Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Architecture

I added an architecture section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.73.141.166 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit

I've just updated the Head of state entry, considering that Bertie has officially resigned. 87.236.6.8 (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Electronic Music

As this is a resource on Ireland, I feel strongly that these musical styles should be noted on the main page.

This is what I said, for risk of disruptiveness and failure to resource properly, I'm handing it over to you;

In Electronic music, Donnacha Costello, Mark O'Sullivan of DK7 Fame, and Fish Go Deep have had continued success, alongside Glen Brady A.K.A. Dj. Wool with his band 'The Glass'(see Irish hip hop).

Just to note, when mentioning music under the electronic music banner, it is only respectable to include a top performer from a few different styles which I did. Also electronic music sales volume isn't counted unless it's been up for commercial release, in saying that, a song could sell an Phenomenal amount of records worldwide and still stay under the commercial radar.

Regarding references of notability, although great bands, I still can't find any evidence of the frames apparent rise worldwide, or Bell X1's, I personally don't consider supporting Damien Rice on a European Tour, a woldwide rise to fame.

Finland and some other countries are happy to mention their contribution to electronic music. In Northern Ireland, the big successes have been Phil Kieran, David Holmes (musician), The Japanese Popstars. --PJ 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Glen Brady A.K.A. Dj. Wool with his band 'The Glass'(see Irish hip hop)." One album release and then they broke up. 6 years ago. Hardly a claim to notability - how many hundreds of Irish bands have done the same. Why should this band be included rather than any of the others?

Fish Go Deep at least merit an existing article. I'm not convinced the article would survive a WP:AFD, though. The notability guidelines for musicians are at WP:MUSIC.

Basically, though, these are musicians the vast majority of people have never heard of. The other musicians mentioned in the main article on the country are (in the main - I take your point on the Frames and Bell X1) at least internationally known award winning acts. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bastian the glass are still going strong, where are you coming up with they broke up 6 years ago???--PJ 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC) If you read the article, the band called 'the third eye surfers' called it a day in 2002 --PJ 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Striking first part of comment above - wrong band, my bad. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

One final thing I would like to say, As usual, like the cliche, no recognition for other musical styles besides the ones that get delivered to your door for free via the charts and the radio. You do know that there is a music scene in Ireland and worldwide, one that most people go out every weekend and contribute to. Theres more to this country than waiting 2 years for U2's next tour and importing America and the UK's top ten artists.--PJ 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And where does the article list imported UK and American artists, and where have I said that my music listening is confined to daytime chart radio, which you seem to have assumed? The point Guilopez, Alison and I have been making, more or less, is that this article is the main page for the country as a whole. It cannot list everything, only the most notable in particular fields. If people/bands you want to mention here don't even currently merit their own article, then you're putting the cart before the horse. Fish Go Deep do have their own article - but as I said above, I'm not sure it'd survive an WP:AFD at the moment - at least in its current state, with apalling spelling/grammar and complete lack of references. In the absence of actual high quality electronic / hip-hop articles to link to from here, you'd probably be better off working on starting/improving such articles, then introducing the topic again. In my opinion, anyway. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Im not assuming anything Bastun, the article paints a picture of chart and daytime radio,(don't get me wrong its a good article) I accept what you say, I'd like the main page, to include a nod to the modern musical styles that most people listen to, and include bands as well as and besides the ones everyone in the world know are Irish. You see people expect to see whats there, and my suggestion would show and add more depth in the reference to our musical contributions and taste. It is a page set in the present tense, so with a few words changing, it may avoid the dreaded WP:AFD. I'll see what I can do regarding sites for these acts with appropriate resources. Thanks for your opinion.--PJ 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi PJ/guys. I agree with Bastun. Assuming notability is asserted under WP:MUSIC (charted single, album released by notable label, won award, etc) it's probably best to create the "subarticles" on the relevant artists. Once established/sources verified, it should then be OK to link as part of a "summary" in this article. (Where national relevance is asserted). Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Points taken, thanks --PJ 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Contested move request

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Dekimasuよ! 11:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Republic Of Ireland → Ireland and Ireland → Ireland (island) - The current title of 'Republic of Ireland is wrong. The state is called Ireland and the republic of Ireland is just a description similar to the republic of France. This change is necessary to keep facts right on wikipedia. The term Ireland is used more to refer to the state rather than the whole island so the current 'Ireland' aricle needs to be moved aswell. Any opposition to these changes are unfounded as the proposed moves are facts and not opinions. 78.16.57.194 (talk)

