Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Republic of Ireland Act - "controversial"?

Murry1975, I removed the reference to leaving the Commonwealth because but the IP as a point in that the ROI Act removed the last function of the British monarch in Ireland.

The wording ("republic declared") was chunky. Maybe just leave it as "Republic of Ireland Act"? --Tóraí (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The IP made a few edits today, one of which on the IFS stated the King was head of it after it ceased, here as you had previously removed it, I removed it again as it does seem to be a controversial edit. But if you made a mistake by removing instead of rewording to adhere to your republican tendencies go ahead and re-add I have no objections. Murry1975 (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the box is headed "Independence from the United Kingdom", and attributes "Full Independence 11 December 1931" to the Statute of Westminster; and noting that the 1937 constitution's preamble opens In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire,..., let the article be consistent with the known facts, including "the Irish state was unambiguously a republic after 1949 (when the 1948 Act came into operation)" (per the article). Qexigator (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what your reference to the Preamble was about. Personally, I don't agree with the notion that the Statute of Westminster meant full independence. Constitutional law is more complicated than that. Just look at my most recent edit on Ireland Act 1949. The Working Party Report I refer to there highlights that even then (years after the Statute) the British were not at all sure that the Statute of Westminster could be interpreted like that. That's why they included a declaration about when Ireland cased to be one of His Majesty's Dominions. Personally, I've no problem with the suggestion of inclusion of some reference to when last ties with King were severed either. It's a complicated topic and in fact its not easy to pull one date like the Statute of Westminster date, as is done at present. If I had to pick one date, I would pick the Constitution date as that was a "legal revolution" but I don't want to pick one date. It was a process. Frenchmalawi (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The 1937 constitution describes Ireland as "a sovereign, independent, democratic state". Independence happened sometime before then. Independence and membership of the Commonwealth (which the Working Party was discussing) are two separate matters.

That said, interpretation of the significance of these events could be avoided by just listing the events and leaving interpretation to the reader or the main body, where they can be dealt with in more detail (which I will do now). --Tóraí (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

French. : Broadly agree on all points. The preamble was a part of de Valera's artful devisings in the country which he made his domicile of choice: promoting the republican cause, but at the same time using an invocation of the Holy Trinity such as was traditionally used in treaties between European imperial majesties, and reminiscent of the papal blessing obtained by Duke William when claiming the kingdom of the English, as constitutional historians and chancellery officials could have noticed. Qexigator (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Tóraí: Yes. Qexigator (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting thoughts on the preamble Qexigator... Although we are on a different topic it is still interesting. When was it traditional to invoke the Holy Trinity in international treaties? Any examples? I am interested. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Long tradition from 1st millennium, under influence of Rome and Byzantium, through to modern times. Examples: Constitutional references to God, Edict of the Emperor Henry V at Concordat of Worms, Treaty of Paris (1783)[1], Treaty of Paris (1814)[2], Byzantine-Russian Treaty of 911[3], Lateran Pacts of 1929[4], The Holy Alliance Treaty[5], Quadruple Alliance[6], The Treaty of London for Greek Independence, July 6, 1827[7]. For diplomatic chancery, see Chancery (diplomacy), and Carolingian practice Government of the Carolingian Empire (chancery). Qexigator (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much Qexigator. That was kind of you. I have a bit to read up on and no doubt digest. Thanks again! I appreciate it. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox removal.

On the Republic of Ireland page on the section 1937 Constitution, I had put a former country infobox containing information on Ireland from 1937–1949. I did this because from 1937–1949, The Irish Free State had no longer existed and the Republic of Ireland act had not yet been in force. The reason I had put this on the section 1937 Constitution was because Ireland from 1937-1949 had the 1937 Constitution but had not yet become the Republic of Ireland. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland act did not create a new state. It was a piece of ordinary legislating that transferred residual powers from the king to the president. The act also provided that Ireland could be described as "the Republic of Ireland". This article is about the state constituted in 1937. --Tóraí (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

And it didn't become a new country when it joined the EEC either if you're thinking of another one then. Dmcq (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

History in the lead

The body of the article is about 11,000 words long, of which the History section makes up about 2,000, or 18%. Of approx. 460 words in the lead, 155 words, or 33%, is "history". Of that, a full quarter concerns the 1921 Treaty and the "Ulster month", as compared to 38 words on the Republic after it was declared a Republic!. Virtually all of the paragraph concerns the constitutional status of the state(s) from the perspective of another state: it was a dominion of the UK, it was granted legislative independence by the UK, the remaining duties of the king [of the UK] were removed in 1948, etc. Did nothing actually happen inside the country in all that time from the signing of the Treaty until now?
What is to be done? First of all "very important historical points", such as the name given by a statute that was never implemented (in the south) to a political entity that never existed in fact, should not under any circumstances be added to the lead. Second, what is there at the moment should be pared down to the minimum ("The Irish Free State was created as a result of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922; it effectively became a republic, with an elected president, under the constitution of 1937; and it was officially declared a republic in 1948"). Including things like the "Ulster month" in the lead of an article on the Republic of Ireland is undue weight on a major scale. Finally, the Recent history section, i.e. the actual history of the Republic, should be summarised in the lead. The history section itself is poor, but that's another day's work. Scolaire (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That looks like a good way to let the article be improved. Qexigator (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

When Ireland was partitioned the resulting two areas were named Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. The territory that is now the Republic of Ireland was called Southern Ireland. Many, many people: Irish and non-Irish, Unionists and Republicans, Catholics and Protestants, still refer to the Republic as Southern Ireland when distinguishing it from Northern Ireland. Even in the UK parliamentary debates, Southern Ireland is commonly used in reference to the Republic. This fact should be acknowledged. I feel the term Ireland should be reserved for the whole island. AlwynJPie (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The Ireland article is reserved for the whole island. That is why the article on the state is titled "Republic of Ireland". The term "Ireland" cannot be reserved for the whole island, because it happens to be the name of the 26-county state.

