Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles/Archive 2

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

Irish names in biography articles

I've stared a discussion on the provision of Irish names in biography articles on the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Gaeilge project page and would appreciate people's views on the matter.--Damac 21:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


A reasonably comprehensive list of "years-in-Ireland" has been built up. I propose that we incorporate an injunction in the IMOS that we use the form [yyyy in Ireland|yyyy] rather than simply [yyyy] - unless the latter is, from the context, evidently more appropriate.

Example: 1169 rather than 1169.

Each "Irish year" has a direct connection at the top of the page to the global Christian year - so the proposed is far more likely to direct the reader to relevant information without breaking the global connection.

Sarah777 (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I'd like it more this was standard all round for Wikipedia. Rather than make the proposal here only, how about making it to the full Wikipedia MOS. It is already half-suggested (see section), but I think it's time to hammer it our more. I don't think that "YYYY in Ireland" would always be appropriate, for example when talking about setting up the League of Nation in an Ireland-related article, or about World War II, it may be more appropriate to talk about global events. Or if and Ireland-article refers to the 1848 revolutions, it may be more appropriate to link to YYYY in Europe (if that exists). But certainly I think the closer to the subject the link is, the better. --sony-youthpléigh 13:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Adds: Just saw "unless the latter is, from the context, evidently more appropriate" - sorry, you'd alreay mentioned that. --sony-youthpléigh 13:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of the yyyy in Ireland articles don't link to the actual year from my experience, but other than that I have no issues with this and it seems a very sensible idea. On movie articles they link to yyyy in film. But yes I'd like it to be more in the general MOS as well rather than just the Ireland articles. Ben W Bell talk 13:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that Ben and have been working through the centuries to standardise the header with the international link centre top. I think maybe we could fix the format of the "yyyy in Ireland" in the IMOS while we are at it. All the years I've looked at are in one of three styles; fairly similar bar the missing international link in one of them. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC))
Don't you think it might be better received in the wider community if we said "This is what we do in Ireland related articles. We think it might be good if it was adopted by a wider audience", i.e. do it here first and then offer the option to the community to adopt it. Just a thought. MurphiaMan (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Good idea (Sony and Murph). I think maybe Sony might propose it (?) - I'm know out there for being a bit truculent! (Sarah777 (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC))
The years in Ireland have always covered Ireland, there was fork a while ago, when a Canadian started a series of "years in Northern Ireland", (I cant find where this happened). I think the years should be done on Island basis, certainly Sports, Arts, and even deaths would seem natural, and as NI politics are distinct from Britain, I think there is an equal case treating it on an all-Ireland basis as an all-UK basis. However I think the risk of Ireland years getting hijacked by the Ireland stops at the dotted line brigade needs to be looked at, before this is rolled out. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the NI/Ireland question is probably a separate issue; either way if some folk insist on a separate post-1922 set for NI it may be daft, politically motivated and cranky but till the occupied six are liberated I guess we are stuck with it. (Sarah777 (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Birthplace: Ireland or N. Ireland?

Jim McFadden, Bobby Kirk, and Sammy McManus all show "Belfast, Ireland" as their place of birth. Is this the agreed-upon standard, or should this display "Belfast, Northern Ireland"? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See the archives, notably Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Archive 1#Names of areas and Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Archive 1#Ireland pre-independence biographical convention.3F. The people I have changed were not born in Northern Ireland, as it did not exist as an entity at the time in question. One Night In Hackney303 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
And as was pointed out to you in the archive, that is totally factually incorrect. Ireland is not now Northern Ireland. One Night In Hackney303 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
<pedant> "Belfast, Ireland (now Belfast, Northern Ireland)" would solve that </pedant>. Rockpocket 18:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but what's the relevance of adding previous or future context to a place? Bear in mind it applies to literally thousands of articles (including the USSR, Yugoslavia etc etc). Why should exceptions be made for any article without a very good reason? It's a slippery slope to documenting the history of a place every time it's mentioned in any article. One Night In Hackney303 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Rockpocket 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"Why should exceptions be made for any article without a very good reason?" - Clarity. It's our mission. Also, it wouldn't be factually incorrect to have "Belfast, Ireland (now in Northern Ireland)" - no one would make the misunderstanding you're wilfully making. Other articles do do it as you know - such as that on Stanislaw Lem - born in "Lwów, Poland (now Ukraine)". Why can't we be as grown up as the Poles and Ukrainians? I guess it'll never happen on this page... Malick78 (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If you bring an attitude like that to this page, people aren't going to listen to you. One Night In Hackney303 19:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It's called tough love. :) Malick78 (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I realized last night that they say "Ireland", and not "Northern Ireland", because they were born there before the division. But since you've brought up some good suggestions, why don't we use "Belfast, Ireland (now in Northern Ireland)"? It seems logical. Bear in mind that I have no interest in debating about which "Ireland" is better, as I am not from the island. What I care about here is clarity. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
<reduce indent> Twas, Malick and Rocket, as far as I know Belfast is still in Ireland, so "Belfast, Ireland (now in Northern Ireland)" is grossly misleading - in fact, you will find, I believe, that the entirety of Northern Ireland is still in Ireland, partition for all it's effects could do little about that. Malick, the examples you give all refer explicitly to political entities with changing borders, akin to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, where towns have shifted "ownership" between states over time. Ireland is not a political entity; it's borders only change through the natural processes of erosion and deposition. Thankfully, these processes are quite slow and thus, as close as Belfast is to the coast, for the time being, it is safely far enough inland to avoid any danger of becoming dislodged and drifting elsewhere.
The same applies for the other jurisdiction on the island. Thus the Duke of Wellington was born in Ireland, and his place of birth is still in Ireland. We don't ascribe him as being born in "Ireland (now the Republic of Ireland)". However, if we were to describe describe Dublin as being in the United Kingdom, a causal mention of the fact that it is now in the Republic of Ireland might be apt.
You might try to describe Bobby Kirk or others as being born in "Belfast, the United Kingdom" but consensus (as was virulently defended by UK-based editors) is to describe UK places in their traditional manner. We easily describe Shakesphere as being born in England, without fretting to clarify that Stratford-upon-Avon is now in the United Kingdom. Which puts us right back to where we were. Pre-1922, Belfast is in Ireland. Post-1922 it is in Northern Ireland. This is, from my experience, the usual way of historically describing places in Ireland. It's clean, neat, conventional and accurate. --sony-youthpléigh 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Confusion arises because, typically, when people say "Ireland", they are referring to the republic. Anyway, I don't care anymore. This isn't something with which I want to get involved, so I will leave the squabbling to those who squabble. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If someone was born pre-division then I honestly believe it should be the name of the state as it was. ie Belfast, Ireland. Updating it to be relevant to modern geography opens a massive can of worms as using it here would mean using it in all other articles where the name of the country/state has changed since the person's birth which is thousands of articles. The link is there for them to determine what it is now, but putting in (now in Northern Ireland) or the like is just adding extra information that isn't actually relevant since the article isn't actually concerned about geography but is biographical in nature. My vote (if it was a vote) would be just country/state as it was at the time. Belfast, Ireland. But not Belfast, United Kingdom or the like as all people from the UK (current UK and former UK) tend to be listed by their constituent part rather than the whole union name. Ben W Bell talk 00:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Ben. Working on some ancient years it would be an immense pain to have to say that "Fethard was founded in 1200 in what is now County Tipperary in the modern [Republic of Ireland|Ireland]". Sarah777 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You're all au fait with Irish history. People like Twas Now and myself are not (even though I have Irish ancestors) - therefore seeing Ireland - we automatically think of the modern state (and definitely not the island!! sony-youth) - hence confusion. The average reader is who we should consider, and this confuses them. Adding (now Northern Ireland) is the least confusing way of doing things - and no one (with the exception of Hackney) can easily be offended by it.
Lastly, referring to the state as it then was can be problematic in itself - no one talking about Boudicca would hesitate to say that she was born in "what is now Great Britain" - to call it Brittania would be perverse, even though that is what it was then called. As I say, if Poles and Ukrainians are happy with the way Lodz is described, why are we so touchy about following their lead? Malick78 (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"... no one talking about Boudicca would hesitate to say that she was born in 'what is now Great Britain' ..." - yet, that is exactly that the Boudica article does. (Unsurprisingly, since she was born in Great Britain, that being an island.) Boudicca was born in Britain, Bobby Kirk was born in Ireland. This is the standard way of describing things. If I buy a travel guide to Ireland, I expect Belfast to be described in it (see for example). I expect most people do also. --sony-youthpléigh 11:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
My point was more that they don't use the term, Britannia, which was in use at the time of the events. The article says Britain, which is clear to readers now (who will associate it more with the current state rather than the island actually) - but links to Roman Britain - a helpful link, where the article then says: "The Romans referred to their province as Britannia". So the term which is most accurate historically, Britannia, is used only when it is appropriate and clear.
Basically you're arguing for accuracy to make those in the know happy, while I'm arguing for a compromise that allows more casual readers to avoid jumping to the wrong conclusion. Why should a reader in Kenya, for example, be expected to realise that while Belfast was under one jurisdiction at one time in its history, it's now under another when we can just state it straight away with a minimum of fuss? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malick78 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If you were aiming for political accuracy, then you'd say someone born in Belfast in the 19th century was born in "Belfast, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"; but if it's just geography, then there's nothing wrong with Belfast, Ireland. People know Belfast is not today in the Republic of Ireland, but as that didn't exist in the 19th century, "Ireland" is hardly ambiguous. Ireland, as well as being an island, is a nation like Scotland, England and Wales, and doesn't need to have full sovereign independence to be recognised as Ireland; no-one has a problem (well, a few Britannic nutters aside) with writing Edinburgh, Scotland, in any era. More to the point, Ireland doesn't link to the modern state, but to the island nation, so I don't see any problem with "Belfast, Ireland". Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, when you say that when people read "Ireland" they assume it refers to the place that has Dublin as its main city - I could not agree more! But that is another can of worms because it opens the question of the most appropriate title for the article now called the Republic of Ireland. But going back in history the island has been divided into two states for only 80 years of its recorded history of 2,000 years plus. So when talking of events in, say 1200, it is completely irrelevant which of the two states a place was then. I guess the call would depend on the specific context. Does this hypothetical Kenyan want to know what modern county Ormonde was in? The current article doesn't think so (nor does it give the modern state). Does he need to be told, while reading of the Siege of Fethard that modern Fethard is situated where the R692, R689 and R706 regional roads intersect? Sarah777 (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Malick, you wrote: "Why should a reader in Kenya, for example, be expected to realise that while Belfast was under one jurisdiction at one time in its history, it's now under another ..." Belfast is not under a different jurisdiction since the time of the birth of these people. That's the difference. Your example before was that "... if Poles and Ukrainians are happy with the way Lodz is described, why are we so touchy about following their lead?" First, did you mean Lviv or some other place? In any case, it's simply a different situation. Lviv changed hands between the Ukraine and Poland. Belfast was in Ireland. It still is. Belfast was in the United Kingdom. It still is. Belfast did not change hands between any state. Lviv did. That's the difference. That's why it is sometimes wise to describe Lviv in those terms. After re-unification (slightly joking), George Best will undoubtedly be described as having been born in "Belfast, Northern Ireland (now in the Republic of Ireland)". But for now, these people were born in Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, and we don't need to go confusing things by running off on tangents about how a different part of Ireland is no longer a part of that state. Nothing about the location of the Belfast has changed since then. It is still in the United Kingdom; and it is still in Ireland. Lviv on the other hand, has gone from being in Poland to being in the Ukraine. That, sometimes, might be worth noting. --sony-youthpléigh 12:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, Lviv - don't know why Lodz popped into my head. Hmm, I feel we may not convince each other:)) How about a vote? And is there a more neutral place to have it? I feel this page will automatically attract people with a vested interest when we really care about the average reader. Thoughts? Malick78 (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Be mindful of WP:POLLS Gnevin (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You could drop a line at Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland or the Wikipedia:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board to notify people there of the discussion. A word at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland or the Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board, and possibly Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board, would not go amiss also.
I'm a bit worried that you think that this isn't a "neutral place" or that editors here would have "vested interests". You should know that the the editors have have argued against a change to the current practice have come from a broad cross section of "interests" regarding Northern Ireland, but wider input wouldn't be a bad thing, as neither would adding any outcome to the IMOS itself.
I would not be in favour of a straight vote (see WP:VOTE), but outlining some consistent approaches might be useful. --sony-youthpléigh 12:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Btw, a quick google search shows "Ireland (now Northern Ireland)" gets 1180 hits. Can it really be so bad? "Poland (now Ukraine)" gets 1560. It's a useful way of expressing the complexity of the issue. Malick78 (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It gets 58 unique hits. One Night In Hackney303 09:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Recently noticed this: Sigmund Freud is described as having been born "in Příbor (German: Freiberg in Mähren), Moravia, Austrian Empire, now Czech Republic." It's clear and concise - despite the complexity of the changes that have occurred in the area - uncontroversial, and neutral. The current situation in relation to Irish/Northern Irish geography is none of these. Let's copy it:)