Comment. This is a very controversial topic. It has been discussed on Talk:Ireland and Talk:Republic of Ireland for several years. There has never been any concensus to change from the status quo. That the nominator states that "opposition to these changes are unfounded" is not representative of the history. Guliolopez (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. As Guliolopez says this has been well discussed several times before. Check out some of these previous discussions: here, here, here here, here, here, here and here. ww2censor (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment, Concour with the above. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined - already a dead horse. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

--
The anon editor who made the request never completed the requirements needed for the move to be properly considered, so all templates placed by him have been removed. ww2censor (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Only spotted this now. Obviously I disagree in the strongest manner. RoI as title for this article is completely wrong and contrary to normal Wiki practice. I fully endorse the proposers comments. Sarah777 (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Per the lengthy discussion below, it is clear that there is no consensus for the move, just as there has not been on the umpteen previous occasions when this proposal has been made. Describing the name as "completely wrong" ignore Section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 (No. 22/1948), which says in full "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."

The named used in the constitution, "Ireland", cannot be used for this article because that name is used for the article on the island, whose boundaries are not contiguous with those of the state. The choice is therefore whether to name this article by the description which has been provided for by the law of Ireland for 60 years, or to use a contrived article title. Labelling a description approved in law as "completely wrong" is not a persuasive approach, unless we are to adopt the Republican legitimist approach that all Dala convened since the Second Dáil in 1921 are illegitimate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So what if the discussion has happened before? Some of us are only happening upon it now. I agree the proposer and with Sarah777 that RoI is totally contradictory to Wiki practice. The official name of the State, and the name it is ordinarily referred to is Ireland. Of course there should be a disambiguation page offering a redirection to an article on the island. But the way it is now is plainly wrong, and attempts to close down the discussion because it's been had before are unacceptable. Pleidhce (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. What's there now is wrong. The constitution takes precedence of a single act. I support the move. Bardcom (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken Closure of the Discussion

Very flawed reasoning BHG.

• You forget/ignore the option of a dab page.
• Having done so you then provide a straw man: The choice is therefore whether to name this article by the description which has been provided for by the law of Ireland for 60 years, or to use a contrived article title.
• Labelling a description approved in law as "completely wrong" is not a persuasive approach. Is it not? Maybe if you can't distinguish between the concept of a "name" and a "description" it isn't. But for those of us who can see the difference in meaning it is a very persuasive approach.
• This simple reasoning involves no particular view of the Dalla post the 2nd.
• In the light of the manifest logical incoherence of you reasons for closure I ask you to open this discussion again. Sarah777 (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, what we have here is a clear case of a slim voting majority imposing a solution that is contrary to normal Wiki policy and practice. Sarah777 (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No, what you have here is a clear case of no consensus. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I second Sarah777's suggestion that discussion be reopened. Some of us are only discovering this absurd situation now. 71.213.237.219 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Pleidhce (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I also support the reopening Sarah777's request that this discussion be reopened. Redking7 (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mise freisin.Wikipéire (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but this issue seems to have popped up every six months for ages, and always ends up as "no consensus". Wikipedia:Consensus#.22Asking_the_other_parent.22 seems to apply here: repeatedly pushing the same case in the hope that some day there will be a narrow supermajority in favour of change. And we already have evidence in the discussion below that this sort of endless rehashing of the same arguments drives people away from wikipedia.

In response to Sarah's points:

• the option of a baddab page doesn't change anything: this article still won't be called Ireland, unless the existing article on the island is to be moved to Ireland (island)
• There's no staw man when I point out that The choice is therefore whether to name this article by the description which has been provided for by the law of Ireland for 60 years, or to use a contrived article title. That is the choice which has been discussed
• I can indeed distinguish between a name and a description. However, the name is not available to us as an article title, so the choice is between a contrived article title and a legal description. Neither is ideal, and since there is no consensus on which is better, we default to the status quo.

The discussion below had lasted for two weeks, without a consensus, and nothing new was being added. At some point, we have to draw a line under things, and two weeks is longer than allocated to other processes.

