Jump to content

Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Ireland package deal

There is a vote taking place on moving "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (state). This package deal, while worthy of discussion, is a separate issue entirely and should be in a separate section. I have re-formatted it accordingly. Scolaire (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a note before doing this - I wasn't around to make initial replies, and some slight confusion seems to have ocured already. The 'Republic of Ireland' article would not be about the football team, and "republic of Ireland" (small 'r') - is used by people - by Encylopeida Britannica for a start.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Support "Ireland" 'package deal'::

  • (Reasons first): Encyclopaedia Britannica redirected my search of “Republic of Ireland” to an article called "Ireland" but uses “republic of Ireland” (small caps) throughout it. I like this ‘small cap’ option. I also noticed that Britannica doesn’t at all have an Ireland (as island) article – I’ve double checked. They have very small Great Britain and British Isles articles (basically link pages), but no article for the island of Ireland. I also notice that the Wikipedia Ireland (as island) article is mostly information forked from the Republic of Ireland article.
  1. Have an article for the state called “Ireland” (per Britannica).
  2. Have a much shorter island article entitled “The island of Ireland” (minimum forking!).
  3. Offer “Ireland (state)” and "Ireland (island)" as optional terms, in the Irish Manual of Style guideline.
  4. Suggest “republic of Ireland” (small R) as another optional 'disambiguating' expression, in the Irish Manual of Style guideline (per Britannica).
  5. Have a shorter “Republic of Ireland” article offering the ROI football team at the top, that can mention 1949 etc, and effectively be a sub-article of the main “Ireland” one. PLEASE NOTE HERE: the football team is just a "See also link" NOT the whole article! The article would be on the ROI term.
  • Support Matt, you are now like water in a desert where previously you were like water in a petrol tank! I 100% support your suggestions above. You appear to have finally grasped the complex issues involved here and distilled a viable solution. Sarah777 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: In principle I'm in favour of compromise packages, but I'm afraid I could not support this one: "The island of Ireland" is a little used term that certainly would not be searched for by anybody; "republic of Ireland" with a small 'r' is never, but never, used; and "Republic of Ireland" with a capital 'R' is not a football team, it is a political entity. Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The Republic of Ireland would be an article on ROI as a term (mentioning 1949 etc)- the football team article will remain the same as it is. I just meant it would have a top-line "For the football team see.." style 'link' at the top. What dawned on me reading Britannica was how little information would be 'unique' to any 'island of Ireland' article. When I realised how much information was forked on Wikipedia in it I whought of the 'package'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. But the fact remains that the island and the state are two different things and both need sizeable articles. I don't believe "The island of Ireland" as a title will gain acceptance (see below), and naming the state as "Ireland" (with or without the dab) is problematic for Northern Ireland unionists as well as for many in Great Britain (the island), not to mention people like me who use ROI purely by convention. Scolaire (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
With all due respects, Gnevin, that is a silly comment! If nobody wants to read an article on "The island of Ireland" why have an article on "The island of Ireland"? That is most certainly not what redirects are for. Scolaire (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
How is the "the island of Ireland" not an wothwhile phrase? Or article title? Do people search for "Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics"? No - they find it. Seemlessly finding it is the key.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
People who find "Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics" will be satisfied with the title; people who find "The island of Ireland (which is a the by the way) will think "what a silly name!" TBH it was Gnevins response of "who cares?" that really irked me. Scolaire (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I would endorse all of Sarah's comments here (and I mean all !). Matt has come up with an evidence based approach, that offers a way forward. Using a small "r" makes it a description not a name. Ireland can have a disambiguation line to take people to the isle page, and there ROI would link automatically. I note that the 1949 act is being pulled out again with complete disregard for subsequent history and that none of the protagonists for ROI are dealing directly with the evidence of UK government use other than to dismiss it in effect as a bad decision. --Snowded TALK 08:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the move/rename/"package deal" proposal. The current naming/situation remains the best compromise in my view. In terms of the island article, "Ireland" remains a super-set term that can be applied to the state, the island, and various sub-sets of it going back 1000s of years, and therefore applying it to the super-set is the most appropriate. (And therefore I find that having "Ireland" as an article about the geo/geo-political/hist article about the entire island is most appropriate). In terms of the state article, while "Republic of Ireland" is a compromise name, (reflecting as it does the state's "description" rather than "name"), given the clash with other uses of the word, I think it remains the best article name, as: it is a naturally formed DAB term that is officially recognised, is in common use, and meets the relevant WP:COMMONNAME guidelines. (And is certainly more easily included in any article prose and explained in DAB terms than "Ireland (state)" or some other artificially contrived label). Guliolopez (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Better than anything going - many thanks for your ingenuity, Matt, and indeed I think we may be getting somewhere here - but fear that the "island of ..." construction treads onto neologisms (in the sense that this is a newly-preferred way to distinguish between the two in dimplomacy between the GB/IRL/NI) and that writing "republic of .." as opposed to 'Republic of ..." is unintuitive so long as the term Republic of Ireland as legal, common and practical currency. Furtermore the island is not called the "Island of Ireland", but simply "Ireland" - Wiki standard practice is not to make this prone to confusion by having it has Ireland (island), which I'm sorry I don't see the need for so long as a perfectly acceptable term ("Republic of Ireland") is there, in common use, easily recognizable and used for this exact purpose already. --78.152.205.30 (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I've made it clearer that "republic of Ireland" (small 'r') is used - specificaly it is used all the way through the Encyclpoedia Britannica article on "Ireland" (their name for the state). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi anon. Have you editted before under another name? In polls such as these, I have seen cases where the opinions of anon IP addresses are ignored and not counted for obvious reasons. You might want to consider logging in. --HighKing (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Same anon as above. If another IP appears in this discussion, I'll make a distinguishing mark. Thanks again for the heads up. --89.19.88.246 (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Anon, be aware that a distinguishing mark can easily be duplicated, or omitted. The usual way to have a distinguishing mark count is to use/create a login, and I'm sure you're aware of the rules on sock-puppettry --HighKing (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
No its just an ip editor, he or she "chooses" to be anon. I reckon we ignore it for obvious reasons.Pureditor 10:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Pureditor, I have warned you once before. If you continue in your attack against me or to encourage other to "ignore" me then I will have to escalate this matter. Please strike out your comment. --89.19.88.246 (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
A post on this, and previous incidents concerning Pureditor and my contributions, has been made to AN/I. --89.19.82.127 (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes as an ip, the administrators board have banned the editor from voting but can participate in the discussion if he or she so wishes. Problem solvedPureditor 11:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
No, the board did not ban it. One editor there, who is not an admin said no - that is entirely different. As I think that interpretation is entirely baseless according to our policy, any striking of comments is somewhat premature; it will not harm to wait until there has been more input. I have commented there. Knepflerle (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, name it's at now is fine, and, with no disrespect intended, I don't see the arguments for moving to be anything like strong enough for this sort of "compromise" to be allowed to disrupt the status quo. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Out of interest, have you seen this WP:BITASK ('British Isles' usage taskforce)? I would make that a lot less wordy for a start. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support Thats a very good suggestion Matt, it is based on fact and is NPOV. I think the aguments of "the current way works fine" is completely wrong; did they not see the massive discussions on IMOS about all the piping that needs to be done etc.?Pureditor 10:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support resolves a long running argument on WP that is inherently a political argument. WP should reflect reality, not push a political POV. I think my previous support got (accidentally) lost in the move. --HighKing (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The preceding discussion encapsulates many of the concerns of hermeneutics. Clearly, for a number of editors, both pro- the change and anti-, the name of the article sets the base-line for its interpretation and is understood to have significance beyond just a means of locating information. Legal names, in this case the name of the State, while not ‘binding’ on Wikipedia editors, should be given due weight. I previously raised the issue of the naming practice of other encyclopaedias. Only two examples have been mentioned in discussion, both of which are in accordance with the proposed change. If Wikipedia differs from the established practice, it should be accepted that it is out of step, whatever the reasons. It seems that so far, all the contribs.in favour of the package were also in favour of the initial proposal. Are any editors who were opposed to the initial move prepared to consider Matt’s package or some alternative?RashersTierney (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the "package" may need clarification. On the face of it, it is proposing to rename this article "Ireland", not "Ireland (state)", and many of the same editors are supporting or strongly supporting both moves! Isn't that going to cause some headaches for the closing admin? Scolaire (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
One problem here is that when facing very short disambiguation pages, Wikipedia style guidelines suggest using the top of of the articles instead. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not a very short disambiguation page. In fact, it's not short at all: Ireland (disambiguation) Nuclare (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

'package deal' continuation break..

Scolaire made two errors his assesment (over the use of 'republic' with a small 'r' and the football team article) - can you clarify you own reasons? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The main reasons I oppose are given in the above debate as they apply equally here. Further, the spirit if not the letter of Scolaire's response is correct: "island of Ireland" and "republic of Ireland" are very rarely seen as the chosen label for these entities, even if Scolaire was exaggerated by saying they are never used. Personally I feel uncomfortable with condoning/proscribing titles that are in very much minority use; the policies here feel the same way - we do have WP:COMMONNAME, and these names just aren't common. And as I say, this is before the problems I stated earlier which I feel are significant. Knepflerle (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that 'ROI' is a COMMONNAME, but as I can no longer see a reason not to use "Ireland", that is simply the bigger and better COMMONNAME for me now. Regarding us adding the choice of using of 'republic'(small 'r') to the Irish MOS style guidline - it's basically a side matter, isn't it? I might have been better not including it - it's a bit of a distraction. The phrase "island of Ireland" is used all the time: It has over 500,000 Google hits (though I know this can be a deceptive figure). Bit not bad for a disambiguating term. Plenty of Wikipedia articles have these type of headings - it's not against MOS at all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because this messes up piping from Irish to Ireland in demographic descriptions. I self-identify as Irish-American (or Italian-American, if food is the topic :-) ), and my ancestors on that side came over at least 4 generations ago. I have no idea which county they came from: just which island. I strongly suspect this is the case for a very large percentage of Irish-Americans, but have no evidence to that effect.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I feel you are personally 're-interpreting' a geography article, really. You actually could be decended from British, with no Irish in you at all. In the 1800's Ireland was British, and more importantly - the 'plantation' of people in Ulster were British. This is covered in the Ireland article. You can't do better than an Introduction to clarify this. It's wrong to use a geographical article to underpin your pride in being 'Irish'. Not all of the island of Ireland is Irish. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, and I'm working on not being offended by your questioning of my ethnicity. However, another part of my argument is that when my family emigrated, as far as I know, there was only one Ireland to refer to, and it covered the entire island.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)
Please don't take offense - none at all was intended. Before NI was created Ireland was always one Ireland, even under British rule (but I was talking mainly about Ulster). I hope you don't feel there is anything wrong with being British should someone choose to be (or happen to be)! Chances are you are not from British descent (especially if your family identify with being Irish). I was just clarifying some of the problems with using the whole island 'culturally'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a good point: a lot of "Irish-Americans" are actually descended from the British; culturally, there seems to be a problem accepting it. Red 25 Oct 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.241.6 (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

A better pipelink for you is to "Irish people". --HighKing (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I think its fair enough here to ask "why?" --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

*Support - and it is the proposal to change the status quo that I would support. Crispness (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose the present arrangements are infinitely preferable. Having the "Republic of Ireland" talking about the football team and the "Ireland" article about the Irish state turns WP:COMMON on its head. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not an act of parliament we can't just define what words mean to suit ourselves. Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I've struck-out the misinformation on the football team here, and removed the line on football from the proposal - people are clearly only scanning it, and not reading it properly. It just meant a standard page-top link. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Not wanting to get on your case, Matt, but you should have struck out the line on football from the proposal, not deleted it - too many people have already responded to it. And I for one read it properly and did not just scan it. The problem was that the sentence was ambiguous and lent itself to that interpretation. Also, editing other peoples' posts is against policy. I have undone the strikeout. Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You put this up as a proposal (without propely reading it), and began your "oppose" by misleading people on a couple of issues, so you certainy should not get on my case, no. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I have replied on your talk page. I am not going to put up with this incivility any longer. Scolaire (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I read it perfectly well. Please put strike throughs on your own comments not other peoples. I didn't just scan the proposal, I just identified what I thought/think was its more important aspect. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Further Comment Discussing the republic of Ireland as opposed to the Republic of Ireland splits hairs over capitalisation and is very unintuitive. It also completely ignores the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 which made the "Republic of Ireland" a proper noun. Blue-Haired Lawyer
I noticed that Encyclopedia Britannica uses "republic of Ireland" (small 'r') all the way through its Ireland article: that shouldn't be sniffed at, IMO. But this, like the 'football' issue, is really just a distraction, IMO. A reason to focus an 'oppose' on, that would otherwise be difficult to effectively reason perhaps. I really only meant that 'republic' is a new ambiguator that many hadn't though of: and people are entitled to use it if they wish to: and it can be mentioned in MOS. I must say that whatever side of the issue I see, I do see elemets of censorship. People are entitled to use either 'republic' or 'Republic', surely? The current situation of having 'ROI' as the state, and having 'Ireland' pipe-linking to it - with so little flexibility allowed by people - is a very difficult one when people like me just want to write the best prose, and to have the best choice. Surely we can solve this situation? --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose, the island has held the name Ireland alot longer then the republic. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this: When the Republic of Ireland is viewed as a continuation of the pre-British "Ireland", which came first is not so easy to argue. "Ireland" as island and state where originally 'one and he same', surely? I thought that is why the island is called 'Ireland'.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope, the island article must not be moved. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Britannica doesn't even have an island article! I think "Ireland" was a name for an area of people, and later was used to describe the whole island (as the people lived clearly over all of it). But is it rock-first, or people-first on Wikipedia? --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to say that didn't actally propose this on that principle: ROI is simply a less-used COMMONNAME than Ireland, in my opinion. I can see why not to use Ireland, providing we use "island of Ireland" and keep a ROI article too (for the term). Why doed Wikipedia put so much weight on the island, when Britannica puts absolutely none?? Most of the Wikipedia 'Ireland' (as island) article is text forked from ROI. That can't be ideal.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to say that didn't actally propose this on that principle: ROI is simply a less-used COMMONNAME than Ireland, in my opinion. I can see why not to use Ireland, providing we use "island of Ireland" and keep a ROI article too (for the term). Why doed Wikipedia put so much weight on the island, when Britannica puts absolutely none?? Most of the Wikipedia 'Ireland' (as island) article is text forked from ROI. That can't be ideal.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is it a nonsense? --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's a nonsense for all the reasons I've already stated on other pages. To start explaining again just has us all jumping through the same interminable hoops and is achieving nothing.The Thunderer (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

14 against and 11 plus WP:NPOV and all the rational arguments in support. Matt, I think we have enough here to declare "consensus" in favour of your proposal. Sarah777 (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
What I find encouraging is the lack of real argument against it - it's basically a case of some people choosing 'ROI', or so it seems (and I expect for a number of different reasons). Despite the stats, that is encouraging in my eyes. If no-one can prove that is isn't a better option, we can advance it to somewhere more neutral.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it (but I won't fight it). GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, I presume you have your tongue in your cheek as usual :-) But I'd still like to have some clarity on what's actually being proposed. For instance, what does "optional expression in the MOS guideline" mean? Scolaire (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
A Manual of Style guideline is the 'Style' guideline on Ireland here. It can suggest ways of expressing things, dealing with issues etc.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I know what MOS means, but what does "optional expression in the MOS guideline" mean? Scolaire (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
"4. Suggest "republic of Ireland" (small R) as another optional expression, in the MOS guideline (per Britannica)" means that the MOS Irish guideline can suggest the use of the term "republic of Ireland" (small R) as another optional expression to disambiguate with, along with "Ireland (state)" and "Ireland (island)" in the preceding point 3.
I'll add the term "disambiguate" to the text if it helps. I'll be risking accusations of mid-poll deception if experience with this issue has taught me anything. I wish you started this poll with a comment stating that you felt it was not clear, instead of adding you opposition in the way you did, and bringing this up now. Had I made this a proper 'Poll' myself I'd have re-worked a lot of it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Once and for all, I did not start any poll. You posted a "support" to the RM that was waay off topic, several people responded to your post, including me, Snowded then added a heading, effectively making it a separate topic, three more editors then added their comments in the form of votes. At this point I changed Snowded's subsection to a section, to try to resolve the confusion, and changed my response to an "oppose", in line with other people's. Okay? I am not responsible for your off-topic comment - which never belonged on this page to begin with - becoming a poll in its own right. And I do not want you to edit your original proposal, I want you to re-state it so it makes sense. IMOS does not need "optional expressions", it needs clarity. Explain what exactly you propose to insert, and where, in order to bring clarity. Scolaire (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
MOS does offer accepted disambiguation at times: it is there to help. Flexibility is the key. Nobody can pretend that we are in comfortable position as things stand. I think the fact that people get funny when polls are amended is just a fact of life with Irish nationality issues - it wasn't a personal comment on you. I've amended it anyway. I would have been happy if someone originally re-wrote it, and started it again when the other one was over. I wasn't planning to poll it myself, but I do very much want it to work. The more the debate has gone on, the more I can see it is the best way, with new reasons coming up. The term "Ireland" was originally about a defined group of people within a boundry - not the ecosystem. I've yet to hear a good arguement against the package. Without the package, yes - but not as a whole package. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
If that's an attempt to make peace it's very late in the day! You've been making personal comments on me since 4.30 yesterday (3.30 UTC). Only one person has "got funny" on this page that I can see. And to use your own expression, if you think you have "yet to hear a good arguement [sic] against the package" you haven't bothered to read the discussion. Scolaire (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not an attempt to "make peace" - I'm saying that it really wasn't a personal comment! I pointed out your continual mistakes in my Talk page, yes indeed. Your constant moaning about me in here is 'personal' in itself - you ought to realise that. Regarding the arguments, I am somebody who does read things (you walked into that one, given your gaffs today). I simply have yet to hear a good counter-argument against the 'package' proposal. Call it my "opinion", if it helps. People have said they prefer 'ROI', and "I can't be bothered to say it all again" - but that's about the limit of it. You can glibly say "then you haven't bothered to read the discussion" - but that's just very silly - and you know it's not true, too. I can see by the lack of decent counter-arguments that the package will make for an improved situation. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Scolaire, I don't usually have my tongue in my cheek, but you might be onto something in this case :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you yourself think the opposes signify? I must say they don't seem to be particularly 'pro-British'. I personally think some people prefer 'ROI' as to them it highlights their perceived injustice, and some people don't want any ambiguity that Ireland isn't 'allowed' to be the whole island. But that is just my take. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a wild guess, but could it be that the opposes think that "Republic of Ireland" is a good name? Just that - no 'injustice', no 'allowed', no pro-anything? Is a belief that "Republic of Ireland" is a good name in any way acceptable? If not, why not? Scolaire (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a good way of putting it. My belief is that ROI is a dignified and acceptable way of defining the Irish state whilst leaving "Ireland" as the means of identifying the geographical mass.The Thunderer (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It is dignified and it is acceptable, but it isn't the name and it isn't the most common name. I don't oppose the state's page being 'ROI' and I don't oppose use of ROI, but I do oppose overuse of ROI. I think if Wiki editors take the ROI page title to mean that ROI can/should be used everywhere and anywhere that the state is being referenced, than I think Wiki is giving off a false impression. ROI looks so much like an official name that overuse can/will be taken as if it is the official name. Nuclare (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: One big problem is that the 'geographical mass' hardly ever needs to be referenced, whereas the state does all the time. This is a major factor here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that just simply isn't true. The island is quite frequently referenced, probably more so than the state. And the Brittanica method leads to certain sillinesses--calling only a portion of the island 'the Emerald Isle', for example. Nuclare (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I simply can't see how that can possibly be the case. Unless accidentally (ie using 'Ireland' to mean the state - another problem we have). I can think of countless reasons to mention Ireland the country. But the island? Very limited, surely.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Surely not. Sorry, Matt. But I disagree. Nuclare (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I could disagree more. I'll try and find out. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even have an island of Ireland article. There is the term 'British Isles' too, of course, which limits the 'island use' further. How often is "Ireland" used (without any argument) to mean the whole island? It can't be anything like as much as the state is referred to! Or would you argue that an actor being described as "from Ireland", is being described as from the island, rather than the country? As I say, I'll try and find out.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
If someone asked for a list of "actors from Ireland," the idea that Northern Ireland actors, such as Liam Neeson, wouldn't be added or welcomed is just not at all likely, so, yes, I would argue that 'from Ireland' in such contexts most often would be meant and taken to mean the island. One certainly hears Northern Ireland actors (and people from all walks of life) say that they are 'from Ireland.' Travel-oriented uses are almost always island-based. Every single travel guidebook, for example, names their texts "Ireland" and such guides always cover both the ROI and Northern Ireland. So, that is a whole slew of 'Ireland' as island usage. (An official tourism site is also 'Ireland' as island oriented: [www.discoverireland.com].) I think one could expect to get a drawing of the island, if one asked someone to "Draw a map of Ireland." Lots of (but not all) churches and sports are all-Ireland organized, which means the "Ireland" of those organizations is going to mean the island rather than referring just to the state. Just general cliched statements like "It rains a lot in Ireland." "Ireland is very green." "Ireland is very beautiful." "The people of Ireland are friendly." "Ireland has had a troubled history." aren't often going to be ROI/'state' directed. I don't know what went into Britannica's decision, but I think Wiki's is better. Wiki's articles may need a lot of work, but it's set-up is better, imho. That doesn't mean I think the state's page *has* to be at ROI, but the island page is not dispensible. Nuclare (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hang on! there's a shedload of cheating going on here!!! Firstly - you are changing your whole tune to now include the island with the state, when we were originally comparing it to the state (which is easily used more on Wikipedia than the island). And I am talking about Wikipedia of course - or are you changing that too? In Wikipedia terms, you are effectively advocating a Wikipedia article that says Nothern Irish actor Liam Neeson is from the ROI, as it pipe-links from the word Ireland! Either that or you are suggesting an article that says he's just from Ireland the island!! Both are rubbish of course - Wikipedia simply says where he is from, and if he was from the republic (and not NI), Wikipedia would still not point to Ireland the island!! Secondly - have you ever been to Britain??? When we say "Ireland" we mean the ROI!! This is the whole bloody point. We know damn well that Northern Ireland is a different place. Deary me! I hope this is just a fanciful American Oirish perspective. What you have just done is bonded NI to the ROI in the most fanciful way! The island is used in some areas of life (nobody would argue that) - but you have blown its use sky-high, and out of all proportion. It's as if Northern Ireland, let alone the troubles, never existed.--Matt Lewis (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I never said I was talking about Wiki use. I'm talking about use in the real world, which, strangely, I was under the impression Wiki was supposed to have some connection to. I hate to say this, Matt, but I'm beginning to think you don't really know what you are talking about. You do realize that two of the most dismissivive 'oppose' comments to your package deal came from Northern Ireland Unionists (Traditional Unionist called it utter rubbish. And Thunderer was equally dismissive)? Do you not think maybe that's a sign that opposition to you is not a sign of one thinking "Northern Ireland...never existed"? You're completely being ridiculously wrong about this pipeliking. "Ireland" pipes to ROI when ROI is what is meant by "Ireland." 'Ireland' pipes to Ireland when the island is what is meant. There is no deal in the whole of Wiki history that says ALL uses of "Ireland" must always pipe to ROI. I'm not advocating that the Liam Neeson page say that he is "from Ireland," but that Liam Neeson will say that he is "from Ireland" and gets described as such by others (in the real world) is fact. It is not a political statement (only you are taking it as such). It is not fanciful. That Northern Ireland Unionists will also sometimes say they are "from Ireland" is also fact. And, yes, I have been to Britain many times. Nuclare (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Your comments are all over the place! First we simply disagree about the two "Ireland's" comparative popularity, then you mix both terms together. We first talk about Wikipedia, and now its only about the 'real world' - and not Wikipedia at all!! And you have the utter gall to say that you are "beginning to think that I don't know what I'm talking about"! I made fully clear that my examples were per your own logic. You are calling me "ridiculously wrong" - and I am using your own logic! By your rationality Wikipedia would have biography nationalities which direct to the the island of Ireland (per the 'real world of course!'). "People" can be as ambiguous as they want in the 'real world', but we are a bloody encyclopedia! We cannot use a term here to happily benefit from an ambiguous effect (and that’s what you island of Ireland is - it's your own fancy of how the word so-often means the island!) The simple reality is that the term could mean either, and you are hugely exaggerating the intended use of Ireland-as-island. On Wikipedida it will mean the state for the vast majority for the time.
I know full well that there are opposes on both sides, and they are all for different reasons. Some people may just need some convincing, who knows. There are bigger theatres for proper proposals on Wikipedia than this one! The 'status quo' is simply an unhappy one - and I've seen many new holes in Wikipedia since my first edit on this page, believe me.
I may well be all over the place. But these discussions are often all over the place, and those of us that have very limited time and aren't quick, prolific writers may well end up a bit off track. I'm talking about the set up of Wiki's two 'Ireland's articles. I took your comment about 'actors from Ireland' to be asking a 'real world' question: what would such a statement mean? Of course it's ambiguous. But I stand by the contention that in 'actorly' contexts, 'Ireland' would most often be taken to mean all Irish actors--ROI and NI actors. I was making no suggestions about Wiki pipe-liking or specific comments about Wiki nationality bios. My rationality does not lead to any conclusions about bio. nationalities. NI people on Wiki are currently listed as being, for example, "born in Ballymena, Northern Ireland." And that is as it should be. I made no suggestions about naming people in any other fashion. Nor is the implication of what I said that such form should be changed. I made a simple statement of fact -- that many people from Northern Ireland (including some Unionists) will say they are "from Ireland." It doesn't follow that they should, therefore, be listed as "born in Ballymena, Ireland." I said no such thing. I implied no such thing. I'm saying only that "Ireland" is a bigger, broader concept than the boundaries (literal and figurative) of the ROI. Despite the fact that overnight you seem to have settled in your own mind the mysteries of the Irish nation and it's name origins--questions that even histories aren't quite sure about--treating the present state as the 'real' Ireland (the one that must have the page "Ireland" at Wiki)--the heir to the 'Ireland'/Eire of long history--is not necessarily the best option. And your proposal (nor Britannica's) is not the only acceptable option. Nuclare (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The less Irish mist the better when it comes to disambiguation! I just trying to keep the arguments on some kind of track. I've asked everyone here questions on whether the pre-ROI term "Ireland" was a 'nation of people' before or after a term for a land-mass - I certainly didn't forge any dramatic new conclusions overnight. If Ireland was an area of people first - then are the people in the republic today the same 'people'? I personally think we have to see the 1920's republic as being a return to the original Ireland, sans NI: to deny that would surely be either from an 'all or nothing' philosophy, or from a desire for Ireland to be part of the UK again, as it was throughout the 19C. I know the creation of the republic was complicated, but not as much as it could have been. Ireland has clearly done as much as it can to preserve its heritage - the whole world can testify to that!
As it happens, I was always on the fence over pipe-linking Ireland to ROI (and I usually to see it as none of my business), but the 'package' came to me after reading Britiannica - so I simply put it down, and it took off. The ROI issue keeps disturbing my UK-specific field of interest (esp when people are telling me I can't use ROI on its own), so in the end I couldn't help but to get involved. As the debate has gone on I'm finding myself more and more for the 'package' I must say: making 'Ireland' the state article and working around it, which is easily done IMO, despite some people's claims that it would be worse. When poeple say or write "Ireland" they simply most-often mean the state/country of and for Irish people, per the biggest and oldest 'common name' it has: Wikipedia surely has to reflect this. And this holds both off and on Wikipedia too. As the island of Ireland is partly British, that is the meaning that needs disambiguating - not the state, which is pure Irish. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

'package deal' continuation break 2..