The Derry dispute

The insistence of some changing the name of County Derry to Londonderry is somewhat bizzare, when referring to GAA teams in particular. It also seems to be inconsistant when you take the following into account; "A compromise has been proposed at WP:IWNB that the form "is a town on the coast of County Cork, Ireland" should be used. This is already widely used and will allow it to appear as Ireland whilst linking to Republic of, as per Follow local conventions."

Couldn't a similar arrangement be made for the Derry/Londonderry dispute when the subject is related to the GAA i.e. County Derry?. Afterall the largest sporting body in Ireland, the government of the 26 counties and the majority of people in Ireland recognize the county as being called Derry. Maccabass (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with GAA teams and Derry/Londonderry?Gnevin (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I added the following to an article on Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa "Other GAA teams throughout Ireland have also been named after him including Ard Bó Uí Dhonnabhain Rossa in County Tyrone and Ó Donnabháin Rosa Machaire Fíolta of County Derry". I find the insistence of changing Derry to Londonderry strange particularly when talking about GAA clubs (or as another example, people from Derry who clearly see themselves as Irish).Maccabass (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
On top of this I'd also be interested in seeing where " a compromise solution was proposed and accepted by many users" as stated in this article as that point is still awaiting citation. And even if this did take place the term "many users" isn't exactly a solid foundation to base changing Derry to Londonderry.Maccabass (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
With the county and the GAA teams if the terminology is referring to a geographical area it should always use County Londonderry as that is the official name of the area that is under discussion. However if the terminology is specifically referring to the GAA Leagues then it should be County Derry as that is the name of the GAA league and no official county naming can change that. If specifically using County Derry and not County Londonderry is an issue for you and is relevant to the article, then word it so it is obviously discussing the league and not the geographical location. Ben W Bell talk 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, given the article for the geographical location entitled "County Londonderry" states in it "...or County Derry" there is a clear indication that the county is known by two names. For this reason and others wouldn't it be pertient to come up with a better compromise than the current one?Maccabass (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the statement in WP:IMOS goes beyond the compromise, which was purely about the article titles. I think the GAA point about the league and county team above is legitimate, while on the other hand, I think this edit comment [1] is wrong --Rumping (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
How is that edit summary wrong? If we're going for an approach of "a source says Derry" or "a source says Londonderry" it's just inviting people to find sources that support their preferred name, while other people will find sources that support their preferred name. Result? Edit warring! And I updated the guideline page to reflect the current way the guideline is used. For months and months (if not longer) editors (regardless of background) have used Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county in articles citing this very guideline, the guideline now reflects that. I don't think anyone wants the door opening to mass edit warring across hundreds of articles or a similar number of individual talk page discussions about which name should be used in that article, it would be a waste of everyone's time. One Night In Hackney303 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish names for people who did not use them: PROPOSED TEXT

I have added the following text to the Manual of Style:

  • If someone did not use the Irish version of his or her name, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic for Wikipedians to "invent" such names. Books about Irish surnames are interesting and useful, but making use of them to devise Irish names for subjects of the Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, as it constitutes original research.

I trust it will solve some of the problems we have had of late. -- Evertype·✆ 11:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No I'd also add ,
If the Irish version of his or her name has wide spread usage or publication but the person them self rarely use's it is appropriate to use the Irish name such as GAA players Gnevin (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This would be:
  • If someone did not use the Irish version of his or her name, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic for Wikipedians to "invent" such names. Books about Irish surnames are interesting and useful, but making use of them to devise Irish names for subjects of the Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, as it constitutes original research. If the Irish version of a person's name is in widespread usage or publication even if the person rarely uses it may appropriate to use the Irish name (GAA players are an example of this). But in such a case there must be an external citation for the usage.
-- Evertype·✆ 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoah! I think we're melding two separate questions:
  1. What sources are acceptable as proof that a particular Irish version of a person's name is accurate
  2. When is it appropriate to include the Irish version of a person's name?
This happened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Gaeilge#RfC: Verifiability and reliability of sources used to produce Irish-language versions of subjects' names, where the RfC was about #1 but strayed into #2. Evertype's proposed text is, I think, intended to address #1 but is ambiguous; Gnevin's addition clearly relates to #2. I suggest we need 2 separate discussions.

For point 1, the consensus from the RfC (all except User:Domer48 I think) was something like the following:

  • When giving the Irish version of the name of a person normally referred to by an English-language name, a source can only be considered reliable if it provides an Irish version explicitly for that individual. It is not acceptable to cite a generic English-Irish dictionary of names to translate the person's forename(s) and surname(s) and present this combination as the person's name in Irish.

I suggest we agree this quickly and then move on to question 2, where the real fun can begin. jnestorius(talk) 23:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Support for Point 1: Glad that we're moving on. I agree with Jnestorius in that we should discuss the essence of Evertype's original suggestion, adequately reflected and enhanced in "Point 1" above, and then move on to Point 2.--Damac (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think before we get carried away with ourselves, that a post is placed on the relevant notice boards to build up consensus?--Domer48 (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
After three discussions on this issue, once in April 2006, again in November 2007 and, more recently, this month, a consensus has emerged. Notice on above proposal has been provided on WikiProject Ireland and WikiProject Gaeilge.--Damac (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been various discussions, but as of yet no consensus. Consensus must be established first. --Domer48 (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Support for Point 1: I accept that the two elements can be separated. With regard to Domer48, I can only say that I have seen that he wants to use Surname books to devise names for people. That is Original Research, and therefore out of bounds. Where he says (as here) "there is no consensus" he may mean "there is no unanimity", but consensus does not require unanimity. I suspect, Domer48, that the rule will be against the practice that you wish to engage in. (I have made the proposals under discussion in bold type above for clarity. Would someone like to try to merge them so we can have one text to discuss?) -- Evertype·✆ 13:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I know what consensus is! I also know its not a vote. --Domer48 (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I recognize that since April 2006 there has been consensus that inventing Irish names for people is Original Research and therefore such practice should not be engaged in on the Wikipedia. I see no counter-argument. Therefore I stand by the text as proposed. -- Evertype·✆ 13:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The two proposals

1. What sources are acceptable as proof that a particular Irish version of a person's name is accurate?

Proposed text:
  • When giving the Irish version of the name of a person who is normally referred to by an English-language name, a source can only be considered reliable if it provides an Irish version explicitly for that individual. It is not acceptable to cite a generic English-Irish dictionary of names to translate the person's forename(s) and/or surname(s) and present this combination as the person's name in Irish.

2. When is it appropriate to include the Irish version of a person's name?

Proposed text:
  • If someone did not use the Irish version of his or her name, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic for Wikipedians to "invent" such names, as this constitutes original research.