If people strongly feel that the closure was unjustified, you may of course use dispute resolution such as an RFC on my actions, or an RFC on the issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

BHG; I'm certainly not going to start an RFC on your actions! I was hoping for a change of heart but when I read that the option of a bad page doesn't change anything I knew there was no appealing to common sense! Sarah777 (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I will, of course, be raising this issue again before the next blue moon. Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

ooops! typo :)

Anyway, first thing on the morning of the day before the next blue moon sound good. I'll bring the popcorn :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Education system

The article currently states:

"The education systems in Ireland are complex due to a confusion of ownership, control and curricular assessment. This has arisen because the systems developed over long periods of time with variable influence by several key players, including the Irish state. Unlike in countries such as France, Ireland's state education system is largely limited to the content of the curriculum, although this too is mediated by voluntary interests."

The English in the above is pretty poor. What precisely is the "confusion" referred to? As for "Ireland's state education system is largely limited to the content of the curriculum" - I think this serioiusly understates the State's role, for example, the state funds education. Some one, preferably with an understanding of how to briefly summarise the education system, may wish to amend the above paragraph. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mary Hannafin has been demoted (wahoo) She moves to Social and Family Affairs Batt O'Keefe becomes Minister for Education cant edit thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.44.173 (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Anoter proposed guideline for "the British Isles"

I have numerous concerns about the current proposal for a guideline for the use of the term British Isles and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Border

Hello Ireland! Contributer Wikid77 has been assisting us in Wales create a unique boder around our info box, and I wish to share this with the wider wiki world! Prehaps you may wish to adopt this as well? It is an easly template to follow, and this is the result:♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to Talk:Republic of Ireland/Infobox Border. Crispness (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it. Adds even more clutter to a page that is already too busy. --Red King (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I don't like it either it is too, like, red and thick and unnecessary - also overpowering, tasteless, pointless. In essence it is dire and distracting; visually challenged. Utterly horrible, perhaps. And those are the positive features........Sarah777 (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah go on Sarah, stop pussyfootying around, and tell what you really think ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mickey Dazzler, as my ex-father-in-law would say. For me, it's way too gaudy, fussy, overbearing and full, but if that is what the Welsh like, then so be it. I think we Irish prefer something more refined and classy looking. Sorry but no. ww2censor (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Me no like neither. If the Welsh folk like it, that's great, but I'd prefer not to have it on Irish articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of/Founding of the State

I added to the info box the date and link to the page concerning the declaration of the Republic of Ireland. This was done by act of parliament and made the 'Republic of Ireland' the official description of the state, also removing the state from the Commonwealth. It seems very odd that this date was left out. There is considerable debate on the issue, but from a strictly legal point of view, it is the point at which Ireland relinquished a king and semi autonomous, monarchic system. 104066481 (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've undone this edit. Controversial changes need to have a consensus first. Without background knowledge, I can see why omitting the RoI date from the info box might seem "very odd". However, it is omitted for good reasons: The dates in that part of the info box are the dates on which the state was declared, ratified and became independent. The Irish state today is the exact same legally entity established under the constitution in 1937. It is the successor state to the "Irish Free State". The RoI Act was not in any way an amendment of the constitution nor the creation of a new state. In fact, some might not realise it, but with a simple majority in the Oireachtas politicians could tomorrow morning give the state an entirely new "description". Repealing the External Relations Act which was also done under the RoI Act was similarly in now way a new constitutional or state departure. In short the RoI date was not a date that relates to the "Declaration of" or "Founding of" of the "State". The state was almost twelve years old when the RoI Act came in. Thats why it would be inaccurate (and misleading) to add the RoI date. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Shannon and the Soviet Union

I have changed the section relating to military use of Shannon airport to reflect what the linked article actually says - which is not that the Soviet Union used Shannon during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but rather the exact opposite. Ireland was always biased towards NATO during the Cold War - in fact, it was only allowed in in 1955 because the Soviets and Americans agreed that equal numbers of aligned nations could joined, as far as I can recall. If anyone has any conflicting evidence, please feel free to correct me, however. Supersheep (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Giuliolopez (sp?), re: the bias towards NATO, see footnote 29 Supersheep (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. A couple of quick things.