The fact that the state is referred to by many, many people as "Southern Ireland" is acknowledged. Whether or where it should be stated in the article is a different question. The clear consensus from preceding discussions is that it should not be stated at all, it is not important enough. In any case, it most definitely should not be in the lead, which is intended to be an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects (italics added). Please stay on-topic. Scolaire (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

So this 'important point' it is just some silly POV pushing. I'll remove it. Already done so I don't have to. Dmcq (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to a bit at the end of the Name section saying something like: Southern Ireland was the name given by the British government in 1921 to a short-lived home rule region covering the same area, it is sometimes used colloquially particularly in the United Kingdom to refer to Ireland. And give as citation John Furlong (2006). Ireland – the Name of the State. Legal Information Management, 6, pp 297-301. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/S1472669606000934 as inNames of the Irish State. Dmcq (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, the article would be improved by adding a bit at the end of the Name section as Dmcq proposes. Qexigator (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Don’t you think “…occupying the former autonomous region of Southern Ireland” is clearer than “…occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland”? AlwynJPie (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The article's opening passage is descriptive of the simple fact that, in respect of extent and location, the (Republic of) Ireland occupies "about five-sixths of the island of Ireland". The information that, before the Irish Free State was established, this area had been "the former autonomous region of Southern Ireland" is part of the more detailed description of the complex set of events of that earlier time, and is not in any sense "simpler." Qexigator (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Besides which, the "region" was not autonomous since it never existed except on paper, so the phrase is a nonsense. Scolaire (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody says that. It is something you made up. This whole business has zero weight as far as the lead is concerned. Dmcq (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Since nobody has raised any objections, I have edited the paragraph on the lines that I proposed above. If anybody has a problem with the edit, please feel free to discuss it here. But please do not continue to use this section to discuss red herrings. A new discussion can be started in a new section, but bear in mind that a previous discussion on the use of "Southern Ireland" was closed and collapsed with a header added saying "Wikipedia talk pages are not places for general discussions". --Scolaire (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"Making things up"

Dmcq, I have no reason to "make things up". What ever I have said can be verified. The political status of the part of Ireland that is the independant state (the 26 counties) was origionally named Southern Ireland when Partition happened. The term Southern Ireland continues to be used when referring to the independant state. Even in debates in the UK parliament. Here is a link to one of many examples of UK parliamentary verbatim available on line where the term Southern Ireland is used for the independant state: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmniaf/886/6020107.htm AlwynJPie (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Citations noted, but zero weight as far as the lead is concerned per Dmcq above; and previous discussion on the use of "Southern Ireland" was closed per Scolaire above. Qexigator (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

By making it up I mean WP:OR, something you thought of in the morning rather than something a book says. There's lots of places which say ROI occupies about 5/6 of th island. There aren't any I know of describing Ireland which says something like Ireland is a state occupying that part of the island of Ireland which is practically the same as that occupied by the region called Southern Ireland by Britain in 1921. Dmcq (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

For the revolutionary republic of 1919–1922, see Irish Republic.

What is the justification for this Qexigator? Source referring to that state as "the Republic of Ireland"? Rob984 (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If there is a problem, please clarify. It is not mine. Qexigator (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, you reinstated it after I removed it. I don't see how it's necessary. Rob984 (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please explain what you see as the problem. Qexigator (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The title of this article is not ambiguous, yet we a disambiguating the title. See WP:NAMB. Rob984 (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The content of this and other articles (and Talk discussions) shows that there is more than one way in which "Republic" is combined with Ireland or Irish. Readers (and editors) can find this unclear or confusing. To some extent, any given usage may even be considered contentious. The hatnote helps to clarify for the reader in the simplest way where to look for this or that, with a direct link instead of going via[8], and this is especially helpful for any reader who is not aware of the use of "Irish Republic" in connection with the revolutionary republic of 1919–1922. Whether or not any editor of one or more of the articles would find this "necessary" (perhaps in some pedantic sense) it is not contentious. Why not let it alone, instead of making it into a problem? Qexigator (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Irish Republic was sometimes rendered as the "Republic of Ireland", therefore there is a potential ambiguity. I doubt that many people, if any, will search for the revolutionary state under this name; on the other hand, the disambiguation does no harm. I'm not bothered whether it stays or goes. Scolaire (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

An example: "Dail Eireann: The Minutes of Proceedings of the First Parliament of the Republic of Ireland, 1919-1921 (Official Record)" (quote from comment)[9] It should not be forgotten that the first Dáil was illegal and sat while the Ireland was still under the rule of Westminster politicians and the administration from Dublin Castle. This fact is highlighted in the Minutes of the Proceedings time and again. For example, on 11th March 1921, the penultimate session of the first Dáil, ministers were informed that a bilingual curriculum for primary schools had been developed by the Minister for Irish, Seán Ua Ceallaigh, was unable to comment as he had been arrested a few days previously. (unquote) Also, related instances such as "Irish Republican Army"[10]. Readers could do with some help to find their way around. Qexigator (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I know why we disambiguate titles in hat notes :P I was asking for a source that implied 'Republic of Ireland' needed disambiguating. Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I read the discussion chain. You've already been given one example Rob of the "Republic of Ireland" being used as a title for the "revolutionary" state. I don't see you have any argument. Interestingly, the best example for me is the 1916 Proclamation. To show how fluid terminology was at the time...At its very top it starts with the words "Poblacht na hÉireann" which is the description used in the Irish translation of the ROI Act. That isn't "Irish Republic". It is "Republic of Ireland". "Poblacht Éireann" would be "Irish Republic" I think (though some Irish scholar might catch me out on something there, but not the substance). Of course, personally, the big problem of course is the Article is unambiguously wrong in the way the Ireland is given the ROI slot on Wikipedia...but that discussion has been had ad nauseum before. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Move bits to other article?

In the body of the article there are a lot of snippiets about events that occured before Partition that would be better placed in the article Ireland. Also there are some general geographical pieces that concern the whole island, for example about climate and natural history, that would also fit more appropriately in Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please be specific and quote here what parts of the article you consider would be better in Ireland. Qexigator (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As regards the History section, I do think that the two sections Home-rule movement and Revolution and steps to independence could and should be combined into a single "Background" section and drastically reduced. Its only function should be to show how the 26-county state came to be. Likewise, the Civil War section does not need to be so detailed, especially when there is also an Irish Free State article. There is no need to add any of this to the Ireland article, since the details are all in History of Ireland (1801–1923) and (in the case of the Civil War), History of the Republic of Ireland. On the other hand, the history of the state from 1923 onwards needs to be considerably expanded.