Comment: Also - wasn't "Ireland" originally the name of the nation? Perhaps someone could clarify this - I'm not sure. The mostly-forked article doesn't have an Etymology section.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The nation? You mean as in the "A Nation Once Again" sort of thing? The island was called Ireland, definately. Eire, in Irish. The Irish no doubt were a 'nation' -- culturally fairly homogeneous (in relative terms; more so than the English, for example), but there wasn't really a unified state to speak of, if that's what you mean. I think the kings were always bashing one another in an *attempt* to forge a unified power and some pretended to have done so and had their bards write poems saying they'd done so--that sort of thing. At least one came close to it, but got killed before it was meaningful. I suppose the short answer is, well, yes, but no not really. Nuclare (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The 'Republic of Ireland' was a return to the 'nation' of Ireland (minus Northern Ireland of course). That's my point. If the island did not come first 'name-wise', then it was clearly named after the 'nation' of Ireland (however many kingdoms it had). So it strikes me that the island needs disabiguating, not the nation, on this ground too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The Irish, as Nuclare says, were a nation long before the arrival of the Normans. Ireland - the island, the country, whatever - has been a nation since before 1800. The whole purpose of the Act of Union was to subsume the Irish nation into the British kingdom. Long term, it didn't work. The State is far younger and, as a republic, younger still. Therefore, Ireland - the island, the country - is one thing and the Republic of Ireland is another. Where's the confusion? I still don't see it. Scolaire (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty simple: I'm asking the question: was the island named after the Irish people (ie the 'nation' called "Ireland" - whatever it looked like internally - kingdoms etc)? If it was, then the name "Ireland" was originally for the 'nation' (ie group of people). Or was it originally the name for the land mass? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes the island nation was referred to as "The Kingdom of Ireland" as far back as Tudor times (if not before). The IRB et al coined the phrase "Irish Republic" in 1916 which was followed by (after the Free State) Eire (or in English - Ireland). Your problem there is that the UK didn't agree to the use of Ireland as the name of the state because of its implied claim on the six counties. That's basically how we're getting to the shenannigans here now. The Irish "Republic of Ireland Act" of 1949 gives us the legitimacy of using "Republic of Ireland" but there's no reason why this could not be further explained on the naming convention article. That leaves us free to use Ireland as the geographical term, ROI for the south and Northern Ireland for the north. (or just call it the Black North as everyone else does in the ROI). The Thunderer (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually to further qualify what I've said and to perhaps just be a little pedantic I've checked some scholarly facts. Ireland was not a unified kingdom prior to the Norman invasion of Britain or in the time of Maewin Succat. There seems to have been a conciousness that there was an island to be ruled by around 1080AD but it certainly hadn't been achieved by Turlough O'Connor by 1106 and what was achieved (which was a lot) had to be reconquered time and time again as the 100 odd "kings" of Ireland reasserted themselves in their own fiefdoms. So by the time Strongbow invaded in 1169 Ireland had not been unified as a nation and wouldn't be until English kings made it so. In fact though there has never been a United Ireland under Irish rule.The Thunderer (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My question was only this: Was the word "Ireland" used first to mean a group of people (ie nation, group of kingdoms, whatever), or as a geographical term for the island? Was it first 'cultural' or was it fist 'geographical'? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It appears to have been geographical and coined by someone who wasn't Irish. The first politcal use of the name I'm aware of is from Henry II who appears to have coined the phrase the "Kingdom of Ireland". The Irish themselves (rather a mongrel bunch of Vikings, Welsh immigrants etc etc - but NO CELTS), don't seem to have been aware that they were in an island and couldn't stop fighting turf wars long enough to form any kind of central jurisdiction although stronger "Kings" of various patches seem to have been able to demand fealty (i.e.from Tara) but didn't have any kind of tax system or kingly/governmental institutions. Presumably the Christian influence from Wales meant there had to be a name for the island but what would they have used - would they have used "Enu" or did they have their own name for it?The Thunderer (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC) I'm prepared to be corrected on this as I'm working from the Mk 1 Brain here and it's old and decrepit.The Thunderer (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you are getting in too deep here, Thunderer. 'Ireland' is an English word, but it clearly comes from Eire: 'Eire-land,' that is. It's a statement of the obvious that the ENGLISH version of the name (Ireland) would have first been used by someone English. But Eire comes from Ireland and the Irish language. That was 'their name for it.' And this notion that they 'didn't know they were on an island' is rubbish. Nuclare (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Ireland isn't an English word actually, it's a mixture of Garlic and German. "land" is adopted from German. Henry II would hardly have given it an English name either as he and all his court spoke French. I can assure you that most people in the 12th century didn't know they were on an island, they didn't know what was outside their own territory because if they'd strayed out of it they'd likely have been duffed up by some Huns from the next parish, kind of like West Belfast or Ballymun today.The Thunderer (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Go to sleep Thunderer. First of all, "Garlic"????? :-))) Every last in-land peasant may not have known about their surroundings, but "they don't seem to have been aware they were in an island" as a generalized statement about the Irish is utter rubbish. Nuclare (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a little thing called humour old chap. You do need to be alert to get it though. Dismissing someone else's educated opinion is considered rather uncivil. Perhaps you should try to remember that? Otheriwse your opinions may be treated with the same dismissiveness by others. The Thunderer (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Dismissing someone's opinion is not uncivil. It is either a correct thing to do or an incorrect thing to do depending on whether the opinion is factual or not. People are free to dismiss my opinions where they are wrong. But, calling a fair, young maiden an 'old chap,' now *that* is uncivil! :-)) Nuclare (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You know in all the confusion today I'd missed this comment and I apologise profusely for doing so. You are NOT free to dismiss opinions young lady - you can disagree with them and discuss/debate but dismissiveness isn't considered a way forward, in any society or forum. As for my (hopefully forgiveable) mistake about your femininity I can only apologise.The Thunderer (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The Thunderer, you managed to be civil for so much of this discussion that it's a pity you had to descend to such bigotry late on! "The Irish themselves (rather a mongrel bunch of Vikings, Welsh immigrants etc etc - but NO CELTS)" -I beg your pardon? "couldn't stop fighting turf wars long enough to form any kind of central jurisdiction" - that's not a stereotype, is it? "Presumably the Christian influence from Wales" - the Irish were unchristian and uncivilized? "it's a mixture of Garlic and German" - that's a little thing called humour, is it? "they didn't know what was outside their own territory because if they'd strayed out of it they'd likely have been duffed up by some Huns from the next parish, kind of like West Belfast or Ballymun today" - not like the peace-loving people of East Belfast and Portadown, you mean? And during this same period, I suppose, the British were a homogeneous people, sending each other Christmas cards every year, doing charity work for the very few poor they had and listening to Greensleeves? For your information, the Irish knew they were an island to the extent that they ruled the whole of Scotland ("Scot" originally meant Irish), exacted tributes from all along the coast of England and Wales, and sailed to America! Do try not to lose the run of yourself again. Scolaire (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I missed this one too. My comments weren't supposed to incite anything Scolaire, they were very tongue in cheek. The entire British Isles are mongrel nations because of the influx of invaders and immigrants over thousands of years. The term isn't meant to be insulting. As for exacting tributes; I'm quite sure various "Kings" (for want of a better word) did so but there was no centralised jurisdiction in Ireland, not even under Turlough. Yes, the same could be said of England, Wales and Scotland until strong enough warlords, like the Normans, established a central administration for handling tithes and taxes. I prefer to be realistic about these things and although I fully acknowldege that a society existed in Ireland and elsewhere, it wasn't an organised democracy such as we understand now. It was a series of fiefdoms and although some may have been friendly towards each other, many fought amongst each other and to stray into unfriendly territory could have had violent, if not fatal, repercussions. Hence my humorous parallel with West Belfast and Ballymun. You could substitute those with East Belfast and Portadown if you wish (Port an duin to give it it's proper name, 'scuse missing fadas). For everything I assert with regards to the establishment of society and centralisation in Ireland - the same applies to the rest of the British Isles, and Europe, and beyond, because that is how societies developed. Can't think of anything else to say at this point, not even something flippant! I hope you get what I'm driving at however - I certainly wasn't trying to be anything less than civil. The Thunderer (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: There is no Etymology section on the island of Ireland article. I think this is something that needs to be pursued. Eire seems to be linked to Ériu (Old Irish (6-10C). As a name, "Irleand" is clearly pre-Norman (or so it seems to me). It would be helpful to know.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's about as much as I can glean for the moment.The Thunderer (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Like most of Europe Hibernia (the Roman name) was subject to successive invasions, colonisations etc and yes it did include celts. It also held a distinct identity through the dark ages with a very distinctive christian tradition that was subjected to an early form of imperial control through the synod of Whitby. .There is a clear concept of Ireland as a nation in dark ages narrative (very closely linked to Welsh legends but distinct), and there is a concept of High King. In so far as anywhere in Europe pre the tenth century was a nation, Ireland was too. It still seems to be in this debate that we have a set of objective facts (Encarta etc. UK Gov, EU, UN) on one side, and on the other we have a series of opinions (either POV or OR) and one fact from an Irish Government act pre 1950. Maybe its time to summarise the evidence and stop exchanging opinions which seem depressingly sectarian. --Snowded TALK 07:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I can promnise you there's nothing sectarian about my views, They are based on common sense and the available historical information. As for Romans and Celts - there is no evidence to suggest they ever came to Ireland. The only Celts there were Welsh.The Thunderer (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But was it called "Ireland"? This is all about the word, not specifically the sense of 'nation', or even Irish identity. Did the actual word originally mean the geographical rock, or the area of people on it? If it was in the cultural sense first, I can't justify at all putting a lump of rock before a people on Wikipedia: the state article would have to be called Ireland. --Matt Lewis (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It was definitely called the Kingdom of Ireland from around the end of th 12th century.The Thunderer (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire's appraisal of package deal

Matt Lewis has said above that there has been no "good argument against the package". To get this discussion back on track I'm going to re-state my arguments against, then maybe we can talk about whether it can be saved or how it can be improved:

  1. Using "Ireland" - on its own - as a name for the State instead of the island is wrong. The land is ancient, the State is less than 100 years old. Tourists travelling to Ireland want to see the land and its people, not the government or the civil service. Business people exporting to Ireland want to know the air and sea routes to the land of Ireland - they may pay duty to the State but they don't care if their goods are consumed by Staters or Northerners. Students of history are at least as interested in the thousand years before 1922, and the majority of those studying the late 20th century history of "Ireland" will be studying the Northern conflict. Yes, Britannica uses "Ireland", but the vast bulk of the article is concerned with the land of Ireland, with place-names etc. confined to southern places to give the impression it only applies to the 26 counties. Does the soil and the climate change when you pass the Killeen border post? Are the people's skin a different colour?
  2. "The island of Ireland" is an absurd name on so many levels. First, it is a the - that's a no-no. Second, it suggests some small island (Rockall, maybe?) belonging to Ireland. Third, none of the tourists, business people or historians above have ever heard of this strange land. The term has some use as a dab e.g. "the biggest mountain/company/chancer on the island of Ireland", but that's it.
  3. "Offer “Ireland (state)” and "Ireland (island)" as optional terms, in the Irish Manual of Style guideline." Despite repeatedly asking, I still have no idea what this means. Apparently IMOS is to be amended, but to say what? "Editors are encouraged to say Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) in all articles to avoid ambiguity"? "Editors will not be flogged for using Ireland (state) or Ireland (island) because they are now offered as options"? "Some people think Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) are cool terms so please try to fit them into some article somewhere"? Why do we need to be "offered" these terms when we know they're there already. And more to the point, who will benefit from the offer and how - there must be some benefit to somebody if it's to be included in a "package".
  4. "Suggest “republic of Ireland” (small R) as another optional 'disambiguating' expression..." Again, why? Since the expression is used nowhere on Wikipedia - and the idea that we should have it just because Britannica has it is ... well, an underwhelming argument - what is the benefit of adding it to IMOS as an option? And again, how would it make the "package" more attractive and to whom?
  5. Why on earth would we need a separate article on the 'term' "Republic of Ireland"? WP is already top-heavy with articles on "Irish" terms, most of which tell us nothing more than that they are terms used in Ireland. If you're going to write about the term, write it in the "Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" article, or wherever it's moved to, if it's moved.
  6. The package as a package: in what way is it bigger or better, more NPOV, more inclusive or more worthy of consensus? How will it, as a package, improve the situation? I'm afraid I see nothing more than a collection of half-baked and unrelated ideas more likely to create confusion than consensus.

That's my analysis. I would like to see other people's view of the package as a whole, positive or negative. At least then we'll have some idea what it is we're actually discussing. Scolaire (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis' responses: (having to post below)

1. Using "Ireland" - on its own - as a name for the State instead of the island is wrong. The land is ancient, the State is less than 100 years old. Tourists travelling to Ireland want to see the land and its people, not the government or the civil service. Business people exporting to Ireland want to know the air and sea routes to the land of Ireland - they may pay duty to the State but they don't care if their goods are consumed by Staters or Northerners. Students of history are at least as interested in the thousand years before 1922, and the majority of those studying the late 20th century history of "Ireland" will be studying the Northern conflict. Yes, Britannica uses "Ireland", but the vast bulk of the article is concerned with the land of Ireland, with place-names etc. confined to southern places to give the impression it only applies to the 26 counties. Does the soil and the climate change when you pass the Killeen border post? Are the people's skin a different colour? Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The republic of 'Ireland' is essentially a return to the country of Ireland before the British colonised it (details aside, and minus Northern Ireland). Can you prove that "Ireland" as a name was used for the geographical island before it was used for an area of Irish people? No you can't - because it was surely a cultural name, not a 'geographical' one. Why should a lump of rock come before a people, when the name was made for the people? I'm for the people. The Encyclopedia Britannica article doesn't even have an 'island of Ireland' article - only one for the countries. It is only wise to follow their lead. Ireland as a country will have countless links on Wikipedia. Ireland as the island (in the genuine sense, and not the 'dodgy' one that crowbars in Northern Ireland) will be used a fraction of the amount the country will used. so 'Ireland as country' has the weight of history, of usage, and of humanity.--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

2. "The island of Ireland" is an absurd name on so many levels. First, it is a the - that's a no-no. Second, it suggests some small island (Rockall, maybe?) belonging to Ireland. Third, none of the tourists, business people or historians above have ever heard of this strange land. The term has some use as a dab e.g. "the biggest mountain/company/chancer on the island of Ireland", but that's it. Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • This is a non-argument. Wikipedia is full of article titles that readers get to by a simple redirects, and a clear linking process. Island of Ireland (with or without the "The" according to guidelines) is fine for a lump of rock. Very few articles titles exacly equal what people type in to get to them. Most are redirects, if only for capitalisation etc! Why don't you have a look? --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

3. "Offer “Ireland (state)” and "Ireland (island)" as optional terms, in the Irish Manual of Style guideline." Despite repeatedly asking, I still have no idea what this means. Apparently IMOS is to be amended, but to say what? "Editors are encouraged to say Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) in all articles to avoid ambiguity"? "Editors will not be flogged for using Ireland (state) or Ireland (island) because they are now offered as options"? "Some people think Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) are cool terms so please try to fit them into some article somewhere"? Why do we need to be "offered" these terms when we know they're there already. And more to the point, who will benefit from the offer and how - there must be some benefit to somebody if it's to be included in a "package". Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I've answered every one of your "repeatedly askings" - your attitude is so poor that you are not prepared to follow simple Enlgish. A Manual of Style page gives 'style' guidelines of use: you can make country specific pages with helpful suggestions for disambiguating (Ireland (island) etc). You certainly can - it's been done. I've worked on MOS pages myself - I suggest you have a look at a few. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

4. "Suggest “republic of Ireland” (small R) as another optional 'disambiguating' expression..." Again, why? Since the expression is used nowhere on Wikipedia - and the idea that we should have it just because Britannica has it is ... well, an underwhelming argument - what is the benefit of adding it to IMOS as an option? And again, how would it make the "package" more attractive and to whom? Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

5. Why on earth would we need a separate article on the 'term' "Republic of Ireland"? WP is already top-heavy with articles on "Irish" terms, most of which tell us nothing more than that they are terms used in Ireland. If you're going to write about the term, write it in the "Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" article, or wherever it's moved to, 'if it's moved. Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Perhaps it deserves an article to itself? It's not essential, but you get a decent little article out of it. It is one of the names of the state, and some might want it. But its not essential. Both this point and the MOS guidelines are basically distractions!--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

6. The package as a package: in what way is it bigger or better, more NPOV, more inclusive or more worthy of consensus? How will it, as a package, improve the situation? I'm afraid I see nothing more than a collection of half-baked and unrelated ideas more likely to create confusion than consensus. Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • "Half-baked"? That is just a pointless expression: this is an approach that comprises of a few collective measures, designed to be logical, usable and to appeal to people. And is has appealed to a good number of people. How will it improve the situation? It will provide an "Ireland" state article per the biggest and oldest of the COMMONNAMES, it will provide an island of Ireland article that will be free of forked information, and will not be ignored like the current one clearly has been (despite it supposedly being more popular than the state article - clearly not true at all. Britannica doesn't even have one.) Guidelines can offer terms like 'republic' (like Encyclopedia Britannica uses), Island (island)) etc. Who, at the end of the day, would be genuinely upset if "Ireland" was the name of this article. We will have no unhappy pipe-linking as Ireland will equal Ireland. Using "island of Ireland" (or even "island of Ireland") will fully explain the island. The details can be ironed out - but the approach is the key. It will stop the mentality some have (as expressed unabashed in these discussions) that Wikipedia can use the idea of "island" to explain the people who live on it. Some poeple may do this in the outside world, but this is as far from encyclopedic as you can get. How can it be proven? With this approach, everything has a workable answer. There is probably more here. Anyone ever had a bastard of a headache? --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As the island of Ireland is part UK, that is the meaning of "Ireland" that needs disambiguating - not the state, which is 'pure' Irish. In disambiguating the state, we currenly have it arse about tit.
  • MY CONCLUSION: When people say "Ireland" they simply most often mean the recognised country of Irish people (and hence the state). It is unavoidably a touch political to even suggest that people could mean the whole island when searching for "Ireland". The 'package deal' (in its principal form) is the most un-political approach, as genuinely British UK citizens in the island of Ireland will not be 'blurred' into the "idea" of a pure and unified island-wide Irish state. The ambiguity we currently have creates this political 'blur': we use the single word "Ireland" to link to either island or state, and we have an "Ireland" article that looks like it could/should be the Irish state article, but covers the UK through Northern Ireland. Encyclopedia Britannica will have reasoned it in this political way - and so must we. I can't put it any clearer than this. Both the Irish and the British are being compromised with the current article names: why? This has never been settled in the Irish Talk pages, despite constant debate - the collective environments are too partisan and potentially uninviting. I think this will have to move on somewhere else.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

HighKing's responses:

1) The first point is that because the island is older that the state, then using the name "Ireland" for the state is wrong!! My response is that this is irrelevant and Wikipedia is not a political forum or the place to make a point. If editors fervently wish that the state was called something else, or wish to propose a name change for the state, it has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the name of the state. --HighKing (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The reality is important for sure. I think the term "Ireland" originally meant the cultural area anyway, not the island - so Ireland is merely claiming its original name back. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

2) The next point is that "the island of Ireland" is an absurd name. Dropping the THE from the title is simple. It doesn't suggest a small island, and since he also gives examples such as "The biggest X on the island of Ireland" himself, if is a self-defeating argument that "nobody has ever heard of the strange land" and "it suggests some small island". --HighKing (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

3) To answer Scolaires 3rd point is to point out that my understanding is that Matt is suggesting that in some cases, articles being edited might benefit from using the suggested terms to aid clarity. It's pretty simple to grasp. It's not mandatory. But it's a good idea to ensure literary devices are available to editors, and that they are covered in the MOS. --HighKing (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

4) The suggestion of using "republic of Ireland" (small R) is a good one, and hats off to Matt for spotting this in other encyclopedia. If the argument for using this form is underwhelming, the argument against is even more so. --HighKing (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I noticed you do it once, but I'd never thought of it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

5) The other points made by Scolaire are IMHO personal opinions and don't really demand or require a response. --HighKing (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My analysis of the arguments to date is that the package appears to hold together for the most part. It's not perfect, no solution will be, but it's better than the current situation. --HighKing (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777 comments

1. Using "Ireland" - on its own - as a name for the State instead of the island is wrong. The land is ancient, the State is less than 100 years old. Tourists travelling to Ireland want to see the land and its people, not the government or the civil service. Business people exporting to Ireland want to know the air and sea routes to the land of Ireland - they may pay duty to the State but they don't care if their goods are consumed by Staters or Northerners. Students of history are at least as interested in the thousand years before 1922, and the majority of those studying the late 20th century history of "Ireland" will be studying the Northern conflict. Yes, Britannica uses "Ireland", but the vast bulk of the article is concerned with the land of Ireland, with place-names etc. confined to southern places to give the impression it only applies to the 26 counties. Does the soil and the climate change when you pass the Killeen border post? Are the people's skin a different colour? Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Excellent points made by Matt. Scolaire's flights of fancy are completely irrelevant to this debate and ignore the essential fact that "Ireland" is the name of the modern country - what name was used first is irrelevant; should France be called Gaul? Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

2. "The island of Ireland" is an absurd name on so many levels. First, it is a the - that's a no-no. Second, it suggests some small island (Rockall, maybe?) belonging to Ireland. Third, none of the tourists, business people or historians above have ever heard of this strange land. The term has some use as a dab e.g. "the biggest mountain/company/chancer on the island of Ireland", but that's it. Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • This is a non-argument. Wikipedia is full of article titles that readers get to by a simple redirects, and a clear linking process. Island of Ireland (with or without the "The" according to guidelines) is fine for a lump of rock. Very few articles titles exacly equal what people type in to get to them. Most are redirects, if only for capitalisation etc! Why don't you have a look? As per Matt, couldn't put it better. Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

3. "Offer “Ireland (state)” and "Ireland (island)" as optional terms, in the Irish Manual of Style guideline." Despite repeatedly asking, I still have no idea what this means. Apparently IMOS is to be amended, but to say what? "Editors are encouraged to say Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) in all articles to avoid ambiguity"? "Editors will not be flogged for using Ireland (state) or Ireland (island) because they are now offered as options"? "Some people think Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) are cool terms so please try to fit them into some article somewhere"? Why do we need to be "offered" these terms when we know they're there already. And more to the point, who will benefit from the offer and how - there must be some benefit to somebody if it's to be included in a "package". Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

4. "Suggest “republic of Ireland” (small R) as another optional 'disambiguating' expression..." Again, why? Since the expression is used nowhere on Wikipedia - and the idea that we should have it just because Britannica has it is ... well, an underwhelming argument - what is the benefit of adding it to IMOS as an option? And again, how would it make the "package" more attractive and to whom? Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • "the idea that we should have it just because Britannica has it is ... well, an underwhelming argument". With respect it is nowhere near as "underwhelming" as the confused meandering you are presenting as "argument". Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Why on earth would we need a separate article on the 'term' "Republic of Ireland"? WP is already top-heavy with articles on "Irish" terms, most of which tell us nothing more than that they are terms used in Ireland. If you're going to write about the term, write it in the "Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" article, or wherever it's moved to, 'if it's moved. Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • An Article on the term "Republic of Ireland" would find endless material and referenced sources in the talkpage archives. I'd have no real interest myself in writing about a description but I guess it might keep those with flighty imaginations amused. Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

6. The package as a package: in what way is it bigger or better, more NPOV, more inclusive or more worthy of consensus? How will it, as a package, improve the situation? I'm afraid I see nothing more than a collection of half-baked and unrelated ideas more likely to create confusion than consensus. Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • MY CONCLUSION: When people say "Ireland" they simply most often mean the recognised country of Irish people (and hence the state). It is unavoidably a touch political to even suggest that people could mean the whole island when searching for "Ireland". The 'package deal' (in its principal form) is the most un-political approach, as genuinely British UK citizens in the island of Ireland will not be 'blurred' into the "idea" of a pure and unified island-wide Irish state. The ambiguity we currently have creates this political 'blur': we use the single word "Ireland" to link to either island or state, and we have an "Ireland" article that looks like it could/should be the Irish state article, but covers the UK through Northern Ireland. Encyclopedia Britannica will have reasoned it in this political way - and so must we. I can't put it any clearer than this. Both the Irish and the British are being compromised with the current article names: why? This has never been settled in the Irish Talk pages, despite constant debate - the collective environments are too partisan and potentially uninviting. I think this will have to move on somewhere else.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse Matt's conclusion. Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Comments on approach here

It looks to me as though Scolaire is getting picked on here. If HighKing can respond to his points in the way he has why can't everyone else. If everyone responded to his points in the way Matt has it would be a terrible mess and unreadable. Skipper 360 (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Because its standard practice to use : to reply Gnevin (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
My point is, if everyone involved in this debate replied in the same fashion it would look a mess and unreadable. HighKing made his points in a different fashion and I believe a better fashion. His arguments over the points are clear and concise. Skipper 360 (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Both of you: Don't forget this is my 'Package Deal'. I am entitled to reply point by point. If we all did it like HighKing was forced to it really would be a mess!! It least I should be allowed to reply in turn. (especially as it was clearly personal in parts). It is too important to me and I have invested to much for it to be taken the mick out of like this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
He has already interwoven comments between HighKings. I wanted to read HighKings responses withought interference. It's already becoming a mess. Skipper 360 (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I wished to reply. Scolaire did this - not me. I must be allowed to reply. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to make myself clear. I don't have a problem with your argument, I actually agree with most of it, I do think this has escalated into a silly argument over nothing and could be resolved withought any falling outs. Skipper 360 (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree - but it's just too important to me not to try and keep it from breaking up. I'd rather argue in my Talk. I'm good at keeping things together structurally, others will testify to that. I think it's looking as tidy now as it was likely to get (through lots of frantic editing by me)! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think the discussion is getting silly, emotive and out of hand. The issue at hand isn't really what Ireland was called 1,000 years ago or even 100 years ago. It's what it's commonly known as now. We all agree a sovereign state has the right to call itself whatever it wants to and in a normal situation that would be enough. What causes emotion here is the poitical aspect. The name "Ireland" was given to the state as a direct result of a claim to Northern Ireland. That's why I say Republic of Ireland is the title which should be used because it is acceptable as a description of the state according to Irish government legislation, it refers only to the 26 counties and it isn't offensive to the Unionists. The Thunderer (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
To be blunt ,wiki doesnt care about offending Unionist, Wiki cares about , facts and common name, both of which point to Ireland no republic of  ! Gnevin (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Not being so blunt, I undertand that Unionists might be offended, which is unfortunate, but if we don't use the official name others might be offended, Catch 22. Skipper 360 (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually Wiki cares about what is verifiable and in common parlance. A small percentage of people asking for one thing, versus a major concensus against it. Now that's blunt! The Thunderer (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:V such as the UK ,UN naming policy ? Article 4 ? I'd said its very close and their is no major concensus either way. Plus the pro side are using arguments based of facts not that it offends them! Gnevin (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It is verifiable that the vast majority of people refer to the Republic of Ireland as such - not as "Ireland" as the Irish government try to insist.The Thunderer (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
If its that easy to find a WP:V then do it provide such a reference Gnevin (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The arguments have already been sufficiently represented here and I see nothing thus far which would change my appraisal of the situation. My view is non-sectarian, common sense and in line with WP Policy and existing ROI legislation. The Thunderer (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So that would be a flip flop would it? I though it was verifiable that the vast majority of people refer to the Republic of Ireland . NO Irish legislation calls the country the Republic of Ireland none , not even the 48 act. You've admitted the official state name is Ireland so why don't support the WP:V'd named in either Ireland or Ireland (state) form and leave your opinions such as What causes emotion here is the political aspect else where . Wiki doesn't care about your emotionalism Gnevin (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The 1949 Act clearly says the state description is the Republic of Ireland. If 4.5 million people in Ireland insist upon calling it "Ireland" and 60 million in the UK call it the Republic of Ireland, and other millions around the world then that is the name it's commonly known by. Why are you referring to MY emotionalism when that state of affairs doesn't exist - what part of non-sectarian are you having difficulty with? The Thunderer (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Prove it, you can be non-sectarian and emotional Gnevin (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
My dear chap, I don't have to prove anything, you have to extend good faith, that is the wikipedia way. If however you think I'm sitting here crying into a box of Kleenex or bating lumps out of the wife in sheer frustration then I would advise you think again. This is a good discussion with some good points to be borne in mind but in the words of the third verdict - it's not proven. The Thunderer (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
So you make claims with no way to back them up Gnevin (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It rather seems you are the one making the claims old bean. You've claimed I'm emotional. I've replied that I'm not. I rather fail to see how you can reasonably expect me to prove to you that I'm not. Should I take a picture of me smiling and send it to you? Or do you need a pyschiatrists report?The Thunderer (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me clareify What causes emotion here is the political aspect . Wiki doesn't care about your people's emotionalismGnevin (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I meant meant prove The 1949 Act clearly says the state description is the Republic of Ireland. If 4.5 million people in Ireland insist upon calling it "Ireland" and 60 million in the UK call it the Republic of Ireland, and other millions around the world then that is the name it's commonly known by
Let's end this please. It isn't contributing anything to the discussion. You can't separate politics from Irish issues and no matter how much I may be apolitical (notwithstanding my upbringing, which I always try to keep in mind) we all have to consider that politics will always be inextricably linked with discussions like this. For me - you can call it Toytown if you want, it won't bother me, but I'm here to make a serious point which is in keeping with the policies of wikipedia. I've made that point now and all I can do is repeat my opinion and argument. That, as per my opening comment in this reply, isn't contributing anything further to the matter in hand. I think we should leave it at that - don't you? The Thunderer (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but no, you've made a number of claims, when asked too WP:Cite some of does claims (some of which you claimed could very easily be cited) you want to the discussion to go away! Gnevin (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)No, in all honesty I'd be happy to continue this dialogue and prove whatever you want me to prove but other editors have contacted me privately and pointed out the futility of continuing, and on reflection I consider that the best policy for the good of the discussion. I do trust you will understand? The Thunderer (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No legislation in the People's Democratic Republic of Korea refers to that country by the name Wikipedia uses. That's not the only argument here. While ROI might not be well-used in Ireland (state), it is certainly well-used in the UK, especially where there may be some ambiguity. And the alternative proposals here don't seem to lessen the ambiguity in any way. There are a lot of heated comments in here, but that'basically what it boils down to for me. I don't see what the benefit is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Observation: I'm not even sure where to insert this comment any more. This discussion has completely petered out as far as I can see, and I am withdrawing my support for any change to the status quo. I haven't altered my opinion on the merits of the change, but this is no way to go about it. If the intention of the proposal was to bring sceptics round, then it has failed. As regards how it might have been approached, the maxim 'sometimes less is more' comes to mind.RashersTierney (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Observation II: Ireland (state) would be as correct a term to use as China (state) or Korea (state) (be kind to me for saying so !) Osioni (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the China and Korea links are interesting, in that neither leads to a state. Nuclare (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Debate on ANI

Yes I see what you are saying User:Pureditor WP:Sock is very strict on what can and can't be done in votes. It was my misunderstanding I didnt realise that it was a vote. In this case User talk:89.19.82.127 you will have to not take part in this as it is a vote from which IP votes are not generally counted as it can be open to abuse. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.Pureditor 11:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I have replied on AN/I asking for clarification, BountyHunter says that WP:SOCK "is very strict on what can and can't be done in votes." WP:SOCK does not state that IP-based editors cannot contribute to discussion. What's more WP:NOT is clear that WP is not a democracy. We do not "vote" here, we discuss. --78.152.209.11 (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You don't know what you're talking about. It isn't a vote. The IP editor has as much right to a voice here as you (in fact I'd weight his comments more heavily, given that he doesn't have a serious misunderstanding of a core WP policy). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Possibly doing nothing more than weakening the signal/noise, but I would like to second what Chris said. Badger Drink (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I third it. And, by the way, #Ireland package deal is not actually a proposal at present - the RM is in the section above it - so none of the "supports" or "opposes" have any validity in that sense. But if it was a proposal, it should be up to the closing admin whether to count an IPs vote or not. Scolaire (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to comment on the AN/I request, but all things being equal my right to contribute on an equal footing to any logged-in user appears to have been roundly vindicated. A choice quote IMHO is that "IP editors who understand policy are first-class citizens in any debates regarding article content." In a bizarre twist, Pureditor has been blocked for 48 hours for disruption after it was disclosed that he/she used an IP sock puppet, presumably as part of a campaign to discredit my contributions. See here. --89.19.88.228 (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I sure wish you would become a registered user, though. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Me too, if only for the duration of this discussion. Scolaire (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I see more abuse from registered users than anons. I don't think that I will contribute any further the discussion as it stands, but out of courtesy, if I do, I will mark my contributions in some fashion. --78.152.202.221 (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
If you don't mind, using some small signature or marker would be appreciated (at least by me, anyway!). Thanks, Knepflerle (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


Name of State

Why is this article under 'Republic of Ireland' (the state's description in English), but the Irish description of the state, Poblacht na hÉireann, is omitted. Instead, the name of the state, Éire, is given as the Irish equivalent of Republic of Ireland. This is inaccurate. The name of the state in English is Ireland, and therefore its name in Irish is Éire. Why is this article not being consistent? Is a political point being made by equating Éire with the name Republic of Ireland rather than with the name Ireland, as by both law and fact it should properly be equated with? It would be more consistent and accurate to have this article as 'Ireland (state)' and the article on the whole country as 'Ireland (country)' or 'Ireland (island)'. In that case, 'Éire' would indeed be the correct Irish version for both articles. The current version is wrong. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you;re well aware of the issues under discussion elsewhere. You should join those discussions rather than beginning a new one.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Ireland (Irish: Éire...) is a country in north-western Europe." "Legally, the term Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann) is the description of the State..." Both name and "description" are properly given in Irish and English. Maybe you're confused by the article name, Republic of Ireland. but see Requested move above. Scolaire (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
And assuming good faith I would say it sounds as if he/she is not aware of the issues under discussion elsewhere. Scolaire (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't been clear. This article is currently under the name Republic of Ireland in English, and this current article gives 'Éire' as the Irish equivalent of Republic of Ireland. Why is it not under Poblacht na hÉireann? If it were under Ireland, I would obviously have no problem with Éire. I just would like to know why the Irish and English names are inconsistent in the current article. That's all. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again, 86! The article very clearly gives Ireland as the name of the State in English and Éire in Irish. Read it again! It's only the article heading that says "Republic of Ireland". Scolaire (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
And if you want to see the article "under" Poblacht na hÉireann, just click "Gaeilge" in the 'languages' bar on the left. Guess what it says? "Is stát í Éire". Scolaire (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The lead does trip over itself and get into tangles it would be much better, and consistent with the article name, if it were just...
The Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann), officially Ireland, (Irish: Éire), is a country...
I can' imagine this would stay there that long though... Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
True. Because it would be wrong to imply that "Republic of Ireland" is a name (unless you're British and citing UK law) which your sentence suggestion would imply. --HighKing (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
How many times do I have to repeat that this is an encyclopedia article and not an act of parliament. "Republic of Ireland" is the name of the article and the WP:COMMON name of the state/country/whatever you're having yourself. The common name / legal name relationship is dealt with in exactly the same way the following articles: France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany etc... Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I give up! How many other democratic states do not have their official name recognised on wikipedia? If this article is titled 'Republic of Ireland' it should not be implied in the first sentence that the equivalent of this is 'Éire' in Irish, as the current version does. The present wording is, at best, dishonest. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Slight return, as Blue-Haired Lawyer's assertion can't be left unchallenged. RoI is only the common name in British usage. Everywhere else uses 'Ireland'. --Red King (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets talk facts

The discussions are going no where , so see some WP:V references ,Please add your reference and sign. Discussion can be carried out below

Usage of the term Ireland by the Irish government,

  1. Article 4,12 of Constitution_of_IrelandGnevin (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United NationsGnevin (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. Anglo-Irish Agreement The Thunderer (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Usage of the term Republic of Ireland by the Irish government (in a non descriptive way)

  1. You tube clip of Bertie Ahern using ROITraditional unionist (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. A speech made by the former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. Frequently Asked Questions from the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This is clearly an example of where ROI is used a descriptive way. The only references to ROI rather than Ireland are in the sections that mention talk of Northern Ireland, presumably to avoid :::confusion. The rest of the document refers to acquiring a visa for Ireland. --Barrem24 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. international agreements (fixed links) Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Usage of the term Ireland other governments etc.