First a question: When you say "it was only allowed in in 1955 because the Soviets and Americans agreed that equal numbers of aligned nations could joined", what is the "it" refer to here? And what was "it" allowed into? Ireland into the Cold War? The USSR into Shannon? :)

Secondly a comment: My main issue with the initial sentence change was that the article in the sentence was "Shannon" or "the use of Shannon", and so the "bias" was associated to an entity or concept that couldn't show bias. (An airport can't be biased. The legislators or legislation relating to the airport might be biased, but the airport itself is inanimate/impartial.) The updated reword is better.

Thirdly a quick response: I did read the reference in question. Unfortunately however it's just an abstract rather than an actual paper. And so it says things like: "The central argument of this paper is how .... Ireland has by default become involved in the defence of the North Atlantic area through its civilian foreign aviation policy." But, because it's just an abstract, there is actually no argument made. So, the citation provided is actually quite "weak". If you (or someone else) can find a better one (one which actually sets out the argument rather than just referring to it) it might actually be better.

Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. In response:

1. I left out a word, the sentence should read "it (Ireland) was only allowed into the UN in 1955 because the Soviets and Americans agreed that equal numbers of aligned nations could join." This is just something I remember reading, a bit of background if you will.

2. Fair point, that's why I reworded it.

3. I'll try have a look - there is a book on Ireland, NATO, and the Cold War I have seen in the college library which argues along similar lines. I will try and track it down if I can. I agree with you that it's a weak citation, but I hope it will do for the moment. 89.100.185.190 (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Things to do next time when replying: log in... (That's me above.) Supersheep (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection

IP vandalism is on the rise, and following on from a protection request at WP:RPP I have semi-protected this article for two weeks so the IPs loose interest. I hope this is acceptable. SGGH ^speak! 11:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Peaceful?

"Ireland is one of the (...) most (...) peaceful countries on earth"

Oh, come on... just pathetic! This is an encyclopedia, not propaganda. There are probably another hundred countries that would fit this writer's definition of "peaceful" if he/she actually knew them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.215.11 (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't heard of any problems there, lately. Other then their previous Prime Minister having been in a scandal & forced to resign. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh..wasn't "forced" to resign. More like got out before the posse arrived! Sarah777 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Poor choice of words (on my part). A'hern decided to resign. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ireland is like second on the Peaceful countries index.Thank you. End of discussion.WikipÉire ^♣ 21:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So where is this Peachful countries index? And, is it verifiable? ww2censor (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought all the Troubles occured in Northern Ireland; I always assumed Ireland (state) was peaceful. PS- forgive me folks, I'm a little over my head. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Global Peace Index. Ireland is 4th sorry. The ip above has been removing peaceful nearly every other day. It got blocked to ips so now the person is moaning that they can't vandalise.WikipÉire ^♣ 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And also here's the original documentation of it: http://www.visionofhumanity.com/artman/uploads/1/GPI_Launched_Press_Release.pdf WikipÉire ^♣ 22:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how serious that website can be taken. I don't suggest Ireland is'nt peaceful, but if you look at the quote from the guy who started it "We believe there is a link between the peacefulness and the wealth of nations therefore business has a key role to play in peace" , USA anyone? I also think you have to define what is a peaceful nation. Does it mean Irish people are less likely to be victims of crime, or does it mean the Irish government are less likely to be involved in an overseas war. I think you have to separate the two! --Jack forbes (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack. Did you read through the Global Peace Index article. It actually does define the factors included in the "peaceful" definition. (Estimated deaths due to external/internal wars, Level of organized internal conflict, Number of homicides, Ease of access to small arms and light weapons, etc). Frankly I think that, if the sentence "Ireland is one of the most peaceful countries on earth" is to remain, that assertion should be supported in the sentence. Not unlike how the "developed" and "richest" assertions are supported with "fifth highest GDP, fifth highest Human Development Index rank" etc. Something like: "Ireland is one of the richest, most developed and peaceful countries on earth, having the fifth highest gross domestic product per capita, second highest gross domestic product (purchasing power parity) per capita, the fourth highest Global Peace Index ranking, and having the fifth highest Human Development Index rank." If we don't trust the GPI ranking, then we take "peaceful" out entirely. In short:

If peaceful stays in, support it with the GPI ranking. If we don't trust the GPI ranking, take it out completely.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not the individual statistics I question, it's the combining of the statistics that I question. It may give a false impression that Ireland is peaceful in every way. For example, Ireland would obviously be high up the list as far as external wars are concerned and if you combined that with the rest it is going push them up the table of most peaceful countries. --Jack forbes (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed that article (GPI). It wiki-linked to Ireland, instead of the Republic of Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary

The current summary mainly just cites rankings. How about a few words about the history? Especially the extraordinary economic reforms, which make Ireland so significant in Europe? I can't believe Ireland could be summarized without explaining them.