I think that's right. -- Evertype·✆ 13:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What source would be considered to be verifiable and deemed to be reliably sourced, and cite examples. Would a book published by the Irish Genealogy Press for example, be considered to be verifiable and deemed to be reliable sourced. A book which gives the root branch of the original name, in addition to is subsequent originate.--Domer48 (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
A source which talks about an individual person and gives his name in English and Irish would be such a source. NO GENERIC BOOK which lists forenames and surnames would be permitted. ONLY a book which indicated the Irish name of a specific individual person would be permitted. To put it another way, inventing Irish names for people by looking up the names in a book about personal and surnames would NEVER be permitted, because that is Original Research. -- Evertype·✆ 15:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As i've said the trouble with this wording is GAA players where they may not use the name themself but its widely used by the GAA
If someone did not have an Irish version of his or her name in common usage, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic for Wikipedians to "invent" such names, as this constitutes original research.
Is better, no ? Gnevin (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a manual of style entry on this? Every edit is subject to WP:VERIFY. Djegan (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Djegan on this if it meets WP:VERIFY then it stays if not it goes simple really. BigDunc (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If we have to have an entry that explicitly prohibits something that is already not permitted then we have a very serious problem and are just underlining it. Action is needed where their are problems, not a restatement of well defined policy. Djegan (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't need a debate on how to codify policy for Irish names that are "invented" when their is already a clear and well defined policies. People who add "invented" Irish names are subject to the same policies as everyone else. Therefore suspected "invented" names are subject to verification on demand, and subject to removal when not verified in good time. No need for a policy "as gaeilge" here! Djegan (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Evertype I have asked you to cite sources which would be considered verifiable and deemed to be reliably sourced. Why would NO GENERIC BOOK which lists forenames and surnames would be permitted. Are the authors just "inventing Irish names"? To put it another way, just making them up. Is that what you are saying? How is a book which meets our criteria on verifiable and deemed to be reliably sourced considered by you to be verifiable and deemed to be reliably sourced. --Domer48 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Any "fool" can take out an old Irish-English school dictionary and translate names of people, places and things. That does not mean that they should be added to Wikipedia. They must pass WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Word playing with dictionaries is clearly original research, it is not permitted. Djegan (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Djegan the book I was citing is not a dictionary, but gives a history of Irish names. --Domer48 (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment is not an accusation against your character or contribution.
Rather if we are to add the Irish name of something it must pass all official policies in the first instance when challenged, it also needs to be reasonably notable. These are things which are already generally accepted on wikipedia. Djegan (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem Djegan. --Domer48 (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A book saying that O'Sullivan and Ó Súilleabháin are equivalent names is one thing. A Wikipedian using such a book to create the Irish name of any particular individual would be engaging in Original Research. That's right. You CANNOT give any particular person Irish names. You have to find an actual source showing that the particular person used an Irish name. -- Evertype·✆ 16:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly Evertype this is covered already with WP:VERIFY and WP:RS IMO this is another waste of time by Damc the same as the RfC he started regarding ODBN in which the reliability of the source was never questioned. BigDunc (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Djegan, I understand what your saying. The rules are clear about what is going on. Domer48's insistence on baptising specific people with Irish names by looking names up in generic dictionaries and then combining and applying this info, defies a number of WP rules, specifically original research and synthesis.
Time and time again I've tried to point this out to him, but he remains obdurate. Consider this example, where Domer, within the space of a few weeks, moves from insisting that a particular Irishman, Raymond McCartney, has an Irish name (providing "sources" of course) to arguing that he has a Scottish one:
First, one removes unreferenced material,[2] only to have a completely unreliable, unreferenced and self-published source used to reinsert the material.[3] Then, after one points out that this represents original research,[4], along comes an editor (who has been exposed as a sockpuppet master this week) and reverts without any discussion.[5] One continues to point out WP rules in this regard.[6] and even starts a discussion on this particular name on the talk page, but this is all reverted again.[7] The one is forced to raise the unreliability of a specific source[8], providing a detailed explanation on the talk page.[9] That solves the problem for a while, until Domer48 charges back in and decides that this person doesn't have an Irish name after all, but does have a "Scottish' one.[10]
That's how ludicrous it has got. With this character, no matter how you explain it to him or what rules you refer to, he will carry on regardless.
This has dragged on for too long. The only way I see of resolving this issue is to have this rule added to the IMOS, thus reaffirming and clarifying overall WP policy. A formal proposal has been made which, if passed, will solve this problem once and for all.
Beware of Domer48 and BigDunc's obstructionism. When consensus emerges on an issue, they demand discussion. When a proposal is made to modify the IMOS, they demand more discussion. When a discussion starts, they hurry to point out that its not a vote. Then when someone like Djegan, whose motives are beyond reproach, suggests that we simply apply the rules, these two disruptive editors jump around like cheer leaders in the hope that, once again, this issue will be allowed to pass and they can continue with their policy-defying disruption.
If we fail to provide a clear rule, this pair will create havoc every time any of us tries to remove one of these conjured-up Irish names from articles. We have to act now.--Damac (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Damc there is a clear rule in place already WP:V this covers it we dont need to waste time on this discussion. BigDunc (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
BigD, you've zero credibility when you talk about WP rules. Were we to follow your ramblings, we'd still be reading edit summaries such as "Removed reference to "Sites that require registration",[11] "Subject of article is not Oxford DNB?",[12] "Do not add restricted sites when unrestricted ones are available",[13][14] used to remove perfectly verifiable sources from Wikipedia.--Damac (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well Damac you have just proved you have zero credibility when it comes to supplying diffs as anyone can see I made 2 of the 4 diffs you supplied when I misunderstood WP:EL and your edit summaries.BigDunc (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Least we forget Damac your explicit threat to disrupt wiki, for a bit of point scoring. So we all know what motivates you. Not to mention a little canvassing. What next on your list, Street Names, Towns, Cities, because if you don't have an issue, I'm sure you will find one. --Domer48 (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
My interest in this whole issue goes back long before last week and you know that.
Canvassing? I was simply contacting people who have an interest the issues. I also contacted relevant boards, before and after your request. You wanted discussion and you have it.
I've no intention of moving on to towns and places, especially considering that I've added a few in my time. But unlike the names you provide, all of these can be backed up by numerous and authentic sources. There are so many references that can say that town XX in English is town YY in Irish. That is not the case for the Irish names you provided.
That's the issue here.--Damac (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Everyone: WP:NPA -- Comment on content, not on the contributor. Djegan (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish people would sign their posts. Djegan, I think we really need an explicit IMOS here, as the general rules do not seem to work with the editors in question. -- Evertype·✆ 19:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I here what your saying Djegan and of course you right. I have tried to be reasonable, as can be seen here and here. It was suggested that the names had to be referenced and that is what I attempted to do (have a look at my contributions for the 10 November). Read my comments here, here and here, during the last discussion, was I being reasonable, I think I was? So this "with the editors in question" nonsence, it gets a bit old, if you know what I mean? --Domer48 (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me (and the participants of this discussion) of that particular incident. Thanks to you insistence that we can use newspapers as a source for people's Irish names, Mairéad Farrell now has three names according to Wikipedia: her English-language one and two Irish-language ones (Máiréad Ní Fhearghail and Mairéad Ní Fhearail). Both the latter are referenced with An Phoblacht articles.
Imagine, two names! Both cannot be correct. And Raymond McCartney now having a "Scottish" name, according to you.
Anyone who stands over such stupidity can never be reasonable in my book.
This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and unless each Irish name provided is backed up with authoritative sources stating that that particular person went by a specific name in Irish themselves, we shouldn't be conjuring them up and adding them here. That's what this is all about.--Damac (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Yes, I'm afraid we do need such an entry on the IMOS. It should cite WP:V and clarify "for the avoidance of doubt" that it applies specifically to the issue of adding alternative names where the source cited does not meet the criteria of WP:CITE (because it is a citation for generic translation of names, not a specific citation for this name for this person). The problem here is that Domer48 does not accept that his (good faith) edits are in violation of WP:V because he can cite the dictionaty, so it has to be spelt out for him. --Red King (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Red King, it was at least gracious of you to concede that my edits are a least done in good faith, thought slightly tinged with the having to “spell it out” to be. Credits were its due though all the same. However, Damac just can not seem to stop themselves from telling lies, and credits me with Mairéad Farrell having three versions of her name. The diff’s clearly show that I added no such thing, as can be seen here, and sure was it not himself who added the other one here. As for the McCartney reference, here is the source, with a note. The source says the name has a Scottish Gaelic origin. Ah but we can’t let the truth get in the way of a good story can we. Damac catch yourself on will yeh, you make us all look bad with your carry on. In deference to the other editors, I’ll not be drawn into dialog with Damac as it has become demeaning, and I apologise for the tone and aspect which this discussion has taken on. --Domer48 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That RedKing has said that your edits have been in good faith does not meant that they were right. They were wrong. You (or anybody else) should NOT invent Irish names for people by using surname dictionaries. Do you understand this, or not? -- Evertype·✆ 01:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Their is no place for dictionaries or lists to effect a translation (its original research and not permitted - translation is not a science, it takes a lot of experience to develop the skill). When an Irish name is challenged then someone needs to be able to demonstrate a citation that explicitly uses whats been proposed - and also they need to demonstrate that the usage of the Irish word is notable. We don't provide Irish names of Irish people just because their Irish - this isn't a translation blog. We need to get real on this folks and stop slurring others just because you disagree on their opinion. Get professional folks, not amateurish. Djegan (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I just ignore Evertype, as they are carrying on in the same vein as the other gobshite. Djegan if I were to cite the source I used on an article about Irish Names, it would meet our criteria on WP:V and WP:RS, but if I was to use it to reference a name it would be a case of original research. Now because it has not been explicitly stated to date that this is the case, and is in fact still only being proposed here, why do you insist on calling it WP:OR. Under the proposed discussion, we wish to change the criteria of what is WP:V in relation to the use of Irish names. So the next editor who wishes to claim WP:OR had better be able to show were this was agreed to, because if the can, then what are these proposels being discussed for. --Domer48 (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are being both rude and obtuse. We maintain that it is WRONG to use a book of forenames and surnames to cobble together an Irish name for a person who does not use an Irish name. We want a policy to PREVENT people from cobbling together Irish names for people who do not use Irish names. Your suggestion, again and again, is merely that you feel that it is legitimate to use a surname dictionary to determine the Irish names for people. That is original research and it is not allowed. That is the consensus we have here. We want you to stop doing what you are doing because it is the wrong thing to do. Get it? -- Evertype·✆ 11:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the dissenter to the obvious consensus here has just called the rest of us "gobshites", I believe the argument is over. I am placing the two new rules into the Manual of Style. -- Evertype·✆ 11:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Domer48 - your easily violating WP:NPA here. You are fighting a loosing battle from here on in. Djegan (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made a number of points which need to be addressed. As of now, I still do not know what sources are deemed to be accatable? There are only two editor of have referenced, because of they tone and way they conducted themselves, I consider it an adpt discription--Domer48 (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example. An article about Nicholas Williams may not name him "Nioclás Mac Liam" unless there is a source which shows that particular individual to be known under that particular name. (He never, ever, ever is called by an Irish name.) You may not use An Sloinnteoir Gaeilge agus an tAinmneoir or Sloinnte uile Éireann: All Ireland Surnames to invent Irish names for individual people. Never. This addresses your point. -- Evertype·✆ 13:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm violating WP:NPA here, Djegan are we being a bit slective here or what. We have a proposel being discussed, which suggests that there is a problem with the current policy. I'm looking for some clarity, in the proposed wording. And you start edit warring under the new criteria that by not addressing any of my questions, you can revert an edit which was valid. The edit I reverted was again some new criteria, that being, they were offended by a view I had of their conduct so they can introduce their proposels without any consensus. Jesus, all this new criteria, its hard to keep up. Now I'm going to make it simple, this is what I want answered.
  • What sources can be used to reference a name?
Simple question! I don't want a re-hash of anything. I know all about WP:V and WP:RS, and this proposel adds additional criteria to thoses policies and guidlines, but only on the WP:IMOS. So I being told what sources I can not use, tell me what ones I can use. It says a lot about you that you all continue to discuss it, yet implement your proposles, by edit warring regardless. --Domer48 (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You may not use An Sloinnteoir Gaeilge agus an tAinmneoir or Sloinnte uile Éireann: All Ireland Surnames to invent Irish names for individual people. Never. This addresses your point. -- Evertype·✆ 14:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to jump in here, having just read through the foregoing discussion. The proposed rules seem to me to be reasonable. They are clear, and rational, as to what CANNOT be used as the source for an Irish version: sources which do not use the name specifically of that person. Just because the dictionary says that Patrick is "Padraig" and Pearse is "MacPiaras" doesn't mean we can go on that alone. If that's all you have, it's not enough; it's original research. If you have a source that describes Padraig Pearse as Padraig MacPiaras (and obviously in this case, you will), then you've got a potential source, but still not a verifiable source. We cannot specify in advance what is a verifiable source, since that will depend on the context, and requires a more subjective, consensus-led view. If an Irish language newspaper describes Barack Obama as 'Bearac O'Bama' that would not, I suspect, be enough; if the man himself, in an address to the Boston branch of the Sons of Saint Patrick, calls himself by that name, it might. But every case has to be assessed on its merits, though precedent would count of course. --Rbreen (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Some comments:

