Jump to content

Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

The name (again)

About the title of this page: I understand that this has been up for several motions and votes and debates and what not. But if the article itself states that the name of this sovereign state is usually just Ireland in the English language, then why does the island of the same name monopolize on that entry on WP? Is it really unequivocally the predominant usage in English? Similar cases elsewhere will usually lead to a disambiguation page if several uses of a geographical name are equally common. Like this:

Ireland may refer to either:
See also New Ireland and Northern Ireland

Compare where the reader is (re)directed if he/she types in other ambiguous terms with multiple meanings, such as "Georgia", "Samoa", "China", "Micronesia" or "Macedonia". //Big Adamsky 03:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

When this question came up last I was solidly against any change in the status quo but now I am not so sure because Republic of Ireland is fundementally incorrect as many people assume, incorrectly, this is its name. The above proposal does have its merits. What do other (Irish) wikipedians think? Djegan 18:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In most cases RoI is either wrong (when covering pre-1949) or unnecessary as a disambigulation. However given that we have articles on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Irish Republic, the Irish Free State and Éire, all of which in whole or in part were also referred to as Ireland, it makes sense to refer to the state post 1949 by the standard disambigulation description, which is Republic of Ireland. The problem isn't that WP uses RoI, but that it overuses it in irrelevant contents when it should be using Ireland or one of the other state names. It is OK here, and likely to cause far less POV issues and edit wars than using the less specific Ireland which could mean the 26 counties, the 32 counties, the historic entity, the modern entity, etc. This article is about the 26 county state and so should use a disambigulation reference that is instantly recognisable and which exists in legislation, not as above, make up a new one. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly it is a difficult and complex issue. One of the issues with a new article name is that a endless links would require correction not to mention article and category titles. This could be a nightmare and also "Ireland (state)" is a bit ulgy, to say the least and could get out of hand; say someone insistent (consistency fundementalists) on President of Ireland (state)!!!. Their was an attempt at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) to approach this issue but their has being very little consensus on the matter.
Its really a simple issue (the correct use of "Ireland" as against "Republic of Ireland" for the state) but when people try to over complex it, or are simply quite ignorant, or are consistency fundementalists, then it all goes down the drain. Djegan 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I rather doubt that President of Ireland would require any disambiguation. Also, I don't share the view that there is anything esthetically objectionable to having (state)) or (country) at the end of a dabbed geo-entry. See for example Georgia (country). The problem with using country in a British isles context arises from the fact that there are also subnational units there also referred to as "(home) countries" even though these are not sovereign, much like some other federal states will call their administrative units "republics" or "states". See also Use of the word "American", "Latino" and "British". These have all been the subjects of hefty feisty debates on which usage/meaning is more common and/or correct and should therefore be given the first-choice entry here in WP, i.e. without any parenthecized qualifier such as ____(state) or ____(island).
PS: My applauds for being such good sports, you guys! My proposition to merge Aotearoa with New Zealand produced a rather less fruitful/civil talk... ;) //Big Adamsky 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

All I know is, when I typed Ireland into the search box I got a very confusing article. It was some time before I found this page (the one I wanted). Gerard Foley 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with using "Republic of Ireland" as the name of this article is that it is not the correct name of the thing being described, i.e. Ireland. If you compare with articles such as United Kingdom or France, you notice that the names being used, while not the official "long form" names, are still official names. The CIA factbook backs this up.
  • conventional long form: French Republic
  • conventional short form: France
  • local long form: Republique Francaise
  • local short form: France
  • conventional long form: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; note - Great Britain includes England, Scotland, and Wales
  • conventional short form: United Kingdom
  • abbreviation: UK
  • conventional long form: none
  • conventional short form: Ireland
  • local long form: none
  • local short form: Eire
"Republic of Ireland" should either redirect to "Ireland", or be a disambiguation page with a link to "Ireland" and possibly anything else actually called "Republic of Ireland", such as the national soccer team. Either option would solve the problem of all of the links to "Republic of Ireland" currently on Wikipedia. The current "Ireland" article, which is about the history of the island of Ireland, should be renamed to "Ireland (island)" or similar. The misnaming of this article is one of the major failings of Wikipedia's coverage of Ireland. Robertbyrne 05:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine. But still, in order to preempt any future naming controversies, it might be better not to let either article occupy the "plain" Ireland page, and instead make that into a dab-page, that leads to two pages that are both disambiguated by a explanatory word in parentheses. The article about the island should read Ireland (island), right? But what should the article about the state be called? I propose simply Ireland (state), ugly or not. Cf. Tierra del Fuego and Hawaii. =J //Big Adamsky 05:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly Ireland should be a disambiguation linking to the state and to Ireland (island). However, I'm unsure about whether to move the state from Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state). It may not be the official name but it's the official description which might be enough (more so than South Korea, East Timor). I think there are likely to be more [[Ireland (state)|Republic of Ireland]] links with the move than [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] links without it; but then I don't favour editor-convenience over accuracy. Joestynes 11:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The examples of Tierra del Fuego, Hawaii, South Korea and East Timor all demonstrate that the article currently called Republic of Ireland should be renamed Ireland. In the case of the first, they are used as examples of why "Ireland (state)" should be used, yet both Tierra del Fuego and Hawaii enjoy a main entry with no bracketed words. This model implies we should have an article called Ireland with a short disambiguation at the top, but not have it as a disambiguation page (which already exists, see Ireland (disambiguation).)

In the case of East Timor and South Korea, they are both used as examples of where something worse than an official description is used. This is incorrect. Something *better* than an official description is being used in both cases. An offical *name* is being used. Please see the CIA World Factbook, which indicates

  • conventional short form: South Korea

and

  • conventional short form: East Timor

As I posted above, "Republic of Ireland" doesn't appear as a long or short form name for Ireland because it is merely a description. Wikipedia articles, wherever possible, should be titled with the name of something, not a description, official or otherwise. (Would you be happy with an article about Chilli Peppers called "Red Spicy Peppers"? Even if someone said that that's an official description?) Robertbyrne 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland is a description that is used internationally as a disambigulation name for one of the two legal entities on the island. Ireland is used in diplomacy simply because Northern Ireland is not a diplomatic entity. But in the vast majority of occasions where both Irelands exist (business, sports, post 1949 history, etc) the south is invariably called the Republic of Ireland. That is the only NPOV option we can use. Ireland (state) is an absolute non-starter. It would just ignite edit wars. The whole issue of the nomenclature to be used when referring to the island and the two states was debated at length and a consensus agreed and followed universally since. That consensus is simple: the island is at Ireland. The southern state is at Republic of Ireland. The northern state is at Northern Ireland. That is the form Wikipedia has been using for a number of years, and is used in thousands of articles. Changing it at this stage would be both crazy and unworkable and is not an option. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The following statements you made are nonsense. The reasons are left as an exercise to the reader.

  • "Republic of Ireland is a description that is used internationally as a disambigulation name for one of the two legal entities on the island."
  • "Ireland is used in diplomacy simply because Northern Ireland is not a diplomatic entity."
  • "in the vast majority of occasions where both Irelands exist (business, sports, post 1949 history, etc) the south is invariably called the Republic of Ireland." (So only "one Ireland" existed before 1949? "Both Irelands" exist in "business"? Which "Ireland" was introduced in 1949? Hint: a republic replaced a commonwealth state, but we were not left with any extra Irelands after that process.)
  • "That is the only NPOV option we can use." (NPOV only applies to opinions, such as value judgments, or choice of content, such as balance. If you wish to put a line into the article claiming that "the use of 'Republic of Ireland' is the only NPOV name possible in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia" you are welcome to attempt to make it stick, but please do not claim that the "only NPOV" name for an article is the factually incorrect one. That reflects rather badly on the mechanism by which Wikipedia articles are written.) You are implying that any other option will create an argument, but who agrees with the current choice of name apart from you?
  • "Changing it at this stage would be both crazy and unworkable and is not an option."