This was proposed, but removed:

In the early 20th century, Ireland became the successor-state to the Dominion called the Irish Free State. Ireland used to be the poorest country in Western Europe and hundreds of thousands residents fled the stagnant economy to overseas. Economic reforms were started in the late 1950s and Ireland joined the European Community (now the European Union) in 1973. As a response to economic failures, massive reforms were started in 1985. Taxation and regulation have been reduced dramatically compared to other EU countries. Index of Economic Freedom ranks Ireland the world's 3rd most free country.

In a barely half generation, the economic freedom has made Ireland one of the richest, most developed and peaceful countries on earth, having the fifth highest gross domestic product per capita, second highest gross domestic product (purchasing power parity) per capita and having the fifth highest Human Development Index rank. The country also boasts the highest quality of life in the world, ranking first in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality-of-life index. Ireland was ranked fourth on the Global Peace Index. Ireland also has high rankings for its education system, political freedom and civil rights, press freedom and economic freedom; it was also ranked fourth from the bottom on the Failed States Index, being one of the few "sustainable" states in the world. Ireland has emerged from an origin of immigrants to a world's top immigant destination. Ireland's population is the fastest growing in Europe, with an annual growth rate of 2.5%.

Ireland is a member of the EU, the OECD and the UN. Ireland's policy of neutrality means it is not a member of NATO although it does contribute in peacekeeping missions sanctioned by the UN. The official languages are Irish and English. Approximately 86.8% of the population are Roman Catholic, and the country has one of the highest rates of regular and weekly church attendance in the Western World. Foreign citizens make around 10% of residents. Ireland tops globalisation rankings.

Any opinions? Turkuun (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine. But it could do with some summarisation. Maybe:

Shorten this: Ireland became the successor-state to the Dominion called the Irish Free State.

To this: Ireland became the successor-state to the Irish Free State.

Shorten this: Ireland used to be the poorest country in Western Europe and hundreds of thousands residents fled the stagnant economy to overseas.

To this: Ireland was one of the poorest countries in Western Europe and had high emigration.

Shorten this: As a response to economic failures, massive reforms were started in 1985. Taxation and regulation have been reduced ....

To this: Large-scale economic reforms were started in 1985, and taxation and regulation have been reduced...

There's probably other summarisation options too, but otherwise I think it's an OK addition. Guliolopez (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both Turkuun and Guliolopez but it needs a few inline citations references, not just links to other wiki articles. Remember WP:V and I believe we are good to replace. ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Name Mediation

After another debate on this issue (different talk page) the suggestion of mediation was made to finally end it. The request is at the top of the page. People who have discussed this issue before are included.WikipÉire ^♣ 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the other debate, on a different talk page, that decided mediation should take place and that you refer to? ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk: United Kingdom is the place you seek. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what's going on here now? Wikipéire starts a holy war on another article, and then opens a request for mediation with editors who were not involved in that debate, and on a topic ('move "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland"') which has had no overt discussion here for 4 or 5 weeks? Am I getting this right? Guliolopez (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. Should be interesting to watch at least. Narson (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yawn, yawn. This topic has been discussed about every 6 months and no consensus has ever been reached to change the status quo, so User:Wikipéire keeps flogging the same dead horse until he drives away enough decent editors and gets his way. Drop it for once and for all. It's old hat and boring. Let me repeat that, it's boring. Mediation is unneeded and unwarranted, User talk:Wikipéire likely wants to just bring in more people who have little knowledge of the topic and can be convinced by his constant pushing. ww2censor (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally perfer Ireland (state) or Ireland (country). But, whatever's decided at Mediation? IMHO, should be respected for at least 12-months. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ww2c is right. This is just flogging a dead horse, and there is no need for mediation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as long as no-one takes pictures of it, otherwise I think we fall afoul of the new British extreme porn laws. Narson (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reaction is just what I expected. You've always been against the move. Just because something has been there for a long time don't mean its right. I would have thought for WikiProject members getting the main country's name right would be important for an encyclopedia! Anyway we'll see what the mediation brings.WikipÉire ^♣ 19:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Me or BHG? I only just got brought into this...and there is no moral imperative in the wikipedia naming of the article and what is correct is a matter of perspective. Narson (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry not you. I was talking plurally to most of the other editors who have commented so far. Should have placed my comment better.WikipÉire ^♣ 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipéire, it's absolutely fine to believe that you are right, but what's not fine is that you don't seem to accept that other editors can legitimately disagree with you, and that repeatedly raising the same issue is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've volunteered to mediate this issue within the Mediation Cabal; however only if people from both camps want to go through with it - see my comments on the case page for a possible goal. I just mention it in case some of the involved editors don't watch the case page - I'll just keep it open for a while. Averell (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need to try mediation here. Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Closed the case. Only the "pro-move" camp supported the mediation, plus the original requester was banned permanently. Averell (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gay rights