  • In fairness to Domer48, we could do with some examples of what is good practice, rather than simply stating what is bad practice. I don't think there is a single source, it will be on a case-by-case basis; but a few illustrative cases would be helpful
  • Here are some personal theories of mine that might, sourced, be added to Irish name, an article whoch ideally would provide some substance for the policies we are discussing. There was formerly a tendency in all of Europe to translate a foreign name into one's own language; thus Peter the Great not Pyotr; Frederick Barbarossa, not Friedrich; Ferdinand of Aragon, not Fernando. This still applies to Popes, for some reason, but not more generally. In Ireland, enthusiasts of the Gaelic revival, particularly Irish republicanism, translated their names into Irish; some used the Irish version even in English (Edward→Éamon de Valera) some only in Irish (Ernest Blythe→Earnán de Blaghd). This tradition was long followed in National schools; in Irish class your first and last name were translated into an Irish equivalent, if any existed. I don't know if this is still done: there are probably a good deal more children with untranslatable names, both immigrants and Britney/Dakota/Jasons.
    • I forgot to say that, OTOH, it is more common now than in previous generations for children in English-speaking families to be given Irish names: Dónal not Daniel, Diarmuid not Jeremiah, Mairéad not Margaret, Siobhán not Joan, etc.; though often without accents. jnestorius(talk) 19:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the current text for point 2 goes far enough in excluding excessive Irish versions. "If someone did not have an Irish version of his or her name in common usage", they may nonetheless have a version in uncommon use. Bertie Ahern's article gives Pádraig Parthalán Ó hEachthairn as the Irish version of his name, impeccably sourced to The Department of the Taoiseach. Even with such a source, I would prefer if the name was left out. If you listen to TG4 or RnaG, or read Irish-language newspapers, he is always called "Bertie Ahern" in Irish, never mind in English. OTOH I don't know whether Bairbre de Brún or Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin chose to gaelicize their names from English originals, or have had Irish versions since birth. In the latter case, I don't believe Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin should have Kevin Keelan listed on his article, any more than Harald Schumacher should have Harold Cobbler.
  • My preference would be for the following:

Article names:

Introduction paragraph:

  • Where someone used the Irish version of his or her name but this does not enjoy widespread usage among English speakers, then use the English version when naming the article but refer to the Irish version of the name in the first line.
  • If a person has since birth been known in English by an Irish-language name, the article should be at that name and no English version of their name should be listed, even if a well-sourced version is available, as to provide it suggests the person was sometimes known by that name.
  • Some people were known by an English name in their early life, and later adopted an Irish version of their name.
  • If someone is always known in English by an English name, but regularly speaks/writes Irish, and uses an Irish version of their name when doing so, then this Irish version of their name should be mentioned but not bold:
  • If someone is always known in English by an English name, and rarely if ever speaks/writes Irish, then no Irish version of their name should be listed, even if a well-sourced version is available, as to provide it suggests the person has a greater knowledge of/interest in Irish than is in fact the case
Trouble with that is Shane Ryan ,Very commonly written as Seán Ó Riain, I don't you can ignore well-sourced material. Gnevin (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know the guy, but if he's sometimes known in English as "Seán Ó Riain", then he doesn't fall into the Bertie-Ahern category. Maybe he doesn't fall into any of the categories: do we need a new one? "People who don't speak Irish but are sometimes called by an Irish name in English."
"Shane Ryan or Seán Ó Riain ..." (if he's only occasionally known as Seán Ó Riain it should be italic, not bold; if he's only occasionally known as Shane Ryan the article should be moved to Seán Ó Riain.)
Maybe we also need "People usually known by an Irish name but occasionally by an English name" I can't think offhand of any, but say
"Seán Ó Murchú (or John Murphy) ..."
jnestorius(talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you know any GAA player or follow the GAA ,they all have Irish names most of which the players would never used expect in GAA terms .He is known as Seán Ó Riain nearly as much Shane Ryan in GAA programs,Can't the MOS just state for GAA players .... whatever Gnevin (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Just Munster hurling. The few matches I've attended I didn't buy the program. RTE and the press use English names (except of course for Seán Óg Ó hAilpín etc). See also my comment below about the GAA player templates; I think that covers your objections. jnestorius(talk) 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note some people have mixed-language forms
    • "Patrick Henry Pearse (also known as Pádraig Pearse; Irish Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais ..."
    • "Peig Sayers ... (I think this should have Maighréad Sayers as well)

Mentions in other articles:

  • References to a person in articles should generally use the name in the same language as the article title; sometimes the opposite language may be more appropriate in the context.

jnestorius(talk) 15:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jnestorius, very clear, reasoned and definitely illustrative. I see not obvious fault with it at all, and commend your efforts. I would have no problem with that at all. Would it be prudent to flag this on the appropriate Irish/Ireland forums which would have an interest in this subject to build some consensus? --Domer48 (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and yes. jnestorius(talk) 19:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that {{Infobox GAA dualplayer}}and {{Infobox GAA player}} have a space for "Irish name". I'm not sure about that. I guess it's okay in a template, inasmuch as the GAA is pro-Irish, and a reader will probably (hopefully?) infer the name is bestowed by the organisation rather than inherent to the person. Any name filled in that field still needs verifiability, of course; and whether to also include the Irish version in the lead paragraph still falls under the terms of this MOS. jnestorius(talk) 21:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Northern Irish

I would like to request that parts of this guideline are reviewed. I find it unbelievable that people born in the 6 Counties of Northern Ireland cannot be described as Northern Irish if they were born before 1920. It is particularly questionable for those that were born just decades before NI came into existence and subsequently spent much of their adult life living in Northern Ireland. My main interest here is :Category:Northern Irish footballers. User:One Night In Hackney insists on removing players from this category and placing them in :Category: Irish footballers. For a long time this category has just included seven subcategories with no individual players because in theory every single player in this these subcategories could be placed in the main one. The history of Irish football is complex – two different nations, three national teams with overlapping jurisdictions etc – and that is why Irish footballers are divided into the below subcategories.

Category:Northern Irish footballers
Category:Republic of Ireland footballers
Category:Republic of Ireland international footballers
Category:Northern Ireland international footballers
Category:Pre-1950 IFA international footballers
Category:Dual Irish international footballers
Category:Republic of Ireland female footballers

It is too simplistic and misleading to just to put Irish footballers in a single category. I also suspect that this particular part of the guideline is biased towards the Republican view. Certainly the editors that are enforcing it, User:One Night In Hackney and User:BigDunc, judging by their own pages seem to have Republican sympathies. Away from football I have found several examples of articles which describe the following as Northern Irish.

Sir John Boyd, 1st Baronet
Samuel Cunningham
Terence O'Neill
John Miller Andrews
Sir Ronald Ross, 2nd Baronet
Sir Robert McConnell, 1st Baronet
George William Russell
Joseph Campbell (poet)

None of them were born after 1920. This suggests to me that there is not a consensus on this issue as the writers of these articles opted to categorise these people as Northern Irish. Djln--Djln (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you going to call people from County Donegal before partition? Were they "Northern Irish" too? In an attempt to stop articles descending into farce and maintain historical accuracy, people born before partition are "Irish", people born after can be described as "Northern Irish". A subdivision is being created where one didn't even exist at the time. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument, all that means is that other articles need to be amended in addition. I dare you to go through Category:People from Jerusalem and try labelling everyone in there as Israeli, you'll make CNN with any luck! One Night In Hackney303 23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Once again ONIH you have missed the point. Perhaps you should checkout some geography. Donegal is not part of Northern Ireland so why would anybody describe people from there as Northern Irish ? Please try to stick to the point and avoid going off on irrelevant tangents Djln--Djln (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nope, it's very much the point. The people you incorrectly labelled "Northern Irish" were not born in Northern Ireland, because it did not exist at the time of their birth. They were born in a country called Ireland, and are therefore "Irish"One Night In Hackney303 00:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Garibaldi was allegedly a promising calcio player but he was not eligible to play for NI. He did make great biscuits thou. I guess you only like tangents when it suits you then and not when it blows apart your argument. Djln--Djln (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that if this issue isn't handled carefully, it could lead to categories being depopulated because the category label doesn't adequately convey the intent. For example :Category:Northern Irish footballers could be read either as "people who play Northern Irish football", thereby including folks born in Africa or Asia who play for a Northern Irish team, and/or as "Northern Irish people who play football".

This arose a few days ago when I created Category:Northern Irish women in politics. This raised concerns that some of the notable women in NI politics do not identify as Northern Irish; the problem was resolved simply by renaming the category to Category:Women in Northern Irish politics, to avoid any implication about the implied assertion about the identification of the women concerned. Could this repositioning of the adjective "Northern Irish" help for other categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, because many of them played in England too. It's basically an attempt to prevent Category:Irish footballers being used and have a myriad of subcats (yet not one for people who were born in the six counties or all-Ireland pre-partition, which I'd be happy to accept as an alternative if really needed and properly named), despite the similar Category:English footballers, Category:Scottish footballers and Category:Welsh footballers having no such divides. The category tree just doesn't match at all. One Night In Hackney303 02:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
To give you examples of how ridiculous this is, see two of the disputed articles - Billy Crone and Archie Goodall. Crone's date of death isn't cited, but there's nothing even mentioned post-1897. How is he "Northern Irish" by any stretch of the imagination? Similarly Goodall died in 1929, and according to his article may never even have lived in Northern Ireland after partition. There's others just as bad too. One Night In Hackney303 02:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You cant have someone as being Northern Irish if the entity did not even exist at the time of the birth of these people. They are Irish it is simple, and as for your examples Dijn as ONiH states WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies here.BigDunc (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Djln when canvassing for support, try getting the right page first, and not mine. Canvassing is very bold, and only increases the friction. --Domer48 (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Djln, by broadining participation is trying to bring in people who are familiar with the topic, to help reach a concensus, I fail to see how promoting an informed discussion increases friction, and your commemnt seems to be targeting an individual rather than their opinion. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: what is the purpose of lists? For me, it's a short-cut to main articles. In that vein, I suggest that NI lists are "informative" rather than "accurate". I mean, if A was born in Belfast before partition then that person should be included in NI lists, but with suitable caveats (which would be in their article). Similarly for someone who was born elsewhere but has been significant in NI. For example, if I wanted to know about Dervla Murphy, who wrote a useful book about NI, or Edward Carson, Baron Carson, who was born before partition, it's possible that a list of NI names would attract my search. I know there are purist arguments against this liberal approach, but we should be writing for the inquisistive uninformed reader.