By the way, Northern Ireland isn't a state. Perhaps a vote would be relevant at this point. If only two or three people are involved I am willing to ignore the result, but if a number of people are following this thread, perhaps they would like to vote? Robertbyrne 05:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You obviously know as little about how states are represented internationally and what nomenclature is used in different contexts as you do about the constitutional, political, legal and diplomatic formulæ used on the island for the last eighty years. In any case the decision has already been taken on Wikipedia, a clear format agreed and implemented by all users for two and a half years. The issue is closed. Period. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 06:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for filling me in. Robertbyrne 06:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The diference between Ireland and France for instance is that there is no country called Northern France, If it were not for Northern Ireland then i would have no issue with the name being changed to Ireland. The problem with the name 'Ireland' being in such general use has led to the horrible horrible name that is becomming more and more an acceptable term = Southern Ireland. When you say Republic of Ireland everyone knows what country you are talking about, when you say Ireland the first question asked is Southern or Northern?. At which point i always scream "REPUBLIC!!!"--Murphyweb 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I support BA's proposal. Note, though, that (for consistency) it might be better to render the Republic of Ireland to Ireland (country) (q.v Georgia). While use of the word "country" is imperfect, so are the many (mis)interpretations of "state" (e.g., Irish Free State). Moreover (mindful of the above), usage of Republic of Ireland is common in dictionaries and is arguably correct (OED, Webster's). Hell: even the OED indicates Irish Republic as an alternate form. So, how about:
Ireland may refer to either:
See also: New Ireland and Northern Ireland
OR
Ireland may refer to either:
See also: New Ireland and Northern Ireland
OR
Ireland may refer to either:
See also: New Ireland and Northern Ireland
...or similar. I've swapped the order (larger > 'smaller') and – though hugely supportive of the UN subregional classification scheme for countries – dewikified Northern Europe, replacing it with a geographically 'fuller' term for the position of the island in Europe, not the country per se. This is a dab, after all, and other wikilinks should be minimised.
In both instances, however, Ireland should be the disambig. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
(BTW: one of the benefits of having an eclectic pedigree – comprised of Irish, French, Greek, and Lebanese genes of varying Darwinian fitness – is that I can hopefully objectify these matters while being sensitive to them. :)) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use 'British Isles', why not = Ireland (Republic) ? --Murphyweb 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I realise there are sensitivities regarding usage of 'British Isles' and perhaps saying merely "an (or 'the') island in northwestern Europe" will do. However, beyond this and a viable neutral alternative, I see little other reason to forego this common designation for the island group.
I think the proposed format ("Republic") would be inconsistent with other title renditions cited, not to mention the tendency in Wp to capitalise only proper nouns and not other when the lower case variant will do. Otherwise, see above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I had all but forgotten about this here motion until Pluribus à proposed me. I still think that my original suggestion is the better option to go with, specifically for the reasons given further up about the use of the word "country" within the British Isles (as in the geographical entity; not as in "islands belonging to the British State"). So… will a voting session on the three or four models proposed be in order? Of course, retaining the current version is also a legitimate option. Perhaps the perfect example to follow for such a voting procedure would be the one set at Talk:Georgia, qv.. //Big Adamsky 13:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
TY. As above, the arguments for "country" are just as well those for "state" elsewhere! :) And you've already noted country in your proposal above. ;) Perhaps Ireland (republic) might be the least ambiguous/contentious of any? In any event, I think a vote is in order with numerous unambiguous proposals (above, etc.). I can devise this in a few days, but I would applaud someone else if they took the initative. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure of the nationality of people editing this entry, and excuse me as i am new to Wiki and this is my first real input, but i would guess that most people here (if not everyone) are Irish in one way or another. The title of this entry is very important and am glad it is being discussed with the seriousness it warrants, this entry may form the basis for many peoples understanding of Ireland and her history. Wars were fought and many Irish people died to claim independance from British rule and acheive the Republic, both against the British and Irish during a civil war that was fought exactly over the difference between being a Republic state or a dominion state of Britain. There has to be a clear difference between the Island of Ireland and the Country of Ireland and this difference must at least pay lip service to the acheivments of the Irish people in the 1920's. Now times are different now, and in a much better way, but i would not like to see Ireland being classed as part of the British Isles. (By the way i was born in England and live here so i am not anti-british at all, my parents are Irish and i consider myself to be Irish, and am an Irish Citizen) My vote would be for - Ireland (republic of) --Murphyweb 13:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A hearty Welcome, Murphy! Well, I for one have no obvious Irish connection whatsoever (never visited the island, never had an Irish girlfriend, no Irish relatives, etc). I cannot think of any other way to refer to the group of islands of which both Ireland and Great Britain are physically a part, except "the British Isles". (Past achievements, developments, sacrifices and injustices are an altogether separate matter.) Also, please refer to the discussions at Talk:British Isles and Talk:British Isles (terminology) =J //Big Adamsky 14:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Cheers Adamsky, I am aware that we could go round in circles forever on this and has been been debated long before me with no resolution (the 'Irish Problem' eh?) but i can never keep my mouth shut whenever i see a discussion that i have a passion for. Thanks for the heads up on the British Isles, i may stick my oar in there also! ;-) Please, just remember though this is more than just geography, you may say that history is a seperate matter but i would certainly say that this is not the case, you must take a countries history into consideration when deciding what to call it. many countries around the world are now called by different names usually after a revolution or a civil war, we never seem to have a problem calling them by their 'new' names (USA for instance) and yet removing Ireland from the British Isles still seems to be a problem for many people. --Murphyweb 07:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be referred to as Ireland, pure and simple. After all France is not continually referred to as the 'Republic of France'. Ireland is the name written into the 'Constitution of Ireland', and that is the supreme legal document. Northern Ireland distinguishes itself from Ireland by prefixing with the word northern. Bluegold 13:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This position is likely already captured above; however, it is unclear (and will not be assigned an option or to any of the existing ones because of that) and was also made by Bluegold outside the timeframe indicated above (on 14:48, 8 March 2006). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

special position

In 1972 the "special position" of the Catholic Church in Ireland was deleted from the Irish constitution.

Is there any more information about this anywhere? Thanks, Gerard Foley 00:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The proposal originated in the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution in 1966-68 and was passed overwhelmingly with the support of all organisations and political parties including the Catholic Church. The so-called "special position" had no legal meaning, as it was not defined in law. The article was however praised by some Protestant groups because while not granting them a "special position" (whatever that meant) it acknowledged their existence also. It was also praised in 1937 by Jewish groups because, in an era of institutional and constitutional anti-semitism, the article explictly recognised the existence (and by implication of rights) of the Jewish community in Ireland. The article was also widely condemned by right-wing Catholics because

  1. they didn't want a meaningless "special position" but the recognition of Catholicism as a state church, and
  2. it based that special position not on being the so-called "true church" but merely the fact that there were more Catholics than adherents to any other faith in Ireland. That they found deeply offensive. Maria Duce, a far right wing anti-semitic Catholic lay group, reacted with fury to the article and campaigned right down to the 1950s to have it replaced by a "true church" article.