  1. Irish mission to the UNGnevin (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. CIA world fact bookGnevin (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. BBC Ireland profileGnevin (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. CAIN good friday agreementGnevin (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. British-Irish councilGnevin (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  6. US embassy in IrelandGnevin (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. EU Member stateGnevin (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  8. world health organisationGnevin (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  9. European Space Agency Gnevin (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  10. Worldbank Gnevin (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  11. EU webpage instructing to not use ROI and use IrelandPureditor 16:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Usage of the term Republic of Ireland by the others government etc (in a non descriptive way)

  1. British Government - UK Statute Law, Ireland Act 1949 --HighKing (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Usage of the term Ireland by people

Usage of the term Republic of Ireland by people

Discussion (old)

Pointless. It's already been done to death and there's no concensus - let it die humanely and give it a Christian burial. The Thunderer (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Getting the facts isn't pointless , it's probably where we should of started in the first place Gnevin (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a very obvious case of flagellating a deceased equine. There's no concensus so just let the feckin thing die.The Thunderer (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Door use it if you want to leave Gnevin (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't be holding your hand in yer arse til I do as YOU tell me LOL. The Thunderer (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, how is concensus achieved. I don't wish to seem pessimistic, but there appears to be a lot of entrenched views here. Skipper 360 (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, see WP:CON. And don't let the "entrenched"ness of the views make it seem that progress isn't being made or that nothing worthwhile is happening. A lot of the time, there are a lot of editors "watching" the discussions while the combatantsvocal participants slug it out verbally. --HighKing (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I notice the first paragraph mentions "silence implies consent". Maybe they should do more than just look on.:> Skipper 360 (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
CAIN alone gives 61 examples of the use of the term ROI by politicians and authors, many of them eminent and from the ROI. This is NOT a flood or attempt to disrupt the discussion. Just go to CAIN repeat the search for "Republic of Ireland" and get this -
The Thunderer's findings

Bailey, Sydney D. (ed.) (1988). Human Rights and Responsibilities in Britain and Ireland, a Christian Perspective. (ed.) Sydney Bailey, for the Project of the Churches on Human Rights and Responsibilities in the UK and Republic of Ireland / foreward by Archbishop of York. Basingstoke: Macmillan. ... [2378]

Birnie, E., and Hitchens, D. (2000). 'New Economic Strategies in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: Strategy 2010 and Enterprise 2010'. Regional Studies, 34, (8): 788-792. ... [4723]

Birrell, Derek. (1983). 'Local government councillors in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Their social background, motivation and role', in, Gallagher, Tom. and O'Connell, James. (eds) (1983) Contemporary Irish Studies. Bradford: School of Peace Studies: University of Bradford. ... [5922]

Breen, Richard., and Whelan, Christopher. (1994). 'Social Class, Class Origins and Political Partisanship in the Republic of Ireland'. European Journal of Political Research, 26, (2): 117-33. ... [192]

Brown, J. (2000). 'Discriminatory Experiences of Women Police. A Comparison of Officers Serving in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland'. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 28, (2): 91-112. ... [4728]

Brunt, Barry. (1988). The Republic of Ireland. London: Paul Chapman. ... [221]

Caulfield, Aoife. (1990). The Re-emergence and Development of Multi-denominational Education in the Republic of Ireland (M.Sc.). Belfast: Queen's University of Belfast. ... [296]

Cawley, M E. (1990). 'Population Change in the Republic of Ireland 1981-1986'. Area, 22, (1): 67-74. ... [305]

Coakley, John (2001). 'The Belfast Agreement and the Republic of Ireland', in, Wilford, Rick. (ed.) (2001), Aspects of the Belfast Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ... [6126]

Coakley, John. Gallagher, Michael. (eds) (1993). Politics in the Republic of Ireland (2nd ed.). Dublin and Limerick: Folens: PSAI Press. ... [329]

Coakley, John. Gallagher, Michael. (eds) (1999). Politics in the Republic of Ireland. (3rd ed.). London: Routledge, with PSAI Press. ... [4044]

Coakley, John., and Gallagher, Michael. (eds) (2004). Politics in the Republic of Ireland. (4th ed.). London: Routledge, with PSAI Press. ... [6973]

Coakley, John., and O'Dowd, Laim. (2007). Crossing the Border: New Relationships btween Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Dublin: Irish Academic Press. ... [11799]

Collins, Neil. (1995). 'Agricultural Policy Networks of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland'. Political Studies, 43, (4): 664-82. ... [2469]

Connolly, M. (1992). 'Reflections on Local Government Elections 1991 and local Government Reform in the Republic of Ireland'. Local Government Studies, 18, (3): 260-77. ... [398]

Davis, E.E., Sinnott, R. (1979). Attitudes in the Republic of Ireland relevant to the Northern Ireland Problem: Descriptive analysis and some comparisons with attitudes in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute. ... [492]

Duggan, David. (1988). The Role and Activities of the Republic of Ireland's Members of the European Parliament / M.A, Politics. Dublin: University College Dublin. ... [571]

Fahey, T., and Hayes, Bernadette, C. (2005). Conflict and Consensus: A Study of Attitudes and Values in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration. ... [7013]

Fahey, Tony., Hayes, Bernadette C. , and Sinnott, Richard. (2004). Conflict and Consensus: A Study of Values and Attitudes in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration. ... [6927]

Fitzsimons, Yvonne. (1991). 'Women’s interest representation in the Republic of Ireland: the Council for the Status of Women'. Irish Political Studies, 6, 37-51. ... [4398]

Gallagher, Michael. (1989). 'Local elections and electoral behaviour in the Republic of Ireland'. Irish Political Studies, 4, 21-42. ... [4400]

Galligan,Yvonne. (2002). The Politics of Women's Representation in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (16). Dublin: Institute for British-Irish Studies, University College Dublin. ... [4708]

Garvin, Tom. (1988). 'The North and the Rest: The Politics of the Republic of Ireland', in, Townshend, Charles (ed.) Consensus in Ireland: Approaches and Recessions. 95-109. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ... [726]

Girvin, Brian. (1993). 'Social Change and Political Culture in the Republic of Ireland'. Parliamentary Affairs, 46, (3): 380-98. ... [749]

Goodman, James. (1998). 'The Republic of Ireland: Towards a Cosmopolitan Nationalism?', in, Anderson, James., and Goodman, James. (eds) (1998), in, Dis/agreeing Ireland: Contexts, Obstacles, Hopes. London: Pluto Press. ... [6077]

Gormally, Brian. and McEvoy, Kieran. (1995). Release and reintegration of politically motivated prisoners in Northern Ireland : a comparative study of South Africa, Israel/Palestine, Italy, Spain, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Belfast: NIACRO. ... [11254]

Great Britain. Parliament. (1985). Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, [The Anglo-Irish Agreement]., (Cmnd. 9690), (15 November 1985). London: HMSO. ... [2991]

Hayes, B C. Brewer, J D. (1997). 'Ethnic Minority Status and Attitudes Towards Police Powers: a Comparative Study of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland'. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 20, (4): 781 -. ... [2948]

Hayes, B C. McAllister, I. (1995). 'Social Class, Class Awareness and Political Beliefs in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland'. Economic and Social Review, 26, (4): 349-368. ... [2499]

Hayes, Bernadette. Brewer, John D. (1997). 'Ethnic Minority Status and Attitudes towards Police Powers: A Comparative Study of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland'. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 20, (4): 781-796. ... [3188]

Hayes, C. Bernadette., Sinnott, Richard., and Fahey, Tony. (2005). Conflict and Consensus: A Study of Values and Attitudes in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration. ... [10803]

Hayes, C. Bernadette.,and McAllister , Ian. (2005). 'Public Support for Political Violence and Paramilitarism in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland'. Terrorism and Political Violence, 17, (4): 599-617. ... [10846]

Heffernan, Lorraine, A. (1997). The Media News and Censorship in the Republic of Ireland, Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Educators for Peace / MA Peace Studies. Derry: University of Ulster. ... [3239]

Justice for the Forgotten. (2006). 'Response to Independent International Panel into Alleged Collusion in Sectarian Killings in Northern Ireland (and Republic of Ireland)', (7 November 2006), [PDF; 34KB].. Dublin: Justice for the Forgotten. ... [12632] This item is available at an external site.

Keeble, N.H. (ed.) (1988). Handbook of Irish and Celtic Studies in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. London: Stirling University Press. ... [997]

Kennedy, Francis J. (1991). Coverage of the Northern Ireland Conflict in the National Newspapers of Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland in June 1990 / MPhil, Sociology. Dublin: Dublin University. ... [1014]

Kirk, J.M., and O'Baóill, D.P. (eds) (2002). Language Planning and Education: Linguistic Issues in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Scotland. Belfast: Queen's University Belfast. ... [4467]

Kirk, John M and O Baoill, Donall P. (eds) (2003). Towards Our Goals in Broadcasting,the Press,the Performing Arts and the Economy: Minority Languages in Northern Ireland,the Republic of Ireland, and Scotland. Belfast: Queen’s University Belfast. ... [6946]

Linnane, Howard. (1990). 'European Economic Interest Groupings in the Republic of Ireland'. Journal of Business Law, (Nov): 527-531. ... [1089]

Mac Greil, Micheal. (1991). Religious Practice and Attitudes in Ireland: Report of a Survey of Religious Attitudes and Practices and Related Issues in the Republic of Ireland 1988-89. Maynooth: St Patrick's College Survey and Research Unit. ... [1119]

MacFarlane, L.J. (1990). Human Rights, Realities and Possibilities: Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Yugoslavia and Hungary. London: Macmillan. ... [1125]

McCabe, James. (1990). The Republic of Ireland: the Formulation and Consequences of the Republic of Ireland Act, 1949. Dublin: Irish Academic Press. ... [1183]

McFarlane, Leslie. (1990). Human Rights: Realities and Possibilities: Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Yugoslavia and Hungary. New York: St Martins Press. ... [3788]

McKeown, Antoinette. (1989). Extradition between the Republic of Ireland and the UK 1965-1988 (M.Sc.). Belfast: Queen's University of Belfast. ... [1241]

Morrow, Duncan. (1995). 'Warranted Interference? The Republic of Ireland in the Politics of Northern Ireland'. Etudes Irlandaises, 20, (1): 125-147. ... [2537]

Murphy, Colin., and Adair, Lynne (eds) (2002). Untold Stories: Protestants in the Republic of Ireland 1922-2002. Dublin: Liffey Press. ... [4481]

Murphy, Kerry. (1991). The Impact of Cultural and Legal Influences on certain aspects of the Judicial Development of Human Rights in the Republic of Ireland / PhD, Political Science. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin. ... [1343]

New Ulster Movement (NUM). (1970). Press Release - Details of meetring between NUM delegation and Dr Patrick Hillary, then Minister of External Affairs in the Republic of Ireland, [July 1970].. Belfast: NUM. ... [7250]

O'Sullivan, Eoin. (1991). 'The 1990 Presidential Election in the Republic of Ireland'. Irish Political Studies, 6, 85-98. ... [1510]

Robinson, Peter. (2004). Speech by Peter Robinson, then Deputy Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), to the Republic of Ireland's Small Firms Association, Dublin Castle, (7 September 2004). Belfast: Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). ... [6594]

Roper, S., and Hewitt Dundas, N. (2001). 'Grant assistance and small firm development in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland'. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 48, (1): 99-117. ... [4684]

Sexton, J.J., and O'Leary, Richard. (1996). 'Factors affecting Population Decline in Minority Religious Communities in the Republic of Ireland', in, Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. (1996) Building Trust in Ireland: Studies Commissioned by the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. Belfast: Blackstaff Press (with the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation). ... [5565]

Smyth, A. (1988). 'The Contemporary Women's Movement in the Republic of Ireland'. Women's Studies International Forum, 11, (4): 331-341. ... [1733]

Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP). (2006). "North-South Makes Sense": (SDLP Proposals for Greater Co-Operation Between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland), (13 February 2006), [PDF; 566KB].. Belfast: Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP).. ... [8668]

Tannam, E. (2005). 'Cross-border cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: neo-functionalism revisited (Mapping frontiers, plotting pathways, Ancillary Paper 1). Belfast/Dublin: QUB/UCD. ... [11207]

Tannam, Etain. (1996). 'The European Union and Business Cross-border Co-operation: the case of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland'. Irish Political Studies, 11, 103-129. ... [2853]

Tannam, Etain. (1998). Cross-Border Co-operation in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. New York: St. Martins Press. ... [3787]

Tannam, Etain. (2004). Cross-Border co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: Neo-functionalism revisited (40). Dublin: Institute for British-Irish Studies, University College Dublin. ... [8460]

Tannam, Etain. (2006). 'Cross-Border Co-Operation between Northern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland: Neo-Functionalism Revisited'. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8, (2): 256-276. ... [10851]

Tannam, Etain. (2006). 'The European Union 'model' and administrative co-operation: The case of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland'. Public Administration, 84, (2): 407-422. ... [11096]

Walsh, Brendan M. (1975). 'Trends in the Religious Composition of the Population in the Republic of Ireland, 1946-71'. Economic and Social Review, 6, (4 (Jul)): 543-55. ... [1869] The Thunderer (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Alot of these appear to be pre GFA, but i'd suggest adding , CAIN see below for the ROI usage section Gnevin (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Everyone else has added a new section, so I have too. These are the options:

No. island state dab page
1. Ireland Republic of Ireland Ireland (disambiguation)
2. Ireland Ireland (state) Ireland (disambiguation)
3. Ireland (island) Ireland (state) Ireland
4. Ireland (island) Republic of Ireland Ireland
5. Ireland (island) Ireland Ireland (disambiguation)

Consider the (main) subcategories of Category:Ireland. In some, most articles will relate mainly to the island; in others, most will relate specifically to one of the two jurisdictions.

There are lots of articles relating to physical and natural features, and to history, culture and people from before 1922. Even if these are a minority of all articles and references to Ireland, they are a substantial enough one that Option #5 is unacceptable, since the 'state' sense does not have a sufficient predominance over the 'island' sense.

I have no great preference among options #1–#4:

  • "Ireland (state)" is slightly preferable to "Republic of Ireland", since one is the official name and the other is only the official description. But only slightly. I agree that international usage is tending to use the shorter form, but I think some editors here are exaggerating the strength of this trend. I don't believe more than a few ROI people find "Republic of Ireland" offensive, though many find it tediously longwinded to use in conversation. If asked "where are you from?" most will answer "Ireland", but I think this means the island as much as the state, so that it's not strong evidence. The idea that the state has been fighting a long battle to stop the UK saying "Republic of Ireland" is just silly: don't magnify a diplomatic squibble into a cause celebre.
  • An advantage of "Ireland" over "Ireland (island)" since in many cases, wikilinking to the island will be correct even if wikilinking to the state would have been more correct.
  • However, the "island" sense is not predominant enough to justify having the unqualified name.

Thus I slightly favour option #3 in principle; however, since this would involve moving a lot of links around, I don't believe the slight gains are worth the trouble. If others feel strongly enough, well and good, as long as they are prepared to take on the tedious replumbing. jnestorius(talk) 16:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Since we have a new section, I'd like to make a new point: I find the word "island" objectionable! An "island" is something a millionaire buys to build a holiday home; Ireland is a land, a country, a nation (not in the "A Nation Once Again" sense but in the broader sense of a people and a culture different from the people across the water, even if you believe in political union with those people). How can those people who are fighting against the term "British Isles" consider reducing the land of Ireland to the status of one of those isles? Traditional unionist says "Ireland is the place where I live".[1] I, and I'm sure nearly all of my fellow-southerners, say the same. It's not just some island, it's our country you're talking about! Needless to say, I object most strongly to the description I've seen here of Ireland as "a lump of rock". Ireland is a green and fertile land, unsurpassed in her beauty by any other. All the discussion (more or less) has been of the appropriate name for the State; it's time we started thinking of what we really want to call the land of Ireland. Scolaire (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for my own clarity, do you share my broad position on the island being the legitimate occupant of the [[Ireland]] page?Traditional unionist (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, TU! Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Um...is this a joke? Granted, the current 'island' article is very poor. But 'Ireland' uses the word "island" in its opening sentence. jnestorius(talk) 18:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Why should you think it's a joke? I'm not denying that Ireland is an island, as Britain is. But do you see a Great Britain (island) article? No, it's Great Britain. And guess what? it uses "island" in the opening sentence! Scolaire (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, you said 'I find the word "island" objectionable'. I interpreted this to mean you object to 'island' as a description of the ...um...island, an eccentric claim I have never heard before. I guess you meant rather that you object to the use of 'island' as a disambiguator in the title of the Wikipedia article about the island? Your ensuing paean to the fertile land of Ireland seems to be one a classic example of "this meaning deserves the primary name, don't insult it with a disambiguator". It's not about deserving, it's about actual usage by the public at large. There is no "Great Britain (island)" article because there is nothing else in Great Britain (disambiguation) remotely as commonly-referenced as the island. OTOH we have Newfoundland (island) to disambiguate from other Newfoundlands. jnestorius(talk) 23:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
People use "Great Britain" to refer to "The United Kingdom". There is a dab link at the top of the article for that very reason. By the logic being advanced here, the "Great Britain" article should be named "Great Britain (island) to avoid any possible ambiguity. Suggest that on the article talk page and watch as British editors succumb to strokes in large numbers! To put an "island" dab on a country is to diminish it, that's all I'm saying. And I don't think many of the advocates of Ireland (island) have thought that through. Scolaire (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
And talk of "diminishing" is irrelevant, that's all I'm saying. As for your example, far fewer people use "Great Britain" for UK than use "Ireland" for ROI, at least in the English language. OTOH "Britain" is already a DAB page. jnestorius(talk) 11:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

evidence and maybe this needs to go elsewhere for resolution

No one questions that ROI is in use, the question is the name of the country and Wikipedia is not just about consensus it is also about facts. Until the good Friday agreement the UK in effect perpetuated ROI as a term, however from that point it is now UK Policy to call it Ireland. To this we add the EU, UN and other sources. Citing articles that may inherit ol language, or where, in context ROI may be the right language to use historically does not count against official Government policy. There is a clear POV being pushed here to perpetuate the language of conflict (not all editors) and it does not seem to be that it will be resolved there where the political positions are entrenched. It may be time to assembly the evidence and start to go through WIkipedia processes. --Snowded TALK 19:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What type of wikipedia process do you suggest? Skipper 360 (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've had enough positive vibe last night to know how viable a package can be. Today was a nightmare, but it's mostly down to fear. A package can work. Not here, clearly. But in the right place, the right combination will work. We can't let this poll die on a bad note though - we need those votes unstruck and a bit more faith in this show. Let's not let the negative showstoppers win.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Over the last couple of days I have read all the arguments, and as a human being I have every sympathy for both sides of the argument, no one likes to see people hurt over a word. In saying all that, I can't see pass the logic of using the official name, especially as Snowded say's it is being used by foreign bodies as important as the EU and UN. Skipper 360 (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The logic is that "Ireland" is an evidently ambiguous name. It both refers to an island, and to one of the two modern states on said island. It is also routinely used in an informal sense to refer not only to the other modern state on said island, but also to a variety of historical states and fiefdoms located on it. "Republic of Ireland" does not have these problems, as it is globally understood to refer to a particular modern state (and to a football team, but they're happy at Republic of Ireland national football team). WP:NAME says to use the most common name if it's unambiguous; after that it's always a matter of weighing up the options. I see the current title as the least worst. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've missed a bit of this discussion due to having an unscheduled kip on the sofa. Many thanks to Traditional Unionist for providing a solution to the long list I provided and I apologise if anyone thought the move was a bit too bold. The simple fact of the matter is however that the use of the name ROI to describe the state is the most common method employed by most Irish people. The following links, all fresh, were gleaned from the first page of a simple google search "Republic of Ireland" which produced 65 pages:

Republic of Ireland football team
Tourism Ireland
CAIN
Enchanted Learning
[2]
The Irish Times
The BBC
The Irish Government

What's interesting here is that although some of these sites don't use the term "Republic" they show up on the first page of the search which means (I'm sure someone can give me the technical details) that their site has the search term included because they know that people search for the Republic of Ireland. The Thunderer (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

While I can hope Matt is right I don't see any signs of it. From all Wikipedia rules etc. as far as I can see it should be called IRELAND. Yes you can get citations that show ROI in use, yes people may include it in their search to make sure people get to their site. However when push comes to shove the official name, supported by all official bodies is Ireland. The historical use of ROI was political in its nature as was the refusal to acknowledge the independent existence of Northern Ireland. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that at least some people do not want to accept that inter-government decision. Now that may or may not be a valid position, but it is not a part of the decision criterial here. Disambiguation is easy. The decision on grounds of fact is clear and it would be better for Thunderer et al to make the case for proper disambiguation and explanation of context. I would also add, that aside from the question of fact, it is morally wrong for us to perpetuate the language of sectarian differences (even if accidentally). --Snowded TALK 05:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It might just be noted here that, as far as I can see, the only European country whose official name is also the name of its Wikipedia article is the Republic of Macedonia. Just because Ireland is the official name, doesn't mean it should be the name of this article. Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Heres something you may not have heard before. Perhaps wiki has got it right with Republic of Macedonia and wrong with all the others. I believe every country should have the right to be called by their official name, especially by an encyclopedia, which I presumed was there to give readers facts. Skipper 360 (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
No. "Moral right" and the like is expressely not a criterion upon which article titles are to be judged. I've already linked the guidelines below. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I do understand there is no moral right. I was only talking of facts, with no emotion attached to it. Also, is it a fact set in stone that a dab page can not be used or is it only a guidline? I read your reasons for not having one, but if it is not used I can't see a compromise being thrashed out here. I think this case may be quite unique and may need a unique solution. I don't think for one minute I can come here and find a solution that has been discussed for years, I'm only here to give a neutral point of view, which I'm sure many will disagree with, as is their right. Skipper 360 (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The question of disambiguation is beyond my level of concentration and ability so I'd prefer to leave that to others. I've stated my case as openly and honestly as I can without any conscious awareness of political or sectarian influence. I do need to declare however that I am a Northern Ireland Protestant to indicate that my thinking could be unconciously prejudiced. I have no motive in this discussion however, other than the resolution of the problem to the reasonable satisfaction of all parties. That does require everyone to consider their political or religious influences, set them aside and concentrate on the agenda. The Thunderer (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
And I'm a Welsh Catholic with relatives and friends in both religious (and political) communities in Northern Ireland (reciprocal transparency). I agree with your last sentence, hence the argument that we should clearly accept the formal agreement of the two main states involved in this and move on from language which reinforced the old sectarian differences. We can handle context and disambiguation with comparative ease from that point. --Snowded TALK 06:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm - my problem with that however is that there is no formal agreemtn between the two states over the name. It's clear that the UK still refers to the Republic of Ireland but that in inter-state matters the Irish Government continue to insist upon Ireland. To the extent that documents pertaining to extradition were returned to the UK because the term Republic of Ireland was used to refer to the Irish state. In those circumstances it looks as if the UK govt caved in, putting the interests of justice before anything, but it does look rather like the Irish govt knew they had them over a barrel (so to speak). All of this indicates to me that the Irish government aren't above using spurious means to achieve this end and for that reason alone I would say we stick with the current use of Republic of Ireland, rather than being gerrymandered or forced into acquiesence. I know that last statement sounds very "Paisleyish" but put it down to me hearing the old devil on "Scene Around Six" for so many years, rather than any indication that I agree with the oul eejit. The Thunderer (talk) 06:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the agreement is there see discussion here. The extradition case was a disgrace, but that is pre Good Friday Agreement (see reference). Its my point really. ROI is politically charged. I am sure there are better ways we can disambiguate this without going over old ground. --Snowded TALK 07:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
There's no agreement between the two states on the name however, the naming used in the GFA is just a political sop. Partly generated by the fuss over the extradition agreement wordings. It remains that Dublin is trying to force a naming convention itself and the UK (which does have a say) isn't accepting it, so we can't blame UK editors, particularly Northern Irish editors, on this board for insisting that ROI be used as a suitable alternative until the two governments actually work some kind of compormise out. The Thunderer (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There were significant concessions by both sides in the GFA and it needs to be respected. ROI is provocative language in the current concept, it is harping back and the UK Government is now Using Ireland the the extradition fiasco is behind us. It seems to me that if there is not to be perpetual disputes we have a couple of alternatives

  • Agree IRELAND as a name, but immediately disambiguate in the first paragraph of the lede. That would make the political position clear.
  • Make IRELAND a disambiguation page which links to (state) and (island) and work out the details of how to avoid confusion.

My preference is for the first, but I would accept the second. I do however feel strongly that continuing to insist on ROI is a mistake and provocative. --Snowded TALK 07:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The second option is right out, because it makes the encyclopedia harder to use. Ireland should go to one of two pages - the modern state, or the island. The first option is also flawed - we don't disambiguate using the lede, we disambiguate with a hatnote on top of it, and at that point we treat the reader as if they're on the article that they want to read.
While The Thunderer appeared to be replying to my comment above, I can't actually see how his reply is relevant to mine. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I would agree to item two. I wasn't replying to you in person Chris, just replying to the thread in general. The Thunderer (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Option 2 isn't happening. Making Ireland a disambiguation page instantly makes thousands of links across the project less direct. The two terms are related closely enough that putting a hatnote on the primary article is undoubtedly the right call. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If you say so. That's my opinion however. The Thunderer (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make a couple or three points about Snowded's original post (and heading): (1) The question is not the name of the country, the question is the name of the article; (2) Republic of Ireland is not the "language of conflict", it is a simple, clear name for that part of Ireland that has a republican system of government. (3) it does indeed need to go elsewhere for discussion (and maybe resolution) - see my post here. Even while people are batting the issue back and forth here they and others are doing it on IMOS as well, and God knows where else! Recycling the same tired arguments over a multitude of pages is not going to get anybody anywhere. Scolaire (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to respond specifically to point 2. You continue to refer to it as a name. It is *not* a name except in domestic UK law, and that in itself is controversial, and is being addressed by the British government. The only name in the English language is "Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not an official name. It most certainly is a name. The distinction here is important. Were the name to be picked out of thin air then it wouldn't be worth considering, but it is certainly a well-known name for the state even if it carries no officieal status at all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that the point? If the UN, EU and soon to be UK recognise Ireland as the official name does this not take precedent over tourist websites or authors who refuse to use the official name, or have I got the wiki rules on this completely wrong? (which might be the case). Skipper 360 (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
More to the point, "is it a name?", "is it the name?" is exactly the sort of tired argument I was referring to, and the number of times each side says exactly the same thing is not a factor in whether the issue can be resolved. Scolaire (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This factor seems to be quite elusive. Where do we find it? Skipper 360 (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The precise rules are at Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names. Official name is one criterion amongst many. It does not trump other concerns, except the "subjective criteria" (which unfortunately much of the conversation has been centred on). From here, the primary point is this one:

If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the commonest English-language name.