An odd thought: if we are strict about applying national rules at date of birth, would Éamon de Valera be included in British, ie United Kingdom, lists (for early political career) or US lists (place of birth)? Not somewhere that I would look. Folks at 137 (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So all that counts on wikipedia is the ignorance of the reader and not facts?BigDunc (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What matters is informing the readers. In an area where there is some potential for ambiguity, we should allow for readers' ignorance and provide a route to the facts - after all, Wiki would be irrelevant if there wasn't ignorance. BTW, plz address the points; it's more likely to reach a consensus. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If you check Dev's article, the only cat of a similar nature being used is Category:Irish-Americans. One Night In Hackney303 16:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I was being mischievous in my point - although it does demonstrate that there's scope for ambiguity and perhaps we can't be too purist. BTW, does Lembit Öpik qualify as he was born in Co Down? Whoops, there I go again. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Given he was born in Northern Ireland and not Ireland, yes he does. The only way to avoid (unsourced and also incorrect) arguments like "well he lived there for x number of years" is to maintain the current method. People born pre-partition in Ireland do not get described as Northern Irish, and don't use RoI either for people born in the 26 counties. There's no POV involved, it's wholly factual, and there's no room for confusion. One Night In Hackney303 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a solution to this is in the lists' definitions. If I were to look at a list of "People/ politicians born in NI" then Carson would be excluded, whereas Opik would be included (just as De Valera is in the list of people born in New York). However, IMO, if I look at a "list of NI politicians", I would expect to see only people involved in NI politics, irrespective of their place or time of birth, which would include Carson and exclude Opik. I reckon that that would be the common expectation of an uninformed reader seeking information. Folks at 137 (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this argument assumes greater accuracy than the category system is capable of providing. Consider Category:People from Newry: the town of Newry has been there since at least the 16th century, and the category quite properly includes people from many difft eras. However, Category:People from Newry is a sub-category of Category:People from County Down, which is in turn a sub-category of Category:Northern Irish people by county. The same applies for every geographical category of people from what is now Northern Ireland.

There's no neat solution to this. If we start chopping up Category:People from Newry by era, we'd have to do the same for dozens of other similar categories, and thereby defeat the main purpose of categories, which is to enable users to navigate between similar articles. Similarly, if we just start leaving people out of Category:People from Newry, we mess up the usefulness of categories.

The only issue I see here is whether the chronological problem of when Northern Ireland is created is to be allowed to create a fissure in categories. I think that it would be incredibly disruptive to go down that road, because Northern Ireland isn't unique in this respect. What about Gdanzig, Alsace-Lorraine, or any of the many other places in Europe where boundaries have moved around over the years?

What seems to be happening here is that some editors are alarmed by the "Northern Irish" label on some categories, and missing that there are many other categories which don't have that label but are nonetheless subcats of Category:Northern Ireland. The most workable solution by far is simply to read "Northern Irish" in a category label as meaning "relating to the area now known as 'Northern Ireland'". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So people who in virtually every history book going are described as "Irish" will suddenly have the "Northern Irish" label foisted upon their articles? I don't think there's any objections to the category trees using it, but it's totally inaccurate for articles. Nobody is suggesting cutting Category:People from Newry in half after all.One Night In Hackney303 01:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Andrew and Edward Eveson were twin brothers born in 1865 in Portadown, who ran a steady but unspectacular architecture and building business which created unusual combinations of classical, gothic, egyptian and tudorbethan buildings for the burgeoning upper middle classes who were enriched by Belfast's industrial boom and built new homes in the outer suburbs. As detailed in the exquisitely-illustrated "Zen and the Eveson brothers: a taoist perspective on pioneers of fusion architecture" (Siobhan Ni Paisley, University of Claudy Press, 2017), Andy died in the flu epidemic of 1919 and Ed continued in business until a decade before his death in 1971; both are individually notable, having been the subject of separate television documentaries in the Edwardian era.
Are they both to be categorised in Category:Northern Irish architects? And if not, how does it help the reader to split them across two categories --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
How does it help the reader to create subdivisions in categories where none existed at the time? For example if I want to find out about Irish architects from the 18th and 19th centuries why should I have to look in "Irish" and "Northern Irish" cats? At the time there was only Ireland. One Night In Hackney303 02:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Glad to see others getting involved in debate. Hopefully some resolution can be reached. It should be remembered that :Category:Northern Irish footballers is already in :Category:Irish footballers. All the Northern Irish category does is provide more info as Irish footballers is just too vague a category on its own. It should be remembered that whatever resolution is reached it should be able to be applied to Wiki in general and not just Irish articles. For example none of the earliest presidents of the USA were born in the United States because technically it did not exist. So do we call them Americans ? I challenge ONIH to alter their nationalities. Djln--Djln (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
And your point being? I see you can't argue against anything said above. The cat tree is irrelevant, providing an offensive and incorrect label isn't applied to articles. One Night In Hackney303 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please address the points raised by ONIH. --Domer48 (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And therin lies the problem, there is no nationality as Northern Irish, and these cats seem to attempt to create one? I can't see that working? --Domer48 (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's say for example England is partitioned today into "North England" and "South England". Are we going to recategorise everyone in English cats into "Northern English" and "Southern English" cats? One Night In Hackney303 18:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a point for sake of accuracy but George Washington was not born in a country called America—it didn't exist—he was born in the colony of Virginia. Firstly he was a Virginian then became an American when Virginia became a state of the US. -90.210.90.17 (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please check your history. One Night In Hackney303 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Very valid point about Washington. If ONIH actually made a sensible point, I would be more then happy to address it. But when people are trying to revise Northern Ireland out of history it hard to reason with them. If they what to live in a some fantasy world were Ireland is one country then that’s upto them. However the rest of us live in the real world. Statements like Northern Ireland is not a nation and Northern Irish is not a nationality are not helpful either and it is very POV. NI has it’s own flag, national assembly, it’s own prime minister, national sports team etc. All of these support NI being a nation. If NI is not a nation then neither is England, Wales or Scotland. We have categories describing people as Welsh, English and Scottish, so why not Northern Irish. Also could ONIH please stop going off on tangents. We‘ve had Ceaser, Israel/ Palestine and now England being being partioned. What next ? Djln--Djln (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such nationality as Northern Irish - fact. The only thing that's very POV is claiming there is. I'm not trying to revise Northern Ireland out of history, I'm just making sure it's only used when it applies. "NI has it’s own flag" - no it doesn't. One Night In Hackney303 19:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You are not trying to revise NI out of history ! But then in the same breath claim Northern Irish is not a nationality and there is not a Northern Ireland flag. Hav’nt you just contradicted yourself ? Djln--Djln (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, both those are facts, which you seem to have some difficulty accepting. There is no such nationality as Northern Irish, and Northern Ireland has no flag. I don't see what's difficult to understand about that, does anyone else? One Night In Hackney303 19:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I timed out but the above anon was me. Interesting, though, that you ask me to check my history; can you advise me which bit I got wrong? Thanks, -Bill Reid | Talk 19:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

America did exist, the United States of America did not. One Night In Hackney303 19:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You said the country of America which did not exist. So you really meant the continent of America. -Bill Reid | Talk 20:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Some clarifications, please

The discussion above seem to be getting rather heated, yet I'm not all clear what anyone actually wants.

Please could some of the editors in this discussion try to explain when they think that "Northern Irish fooers" categories should be used? I see a lot of extraneous arguments, a fair bit about editors dislike, bit not much in the above to clarifies what people actually want to be the inclusion criteria for those categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For people born in Northern Ireland (with the odd exception, since this is a guideline), otherwise you're looking at all sorts of arbitrary arguments. This isn't an attempt to prevent the term being used, only to maintain its accurate and verifiable use. One Night In Hackney303 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought you meant, but it would depopulate a lot of the categories. Someone born in Belfast in 1919, who lived all their life in Belfast until dying in 2000, would by your usage not belong in a "Northern Irish" category.
Even if we stretch the boundary back a decade or two, we still create absurdities, with people who may love or despise the entity known as Northern Ireland being excluded from the categories even though they lived their adult lives in NI, and had been born in the same area before it was labelled NI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't think we've got absurdities with the articles listed below? And it depends on the nature of the category, eg Category:Women in Northern Irish politics would be fine. One Night In Hackney303 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, there are some absurdities below if "Northern Irish" is seen as label which is always political, rather than geographical. But if we apply the same birth-date logic, we should not be seeing the removal from N. Irish categories of people born in NI after 1922, educated in NI, and pursuing a political career in NI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly anybody who played for Ireland should be described as Irish - that's only plain common sense. "Northern Irish" would be suitable for any pre-partition player who self-identified as "Ulster" to the point that he refused to line out with nationalists. How many of those have we identified so far? Scolaire (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

None. One Night In Hackney303 20:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Articles under dispute:
Yet for some spurious reason they are all "Northern Irish".... One Night In Hackney303 21:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work ONIH, but with some editors suggesting that Northern Irish is a nationality and there is a Northern Ireland flag, you are going to have your work cut out. --Domer48 (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The claim that NI is a "nationality" is silly, and AFAIK would be supported only by a v small minority of those in Northern Ireland; that issue is a bright red herring with flashing lights on it. However, it is still widely-used, as a geographic term relating to the six counties; the issue in dispute is which people it can be applied to, given that Northern Ireland only came into existence in 1921. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nice work ! Hardly. All ONIH did was make a list. Anybody can do that. He did not even get all the facts correct. User:Domer48 must be easily impressed. Of the 18 articles listed, I only started or made major changes to 7 of them. This means that other editors identified the other 11 as Northern Irish which suggests to me that this is the consensus view. All of them were born in the six countries that now make up NI just a few decades at most before NI was formed. As far as I am concerned that makes them Northern Irish whether you like it or not. How is that complicated ? If you support ONIHs idea of sticking rigidly to a date, dozens of articles across Wiki will have to be recategorised. What about footballers born in the 26 Counties before 1946. Should they be removed from :Category:Republic of Ireland footballers. The Republic did not exist until then, yet there are dozens of footballers born before 1946 in this category. It cannot stop then at Irish categories, is Garabaldi Italian, is Bismarck German, was George Washington American. Not if ONIHs interpretation is followed. I will not except the NI did not exist argument. It was always there, it did just appear overnight in 1922. Even if you don’t believe NI is a nationality, then as User:BrownHairedGirl points out it is a widely used term and is used regularly to refer to people from NI. The only compromise I can see is that every single player in the 7 subcategories is added to the  :Category:Irish footballers but then these 18 will then have to also included in :Category:Northern Irish footballers. If ONIH wants to go ahead and do this, he is more then welcome to, but I strongly suspect it will meet opposition. Djln --Djln (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Revised list with birthplaces