So the article, ironically, was praised by the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, while the Archbishop of Armagh, William Cardinal Conway in 1972 said that he would not shed a tear if it was deleted. The actual referendum proved a complete damp squib and the deletion went through on a landslide. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's all at Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. wikified. Joestynes 08:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: "ubiquitous support for an Irish Republic". That's a bit simplistic, don't you think? I've interviewed lots of people, from both sides, who were involved in "The Troubles" of 1919. Sadly, there are none left, now. Sinn Fein got 70+% of the seats on about 45% of the vote. Why? I put it down to the British First-Past-The-Post electoral system, Sinn Fein control of local government (and therefore election officials) and a massive protest against the ultra-boring Nationalist Party, which never seemed to achieve anything. To look at the situation from another perspective, 55% of Irish voters in 1918 supported candidates, who wanted Ireland to remain part of the UK (in one way or another). Eighteen months earlier, the (broadly unionist) percentage would have been much higher and, in 1916, "physical force" nationalism had almost no support at all. Remember how the crowd jeered and spat at the Rebels in Sackville Street in 1916 and waved Union Jacks in their faces. A very large number of Irishmen were killed, in France, and Dubliners didn't have much time for Pearse's brand of politics, at the time. Once the ringleaders had been turned into martyrs as Pearse wanted, attitudes changed. The real movement for independence came in 1919-20, as the country descended into war and the British Government went out of its way to make a bad situation worse. Everyday life became very difficult. Having said that, the IRA had run out of steam by the Autumn of 1920 and, had the British Government decided to get tough [rather than merely allowing half-mad Auxies to cause trouble], it could have re-asserted its authority. The truth is that, after the Great War, the English just wanted the Irish to b****r off and that included unionists in the North, as much as anyone else. "You all a load of ignorant paddies" sums up the attitude of many English people, right to this day. At least, thanks to the Celtic Tiger, we don't have to stick it, any more (assuming we can afford to buy houses or groceries in the Republic, these days).

Poll: Ireland article titles

Hello! As a result of prior and ongoing discussions, this poll is to identify a course of action regarding the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp.

At least five options are below. Wikipedians can only choose one option and should indicate their preference by signing in the appropriate section with four tildes (~~~~) followed by an optional, one-sentence reasoning. Please only assert positive votes, do not indicate negative ones.

Voting will continue to 28 February 2006 23:59 UTC, but may be extended beyond that if any option does not garner a clear plurality of support.

Thanks for your co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that a number of contributors here could do with a short history lesson. I recommend Names of the Irish state --Red King 23:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Of the options below, which one do you prefer?

Option 1: Ireland — Ireland (country), Ireland (island)

Support this way causes least confusion - people who turn up at the disambiguation page can chose the option the want, hopefully most links will be to the correct 'Ireland' Robdurbar 09:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC) move vot eto option 4 re discussion Robdurbar 11:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. Support, this will be not so confusing for readers. --Terence Ong 10:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. 'Support' - easiest, most user-friendly option. --jfg284 you were saying? 11:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC) You're right...more than 5000 articles link to Ireland. Changing to 6.
  3. Oppose, why use the unwieldy construct "Ireland (country)" rather than the unambiguous official legal description "Republic of Ireland"? Will also involve a considerable amount of link maintenance -- there are several thousand pages which link to Ireland -- all of these will have to be fixed to refer to Ireland (island). Demiurge 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Republic of Ireland is the country name so it makes a lot more sense to have the country article bearing that title. People can easily find the country name if that's what they're looking for. See China and China (disambiguation).--Bkwillwm 12:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. strongly oppose Why move from working forms using generally used names to makey-up names? Also, the question as to whether country is an accurate description for the state (26 counties) or the nation (32 countries) is controversial and guaranteed to cause edit wars from republicans and unionists. It is a crazy proposal. Unworkable. Illogical. Pointless. Nonsensical. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose The use of the word country is ambiguous to most people, and for many is analogous to a political entity. Djegan 18:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. In a political context, use the political name: Republic of Ireland. In Association football, use Republic of Ireland. In every other context I can think of (geology, geography, tourism, Rugby Union, etc), when people say "Ireland" they michaelangelo mean the island. It's not a big deal. Pretty much all the wlinks to Ireland are to the island and aren't bothered about which jusisdiction applies. The reasons offered for change just seem like someone is being obsessively tidy. --Red King 23:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Seems to be the best alternative. Having it at Republic of Ireland makes us look dumb.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    How exactly does using the name generally used for the . . . um . . . Republic of Ireland make us look "dumb"? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 06:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    Because...um...the generally used name is actually Ireland, which you very well know.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    Isn't the entire anti-partition argument based on the belief that that "the country of Ireland" is the entire island and comprises all 32 counties? Timrollpickering 02:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    I'm afraid if we want to change general beliefs this isn't going to do it. It's a valid point, but quite simply one must admit that when somebody says Ireland they almost invariably mean the country (and I say that in the context of the English language). I mean, in the United States, the Irish government runs commericals encouraging you to visit. It calls itself Ireland in the commercials.--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    That’s not entirely true. The org that you are speaking of, Tourism Ireland, is not the exclusive domain of the Republic of Ireland, it is one of several North / South Institutions, from their corporate website [1]

    Tourism Ireland was established under the framework of the Belfast Agreement of Good Friday, April 1998, to increase tourism to the island of Ireland as a whole.

    . Nor do their commercials focus on just the republic as well, several have featured sites in the north, most notably the Giants Causeway. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Could be confusing. --Mal 01:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Option 2: Ireland — Ireland (republic), Ireland (island)

  1. strongly oppose Why move from working forms using generally used names to makey-up names? Pointless. Unnecessary. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose If this one was selected undoubtable their would be a vote next for "country", "nation", "state", etc to be condemed to the parenthesis next. Djegan 18:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose for same reason as I've given already. It is a false problem. --Red King 21:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. "Ireland (republic)" might suggest, to the unwary reader, that the whole island is or has been a republic. --Mal 01:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Option 3: Ireland — Ireland (state), Ireland (island)