As regards geography, there is naturally going to be overlap between the state and the island, since the state takes up most of the island. That is not to say the content should not be included in both articles (and in the Northern Ireland article as well). It does not help inform the reader simply to say, "for climate, see Ireland." Having said that, I concur with Qexigator: if there are specific suggestions for encyclopaedic edits to improve the article, they can be discussed here. Scolaire (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with ...only function should be to show how the 26-county state came to be... Qexigator (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are some examples of bits of information under various sections that could be moved to Ireland or in some instances be in both articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland#Geography "The western landscape mostly consists of rugged cliffs, hills and mountains. The central lowlands are extensively covered with glacial deposits of clay and sand, as well as significant areas of bogland and several lakes. The highest point is Carrauntoohil…" "Before the arrival of the first settlers in Ireland about 9,000 years ago, the land was largely covered by forests of oak, ash, elm, hazel, yew, and other native trees…" "The Atlantic Ocean and the warming influence of the Gulf Stream affect weather patterns…"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland#Literature "Ireland has made a significant contribution to world literature in both the English and Irish languages. Modern Irish fiction began with the publishing of the 1726 novel Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift…"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland#Architecture "Ireland has a wealth of structures, surviving in various states of preservation, from the Neolithic period, such as Brú na Bóinne…" "Castles were built by the Normans during the late 12th century, such as Dublin Castle…" "Gothic cathedrals, such as St Patrick's, were also introduced by the Normans. Franciscans were dominant in directing the abbeys by the Late Middle Ages, while elegant tower houses, such as Bunratty Castle, were built by the Gaelic and Norman aristocracy…" AlwynJPie (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, at least two of those passages do not belong specifically or exclusively to the article which is about the republic as established and recognised from 1922, and in that respect may seem out of place. This article should have something in it about the country's literary and architectural heritage, while leaving the bulk to linked special topic articles, as usually done in the case of other countries. To my mind, given the links to topic-specific articles, the Literature and Architecture sections should be trimmed down, but the the Geography section pertains to how things are now in this part of the island, affecting the lives and livelihoods of the population, and belongs here. Qexigator (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Alwyn for providing those examples. It was quite shocking to me to see that all of the detail that he referenced is virtually absent from the Ireland article (current version). I propose to cut the content and paste it to Ireland, replacing it with summary information in this article. How exactly I'm going to do that with the geography content I'm not sure, because as Qexigator says all the content is relevant to the article on the state. But at the same time, it's wrong that an article on the part should have far more information than the article on the whole. Scolaire (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would improve this and the other articles. Qexigator (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

When was Ireland established?

Above there is some discussion about shifting things out of article where they don't relate to events during the life of the modern State. When was the current State established? What date? I think its fair to say it wasn't before 6 December 1922 but was it that day or some other day? Do people have any sources around this. We'd have to decide what is the relevant date to decide what to carve out of the article....Note for example, how detailed UK history begins from 1707 in the UK article, not 1801, 1922 or 1927 etc. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't so black and white. And neither is it the case for the UK.

The UK article, for example, traces the foundation of the state to 1707 and back to 1603. Yet, the current state itself was created in 1801. Cutting the pre-1801 material out from the article, however, would be artificial. And similarly it would be artificial here.

In the case of Ireland, the modern state is traced to 24 April 1916. The first Dáil was held on 21 January 1919. It ratified the 1916 proclamation and the current Irish parliament dates its proceedings to 1919. The Irish Free State was founded on 6 December 1922 - having operated provisionally for 12 months before then. It ended when the current constitution came into effect on 29 December 1937 (after a referendum on 1 July 1937).

If you were to nail down one date for the coming into effect of the current state then it would be 29 December 1937 (in the same way that 1 January 1801 corresponds to the UK). But ignoring the formative events before then would be artificial (just as it would be for the UK). The UK article doesn't do it. We shouldn't do it here either. --Tóraí (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Torai - that was an excellent summary, albeit of things I already knew. Although, frankly, the idea we could trace the State to 1916 wasn't one I'd had in mind. That too is an interesting date. I certainly agree it's a minefield...The UK article goes with 1707 and tells the history since then, which does have some clear sense in that the UK has had a continuing legal existence since then. Getting back to the central point, when do you think the history should run in this article? What date? Agreed its not easy to pick.

To digress a tad for fun: "the Irish Free State was founded on 6 December 1922 - having operated provisionally for 12 months before then" is not quite right; that was Southern Ireland which had a provisional government for a time chaired by none other than Michael Collins. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Article Introduction

The introduction to this article, as shown below, can be confusing to anyone who knows little about Ireland:

"Ireland (/ˈaɪələnd/ ; Irish: Éire [ˈeː.ɾʲə] ), also known as the Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann), is a sovereign state in western Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland. It starts off describing Ireland even though the title of the article is Republic of Ireland"

I would rather see:

"The Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann), is a sovereign state in western Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland. Officially known as Ireland (/ˈaɪələnd/ ; Irish: Éire [ˈeː.ɾʲə] )."

Does anyone else share my concerns? AlwynJPie (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Would this be acceptable:

"The Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann), constitutionally known as Ireland (/ˈaɪələnd/ ; Irish: Éire [ˈeː.ɾʲə] ), is a sovereign state in western Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland. Officially known as Ireland (/ˈaɪələnd/ ; Irish: Éire [ˈeː.ɾʲə] )."

--Qexigator (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes Qexigator, that sounds perfect. AlwynJPie (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to put as now deleted above, which is as revised version. Qexigator (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit. Apologies, but it was contrary to a consensus which had been reached on this topic. I recommend that users observe the comment above the introduction on the Edit page, and read previous discussions about the introduction. 217.112.145.202 (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was against a clear consensus. The state is called 'Ireland'. The title is 'Republic of Ireland' as the title 'Ireland' is used for the island and disambiguation is needed. Republic of Ireland is a recognized description for the purposes of disambiguation from Northern Ireland but it is not the name of the state. AlwynJPie has been pushing to stop the Wikipedia article referring to the state as Ireland for a while now and knows that the proposal was against consensus. Dmcq (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Why revert? It did not alter the name of the article and it makes better sense for any reader who is no party to that "consensus" and knows nothing of it. Do not revert merely out of dislike for another editor who has been seen as "pushing" something else (and which I too have opposed). Qexigator (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's good that it was reverted for the right reason, but just for the record, the edit was also factually incorrect. The constitutional name of the state is "[Éire] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)", or in the English language, "Ireland". "Republic of Ireland" is the description of the state provided for in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. This is clarified in the "Name" section.

The discussion referred to by 217... can be found here and here. It went on from 11 June until 17 July 2012 and centred largely on the necessity or otherwise of going into the whys and wherefores of the "description" in the opening sentence. Formal proposal 4, i.e. the current wording, had almost unanimous support in the end (I myself changed from "oppose" to "support" for the sake of consensus). There is no reason to think that consensus has changed in the meantime.

I wish that AlwynJPie would stop tinkering with the lead. The justification, that it is "confusing", is specious to say the least. "X, also known as Y" is a very common introduction to articles, and not only on Wikipedia. It states a simple fact: that the state whose name is "Ireland" is also known as the "Republic of Ireland". Scolaire (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire: not sure whether "edit conflict" message means your comment is replying to Dmcq or my last at 11:45. Anyhow, I do not see that the points you make suffice to rebut my comment, or the version The Republic of Ireland, constitutionally named "[Éire] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)", or in the English language, "Ireland", is a sovereign state in western Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland. First, this too, is of the form "X, also known as Y", so no contest. Secondly, it is awkward for readers coming here for encyclopedic, unpartisan, information (and not interested in agonies of two year old "consensus" discussion) to see the article name "Republic of Ireland", and then find that come in second as an alternative to "Ireland". Of course it is all explained later in the article (to the satisfaction of "consensus") but, in point of style and readability, that is no good reason to get off to a bad start in the opening words. My view is not influenced by earlier edits by the said AlwynJPie. Qexigator (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The edit conflict was with your edit. I was commenting generally, but then I saw that you had objected to the revert in the meantime, so I added the "e/c" tag. What I said about it being factually incorrect was wrong. I didn't notice that "ROI" and "Ireland" had been reversed in the edit.