Last time I checked Belfast, Lurgan, Carrickfergus, Lisburn, Derry and Enniskillen were all in Northern Ireland. So how exactly is it spurious they been categorised as NI. Djln --Djln (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The dates are the simplist and easiest way of doing this. Otherwise we are deciding for them if they are Northern Irish, not basing it on facts. If someone was born in NI after 1922 they can be described as Northern Irish, for people born before and died after we are making a presumption about their personal descriptions and shouldn't be described as such in some ways. However if they lived in NI and played or (to broaden this a bit) carried out their careers in NI after its creation, then it can be argued that they could be described in a NI category but only if we have the evidence to support it. People who lived before NI should never be in a NI category, and if they ended their careers pre-NI then they should also not be described as Northern Irish for that career. Canterbury Tail talk 14:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Canterbury Tail on the points raised above.BigDunc (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just because it is simple and easy does not make it right. Anyway it is actually far easier to define people by their place of birth. Despite what you say, the fact is that dozens of articles across Wiki have people born in the 6 Counties before 1922 categorised as Northern Irish, suggesting to me that there is a consensus for doing so. You can make guidelines til the cows come home but if the majority or doing the opposite it is pointless. Djln --Djln (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
All that suggests is that there are a lot of articles with incorrect cats in them. To say otherwise is your POV and nothing else. BigDunc (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So everybody else is wrong and only you and ONIH is right. Arrogance beyond belief. In my experience of Wiki consensus always wins out sooner or later and I am confident it will in this case. Djln--Djln (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus always wins out, and you have not got it. --Domer48 (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Revised list with birthplaces

DONE. --Domer48 (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Wow, Domer is there no begining to your talents. You can actually copy a list. You're talents are wasted on Wiki. If you really think you have got the consenus you must be in dreamland.Djln--Djln (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Silly question about definition: is the list under discussion intended to be of a) players selected to play for NI; b) players eligible to be selected for NI; c) players born in the political entity of NI; d) players born in the geographical area now known as "NI". Sorry to be pedantic but the discussion seems to be about different things. Folks at 137 (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just want the editor to prove that they are Northern Irish.--Domer48 (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, depends on your definition. Taking my definitions, above. Inclusion in the NI national (or representative) team could be proof, and application of international eligibility criteria could be another. I think that whether a footballer originates from NI (the political entity) is entirely different and then the date of partition comes into play. The attempt to use a single list is, therefore, open to argument, see above. If a problem can't be rsolved, then work around it. Folks at 137 (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have presented you with evidence several times now that they are NI, all were born in the 6 Counties, all are placed in categories which in turn lead to other NI categories. If you and ONIH chose to ignore these facts that’s your chose, but please don’t impose your political POV on Wiki. This site Northern Ireland’s Footballing Greats clearly regards them as Northern Irish. Djln --Djln (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hang on, Djln, please consider my reasoning; the other points have got us nowhere. Definitions are important to a resolution. I can think of several sportsmen who have played for, say England, who have neither English birth nor UK citizenship. I would still include them in a list of English representative sportsmen, although they would be eligible elsewhere (but not necessarily as English sportsmen). This also happens in Welsh, Scots, New Zealand, Australian and French teams. Sporting bodies create their own rules that cut across political and other considerations. We need to allow for this - I believe we can. Folks at 137 (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • In answer to your 4 questions from above. a) these players were selected to play for various IFA and FAI all-Ireland teams. No solely NI team played until 1950; b) However if NI team existed at time all these players would have been eligible; c) none of these players were born in the political entity of NI; d) all of these players were born in the geographical area now known as "NI". Djln--Djln (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You have been presented with evidence several times now that they were all born in Ireland not Northern Ireland. --Domer48 (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not denying they were born in Ireland but they were also born in NI. It is not my fault you have a problem understanding basic history and geography. You should really check your facts. Do not rely on the likes of BigDunc and ONIH. Their version of Irish history is heavily biased toward the Republican view. A simple question. Can you name one town or county that any of these players were born in that is not now part of NI ? I ask again, please do not politicise a category which is basically about football. Could you show me evidence they were not born in NI. I suspect not. Djln --78.32.156.158 (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No they were not born in Northern Ireland it did not exist. What part cant you understand here? BigDunc (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Dunc, just don't feed it anymore, they are not willing to accept the fact they were born in Ireland. --Domer48 (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

pre 1919/1922 flag

The tri-colour in this infobox is incorrect and should be replaced but with what? Nothing would be my preferred option unless that group had it's own flag,or was know to fly the tri-colour as its official flag. On the larger scale what flag should be used for Ireland related issues pre 1919 or is it 1922? Please note WP:Flag applies to this discussion Gnevin (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to Naming articles: English versus Irish

I'd like to suggest a change to this section; currently convention is that where an English and Irish name are relatively similar, then the English name should be used even if it is far less recognised than the Irish one. What it basically means is that however popular an Irish name gets, the English name will always be used.

I bring this up after a discussion at Talk:Gort a' Choirce#Irish-English name. Even though a Google search for 'Gort an Choirce' will bring up 138,000 results, and a similar search for 'Gortahork' just 29,200 results, by the current system the article should still be at its English name. Most of both these sets of results come from English language websites, thus the system goes against WP:NAME#Use English words - "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form."

By no means am I suggesting a wholesale change of English names into Irish - just where it is obvious that the Irish is more commonly used. More examples would be, for example, Marseille (the traditional English is 'Marseilles'), Frankfurt (the traditional English is 'Frankfort'). Under IMOS, neither of these 'native' spellings would be allowed. --Schcamboaon scéal? 10:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the English language wiki and therefore English language takes priority. Its common sense folks. Djegan (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, not where a black-and-white policy such as IMOS so clearly fails WP:NAME, which allows for exceptions based on whichever language's name is more common among English speakers. --Schcamboaon scéal? 10:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the proposal - the current rule is idiotic; even the supposed 'similarity' depends on the pronunciation used; the 'Gort an Choirce' is a good example - as commonly pronounced they don't actually sound the same. Sarah777 (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree also. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree also. It is absurd that An Cheathrú Rua is not under the name the vast majority of us know it by rather than Carroe (or whatever way it is arbitrarily spelt). The current policy is contrived, imposing and creating English forms of well-established Irish forms (which are also the sole forms in Irish law) just for these articles. On top of all this, the legal status alone- a status granted by the democratically elected native English speaking representatives of this state- is sufficient to change this very subjective policy on wiki. There are countless words in quotidian use in the English language by native speakers from Kent to Kansas which are not anglicised. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
How is it more well known as that? Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name in English and a simple Google search will show that Carraroe is much much more common in English than An Cheathrú Rua (for which most page hits are actually in Irish. Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the particular examples given. It seems by no means "obvious" to me that the native form is more commonly used. Of course locally, being a Gaeltacht area, is is; but "Gortahork" seems commonly used by newspapers, the County Council, etc.

The "Marseilles" and "Frankfort" examples are red herrings for two reasons: first, the "traditional" spellings are obsolescent (Marseilles) or obsolete (Frankfort); second, the countries concerned are not English-speaking. I think the current policy could be changed, but it will need a better set of examples to work out the parameters for any change. jnestorius(talk) 01:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. There are many places like this where having the English only causes confusion. Jamesnp (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. A) This is the English-language wikipedia. B) The examples given are clearly wrong. WP:COMMONNAME and common sense, folks. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Wikipedia:Search engine test says "As such, Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles -- only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity."--Domer48 (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree, as per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Sometimes, grey matter has to be used. This rule followed to it's extreme would rename Dublin to Blackpool, and Tyrone to the 'Country of Eogan'. 93.107.143.66 (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


Disagree. As Bastun says: A) This is the English-language wikipedia. B) The examples given are not persuasive, especially "Frankfort", which was just absurd - even preposterous. Malick78 (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. I quote the last sentence of Frankfurt: "It is also called Frankfort-on-the-Main in English, a translation of Frankfurt am Main." And if IMOS were applied here, once there is an English language name created, no matter how unpopular its usage, it must be used, which is a bit stupid.
I accept, by the way, that Gortahork now seems to be the more popular name in that instance. That's fine, but the policy still contravenes WP:NAME, and I'm sure you'll agree there are undoubtedly many instances where the Irish is the more popular version. --Schcamboaon scéal? 10:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; which makes clear why "Bombay" is called "Mumbai" in EN:Wiki - the simple fact is the numerically Indian editors cannot be outvoted the way Irish editors can, and are. Sarah777 (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Luv these English -VS- Irish disputes. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of the fada in English personal names

It seems the issue of the use of the fada in Irish-language personal names of Irish people who use an English surname occasionally arises. (The latest case is Sean McGarry, being disucssed at Talk:Sean McGarry and a previous disucssion occurred at Talk:Pádraig Flynn.) My position is that use of the fada is English (e.g., used in popular media outlets such as newspapers) and should appear in the titles of articles on Ireland-related Irish personal names per ENGVAR. Rather than running off to research each case independently as it occurs, can I get some input here and, ideally, an addition to WP:IMOS dealing with this if it's not already there. Also, could someone add some information on this subject Acute accent#Use in English if possible. — AjaxSmack 01:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland vs Ireland

This issue is cropping up more and more. My concern that the piped link assumes that the reader will click the link to find out more, this is an unsafe assumption. The current wording of the policy seems to me to be intended for place names. Now, when we're talking about a tiny hamlet in Kerry, this is fair enough. When we're talking about the Irish Constitution or other bigger issues, I don't think it is. Certainly where the article impacts on the entire island, it is reasonable and indeed desirable to have Republic of Ireland used throughout. Also where there is ambiguity, the Constitution being the best example, RoI should be used and policy should be explicit about that. My main point is that the policy at present seems to only half address the issue. Just my thoughts and I welcome discussion.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As you may be aware TU, the use of RoI as the Wikiname for Ireland (country) is an abomination. Only the piping makes it acceptable. Any attempt to change the pipe-rules will require renaming RoI to simply "Ireland". Let's leave this compromise position alone; the only change will be to change the Wiki name for the Irish State to Ireland; as per both the official and common name. We'll have to do that some day anyway maybe; as the current "policy" is bizarre. Sarah777 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And why, exactly, is it an "abomination" - it would help if you explained yourself. (And "Republic of Ireland" is also a common name.) Mooretwin (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I kinda see TU's point; concerning the readers-in-general. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The piped version is an absolute sham, their is no need to revisit the topic of Republic of Ireland vs. Ireland. WP:FORUMSHOP - case closed. Djegan (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not particularly helpful. I'm not looking for a consensus I like, I'm pointing out a problem and asking for potential solutions. So no, not case closed.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
To be very frank we do not need yet another fundamental review of this issue. Piping is just a way of ignoring the consensus that "Republic of Ireland" should be used, rather than "Ireland". Piping such as [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] is a nonsense and a sham for wreckers. Djegan (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I actually don't know what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that piping shouldn't be used at all when referring to the state? If so I don't necessarily agree, I think it isn't unreasonable where confusion is either unlikely or irrelevant.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Where there is a reasonable chance of confusion or ambiguity Republic of Ireland should be used. This applies especially in any articles about Northern Ireland, since the reader could be under the impression that a reference to "Ireland" means the island, and not the Republic. Another example is "Constitution of Ireland" - the title of the article uses "Ireland", and so it is important to establish in the intro that it actually only relates to the Republic. Djegan is right about the piping compromise - it assumes people will click the link, which is an unsafe assumption. Mooretwin (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Significant misinterpretation of this guideline