Why has Ireland got a section on gay rights? I don't want to start an argument over gay rights but I don't see this on any other country article. Is this just a backlash of some sorts against the catholic church! Joe Deagan (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be because (as you note) historically Ireland was "culturally conservative" in that area, and it may be that some editors believe that including it highlights a cultural change in the outlook on some issues. Possibly. Personally I'm not sure it's an appropriate yardstick/measure for social trends or the change to a more "liberal" or open society. But then maybe it's as good as any other. With regard to "why Ireland and not elsewhere". I suppose - possibly - it's because some editors believe the polls show Irish society to be more tolerant/accepting/aware/balanced/whatever than others. Again, I couldn't say one way or the other whether it's any more appropriate to include in the Ireland article than elsewhere. Certainly the main UK article doesn't mention it. Even though LGBT partnerships do have full legal equality there - way more demonstrative of a "progressive" outlook than a simple poll. Anyway. I don't see any reason to take it out. Unless it grows into something more extensive. At which point it should be moved to LGBT rights in the Republic of Ireland. Guliolopez (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

New City And Towns Template

I see a new template has been added to the article listing Ireland's towns and cities by population by user:Drog lad. This brings the little known and slow moving Drogheda/Dundalk population dispute to the the main Ireland article. I didn't bother much when it was confined to Dundalk and Drogheda (see also asociated talk pages), but now that it's spilled over I'd like people to take a look at this alarming grave minor dispute. Fribbler (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do we even need this templatecruft when there ia a perfectly good list List of towns in the Republic of Ireland/2006 Census Records available instead of taking up so much space and adding more code to an already large page which is 92kb long? We should actually be reducing the page size not increasing it. ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey relax i was just fowolling the list of 100 Largest Towns in IrelandDrogLad 16:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this?

The table below I have removed from the article as it is hopelessly confused; some of the stats refer to counties, some to towns and the Dublin figure is was the figure for the GDA which actually includes many of the others on the list (eg Tallaght). And Dundalk seems to have gone missing. Sarah777 (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Largest cities or towns in {{{country}}} Source?
Rank		Greater Area	Pop.	Rank		[[Greater Areas of {{{country}}}|Greater Area]]	Pop.
1	Dublin City	Co. Dublin	1,004,185	11	Ennis	Co. Clare	24,253
2	Cork City	Co. Cork	190,384	12	Tralee	Co. Kerry	22,744
3	Tallaght	Co. Dublin	103,301	13	Kilkenny	Co. Kilkenny	22,179
4	Limerick	Co. Limerick	90,778	14	Carlow	Co. Carlow	20,724
5	Galway	Co. Galway	72,729	15	Naas	Co. Kildare	20,044
6	Waterford	Co. Waterford	49,240	16	Sligo	Co. Sligo	19,402
7	Drogheda	Co. Louth	35,085	17	Newbridge	Co. Kildare	18,520
8	Swords	Co. Dublin	33,998	18	Mullingar	Co. Westmeath	18,416
9	Bray	Co. Wicklow	31,901	19	Wexford	Co. Wexford	18,163
10	Navan	Co. Meath	24,851	20	Letterkenny	Co. Donegal	17,586