The problem here is that the most common English-language name ("Ireland") is ambiguous, as it is also the most common English-language name for the chunk of rock the state sits upon. Hence, other commonly-used names (ROI) may be a practical alternative to parentheses (which are awkward). There's no clear winner. Hence the debate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, interesting reading. I take it people in the past have already filed a Wikipedia:Requested Moves and no solution was found? I also presume having a Wikipedia:disambiguation page has been suggested withought success? Skipper 360 (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a requested move in progress at this very moment. It has been largely forgotten due to this discussion. The dab has also, as you say, been mooted many times. Scolaire (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to elaborate (again) on why a dab isn't appropriate, it's because there are a small number of primary uses for the word "Ireland". Were there no obvious primary uses, a dab page is appropriate. When there are primary uses, the simple title should go to one of them, so that at least some of the people following a link like Ireland end up directly at the article they wanted to get to. It should ideally be the most-used. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for coming in without knowing all the history, maybe I should read up on it, although I have a feeling it may take some time. Skipper 360 (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Astonishing! I started having a look at the history of these discussions, so thought I would start at archive 1. Almost one of the first discussions was an editor asking for the page to be moved to Ireland. This was in 2002! Six years of debating this particular disagreement. I don't say it can't be solved, but its a heck of a long time for a debate. Skipper 360 (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Och sure us Paddies have been fighting about stuff for far longer than 6 years mate ;)The Thunderer (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I sounded really naive there, didn't I. I'm just off to give myself a reality check. :} Skipper 360 (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I wanted this article to be moved to Ireland (state). But, it may aswell be moved to Ireland; as gradually the Republic of Ireland is being pipelinked across Wikipedia as Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comments

I have put forward the idea of going down the road of asking for requests for comments. If anyone has positive or negative thoughts on this process please say. Thank you! Skipper 360 (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you just want comments on a possible name change, I wouldn't bother. I have some small experience with RfC and I think it's most unlikely that there would be any response to that request. It might not even make it onto the RfC page. Scolaire (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Would an Rfc help? debatable; would it hurt? no chance. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any objections to you doing it but I think you may ultimately become frustrated with all of this. The Thunderer (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I've certainly no objection. Can't hurt, though after years of debate it might not help. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. If there is anyone else normally involved in this debate I have not informed, please let me know. Skipper 360 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections I shall make the request, unless you think I should wait a little longer. Skipper 360 (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Go for it; get-r-done. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I have made the request, with the statement being neutral as instructed. If anyone feels the question could be better put please feel free. Skipper 360 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Should the name of this article change or remain as it is?

Should the name of this article remain Republic of Ireland or change to Ireland, or are there other alternatives?

NOTE: Please refer to the discussions/polls above, and 'bullet' you main contribution if you have come to offer a comment via the request.

As I mentioned above (in changing my oppostion to support for Matt's package deal). The article Republic of Ireland continues to be gradually pipelinked as Ireland across Wikipedia. Therefore, I've given up my hopes of moving this article to Ireland (state) & have stopped opposing the moving of Ireland to Ireland (island). GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be moved to Ireland and the current article there should be moved to Ireland (island), because as GoodDay points out, people will seek this article at Ireland in 99% of all cases. SoWhy 20:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
What's your evidence of that?Traditional unionist (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been planning to find some kind of evidence of this but haven't found the time to do it. Can anyone help? There may be some "Ireland"'s in the culture-sense used on Wikipedia leading to the island (although who are we to judge?) - but I'm sure the majority usage on Wikipedia is for the state. People who search (and to an even greater degree, edit with the term) "Ireland" surely mostly mean the recognised 'nation' of Irish people, not the lump of rock. Some people may feel there is a emotional 'mix' between the two - but that is surely out of Wikipedia's realm. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
If you don't mind my saying, that's a very ignorant approach. Ireland is the place where I live. The Irish state is nothing to do with me, my Irishness is an integral part of the British nation.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
You support the Ulster Unionist Party, so it's fair to guess that you are Nothern Irish, and that Northern Ireland is the place where you live. I have a question for you: Your own 'Irishness' is British - how do you feel about the Irish in the sovereign state commonly known as "Ireland" feeling 'Irish' in a way that relates to the pre-British nation of "Ireland"? You may as well state how you feel about them and their rights to the name. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The point TU was making is that "Ireland" applies just as well to the chunk of rock that the two modern states sit upon as it does the one modern state that deems itself "Ireland". "Rights" are not a criterion upon which article titles are judged - see up the page for links to our policies. For what it's worth, I disagree with SoWhy's "99%" statistic. If I thought there were an obvious primary use for "Ireland" I'd be happy to support a move to that title. I don't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ireland will still be the name of the chunk of rock, but just have one two more words with it - what's the great loss? Can you still answer my question to you TU, by the way? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
"Ireland (state)" would only have one more word with it. And 'Republic of' also just has just two more words with it. And what's up with this 'chunk of rock' stuff? I've always thought of the Ireland page more along the lines of the way Korea and China are treated on Wiki. That is, pages that deal with the broader civilization elements--the broader concept of Korea/China/Ireland--that do or have cross(ed) the modern borders or that don't easily fit into just one or the other jurisdiction. The article's purpose is not just to say it's a 'chunk of rock'. And Wiki's present method doesn't lead to Britannica stupidities like associating 'Emerald Isle' only with a part of the isle. Btw, (yes, I know this is purely theorectical, but...) if Wales were to split up tomorrow--one part for independence and one remaining in the UK--which part would be the real Welsh nation? Nuclare (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The hypothetical Welsh half-nation would be a different discussion. As the naming guidelines say, these things should be judged one by one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
the one modern state that deems itself "Ireland" - sorry Chris; Ireland is the common and legal and internationally recognised name of the country. "Rights" are not a criterion upon which article titles are judged - see up the page for links to our policies. Seems that you don't subscribe to Wiki naming policies though, so what you can or can't support is hardly relevant. Sarah777 (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand. By "the one modern state", I mean "the only state called Ireland", not "the only state that refers to ROI as Ireland". I know "Wiki naming policies" just fine. See Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's fine as it is. The term ROI is actually used, as opposed to Ireland (state). --Cameron* 20:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The proposed suggestion here is for "Ireland" (on its own) being the state article, "Ireland (sate)" would be a redirect to it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't the point. Why is "Ireland (state)" a better name than "Republic of Ireland"? Nobody calls the country "Ireland (state)". Plenty of people refer to it as the "Republic of Ireland". Ideally, articles should be titled by the most commonly-used, unambiguous name. "Ireland" is not unambiguous and "Ireland (state)" isn't a commonly-used name. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a polite point - I asked Traditional unionist a direct question which you answered for him - and I addressed Cameron above, which you replied to as well. If you do this can you format it in way that you're not answering for them? (ie just making a comment?) Cheers.
You sound like you're not follwing this properly by the way: This is a proposal for "Ireland" leading to an "Ireland" article for the state! (not "Ireland (state)")--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, my bad. In that case I'm still opposed, because it is not clear that the state is the sole primary use - and given the choice of "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland" or "Ireland" and "Ireland (island)", the first sits much easier with me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
"Southern Ireland", "the 26 counties", "the South", "Eire" and "The Republic" are all commonly used names; they share with "RoI" the fact that they are not the most common name, not the legal name, not the internationally recognised name. This continued imposition of Unionist/British POV on the article title is outrageous, bizarre, unacceptable and contrary to Wiki policy. Only the numerical superiority of British editors forces such a blatantly politically loaded "description" on the country of Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
British editors are vastly outnumbered by American editors. What is keeping this article here is a) indifference, b) a lack of a clear rationale, and c) people discrediting themselves by labelling the whole thing as a British conspiracy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Making charges of Unionist/British PoV impositions, simply will not do. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Will not do?
Even though true?
Sarah777 (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
'Cause they might block you. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it will go that far. Skipper 360 (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Who are they G'day? Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The Administrators. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We can argue this using logic alone, as Britannica clearly did when they compiled their own encylopedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Its the best way to have any argument. If you lose it in one sense you lose it altogether. He/she who keeps his/her head while others......well, you know what I mean. Skipper 360 (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Have no fear, cooler heads usually prevail. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Its a factual issue, the name of the state is Ireland so that is what it should be called. We then have to handle the other issues. While I can sympathise with the political and identity issues made by some people that is not meant to be the way Wikipedia works. --Snowded TALK 06:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
KEEP AS REPUBLIC OF IRELAND - While dealing with fact, why not take a look at the actual "the way Wikipedia works", specifically the title of an article should be: "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". Republic of Ireland neatly get around the that problem of Ireland-the-island vs. Ireland-the-state - and what's more, it what people use in real life (i.e. when they are not wiki-layering to push their POV).
Strangely enough, this very example appears as an example of common-sense use of a non-official name of a state, when the official name is ambiguous or in circumstances where the official name is not commonly used. --78.152.200.224 (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I think if you look around the world you will find that Ireland is more common, I am happy to agree that ROI is more common within a specific community but this is a world product. What is clear is that pushing ROI is a POV given that it is (i) contentious and (ii) not the actual name of the country. Accusations of "wiki-layering to push their POV" just reinforced divisions. I reference a previous dialogue here, how about trying to find a new form of words? An unwillingness to explore that would I think constitute proof of POV pushing. By the way, are the same IP as has edited elsewhere on this page. There are now three IPs and its not clear if they are the same person (in various combinations). --Snowded TALK 07:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll admit that ROI is not without controversy, but when the alternative means moving the island (which is indisputably called "Ireland" by everyone) to "Ireland (island)", it may be that this change would cause too much fallout to be worthwhile. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where the controversy is. The land is after all called Ireland, and it is indeed an island. It actually describes it perfectly. Do people object to the term Emerald Isle, why object to the term Ireland(island)? Skipper 360 (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Try proposing a change from "Ireland" to "Emerald Isle" and you'll soon see how much people object ;-) Scolaire (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (deindent) I think that the article naming should remain as it is. As I've stated about once a month for the past few years, having the island at "Ireland", and the state at "Republic of Ireland" still represents the best compromise. The current set-up nicely handles the naturally ambiguous use of the term "Ireland" - reflecting as it does it's application to the entire island, the island's shared history, culture, etc. While the term "Republic of Ireland" is (as evident from other users' notes) not the officially official statutory name, it does meet WP:COMMONNAME by some margin, is officially sanctioned, doesn't presuppose supercedence over any other use of the term, and represents a naturally formed DAB term. (A DAB term that is preferable to a "Wikipedia only" construct like "Ireland (state)" that can't be easily referenced in text where DAB is needed, doesn't exist in the real world, and fails COMMONNAME by miles). I fully appreciate that this represents a compromise, and that a number of users who drop onto "Ireland" will be expecting the state, but - in the same manner as this is handled for China, Korea, and innumerable other articles - this is easily resolved with a DAB header. Moving the article on the state to "Ireland", or moving "Ireland" to a 100 line DAB page to "correct this" will open up even greater issues than it is proposed to solve. Guliolopez (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Can i suggest we remove the above comments and let outside editors i.e one you have yet to comment on this issue discuss the RFC Gnevin (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Guliolopez's arguments are perfectly reasonably and based on policy. RfC is not solely to attract external commentary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I never claimed people arguments weren't reasonable or based on policy, It's just we've all had our say a few times over and we run the risk the outside comment will be snowed under as we continue to rehash issue they are discussed above but it was only a suggestion Gnevin (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand the point Gnevin, but by posting my note I wasn't intending on inviting commentary or "rehashing" anything. I was just gonna make my point and leave it at that. I wasn't intending to start another "thread" to mirror the previous ones. Just add my comment, and leave it at that. In that context, I'd appreciate if it could just be left as it is - cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
What a state calls itself isn't definitive. Both Communist China & Taiwan, last I heard called themselves China, & similarly for Korea. English & British monarchs called themselves King/Queen of France for centuries. &c. The fact that the South historically claimed the North mustn't be a basis for title. I think dab is the sensible answer. Peter jackson (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be changed- that is for certain. However, I think it is silly to say that the state, Ireland, takes priority over the island, Ireland, as the qualification "island" implies for the latter. The most sensible and fair solution is to put Ireland (state) and Ireland (country) or Ireland (island) and not to omit the parenthesis "state" from the title of the current Irish state. And before anybody attacks me for being a Seoinín: I'm not. I am, however, conscious of Irish history and that, ultimately, both states in this very small country will be reunited in the foreseeable future. I'm also not too enamoured with big farmers and 2nd Dáil-type concepts of Ireland. Far, far too convenient and mé féiner for my taste. I'm more inspired by Dáibhí Ó Bruadair's thoughts than those of the Sunday Independent. I'll leave it at that. But definitely this article should not be under its current title, nor should it take precedence over the historic country, as the proposal to place the qualification "island" after the name of the whole country implies. So, 'Ireland (state)' and 'Ireland (island)' are my preferences. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know of any other encyclopaedia that titles its article on the state other than as Ireland. One of the main arguments against the change seems to be that it is more trouble than it is worth. I disagree. I think some very valid points have been made by proponents of maintaining things as they are, but on balance the state's legitimate name should be reflected in the title of the article.RashersTierney (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You've asked for an opinion from someone who hasn't commented here before. This is mine: If I were to look for information on the state of Ireland on Wikipedia, I would use the single word 'Ireland'. If I were to look for information on the island of Ireland on Wikipedia, I would still use the single word 'Ireland' but I would expect to have to be redirected, somehow, to the Ireland (island) article. In reality, though, I would be much more likely to do a Google search using either the word 'Ireland' or the words 'Ireland wiki' and choose from the search results. In fact, I did this (the Google route) and both articles appear immediately after a Google map of the island, as the first two choices. Ireland (the island) appears first, then Ireland (Republic of). So all in all, as far as general readers, or browsers go, it probably doesn't make much difference IMHO. In fairness, I would prefer to see the article about Ireland (Republic of) simply called 'Ireland', if only because that's the name of the country. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If the article is to move, then it should move to Ireland (something), or even Eire (since that is actually the official name in the language of the country to my understanding.) It shouldn't be moved to the Ireland article name. Since the state is named after the island the island was there before and should take precedence. As for how many references to Ireland mean Ireland as in the state/country or Ireland as in the island, I think that's an impossible statistic to come up with as by nature a great deal of the uses could be construed ambiguously as either. Canterbury Tail talk 01:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you prove the state was named after the geographical island, and not the people/nation/country of Ireland? I've asked which came first above - "Ireland" meaning an area of Irish people, or "Ireland" meaning the specific lump of rock? If the people came first in meaning, shouldn't the people (in the form of the Irish state) take precedence now? The Irish state was a continuation of the pre-British country of Ireland (excluding NI) after all.
Can new commenters bullet their opinions by the way? Sorry to be fussy, but people may/may not reply, and some of us are guaranteed to repeat old stuff (like I've just done!)--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If it's "people" that we are talking about (rather than political boundaries or bodies of land) than there are plenty of people of the Irish nation in NI. What does your theory do with them? As for the name: As far as I can place from the histories I've read, the island probably had the name Eire, or a related earlier form of that name, before there was anything like an "Irish nation," in any recognizable modern sense. The name for the island might derive from one particular tribe on the island, but historians seem to posit that Gaelic identity was for a long time the most overarching identity of people on the island (and beyond the island). Ireland may well have been perceived as the mainland of Gaeldom, but a self-identity of 'the Gaels' is what one often hears from the historians. I can't place the shift into an 'Irish' identity in anything like precise terms (I doubt there was a precise moment of shift), but an Ireland/Eire related name for the island does seem to be a very old phenomenon, so probably the island had it first. Nuclare (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This gives a lot away about your 'Ireland-as-one' POV, Nuclare! The Irish citizens in Northern Ireland can NOT take precedence over any another citizen in NI. (and I have written lots of clarifying prose across WIkipedia on dual citizenship in NI, by the way). The UK controls and governs Northern Ireland – the ROI does not!! When 'citizens' of NI (Irish or British) are subsidised - who covers their taxes? British people do. Ireland still lays a claim over the whole Island as being Irish, but sovereign states come first on Wikipedia. If you want to create real unrest here, just lean heavily on the 'dual' nature of Northern Ireland to support an Irish claim to the island! I'd strongly advise against it.
You have said above that the island was probably named after a tribe AND was named after the rock first – you can't have things both ways Nuclare. I've already defined the early sense of 'nation' in the as an area of 'Irish' people, rather than a UN-recognised 'state’! You seem to be misinterpreting my definitions to keep up your “Ireland-as-island forever” position - you have yet to be logical on the matter in this particular debate, IMO.
I’ll tell you now – you will NEVER get the British out of NI. They have simply been there too long (for centuries) - people simply have to 'get real' about that.. So NI will always be part of the UK – and it IS part of the UK. That is the situation. People have no right at all to edit on the basis that this will someday change. Where is the evidence that it will?--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Nobody can predict what will happen in Northern Ireland. It may always remain a part of the UK or it may leave the UK & join the Republic or it may become an independant country itself, or etc etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
But isn't that a bit 'weaselly'? It sounds a bit like it's a three way split! A fully unified Ireland is not even an option. They've worked out a 'dual citizenship' approach - they can't do more than that, except change the borders so the taxation/governance is different for the 'more' Irish areas. Thay CANNOT remove those British areas. You should see the British NI people on the British news talk about their right to celebrate their Britishness without protest. The seventies and eighties were so bad because both sides felt totally compromised. Sometimes those not in the UK don't fully understand that at all (not necessarily you GD - but this understanding element is true - American people funded the IRA out of a romantic ignorance). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm just pointing out, it's crystal-balling to say what NI will or won't do. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear God, Matt! What are you on about??? You've now had no less than 3 Unionists from Northern Ireland articulate the same preference as mine -- that "Ireland" should be the island's page and, yet, you are still insisting at throwing claims of some political all-Ireland fantasy at me!!! I'm not a unionist, you are correct on that at least, but, let me say it again, I'm not sure you fully grasp the issues involved here. ****YOU***** are the one who brought up the "Irish nation" as a people. If the Irish nation is (and always has been) a people, than why are you assisting that this is about modern political borders? Did this Irish nation dissolve the minute the Anglo-Normans turned up and, then, magically reappear the minute there was a independent Irish state? For that matter, does being British automatically mean one can't be part of an Irish nation? It's certainly a contentious issue in Ireland (across the island, that is). But ****YOU**** don't get to define what "Ireland" means, or what the Irish nation is or isn't, how it formed, whether it has any trans-border reality, etc. etc. Trans-border reality of "Ireland" doesn't have to mean political jurisdictional unity. YOU are the only one bringing that up here. I don't think anyone knows for certain exactly how the island got its name but one theory is that it may have partly been associated with a tribe. But just a tribe. Not everyone on the island. I'm saying, as best as I can tell, any meaningful sense of "Irish" as a national identity probably post-dates the island being named as such. I don't *know* that it comes from a tribe. Maybe the tribe took it's name from the island. Who knows? Frankly, who cares? Nuclare (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
People have been saying that the island "came first", and are using it as an argument to keep the Ireland (as island) article. I am pointing out that "Ireland" meaning a people/tribe/nation (whatever) most likely came first - and that the island was most likely named after them. I am counter-arguing and I have right to do it. And I understand the issues, thanks. I makes no different to me what the unionists want. Someone has to keep the logic going in this place - I always say I go by the logic in the arguments, not by other people's votes. Just saying I am 'clueless' won't help you - I'm not at all. My "Ireland-as-one" comment was just regarding one group of people - we have lots of 'sub-groups' on Wikipedia regarding Ireland and NI. That's part of the problems, perhaps.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
But a lot of this theory you have about the Irish nation is just that--it's theory. It might be interesting, but it's not verifiable that whoever first called themselves something like "Irish" are the owners of the concept of "Ireland." Whoever they were, they are long dead. It sounds like guessing or, at best, speculation. And there is a very big difference between 'people,' 'tribe' and 'nation.' You can't just throw the three together as if they all lead in a nice little line to the present state some (who knows?!) 2,000 years and multiple influxes and outflux of different "peoples" later. It makes no difference to me either what unionists want, but there is an absurdity to your accusation that to hold that an article encompassing all of Ireland should be at Ireland constitutues Irish Nationalist fantasy. This isn't about pleasing any given political group, it is about the verifiability of the *abundant* usage (by Nationalists, Unionists and neutrals) of "Ireland" to mean the island. Nuclare (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
You say "a lot of this theory I have about the Irish nation"? What theory? ALL I have said is that we don't know whether "Ireland" came first as the island or as the 'Irish'. I personally think it was the people, but have asked for more information. Don't give me "all this theory" balls, like I'm some kind of speculating windbag. I'm forced into writing a lot as you do so yourself. Try arguing straight! You think it is one way - I think it's another - it is both "theory", as neither of us can prove it.
Why is it "absurd" to say that it is in-line with the unification of Ireland and NI, to enforcing the main-name article to be the island not the state (no matter who dislikes it, or how uncomfortable it is, or that nobody else does it)? It clearly is in line with such nationalism. And it's the insistence of the Ireland-as-island arguments (above everything) that makes me suspicious.
Who said or even suggested that this is about pleasing one political group, anyway? I certinaly didn't. Again, you are just making up lines that make me look that I am saying things I am not.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Nuclare on this. The simple fact is that long before the creation of terms like "Republic of Ireland" (as a "name" or a "description"), "Northern Ireland", the "Irish Republic", the "Irish Free State", "Southern Ireland", or any label following one political/constitutional/cultural ideology or another, the term "Ireland" meant the island. Reapplying this to just a sub-set of it is just plain short-sighted. Are we really so compartmentalised in our thinking that we "must reflect the political/diplomatic terminology", even though that terminology is shortlived, transient and in conflict with the longer term application to a historical/geographical entity that transcends both this conflict, those that have been running since the early 20th century, and even those which span back to MacMurrough. Frankly I've lost track of what the current compromise proposal is, (and I'm starting to lose interest, given the weird sidetrack this has taken), but this "appeals to the gallery" approach (which pre-supposes that some admin somewhere has got the Solomon-like wisdom to figure it out) seems like the first step down another winding path. So let me say this before we do: Don't cut the baby in half!! Guliolopez (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
What is "this" you are with Nuclare on: that the term first meant the island? Nuclare doesn't know either way, as has admitted this (but has a view - so attacking me for having a view on it is hypocritical of him/her). I personally think Ireland was originally a name for the area of people. Either way, the name "Ireland" better fits the state than the island, and more people request and use it for the state. Any philosophical "transience" that might exist has NOTHING to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia does only what is best, and represents what is NOW. You seem to be saying that we must use the "Ireland" (as island) article to suggest the ambiguities surrounding the culture. This is why I got into the argument with Nulare in the first place: I am 100% against that.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Ditto as per Nuclare. If this page is going to degenerate into some attempt to define 'identity' then I don't want to be associated. As far as I'm concerned, this is about accurately titling the article, nothing more.RashersTierney (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Either be in or out, please. This has always been passionately argued. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis wrote:

"Wikipedia does only what is best, and represents what is NOW." And what is NOW is the reality that "Ireland" is very, very often used to mean the island. *That* is now.
"You seem to be saying that we must use the "Ireland" (as island) article to suggest the ambiguities surrounding the culture. This is why I got into the argument with Nulare in the first place" Uhhh, it was?? I never advocated using Ireland for the island "to suggest the ambiguities surrounding the culture." I don't even entirely know what that means, actually. Its only ambiguity about the names that brings us here. If the state, let's wildly theorize, had called itself (as the British originally wanted) "Southern Ireland" or if it was still called the "Irish Free State" we wouldn't be here. Ireland would be the island and the state would be at SI or IFS. There is no ambiguity about the fact that there is an island called Ireland, which contains two jurisdictions. There is also no ambiguity about the fact that the word "Ireland" is currently in common usage to refer to the island.
"And it's the insistence of the Ireland-as-island arguments (above everything) that makes me suspicious." What insistence? And why have you emphasized it? I didn't insist. I said it was what I think is best (and I still do), but I also said I'd accept a disambig. page. Frankly, Britannica (which you suggested as a model) seems to go by the disambiguation route. When I type "Ireland" into their search, it takes me to a page giving me a choice between the state Ireland and Northern Ireland. So that, here, an "Ireland" (for the state) page would not be the equivalent of Britannica, since at Wiki that would take one only to the state. At least at our current Ireland as island page, there is a link immediately at the top to the state and there is a clear statement of the two political jurisdictions that make up the island in the opening paragraph and it's repeated in the paragraph right below that. Nuclare (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC on article name continuation break..

Me thinks HighKing had the best solution: Ireland as a disambiguous page; Republic of Ireland moved to Ireland (state) & Ireland moved to Ireland (island). GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you have a country as a disam page though? It's a tidy solution in that neatness sense, I would agree. One problem with the word 'state' is that it is very modern. Perhaps a serious admin could give an opinion on whether a 'disam page' would meet the WP guidelines. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland (country) is acceptable. Also, the name Ireland, can indeed be disambiguated. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland (country) is pure madness, it's far too contentious. Even those with the relatively mild republican leanings would see the 'country' of Ireland as including the six counties, the state however, is ::very clearly defined as 26 counties, therefore Ireland (state) would be a better option. --Barrem24 (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As a disam page? Are you sure? If it's clearly another option, why not start an "Ireland" diambiguation page poll" above "Debate at ANI". As this is all being done afresh, we may as well poll all the main options in one place.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I have also heard it said it can't be done. Shouldn't we be sure before we go ahead with a poll? Skipper 360 (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I notice jnestorious seems to go for it (per his new #Categories section above). RE all the changing of links involved - plenty of people (like myself) are happy to do that. I'm going offline for a bit skipper - fancy asking an admin about this? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I have asked an admin to come and let us know if it can be done. Skipper 360 (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Ireland can and should (if needed) become a disambig page. Im with User:GoodDay's first suggestion in this section. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 17:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is a disambiguation page for a state allowed? With respect, Addshore isn't actually an admin, and we need an admin here: I'll ask User:Alison and User:Jza84, as they have already voted on this subject - they both voted "against" "Ireland (state)" (which makes me think it won't be a winner higher up) - but I'm sure that they are both knowledgable on this matter of having a disambiguating page for a country. (I've re-posed the question below). --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: I think Ireland should point to the disambiguation page in the way that America does. That way you immediately get to see all the options fomr which to choose. --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Nobody will be surprised, but I don't agree. Just because we can't agree whether "Ireland" means the state or the island, doesn't mean we should cut the baby in half and put the pieces in a DAB page. There is already a guideline and convention for dealing with conflicting use of terms - one where DAB hat notes and intro text redirect users to other uses of the term without some ugly list page. And I'm still having a serious reaction to having the country moved to a title that uses some bastardised "(country)" suffix, where the "Republic of Ireland" is a perfectly good, accepted and naturally formed REAL-WORLD DAB term. Guliolopez (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Leave the island article as Ireland & the country article as Republic of Ireland? The consensus for that seems to be gone. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it very much. If the "status quo" camp appears to be quiet it's probably because (like I did) they got lost in all the proposals, counter-proposals, "identity as a factor" debates, and generally decided to stay out of it until a single clear proposal appeared that could actually be argued on its merits. They may similarly have scratched their heads as to why we are trying to apply Wikipedia guidelines to solve the real world issue of conflicting ideologies of what Ireland and Irishness means or should be labelled as. Or, equally likely, they decided to spend their Friday afternoon and Saturday enjoying their real lives instead of getting bogged down in all this for the dozenth time. Guliolopez (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

An assumption on my part, of course. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a better assumption would be: The consensus for change does not seem to have been established. Scolaire (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with 'Ireland (state)' for this article and 'Ireland (country)' or 'Ireland (island)' for the other? I think referring to the state as 'Ireland (country)' is not on, as my neighbours (I'm in Cavan), including many relatives from pre-partition times, in Armagh, Fermanagh and Tyrone are still part of my country. They most certainly did not stop being my fellow countrymen, my fellow Irishmen, just because of some line drawn conveniently by the usual suspects in 1920.86.42.119.12 (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, we haven't got a consensus (at least not yet) for changes. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you've nicely highlighted the ambiguity of the word "country". I, too, consider Ireland to be a country and Armagh, Fermanagh and Tyrone to be part of that country. The "state" is ephemeral and could be gone tomorrow. Scolaire (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
On the question of 'consensus', I think we can at least agree that there is considerable dissatisfaction with the present title.RashersTierney (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I can agree to that, but can you agree that there is also considerable satisfaction with the present title? Consensus is a two-way street. Scolaire (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The title should be uncontentious or at least be the product of consensus. Maintaining the current title as is doesn't meet that criterion. The idea is to reach some compromise solution, which by definition means change.RashersTierney (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that any title will be uncontentious. Which just about shatters the logic of your contention. Change is not a given. Crispness (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Rashers, you are mistaken. A change of title has to be the product of consensus. You may not like that but that's the way it is. Scolaire (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The scenario outlined above amounts to a permanent veto on change of the status quo! So much for good faith!RashersTierney (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not as gloomy as that! There is change when there is a consensus for change. It happens all the time! On this article, at this time, there is not a consensus for change, that's all it is. Scolaire (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to identify some basic consensus, no matter how tenuous. The discussion seems to have gone from a debate considering a change of the current title to Ireland (state), to any change whatever being a dead letter.RashersTierney (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Realistically, Rashers, any change whatever was a non-starter from day 1. This has been debated since 2002 and there still isn't a consensus for change. Each RM, each new proposal, fires peoples blood up another time, but there is not even a majority in favour of change, never mind unanimity, so it's a false dawn! As of now, there isn't a consensus for change. There wasn't on 24 August, and there isn't today. That's how it is. The discussion may seem to you to have gone from one position to another, but in reality it didn't. The same people are taking the same positions, that's all. Scolaire (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Speaks the cynic, but why? I notice you say about this current debate "it's all the same people" - this is simply not true, Scolaire. I for one have always kept away from the Irish 'naming issue' (and have said why many times), and I see around a number of faces that are clearly new ones - Rashers included (and sock-puppetry aside too!) I myself am now involved because it has got so serious it is effecting my editing elsewhere. I don't think change can be denied now, however some people choose to casually wave all this discontent off as 'nothing'! --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
When I say "all the same people", I mean since Gnevin's RM a week ago. I was new to the discussion too, then, like you and Rashers. But once each of us had stated our position, and it it was clear that none of us was going to change his or her position, then further debate, or rather shouting matches, was pointless. In particular, all of us, old and new, should have stepped aside when Skipper made a request for comments, and allowed people to come to the page and state their opinion without being harrassed by "all the same people". The RfC was doomed to failure once it was apparent that that was not going to happen - and by 'failure' I only mean that there is no way it can now come up with anything new or workable. Scolaire (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I know that this debate is not new,I've followed it with interest, but if the proposal of a change was a non starter then everyone's time spent here was wasted from the beginning.RashersTierney (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I won't argue with you there, Rashers. I certainly feel that I've wasted too much of my precious time on this debate. When I say it was a non-starter, I don't mean that the RM was wrong, or Matt's proposal, but in both cases it was clear within hours that there was no consensus for change, so slugging it out like this for seven days is not just a waste of time, it's a waste of everybody's energy. Scolaire (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to any one person to decide "No Change!" Scolaire. It's as clear as a bell that all the partisan sides in here will never together equal a consensus from any status quo that currently exists: The status quo is too guarded in here. Change is simply up to the many people who want it to first agree on a chosen approach (which is not done yet), and then take it higher. This will happen, as no change can clearly even be entertained on ROI Talk! The field in here is too small. This debate is not wasted time, Rashers.