The simple fact is that this Republic of Ireland / Ireland guideline was only intended to apply to "Geographic articles" not political, social, economic etc. Read the guideline. Djegan (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. That was my spur to open this discussion.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
That is the nub of it. Can we reach consensus in relation to articles where there is a reasonable prospect of ambiguity, e.g. political articles, those relating to Northern Ireland, and those relating to the island as a whole? Mooretwin (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The current policy works fine for articles on cities, counties and towns - but it is just mischief to use [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] for economic, political and social type articles. Djegan (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to move this forward we should discuss a new wording. To kick off here is my proposal:


I have removed some of the more conversational wording from the original as well as added new wording.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't really need to focus on the Republic of Ireland; remember their are people who would gladly use "the North", "North of Ireland", "that place" and so forth to present Northern Ireland for their agenda. However in any case I largely agree with what you have to say. Any discussion and move to consensus should be swift, no more than a week; their are people who would like "open-ended" discussions so that they can close the results when it suits them. Also something to bear in mind is that its a discussion on terminology to use within articles and how to present it. Djegan (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that the second sentence should begin "This may be misleading ...", since it's not necessarily misleading, given that it is factually correct to say that a town in County Cork is in Ireland (the island). Mooretwin (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Taking this into account, and also Djegan's point, I suggest the following:


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooretwin (talk • contribs) 11:48, 13 August 2008

Some quick points:

  • We need a swift discussion
  • We need simple and easy guidelines, otherwise we will have the usual "but that part...whilst the other..." - resulting and endless discussion about application once implemented -- something as simple as "Piped links are to be discouraged when dealing with political nomenclature dealing with Ireland; the text should make it immediately clear what part of Ireland is been referred to. The use of piped links or redirects should be an exception."

The KISS principle. Regards. Djegan (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on a form of words? This shouldn't bee that difficult really.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Not really beyond what I stated; just keep it simple. Anything complex will alienate anyone but the hardliners. And what does get passed, if complex, will be an excuse to edit war on every article. Djegan (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
So both Traditional unionist and Mooretwin have moved the discussion away from the Constitution of Ireland talk page and the edit war there to this MOS talk page instead of , or possibly as well as, coming to a constructive solution over there. On the other hand a consensus here may decide the edit war over there at the same time.
The most important issue for the political articles is not to give any impression that the name of the state is Republic of Ireland as opposed to Ireland, its constitutional name. Several Irish articles edits, and especially recent ones by the aforementioned two editors to Constitution of Ireland, give that false impression. I am sure everyone agrees we must, wherever possible, respect the country's name above all else, but hand in hand, I am also sure between we can find some phrase or sentence that will allow clarity without ambiguity. It may be possible to use the piped link so long as it is clear we are referring to the democratic state. ww2censor (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
They have a valid case here, their is a larger issue -- I support them because theirs a lot of sillyness going on here. Don't start with all that injustice to ould'Ireland nonsense. Foolishness like that was government policy until it was realised it did more damage that good. Consensus, irrespective of your personal view, is that the article on the republic should be at Republic of Ireland and so the text should reflect that. Wikipedia is not a government press office. Djegan (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
And I started this discussion in July. I also have not been edit warring. Also, the name of the article is Republic of Ireland, and for good reason. Using the piped link is, as Djegan has pointed out, simply subverting that consensus. There is a clear case to be made that there is ambiguity that can be cleared up by using the description given to us by an Act of the Irish Parliament. I note that Pureeditor has not really engaged since getting that spectacularly wrong.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
He has been banned for 12 hours. Djegan (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Forgot about that, fair enough.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
De Valera named the state "Ireland", but he could not deliver it in reality; its time to move on. As Homer Simpson once said "quit living in the past!". Djegan (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)(edit conflict) OK, so Traditional unionist maybe it was not quite edit warring by you but it was pretty close in my mind, sorry for tarring you with the wrong brush but apparently you certainly support the viewpoint without exception.

DJ, is your opinion that "it's time to move on" by falsely calling the country by a name it is not. Maybe you should advise the Irish government to change the constitutional name instead. (Only joking). But DJ, you are the one saying "the name of the article is Republic of Ireland, and for good reason", well the reason is that we cannot name two article by the same name on Wikipedia and there has been no consensus, after several attempts to change it, as you well know, not because it is the "Republic of Ireland" You also are the one referring to the "injustice to ould 'Ireland nonsense", not me. Where did I mention that? What are you on about my personal view about "the republic should be at Republic of Ireland"? Where did I mention that? Nowhere. We just need to use accurate, yet unambiguous phrasing that is clear. Are you prepared to work towards that end? Is anyone else? I initially will AGF but if not, those people are destructive to this discussion. Let's move forward without any personal remarks from now on. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

First you are confusing comments by two different editors, secondly, I was NOT edit warring. A disambiguation is required because a state claims the name of an island it only partly inhabits. Therefore wikipedia needs to clearly deal with that ambiguity. There is a solution provided by the Irish state itself, yet you object to this solution. I can't see why.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Djegan (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I have any confusing of comments by two editors and TU, you must not have noticed my apology above, while additionally, DJ, you didn't answered any of my questions about the accusations you made to me above either. Besides all that, if there is any ambiguity, as you claim, then the piped link should be quite sufficient, but you don't like that solution, so we need something else. TU, let me explain again why. While the state has given us an official description, the implementation of that description as a solution is, in my opinion, improper, because it gives the clear impression that the state is called "Republic of Ireland" and as stated previously, that is not the case and we all know that. DJ, you may want to call the state ROI, but that is currently a falsehood and not the legal name, no matter what you would like to happen at Irish government level or here on Wikipedia. In the end I think we need to find a solution that melds the two issues and satisfies both the proper and correct current name of the state, and clarifies that "Ireland", in these instances, refers to the state and not the island. Different phrasing may be a solution but no one seems prepared to go down that path; there seems to be an intent of offering Republic of Ireland as the only solution. ww2censor (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
My comments are not accusations; this is not a court of justice or law. My comments are not personal attacks and your not entitled to claim they are when they are not. The issues here will not be decided by any one person alone. Djegan (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me to be the only solution that clearly meets WP:V and clarifies the ambiguity. The use of the piped link is indeed a misuse of what the policy currently is. It is intended for placenames. The piped link also assumes that the reader will click on the link to check, and that is unsafe.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Saw the note at WP:GEOGRAPHY and dropped by. Having next to no knowledge of the wiki-history is seems to be on a quick reading that the problem as stated is essentially insoluble because it is built on an apparent consensus that creates confusion and ambiguity. "Ireland" is both an island and a state, that much we know. It seems clear that "Republic of Ireland" is both a common-place British English expression and at the same time inaccurate and potentially offensive. If I was trying to construct a solution from scratch without the wiki-historical baggage I'd create "Ireland" as a dab page, "Ireland (island)" as a geography page and "Ireland (state)" as a geo-political page. "ROI" would be a re-direct to the last of the three. No doubt this idea and its variants has been proposed before, and the above will elicit groans, but without some change to the foundation stones of the discussion I think you are wasting your time. Oh, and Ireland (disambiguation) is in breach of WP:MOSDAB as (for reasons that are quite understandable) it uses a piped link for ROI, another symptom of the same malaise. The only other tack I can suggest is to appeal to WP:ENGVAR. If "Ireland" is Dublin or Hiberno-English for the nation state, using ROI in articles about Eire is in breach of that policy, but not in places where ROI is the local dialect usage for the same. Ben MacDui 07:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How on earth is "Republic of Ireland" potentially offensive??Mooretwin (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the point that confuses some of us. If you take a look at Republic of Ireland Act 1948, you'll see that the RoI option is one given to us by the Irish state it self!Traditional unionist (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
ww2censor says: "The most important issue for the political articles is not to give any impression that the name of the state is Republic of Ireland as opposed to Ireland, its constitutional name" - but that is not the most important issue. The most important issue is clarity and the avoidance of ambiguity. I wonder does ww2censor follow his logic through to the Derry article? Is he so doctrinaire about references to South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan, etc.? Anyway, as TU says we have a state claiming the name of a territory of which it inhabits only part - that is the root of the issue. If the state chooses that name, then it does so in the knowledge of the confusion it causes. The state, however, has also chosen a "description" - let's use it.Mooretwin (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Are we near a consensus? We have three proposals - TU's, mine and Djegan's: "Piped links are to be discouraged when dealing with political nomenclature dealing with Ireland; the text should make it immediately clear what part of Ireland is been referred to. The use of piped links or redirects should be an exception." Mooretwin (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
My reasoning is the IMOS has been quite stable for a while now and that Ireland has been used for a long stable period. I don't understand the issue with the above link as it is the official name of the state and I don't see how an island could have a constitution etc. It's fairly obvious in that regard. In order to clarify it, the link has been provided for those to click on if they are in anyway confused. I feel this desired change by a minority of editors is slightly politically based rather than based on the real world and reflecting an international view. As per WP:VERIFY the name of the state is Ireland and not Republic of Ireland and there is no evidence of anynone having a problem with the name Ireland in that it could be confusing. If someone provided neutral, reliable sources saying that the name is confusing to most people then I'd consider changing it. Otherwise it should remain as is.Pureditor 11:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry PE but your argum,ent has so many holes it barely exists.

  1. IMOS policy does not cover what we are talking about, it refers purely to placenames. That is not under dispute
  2. Of course an Island can't have a constitution, but Ireland has two states on it, one of which claims the same name for its own, the part of the other that is on Ireland has an unambigious name, so the former state needs ambiguated
  3. The link being there as an argument assumes that readers who know no better will clcik on it. That is an unsafe assumption.
  4. There is not a minotiry of eitors wanting a change, there is if anyrthing a majority, and assucations of political bias is a breech of WP:AGF and reasonably offensive. Desist.
  5. Your VERIFY argument is far from reality. RoI is a name given to us as a recognised and prefered description by the state itself! What more do you want?!
  6. There is also no evdidence that anyone finds it confusing that there are two politicians called Pat Cox, you still need to point out the difference! It is self evidently confusing to call an island and a state that inhabits only part of that island by the same name.