  1. oppose Why move from working forms using generally used names to makey-up names? Pointless. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose but of the first three options this is the best; however it would create a nightmare for article and category titles. Djegan 18:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Getting along together in Ireland is all about living with ambiguity. When pedants insist on disambiguating, people come to blows over things like the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute. It is a non-problem, leave it alone. --Red King 23:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. "State" and "island" are both the most descriptive and the most neutral dab-qualifiers (plus, that was my original proposal). //Big Adamsky 07:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Extremely Strong Support. This is the most legally accurate. The name of the state is simply Ireland - that is how it is internationally recognised and how it is recognised in Article 4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann. The use of Republic of Ireland is not the name of the country and in accordance with section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 should only be used descriptively. Use of Republic of Ireland for the state is either pandering to Northern nationalists and is PoV or is extremely ignorant of the facts. The island is also Ireland, thus this option is politically, legally and geographically correct; no matter what wikipedia convention is - this is an encyclopedia and should convey fact, it is ridiculous to have a page for a country which technically doesn't exist. Iolar Iontach
    Comment So, for example, the formative Republic of Ireland Act (and there are precedents for acts with simpler renditions, like (merely) the Canada Act 1982) and its name as a member state of the UN are fiction? Given the need to dually convey fact and disambiguate them, arguably, RoI is an ideal descriptive form with support in statute. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    Ireland takes its seat under the correct name for the country i.e. Ireland; the link you provided is incorrect. See the official list of UN member states. The enactment of the Canada Act, 1982 and the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 had completely different results for Canada and Ireland respectively: Canada retained a constitutional monarch as head of state and remained in the Commonwealth; the opposite is true for Ireland. Iolar Iontach 16:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    Hmmm; I stand corrected about the UN (in which case, the Wp lists need to be updated?), but that list also renders "China" as just that while it is referred to as both that and "People's Republic of China" elsewhere. If anything, that might be a good comparison. Consult the article on China and you'll note that it's distinct from and not synoymous with the current nation-state ... as is the case here.
    Regardless, you still haven't demonstrated that RoI is either unofficial nor incorrect. The act even indicates RoI as an official description and doesn't obviate the very name nor usage elsewhere. And the comparison of the Canada Act 1982 (with different result) is fully germane, since the RoI Act was not entitled more simply because of the rigmarole to change it. The state is not co-terminous/synonymous with the island of the same name ... and in Wp (not just a legal compendium/rehash), as elsewhere, RoI is used descriptively to correctly distinguish the two. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    I have updated the WP UN members list. (Thanks for drawing my attention to it!) The name of the state is always Ireland. I have never heard anyone refer to the state as anything other than Ireland, except foreign media organisations and the UK government which refers (inaccurately) to it as such in ALL statutes which refer to it. The name of the island is irrelevant when it comes to the name of the state. The only thing to which Republic of Ireland refers is the type of democracy present within the state of Ireland. The article is about more than Irish democracy. Article 4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann illustrates the inaccuracy of the term "Republic of Ireland," to refer to it as such violates the Constitution. Enactment of the Republic of Ireland Act did not result in the amendment of Article 4, thus this should be reflected in an encyclopedia. Iolar Iontach
    NP. Otherwise, I think we agree to (generally) disagree ... I qualify this because I only weakly support this option, and instead favour a clearer option below. Wikipedia is not merely an esoteric collxn that should rehash just legal nicities. The name of the island is obviously relevant in this discussion because, though similarly named, the two entities are not synonymous. If anything, you've demonstrated why the above option is not preferred: Wikipedia is generic and, given many, and arguably correct, instances of RoI and the need to effectively disambiguate terms (e.g., "state") (which is the basis of this poll), there's little reason to retitle the RoI article as proposed. If they were one and the same, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. And, no matter what the results of this poll, all alternate proposals entail some sort or redirect. A bientot. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. --Mal 01:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Option 4: Ireland — Republic of Ireland, Ireland (island)

Let's keep the official name of the country. --Terence Ong 10:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC) I've changed my vote. --Terence Ong 10:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Support. "Republic of Ireland" is a very commonly used official disambiguator and works far better than "Ireland (republic)" (What about the Irish Republic?) or any other artificial forms. Timrollpickering 12:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Changing to Option 6. Timrollpickering 12:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. In common parlance, "Ireland" may refer to either the republic or the island; apropos, Ireland should be refrofitted into a disambiguation. Republic of Ireland is an unambiguous reference for the nation-state and arguably correct. I see nothing wrong with rendering the island as Ireland (island) – a spade is a spade. I would also support #1 or #2, but the status quo (#6) and other proposals promote confusion. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose unnecessary and pointless. Least worst of the alternatives above, but that is because of how ludicrous the above options are, not how good this one is. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose uneccessary parenthesis, island of Ireland is clearly implied. Djegan 18:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Red herring – parentheses are commonly used in titles or disambiguators (e.g., Georgia, Macedonia). As an alternate, the rendition 'island of Ireland' is just unencyclopedic. 11:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    Comment definitely not a red herring. I think this vote (in so far as it relates to change from the status quo) is a fine example of pointless exercise on wikipedia. Djegan 11:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    How are attempts and discussions to effectively disambiguate common terms pointless? In little more than one day, some twenty Wikipedians have already chosen this or that and the poll will transpire until month's end. In fact, your comments above and below ("pointless" yet "that this vote is [not] improper") are somewhat contradictory.
    In any event, we agree to disagree – the folks at Georgia, Macedonia, America, et al. would like to have a word with you. Oh, which one? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    Now come on, where did I say (or imply) that "Georgia, Macedonia, America, et al" where red herrings - not at all. Each of those three have at least a screenful of terms (mind you the second (Macedonia) is locked because of a dispute). Djegan 12:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    Arguably, "Ireland" (given the numerous geographic and political entities with that name or variation (e.g., Irish Republic, Irish Free State, even the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland etc.) is just the same. Take a glance at the hatnotes atop and intros for either the Republic of Ireland or Ireland articles for proof-positive of this. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose this may be a common way of doing things on Wikipedia where there is genuine confusion, but here there is no confusion. For most purposes, the jurisdictions don't matter. Visitors may cross the border at will, there are no checks (the UK and RoI run their own version of the Schengen agreement). A visa for one is good for the other because it is an EU visa. This whole debate is pedantic in the extreme. Actually I'd like people to read the "wrong" article because it might break some of their preconceived notions. --Red King 23:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC) [slight re-edit to strike out my appalling error in case it misleads someone doing a selective Google search. I misunderstood the Common Travel Area and stand corrected --Red King 00:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Not terribly relevant here, but I'm saying it because it's a common misconception that somtimes causes real problems for people who are caught out by it: a UK visa does not allow entry to the Republic of Ireland, nor vice-versa. There is no such thing as an EU visa. A Schengen visa is valid for any Schengen country, but neither Ireland nor the UK are part of Schengen. Palmiro | Talk 14:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support this is a common way of doing things on Wikipedia. By making 'Ireland' a disambigation page, we stop people from going to the 'wrong' article Robdurbar 11:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per EPA. —Nightstallion (?) 10:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support NotMuchToSay 23:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Palmiro | Talk 14:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support While it would be nice if Ireland could be used unambiguously for the entire island, in common usage Ireland is often used when referring to the Republic. Ask someone what the flag of Ireland is, for example, and (if they know at all) they'll point to the tricolour. IMHO the disambiguation is necessary to clarify the point. --Beano ni 01:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Weak Oppose. --Mal 01:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Option 5: Ireland — Republic of Ireland, Eire

  1. Support Waggers 11:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, Éire is the Irish language translation of Ireland. So it should be used on the Irish language Wikipedia, but not the English language Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) Demiurge 11:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak Support--Bkwillwm 12:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose — messy, confusing and totally unnecessary. For a start, Éire can mean either the 26 or 32 counties. A guaranteed source of confusion. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose as long as this is the English wikipedia. Djegan 18:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strongly Oppose - it's just incorrect! NotMuchToSay 23:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. The words "Éire" and "Ireland" are synonyms. As are "Ierland", "Irlande", "Irlanda". This proposal is ignorant. --Red King 23:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose This is the english languae wikipedia, so Eire should not be used, and I see no Ambiguity in the name Ireland, it is the Island
  9. Oppose, per Red King. Palmiro | Talk 14:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Eire in English means the Free State, or a poetical entity, not the body of land. Septentrionalis 00:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. --Mal 01:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strongly Oppose. Éire is Ireland, and not just a part of it. The British, and they alone, use Éire in a partitionist sense. Derry, Ireland is obviously the English transliteration of Doire, Éire. Saying Doire, Éire is not precisely the same thing as Derry, Ireland is just silly, and this particular type of silliness is, alas, persistently coterminous with Britishness. For me this (and that "British Isles" jingoism) is further proof of Edward Said's observation in Orientalism that the coloniser everywhere has a central impulse to control the representation of the native. El Gringo 03:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Option 6: Ireland (disambiguation) — Ireland, Ireland (island)

  • The state would live at Ireland (as in most cases, save for Georgia), and the other two are self-explanatory.