By the way, Scolaire, you said "No change - at this time". Does that mean you can envision some form of change (ie bending slightly somewhere), or are you just sweetening the 'bitter pill' of your tough words. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, change is always possible. But I don't envision any change in consensus in the immediate future i.e. this year anytime. If that's a bitter pill I'm sorry, but it's reality - consensus is everything, and there isn't consensus for change right now. By the way, the status quo is not guarded at all! There is no "elite corps" or "inner circle" that maintains the status quo. As soon as there is a consensus for change, change happens. As you put it, if "all the partisan sides agree" then change is rapid and smooth. Change is simply up to the people who want it to convince those who don't. Convince me, and I will fight for your change. Scolaire (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. What could different about next year I wonder. It's all so easy for you to say, Scolaire: you wish for things to stay as they are. Despite your negativity, I'm certain there will be some kind of change leading from this and BITASK too. These heated Poll flurries can't fall in on themselves forever: it's just about organising an combined approach. Those who want change have been too stretched and easily-collapsible - we just need to be together and strong. And not listen to the background chorus of "we have consensus" "you will lose", "they have nothing", "not this time" etc.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed a few people use the word 'ephemeral'. I just want to say that it can make no difference at all to Wikipedia how 'ephemeral' sates are. Wikipiedia must simply represent what we have, and what we can show. And there is no evidence at all that either Ireland (state) or Northern Ireland are going anywhere either! NI has a single or dual citizenship option, a national assembly with both 'parties' involved, and a population of British probably more British than anyone else in the UK. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? I thought I was the first one to use "ephemeral". How disappointing! Okay, what we have is the land of Ireland divided between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. End of Story! Scolaire (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

However this all turns out, can we get rid of the pipelinking? I mean, what's the point of having this article named something & then hiding it on other articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think pipe-linking is fine in most cases, and shouldn't be "banned". Except possibly in cases where DAB is required. IE: "Kenmare is a town in County Kerry in Ireland" is fine. Because DAB isn't a critical issue here. But "The flag of Ireland is the tricolour, and the flag of Northern Ireland is the Union Flag" has problems. Because the distinction between the two jurisdictions isn't clear enough. Guliolopez (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a total ban. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC on article name continuation break 2..

Is a disambiguation page for a state allowed? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was asked if a "country" page may be a disambiguation page. Well.... Georgia is probably as close as you'll get. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean that it has to be as ambiguous as Georgia, otherwise it's not allowed? What about an "Ireland" disambiguation page leading to the state and the island? I'm not for it myself, but we need to know if it is likely to be allowed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me (i.e. the page has to be as complex as Georgia's, or it's a no go) - but we need to have zero ambiguity here! Or people could waste their time proposing something that has no chance of success. It is possible here for a large number of people to be focused on one approach - we need to find what that is. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure if I could state on whether it's "allowed" or not, but the way I see this issue, WP is written by us. That's important, as it means it's really up to us as a community if we allow such a change. We write the rules, but we need to write them with care, ensuring they have longevity and inclusivity.
But, I think it's important to point out that WP has been around for many years now. In that time, the community has never agreed to move Republic of Ireland to any other title. I'm worried that if we move it, owing the the weight of the crowd that's joined here at the moment, the community will just seek to have it restored back to the longer standing version at a later date. Whilst not pleasing everyone, for the obvious grievencies listed time and again (which I sympathise with), it has been proven, and proven again that the title "Republic of Ireland" is a sensible approach if nothing else.
Georgia is the only example I can think of where their is a simillar (if not stronger) ambiguity surrounding its name/meaning. Taiwan/Republic of China might be another interesting one to point out, as well as Congo. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick comment; the notion of consensus is meaningless in this case as it will always come down to the relative numbers of British and Irish nationalists. The British have the numbers; the Irish case is supported by Wiki policy and common sense. What we need here is a decision to name the article about the country by its common name, its internationally recognised name and its official legal name - all of which are "Ireland". Sarah777 (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The 'British' don't have the numbers in a wider arena at all. Common sense does. Jza84 and Waggers are just two people too. I'm pro-British but am completely for an "Ireland" state article as it is best for Wikipedia, clearly.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I was replying to various statements above that we needed "consensus" (aka a two-thirds vote) to move the article to a more appropriate name. That simply won't happen in an Irish v. British headcount; regardless of the presence of some non-Irish/British editors. So we need to refer to policy and established practice. Sarah777 (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Sarah - Why do you always have to play this "British versus Irish" victim/sectarian card? This isn't about British numbers and Irish numbers. If my sums are correct, the fact is that most of the people opposed to the artificial "Ireland (state)" construction, and the "move Ireland to a DAB" proposals are Irish. (Myself, Blue-Haired Lawyer, HighKing, Alison, Djegan, Scolaire and others). And, if I am reading their arguments correctly, the general reasoning for opposition is not because of some perceived "British imposition" on the name of the state, but because we find that the Wikipedia naming conventions give precedence to the commonname "Republic of Ireland" because it doesn't conflict with "Ireland" (the island). Precisely the policy and established practice that you refer to. It's just that your interpretation of COMMONNAME policy/practice is that "Ireland is the commonname, therefore 'Ireland' or 'Ireland (state)' should be the name", whereas for example my interpretation is that "Ireland is one of two commonnames, but conflicts with the name of the island, and therefore some qualifier is required. And the other commonname 'Republic of Ireland' provides a naturally formed/official qualifier." Guliolopez (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Guliolopez, I am genuinely surprised that you would, indirectly, single out Sarah as playing the sectarian card. I too am beginning to sense motives against changing the status quo that have nothing to do with naming policy and everything to do with political POV. That was not my opinion when I began to follow this argument.RashersTierney (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
A few mistakes in your list: Scolaire is British per Sarah's meaning (and possibly his own - he's an Norhern Irish unionist). HighKing is for both the disam page and the Ireland (state) move! Alison doesn't like Ireland (state) (and neither do I, and many people on both sides) - but she hasn't commented on the disam page has she? So your list is very misleading. Sarah prefers the "Ireland" package deal (where the state article is called simply "Ireland"), anyway. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. Apologies if I mis-ascribed either national identity or position in my note above. I have possibly lost my way in the 41,000 words of discussion (which - by the way - is almost 5 times the size of the actual article at this point). Anyway, my key point remains - this isn't (or shouldn't be) a sectarian/nationalistic issue. It's about ensuring the reader knows where they are and what they are looking at - within the bounds of both Wikipedia and real world naming convention. Which IMO the current labelling achieves. Guliolopez (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
"Scolaire is British per Sarah's meaning (and possibly his own - he's an Norhern Irish unionist)." Maybe you know something I don't, but are you sure about that? He's says he's from Dublin, Ireland on his user page. Nuclare (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - got that one wrong myself! Scolaire's into Irish republicanism (see here). I did think that originally (very strongly too)... I'll have a look and see what confused me on this - I'm sure something did to change my mind here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Do not presume to tell people what I'm into - strongly or otherwise! That link, if you bothered to read it yourself, is where I used my user page as a sandbox when there was a discussion on what was then the new Template:IrishR, before I learned about user subpages. What I'm "into" is not your business or anybody else's, and there were undertones in that comment that I didn't like at all! Scolaire (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but you have previously expressed your republicanism on your User page here. No one can expect to hide these things on Wikipedia, or demand that people don't talk of these things when they come up, least of all when you argue like you do--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Jza - I think that using the word "community" over consensus is a bit misleading in this particular case - changing the 'status quo' in a such a partisan arena is difficult in the extreme. So it would be allowed then? Even with just two entries? Interesting. I didn't really request your general opinion, by the way (as I said in your talk), just for you admins judgement on the 'disam page' issue. but why is it a "worry" if it changes again at a later date? I very much doubt it will (change is very hard to come by - as we have seen) - but if it happens it happens. We can't not approach something just incase it changes in the future. I just couldn't see it changing again if we find a proper consensus. Could you - reall? Also - I don't think it will be changed in here - only via a full and proper route elsewhere.
Regarding your comment, "it has been proven, and proven again that the title "Republic of Ireland" is a sensible approach if nothing else." Where is this proof? This is surely just your opinion? ROI as a title has simply lead to the word "Ireland" being pipe-linked to it! And people using it to bargain against other terms, too. It's a total disaster, and has come to a head: I can't move elsewhere with this current dissent. We should follow Britannica, and make Ireland the state page. Who could argue with that once it's happened?
BTW, there pages are notorious for socks too - for that reason alone it has to go to a higher place to achieve consensus.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
How can something that has been vigorously contested by a majority of Irish editors for the past six years be described with the statement it has been proven, and proven again that the title "Republic of Ireland" is a sensible approach if nothing else. This smacks of majoritarianism, pure and simple. Sarah777 (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I was a bit surprised he said it. We have the problem here, I think, that some people have read so many past discussions that they aren't really following the newer ones properly (probably in some cases at all). It's all too entrenched, but those who want change can break free if we can find a way to sing in harmony. We need to present a great case (logical and policy based), on neutral ground.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
It was merely my interpretation... of course. For clarity I meant it is a logical solution to avoid ambiguity with the island, rather than than a crowd pleaser. I did say "Republic of Ireland" is a sensible approach if nothing else, but look at the statement in context please - I did note that there are legitimate objections, and I expressed my own opinion on why this could be bad for WP.
Also, to put this into terms of British vs Irish (again), and then say that it is only the Irish who are honourable here smacks of racism. Let's not go there. Please maintain a threshold of dignity and respect for all, regardless of the heritage of editors. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Nobody needs to put it as British vs Irish. For a start it's more complex for people from Northern Ireland, who often feel both identities (the way I feel both Welsh and British for example). British people like myself just want a workable Wikipedia which doesn't constrict use, and confuses the least amount of people possible (hence a state-first approach is needed). Change has to come - as either a renaming package, or an island rename with a disam page for "Ireland" (with or without an ROI rename - the most accepted compromise in here would probably be to have the "Ireland" disam page, use Island of Ireland and keep ROI). --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I am not sure why this discussion is taking place in two places (the other being here. The factual evidence is that the name of the state is IRELAND, and that the UK Government has resolved its long standing insistence on using ROI, and now uses Ireland. This was post the GFA. A small number of Unionists have continued to insist on using ROI to make a political POV and that political position is in effect being supported by the status quo. The facts are now clear (and as far as I can see have been clear for several years). The Wikipedia exists to use facts and supportable citations, not to perpetuate old political conflicts. --Snowded TALK 05:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your edit summary - Only people in the non-WIki word fighting for ROI as a small group of Unionists - rather than your post: if by "the non-WIki word" you mean the real world, there is nobody in the real world fighting for ROI. It is used casually every day in Ireland, north and south, and in Britain (island) without any punch-ups or anybody going to jail. There has been no debate in the Dáil, the NIA or Westminster on whether ROI may be used, and no letters to the editor in any paper I've read in the last 30 years. That's why people need to get real. The only fight is on Wikipedia. And threatening those of us who are content with the status quo with ArbCom, as you did on another page, is further evidence of wiki-delusions. Scolaire (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I find this revealing, especially that you consider a suggestion that this issue will have to go up the chain as a "threat". You are here asserting an opinion as to what is or is not used in practice. In this [diff] I linked to clear evidence that the UK Government had agreed to use Ireland. That is called evidence and is meant to be the basis of Wikipedia. I see you have made a [weak response] to that quote and I will respond directly to that. --Snowded TALK 07:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
And I have responded to your response. But you still haven't told me where this real-life "fight" is going on. Scolaire (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Guliolopez above:

"Ireland is one of two commonnames, but conflicts with the name of the island, and therefore some qualifier is required. And the other commonname 'Republic of Ireland' provides a naturally formed/official qualifier."

and earlier:

"The current set-up nicely handles the naturally ambiguous use of the term "Ireland" - reflecting as it does it's application to the entire island, the island's shared history, culture, etc. While the term "Republic of Ireland" is (as evident from other users' notes) not the officially official statutory name, it does meet WP:COMMONNAME by some margin, is officially sanctioned, doesn't presuppose supercedence over any other use of the term, and represents a naturally formed DAB term. ... I fully appreciate that this represents a compromise ... but ... (m)oving the article on the state to "Ireland", or moving "Ireland" to a 100 line DAB page to "correct this" will open up even greater issues than it is proposed to solve".

I understand the arguments for both sides, but for me the need for clarity in disambiguation is the paramount consideration for the readers and I do not feel that any proposal so far improves upon the status quo in this particular regard. Knepflerle (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as the Irish v. Brits debate goes Matt Lewis and Snowded are British and support a name change. Blue-Haired Lawyer
On the point of POV, my dictionary defines "Ireland" as an island west of Great Britain and the "Republic of Ireland" as a country that comprises approximately four fifths of Ireland. Before anyone says I know some dictionaries defines things differently, but where's the POV? I'm just defending an article naming policy which as far as I can see is consistent with the English language and with usage both sides of the Irish sea. What the law says on the matter is immaterial. Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The term 'Republic of Ireland' as a name for the state is an anachronism, and titling this article in this way perpetuates that situation which is why it is unacceptable to many editors.RashersTierney (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Since it's relevant I'll put it in here. I don't think your reference to Ellis v O'Dea supports the statement: "The use of such 'unofficial' names can, even unintentionally, give rise to offence." Not even the quote given in the footnote supports this assertion. As far as being anachronistic and the possibility of causing offence are concerned I think this certainly applies to Eire but not the Republic of Ireland. Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't specify which 'unofficial' name gave rise to the specific offence. Walsh's judgement was lengthy. In case there is any ambiguity that Walsh saw the practice as a deliberate slight he went on; "they (British authorities) are not at liberty to attribute to this state a name which is not its correct name. It is quite clear from various warrants which have come before this court that this is a concious and deliberate practice."RashersTierney (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I see we're back to law again. The judgement was about legal rather than common usage. You'd need a hell of a lot more to prove that using the term Republic of Ireland causes offence. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
How observant, seeing as you introduced it here as a straw man, and by doing so misrepresented what I said elsewhere. I never said the term Republic of Ireland causes offence, (but who knows, it may well do in particular contexts). RashersTierney (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
And from a warrants stand-point the court's opinion makes perfect sense. If a govt is sending to another govt documents where they are consciously using a name that isn't the country's name, the objection is clear and understandable. But I don't think the opinion of the court or the general resolution of issue between the two govts of the official name for official documents resolves the issue of whether ROI has any place for usage. Wiki is not a govt and it is not submitting official documents to the Irish govt. Here's an example from 2008 of a document coming from an official state of Ireland organization. It's an example where the need for disambiguation was absolute. ROI is used extensively here. Central Statistics Office My contention about this remains that I think there is such a thing as overuse of ROI, but I don't think its a dirty word -- it's too widely used within ROI itself for that to be believable. I've actually been a bit hesitant to take a position one way or other on whether ROI should stay or go as the title of this page. If ROI goes than I figure there will be an all out attempt to remove all use of ROI on Wiki -- Even those useful and fitting real world usage ones, such as instances similar to the document I've linked. And if we keep ROI, there is a tendency to treat *every* use of Ireland for the state as a need for disambig with ROI. The former, I think, may not do enough to disambiguate and the latter does, imho, give the impression of ROI as the name of the state. Nuclare (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Just in case anybody's interested. I (a Canadian) support this article being moved to Ireland (state), as I believe it'll make things easier for less familiar readers. I'm not supporting the change 'cause I believe RoI offends people. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The question of 'offence' was raised on another page by me and inserted here by BHL for reasons best known to him/herself. It was not intended by me to be part of this discussion. The question of 'legality' was also in that context, and was not intended by me as a justification to change this title, but since it was raised here, I replied here, notwithstanding that its context was skewed in the moveRashersTierney (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Time to wrap this up

The entire impetus for this discussion, and the entire reason for the proposals to make Ireland a DAB page and/or move this article to "Ireland (state)" is because everyone recognises that Ireland can be considered an ambiguous term.

Yes, Ireland is the island, and yes Ireland is the official name of the country. But we already have a real-world way of dealing with this confusion.

When talking about Ireland, and if people want to ensure clarity, nobody in the real-world (whether they are a politician, news reader, or the man-on-the-street) says "Ireland-openbracket-state-closebacket". Invariably they say "Republic of Ireland".

There is absolutely no point in re-solving this DAB problem by inventing our own disambiguation term when this naturally formed, common-use and officially recognised one already exists.

And, as noted before, apart from being OR, the "Ireland-openbracket-state-closebacket" solution is awkward and incomplete because we will have new and ugly DAB issues to solve when refering to the country in the text. A problem that we'll have to solve all over again in some OTHER way. (Like some backward/reverse "[[Ireland (state)|Republic of Ireland]]" weirdness.)

The one good thing in all this is that, after all this discussion, there can be nobody left who will be ignorant of the issues surrounding the current compromise. And therefore, instead of reinventing the wheel (and replacing our roundy rolling wheel with some buckled, unproven and imaginary one), what we really should be doing is expending our energies to tidy up the IMOS to best deal with the current compromise.

Anyway, I'm done with the move debate now. When we've actually moved on to something achievable and worth these energies, I'll come back. (Time for the tidy up song). Guliolopez (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree ; it is evident that no clear consensus is emerging on the specific proposal, but the debate was worthwhile. Hopefully, when this issue is revisited, (and as sure as eggs is eggs, it will be), the above will serve as a source to help in drafting a title change that finds greater support.RashersTierney (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Well the debate keeps coming back and has done so for six years. The debate is all about personal preference and not facts. We can let the established approach persist (and I think that is a tactic for its supporters) or we can attempt to resolve this one properly rather than let it fester again and again and again with all the spill overs into British Isles and elsewhere. --Snowded TALK 10:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
We could attempt to resolve it properly, but I don't think we have been. Everybody has got far too emotional and in those circumstances resolution is always impossible. A cooling-down period is definitely called for at this time - even if only a week or so. At least until the RM is closed. Discussion (NOT a poll) could be reopened if everybody involved spent that time thinking about how to put forward their arguments in an unemotional and non-confrontational way, with a strong emphasis on AGF. Change can only come through consensus, and consensus can only be achieved either by one side convincing the other through reasoned and respectful discussion or by somebody producing a new proposal that is not already on the table, and convincing both sides. Scolaire (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It's obvious that there's no consensus for change (much to my regret). Therefore, I'm in agreement with ya'll; it's time to move on. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There never will be in here, GoodDay. Where are you moving on too? Just be patient. I don't see the point in going through all the above just too bail out now. Why? No wonder nothing has happened for 6 years. An no wonder the negative tactics are used so much! You are just kneeling down and handing a small amount of people the keys.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't over til the fat lady sings. I'm tired of the same biased editors saying it is 'over'. They actually do it from the outset! It's a simple tactic by those who want no change at all - they say the proposals are dying all the time. Only ONE thing is for sure - nothing will be decided in this little hothouse. This will be up again very soon I promise. THIS IS VERY MUCH ALIVE!--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... Now there's a thoughtful, reasoned, unemotional and non-confrontational response! Scolaire (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Hope to have your vote. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Name of the State, Ellis v O'Shea and Walsh's judgement

It is evident from the citation that Walsh took umbrage at the use of a name for the State other than its correct one. I do not claim that the citation is the last word on the matter, but it is relevant and should not have been removed without discussion. Other citations might prove more comprehensive, but I think this one at least satisfies WP criteria sufficiently to merit inclusion. RashersTierney (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not for the claim it was attempting to reference. It was synthesis at best.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Offence can have more than one meaning, of course. To say that "the use of such 'unofficial' names can, even unintentionally, give rise to offence" and cite a court judgement suggests that in that case it gave rise to an offence in law, which it certainly didn't - the case was dismissed on a technicality. An assertion that such names offend either the man or woman on the street, or the learned judges in that case, is not justified by that quote, or any other part of the judgement. Judge Walsh only said that the warrant did not fulfil legal requirements; 'taking umbrage' can not be imputed. As someone who has lived in the Republic for over fifty years, I can say that I have never seen anybody take offense at any 'unofficial' name, so I would genuinely like to see a reliable source in support of that view. Scolaire (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before, it's difficult to take such things seriously when in Irish common law people from Tyrone are thick (yes - I know I'm stretching the point). There may very well be an adequate source to reference the claim made, but that ain't it.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I restored the above comment accidentally removed by Scolaire because I thought it was most insightful. Rarely does the law reinforce one's views on culchies. The Thunderer (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah gents, don't be havin' a cheap shot at us poor culchies! On the question of 'legal offence', there was of course no question of that here, but from the context, Walsh felt that a deliberate denigration to the dignity of the State was being perpetrated and gave his considered opinion accordingly.RashersTierney (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean it is now established as precedent? The Thunderer (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Call it splitting hairs if you like, but if Justice Walsh took umbrage, it was at the warrant not using the "constitutionally correct and internationally recognised name". You cannot infer that he was "offended" at the name that was used. If the warrant had said "Róisín Dubh", and that name had been dear to Justice Walsh's heart, he would still have given the identical judgement. Scolaire (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The particular 'alternative' name to which he took exception is irrelevant.RashersTierney (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You can't say that and then also say that the name "gave rise to offence". It's a contradiction! Scolaire (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
My phrasing could have been better. Walsh did not say that the 'alternative' name per se, that accompanied the warrants gave rise to the difficulty . It was, as you have also pointed out, that any alternative other than the constitutionally correct one was being used and he saw this practice as a deliberate slight.RashersTierney (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
In that case the article should say "the use of such 'unofficial' names in a legal document can, even unintentionally, give rise to an interpretation of a deliberate slight". Unless you interpret the ruling to say that the use of any alternative name by anybody, in any circumstances, is offensive. Scolaire (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Would "the use of such 'unofficial' names in a legal document has give rise to an interpretation of a deliberate slight", be acceptable? RashersTierney (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Coming, as I do, from West of the Bann, I reserve the right to judgement on culchies as it is "self denigrating". The Thunderer (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You're as entitled to an opinion as anyone else (but I think this discussion rightly belongs on the Culchies talk page).RashersTierney (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
What, there's a culchie talk page??? Mighty! I'll have to visit for the craic. Can I set up an "I've Made it to Dublin" page then? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Now there's a perfect example of how to identify a dirty Southerner. If he was a nice Proddie like me from the lovely clean North he'd have said "crack" instead of "craic". It's not just about the eyes being set too close together you know?  ;) The Thunderer (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Jaysus I know I'm going to get it for that but I'm ready for it. Come on the lot of yez, I'll set the Redcoats on yez. The Thunderer (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Wheter the name offends anybody or not, is (IMO) irrelevant. What's important is making thing easier to understand, for less familiar readers. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
GoodDay, this is about a particular edit and whether the cited source acually justifies the sentence. Scolaire (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realise the Culchies had their own talk page but nevertheless I'll decline the offer. I have my pride - but I'm not offended. The Thunderer (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have unintentionally misrepresented Scolaire, and withdraw what I considered a means of finding closure to this issue. I still think the reference is sufficient to merit inclusion as a source.RashersTierney (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible compromise

Scolaire has proposed altering the text to more closely reflect the reference. In the interest of reaching consensus, I suggest "The use of such 'unofficial' names in a legal document has been interpreted as a deliberate slight". Its putting the cart before the horse to some extent, but its better than endlessly flogging it.RashersTierney (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Scolaire's rationale is sound however I've lost interest. You daren't open your gob round here or you're either offending somebody or you're being seen as sectarian. The Thunderer (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Most editors seem to be able to contribute here without being any of those things.RashersTierney (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
OH-MY-GOD - not another compromise. Djegan (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
To call it a proposal of mine is pushing it, Rashers! A better wording would be "The use of such 'unofficial' names in a legal document was crticised by a judge in one case in words that could be interpreted as meaning he saw it as a deliberate slight". In other words, stop flogging the dead horse and delete the sentence. Scolaire (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You suggested altering the text; you even provided an alternative. I have no desire to misrepresent anyone and I thought your suggestion was made in good faith as a means of moving this along. It seems requests for compromise here generates an automatic contrary reflex reaction.RashersTierney (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Read my post again. It was an ironic comment that what you were now saying the quote meant was as far away from the original sentence as could be. You were trying to reference a sweeping generalisation with a particular pronouncement that could be read in a particular way. You posted a question underneath but you didn't wait for a response before opening a new section based on "my proposal"! That's not my fault. Now, compromise is all well and good, but it's not what Wikipedia is about. If an editor makes a controversial claim then that editor has to verify it with reliable sources that say what the claim says or it will be reverted. It's not automatic, contrary or reflex, it's just policy. Scolaire (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you are the best judge of what you meant, but it wasn't obvious and I took what you said literally. RashersTierney (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Still, wait to confirm it before you turn it into a proposal. Scolaire (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Another proposal: Ireland (Republic of)

Reading the external comments above, I saw that one commentator used a construction that I've seen elsewhere (off Wikipedia) and that might get us out of our quandary. I, for one, could live with:

Ireland-the-island, should stay where it is - not least so we don't have to go through all of this all over again on that page and to strike a balance in the real-world POV struggle over the name of the state (as voiced previously by some Northern Ireland-based contributors from both communities in that jurisdiction.)

This would attribute the name 'Ireland' to the title of the article for both entities while avoiding a DAB page for either. It would also do something to give equal weight to both uses of the term by not placing Ireland-the-state in a Wiki second-best position through use of the typical WP clarifying clause "(state)" while Ireland-the-island remained at a "main article" position. Instead, it uses a non-standard construction.