The "X for the title, Y followed by X in the opening sentence" format is not unknown on WP. See Medjugorje and the RM closer's rationale at Talk:Medjugorje#Move?. The long history of conflict over the title of this article is the reason for the format here. You might not know this, but for literally years following the conclusion of the naming dispute, "Republic of Ireland" was not in the intro at all! It was quite a struggle to get it replaced, hence the "agonies" of two years ago. The current wording may not be the most informative, but it is by far the most stable.

As for consensus, the policy says that it is "the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia". As of now, your proposed edit is supported by one other editor and opposed by three, so it does not have a consensus. Scolaire (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, all that is understandable and understood, but not accepted as rebuttal of my comment. When "consensus" has been reached and a wearisome discussion settled, that should not necessarily be treated as binding for all time. The Medjugorje example was merely about spelling, and due to the transliteration explained in the footnote. It is not a good precedent for the article here, but there may be better ones. Outside the world of Wikipedia, after a lapse of time, for one reason or another people are able to have second or further thoughts, instead of stubbornly sticking to a position merely because they were on the "winning side" in a stale controversy, which sometimes need never have occurred. Why should we not let this happen here: consider this relatively trifling tweak afresh on its actual merit, from the point of view of communicating factual information to readers? Qexigator (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is titled 'Republic of Ireland' to disambiguate it. That is neither its common name nor its official name both of which are 'Ireland'. The practice of putting the title first in the lead is good normal practice but is not for cases where the title is not what should really be there if there was no problem with disambiguation. Also it is not universally followed even when the title is the common name, for instance for United Kingdom we have "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign state in Europe". Dmcq (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is "stubbornly sticking" to anything. I merely explained how the current situation arose (and I was not on the "winning side" except inasmuch as we managed to have the words "Republic of Ireland" added to the opening sentence), Dmcq explained why he thinks it is right to keep it as it is, and I mentioned that however much people reflect in the real world, you have not demonstrated a consensus (i.e. a desire among a significant number of people) to change the current wording of this article on Wikipedia. By the way, I am not disputing the common sense of your argument, I am only saying that common sense is not enough: you have to be seen to convince people. Scolaire (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It was not my intention to finger you, Scolaire, as stubbornly sticking etc., but you may have come across instances of that happening. I am not attempting to demonstrate a consensus, and am glad you see the common sense (probably without any help from me). I see well enough Dmcq's explanation, but I am not persuaded. For ordinary readers, not steeped in the arcana of Wikipedia editorial discussions, the article would be improved by the minor tweak proposed above. One problem is that, given the way the title question has been resolved, the opening sentence reads distinctly oddly. It could be expected (by a first time reader) to say "The sovereign republic constitutionally named Ireland, is a state in western Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland." But that is a rewrite, not a tweak, and I am content to let it be as it is. Qexigator (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with the jarring if it makes it obvious the name is Ireland rather than their brains switching off and them thinking the title gives the name. Dmcq (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Qexigator. I, too, made a clerical error in my opening entry. As for your proposal, or suggestion, for the introduction to the article, I can't understand why it has been so strongly opposed. It makes much more sense to the novice than the current opening. Pesonally, I, too, don't like the tag Republic in the name of the state as it implies a political condition. But as Republic of Ireland is the most common term used to distinguish the state from the island, and it is in the constitution as "the description of the State", and it is the name of the national soccer team, I accept it is the best term to use. I am pretty certain that most users of Wikipedia would prefer the opening introduction of the article that you composed rather than the one beginning Ireland which, as I said before, can be confusing. I would love to hear the opinions of a much wider audience and perhaps have a vote on which is the better introduction. Can we do this? AlwynJPie (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposal is likely to make readers think that 'Republic of Ireland' is the common name. Both the official and common name of the state is Ireland. Please look at WP:NATURALDIS which is the policy the title follows. The examples that gives of similar disambiguation are English language and English people. Neither of those articles refer to the title in their opening sentence. Dmcq (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Dmcq: to be clear, is this what is "opposed": The Republic of Ireland, constitutionally named "[Éire] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)", or in the English language, "Ireland", is a sovereign state in western Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland. Qexigator (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I also oppose the other proposal "The Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann), constitutionally known as Ireland (/ˈaɪələnd/ ; Irish: Éire [ˈeː.ɾʲə] ), is a sovereign state in western Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland.

Basically anything that sticks 'Republic of Ireland' before 'Ireland' and makes it look like 'Republic of Ireland' is either the common name or the official name of the state. Dmcq (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The current intro also has problems in my view because people might assume the 'also known as' is referring to the common way of referring to the state as opposed to the official name rather than being a secondary common name and an official description for disambiguation purposes. I can live with it though as I haven't seen a better way of putting it without getting a bit too pedantic and bogged down in the lead and it is far better than either of these proposals. Dmcq (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The republic of Ireland

OK, noted that Dmcq is objecting to putting 'Republic of Ireland' before 'Ireland', and that the reason is the supposition that it would let a casual reader (with no sufficient prior knowledge) believe that 'Republic of Ireland' is either the common name or the official name of the state. Also noted, Dmcq's concern about the current version and treating it as preferable. Some points in reply:

1_ Dmcq offered above two examples, but on inspection, in neither of them is there a like problem as we have with the two forms of appellation properly used for the state of Ireland. It would make perfect sense (but could be felt by a reader to be needlessly pedantic) to begin "English people" with "The English people are a nation and ethnic group native to England, who speak the English language. " Likewise "English language".

2_Is there anything to support the supposition that the "proposed" version I have recited above would be more likely than the present version to make a reader believe that "Republic of Ireland" is the common name, given that it is immediately stated that its proper name (in English) is "Ireland" and the article explains that the use of "Republic of Ireland" as a description is sanctioned by statute?

3_Why not let this be resolved by simply dropping the capital "r", for the sentence to read The republic of Ireland, constitutionally named "Éire", or in the English language, "Ireland", is a sovereign state in western Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland. ? Qexigator (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Re (1), Dmcq's examples are quite apt. In those articles, as in this one, it would make perfect sense to open the article with the article's name, but, as with this one, there is a good reason for not doing it.