I see a lot of support for the status quo, but for what it's worth, here is my lonely addition to the proceedings. Robertbyrne 05:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. Propose. Robertbyrne 05:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Good idea. Simple. Septentrionalis 00:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. This is by far the best solution. So why aren't you all supporting it? OzLawyer 20:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Option 7: status quo

  1. Support. "Republic of Ireland" has legal status, and is used by various international bodies and in diplomatic correspondence. The disambig header at the top of Ireland is sufficient to point people to the correct article, in my opinion. Demiurge 11:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Petri Krohn 12:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. "Republic of Ireland" is a very commonly used official disambiguator and works far better than "Ireland (republic)" (What about the Irish Republic?) or any other artificial forms. Timrollpickering 12:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Comment Though some may disagree, I don't think the issue is so much the propriety of RoI, it's what to do with the simpler term Ireland (which can mean any number of things) that prompted this poll in the first place. Take a peek at the Ireland (disambiguation) for the possible confusion the status quo promotes ... the sort of thing dabs are designed to address. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support--Bkwillwm 12:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support While I like the idea of having Ireland be a disambiguation page, I'm convinced that there are far too many articles (5000+) to warrant the change. And, that being said, this option is the best. --jfg284 you were saying? 13:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support - TheKeith 15:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support - Fabhcún 18:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong support — The system being used is accurate, uses real names, and works on Wikipedia. Why break a working system with real names to move to a more confusing one with makey-up disambigulation terms? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Admittedly the status quo is not ideal, however a change from it would require immense work and all that could be shown for this, in the final appeal, is a few articles changed and perhaps a lot of clumsy categories. Djegan 18:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Comment Whatever the option selected, this is nothing a bot can't fix. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    Comment its categories that really concern me, in particular those with clumsy names, I have commented below in more detail. Djegan 19:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support -- Arwel (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support and other votes as per FearEIREANN but politer :) Joestynes 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strong support — The system being used is accurate and uses real names, The other options listed either increase confussion, or increase the difficulty in finding and working with the intended article. Bo
  15. Support logical arrangement.--cj | talk 08:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Comment Hmmm; given proposals above (e.g., #4), is the situation with Australia, Australia (continent), and Australia (disambiguation) any more logical? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support If it's not broken, don't fix it. Although I think a link to the "Ireland (disambiguation)" should be included at the top of the current Ireland article, as how else can you find it? The disambag page should include NI as well for completeness. People wise, aren't their people with the surname Ireland, which might be added to that disamb page in time? MartinRe 15:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Comment I have since added this atop both articles and enhanced the disambig. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support On balance this sounds about right if not quite perfect but don't forget we still need a disambiguation page and even though there is no article for it let us not forget about the Ireland Island in Bermuda. ww2censor 15:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support There’s no need for change in this case. Anyway, sending people to ‘Ireland (disambiguation)’ will cause confusion - the type of confusion the current Ireland article clears up. Monucg 19:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support, pretty buch all of why thoughts have been stated above. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 20:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Strong Support. Even if I didn't believe this was the best option, don't fix something that ain't broke. PhatJew 09:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support - don't see any reason to change. --Ryano 14:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support - don't see any reason to change. --Red King 00:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, and preemptive support for retaining the status quo in all future such votes as well. Palmiro | Talk 14:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support - Lochaber 02:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Article names should be usable without piping. Septentrionalis 00:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    Comment As indicated above, "Wikipedians can only choose one option" etc. – I am nixing your second choice unless you decide to change your preference. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support john k 07:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support -- Changing this has been discussed once or twice before but it still seems the clearest, most natural solution to me. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Don't break what's not broken. It works perfectly fine as it is and unless some more convincing arguments are given I support the status quo. Celcius
  31. Support Myopic Bookworm 14:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Strong support. The official policy regarding the use of names to describe the country is that "Republic of Ireland" should be used whenever there might be ambiguity. This policy is used by both the Dail (RoI) and Westminster (UK) governments. It seems to me that, from a purely logical standpoint, considering "Ireland" can be ambiguous then we should keep things the way they are. It must be clear what is being discussed in articles. --Mal 01:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Strong support. Poll may be closed but may as well go on record. Why make up a new disambiguator when we have an official one prescribed by statute. Anyway please spare us another vote on this issue any time in the next five years. Iota 18:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. Strong support. Republic of Ireland is the official description of the state for exactly this reason.
  35. Strong support.Dmccabe 14:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  36. Strong support Most inclusive. Repulbic of ... is an official name. --sony-youthtalk 00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support It has arrived at the current state of play for very good reason. Because its sensible and it works. Why mess it up for no good reason. Frelke 23:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Option 8: other

  • please indicate and categorise below; render in a fashion similar to options 1-6:
Option # [[proposed disambiguation]] — [[proposed title for nation-state article]], [[proposed title for island article]]


Comments

  • Ireland (country) / Republic of Ireland / Eire : How would Irish people prefer their country to be identified? David Kernow 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The most common name used for the independent Irish state by its citizens is Ireland. Republic of Ireland is used when a distinction needs to be drawn with Northern Ireland (as is the case on Wikipedia). Éire is used only when speaking Irish. (Use of this name when speaking English is associated with right-wing British media and can be seen as patronizing.) Demiurge 11:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a clear need to distinguish and disambiguate the nation-state/republic and island ... something the status quo doesn't do effectively. Ireland is commonly used to refer to both the country and island and should function as a dab. Republic of Ireland is a common and correct rendition, found in numerous reputable publications like the Oxford English Dictionary, Webster's dictionary, et al. Speaking of which: the Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year 2003 indicates the following for the republic's name (p. 635):
... hence my choice above, with provisos. Any other options promote confusion in one way or another. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
So, please clarify for me, does ROI - as a name - have a legal status? Quite simply put, is it accurate to describe this state as the ROI? Cos I always thought this but have heard otherwise during this argument? Robdurbar 19:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes: it is an official rendition and, arguably, legal (based on entitlement of the Republic of Ireland Act). However, this doesn't obviate usage of the simpler Ireland, which is the official name indicated in the act. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Joestynes 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It is clear that the status quo is not ideal for every case, in particular for official titles where the use of simply "Ireland" is simply a must, for instance President of Ireland even though it is essentially the president of the Republic of Ireland. Their was an attempt some time ago to approach this question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), however it never made it beyond discussion; fundementally their where simply too few people who where interested. However discarding the status quo would create a lot of work in wikipedia (some people would relish this) and also their maybe very little to show for it in the end except a lot of edits, a handful of articles that get moved about and potentially a lot of clumsy categories (this could be a nightmare situation for instance Category:Economy of Ireland (state) is just plane ugly). The use of "Republic of Ireland" is not ambiguous, and nothwithstanding it is not the official title of the state, is the best solution at present. If their are issues in the appropriate use of "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland" this should be a manual of style issue rather than a snap vote as it really concerns very few article titles - but more so categories - and thus is a style issue. Djegan 19:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't disagree regarding usage. But as you can see above, this is not a snap vote but has been extensively discussed ... previously and currently. If it really were, someone would've placed it on the WP:RM page. Prevailing choices will likely be self-evident when the poll expires (if not already), which will hopefully settle the matter for the forseeable future.
    • As for the name, even the act which created the present-day republic is precedent for the longer-form rendition, so how can it not be official if not legal? Does that invalidate it? Take a peek at Talk:Canada's name for an expository about the possible distinction between Canada (legal/official) and Dominion of Canada (official, though disused).
    • As for the island rename, the proposals are conciliations to address usage – in the appropriate context – with propriety. Wp isn't a legal document: it's a compendium that should accurately render information. In this respect, Ireland is a political entity and a geographic one – the status quo doesn't really do this.
    • Lastly, style guidelines (and I'm all for 'em) should be based on reputable sources and prevailing usage (and perhaps guided by choices made here); in any event, there are scant guidelines in the MoS regarding this too. And therein lies the joy of the piped link in Wp, where one can effectively render terms for Ireland, a state established in 1949 that occupies most of Ireland.
    • Moreover, categories are a completely separate issue (and should not have bearing here), which would be unaffected by a move; if so, separate proposals can be made and or a bot made to rectify moves. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ireland (disambiguation)

I've taken some moments to enhance Ireland (disambiguation) and added or edited appropriate dab hatnotes atop relevant articles; I'd envision this sort of dab page to exist no matter what it is entitled. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No change

To people from Ireland, when you say "Ireland" we think (whether we're from the South or the North) the island of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland (Or the Republic/The South) and Northern Ireland (or the North) are what is commonly used by people, whether they are from the island or not, to distinguish between both jurisdictions of Ireland. Believe it or not, people from Ireland are extremely close, and, people automatically think of the island when they say Ireland, and neither jurisdiction in particular.