If I'm right, it would satisfy those who want the article located at the official name of the state, while maintaining the gist of what attracts others to the natural DAB qualities of "Republic of Ireland". (It would also require no additional effort to fix links throughout WP.) --78.152.204.117 (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

While I can see what you're driving at here in terms of a compromise I personally would not like to see the use of "Ireland (Republic of)". I don't think it's a way which citzens of the Republic of Ireland would want to be known? I think the Republic of Ireland article should be left as it is and let people pipelink to it whatever way they want to suit the individual conscience, as long as the usage of "Ireland" in this context doesn't become a stick to beat people with. The Thunderer (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I am a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. Please don't be so presumptuous. (I am also splitting the discussion re: pipe links out from this discussion as it is unrelated). --78.152.212.11 (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Who's being presumptuous? I was being respectful to citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Something I too may lay claim to if I so desire being born pre GFA. The Thunderer (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, poor choice of words - I meant don't presume that it would not be how the citizen of RoI would want to be known, etc.. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't presume anything. I clearly said I don't think it's a way which citzens of the Republic of Ireland would want to be known. That's a speculative remark, not a statement. It's up to citizens of the Republic to comment on whether or not they wish to be known in such a way but you shouldn't take offence when someone is clearly trying to take the middle ground and be inoffensive. To make it clearer I have added a question mark after the sentence now. The Thunderer (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Pipe-linking debate

(split from the above discussion)

Seeing as this article is to remain Republic of Ireland? The pipelinking of it should be canceled - as it contradicts keeping the article name. It's like saying your red house is colored blue. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't take that for granted. ROI is not the name of the state. OK every time this comes up people pile in on the same arguments (few fact based) then insist there is no consensus. As a result their preferred position stands (to my mind in the face of the evidence). I don't find this acceptable, or the six years of debate. It may now be time to assemble the evidence and move up the chain, IF we can't find a new way here. A disambiguation page may be best. --Snowded TALK 10:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the same issues over the pipelinking. If somebody wants to link it as Ireland then I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. As long as an interested reader is brought to a page which explains that the state called "Ireland" is actually only 2/3 of the island. On the Republic of Ireland page the info box makes it quite clear what the official name is in English and Garlic. That's good enough for me. Like I said, I don't want to be making sticks to beat people with. The Thunderer (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the official name in Garlic then ? 217.83.164.202 (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
My major concern is an article like Dublin. Which at first glance, can be misleading to less familiar readers. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Dublin gives us all cause for concern but I understand the Guards are clearing the Jackeens off the streets. Looking at the article however it displays exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. It says that Dublin is in Ireland - no one can doubt that it is - but if one follows the pipelink it takes you straight to the Republic of Ireland page which explains all. What could be wrong with that? The Thunderer (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Not everyone would bother to click on the pipelink. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Aye but you're missing the underlying reason for this argument. The state IS called Ireland. This discussion is about disambiguation - not making the Irish editors change the name of their country. The Thunderer (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
But the article (against my wishes) is named Republic of Ireland. We should be presenting the article's name. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Pipe-linking is just fine. We write about the real world not the real world as it may fit into Wikipedia. --78.152.212.11 (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope you're correct. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Coming from the same neutral perspective as I have been all along (it's my feckin fence and I'll sit on it if I want); my objection has never been about the name of the state. It's about the confusion which could be caused if you have two articles with the same name. Ireland is an island and the article about the island should be called that. To call an article about the state the same thing would be confusing to a reader who isn't converse with the reasons why. The 1948 Act gives us the right to use the description "Republic of Ireland" and it's not a term which anyone should feel insulted about, especially not when the naming disambigation is on the article page and we all know the term "Republic" is in common usage (which it is). If on the other hand Irish people wish to pipelink to "Ireland" as a nation and are content to use a direct link to the ROI page then where's the harm? The Thunderer (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I think he is correct, GoodDay. If pipelinking to Ireland is appropriate, it's all good. If it's inappropriate, it will be reverted - still all good! Scolaire (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not offended by Republic of Ireland (never was). As for the pipelinking? no prob, I'll give it a chance. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Are we on the road to concensus? What say the Northeners? The Thunderer (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Not a Northener - but the pipelinking is fine by me. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a noob to this whole debate and I'm just wondering when is pipelinking not acceptable. Technically every use of Ireland to mean the state could be argued as confusing, so where do we draw the line?DDubliner (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
"Dublin is the capital of [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]" makes sense, "talks took place between party leaders in Northern Ireland and [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]" doesn't. It's not rocket science. Scolaire (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not that simple, just looking at pages like the UK and its intro, it's debatable what to use.DDubliner (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There's not much to discuss anymore folks. I've agreed to give the pipelink a chance. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire's example is actually quite a good one. Common sense must prevail and in the event of disagreement then third party opinion would need to be sought. Och why couldn't they just have called it Narnia or something. It would all be so much simpler. Damn the Long Fella and his evil machinations ;) The Thunderer (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You want simpler? I can think of the one way for the naming issues to truly be simpler on the island of Ireland. But, uhh, och, I don't think you'd like it. Nuclare (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
That's about s good as "America (United States Of)". Just doesn't seem right. --FilmFan69 (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
There's an editor (User:Mooretwin) who seems intent on removing the pipelinking everywhere, for example on the page Flag of Ireland. How does one stop POV editing like this?IP213.202.189.10 (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Strange you should bring up the USA. If you have a look at the United States of America you'll see that the article's name is simply 'United States'. So they don't seem to have much of a hangup about having the correct name for the article. And if you stick 'America' in Google the Wiki article United States is the first search result to come up. So no problems there either. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "Flag of Ireland" therein lies a point. The island of Ireland doesn't have a flag so it should be the "Flag of the Republic of Ireland". What seemed like a good idea last night nowe gives me doubts because I can think of 100 places where the pipelinking would need to be justified by a set of rules and unless someone is going to prepare same then such a solution is just going to lead to more bickering and more work for admins sorting out when and where the pipelink to Ireland is justified. The Thunderer (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What was all this talk about people been "offended" by Republic of Ireland? Now the die is cast, and their is no consensus for change. Pipelinking is unsustainable in these circumstances. Djegan (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a straw man introduced by Blue-Haired Lawyer some time back, and liberally kicked around since then.RashersTierney (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Piping is entirely sustainable. The onlymain reason that the change did not succeed was because many of us are happy with piping as a compromise. Crispness (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Something I actually did point out above, was that renaming the article won't stop pipe-linking debates or edit-warring. The reality is that the Republic has two common names. The "Republic of Ireland" when there is a possibility of confusion with Northern Ireland, and "Ireland" when there isn't. When we say Ireland is a member of the UN, there can be little doubt that we're referring to the state, as only states can be member of international organisations like the UN, so we can pipe-link. On the other hand it would sound rather strange to say that only three counties of Ulster are part of Ireland, so we say three are part of the Republic of Ireland and the rest are part of Northern Ireland. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
That's as good a synopsis of the issue as I've seen. It gets right to the core of the matter. Thank you. The Thunderer (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin

I'm a little bit concerned at the moment because poor old User:Mooretwin has been blocked for making reverts whilst upholding the current convention. So far involved admins haven't taken this discussion and Moooretwin's involvement in it into consideration. The Thunderer (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

He's a feisty fellow, that Mooretwin. He sounds remarkably like 'Mooretwin' from IrishAbroad.com in the late 1990s (when most of you whippersnappers thought the internet was a dirty word and that Paddynet was a fisherman). But I surmise that the IrishAbroad Mooretwin has found his peace in the past ten years and discovered something much more meaningful than the internet, and especially the soul-destroying Irish issues. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not for speculating on the editor. I am for undoing an injustice. He was defending concensus and got incorrectly blocked for doing so. I don't care if he's Gary Glitter. The Thunderer (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
From what I can see its not injustice, he was reverting the consensus of pipelinking Roi to Ireland, particulary on the Flag of Ireland page and Ireland Olympics page intros where there was no disambiguation needed, as there was no confusion, merely just pov that the consensus can't be used. I'm not going to say anymore, it can be discussed on the talk page of the articles.IP213.202.189.10 (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware there was any concensus on the pipelinking just yet. I thought it was just a suggestion. In any case he felt he was defending the current naming convention. He invited discussion but got nothing. Ok he went about it the wrong way but he'll learn from it. The Thunderer (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It's fine, we all make mistakes.IP213.202.189.10 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Aye - too right we do *looks sheepish*. The Thunderer (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure this discussion should be here but since it is: we could wait for a while and get him out on parole, or in other words some kind of supervised un-banning. In the mean time we should really work out some kind of consensus on pipe-linking over at WP:IMOS. Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that, it would make what's right and what's wrong a lot more black and white. (BTW, my username was changed in case your wondering, it was IP213.202.189.10).ThatsGrand (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I've made representation to the Sheriff on his behalf. Just checked WP:IMOS and found that my suggestion re pipelinking already features there - so maybe it wasn't such a bad idea. The Thunderer (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ellis v O'Shea again

The use of any name did not "cause controversy" in that case; it caused Mr. Justice Walsh to speak sharply, no more than that. The idea of verifiability is to state a relevant fact and quote a source, not to find a quote and try to hang a "fact" around it. Scolaire (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"the material has citation to support and is an important case. It deserves to be there. Modifying some of the words around it might be OK but not deletion" - Snowded's edit summary
The simple case of a source looking for a statement which it can justify. Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting responses. I am actually happy with the current wording. However (i) it did create considerable controversy at the time, (ii) it is significant in the history of the name of the country and (iii) it was highly significant to the peace process at the time. I don't see any justification to the statement by the paid of you that this was a quote looking for a fact. The original edit and my variation were legitimate. I find the attempted point scoring above both incorrect and somewhat dubious to be honest. --Snowded TALK 23:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Research is always about finding relevant material and trying to reflect what it says. The idea of making a statement and then hoping there's a source wouldn't make sense. Both processes work in tandem. Its just as important that text fairly represents the citation.RashersTierney (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Scolaire Changing the text when it was under active discussion is contrary to WP practice.RashersTierney (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire is removing synthesis and is totally correct.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What about adding a statement like: "Precedent exists in the Irish courts to reject legal documents using an incorrect name." And then follow with a brief description of the case. Use of the word "controversial" should be referenced if possible, otherwise should be avoided. --HighKing (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
What was the name on the warrant? Was it The Free State, The Twenty-six Counties or The South? If not, the sentence doesn't belong in this paragraph to begin with! Was it The Republic of Ireland? Then put it in the previous paragraph. As for wording, there's the option of stating the facts: "In 1989 the Irish Supreme Court ruled that the use of the name Republic of Ireland on an extradition warrant made the warrant invalid", with Mr. Justice Walsh's words quoted. As HighKing says, you can go on to say that the ruling/comments caused controversy if you can find a source.
As for my comments above, this began with the statement "The use of such 'unofficial' names can...cause offence". When sources were called for the judge's comments were cited. When it was pointed out that the comments said something quite different, there were various attempts to see how we could "use" the words to make a point. If the court case was important - and it was - it should be dealt with by itself and not used just to support a POV. Scolaire (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
And when you threatened to get into an edit war over deleting something under discussion I made changes to ensure the statement is supported by the reference. At least its there as a holding operation. HighKing's suggestion is a good one, and there are plenty of references on the controversial if you do a quick search. --Snowded TALK 08:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't get into edit wars and I don't threaten to get into edit wars! And maybe my suggestion is a good one? Scolaire (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You got close and then threw in unjustified comments about hanging comments on facts when I had edited to prevent that. Assume good faith. I think your end sentence supports HighKing in which case I agree its a good idea --Snowded TALK 09:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
One revert and one totally new edit, at the same time re-opening the issue on the talk page, isn't anywhere close to an edit war - it is the exact opposite of an edit war! Assume good faith yourself. And show me where I have ever suggested bad faith. Any criticism of any edits were on the basis of content alone, not behaviour. Scolaire (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
{{Fact}} and {{Failed verification}} tags are great when we doubt the truth of a statement but aren't much use for obviously false statements. As it stands, notwithstanding Scolaire's efforts, it's a mess. In Ellis v O'Dea the name used was the "Republic of Ireland". That may not be the official name of the state but it does have some official status and belies the notion that any reference to Ellis v O'Dea could ever have proved the statement:
"Other colloquial names such as the Free State, Twenty-Six Counties and The South (a name frequently used by people in Northern Ireland) are also often used. The use of such 'unofficial' names can, even unintentionally, give rise to offence."
Why does the removal of the source get reverted but not a radical change to the text the source actually refers to? Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I am well aware it was a mess, and probably I could also be accused of WP:POINT. I have edited the section again in line with my suggestions above. This need not, of course, preclude further discussion. Scolaire (talk)
I agree with Scolaire. If the source is going to be cited it has to be cited word for word. Anything else could be construed as POV. Skipper 360 (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I've just read the "Name" section, and I think it currently reads very well indeed. The text elegantly (and summarily) gives a brief intro the aspects of the difference between name and description, gives the historical context for the various names and constitutional changes, and it spells out (without directly referring to "offence") the importance placed in certain official/legal contexts on the distinction between name and description (and in doing so helps the user understand how offence might be taken, without overtly stating that offence is or will definitively be taken in all cases. Which could be a bit of an OR/Synth stretch). Personally I think it's now a great little piece of collaboratively wiki manufactured prose. Guliolopez (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I am also happy with the current version --Snowded TALK 15:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Best of all previous options.RashersTierney (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Politics of the Republic of Ireland

This template states the name as "Republic of Ireland" without pipelinking. In my opinion, this is a good example of where it is misleading and wrong to use the term "Republic of Ireland" as a title, since it gives the impression that the name of the state is "Republic of Ireland". Comments please. --HighKing (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be discussed on the template talk page. There's enough going on here as it is. Scolaire (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
We had agreed on the template talk page to discuss the matter as it relates to the name of the state, and the name of this article. I think the template's title should reflect the title of this article. Given that the renaming debate has already been done to death, I think it should just be left as it is for the moment Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, any other title would be confusing. The Thunderer (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Thunderer came up with a great idea, rename the Island or country Narnia. I know, I'm not helping, I'll shuffle off again. :< Skipper 360 (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Norn Narnia has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Crispness (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Did you know that Narnia was modelled on County Down, at the foot of the Mourne Mountains? It was C. S. Lewis's favourite place. Scolaire (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't there a recent documentary that mentioned it? Skipper 360 (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Not Narnia, but Eire! I've never been to Ireland, but when I do (as I hope to), I shall visit both countries (Northern Ireland and Eire) because I have friends on both sides of the border. Why do we need to translate the name of the southern state? (My surname is very common in county Tyrone, but I hope this is not a thick suggestion!) Dbfirs 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Eire is not the name of the country in English south of Northern Ireland. It's name is Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatsGrand (talk • contribs) 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, sorry. I didn't realise that the name Eire was political too! Dbfirs 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not political, it's not used because this is the English language wikipedia and Eire is the Irish Gaelic name for the whole Island. Skipper 360 (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I've always thought that "Eire" without the accent was the Anglicised version of the Gaelic name. I know that it is often translated as "Ireland", but that causes ambiguity. The ten million Google hits do not distinguish between the languages, but many uses seem to be in English, and to refer to the state, not the island. Dbfirs 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Our own wiki article Eire refers to the name being used for both the Island and the state. Skipper 360 (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
True, I should have checked that first. In practice, though, Eire is the Anglicised version of the official name of the Republic of Ireland, and its use would be much less likely to lead to ambiguity (except in Gaelic, with the accent). Dbfirs 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Very Wrong. The name Éire without the fada (accent) does not exist and hasn't been used in the English language since the 1920's. The english name of the country is Ireland. Thats all there is to it.ThatsGrand (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the use is political after all, so I'll shut up, except to point out that Google wasn't around in the 1920s. Dbfirs 22:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not political it's just incorrect. Please show me where it's used in English. Please do.ThatsGrand (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
ThatsGrand is right on both counts. It's not political and the name Eire without the accent does not exist. One other anglicised name is Erin. Skipper 360 (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
PS: If anyone can tell me how to add the accent using this stupid computer I would be grateful. Skipper 360 (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
On my keyboard you get the appropriate accent by pressing [Alt Gr] simultaneously with the 'unaccented' vowel. If that doesn't work for you, ask again.RashersTierney (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Rashers. That does the trick. Skipper 360 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article says it's political, and so does your reaction. Use in English: a good proportion of these [3] three million Google hits. Dbfirs 22:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
... but I apologise for causing offence, if that is what I've done. Dbfirs 22:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Causing offense? I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. You should look through those google hits. You'll see using Eire as a name is about as accurate as calling the UK England.ThatsGrand (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make any point except usage e.g. [4], and I was apologising if you find this usage offensive. I accept your point that such usage is not considered proper. I'm not political, and have little knowledge of Irish politics, so I'll withdraw from this discussion. Dbfirs 22:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dbfirs, You've seem to have inadvertantly stumbled into this platonic cave where shadows have significance unknown to those who reside in the sunshine.RashersTierney (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly Eire [sic] does exist and out friend managed to use it quite innocently. When "foreign" words are are imported into English we normally drop accents. Have a look here for some dictionaries and here for the Google news results. (Some news results show Éire but more show Eire [sic].) In English, certainly the Google news results and out friend aswell use it to mean the 26-counties. IMHO it's undesirable (and I personally hate it) but saying it's incorrect is a stretch. Moreover for those dictionaries which define Eire and meaning Ireland, we have to debate whether they mean Ireland (state) or Ireland (island). It's depressing but there it is. Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand what your saying, but is this not the equivalent of a misspelling which should not be encouraged? Skipper 360 (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Le R.O.I. le veult

I live near Dublin and my Sky TV bill is addressed to a country known simply as "ROI", a TLA. So the postal system accepts ROI if Judge Walsh doesn't. This is an encyclopedia not a law court. What matters is not the kaleidoscope of Irish or English meanings, but how the island and the state names can best be explained to, e.g., a lady from Delhi who is coming to "Ireland" to visit her student cousin Rajiv next Thursday. Rajiv could be studying in Belfast or Dublin. How do we best help her?Red Hurley (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What point are you making? The British media are well known for using the incorrect name of the country. I once got a letter from someone in Britain with the country called Southern Ireland. It's the British postal system which accepts these names, An Post is hardly going to send them back, they have a job to do.ThatsGrand (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Red Hurley I don't see the point, but An Post, as the Irish postal operator of the delivering country, has no need to refer to the country name that was applied in a foreign country in the address by any ignorant sender. It is only used by the sending country and transit countries to ensure delivery to the destination country and if the sender uses the wrong name, An Post does not care so long as a proper town name is available so that delivery can be effected. ww2censor (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Much as I would like to join in its apparent (notwithstanding the fact I opposed a move) that this whole article name issue is dead in the water. Djegan (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get so picky, that's all. If I pay my next tax bill with a cheque made payable to the "Republic of Ireland", you know they'll bank it at once.Red Hurley (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't suppose it makes much difference that the government of Ireland is quite happy to refer to itself as the Republic of Ireland? Especially where there could be confusion. And on it's own internal search (albeit Google powered). Canterbury Tail talk 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't suppose you're deliberately missing the point or just trying to aim for different goalposts, but we're not debating the suitability of RoI as a Dab in certain circumstances, we're debating when a Dab is needed, and the *correct* article name for the state called Ireland. Your points are perfectly valid (for a completely different discussion) --HighKing (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you please point out specifically where the Irish government has referred to the state as the Republic of Ireland? I clicked on the link, but all I could find were lists of literature references, where the publications being cited used that term. Also bear in mind that the term "Republic of Ireland" is a perfectly acceptable description of the country, so it can and is used, but it's still not the official name of the country.BFC1890 (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has ever claimed it is the official name of the country, just pointing it out that the government of Ireland is perfectly happy to use it when there is any stretch of ambiguity. However the Citizens Information pages are full of it when discussing where you live to be eligible for passports, recognised marriages, travel documents and the like. For example.]Canterbury Tail talk 11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"Full of it"? The only references to the "Republic of Ireland" on that page are in the section on a Bus Pass for senior citzens that is made available by Translink, a public transport authority based in Northern Ireland. Is that what you meant when you said "the government of Ireland is quite happy to refer to itself as the Republic of Ireland"? The bottom line is the name of the country is Ireland, and you clearly agree that is the case. Therefore the Wikipedia page should be titled as such. The fact that you have cited a webpage about free travel for pensioners in this debate is simply bizarre.BFC1890 (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Still a government of Ireland page. I've never said Ireland isn't the actual name of the country, I don't think anyone has, that isn't the discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 12:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion is whether the article currently entitled "Republic of Ireland" should be moved to "Ireland (state)" to reflect the official, internationally recognised name of the country to which it refers. Please explain a) why the pensioners bus pass reference is relevant and b) how this supports retaining an incorrect title for this article.BFC1890 (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The quicker we ignore the whole forum shop that discussion of this topic has become then the better. It is time to move on. Their are better improvements to be made than endlessly discussing the title of one article. Djegan (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The quicker this issue is resolved, the sooner more editors can devote their time to sensible topics. Why can't we just agree to change the title and move on? Find a different title that resembles the actual name of the state, and lets get on with it! For example, the proposal above - Ireland (Republic of) - appears to have 100% support so far, so why can't we just go with it? --HighKing (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland (Republic of) --nonsense. Next we would have Education in Ireland (Republic of). Folly. No need for change, no need for discussion. Djegan (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with DJ. This should be moved to "Ireland", pure and simple. End of discussion. Sarah777 (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has ever claimed it is the official name of the country - Ben Bell. O Ben! - how quickly you forget! Check the archives. It took several months of trench warfare by myself and others nearly two years ago to establish, beyond debate, that "RoI" wasn't the name of the country. Many of those here today supporting the RoI name still were adamant back then that it was! So having taught them one lesson, let us move on to teach them another one, eh? Sarah777 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify so that my comments are not misrepresented; this article should not be moved at all. It is fine where it is. Djegan (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Summary

We appear to have a consensus on 2 things.

  1. We all agree that that the name of the state is Ireland.
  2. We all agree that a Dab is required

We also possibly agree on one other point

  1. We cannot agree on a suitable Dab.

--HighKing (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Good summary. Now given that there are alternative Dabs to ROI, and there is evidence that ROI is not in use (and its use discouraged) will someone explain how the refusal to engage in a discussion about alternatives is not a POV? --Snowded TALK 11:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP -- the correct place for this discussion is WP:IMOS. Djegan (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Cop yourself on. Discussions over there are pointing to here, and if I recall, when you were discussing the (incorrect) name of the state on Template:Politics of the Republic of Ireland, you pointed me here. It's a clumsy attempt to close down discussions you don't like. --HighKing (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
"Cop yourself on" -- don't loose the "run" of yourself. But in any case here is how I see it (notwithstanding that their was no consensus for change):
  • (1) Pipelinking is for discussion at WP:IMOS,
  • (2) Changing this articles name is for discussion here,
  • (3) Changes (such as those made prematurely at Template:Politics of the Republic of Ireland) should be held off until their is a clear consensus on the relevant issue (1) or (2) above.
In any case the best option now, as their is too much forum shopping, is to give the issue a rest. Its clear their is little consensus for change on points (1) or (2). Djegan (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
You're completely missing the point. Let me try to make it fisher-price for you
  • I posted a summary of where this discussion has arrived to.
  • I am not cavassing. It's a summary. If you don't agree with some of it, please point out what you don't agree with.
  • All the other articles point editors to continue discussions here. When I tried to have discussions on other articles, *you* told me to come here too.
  • Little consensus for change? It's pretty obvious that there's a clear consensus for change. There might not be a consensus for a particular change request, but we've not exhausted the possible changes yet.

"We all agree that a Dab is required" - er, we do? Some of us think the current situation is the best one. Unless that's what you mean. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a correct interpretation - I don't believe anyone disagrees that a Dab is needed, but we're split evenly on "Republic of Ireland" as being acceptable. Is it possible to use a different Dab than whatever the article name is called? --HighKing (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No dab. Give the issue a rest. WP:FORUMSHOP. Djegan (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
"Republic of Ireland" *is* a Dab, seeing as we all agree that the name of the state is "Ireland" ... unless you object to the first point. --HighKing (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
A little dab'll do ya. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

HighKing -- I'm looking at your points but I think your rationale is something along the lines WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA which you are no doubt aware of -- in particular "Cop yourself on" and "fisher-price for you" are comments you should consider withdrawing and are clearly directed at me. "Loosing it" isn't the way to bring change. Djegan (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

First you try to shut down conversations by moving them along from talk page to talk page, then you accuse me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? What's wrong with phrases like "cop yourself on" and "fisher-price"? AGF? NPA? Get a grip, you're clearly losing it. --HighKing (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That really helps (sarcastic tone). Djegan (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No bother. Next time, don't try to make out that a simple summary is canvassing. --HighKing (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
DJ, please try and remain WP:CIVIL - we should not engage in provoking productive editors. Sarah777 (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
HighKing -- I suspect your response to me is at talk:Irish florin coin, an attempt to discredit me there as you cannot get any "joy" here? Djegan (talk)
DJ, please retract that statement as a clear breach of WP:AGF. And your fantasies of wiki-stalking and "being discredited" need to stop. --HighKing (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No retraction -- if you think its in breach report me. Djegan (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"We all agree that a Dab is required" I don't know where anyone could have go that idea. Things are fine just as they are. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't realise that since you agree with point 1 above, then the term "Republic of Ireland" is already a Dab. If you don't believe a Dab is required, you are also saying that "Republic of Ireland" is not required. --HighKing (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. So what you mean is that we are agreed that Ireland-the-island stays at Ireland, rather than Ireland (island) or any other convention? Yes. I think there is consensus on that. (Otherwise, by implication, what you are saying that there is consensus to chage Ireland to be a disambiguation page - which would be false.) --62.24.204.7 (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That's not what my summary says, although I'm also not saying you're wrong either - your points are just different. I'm not referring to Dab as meaning a disambiguation page, but as the piece of text to differentiate Ireland, the republic, from Ireland, the island, or Northern Ireland. This piece of text is tightly related to the name of this article, I agree. But I'm not trying to reopen a discussion - I think we need a small breather. My summary was just that - a simple and uncontentious snapshot of where I believe we arrived at. With this in mind, cast your eye over it again and see what you think now. --HighKing (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
1. We all agree that that the name of the state is Ireland.
- agreed
2. We all agree that a dab is required (be that "Ireland (state)", "Republic of Ireland" or any other title that is not exactly "Ireland")
- this is where things get messy, because if we are agreed that Ireland is the name of the state (1) then we have thee outcomes:
a. Ireland-the-state @ name, Ireland-the-island @ dab
b. Ireland-the-state @ dab, Ireland-the-island @ name
c. Ireland-the-state @ dab, Ireland-the-island @ dab
You say we are agreed to use a dab (2), therefore you say that consensus is to not do (a). You make make no comment about options (b) or (c).
It's not that I see anything wrong with that - except that option (a) was never discussed this time around and you say nothing about options (b) or (c). So the "consensus" described in (2) is 33% about something that wasn't discuseed and makes no comment about the remaning 66%.
That is why I said above that "what you mean is that we are agreed that Ireland-the-island stays at Ireland, rather than Ireland (island) or any other convention?" (Although, that actually was never discussed!)
Do you get what I mean? --62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"We all agree that a Dab is required" (LOL) -- come one, one or two hard-line editors hardly equate to "all". Time to give this issue a rest. Move on. Time better spent getting this article as a "Featured Article" or whatever. Anything but "the obsession". Djegan (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So, DJ, that seems to imply you support moving this article to "Ireland". Why not simply say so? Sarah777 (talk)
Such is you desperation? Is that the best you can do? Don't worry when I'm ready to support something you will know without having to interpret for me. You'll know. Until then don't hold you breath. Djegan (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that there are some hard line editors determined to keep ROI even though it is not the name of the country and despite the citable cessation of its use by the UK government. "Time to move on" means in effect "time to keep our POV" --Snowded TALK 22:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Who could give a damn about the UK government!?? The article isn't at it's current location because the UK called the state this, that or the other (scheeze! if they had even coined the term it'd be something!). It's here because "Republic of Ireland" is the common way to disambiguate Ireland-the-island from Ireland-the-state - no more, no less. This is a common-sense solution to a technical problem posed by the limitations of the Wikimedia software and ramblings about the UK government betray an obsessive irrationalism on your part. The number of states that are located at their official names on Wikipedia can be counted on one hand - goodness! ... even the object of your obsession, the horrid Brits, aren't even at the proper name of their state! --78.152.255.89 (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Give this issue a rest!

