.19.141.223 (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly a Irish PoV quote. But then why wouldn't it be, it's de Valera. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't Dunkirk, was it? -78.19.141.223 (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course it wasn't Dunkirk. What made you think it was? GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Irony my dear man. If it was, it wouldn't be pov, I guess. LOL. -78.19.141.223 (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well he was President of Ireland..... One Night In Hackney303 19:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Jza if if even looked at the Garden Of remberance wiki page you'd see the source. http://www.heritageireland.ie/en/Dublin/GardenofRemembrance/ Shocking unfounded edit with some political overtones to it. Freedom it is.Wikipéire (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Get over yourselves its Freedom --Domer48 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Can't get any more conclusive that that I'd say. Still not sure why jza got worked up about it though ... hmmmm.... Bardcom (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well hasn't this touched a nerve? If its not in quotes it must be referenced and NPOV. If its a quote it must be referenced. Whats the problem exactly?Traditional unionist (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell us exactly where you pulled that misinformation from? One Night In Hackney303 20:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, WP:NPOV and WP:REF.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing that supports your argument. Why don't you copy and paste the senteces you think do? One Night In Hackney303 20:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
But of course. Any material that is challenged, and for which no source is provided within a reasonable time (or immediately if it's about a living person), may be removed by any editor and All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't support your argument. There's nothing on NPOV saying everything has to be in quotes, therefore you lose. One Night In Hackney303 20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I lose? Really? So you can write what you want? It's POV, therefore must go. If its a quote,, fi its referenced, it can stay. Thems the rules. You're very tetchy tonight, not good for discussion.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you do. Who it is dedicated to is an undisputed fact, and facts are NPOV by definition. One Night In Hackney303 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The test on wikipedia is verifiability not truth. This "fact" was unverified and unreferenced. As it stood it was a POV statement using POV language. All it needed was quotation marks and a reference.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet again, I ask where you are getting this idea that facts need to be in quotation marks? One Night In Hackney303 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The writing is on the wall and that is a fact. --Domer48 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately theirs a number of Irish contributors who can be very "touchy" - as referenced on these pages - I'm Irish myself but this is beyond me. But if freedom was been fought for then when where the Irish enslaved? Djegan (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You'd have to take that one up with deV :) - Alison ❤ 20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I brought this up, but would like some closure rather than getting into a heated debate that is obviously going to have deeply entrenched views and opponents. Can we just put the quotation marks in and cite the source to adhere to policy please? As WP:CITE says, "Quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged need a reliable source". --Jza84 |  Talk  20:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Djegan your right, Traditional unionist can be very "touchy", can't we all, and One Night In Hackney303 is as English as they come, sound and honest, --Jza84 |  Talk  who could challange then sources? so whats your point. --Domer48 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Now now, lets not be like that.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah come on a chara;) --Domer48 (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

going to have deeply entrenched views and opponents. How do you figure that? Why would an "angels on a pinhead" type argument about Wiki policy assume such strong views? Can you explain that? Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've asked for closure on the content rather than draw this out, and would prefer it if we could all keep focussed. Any objection to adding the source(s) to the claim? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've no objections; whatever gets the traffic moving. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

adding the source(s) to the claim?, was a picture not good enough? --Domer48 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a "claim". It is a simple statement of fact. Sarah777 (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A modest proposal

How about removing the precise form of words and just using a neutral description of the dedication? Something like this:

"The Garden was dedicated to various high-sounding ideals by the Spanish-Irish man who both started the Civil War and hanged lots of IRA men, whose constitution relegated women to second-class status and who suspended habeas corpus on the outbreak of World War II, but whose failed economic policies ensured the freedom of Irish people to emigrate en masse in the 1950s"

That neutral statement should be fairly uncontroversial, shouldn't it? .......... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC) with tongue very firmly in cheek