I don't find any reason for change, further change would simply serve to confuse a casual reader.

BBX 13:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Your statement about "Ireland" is simply not true. People in the Republic often say Ireland when they mean the Republic, or simply forget about the existence of the North. The letters page of The Irish Times often has letters of the form "your article said the Dublin X is the only/biggest X in Ireland; in fact there is another/bigger X in Belfast". Joestynes 15:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That’s somewhat my point, people in the south of Ireland tend not to recognise, unintentionally in a lot of cases, the state of northern Ireland. When Irish people anywhere on the island hear “Ireland” usually they don’t automatically associate it with either jurisdiction of the island. Now I have spend quite a lot of time in the south, and southerners are really no different than northerners. I was brought up in a Nationalist area admittedly, so we do share a common heritage and culture, which may contribute to how alike I find people throughout the island.

There are many all Ireland studies, bodies, statistics and figures nowadays, particularly in northern Ireland were a closer bound has become clearer with the Republic of the island. “The biggest/best/fastest/longest (etc) in Ireland” is common place nowadays, with most media outlets (in particular UTV, which is basically an all Ireland channel now) refer to northern Ireland issues as being in the “Province” I.e. the Province of Ulster. The Republic of Ireland is a State however, so what can one say when referring to Republic issues only. Ireland is abbreviated, officially also, because southern Irish people, again, don’t tend to distinguish the Republic of Ireland from the north. The term “Ireland” predates the partition of the island, northern Ireland is as much a part of Ireland as any county anywhere on the emerald isle. I have nothing to hide in saying I hope for a United Ireland one day, and I do feel pride in being apart of this beautiful island of ours.

BBX 22:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

The term 'Ireland when used to describe 'the republic' is seen by northerners as a deeply offensive and sectarian term, as it is felt to be a direct assault on their legitimacy to call themselves Irish. To be honest I even find the disambiguation at the top of the Ireland page quite offensive 86.12.245.194 18:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Context is what we are really talking about here and what exists in context is fine as it is. When northerners ask me (on visiting Northern Ireland) if I came up from the Free State today, I too am rather offended. Are they still unable to move on and accept the status quo rather than take an arrogant partisan or arrogant stance? Let's not be like that and accept that people from the Republic of Ireland will most often use the term Ireland to mean both the Republic and the whole island depending on the context. There is no discrimination meant by this use of the one term. However, many northerners will use the term Southern Ireland, a legislative term that existed for about 10 minutes (!), which is an equally deeply offensive and sectarian term. They too use the term Ireland to describe their territory and, I think, have yet to find a non-disparaging term for the republic, without its terroristic IRA connotations. Let's just leave it alone and hope those who are offended or confused will figure it out and move on in their own sweet time, hopefully soon. Life is too short for grudges of this kind. ww2censor 23:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I find that most people here (NI) use "the Republic" or "down south", and yes, "southern Ireland" which I would have thought is about as offensive as "the North" is to most people here. I have never heard anyone use "Ireland" to describe Northern Ireland. The term Ireland generally is used to describe the island, although this can be confusing given that Ireland is the official name of the bottom 5/6 of the island. The way it is now both articles use official, recognisable terms which are easy to understand. - TheKeith 23:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
"I think, have yet to find a non-disparaging term for the republic, without its terroristic IRA connotations" . what about the Republic? On the Issue of using the trem Southern Ireland, while a legitimate geographic term, I would also oppose any move of the republic of Ireland page there. I think saying "There is no discrimination meant by this use of the one term" is probably true, but I would be very much see this akin to using the term negro as it was "meant" to be non-offensive back in the 1900s, just because you mean to be non-offencive, does not mean that you aren't offensive. 86.12.245.194 08:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And don't even start with Ulster!! Oops, now look what I've done! --Red King 00:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Best not, but since you started. It's basically same as the Republic of Ireland using Ireland, when it's not really the whole area, just most of it. But I personally don't use Ulster for anything other than the Rugby and my Uni. - TheKeith 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This system is unlikely to generate consensus, but so be it. Septentrionalis 06:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree: this is modelled on Talk:Georgia, where multiple votes of support did not and need not occur. Through multiple options, only a clear plurality is sufficient. In fact, Wikipedians who comment multiple times (viz., through wilfully opposing other options) and despite instructions above preclude possible consensus, not the reverse. And, frankly, such comments should have been made upon initiating the poll. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

So that's it: the incorrect name continues to be used on Wikipedia, in defiance of The Encyclopædia Britannica, in defiance of all official documents, in defiance of usage. The cosy Wikipedia consensus reigns, leading millions of casual web surfers worldwide to misleading information. So much for democracy. 70.28.154.124 04:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on give it a break. First of this is Not Encyclopædia Britannica, it never has been and it will not be, have you ever taken it under consideration that we might do things different then EB does it. Second it is not in in defiance of any official documents. While the constutition does state that the official name of the county is Ireland the Republic of Ireland Act states

"DECLARE THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE SHALL BE THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND"

, and the act, nore does subquence legleslation that i know of, make conditions on the use of the term Repbulic of Ireland in refence of the state that controls 26 out of 32 counties on the isle of Ireland. The use of term here to describe the state, in which is being used, is well within the correct usage of the phrase, and is no diffrernt then it's simalar useage elsewhere, ie FIFA and UEFA. I also dont see the uasge of Republic of Ireland being any different then the usage of United Kingdom over United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or France say over the French Republic, the only differenc being that by the constution the so called "short form" of the offical name is the official name of the state and not visa versa. Also to say that this is misleading is pure farce, the article opens up by saying what the decrepreancy in the name is and ststing that the term Republic of Ireland is correct in use of describing the state. As for demoracy, what if anything does that have to do with well anything, guess what Wikipedia is not a democracy, and if you dont like the term "Republic of Ireland", that term was democraticaly made the discription of the state, by the demcorticaly elected dail, which is the parliment of the decomatratic state of Ireland also described as the Repbulic of Ireland, them mabye i would recomened that you contact your TD or the Taoiseach and have them set about to recind or change the act. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting rant, Boothy443, but nobody is disputing the official status of "Republic of Ireland", merely that it isn't the name of the state being described. Your rant is therefore irrelevant to my comment. Such a disproportionate defence of the irrelevant would seem extraordinary, except that your Discussion page reveals that you don't have the best reputation on Wikipedia, c.f. [2]. You are in good company. The other most vociferous contributor in favour of the status quo, FEAREireann, a.k.a. Jtdirl, has his own reputation on Wikipedia, c.f. [3]. Well, you all have your free speech on Wikipedia, and so, hopefully, do I. But I think it's important that people know who their "leaders" are in these votes. I know I'd want to be informed. 70.28.154.124 06:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • In that spirit, perhaps you'd care to practice what you preach and you tell us any previous usernames you've edited Wikipedia under? Demiurge 10:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well this is a little off-topic, and I'm not saying I'm not at least partly to blame for "starting it", but, sorry to disappoint you Demiurge but I'm not one of the Wikipedia users you and Jtdirl, etc., have harrassed in the past. Just someone who prefers a little bit of pseudo-anonymity so that it's easier to speak my mind without making a Wikipedia user name the target of attacks. 70.28.154.124 16:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Option 7 is now the clear winner the voting should close as per Voting will continue to 28 February 2006 23:59 UTC, Fabhcún 08:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll: summary