Its obsessive discussion and voting (like on this page) that has destroyed wikipedia - and alienated some damned good editors in the time I have been here. Every time we have a discussion or vote at least one editor is outed as a sockpuppet (thats their fault). Behind all the well written articles with fancy statistics, complex templates and colourful pictures is the dreaded talk page. Endless and pointless discussion about about how a minor change will make the article sooooooo much better. No its time to say stop. Give the issue a rest, move on. One or two editors don't make a consensus in such a prominant article as this. If people were genuinely interested in a move etc this issue would have gotten legs long ago, and the "problem" would of gone away with a solution. But their wasn't consensus to move the article and so just give the issue a rest. Give the issue a god damned rest. Djegan (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. Please note- I prefer Ireland (state) GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
"Its obsessive discussion and voting (like on this page) that has destroyed wikipedia " - then why persist with it DJ? Do you want to "destroy Wikipedia"?! I believe that this whole discussion serves a valuable purpose in alerting unreflective or disinterested editors to the POV nature of the current title. Frankly, it is an outrage that Wiki alone persists in imposing a "description" on a country whose legal, internationally recognised and "COMMON name" is Ireland. (Ironically by the same editors who defend the term "British Isles" solely on the grounds that the common name trumps all other considerations). This blatant double standard (resulting, conveniently in the imposition of British POV in both cases using diametrically opposed arguments in either case), cannot stand. That is why it keeps getting revisited. Personally I was happy to take a rest and live with the IMOS compromise (RoI + dab) but it appears even that wasn't good enough from some - but now thar the issue is open again the arguments advanced by Matt and others are clearly overwhelming - being blocked by pure and simple political POV. Sarah777 (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
"Republic of Ireland" is not "British POV", its fact, the state is a republic -- by its own law - stop been daft. Open your eyes. Djegan (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Ireland (state) would lead to nonsense like Education in Ireland (state). Thats just dumb. Djegan (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I've already agreed to give the issue a rest. I accept there's no consensus for the change. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - I am not having a "go" at you personally, we don't always agree but you have made your point correctly previously. I respect you for that. Your honest and upfront. Djegan (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No prob, I wasn't offended. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I don't agree its a minor issue. Its been coming up for years and will do again. It needs to be resolved and on the basis of fact. Consensus can be used to keep a POV in place and I think there is some evidence that this is taking place here. That said I can't see it being resolved here, so we have have to consider raising it as an issue requiring some form of arbitration. The refusal to consider any option other than ROI, and the of language like "Hard line" indicates to be me an entrained position and is clear evidence of perpetuating a POV in the face of the facts. Finding an alternative way of disambiguating the subject, taking the need seriously rather than dismissing it might prevent much wasted time in the future. --Snowded TALK 23:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Your position could be summed up as thus: "everyone else is wrong, I'm right". Cliched. Djegan (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Several editors hold the same opinion now and have done in the past so your treatment of facts is dubious here as elsewhere. Making statements such as this rather than dealing with the issue is a more serious issue. --Snowded TALK 23:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Look in a month we have run up as much "talk" as the article size. Yet the article is not even a "featured article" -- in fact its far below the standard of such. If so much energy can be expended on this talk-shop, then it should be redirected towards the article quality. Don't tell me the article is poor just because of the title. This discussion is a waste of time. Their wasn't a consensus before and their isn't one now. Nor is their a "vast right wing conspiracy". Every editors contribution is equal. Djegan (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Six years of discussion - its needs resolution and then we can move on. Please note earlier points on conspiracy. Pleased advise on what basis you can use "vast right wing conspiracy" when no one as far as I can see has used the phrase. Please advise how you can say "Every editors contribution is equal" when you obviously feel this is not the case for all. In other words, please attend to the facts. --Snowded TALK 23:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously you missed my point on VRWC. Anyway. But in any case who says a half-baked "solution" will lead to the issue been at rest? Just as many people would be "offended" of the article at Ireland, whilst solutions like Ireland (state) and Ireland (republic) are poor runners up. No. If their was a consensus for change then it did not show itself. Your convinced you have the solution, I am equally convinced you don't. Maybe the issue will be deadlocked no matter what. Give the issue a rest. Djegan (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I know the states official name is simply "Ireland" and all that -- but that Ireland has moved on, Dev's aspirational Ireland of "comely maidens, dancing at the crossroads" is now in the past. It is time to move on with it. Djegan (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
That is as clear an admission of political motivation for keeping the country article misnamed "RoI" as I've come across. It certainly is time to move on - the name of the state is Ireland; common modern usage is Ireland - let's reflect that. Reading that rabid De Valerian tabloid, the Irish Times, the most common way they refer to things are: if the4y mean RoI they simply say "Ireland"; if they mean the North they say "Northern Ireland"; if they mean both they say "the island of Ireland". This pretty well reflects common modern usage in the general population. If someone needs for some specific reason to dab, they are as likely to say "the South" as "the Republic" and they will never say "The Republic of Ireland". Maybe DJ its time we moved this debate out of the 1930s and into the current century? Sarah777 (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
"De Valerian tabloid, the Irish Times" - are you sure that was not the Irish Press? Djegan (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
In review of the last attempt to move the article one or two things can be concluded. The people who wanted to move could not agree on their approach, so they got a weak and multifaceted approached. They were all over the place and therefore as someone who opposed a move half the work was already done by the opposition. No, seriously, why waste you own amunition when the opposition have already shot themselves in the foot? Having said that even if they put their reasons simple and easy it would of been equally easy to see it for the nonsense it was - "solutions" like "Ireland", "Ireland (state)" "Ireland (republic)" will quickly be seen for what they are; divisive and ill-though out. Their solutions for another time and place. Djegan (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
DJ, calling a good faith attempt to find a solution "nonsense" is bordering on a breach of WP:CIVIL, and given your comments in general, I'd ask you to tone down your language and WP:AGF. --HighKing (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Another defence by assertion I see, missing issues of citation and fact. Ah well, on one thing we can agree its not going to be resolved here thanks to a strong POV to keep pre GFA names in play. So the choice is to just wait for the next round or think of arbitration. --Snowded TALK 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration -- think we tried that. No a few hardliners are not going to move it against the rest of us. Djegan (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Last I checked, it was pretty much a 50/50 split on keeping or changing. Some of us are trying to understand the issue, and continue to work on proposals that will make more than 50% of editors happy. Please don't conveniently whitewash those who have a different opinion as "hardliners" - it inappropriate language and will just get peoples backs up, as well as bordering on being uncivil. --HighKing (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Not bordering on being uncivil, it is being uncivil and failing completely to make or deal with any argument just asserting a claimed majority (which is not there). If nothing else Djegan has convinced me that this needs to be continued, and go to arbitration if necessary. --Snowded TALK 00:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article is fine as it is: perfectly clear and unambiguous. Mooretwin (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article is misleading and inaccurate, it needs to be changed.78.16.22.33 (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
How on earth is it misleading? It couldn't be clearer. (Get a user name, please.) Mooretwin (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually the title of the article is clear and unambiguous, no question on that. The point is that it is wrong, can be seen to represent the perpetuation of old conflicts. It needs to be changed. --Snowded TALK 11:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The "perpetuation of old conflicts" ... Er, right. Catch a grip, man. The title isn't "wrong". Mooretwin (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is very peculiar this "controversy". Maybe its because when we studied history we did not do the "fringe theories" module? Djegan (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec x 2) How can an article using the official description of the state, as legislated by our own government, be construed as representing the perpetuation of old conflicts - unless one is deliberately trying to be offended? The names of many country articles are "wrong" - France, Italy, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Russia, India, Pakistan... none of these are at their official names. It'd be great if the name Ireland was free to use as a common name - but it isn't. As it happens, we have a perfectly valid and common enough description to fall back on. There is no consensus for a move and hasn't been any time this has been brought up. Lets move on? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
In a sense you have hit it on the head. The "conflict" was never that bad. Its stuff like "Eire", "Irish Republic" and "Southern Ireland" that offend Irish people, if anything at all. Djegan (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Funny thing consensus - it changes. If today you were trying to name this article "Republic of Ireland", it would fail. Saying that there is no consensus to move is not the same as saying that there is a consensus for the current title. It just means that there used to be a consensus. Today, nearly half of the editors supported a proposal to change, and the trend is that more editors are supporting a change each time a poll is asked for. There are some entrenched views on either side, and there are those in the middle that want to see an end to the bickering and childish name-calling. This will continue. Eventually, common ground will be found that will keep a significantly higher portion that the current 50% happy. Maybe not today though... --HighKing (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right that consensus changes. But just outside the last week a poll was closed and their was no consensus for change. Remember the people discussing here and now have a direct connection with Ireland. When the next poll is taken only then will we know the result, remember no one here has a crystal ball. Remember its going to take more than 50%+1 vote to move (particularly given the fact that these polls are stuffed with sockpuppets). WP:FORUMSHOP WP:CANVASSING Djegan (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We also need to be careful about such votes in light of the recent outing of a multi-named sockpuppet on the Irish articles. Mooretwin (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes - I still remember when a certain editor here got very touchy when I originally became suspicious of Pureditor. Djegan (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Funny how editors who insist on proper use of source material etc. elsewhere seem to loose it when it comes to British/Irish issues. The use of the name ROI was a substantial issue between the UK and Ireland (the state) for years, and agreement on its resolution was made. Bastun, the fact that that Ireland is a republic and described itself as such is a substantial red herring and ignores history between the 1940s and the GFA. Wikipedia is perpetuating language which the governments concerned chose to stop using. Now if you guys want an open debate on alternatives to disambiguate that is fine, but perpetuating ROI fails normal WIkipedia requirements. What we need is a genuine attempt to find a new way forward otherwise this is going to come up again and again. --Snowded TALK 11:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You appear overly-concerned about what politicians and diplomats think or say. In the real world, Republic of Ireland is used by all and sundry without controversy. There is even a kind of agreement among nationalists and unionists in NI about it - neither accepts that "Ireland" is an appropriate name for a state to which that part of Ireland in which they live does not belong. They may have their own ways of describing it (the South, 26 counties, Free State, the Republic, etc.), but "Republic of Ireland" is regarded as neutral terminology. Mooretwin (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
We can make decisions based on opinions, have to go to the sources. I hear many ways of making the distinction when I am in Belfast and Dublin (never ROI by the way) but my opinion/experience on this (or yours) don't count The fact that governments formally (a difference with thinking and saying) agree not to use a term is significant. My strong and repeated suggestion is that we find a different way to disambiguate the language. Not ROI, but something else. I think that is in the spirit of your comment above. I wonder if we had a period of exploring the alternatives (without anyone committing) to ROI that would be useful? --Snowded TALK 12:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
*Informally, you may not hear ROI being used, but it is always used in any formal sense.
*Wikipedia is not a government.
*Government does not always use "Ireland" to mean ROI. It may do so in relation to foreign diplomacy and international relations, but domestically, and certainly in Northern Ireland, Government uses "Republic of Ireland". (I wonder if that has anything to do with the need for disambiguation, or avoiding the self-evidently ludicrous scenario of Government in one part of Ireland referring to the other part as though it were the whole.)
Wikipedia's policy is in line with this common sense approach. "Ireland" may be appropriate in an article listing UN members, but certainly not in any articles on Northern Ireland, or which touch on all-Ireland matters. Mooretwin (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I had thought there was a glimmer of hope there, an openness to look at some alternatives, without that willingness this is just going to carry on. --Snowded TALK 12:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


WP:LAWYER Djegan (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL --HighKing (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Honestly Djegan you would try the patience of a saint. The facts are simple, ROI is contentious established by evidence. Your contributions on this exchange have been uncivil and demonstrate a clear inability or unwillingness to engage with facts. POV mate, suggest some reflection. --Snowded TALK 11:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
POV, indeed. Facts, indeed. The fact is in all these polls going back several years now, not once has one had > 50% support for a move. There is simply no consensus to change. That might change over time, sure. When it does, it'll be clear. That day isn't now. Most of us are happy with or - at the vert least - can live with the current situation. And where articles can get by without ambiguity, we can continur to pipe ROI to Ireland. Now - can we have another 6-month moratorium, please? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes Bastun, POV. The fact that there are enough editors who want ROI means a consensus can be maintained despite the facts. Its not going away as an issue, better to try and find a non ROI solution. If there had been any real engagement with the facts, rather than pushing OR then a moratorium might make sense. Of course if people engaged we might find another solution --Snowded TALK 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Incredible. That response can best be summarised as "I'll keep this up till I get my way, even though I'm in a minority who want to change." BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Charming, another throw away insult rather than dealing with the argument. You should translate it as I (and others) will keep this up until people have the common courtesy to engage with the facts and stop using consensus to keep a POV in place. We have one solution which is clearly wrong, namely ROI. A new solution (and there are several options) has to be found. As I said earlier I am amazed at the way editors, who would otherwise pay attention to facts and citation loose their objectivity when it comes to this and related issues. I am really fed up of the amount of time which is wasted in British and Irish pages, and some issues need to be resolved. Putting them off, hiding behind consensus just means they come up again and again. --Snowded TALK 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What's insulting is accusing those who disagree with you of pushing a POV, not engaging with the facts and engaging in WP:OR. A "new solution" does not have to be found because the current solution works perfectly well, for both Ireland and every other state not listed under its official name - of which there are dozens of examples on WP. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Bastun, but I don't think people are dealing with this subject on the basis of the facts, or engaging with the arguments. Instead we get a fog of opinions and assertions about how wonderful a solution ROI is, despite the fact that it creates constant issues on this and other pages. My view is that this is a POV. If you want to be insulted by that there is little I can do to help I am afraid. --Snowded TALK 07:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion and politics section - prominence/length warranted? Summarise?

Recent edits have split some of the "religion in politics" texts into sub-sections. While I understand the motivation for ensuring logical order/grouping of subjects (and recognise that "gay rights and contraception" and "divorce and abortion" were something of an arbitrary grouping), not every subject within a given paragraph needs its own heading. (Wikipedia is not Powerpoint. We don't have to bullet list and label everything. Sometimes paragraphs are sufficient to separate subjects.) I note this because - looking at it now - the Table of Contents gives way too much focus on this section. Comprising as it does, more than 20% of the entire TOC line items. It suggests undue weight on these topics. (Topics which - frankly - should possibly even be in the "History" section. Is "contraception" still a hot enough topic to warrant a section in an article about the country? 30 years later? Really?) Anyway. Any other suggestions or comments before I have a look at alternatives to structuring this section? Possibly - as noted - by simply moving to a paragraph structure to separate the "issues"? Guliolopez (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Some folk who spent their early years fighting the great battle against the Big Bad Church can't drag themselves out of the 1950's and 1970s; even worse they think utterly inevitable changes that washed in from Europe and America wouldn't have happened without our gallant "liberals" appearing on the "Late Late Show"! To most readers under 40 this is all ancient history. Sarah777 (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Wish I could help, but I'm an atheist. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Gasp! Sarah! There was no sex in Ireland before television! BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks guys. I appreciate the jokes/etc, but I was actually asking for serious input. I'm presuming that seeing as no objections I'm not on my own in thinking this needs review. Certainly Sarah's note (though obviously tongue in cheek as ever) seems to be largely in agreement that it needs reworking. Either that or everyone else has either "unwatched" the page or are just more inclined to rant at each other in the above discussion (in "The NeverEnding Story IV: Atreyu watches Groundhog Day on repeat"). Than contribute to a discussion on improving the article. So I suppose I'll just make the changes I proposed. And hope for the best. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah777. However I don't find the preponderance of the headings as bad as the fact that these sub-sections are in the wrong place--they don't belong under religion. I'd make a new section called, maybe, "Social Issues", and place them there for a start, see whether anyone wants to add/edit anything, then do a re-edit.Hohenloh (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-factored somewhat, per your suggestion. Incidentally, can anyone fix the image of St. Patrick's Cathedral? It works now for me in preview, but not when I save the page. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 20:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Moving "social issues" out from under the "religious influence in constitution/legislation" umbrella was a good move. But should have updated the text a little to reflect the new context. Because it was structured based on the previous context. Referring as it did to the original "religious influence" context. Which no longer made sense. Anyway. I've updated accordingly so it makes more sense in context - though someone might want to review. I've also fixed the image issue. Someone didn't close a link within an image template, and it was hosing the parser's interpretation of all subsequent image thumbnail includes. (Which is why it worked in a preview of that section - because it wasn't parsing the broken link from a previous section.) Guliolopez (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of article

I'd like to propose shortening or moving much of the information contained in the paragraphs before the TOC to relevant areas in the article. This would bring the TOC closer to the start of the article and avoid duplication and possibly contradictory information in the article. It would also reflect Wikipedia style, in having a short introductory paragraph. Any thoughts on this? Hohenloh (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You are suggestion reducing the size of the lead. Perhaps if you would first read WP:LEAD you will see that the lead should: … briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. If you don't think it does that, then we have a reason to refine it but leagthwise (4 paras) it is about right for this size article. ww2censor (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the first paragraph is OK (except for the last sentence). The following two paragraphs concentrate mainly on economic matters, and go into some detail (instead of leaving the details to the relevant section), and to the detriment of other items that could be mentioned with regard to the dozen-odd headings in the article.Hohenloh (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force

An Ireland disambiguation task force (WP:IDTF) has been created. It will: free up various Talk pages for their respective articles, avoid inner and cross article repetition, avoid debate-postponing moratoriums from needing to be placed, and can accommodate all aspects of the issue of disambiguating the word "Ireland". --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any consensus on the need for such a forum? It sounds like forum shopping to me. Crispness (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. We already have WP:IMOS for that. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, where was this agreed? Why wasn't this tried first time around? Would the same people have a forum now, if they had made the changes they want now? Djegan (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
It isn't so much changes anyone "wants" as a change the credibility of the Encyclopedia requires. The reason Wiki is out of step with other encyclopedias is that a determined minority are exercising a stranglehold over the simple implementation of WP:NPOV policy in the case of Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777 -- if you yearn so much for a paper encyclopedia; then go out and buy a set or consult a set at your local library. Alternatively their are other online encyclopedias; some are "free" and some are subscription. There is something for everybody. Djegan (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
And all those paper encyclopaedias are citable sources used to help make decisions in Wikipedia Djegan. Maybe you should be more circumspect in suggesting that people cease involvement? --Snowded TALK 15:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Snowded -- don't take me too seriously, but any editor can leave, at any time. I am just stating the fact. This isn't school. Djegan (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
DJ first suggested I leave two years ago. I'm still here. Sarah777 (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Good to hear Sarah (that you are here, not that DJ makes a habit of asking you to leave). DJ I will do my best to take your advise not to take you too seriously  :-) --Snowded TALK 16:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Recycling my comments; is that the best you can do? Djegan (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
After that maybe I should have recycled "back to the school room" --Snowded TALK 16:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't take the creative arts as a career path. Djegan (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Good grief! The IMOS exists for that already. I suppose this new "task force" will consist of more "consensus" building between Matt Lewis and Matt Lewis. --89.19.82.57 (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It does indeed appear to actually be Matt's Forum Shop though called a Task Force, but it does not belong to either the IMOS or the WikiProject Ireland and besides which it fails the criteria for a Task Force as I have mentioned on the Task Force deletion page already. ww2censor (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I doesn't fail the Taskforce criteria at all - a number of admin know of it, and one was even encouraging with the idea. It is a workgroup of IMOS. All the repetition that some people thrive on will now be a thing of the past: we now have a place where we all can deal with Ireland disambiguation issues centrally and properly - whatever polls work or don't work! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Matt the WikiProject Ireland or IMOS talk pages are the place to discuss this topic, oh, I nearly forgot, we just discussed it for seven weeks and it did not go the way you wanted. And Matt, stop lying, the IDTF does clearly fails the main Task Force criteria, no matter what you write, but if you keep telling people it does not fail maybe they will believe you, just like so many people believed President Bush. Also, you didn't even have the courtesy to ask the IMOS if they would want to consider this so-called Task Force that you now call a workgroup of the IMOS, but no one has agreed to that. All the repetition that some people thrive on, goodness gracious me; who thrives on the repetition of his own words. Obviously you do. Matt, you are the most persistent person I have ever across on this wiki who absolutely refuses to accept a consensus when it does not go your way. It is just pathetic that after the seven week discussion you still refuse to accept the consensus that there is no will to change the status quo right now, but YOU WILL MAKE IT HAPPEN, after you have wear down or piss off enough people and they just don't care any more and leave the Irish articles for you to fiddle with as you wish. I hope you will be happy then. I have other constructive work to do even if all you can do is impose your own POV by forum shopping for the result you want. ww2censor (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have had my own public disagreements with Matt in this area (British Isles) but this is goint too far. The reality here is that we have a persistent issue. Every time it comes up enough editors arrive simply saying "ROI is in use, we find it convenient| and then say "no consensus for change". Assembly detailed tables of issues relating to it, summarising the facts etc goes away in an exchange of the usual arguments. Matt is at least here attempting to create a more objective and structured way forward. I think if this (or something like it) doesn't work then we are going to have to attempt another route for resolution. I for one do not want to keep coming back to this issue with its spin over to other pages. --Snowded TALK 06:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely Snow. There is absolutely no consensus on the RoI name as WW2 keeps dishonestly suggesting. A 60/40 majority for British POV isn't consensus by any reasonable definition. I really wish you'd tone down your personal attacks on Matt Ww - not very nice. Sarah777 (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Rather, there is absolutely no consensus to move to anything else, as you keep dishonestly suggesting. Likewise with the "60/40 British POV" - many of those opposing a move are Irish through and through. But then, you know that. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I certainly don't know that Bastun. I have often noted that the majority of pro-British votes on this issue come from British editors and the majority of NPOV votes come from Irish editors. One Bastun dosen't make a Summer, to coin a phrase. I'd certainly class Unionist votes as "British" - by definition. See below: Sarah777 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, dishonest remarks don't help build consensus. In any case nationality and political outlook are irrelevant. Djegan (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Disagree. Nationality has nothing to do with the POV which so far has prevented the change of the title. But political outlook has. There are many Irish editors of a POV of let's keep the island of Ireland as one cultural identity as I want it to be that way. God forbid if that were to happen in other nationalities. Then we'd be having stuff like Flemish buildings being included with The Netherlands and the like for being culturally similar. But no Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Definitions are made by countries and Ireland is the name of the country in question here and denying that is POV. The island of Ireland is not special. There are huge shared cultures in mainland Europe but they don't go on about it. British POV, Unionist POV, Irish POV whatever POV it is, it doesn't matter; it is wrong and is stopping the article being at an internationally NPOV title. Wikipedia is failing in this matter and backs up why Wikipedia is the laughing stock of other encyclopedias. If it can't get something as basic as this right because of political views of editors then the argument of what material in it can be trusted?78.16.36.189 (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You have misunderstood/misinterpreted my comments. To clarify; someones nationality and political outlook are irrelevant when discussing or voting; every comment/vote is equal. We do not place value on someone based on their nationality and political outlook. People of a given nationality or political outlook are not unwelcome. Anyone can be biased; but how do we decide if someone is biased? Finally if you think wikipedia is a laughing stock I suggest you buy/borrow a set of paper encyclopedias; alternatively you should sign up or subscribe to an online encyclopedia. WP:NOTFORUM -- Djegan (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The last time I checked, this article's name was/is Republic of Ireland. Therefore, there's no need for those who support that name? to be so upset with Matt. There's absolutely nothing wrong with continuing to discuss the name thingy on the discussion pages. That's what the Discussion pages are for, nobody is going to commit suicide over the topic; it isn't going to do any harm. Guarenteed, it's not the end of the world. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Well not yet anyway. But they are only warming it up at CERN. Sarah777 (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with those who say Ireland (state). Its a fair compromise. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the articles Italy and France. The constutional names of these two states are Repubblica Italiana (Italian Republic) and République Francaise (French Republic). The Italian peninsula contains three states: the Italian Republic, San Marino and the Vatican City State. The French 'hexagon' contains two states: the French Republic and Monaco. Ireland is different in that the state occupies most of the island and its name is unqualified. So, other than the predelictions of some editors to persist in a uniquely British habit of calling the country by every name but its own, what justification is there in persisting with this WP:LPOV? --Red King (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

International usage lists for "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland"

These lists should indicate to what extent the term "Republic of" is a WP:common name outside these islands.

  • Republic of Ireland
    • ?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Red King (talk • contribs) 19:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments

If you have IOC in there you should allow FIFA, then you can add in the IRFU. Better to be complete. --Snowded TALK 19:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done that and added all the main sports bodies I can think of.SitNGo (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Red King, to what extent do the links above demonstrate that Ireland is the most common name "that does not conflict with the names of other people or things"? While you are thinking about this, may I suggest that Republic of Ireland certainly is. What might be helpful too, is if you actually took the time to read WP:COMMONNAME rather than wasting your energy finding links to demonstrate what everyone already knows. --78.152.224.212 (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, what I see above is Red King providing multiple citations to show the use of Ireland by many organisations and with that we see evidence of common use. On the other side I see you suggesting that ROI is the common name without citation. Now in the past we have seen lists which do use ROI, no question that the term exists, but we have seen no evidence that would establish that it is the common name just that it has been, and still is used (undisputed) --Snowded TALK 20:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Good point. So, in reply, here's 5000-odd references. Now, Ireland, as we all accept, is the most common name (and indeed the official name). Whereas, Republic of Ireland, you will most certainly agree, is "the most common name [...] that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" (see what's meant by common name). --78.152.224.212 (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
We've been here before. If I search on Ireland I will find far more references. If I remove pre DFA items your list reduces significantly. In most contexts common use is Ireland and there is no confusion in context. Hence the argument that a simple statement at the top "for the island of Ireland see... " would be proper usage. The compromise is to find something other than ROI to disambiguate --Snowded TALK 01:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Far from dismissing the anon editor he/she has a point. "Ireland" is used in this case and "Republic of Ireland" has historic and official usage - although some people would ignore this. Djegan (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
No official use in Ireland for some time, and none in UK since GFA Djegan --Snowded TALK 04:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me if I go over old ground again, trying to stay away from a 7 page Archive Dive. Is Eire out of the question for the Island? My reasoning is basic, and by no means more conclusive than any other presented: the island precedes the state historically, as Eire precedes Ireland historically. I find it an aesthetically pleasing solution. Anarchangel (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
"Eire" would not be appropriate as it is not used widely in English - it is an Irish word. It comes with too much negative baggage. Djegan (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Shame that a word has become 'too Irish' to be used as a description for Ireland, I must say. There's probably a song in there somewhere. Thank you for elucidating. Anarchangel (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Snowded, you need to stop fixating on the first cause of the sentence if you are ever going to see the second clause. The guidelines is to: "Use the most common name of a person or thing ..." - (that is your baby, it would suggest to use Ireland) - "... that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." (that is the clincher, and it is because of that clause that the page is located at Republic of Ireland.)
Ask youself these questions:
Is Ireland the most common name of the thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things (I'm thinking here of a large landmass located to the west of Britain)? Or is Republic of Ireland the most common name of the thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things?
As for your assertion that Republic of Ireland has "[n]o official use in Ireland for some time, and none in UK since GFA", as well as being untrue (ask yourself, has the Republic of Ireland Act been repealled by the Oireachtas, and while pondering that see here and here), you really should read what WP:COMMONNAME actually has to say, rather than citing it blindly: "Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage." Aside from that, as has been stated countless times before, the number of WP articles on states that are located at the offical name of that state can be counted on one hand. Ireland is no different. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Asked myself most of those questions (where relevant) and came to the same conclusion as above. Also asked myself why people are fixated on RoI and not prepared to compromise with something that would prevent future disputes. Only answers I can come up with for that involve intransigence or POV --Snowded TALK 12:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Since that question is in the very first sentence of WP:COMMONNAME, I don't see how it is irrevelent, but out of curiosity, what exactly was the conclusion you came to? Is Ireland the most common name of the thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things, or is Republic of Ireland?
(Oh, an I love when people throw around the acrynom, POV. It only goes to demonstrate that they have never given more than a passing glance to WP:NPOV. It stands for point of view, by the way, and everyone has one. Having a POV is not an issue on WP. Articles, however, should be written to conform to a neutral point of view.) --62.24.204.7 (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes its (POV) thrown around, sometimes its appropriate. My conclusion is that Ireland is the common name, and the conflict with the island is (in context) rarely an issue. My second conclusion is that ROI is contentious and inappropriate. My third conclusion is that we need some good will to find a solution. My fourth confusion rather than conclusion, is to ask why people insist on ROI given that they know it is an issue rather than attempting to find a new solution. --Snowded TALK 13:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree to a large extent with the anon editor. I also resent, to some extent, the claim that people with my view are have "intransigence" or "POV" - the implication that there view is not in good faith. I believe my views are in good faith. I am not here to "destroy" it for anyone else.

However having said that certain options are not really appropriate here as a solution. "Eire" is the Irish name of Ireland, the island and state, and is just as as much historic baggage as "Ireland". "Ireland" can only be an article on the island or state; not both in lieu of a united Ireland. Options like "Ireland (state)" and "Ireland (republic)" whilst at first glance appear to be the alternative useful options would result in articles such as Education in Ireland (state) and History of Ireland (republic).

Whilst some people are clearly offended by "Republic of Ireland" it is none-the-less the official description of the state as by parliament enacted. It is *not* a concoction or creation of wikipedia. The state is a republic, the Republic of Ireland. Djegan (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We are all just repeating ourselves. I remain surprised that you (and others) are not prepared to put the effort in to find a non ROI solution and continue to fall back to acts of parliament in the 1940s ignoring subsequent political changes. Its going to have to go to mediation to resolve. --Snowded TALK 14:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs)
You are pushing for a "anything but ROI solution" and referring to the politics of an Ireland now past - conflicts and disputes. Face it; Ireland is two parts a "Northern Ireland" and the "Republic of Ireland". Mediation will accomplish little but a recycle of issues. Djegan (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Constant recycling of contentious issues wastes time. I fully accept that Ireland is in two parts and nothing I have said says otherwise (try not to make assumptions). The issue is the name of one of those. We need some resolution to this and if the governments of Ireland and the UK can do it, then it cannot beyond the capabilities of Wikipedia to do the same. --Snowded TALK 14:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
"... conflict with the island is (in context) rarely an issue." Is Belfast not in Ireland? Is Lough Neagh not the largest lake? In context there are many ways to distinguish between the two. Probably the most common way (we have no way to know for sure) is to use Republic of Ireland for the state.
"My second conclusion is that ROI is contentious and inappropriate." {You drew this "conclusion" from my question??} This is not a contentious issue outside of this talk page. The question of the UK state and it's agents not referring to the Irish state by the name "Ireland" has a history. That history is related to the Irish states former constitutionalism irredentism over UK territory. That issue has been brought to a close - but it was the term "Ireland" that has been contentious, not the term Republic of Ireland.
"... we need some good will to find a solution." {You drew this "conclusion" from my question??} As ever.
"... why people insist on ROI given that they know it is an issue rather than attempting to find a new solution."? It is not an issue outside of the narrow confines of this talk page. Please provide a source to demonstrate that the term Republic of Ireland is an issue (as distinct from Ireland being/having been the source of contention.) You may be interested to know that the current version in fact reflects what was seen as 'compromise' before. Back then, the article read something akin to, "Republic of Ireland is a country in north-western Europe ..." That was (correctly) changed as part of discussion; but there is no need to move the article when a perfectly fine, uncontroversial and self-disambiguating system of terms already exist. If you believe that the term RoI is contentious - the term Republic of Ireland, not Ireland - please provide evidence. --78.152.217.189 (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Just realised (thanks to a observant editor) that this is a one time edit IP address - would you like to declare who you are, as the text above implies that this is not your first edit. --Snowded TALK 22:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I responded to a question, in part those conclusions were drawn from your answers and also from others over an extended period if time I see nothing in what you say that would cause me to change them and you have been presented with more than enough information to support the fact that ROI is contentious, you just don't want to listen to it. This is not going to be resolved here with the current set of involved editors. However I am not happy just to let the "existing consensus" game to be played yet again to support a point of view that is not supported by the evidence. So I will persist in both raising this issue and seeking to take it to mediation. If you have good will you will engage in that process (ideally without hiding behind an IP address, although that is of course your right). --Snowded TALK 23:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
-78.152.217.189, the term Republic of Ireland is not contentious but the name Republic of Ireland. specifically as used for the name of this article. You contend that it is only here that this distinction is drawn, but we are after all discussing the name of the article, not that of the state, which appears finally to be known to most editors.RashersTierney (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)fix typoRashersTierney (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Snowded - "...you have been presented with more than enough information to support the fact that ROI is contentious..." - I have been presented with your opinion. We deal with facts, not truth. You assert that the term is contentious, please provide published sources as evidence.
RashersTierney - so this "contention" is a WP-only thing then, eh? Thought as much. --89.19.80.44 (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The name of the article is a WP-thing only. RashersTierney (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP89, have you been reading any of the history of this exchange? --Snowded TALK 15:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Snowded&Co, have you seen that beyond *your* instance there is little consensus for change? Djegan (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've clearly seen a pattern if you look back over the exchanges. A move or rename is raised, generally with evidence. Then a whole pile of editors come on mentioning the 1940s and asserting common use, then say "no consensus" in the hope the problem will go away and their position can be maintained. I--Snowded TALK 17:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have been around wikipedia long enough - and we have - then one of the fundamental cornerstones is that articles are not always at the "official" name, and "official" implies "evidence". You keep referring to the 1940's like its history; its not. The Republic of Ireland Act is still law; it has never been repealed by parliament or rescinded by court. Then, as now, the state is the "Republic of Ireland"; there can only be one article at Ireland and that is the article of the island. You might think that your freeing people here - the colloquial Messiah or Moses - but the hard reality is that there is little consensus for change here as shown by previous polls; and now as no doubt shown by the poor show of numbers. Djegan (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
You do run to hyperbole don't you? Lets see what other options we have, its not going to go away as an issue. --Snowded TALK 18:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Nooone is disputing that Ireland is the name of the state - so obviously its going to be used by international organisations. Totally irrelavant to WP, though, where we already have an article residing at Ireland. (And, er, wasn't the point of Matt's taskforce to take this stuff away from this page? )BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolute agreement. I know "Ireland" is the name of the state; its on just about every personal legal document I have in my briefcase. But as Bastun states there can only be one article at "Ireland" and that is the article on the island. Djegan (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
No. Yes it is true that there can be only one article, but it can be a disambiguation article offering Ireland (state) and Ireland (island). --Red King (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lest we forget

Just a quick comment; the notion of consensus is meaningless in this case as it will always come down to the relative numbers of British and Irish nationalists. The British have the numbers; the Irish case is supported by Wiki policy and common sense. What we need here is a decision to name the article about the country by its common name, its internationally recognised name and its official legal name - all of which are "Ireland". DJ has already, in his "dancing at the crossroads" outburst, made it clear that his resistance to Wiki policy is based on a desire to impose POV in clear breach of WP:NPOV. It really is past time "the community" got a grip here and stopped allowing a (largely) politically motivated group ignore policy based on a headcount and without consensus. Sarah777 (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"...it will always come down to the relative numbers of British and Irish nationalists." No, it won't, because there are many Irish nationalists in favour of using ROI and many British nationalists in favour of using Ireland. Straw man. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed -- the days of people "fitting" into national sterotypes and monoculturalism are over. Djegan (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a political motivation? I suspect so. You misrepresent my previous comments by partial reproduction here and your own failed interpretation, and don't reproduce them here in full for your own personal agenda. Political outlook here is meaningless because the reality is that even if there was a requirement to be open people would misrepresent it anyhow. The whole Ireland naming controversy is mired in politics outside wikipedia, its been like that since the 1930's and it ain't gonna change now. Get a grip, get real even for you Sarah. Djegan (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
it will always come down to the relative numbers of British and Irish nationalists. Fact, Bastun. You and a few other crossovers don't change the essential facts. What we need here is a decision to name the article about the country by its common name, its internationally recognised name and its official legal name - all of which are "Ireland". As per Wiki policy. As I said. (And DJ, I didn't make the statement declaring I was opposing the common, legal and internationally recognised name based on my political pov; you were, DJ). Too late to put that slip back in the box now I'm afraid. Sarah777 (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
If things around here were decided by a vote (and if this were a matter in which British and Irish nationalists held opposing views), Sarah777's jingoism might hold true. But we don't vote on Wikipedia. And THAT is Wiki policy. (Also, Sarah777, in some nationalist circles your "nationalism" might be confused with Free Statism among those of us who don't confuse "Ireland" with a 26-county autonomy. Some "nationalist"!) --89.19.91.18 (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It's hardly jingoism to expect to have your state called by its correct name and not by its constitutional arrangements (not a monarchy). Sarah777's arguments are unassailable and the only defence of the status quo is that there are more British editors than there are Irish editors. The RoI form is used only in Britain. --Red King (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what point was being made from the last post - 78.152etc, so I had a look myself. Results from page one of the search * "The RoI form is used only in Britain"? are as follows:

1: Ireland - Information on the Irish State Calls the state 'Ireland'. No mention of 'Republic of Ireland'.