Ooouch. --Domer48 (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To BHG. Typical Irish moan and pastime, forever "beating ourselves up" about the past, as if no other country had its share of stuff too. My wrist-watch says 2,008, and it's digital, welcome to the 21st century. 78.19.143.86 (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Dedication is very clear from this image and that is what should be used in the article.--Padraig (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Spoilsport :P You've been reading WP:V, haven't you, Padraig? :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
My God BHG! Don't you realise half of Europe were embracing Nazis and Fascists; the Australians, Canadians and Swedes were castrating the mentally handicapped; Mao and Stalin were butchering millions - all at the same time? Compared to the 1930's (as distinct from 2008) we have very little to be ashamed of - relatively speaking. And everything is relative. Like, where on planet Earth was any better??? UK or USA? If you were a northern Irish Catholic or a Black person, respectively? Everything is about perspective - as I try to explain to Rockpocket. Sarah777 (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just trying to introduce a bit of absurdity as a diversion from all the heat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Succession boxes

When we use a {{succession box}} for a TD, is it valid to say in a multi-seat constituency that any candidate 'succeeds' another? Surely 3/4/5 successful candidates are elected in each election. One candidate does not really succeed any other, do they? Crispness (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, unless it's a clear cut case of candidates A and B were re-elected but D was elected in place of D but that's prob quite rare and just leads to potential headaches for everyone. Even for Westminster seats succession boxes are a waste of time and effort in my opinion, loads of them have the predecessor as Seat Created, which doesn't really tell you anything.
Back to the main point, unless the person has held an "office of state"/cabinet position there's little point in succession boxes.GiollaUidir (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) If, say, four out of five outgoing TDs are re-elected, then it would be valid to say that the newly-elected TD "succeeded" the unsuccessful or retired TD, even if this is not strictly the case. Similarly, if only three out of five outgoing TDs were elected, I would be inclined to say that the newly-elected FF TD "succeeded" the unsuccessful/retired FF TD, or even that the Labour candidate "succeeded" the FF TD in the case where FG retained the fifth seat. In short, my answer would be "not always, but usually." Scolaire (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Scolaire, it is usually possible to work this out from the election results if they are available.--Padraig (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Laurence's Gate

Resolved. Image removed

The article at Laurence's Gate looks dodgy: the picture looks very much like a hoax, and the article is unreferenced. Does anyone have any sources or knowledge of the town, so that they can either confirm or allay my suspicions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange thing, isn't it, and often confused with places in Kilkenny or Wexford. But yes, it exists. It was part of the old Town Wall, named for a local monastic settlement, and on a similarly-named road. It appears in some of the Antiquities volumes, maybe Wakeman, and is in the NIAH. Will find a reference. SeoR (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The picture doesnt feel right to me either BHG , compare with [9] and [10] and its looks to have come from [11] so the tagging is all wrong. Will nominate for deletion.Gnevin (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I was too close to sleep at the time, was more focused on the article and on verification of existence. The picture does seem to have been lifted from Drogheda Scouts, indeed. If it is not quite right, I am sure a replacement of this rather prominent landmark can be secured soon. SeoR (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:IE Barnstar

I am asking whether WP:IE should have a barnstar for members and ordinary users who contribute a lot to it. i have a design for the barnstar if it is created on my computer so all I ask is should I create this barnstar? Yours sincerely --Markreidyhp 12:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. But its gotta be shamrock shaped! ;-) Crispness (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Great idea. Do it! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Metropolitan areas in Ireland

Metropolitan areas in Ireland is a useless article as it stands, a short and uncommented list. Does anyone think it's worth expanding, or should it be deleted? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, useless / pointless. The last thing we need is another list. I'd favour rapid deletion. And well done on tagging Independent News and Media - almost as big a miss as Guinness, as the holders of 60%+ of the Irish press market, and more. SeoR (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Would seem to fail WP:NOR or has someone independently defined what a Irish metropolitan area is? Gnevin (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll {{prod}} it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Done, and if anyone agrees with proposed deletion, maybe you could confirm that by using {{prod-2}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
AFD listed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Metropolitan_areas_in_IrelandGnevin (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Why the AFD when there was an uncontested PROD on it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Though that was the next step, I'll go back too my own little darkened corner again never to AFD an uncontested prob :) Gnevin (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


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