Yes. Thanks to everyone for your participation in this poll, which has garnered significant input and discussion. As of the end of day 28 February 2006, 36 Wikipedians have indicated the following (in vote share order):

  • Option 7: status quo — 24 votes (66%)
  • Option 4: Ireland – Republic of Ireland, Ireland (island) — 5 votes (13%)
  • Option 3: Ireland – Ireland (state), Ireland (island) — 2 votes (6%)
  • Option 1: Ireland – Ireland (country), Ireland (island) — 2 votes (6%)
  • Option 5: Ireland – Republic of Ireland, Eire — 2 votes (6%)
  • Option 6: Ireland (disambiguation) – Ireland, Ireland (island) — 1 vote (3%)
  • Option 2: Ireland – Ireland (republic), Ireland (island) — no votes

Since the end of February, the margins have not changed appreciably.

The above includes affirmative assertions only. As numerous opposing 'votes' were made despite instructions upfront to the contrary – and in an arguably blusterous fashion inconsistent with salient discussion – they are disavowed and not included. Said comments largely deal with opposition to changing the status quo and (incorrect) usage of Éire to refer to just one entity and not both.

So, based on everything above, there is consensus support for the status quo. Given the inconsistency of this topic matter with other similar disambiguations in Wp, however, I'm certain that this issue and concomitant ones will recur at some point. In any event, again, thanks to all of you for your input, patience, and continued co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Phrasing

I am not a grammarian (I don't even know if that's the word for it) but is it not, strictly speaking, incorrect, to refer to a state/country in the 3rd person singular feminine (i.e. she, her) as this article seems to make notable use of it. I don't know, I could be wrong, but I was always under the impression that strictly speaking, its' incorrect (and sexist, depending on how you look at it) - RHeodt 17:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Slightly inncorrect pertaining to State name

I just wanted to point out that "Éire" is not "Ireland" in Irish, as it says in the first paragraph (or one of the first) that: "the official name of the State is Ireland (Irish: Éire).

Now according to the constitution, the official name of the state is "Éire" and as far as is know, that derives from the name "Eiru" which is the name of a mythological divine heroine, occurs in the earliest literature in Old Irish. Ireland in Irish is "Éireann", as in "Poblacht na hÉireann" for Republic of Ireland and "Tuaisceart Éireann" for Northern Ireland. Ireland is the official name of the state for English speaking matter, or Republic of Ireland, the official description.

I believe it might be a good idea to reword the main paragraph to something like below:

The state's official name is Éire (For official English language matters, Ireland is used ).

Or it can be left the way it is, I'm not bother either way LoL. Just thought it should be pointed out at least.

That is correct. I have reworded it to make it less misleading. 70.28.154.124 15:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Ireland in Irish IS Éire! Éireann is simply the genitive case of Éire.--Dub8lad1 13:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Apologies for making the earlier edit. 70.28.154.124 03:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

completion of poll

Can we use the formatting similar to move requests that indicates the poll is over. Would stop the drip, drip votes? Djegan 19:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Mind you the size of the page is 78 kb so an archive maybe better...Djegan 19:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Why not just do both, and movr the poll and related recent dicussions present on this page to a archive that states that this debate has taken place. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
As long as the poll remains on the active talk page, I don't think there's anything wrong with it continuing to garner drip votes. Those will either validate the results of the poll (the status quo) or reveal a change of opinion and that the issue isn't truly dead. And although it is formally concluded, the poll will effectively 'end' once the page is archived (like any other). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Irish always in Italics

I'm sick and tired of seeing Irish banished to italics on Wiki. "Éire" is the first official name of the ROI.

If you dont like it then go over and work on Vicipéid. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the snappiness, was tired, suppose that's what ii get for keeping odd hours, and algeries, but anyway to go with what was as stated below, this isn't the English language version not the Irish language, and since the Ireland is basically a dual language country, blah blah blah English takes precedent over Irish with few exceptions, very few, this is not one. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
"Ireland" is the only official name of the state in English, even the Constitution of Ireland cannot change the fact that "Éire" is an Irish word. Djegan 18:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Religion

I consolidated and improved what material there was on Religion in the ROI, but I'd think there's a lot of material. The section could probably be expanded to spawn a detail article at Religion in the Republic of Ireland. There's also a lot to be said for a "History of religion in Ireland" article. The History of Ireland would be a good starting place to collect leads for that article, and in general we have Category:Religion in Ireland. -- Beland 20:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Military

I notice that there is no mention of the current Irish Army. Is this within another article or does it just not exist? If the former then perhaps it should be merged into this. GiollaUidir 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a section as no-one seems to have any opinion on it. GiollaUidir 12:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Year of Independence

In the infobox at the side should the year of declared indepndence not be 1916?GiollaUidir 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That was a) the Irish Republic, a different entity (and one to which the RoI does not accept as a name); b) not internationally recognised; or c) even de facto independence. Timrollpickering 21:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Taoiseach Bertie Ahern himself told the Dáil some years ago that the date of Irish independence was 6 December 1922, not 1916 nor 1919. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Should we not go on fact rather than what Bertie the West-Brit says?GiollaUidir 21:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
We go by what the national consensus is, a consensus the elected leader of Ireland agrees with. Your comments just show your own POV agenda. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Not that I'm pro-1916, but adjudicating on the historical source of legitimacy of the state is not part of the remit of the office of Taoiseach, and the pronouncements of "one of Ireland's few remaining socialists" on any issue are hardly authoritative. I've added wikilinks for declared and recognised in the infobox. jnestorius(talk) 08:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to "Declared" Independence. The year it was granted is undoubtedly 1922 tho.GiollaUidir 21:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Independence was declared by a sovereign Irish parliament, albeit one without a de jure existence, in 1919. That is a lot different to a self-proclaimed unelected so-called "provisional government" claiming the right to declare independence in 1916. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough then.GiollaUidir 21:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, ignoring the 1916 date, it's still not entirely straightforward. The Dáils are still numbered back to the first one in 1919, implying continuity of the state since then. I think it's reasonable for Irish people to regard 1919 as the State's creation, even if those elsewhere still don't hold with that, even after all these years. zoney ♣ talk 22:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Gaining Irish nationality

Just a question of which I couldn't find the answer anywhere... I am living in Ireland for two years now (one year in Dublin, then moved to Northern Ireland). I was wondering if I could apply to gain the Irish nationality? I am a EU citizen, so I was wondering that there may be a faster naturalisation procedure for EU citizens? If someone has info, please reply here, or feel free to mail: gerrit.df @gmail.com (remove the empty space in front of the @)

To answer your question:[4] ClemMcGann 13:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Your need to be living in Ireland for 4 years to become a citizen. If you're still living in Northern Ireland, you would be better off applying for British citizenship.