Re (2), There is reason to suppose that the proposed version (not sure why that has been put in scare quotes above) would be likely to make a reader believe that "Republic of Ireland" is the proper name of the state, regardless of what follows.

Re (3), "republic of Ireland" is not the description of the state, or the way it is rendered in any reliable sources. I disagree with Dmcq to the extent that I think the use of (capitalised) "Republic of Ireland" is far more frequently encountered than he says it is – though far less common than just Ireland – but "republic of Ireland" would be a neologism and therefore unacceptable.

To which I would add (4), as reasonable as it might be to have "Republic of Ireland" as the first words, another editor might find it equally reasonable to substitute "Republic of Ireland" for "Ireland" everywhere in the article, on the grounds that it is the article title and its opening, and yet another editor might find it reasonable to substitute it in every Ireland-related article, on the grounds of consistency with this one. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, the current opening is there for a reason. A "relatively trifling tweak" could have far-reaching and undesirable results. Scolaire (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

In my view, all this is minor quibbling, and hardly worth pursuing, since writers, editors and readers, novices and old hands, academic practitioners and well-informed others, (etc. etc.) have different responses to the written word, which Wikipedia editors are powerless to control. But, to reply, if I now had a proposal to make inviting others to declare Support or Oppose, it would be the version in my 3_ above, specifically with lower case "republic". I believe practically all ordinary readers (not burdened with the responsibilities of editing for others) would have no difficulty in seeing that the word there is used in the same way as in "the state of Ireland" or "the island of Ireland", where the proper name, Ireland, is denoting different entities, the state or the island, on which all (I believe) are agreed. I would like to see this adopted as an improvement, but the discussion above is a good example of my opening sentence to this paragraph, and I am not proposing to press it against others who appear to feel strongly to the contrary. Qexigator (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose As if putting in a small r fixes anything except for a close reading logician and grammarian. That's just really silly. Dmcq (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That's odd. I think an ordinary reader if not one or two editors here would have read my remarks with enough attention to see that there was deliberately no proposal to oppose. Sorry if that disappoints, but maybe Dmcq has revealed the quality of the strong feelings to the contrary. My impled suggestion was and is to let the discussion close amicably. Qexigator (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You wrote another big paragraph supporting your idea. The question is why you keep on about your idea despite there having been long conversations before agreeing with what is there and the clear reasons given here why your idea gives wrong information to readers. Your suggestions are obviously bad and yet you've gone on and on about them. Dmcq (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dcmq. You wrote "In my view, all this is minor quibbling, and hardly worth pursuing", followed by "if I now had a proposal to make inviting others to declare Support or Oppose..." and then went on to make a statement in support. You have aired your views, and Dmcq and I have given our considered responses. If you are sincere in saying you are "not proposing to press it against others who appear to feel strongly to the contrary", then please just stop. Scolaire (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I do not understand why either Dmcq or Scolaire have felt it necessary to continue as above. I had felt it due to their earlier comments to give my reasoned explanation for why I do not agree with them, with a view to letting the matter be resolved, and to offer a possible rewording, which in my considered opinion, meets the case (yes, I know one of them called it "silly"). Then, seeing that they were unable to find that acceptable, I expressed the suggestion to let the discussion close amicably, leaving the article staying in its present version, which they seem to feel is more acceptable. But now two paragraphs have been added which contribute nothing more to improving the article. Perhaps all there is left for me to say is "please just stop". Qexigator (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps calling it silly was a bit harsh. As far as I can see you value the aesthetics of the writing more than getting the facts reasonably correct so basically it was some artistic bent. However Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not believe it would be adverse to the facts. I know what this encyclopedia is about, and one of them is presenting the information in a manner as convenient to the reader as the facts allow, and also tolerating and allowing for the different responses to the written word mentioned in my earlier comment. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You tried to bend the lead to conform to the title rather than the facts. Dmcq (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It could be a good idea to follow more attentively the reasoned explanations given and resist the desire to surmise and attribute what another editor is trying to do. It never occurred to me to "bend the lead to conform to the title rather than the facts", but I am interested to learn that you see it that way, which helps to explain your objection. I can allow for that. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Qexigator

"The Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann), constitutionally known as Ireland (/ˈaɪələnd/ ; Irish: Éire [ˈeː.ɾʲə] ), is a sovereign state in western Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland.”

I think it would be difficult to find an introduction to the article that can better the one above that you composed. An encyclopaedia article should start with an explanation of the name of the article, which it does. Just reading this first sentence makes it clear to the reader that Ireland is the constitutional name of the sovereign state that occupies about five-sixths of the island of Ireland. The current introduction starting with Ireland when the title of the article is Republic of Ireland is confusing. AlwynJPie (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Rationale

The rationale behind this proposal appears to be that because the title of the article is "Republic of Ireland" then the subject of the article should be described as "Republic of Ireland" first and by its proper name second.

That's a nonsense. For example, the article at United States starts: "The United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), commonly referred to as the United States (US or U.S.), America, and sometimes the States ..." And the article at United Kingdom starts: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain ..."

Unless there is another rationale put forward I cannot see the reason to call the subject of this article anything but "Ireland" first and foremost. --Tóraí (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Tóraí. It is easier for someone who knows little or nothing about a subject to explain the title name first. Ireland is already used for the island of Ireland. There are two governments in Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is about the state, not about writing a story based on the title of the article. The text should be right even if Wikipedia requires unique titles for articles. If any notice is to be taken of the title then the text should correct possible misapprehensions as quickly as possible. This is an encyclopaedia not some work of fiction. Dmcq (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Alwyn, you have said the same thing several times. Other editors have noted the point but said why the present opening is preferable. Please stop. This is becoming disruptive. Scolaire (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If x is the article name than the meaning of x should be explained first and foremost. AlwynJPie (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Alwyn., that is not a binding rule, or necessarily a good one in all cases, if any. This really isn't going to leave the starting gate, or even get there. Let it go. Qexigator (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Alwyn, it is not necessary to artificially construct the first sentence to strictly suit the title of the article. From the manual of style: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. ... When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms."

"Ireland" is the most common, recognizable and familiar name of the state. It's only natural that the article would lead out with it first. I would again point you to the example of the United States (and United Kingdom too). --Tóraí (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Qexigator I know it's not a binding rule that the article name is explained first in all cases but I would prefer if it was. I cannot think of any problems this would cause. Can you give me an example of where it is beneficial not to explain the title first?