I think Drogheda was given Dundalk's population figure? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it. Surely we need to keep the Dundalk v. Drogheda issue out of here? Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on several counts. The table is vague in it's definitions of town/city boundaries - In some cases it includes the exact town or city boundaries. And in other cases takes "urban area" or "town + environs" numbers. As a result, its accuracy is a little uncertain, and it therefore has very limited value. Similarly, because of this "vagueness" it brings the (sometimes troublesome) question of "which town is bigger" into a new and unnecessary forum. And finally, there is no need for this type of table in this article. We already have lists such as List of towns in the Republic of Ireland/2006 Census Records. The main country article doesn't benefit from having this data hashed up and dumped here. (No matter how prettily packaged). Guliolopez (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of Border article

At Talk:Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border, I have proposed that the name be changed to comply with diplomatic protocol. Please comment. --Red King (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC) 24.20.169.126 (talk) what with the polls mentioned, where most north protestants feel British, and only a very small minority (3%) actually considering themselves Irish, I would have to agree, this seems the most appropriate. if you think about it, arguments about calling it "Republic of Ireland" vs. "Ireland" are simply mimicking the great argument between north and south. Calling it "Ireland" would be speaking to the geography of the land, while "Republic of Ireland" would be speaking to the political boundaries of Southern Ireland.

I agree with Red King regarding this, because it discusses the politics of the Island & the politics of Britain. What better title than one that defines the politics?

-Crystal Sage 24.20.169.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Title of Wiki page incorrect

The title of the Wiki page should be "Ireland" - as explained in the main article. The title "Republic of Ireland" is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmacmanus (talk • contribs) 10:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Garda

There should be a section on the above topic. ZoofanNZ (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote

A hatnote has been added to List of basic Republic of Ireland topics, the work on just one editor: The Transhumanist. I don't think the new hatnote to a list deserves any greater prominence than any other list already in the current "See also" section. Is this an attempts to replace the much older and much more comprehensive List of Ireland-related topics that has been around since early 2004 and if anything that should be the hatnote? Besides which, we certainly don't need both, essentially duplicate, lists. Any other opinions? ww2censor (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You summarized the List of Ireland-related topics well: it is more comprehensive. The List of basic Ireland topics on the other hand is intended to be a general overview of the subject, much like the main article Republic of Ireland, but focused on links instead of prose. Unlike the more comprehensive list, it is intended to be an outline and is less index-like because of its scope (its scope is limited, whereas the related-topics list is not and has the potential to grow much much larger - see the Japan example below). Another difference is that the basic list is a member of a set of such lists (one for every country of the world) currently under construction. They are coming along nicely, and share a common format. See the rest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics#Basic topics lists for countries).

The two lists in the set that are the most complete are List of basic France topics and List of basic Japan topics (notice the format of the more comprehensive List of Japan-related topics). Please help to complete the List of basic Republic of Ireland topics to this high standard. Thank you. The Transhumanist 04:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Transhumanist. You appear to have added this "hatnote" convention to several country articles, and in doing so have created a kind of new "standard" for country related lists, and a new standard for header formats for country articles. Did you discuss this anywhere before going ahead and making changes accross so many articles? Personally I'm with Ww2censor. I don't really see what value is added by these lists. Many articles already have navboxes, "main" style nav templates and other devices to link users to the relevant "sub-articles". I don't see the value in superceding all of those with your new format. Any nods to WP:CON before you did all this? Guliolopez (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no new standard. Yet. It's just a test run. Of the 200+ county articles, I only changed the hatnote on about 20. We should see if the links actually get used - if you don't object, that is. I plan to use the hit counter to check those list articles over the next few weeks, to see if their traffic goes up. For curiosity's sake, if nothing else. If the traffic doesn't go up, then the links are useless and should be removed. I haven't sought consensus yet, because there's no data yet to bring to a discussion. If you'd like to reduce the number of test links to 10, that would be fine with me, but I figured since there are 20 completed lists, we might as well run the test on all of those (more data that way, and a test group of only 10 seems kind of scant - 20 seems about right). I look foward to your thoughts and ideas. The Transhumanist 22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I don't see that there should be any preference to a list as a hatnote over and above the prominence given to any other link in the "see also" section, so I suggest moving it there, as there is no agreement to having a hatnote on the page. You can still observe its popularity from there. ww2censor (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)