People living in Northern Ireland are entitled to Irish citizenship on the same basis as people in the 26 counties.Deepsoulstarfish 00:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

History section : Easter Rising not referred to

Reference to the Easter Rising of 1916 is missing in the History section ! --Josce 16:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

Why is map of "United Ireland" posted in this section? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Counties Is that not a little POV? PANONIAN (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How can we make this a Good article?? --TheM62Manchester 11:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Erse

User:Kwekubo said "native names of languages are not used in this infobox" . I have found no authority for that statement. In fact native names and languages occur frequently in the country infobox. Look especially at countries which use a non-roman alphabet. Bejnar 21:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

National Anthem

I have reverted the recent changes made by Springeragh of the National Anthem entry. 'Amhrán na bhFiann' is the official national anthem of the Republic of Ireland, so the name of Ireland's national anthem can't be translated into English and have it's official title put in italic. This may be the English Wikipedia, but certain things cannot be translated to English, and must retain their official title, this is one of them. Éire32 20:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't realise that the name was in only one language. However, shouldn't the translation be included somewhere in the article so people who don't speak Irish Gaelic know what it means? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  19:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not so sure about that, see for instance[5]. It is a well known convention that the national anthem can be discribed as "Amhrán na bhFiann" or alternatively as "The Soldier's Song". To say that it does not have an English title is about as propostorous as saying it does not have English lyrics. Are their sources that indicate their is no English title (official or otherwise) on par with the "official" Irish title? Djegan 20:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean from what I said above that there is no English translation available, obviously there is, however, the official title of Ireland's national anthem is 'Amhrán na bhFiann', and you would never hear it known by it's English translation. I see no sense in wanting to know the English translation, just learn the official(Gaeilge) title. Just because this is the English Wikipedia, doesn't mean everything has to be translated into English, as I said above, there are some things that should remain in their original language for official reasons. Giving an English translation with the Irish name in italic may give people the impression that the title of Ireland's national is in English with an Irish translation.
We aren't saying that that is the title: that is a translation of it separate from the title. See Ein deutsches Requiem, not A German Requiem. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  21:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It's quite patently absurd to say it's never known by it's English title. I will bow to your superior knowledge on it's official title, but I hear/see the English translation of the title used more often than the Irish and am happy to accept that it should take prominence on the English wiki, but the English translation of the title should be included too. beano 16:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
References in the UK media are usually translated into English, but not so in the English-language media in Ireland. The English translation is never sung. But you are correct to say that it is absurd to say that it is never known by its English name, because clearly it is so in England. So yes, if you live in the UK , that is exactly what you see.
So it would be more correct to say that the english translation has no official standing. That is what makes it inappropriate to include it in the article - at least not unless we are going to translate the anthems of every other country too. --Red King 20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Some examples of "Soldier's Song" being used in the Dáil: http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0050/D.0050.193311220036.html --Kwekubo 01:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Confusing definitions

This article begins:

The Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann) is the official description of the sovereign state which covers approximately five-sixths of the island of Ireland, off the coast of north-west Europe. The state's official name is Ireland (Irish: Éire), and this is how international organisations and citizens of Ireland usually refer to the country.

Some distinction is apparently being made between between "official description" and "official name", but the nature of this distinction is not made clear, leaving the reader (or this reader at least) confused. Matt 19:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.196.27 (talk • contribs)


Population

There are most certainly not 100,000 Americans in Ireland. I specifically recall the number in the 2002 Census was roughly 10,000. I am 100% certain on this issue. Next year's final Census results will clarify if this has grown since but the most recent figures are 10,000. In that context I have replaced 100,000 with 10,000. (Ronan 00:34 AM 30/10/2006)

  • You're right, the CSO gives a figure of 11,384 for census night 2002[6]. The incorrect 100k figure was added to the article here; I've added a note to the editor's talk page asking them where they got it. Demiurge 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Country?

The article is littered with the term country, my understanding was that RoI was one of two states within a country. Does anyone have anything to verify this one way or the other? 86.12.249.63 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you are not aware of the broad nature of the term, country. Your supposition that the Republic of Ireland is not a country is outlandlish. Perhaps you should start here; list of countries? Djegan 17:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Saying that the 26-county RoI is a country is just as POV as saying it isn't. All we can say with certainty is that the RoI state/statelet/pseudo-state has effective control over 26 exactly counties. Countries needn't coincide with current effective state boundaries - 'countries' probably continue to exist during civil wars or during occupation by outsiders. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 17:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
POV? Hardly. Practically every other country in the world recognises Ireland (26-c.) as a country. I don't see how calling it a country is POV. - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 13:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Aaron is correct, both statements are POV. However, he is incorrect in implying that the two claims therefore deserve equal weight. The POV that the Republic of Ireland is a legitimate state is shared by the international community, the United Nations, the European Union, the overwhelming majority of the electorates in both the Republic and Northern Ireland — in general, just about everyone with an opinion on the matter. Contrast that with the POV that the Republic of Ireland is not a legitimate state, which is held only by a vanishingly small minority with no elected representation whatsoever. The latter POV deserves about as much prominence as the Flat Earth theories do on the Earth article. Demiurge 13:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Demiurge, SF believe the RoI is not the legitimate government of any part of Ireland (see the end of[7]), so it's not a vanishingly small belief. I'm not really calling for every mention of 'Ireland' to be encumbered with huge amounts of NPOV cruft, as that would be unwieldy. I suppose the real question is how soon in the article to mention the debate/conflict/controversy. I myself would like to see it mentioned in the introduction that the state (is/was) (intended/hoped) to cover the entire island and that many still hope it will. Others may wish to delay it until the History section. In Ireland (and Britain too believe it or not [8]), more people want a United Ireland than for NI to remain in the UK. Although hoping for a UI doesn't change the facts as they are now (whatever they are!). Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 14:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Which SF are you talking about? Provisional SF gave up this belief a long time ago, when they abandoned abstentionism. See Gerry Adams' speech to the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis in 2005: "Does Sinn Féin accept the institutions of this state as the legitimate institutions of this state? Of course we do." Demiurge 14:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about PSF. I think I'll sit back now. Thanks, Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 15:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

17 November

It is clear that this article is the "property" of Irish Americans and others, who have been indoctrinated by Irish nationalist teachers, priests and parents, since the age of three. You are beyond reason and I have even less faith in Wikipedia than I used to, as a result.

Incidentally, I have spent a very large part of my life in Ireland, both North and South, but I despair of what I've read on here. So much for the liberalisation of Irish society. You're every bit as bigoted as the "Brits" in the North, for whom you clearly have nothing but contempt. At least they'd occasionally admit that they're wrong: you are incapable of that.

Wikipedia is for the use of people in every country, not for just that of Sinn Fein activists in North Dublin, bogtrotters in Mullingar and NORAID sympathisers in Boston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.76.107 (talk • contribs)

Neighboring countries

Hey, does anyone think that box at the bottom of the page just inaccurate. I think it should be removed because a I don't know if the accuracy can be improved, any objections? Fabhcún 17:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Close" the poll?

Can we get the poll above "closed" and archived - it closed months ago but people are still voting on it. Bastun 00:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, its just misleading to leave it open as if things might change with a few trickle votes. Djegan 00:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction, Weaselling Words Cleanup

Does anyone else think that in the introduction where it says: The remaining sixth of the island of Ireland is known as Northern Ireland and is politically an administrative part of the United Kingdom. That instead it should say: The remaining sixth of the island of Ireland is Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom. Somethingoranother 20:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not try a totally new rewording such as something alongs the list of "It shares a land border with Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom." This article is about the state not the island and so the part that reads "The remaining sixth of the island of ..." does not make much sense. --sony-youthtalk 20:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion for that intro to be used instead. Somethingoranother 20:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Ireland/Archive_4&oldid=1137121742"