On the subject of how articles are titled, I notice in many book encyclopeadias that entries of many places are shown with area words first eg: Ireland, Republic of; Ireland, Northern; Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Kingdom of; Wight, Isle of; Man, Isle of; China, Peoples Republic of...However the United States of America is not usually changed. AlwynJPie (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

See Key Word in Context for the sort of idea. They are just putting the most important word for searching first. Dmcq (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dmcq for that interesting link. AlwynJPie (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Consistency

In the last paragraph of the name section, it states:

The terms Republic of Ireland, the Republic, Southern Ireland or the South are often used when there is a need to distinguish the state from the island or when discussing Northern Ireland (the North).[21] Many Irish republicans, and other opponents of partition, avoid calling the state Ireland. They see it as reinforcing partition and fuelling the perception that 'Ireland' and 'Irishness' are restricted to the Republic (see partitionism). Instead, they often refer to the state as the 26 Counties (with Northern Ireland as theSix Counties or 6 Counties) and sometimes as the Free State (a reference to the pre-1937 state).[22]

This conflicts with WPconsistency, since the wiki articles on Southern Ireland and the Free State argue that these states are no longer exist. Secondly, the wiki article of Names of the Irish State, in which this is highlighted as the main article for this section argues that while there is some argument by groups and individuals on what they call the state, many authorities argue against using the terms Southern Ireland and Irish Free State. Thirdly, the two citations given in this paragraph also raise questions. In the first it is an online dictionary which mentions only Southern Ireland and not the Republic, or the South. While the second citation which is of good authority but does not mention "the Free State" as it is pertained in this paragraph. Rather when refering to the Free State, it reads:

Our concern, as Northern Nationalists, revolved around asserting our national rights in Northern Ireland. We did not believe there was any problem as far as asserting our national rights on the island of Ireland was concerned, we took those rights for granted. My attitude and that of [297] the people with whom I would have discussed this matter was that our Irish nationality existed before partition, it existed under the Free State, it existed under the de Valera Constitution and it continued to exist at the time in question. We did not recognise any difficulty in respect of our nationality.

I feel that with the paragraph as it is at present, that it would confuse readers outside Ireland or the UK. Therefore, would it not be better to delete this paragraph and say at the end of the previous paragraph, "However, depending on where you come from in Ireland or the UK, there remains some disagreement on how to refer to the state" and then just redirect the reader to the wiki article of Names of the Irish State with " See Names of the Irish State for full description" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.230.222 (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consistency is not a policy but rather a page which is retained for historical reasons. In any event there's no real inconsistency here. That the Free State ceased to exist in 1937 is true. That many people (particularly in Northern Ireland) still refer to the Republic by its old name is also true. Saying that people still call the Republic the Free State is not the same as saying the Free State still exists, so there's no inconsistency. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 00:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes but then it should have proper references that indicate people holding this view, instead it does not. The reference supplied does not make any reference that people in Northern Ireland say Free State when talking about Ireland, but rather makes refernece to Free State when talking about Mr Austin Currie´s and other Northern Irish peoples feelings of Irishness which they believe was there before the Free State. This is the only mention of Free State throughout the document. If the article is going to state one thing but the reference states another, then that is an issue and is a major wikipedia policy. The reference is incorrect and unreliable to what is written in the wiki article, while the Longman dictionary citation is not a appropriate reference either. It looks like someone had a agenda and didn´t think very hard about the references they supplied and that is against WP:POV . I invite you to take a look again at the paragraph written and the reference (which I had pasted the paragraph of the only reference of Free State) and I am sure you will see they also lack context consistency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.79.59 (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Verifiability (which again is a policy) clearly argues that any statement made must have evidence that supports the statement by verifiable sources. As I have pointed out the references supplied to support the names of the Republic of Ireland are not valid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.79.59 (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a reference for "Republic" and "South", and for "Free State" being used by republicans. Here is a reference for "Southern Ireland"; a guide book may not be ideal but it does count as a reliable source.

Please remember to indent your posts by adding one colon (:) more than the previous poster at the beginning of your post, and to sign your post by adding four tildes (~) at the end. Scolaire (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Was it really that hard for you to put find valid references. I don´t dispute these references and I would not have raised the issue if these references had been cited instead of the ones that were. These references should be used instead of the ones that had been added. Wikipedia is not about pandering to people´s feelings , it´s about backing the information up with valid sources. If a statement can´t be supported, it should´nt be there. If people want to discuss their feelings, they should seek the appropriate mental health services for that, not discuss them on wikipedia. However, as I have stated these references are of good reputable quality and therefore should be used as the references for the offending paragraph as opposed to the ones supplied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.79.59 (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly object to the tone of your reply. It wasn't hard at all for me to find valid references. On the other hand, since I was not part of the discussion, there was no onus on me at all to find references. I did it simply as a favour to you. If you want the references added, you need only add them. Don't expect other people to do the work for you. You also ignored my polite request to indent and to sign your post. A bot has done the signing for you; I have done the indentation. Don't expect any courtesy from anybody again unless and until you are ready and able to show courtesy. Scolaire (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Small map of Ireland

I've reinstated the small map of Ireland in the infobox which was removed with "... and removed unnieded picture which is not important and bad looking". I've noticed other countries tend not to have any outline map like this though. Is there some reason why we make it hard for people to get a quick idea of where the capital city and a few other major landmarks of countries are? Dmcq (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

'Name' section

Following on from the Consistency section above, I think it is time for a radical re-write (for which read trim-down) of the Name section of the article. This section was edited during the Great Wiki-War of 2008-11 (sample here), and it reflects the arguments that were being used at that time rather than the real world. For one thing, try as I may, I can find no source – reliable or otherwise - that says "Republic of Ireland" is used when there is a need to distinguish the state from the island or when discussing Northern Ireland. It's used that way on Wikipedia, all right, because it says to in the Manual of Style/Ireland, but in the real world it's just used, full stop. Likewise, there is no source for the assertion that "the name Ireland became a source of contention between the British and Irish governments." True, Mary Daly's article (which is not cited here) uses the phrases 'the dispute over nomenclature' and '"word war"' (in scare quotes), but it does not suggest that there was "contention" on the scale of the contention over such things as the territorial claim, neutrality in WWII, security, the treatment of internees or even the lack of support for the Falklands War. Even if it were argued that it does, to take this one journal article from the immense corpus of work on 20th-century Irish history and Anglo-Irish relations, where this phoney war does not get even a passing mention, and use it as a basis for this claim, is against WP:UNDUE. At the end of the day, only three facts in this section are verifiable:

1. That the name of the state according to the Constitution is "Éire", or in the Irish language, "Ireland",
2. That under the ROI Act 1948 the description of the state is "the Republic of Ireland", and
3. That it is also referred to as "the Republic", "Southern Ireland", "the South" and (in a republican context) "the 26 Counties" or "the Free State".