2: The General Register Office Ireland :: An tSeirbhís um Chlárú Sibhialta No mention of the state on homepage, although page title notes 'Ireland'. No mention of 'Republic of Ireland'.

3: CIA - The World Factbook -- Ireland Specifically states country name as: conventional long form: none conventional short form: Ireland local long form: none local short form: Eire Calls the state 'Ireland' throughout. No mention of 'Republic of Ireland'.

4: site:uk "Republic of Ireland" -site:.com -site:.org -site:.net - Google News UK web browser search shows many "Republic of Ireland" hits, mostly relating to soccer/football.

5: Welcome to the Department of Health and Children No mention of the name of the state.

6: FAI.ie Irish soccer/football governing body website. Calls the team 'Republic of Ireland' and 'Ireland', though predominantly 'Republic of Ireland'.

7: Study in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland University of California education abroad program website. Uses "the United Kingdom (UK) or the Republic of Ireland" and "the UK and Ireland", Seems to be interchangeable.

8: Environmental Protection Agency Ireland Refers to "Ireland". No mention of 'Republic of Ireland'.

9: HSA - The Health and Safety Authority Refers to "Ireland". No mention of 'Republic of Ireland'.

10: International Directory - Republic of Ireland The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) website, U.S. Department of Justice. Refers to 'Republic of Ireland'. No mention of 'Ireland'.

11. Hostels Ireland - Hostels Dublin - Hostels Cork - Hostels Kerry - YHA Ireland Refers to "Ireland". No mention of 'Republic of Ireland'.

The websites appear to be linked to "Republic of Ireland" as a form of disambiguation, without necessarily referring to "Republic of Ireland" on the page. This is an extremely common way of getting hits from related searches. This would tell you more about the person doing the search than it would about the websites found. Nevertheless, to sum up (page 1 of search only): 1: the Irish domiciled websites refer to "Ireland", with no mention of 'Republic of Ireland', the exception being the Football Association of Ireland who use both terms. 2: the UK domiciled websites refer to "Republic of Ireland", with no mention of 'Ireland'. 3: Of the US domiciled websites, the CIA refer to "Ireland", with no mention of 'Republic of Ireland' and the U.S. Department of Justice refer to 'Republic of Ireland', with no mention of 'Ireland'. Hope this helps, although it seems that most participants had made up their minds before the discussions began. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. SEO techniques mean that Google is a poor source for the kind of quantitative research that you do above. In fact it makes the kind of analysis you did meaningless.
You pointed to Google News. Go look there again (you will need to strip away the soccer results as that is the proper name for the soccer team). There now! Do you see the point of the link now?
  • Malaysia Star, Malaysia
  • The Australian, Australia
  • RTE.ie, Ireland
  • Sydney Morning Herald, Australia
  • Leitrim Observer, Ireland
  • FinFacts Ireland, Ireland
  • Daily Georgian Times, Georgia
  • Sunday Business Post, Ireland
  • Herald.ie, Ireland
  • Irish Independent, Ireland
  • Stuff.co.nz, New Zealand
  • Irish Medical News, Ireland
  • Herald.ie, Ireland
  • ...
A far cry from "The RoI form is used only in Britain", eh?
(Also, you wrote that "the UK domiciled websites refer to 'Republic of Ireland', with no mention of 'Ireland'." There were no UK-domiciled sites on the first page of the Google results (see the "-site:uk"?). Are you trying to inflate your (invalid) results? Tut! Tut! Tut! --78.152.249.56 (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
As you say, Google is a poor source. You didn't eliminate all the soccer reports, see your first entry: Malaysia Star, Malaysia http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp?file=/2008/10/9/sports/2223583&sec=sports Duff fit again for Republic of Ireland
Your Australians http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/books/tense-wait-for-booker-fate/2008/10/14/1223749997918.html and http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24501984-16947,00.html were quoting directly from the rules of the Man Booker Prize – a London-based foundation
RTE was quoting the words of Dave Walsh, Sales Manager at BMI
I could go on, but what's the point? ClemMcGann (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
"I could go on ..." Please do, because - as we all know - the Sunday Business Post, Irish Independent, Irish Medical News, Evening Hearld, etc. are participants in an evil pact with nasty British nationalists that insist on using a term first - and still - defined by an act of the Oireachtas, where it received cross-party support almost 60 years ago ... in fact still does (has anyone every suggested to repeal the Republic of Ireland Act?). You are inventing a controversy, and burying your head in the sand to maintain the shadow of argument you have. --89.101.223.198 (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Confusing description with name ClemMcGann (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Look, it would also be a trivial matter to use Google to show that "Ireland" is used to refer to RoI in lots of British sites too. The point is that RoI is THE official and legal name in the UK, and that has resulted in widespread use in mainly (but not exclusively) British media. From a British standpoint, strictly speaking, it is not incorrect to use RoI. Equally though, from an Irish and International standpoint, it is incorrect. For some it remains a minor point, but for an encyclopedia it becomes a bigger point of accuracy. --HighKing (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Economy

With the Irish economy going into recession (As seen here) this section probably needs updating, but is it important enough to go into the lead, as stats on immigration etc are there? --Narson ~ Talk • 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother mentioning that the economy is in recession in the lead (tis a global problem after all) but def update the economy section by changing growth data to past tense etc.GiollaUidir (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, some mention needs to be made; its been an "open" secret for over a year and now the figures are starting to back it up. Definitely a recession, definite change for whatever cause. Djegan (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
More of it. The economy is in recession the past two quarters; how is that an "open secret for over a year". A year ago the economy was not in recession. Sarah777 (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Eh, like the housing market has been in a slow downer since before the last general election, only difference is that now with the international situation its quickened the pace. Remember McDowell and all that stuff about stamp duty that started it all (the downturn of property)??? Where have you stuck your head for the last year??? Housing was a large component of the economy. Djegan (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
"With a forecast for reduced economic growth in 2008," Just scrub that line imo. The United States intro makes no mention of the totally fucked state recession that they're in.GiollaUidir (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah well, that's because the Wiki Anglo-Saxon Patriots are watching over the US article. We don't need to follow their line of denial. If we are in recession, spit it out. No need for exaggeration (as suggested above) or seeing every bit of bad news, however truthful, as an attack on the country. Sarah777 (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Pipe-Linking Census Data

Under subject Religion, a number of terms have been pipe-linked, essentially interpreting the meanings of the terms used, and so the intentions of the respondants. This may be reasonable where the terms are unambiguous, for instance the major religions. Linking "no religion" to Irreligion may or may not reflect the intentions of the respondants and should not be 'interpreted' in this way.RashersTierney (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed the references should be stated; but the terms should not be defined. Djegan (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, I feel "atheist" could be pipe-linked--it's just as clear a statement as, for example, "Presbyterian". I don't see how the intentions of the respondents can be brought into the argument. But this is a fairly trivial issue compared to other things being discussed on this page (which I take pains to avoid).Hohenloh (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Issue with some recent edits on economic data

Before I reverted Hmain's rv an hour ago I checked through as many of the recent edits as I could to try to find which one he was alluding to and where the issue was, and failed to find anything. However, now I've trawled through some other stuff and found that the problem lies with contributions from Historian19, who has now been blocked, but has made about 3 recent edits to this article (along with a few hundred other seemingly damaging edits all over WP). Best thing would probably be to revert Historian19 edits, but I don't have time to do that myself right now. Further details can be had from the Administrators incidents page.Hohenloh (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Religion

"Approximately 86.8% of the population are Roman Catholic"

CIA Fact book shows 87.4%.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ei.html

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The 86.8% is from the 2006 census. I'm pretty sure the CIA figure is from 2002 (although they say it's from 2006). I never did trust the CIA...Hohenloh (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't about opinion, it's about the facts. --Krzyzowiec (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
It is about the facts, but only up to a point. The facts are that two reliable sources state different figures. It must then come down to opinion as to which source is more reliable. In this particular case the official Ireland government census of 2006 states "the share of Roman Catholics in the population fell from 88.4 per cent in 2002 to 86.8 per cent in 2006". This must be a more reliable source than figures published by a government agency from another country. Where the CIA obtained their figure is a mystery, unless they averaged the 2002 and 2006 census numbers. Still, they would have derived their figures from the Irish government and would, therefore, be a secondary source. The Ireland census results are a primary and reliable source. In my opinion the article should not be changed from 86.8%. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Unless the CIA are carrying out their own surveys, then the Irish government is the primary source and their figures are the correct ones. --HighKing (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. The Central Statistics Office figures are more reliable for their own country. Bonzostar (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I propose to move this article to "Ireland" and move the Ireland article to Ireland (island) or The island of Ireland. Any procedural matters that need doing would someone please do them. Sarah777 (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, why keep a dog and bark yourself? Listed at WP:RM, notified to the Irish, Northern Irish and UK noticeboards and the British Isles/whatever naming page for a start. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Not in the least. The disgraceful move of the "Flag of Ireland" and the Admin decision citing the title of this article plus the failure of the Admin community to restore the status quo despite clear consensus makes the case for a move overwhelming. Sarah777 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

*Support As per the discussions regarding the Flag of Ireland article, and per international usage, I believe that this article does not belong at "Republic of Ireland" since it is then used as an excuse to move *every* article to RoI. The name of the state is Ireland and it is important for an encyclopedia to be accurate first and foremost. If clarification is necessary, then it can be done in the article proper. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose Changed to Oppose since I wasn't aware of the Task Force. My objection is that this article is called "Republic of Ireland" which is inappropriate since it is the British name for the state rather than an internationally recognized alternative. But I would equally support a move to "Ireland (state)" or some other term, and the task force is a more appropriate place to resolve the issue at hand. Moving any article while the task force is in progress is inappropriate, as is citing the title of this article as reasons to move other articles. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The name of the island is Ireland and it is important for an encyclopedia to be accurate first and foremost. If clarification is necessary, then it can be done in the article proper. Srnec (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Srnec disambiguation is needed. Valenciano (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - 'as per' isn't a valid argument - I've read the policy. The name of the country is Ireland so surely it is important for an encyclopedia to be accurate first and foremost? Sarah777 (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Even though you opposed it Srnec you said it is important for an encyclopedia to be accurate first and foremost. I couldn't agree more; the name of the country is Ireland. In my book a country is more important than a geographical island so if Wikipedia is to be accurate first and foremost then this change needs to be made.Ιρλανδία (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A task force was set up after the last failed move request to try to thrash out a solution to this perennial question. My reasons for disagreeing can be read there. A new RM at this point, when nobody has seriously engaged in the task force in the last month, is premature and potentially disruptive. Scolaire (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: [[Ireland (island)]] and let us have an [[Ireland (state)]] as well. It's the only sensible (imho) solution to the disambiguation issue. Let us move on to creating and amending real articles ClemMcGann (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Ireland is the proper name of the country and should take precedence over the name of the island. Daicaregos (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Consensus hasn't been seen to noticeably change from the time of the last proposed move. I'm disappointed that this appears to be an attempt to game the system. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Scolaire's rationale. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as proposed, but I wouldn't mind Ireland (island) and Ireland (country). "Ireland" is certainly more correct and more common for the country than "Republic of Ireland", I don't think either one is the primary topic. -- Jao (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: In cases like this, it might be useful to see what WP:DISAM suggests. If we look at the page and apply what we read there to this situation, we can see that we have two identically-named entities (the country and the island), and there is some dispute about which is the primary term. In this case my reading of what is required would suggest that Ireland should be made into a disambiguation page which contains links to (a) Ireland (country) or Ireland (state) (whichever is decided upon), and (b) Ireland (island). There may, of course, be other issues that can help resolve the dispute, but it seems that this is what I see WP:DISAM would recommend. As for my own opinion, I offer none at this stage.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Agree with DDStretch The name of the article should reflect the name of the State with a bracketed description to mitigate ambiguity such as Ireland (state) or Ireland (Republic) RashersTierney (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I have to agree with DDStretch in the Ireland(state) + Ireland(island) solution. We should use either "Ireland" or "ROI" for all the Irish state articles, there is no real halfway house here that works well. The present situation is leading to ridiculous edit-warring, and even to more confusion. Both usages of the term Ireland are primary, and that causes some issues. Do as per America, that would be the ideal solution, and it will also add to consistency of the encyclopedia, IMO. Purple Arrow (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I also agree with DDStretch. Makes sense. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Scolaire's rationale. What is needed - before yet another move request can be entertained - is a defined and consensus agreement, not just on the name of this article, but on how to deal with the ambiguous nature of the term "Ireland" (island/country/state). Yet another move request - in the absence of any movement on that front - is a step backwards into the constant polling and multiple (and endless) RM debates. Guliolopez (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not least because the proponent offers no justification. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - on the grounds that the island of Ireland and former country of Ireland were around before the modern state of Ireland and I don't think this article should have that spot. Maybe Ireland (state), but not to Ireland itself. I do not oppose moving it from Republic of Ireland, but oppose moving it to Ireland. Canterbury Tail talk 13:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support but also prepared to accept a move to Ireland (state) or similar. ROI is just wrong and provocative --Snowded TALK 14:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the specific move proposed, but support the need for a move. User:ddstretch's comment above about WP:DISAM is appropriate, and for that reason I would support the Ireland (state), Ireland (island) and Ireland (diasmbiguation page) solution. Bazza (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support the specific move proposed. Per the discussions regarding the Flag of Ireland article, and per international usage, appropriate to the Wikipedia. "Ireland" is the offical name of the country, the name used internationally by all international organizations from NATO to the UN to the EU. Ireland (island) should suffice for the island. The attempt to use "Republic of Ireland" has done nothing but cause trouble in many articles; it was reasonable to make the attempt, but it simply doesn't work. Those who are sensitive to Unionist concerns have a right to their sensitivity, but their attempts to assuage that sensitivity in Wikipedia article naming conventions has simply not been useful to the community at large. They may remain sensitive, and the beginning sentences of articles should be careful to disambiguate, but in this case, the official name of the country and international usage must take precedence over the sensitivities of a minority in this case. -- Evertype·✆ 15:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Our policy demands we use the most common unambiguous name. Ireland is the most common name for the state, but it is not the most common unambiguous name because it is not unambiguous. That is all that matters here. Our policies do not endorse "official" naming over common and unambiguous naming, do not endorse "sensitive" naming over common and unambiguous naming, and do not endorse "accurate" naming if "accurate" is taken to mean anything other than most common and unambiguous (WP:PRECISION - "don't title articles ambiguously when the title has other meanings"). However, there may well be a solution involving a disambiguation page at Ireland that satisfies our policies. Knepflerle (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as proposed. Support suggestion that Ireland be a disambiguation page. Agnostic on exactly what names used for state and island pages.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, and subject to my earlier comment above, there are alternative solutions. The present format is not satisfactory and can lead to edit-warring, to disruption of the encyclopedia. It's time to bring this name debacle to an end. Purple Arrow (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
But since the "name" is ambiguous, it makes sense to use the "description" which is, to all intents and purposes, an alternative name. Mooretwin (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable...where's the catch? ;) RashersTierney (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment 9 votes to 13 with most of the 13 poor arguments and surely !votes. The move to calling the country by its actual name has real traction here, the weight of the arguments and thus consensus is running strongly in favour of a move. I think November 7th should be our target date to close this and make the move, unless someone comes up with a rational counter-argument. Sarah777 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I don't think there will be consensus Sarah, despite the issue on votes and quality of arguments. The more interesting consensus emerging is for DDStretch's proposal to make Ireland the disambiguation page and have two articles Ireland (state) and Ireland (island). That has been the obvious compromise for a long time --Snowded TALK 23:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps even the obvious solution. RashersTierney (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'd lend support to it if there was a formal proposal. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the reasons previously stated every time this comes up - why its even coming up now that there's supposed to be a taskforce looking at the issue is beyond me. And Sarah, "I don't like your opinion is in no way allowed to discredit or disallow anyone's opinion in this poll. Maybe you might want to learn the actual procedure (its not hard) before putting a proposal in future? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Bastun, if I need advice you'll be my very last port of call. Your argument is invalid btw, so that's another !vote. Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose this proposal. Might support disambig. page. Might also support leaving Ireland as is and making this "Ireland (something)." We'd still have to hash out the parenthetical "something"s at a disambig page or a situation where only ROI changes. I also support Scolaire's idea about continuing the task force Nuclare (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Withdraw proposed move

Having read several editors who would normally support this move express concern that this vote is taking place while a Task Force is active I am persuaded by their arguments and wish to withdraw this proposal. I'm sure Angus knows how to do that officially. I do so while maintaining my right to revisit this article title in the future. Sarah777 (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


It looks like the Irish-nationalist editors are getting confident that the Task Force is going to give them what they want. Mooretwin (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope it's a solution that everybody's happy with. Waggers (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that a few editors expressed some support for my suggestion that Ireland be made into a disambiguation page in the withdrawn article move discussion., I think it would be useful to raise tat issue on the formal Task Force page. So, I have done that as a statement and as a semi-formal proposal. The semi-formal proposal limits itself merely to the notion that WP:DISAM should be followed, and that Ireland should be made a disambiguation page. The names for the other two articles (about the country and about the island) can be considered separately once and if the basic acceptance that the standard wikipedia procedures for dealing with entities sharing the same name should be followed.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

For those, like me, still getting the hang of Wiki Navigation, DDStretch's semi-formal proposal at WP. IDTF is here RashersTierney (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Permission to notify

As recent practice has been to move/merge articles without proper process or informing interested editors I request permission from whoever to notify interested editors without being accused of WP:Canvassing. Some Admin please say that is OK? Sarah777 (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Friendly notice to editors who have been involved in previous discussions is not canvassing (unless you forget to notify all the editors who disagree with you). Go for it. A notice on WP:IWNB would also be a good idea. Scolaire (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I already left notes at various wikiprojects and the like. No canvassing specific editors please, but if you want to list this at a noticeboard, or even at the village pump (WP:VPR would likely be best), no problem there. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Angus. I knew there was a reason I needed someone else to do the barking:) Sarah777 (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Only British notice boards were notified by Angusmclellan. Purple Arrow (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
And I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling kids! ... But no, I'm made of sterner stuff than Scooby Doo villains. You won't catch me that easily. I've used my super-secret admin powers to alter the record to make it look like I left messages at the Irish and NI noticeboards and on a couple of other pages. Now nobody will be any the wiser. Mwah hah hah hah!
You know, maybe I should cut down on the coffee. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying Purple is right or are you saying Purple is wrong? Some of us wouldn't be inclined to scoff at the notion of "super-secret admin power". The cabal thingy. Sarah777 (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know Angusmclellan was an Administrator; oh well, I do now. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Purple was mistaken: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I think we're both needing to cut back on the coffee. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not explaining properly. It's mainly this one here [11]. I was wondering why only the UK was notified, as there would be other 'country notice boards'. Like France, America, Germany, etc etc Purple Arrow (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the logic myself. Ireland, or at least part of it, is connected with the United Kingdom [of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]. That's not the case with France or Germany. However, there's no reason why this can't be notified more widely if that's going to get more eyeballs. As I said, the village pump is likely the most widely read place this could be plugged. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is about Ireland, 'the other part'. RashersTierney (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The IWNB had already been notified (as if anyone could have missed the "discussion" here). Since the word "Ireland" was what was being discussed, and in particular how to categorise things called "Ireland" in this encyclopedia. It seems pretty matter-of-fact to notify UK-based editors of such a discussion. It's disappointing that nobody else thought to do so or that it would now be seem as something sinister to do so. --89.101.220.128 (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:U2-teenagers.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

New Ireland project

Hi all,
I've started a new Ireland related project which I hope will bridge a gap I feel exists between the two Wiki community's with an interest in Ireland related matters. The project has just started but I hope it will allow us to work together at first on uncontroversial articles such as Sports in Ireland and if successful I hope will allow for a more constructive and friendly approach to the controversial issues Gnevin (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Figures for page views (may also be useful for other projects)

Not really wanting to return to the awful Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland debacle, but I have just come across a tool that may be useful for many involved in projects across WP: http://stats.grok.se/

Figures show that the number of visits to Ireland far exceed those for Republic of Ireland (which are comparable to figures for Northern Ireland). To my mind this justifies Ireland-the-island occupying the "primary position" at Ireland, and Ireland-the-state taking "second place" at Republic of Ireland. --89.101.220.128 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. We've been through all this before, again & again & again.... GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
But no conclusions have been reached, so this was a useful contribution. Mooretwin (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
True. --89.101.220.128 (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
No. It merely shows that RoI isn't a common term for the country! If I wanted to look up the place that Dublin is in I sure wouldn't go looking in any "Republic of Ireland" ! effin' heck - logic you guys major in not!! Sarah777 (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
But the Anon editor says the figures are for visits, not just for initial searches. If what you imply were true, then people going to "Ireland" would be moving on to "Republic of Ireland", and so "Republic of Ireland" would have a similar number of visits as "Ireland". Mooretwin (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. It shows the combined number that:
  1. Searched for the term "Ireland" using the 'Go' button and were directed to the article about the island, but expected to be directed to the article on the state
  2. Searched for the term "Ireland" using the 'Go' button and were directed to the article about the island, as they expected
  3. Searched for the term "Ireland" using the 'Search' button and chose the article relating the island from the list of results
  4. Searched for a term other than "Ireland" using the 'Search' button and chose the article relating the island from the list of results
  5. Followed links on other WP pages that direct to Ireland
  6. Followed links from external sites that link to [12]
Sarah777's argument valid for that number of visitors that performed number 1 above. However, Sarah777's argument does not account for why an obviously sizeable number of those did not then move on to the article relating to the state (as ponited out by Mooretwin). Sarah77's argument does not account at all for those visitors that arrived at the article article relating to the island after performing 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6.
As you may say, "logic we guys major in yes" :) --62.24.204.7 (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
'fraid not. You assume too much. All it shows is that if searched the term "Ireland" and is directed to the island the browsing punter is likely to stay where they are directed! To test your notion you'd need "Ireland" to lead straight to the state for a few weeks and then compare the results. Logic old chap. Sarah777 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Assume nothing. But you pose a hypothesis. And it is not unplausible. But, as you know, you lack the consensus required to conduct an experiment. So, for now, your "argument does not account for why an obviously sizeable number of those did not then move on". (i.e. "All it shows is that if searched the term Ireland and is directed to the island the browsing punter is likely to stay where they are directed!" Is that because they are at the right place or because they just don't move on?) Anyway, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6? Logic, old girl :P --78.152.226.71 (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
For the record I have always thought the "Republic of Ireland" name should be a redirect to an article called "Ireland" and that this should be an article about the state. (And along with this, a sensibly-named disambig page and an article about the island somewhere -- there are many sensible naming solutions, but I do not think we are using any of them). I say this not because I think my opinion inherently matters, just because it might be nice to know what a commenter would ultimately like to happen. My passport has Eire and Ireland written on the front (in all-caps, but I didn't want to shout :) ). The phrase "Republic of" doesn't appear anywhere in the entire passport.
OK, preamble out of the way, I agree more closely with Sarah777 than with her detractors here. That more people hit the Ireland article than Republic of Ireland article is consistent with people looking for an article about the state and, despite the helpful link to Republic of Ireland at the top of the island article, fail to click there. This might be because Not all Wikipedia users are pros. The typical user looking for the GDP of Ireland will Google or Wikipedia-search "Ireland" (really, they will, 99% of any material they already have will talk about a state called "Ireland"), look at that article, see the information is not there, and move on to the CIA information page or some other source. Thus, in this scenario, Wikipedia failed, and the organisation of the information failed. Does this happen more often than not? The initial data indicates that something like this could be happening, and I think editors should be more concerned about this than many appear to be.
Postscript: I'm sure comments about Ireland being on the passport have been made many times before (possibly by me in a long-forgotten Discussion page archive). Well, here's another. Google "Ireland". I get the top hit as the Ireland page on Wikipedia. Every other hit on the first page is about the state of Ireland. Which website is getting it right and serving the user better? Google or Wikipedia? Show your workings :)
PS PS: The Guardian style-guide, something not to be sniffed at, most would agree, doesn't mention the phrase "Republic of" in connection with Ireland either, recommending "Ireland, Irish Republic, not Eire or 'Southern Ireland'". i.e. use "Ireland" or "Irish Republic"[13] -- and I think this London-based paper knows that this will never imply Northern Ireland. This hardly supports the case that "Republic of" is the ubiquitous or even overwhelmingly pervasive disambiguation, bordering on de facto name. Far from it. Apologies to anyone who has read all of this before, but it's been a while since I weighed in on this, and it's a free Wikipedia, right? :) Robertbyrne (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your assessment of a Google search. A generic google.com search results in the following (all-Ireland, Republic of Ireland and non-specific):

  • Ireland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia — The Ireland article
  • Republic of Ireland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia — For those who were looking for the state, here it is.
  • Vacation in Ireland - Official Website of Tourism Ireland — All-Ireland tourism body
  • Three News results for "ireland" — At time of search two were about Northern Ireland.
  • Discover Ireland - Failte Ireland's Official site for Home ... — Republic's tourism body
  • Information for Ireland or abroad, travel, entertainment listings ... — Ireland.com Portal, big map in the middle suggests all-Ireland, could go either way.
  • Ireland - Information on the Irish State — The Republic's Official Government portal
  • CIA - The World Factbook -- Ireland — About the Republic
  • Ireland, Free Family Crests, Maps, Genealogy and information — Generic Irish stuff
  • Ireland Travel Information and Travel Guide - Lonely Planet — Relates to both Irelands
  • Tourism Ireland | Corporate Website | - Home! — The all-Ireland tourism body

It should be noted that different results will be provided if you use Google.ie, Google.co.uk, if you are logged-in to a Google account, if safe-search is off, etc. If the problem is that Republic of Ireland is not an accurate title move it to Ireland (state) and leave the Ireland-proper where it is.  Roadnote  ♫  12:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I missed that Tourism Ireland and discoverireland.com are all-island (discoverireland.ie is about Ireland the country). I ignored the Google News and Google Maps (and the advertisements) that also come up, since these take a non-"PageRank" view and aren't significant for what I was trying to say.
I checked ireland.com the first time around and found it was about Ireland the country, not all-island. This was based on a quick look at its content and seeing it's highly republic-centric list of "content partners": Fáilte Ireland, Google, 365Sport, GoldenPages.ie, Entertainment.ie, Greatfood.ie, Menupages.ie, Booking.com, The Irish Times and Myhome.ie. However I now see it covers Northern Ireland too (or talks about Belfast a bit anyway).
My other points about how people end up at the Ireland (island) article and about the Guardian style-guide still stand, for what they're worth :) Robertbyrne (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I thought the lonelyplanet link was about Ireland the country too. In the entire 9-paragraph "overview" they only talk about Northern Ireland in two sentences in the sixth paragraph. Despite their care to write "Population 4.2 million (Republic), 1.7 million (Northern Ireland)" and the early phrase "the Republic went to the polls", the site mostly exists in an Ireland=a country world: stats on the left like Territory size, inflation and unemployment rate all refer to Ireland the country, not the whole island, and the overview using phrases such as "with the country virtually unrecognisable from the Ireland of 20 years ago" and "Ireland is a complex, often contradictory country". Despite all of this, I concede that Lonely Planet lumps Northern Ireland into its "Ireland" category (and has no "United Kingdom" category at all: the only other British Isles categories are "England", "Scotland" and "Wales"). But I thought otherwise in good faith :) Robertbyrne (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

St Malachy's College, Belfast

Hi, could you clarify the section in the Religion section relating to seminaries. It says "… and all but two of its sacerdotal seminaries have closed (St Patrick's College, Maynooth and St Malachy's College, Belfast)." Because Belfast is in Northern Ireland, UK. The sentence seems to be saying to me that Belfast is in RoI. Could it be changed to something that says although St Malachy's College is in UK it services the whole island of Ireland. --203.220.170.236 (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Simplest thing to do is take out the bit in parens. IE: Just simply have:
Between 1996 and 2001, regular Mass attendance, declined further from 60% to 48% (it had been above 90% before 1973), and all but two of the Catholic sacerdotal seminaries have closed.[FULLSTOP]
Needs a cite though. Guliolopez (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually. I've had a rethink on this. Based on this source, I think the setence should be reworded to state that:
Between 1996 and 2001, regular Mass attendance declined from 60% to 48% (it had been above 90% before 1973).[REF] In the same period, seven Irish seminaries closed - leaving just one in Maynooth.[FULLSTOP][REF]
As per the anon's point, if St. Malachy's is to be mentioned, it probably does need a qualifier to confirm that it's in NI. Guliolopez (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Ireland/Archive_9&oldid=1255711375"