Those are the only three facts that should be stated, although a concise, neutral and easily understood explanation of why ROI is not the name of the state could be included. Scolaire (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the name section is alright as is, but I can understand your point. Most of the name issue can be dealt with in passing with a link to the dispute section of the Names of the Irish state article. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't even get me started on that article! Scolaire (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A quick search of the web gives me [11] 'where a possibility of ambiguity exists use Republic of Ireland' but noting else straightforward. A shows that in practically all cases where Republic of Ireland is referred to they are also talking about Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. For the whole of Ireland they say all-Ireland or the island of Ireland. Otherwise they just say Ireland referring to the state. Dmcq (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There pretty evidently was a war over the term as documented in the Names of the Irish state article. They passed special legislation to call it Republic of Ireland in the UK and not use Ireland and in Ireland they took special care to not recognize Republic of Ireland as an official name and make certain the EC and UN and suchlike referred to it as Ireland. Until the Good Friday Agreement we had the stupid business of Ireland just referring to the UK and leaving off Northern Ireland and the UK referring to the Republic of Ireland and having different versions of the same document being signed by each side in any agreement. Dmcq (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Your one source is a newsgroup; that is not a reliable source. Your search of the Dáil debates is original research, and anyway the Dáil is by no means the only place where ROI is used, or even one of the places where it is most used.

It is by no means evident there was a "war" over the term. I had a careful read of the Names article last night before I opened this thread. It talks endlessly about Notes in Council, British Acts, Irish Acts etc. but never once gives an example of Britain complaining to Ireland about the use of the name "Ireland" or Ireland complaining to Britain about the use of "Republic of Ireland". Westminster passed special legislation in 1949 to recognise the description created by the 1948 Irish legislation (There was no point referring to the state as "Eire" if it referred to itself as "the Republic of Ireland"), but it emphatically did not legislate "not to use Ireland". That is nowhere in the Act, and no commentator has ever said that that was its intention. Having different versions of the same document may have been a "stupid business", but it was not an act of war, and the fact that each side accepted the other's version demonstrates that it was not even a point of "contention" (see John Tiley, Studies in the History of Tax Law, Vol. 1, pp. 187-9). It may be appropriate to mention the "Done in two originals" (Tiley again) in the article section, but like the explanation of the difference between Ireland and ROI, it should be concise, neutral and easily understood. Scolaire (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Scolaire: let the edit go ahead. Qexigator (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with what exactly? It was pretty obvious there was a dispute and the different names causes trouble and needs a bit of explanation. What exactly is the requirement here for obfusticating the issue by ignoring what happened? Where does this asking for high quality reliable sources and talking down anything as original research as if these were extraordinary claims rather than 'the sky is blue' come from? Dmcq (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

To answer your last question first: it's Wikipedia policy. It didn't "come from" anywhere, although it may not have been applied as thoroughly seven or more years ago when this section was written. As for 'the sky is blue', I agree with that statement but I absolutely refute your assertion that "there was a dispute and the different names causes trouble". So, apparently, does Qexigator. Therefore, it needs citations for verification. Quoting passages from parliamentary proceedings and drawing conclusions from them is not enough – see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH – we must cite reliable, third-party published sources. Far from obfusticating, my purpose is to clarify. The section as it is will make perfect sense to those who were involved in the Wiki-War, and very little to anybody else. I want to see something that will be understandable to a new reader without him/her having to go off and read another (dense) article to explain the ins and outs. Scolaire (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's usually more helpful to make the edit, or put a draft at Talk so that we can see whether it would be acceptable. Argy-bargy does little to improve the article. Qexigator (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The current intro's been stable for quite some time. Let's not re-awaken any passions. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is about the "Name" section. Qexigator (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yo have just quoted policy again as a reason whereas you seem to have real feeling about the matter minimizing what you don't want and saying don't get you started about the names article. I ask you yet again, what is it that is bugging you about the section? Or are we going to get in a fight where people don't state what they are really talking about in the same passive aggressive way Ireland and the UK went on about the names business? Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Qexigator: I intend to put a draft on the talk page in the next 24 hours or so. I wanted to find out the lie of the land first, and to compose it with due care.

@Dmcq: I have never liked this section. I have always felt that it went into too much detail about stuff that doesn't matter a damn, and made claims that could not be supported. The Names article does the same, but on a much grander scale, hence the "don't get me started" remark. I didn't try to edit the section, or have it edited, during the Wiki-War since I knew it would only further inflame passions and lead to further recrimination. Three years have now gone by since that war petered out. In response to the query in the Consistency section above, I provided a couple of refs, but I realised that I could not in all conscience add the refs myself to a section that I was in disagreement with. So I decided that this was the right time to raise the question of editing it. I am not looking for a fight. I have no intention of being passive-aggressive. My desire to edit the section is driven by policy, not by emotion, and I hope you will see when I present my proposed draft that the same principle applies. Scolaire (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks. If you look at Constitution of Ireland#International response you'll see that the official British response was a complete rejection of the name 'Ireland' and saw it as part of a territorial claim. One of my relatives at the time campaigned strongly against those parts of the constitution and it shouldn't have passed with the marginal yes vote it got according to the Constitution of the Irish Free State. Personally I am sorry that they chose to call it Ireland rather than Republic of Ireland but that is water under the bridge now. I can see the section being cut down a bit but I do think the article needs an explanation of a business that still causes trouble. Dmcq (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The NYT report using the words "a legalistic protest", an un-npovish description of its own invention, could be notable to support reaction on the part of a section of opinion in USA, but does not make the position of the UK government into a "protest", given the purport of the communique' in affirming the fact, acknowledged by all parties and internationally, that naming the state "Ireland" would not affect the position of Northern Ireland "as an integral part of the United Kingdom." What "protest" is in that, apart from journalistic or partisan colour writing? Qexigator (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite apart from that, the NYT report, as far as we know, only related to British objections to the Constitution as a whole. There is nothing whatever to say that there was a specific objection to the name "Ireland". The quote from the British govt. communiqué of 30 December, which is also reproduced in the Names article, says, "They therefore regard the use of the name 'Eire' or 'Ireland' in this connection as relating only to that area which has hitherto been known as the Irish Free State." It does not say that they regard the use of the name 'Eire' or 'Ireland' as a Bad Thing. Despite your protestations, the evidence for "trouble" or any synonym thereof just isn't there. Scolaire (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft

The 1922 state, comprising 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland, was "styled and known as the Irish Free State." The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Article 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, under which the state was officially declared a republic, states, "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." That act did not name the state as "Republic of Ireland", because to do so would be in conflict with the constitution, but the state is called variously "Éire", "Ireland" or "the Republic of Ireland".

The government of the United Kingdom recognised the name "Eire" (without the diacritic), and, from 1949, "Republic of Ireland", for that territory that had been "styled and known as the Irish Free State". There was reluctance to use the name "Ireland" because it could be used to denote the whole of the island. In bilateral agreements between the two states, two separate documents were drawn up between the respective governments: while the Irish version used the name "Ireland", the British version used "Eire" (or later "Republic of Ireland"), with the agreement of the Irish authorities. The differences in the descriptions did not cause problems because the effect of the two documents were in every case the same. In the 1998 Good Friday Agreement both governments used the same title, "Ireland", for the first time.

As well as "Éire", "ÍrelandIreland" and "the Republic of Ireland", the state is also referred to as "the Republic", "Southern Ireland" or "the South". In an Irish republican context it is often referred to as "the Free State" or "the 26 Counties".

Scolaire (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks okay to me, assuming it is proposed in place the current Names section. Is there meant to be a diacritic Í? Qexigator (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I just got carried away :-) Thanks for pointing it out. Scolaire (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The difference did cause various legal and political problems as has been pointed out to you but you just seem to want to deny and ignore and misinterpret what is said, and it has led to the situation today where lots of people in Britain think the name of the state actually is the Republic of Ireland and that is written in encyclopaedias and maps. What you said about it not causing problems is your stating an obvious falsehood. Dmcq (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your response has been purely emotional. You have not pointed anything out to me, just repeatedly made assertions that you cannot back up. It is perfectly acceptable that people in Britain (and Ireland) call the state the Republic of Ireland and that it is written in encyclopaedias and maps. It is its "name" in all but name. Nobody in the real world has any problem with it. The only problem I have ever seen has been here on Wikipedia, and that problem seems to have been resolved. Now, I have gone to a certain amount of trouble to consult the most reliable sources and to write a neutral section which sources each and every statement, and says precisely what those sources say without going off on tangents or inferring something from something else. If you can do the same, do so. But don't keep talking about what is "pretty evident" or "pretty obvious" or what has been "pointed out" without producing any actual evidence, and don't call me a liar. Scolaire (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are involved in denial by ignoring what you don't want in and misinterpreting what you do want in. Dmcq (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Some mention of the dispute needs to be made, though it can be kept short by linking to the main dispute article. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As I have said repeatedly, and shown though multiple citations, there was no dispute. No mention needs to be made of a dispute that did not happen. Scolaire (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Mary Daly citation "A country by any other name" explicitly says on the first page ' The dispute over nomenclature was by no means a one sided affair". Dmcq (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledged that at the very start. She also says, on page 80, "Britain had obtained the 'oral agreement of the Eire authorities' to this arrangement", which contradicts the suggestion that there was a "dispute". I prefer to rely on verifiable facts than on a single word thrown out carelessly. Scolaire (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That they agreed a modus vivendi does not mean there was no dispute. It was an 'arrangement' not a 'resolution' and they wouldn't have needed one if there was no dispute. You are directly contradicting a reliable scholarly source on the subject about there being a dispute by saying she was careless with her language. This is what I mean by denial. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The simple solution would be to delete The differences in the descriptions did not cause problems because if that is only unverified inference. Qexigator (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The source is Oliver (2004), p. 189: "The differing descriptions which the governments give themselves cause no difficulty because both governments were content to give effect to the Convention."

I put that in to show that, contrary to what is being said here, there was "no difficulty" and the governments "were content". It need not go into the article: the paragraph is a little too long as it stands and that is probably more detail than is required. Scolaire (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

By no difficulty they meant they were able to get along okay but it most certainly did cause trouble as is seen by the high court in Dublin rejecting warrants which said 'Republic of Ireland' on them. There was various other bits of trouble like that with embassies. I am not saying that people killed each other over it, there was no hot war or anything like that, but it most certainly was a festering sore between the two countries and that is why they bothered to fix it at the time of the Belfast Agreement. Your using a tax person finding they were able to apply the law as meant and work around the problem okay to say in general there was no problem is your maximising what you want the same way as you have minimised everything you don't want. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So let the draft as shortened now go ahead. Qexigator (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Even with that out I can't see the point of the change. Dmcq (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It may not be much shorter, but it flows better, making the salient points as well as quoting the bits of law that matter. It avoids making exaggerated or unsupported assertion about contention. It explains the sequence of events in a way that most readers are likely to find npov and easier to take in. Qexigator (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If anything it obscures the salient points with facts like a history book that just mentions the dates of battles. The discussion was started with 'radical re-write (for which read trim-down)'. Trim it down more and then it might become reasonable to not talk about there being any dispute and just leave a link at the top to Names of the Irish State for anyone who wants to delve deeper. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A shorter version

In view of above discussion, would this be acceptable?

The 1922 state, comprising 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland, was "styled and known as the Irish Free State." The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Article 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 under which the state was officially declared a republic, states, "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." That act did not name the state as "Republic of Ireland", because to do so would be in conflict with the constitution, but the state is called variously "Éire", "Ireland" or "the Republic of Ireland". The government of the United Kingdom recognised the name "Eire" (without the diacritic), and, from 1949, "Republic of Ireland", for that territory that had been "styled and known as the Irish Free State". As well as "Éire", "Ireland" and "the Republic of Ireland", the state is also referred to as "the Republic", "Southern Ireland" or "the South". In an Irish republican context it is often referred to as "the Free State" or "the 26 Counties".

There was reluctance to use the name "Ireland" because it could be used to denote the whole of the island. (ref Daly, Mary (January 2007). ""A Country by Any Other Name"?". Journal of British Studies. 46 (1): 78./ref) In bilateral agreements between the two states, two separate documents were drawn up between the respective governments: while the Irish version used the name "Ireland", the British version used "Eire" (or later "Republic of Ireland"), with the agreement of the Irish authorities. (ref Daly (2007), p. 80 /ref) The differences in the descriptions did not cause problems because the effect of the two documents were in every case the same. (ref Oliver (2004), p. 187, 189 /ref) In the 1998 Good Friday Agreement both governments used the same title, "Ireland", for the first time.(ref Oliver (2004), p. 178; Daly (2007), p. 80 /ref)>

Qexigator (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2015‎

In view of the above discussion, I would say that this would be even less acceptable to Dmcq and Mabuska, since it further minimizes the "dispute" that they want to see represented. For myself, I would say that it is far closer to what I originally intended. But we can't have everything we would like.

To avoid a protracted dispute, I am willing to reinstate the original word "contention". Since that single word seems to be the only difference between us, I will go ahead and do the edit now. Scolaire (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The main thing I though was missing from the shortened version was that Ireland and the UK had resolved their differences since the Belfast Agreement. One should at least give what's happening now whatever about the history. You could leave out "That act did not name the state as "Republic of Ireland", because to do so would be in conflict with the constitution, but the state is called variously "Éire", "Ireland" or "the Republic of Ireland"." Yes if it is any longer than that shorted version by Qexigator it would be silly to try and whitewash that there was a dispute. Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm very happy with this solution, since my desire at the outset was to trim the section down. Scolaire (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)