Traditional unionist (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You admit that an island can't have a constitution. It is an unsafe assumption that a reader under context will confuse the island and the state considering the subject of the page, especially when Ireland is the official and common name of the state. There are two politicians called Pat Cox. Thankfully there isn't two islands called Ireland. There is an island and a state and as you said yourself an island can't have a constitution so therefore by context its the state. Any confusion, the link is there. ROI is not a name given to us. It is a description. It is certainly not preferred by the state itself. On the contrary, the link below given by Red King shows that the Irish state have requested that it not be called ROI. It is a description only, not a name.
I would say more people are confused by the term Republic of Ireland in itself internaionally then any discerning between the state and Ireland. The term ROI is not recognised internationally and is not very common. Googling ROI only brings up Wikipedia stuff, some pages about the football team (FIFA ruling) and some British websites. As per WP:COMMON I suggest that ROI is misleading as I can verify it. Your argument cannot be verified. The state is called Ireland internationally, officially and in common speech. To put forward a descripion from an act as the name of the country is thing that is confusing.Pureditor 15:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Heard it all before, and no doubt again. But seriously; their can only be one article at Ireland and that is the one on the island. Stuff like Ireland (country), Ireland (state), Ireland (republic) etc get mentioned and considered from time to time but everyone cringes when they consider non-sense like Local government in Ireland (state) and Education of Ireland (state) and that sort of sillyness. Their can never be a solution that suites everyone as the real word situation is just as complex; culturally, economically, historicaly, politically, socially, etc, etc, etc. Republic of Ireland is the best way forward; their has been no consensus to the contrary; no consensus for radical change. Djegan (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not looking for radical change; I'm just saying that pipe linking to Ireland should remain as it has done for the past while and that this sudden desire to change it is factually incorrect and potentially more confusing.Pureditor 15:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Consensus can change - thats what this discussion is about. Djegan (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Pureditor - maybe I am absolutely wrong here! Are you User:Wikipéire? Maybe it is nothing but tiredness and familiarity of discussing these issues again and again. But I cannot help but notice you appeared within two days of Wikipéire been banned? Djegan (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Such accusations are a crude mechanism to discredit the arguments of another editor, and are not tolerated here. You can request a checkuser if you have a real concern. Please withdraw your remarks. --HighKing (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not willing to withdraw my remarks - they are an honest, upfront question to a editor. If I wanted to discredit the editor I could of tagged his page as a suspected sockpuppet, made an announcement that I had caught a sockpuppet and it would be a two minute coup - spectacular and quick. Instead I have asked the question in a cool, honest, open manner. Only time will tell who is right. Djegan (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree - especially if you are solely basing your argument on being tired and the fact that this editor joined two days after another was banned. Please reconsider and withdraw your unfortunate and baseless accusation - it is in breach of WP:AGF and amounts to an ad hominen attack. --HighKing (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
No, means no. I will not withdraw my question - it is not an accusation. With respect your overdoing it. Djegan (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for defending me HighKing, but its no problem; I've successfully accused people of sock puppetry myself. I usually keep it to the editors own talk page though. I recently actually accussed User:Austino10 of being a sockpuppet of User:Mooretwin but haven't gained a response. I'm not what some old banned editor has to do with anything of what's going on here, but I can deny your acquisition. I've been editing on Wikipedia before this account without registering, mostly on Canada/Toronto related topics. Apologies on you being sick of this debate, but I didn't know that this name issue had been discussed before, even though I have Irish heritage I've never edited any of these pages before, it was actually only after holidaying in Ireland and Scotland that I began to get an interest in editing these pages about this part of the world. I hope that answers your question and now hopefully we can get to reaching a consensus on this matter!Pureditor 21:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and I accept your explanation of your origin fully. I was not attempting to be underhanded or sly, nor was it intended as a "dirty-tricks" campaign to undermine you. But I had to ask, and now consider the matter closed. As you are now aware this issue has been discussed previously, and indeed it has always been a controversial issue and on previous occassions has resulted in sockpuppets been used to sway the outcome. None-the-less I accept it is your right to make a robust claim for change. Consensus can change. Djegan (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Please take a read of Names of the Irish state#Name dispute with the UK. --HighKing (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Pureditor says it is an unsafe assumption that a reader will confuse the island and the state, yet surely there is a high risk of such confusion, given that the names are the same! That is the whole point. Many readers may not be aware that Ireland (state) does not, in fact, represent the whole of Ireland. Pureditor also says that "more people are confused by the term Republic of Ireland", yet gives no reason why they might be confused! Mooretwin (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The function of wikipedia is not to educate, but to inform. The link I posted above makes it clear that the name of the Irish state is "Ireland", and that the British Government as well as the political entities in Northern Ireland now also follow the accepted international convention of using the term "Ireland" to refer to the state, and not the archaic term "Republic of Ireland". Therefore, in the role of informing readers, we should use accurate and correct term. But given the concerns that some readers may be confused, we can also inform readers that the constitution refers to the state, and that the state occupies part of the island and not all of it. --HighKing (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you made that argument over on the Derry article? Mooretwin (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
May I quote you from that talk page? You said "What should matter is the actual name." Funny you should say that there but say the opposite on this page, that the actual name shouldn't be used. May I add I have no interest/knowledge in the Derry naming dispute, I'm just quoting.Pureditor 22:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
There's no ambiguity with Londonderry. Mooretwin (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have a pipe-link [Republic of Ireland|Ireland (state)]. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
If the solution was that simple then the Republic of Ireland article would be at Ireland (state) already. Djegan (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I think explaining to people that the name of the country is Ireland and not Republic of Ireland is not a high priority, any more than explaining to people that "South Korea" is "Republic of Korea" or, back in the day, that "West Germany" was "Federal Republic of Germany". Diplomats and some natives in those countries bridle at the informal usage, but for English speakers they were usefully unambiguous; and neither had any official sanction in the way "Republic of Ireland" does. Calling "Republic of Ireland" archaic is wrong; the Republic of Ireland Act has not been repealed. Use of the term does not grate with the average citizen the way "Eire" does. Diplomatic language is not the same as ordinary language, so changes in UK diplomat-speak do not necessitate wholesale change to Wikipedia.
The high priority is to ensure people know the state is not coterminous with the island, and which is being referred to in a given context. In many cases it doesn't really matter whether a reference is to the state or the island; in terms of physical location, anything in the state is on the island. But in cases where it does matter, it is simpler to use the explicit "in the Republic of Ireland" than to write something like "in the [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] (the state, not the island of which it is part)", which is what HighKing seems to be advocating. jnestorius(talk) 19:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Its never been put clearer. As someone said "The function of wikipedia is not to educate, but to inform.". Unless repealed or found unconstitutional the Republic of Ireland Act is just as lawful as the Constitution of Ireland. Everytime we use the term "Ireland" we dont need sillyness like "(the state)" or "(the island)" written after in in parenthesis just to clarify whats meant; nor do we need the user to have to put their mouse over the link. Djegan (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
My only issue is that I think the most popular online encyclopedia should inform with the correct name of the country and not a description which the country's government have requested not to be used as a name. I have no problem with people wanting to establish that the state is not the island, but I also just want to make sure that the correct name of that country is established too. If someone can do both then I'll be happy. I thought the pipelink was a fairly good way of doing that, but it looks like a new way has to be found. Just removing the name Ireland isn't the thing to do. Something like republic of Ireland which decapitalizes it so that its not a name or something like Republic of Ireland are along the lines of what I'm thinking of, but clearly not ideal.Pureditor 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
If ya'll want to remove the pipe-link & simply go with Republic of Ireland? 'tis cool. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Background Information on the term "Republic of Ireland"

The 1948 act states that It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland., and declared that the state had "ceased to be part...of His Majesty's dominions" and thereby left the Commonwealth of Nations.

The distinction between a description and a name has sometimes caused confusion. The Taoiseach, John A. Costello who introduced the Republic of Ireland Bill in the Oireachtas explained the difference in the following way:

If I say that my name is Costello and that my description is that of senior counsel, I think that will be clear to anybody who wants to know. If the Senator will look at Article 4 of the Constitution she will find that the name of the State is Éire. Section 2 of this Bill declares that “this State shall be described as the Republic of Ireland.” Its name in Irish is Éire and in the English language Ireland. Its description in the English language is “the Republic of Ireland.”.

The following year, the British government passed the Ireland Act 1949 which carried a provision which stated The part of Ireland referred to in subsection (1) of this section is hereafter in this Act referred to, and may in any Act, enactment or instrument passed or made after the passing of this Act be referred to, by the name attributed thereto by the law thereof, that is to say, as the Republic of Ireland.

Thus the practice of referring to the state as "Republic of Ireland" is thus shrined in UK law, but not Irish law. From an Irish point of view the fact is that Ireland is a republic, and this is enshrined as the official description. From a British point of view, this has meant that the Republic of Ireland is the only name for the Irish state officially recognised in domestic UK law.

While I believe that the above summary explains why there is a disagreement between editors on this subject, and explains why a number of editors view continuing the practice of using RoI as being a British-only POV, it does little to suggest a compromise or work-around. Inspiration from the Belfast Agreement suggests that the British government accept "Ireland" as an official legal name - but until the 1949 act is amended, it actually has no legal basis in UK domestic law.

Therefore if the duty is to inform rather than educate, I once again reiterate that with respect to articles relating to the state of Ireland, the Irish official name of the state should have precedence, and the current practice is to pipe. Other considerations such as only using "Republic of Ireland", or using "Ireland (state)" and "Ireland (island)" have been considered, debated, and rejected, as recently as last May 2008.

If we intend to retest current consensus, I suggest we post a notice on relevant and appropriate notice boards and invite interested editors and a wider community to participate.

--HighKing (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out, before anybody considers getting Republic of Ireland changed to Ireland? First get Ireland changed to Ireland (island). GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe Ireland (Republic) ??? --HighKing (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems like a very natural progression.Pureditor 23:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you indulge me and let me know what the description is intended for? Under what circumstances should it be used if not to disambiguate between the state and the island?Traditional unionist (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea TBH. I can only suggest that it was intended to be used so that instead of people thinking of "Ireland (Part of his Majesties Dominions)", they would instead now think of "Ireland (Republic)". Perhaps in much the same way that people sometimes place their accreditations after their names - "John Doe PhD"??? --HighKing (talk)
I'm pretty sure that is the reason. I believe the governement wanted to clarify that it was an independent republic and it had nothing to the with the monarchy of the United Kingdom. I don't think disambiguation was in their minds.Pureditor 23:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
European Union uses Republic of Ireland (Éire) one assumes that the Irish Government would have objected if it was unhappy with that. --Snowded TALK 00:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll now find this "error" has been corrected. --HighKing (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow that is pretty amazing. I think that says something very strong about the name of the state!Pureditor 11:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. They use "Ireland (Éire)", no? Nuclare (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You're right Nuclare. Snowded is trying to point out that the 'Republic of Ireland' is used in a sentence on the EU website. It's a bit inconspicuous and considering that they have Ireland correctly down as the country name in three different headings as well as the map I wouldn't think it is an issue. The website doesn't have the correct name down for the UK either, so I wouldn't read into it much. If Ireland had been listed under ROI then the issue probably would have been raised. I don't politicians surf the web looking for these things anyway; let alone googling to see if ROI appears on europa.eu!Pureditor 01:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Having said that, I do think there are instances where Republic of Ireland is necessary. (I've no objection to the state's page being titled ROI, for instance). But 'Constitution of Ireland' does not strike me as a place where it's necessary, especially since the issue of island/state is laid out in the opening paragraph. Constitutions are inherantly state things, not to mention that this particular constitution pre-dates 'ROI'. If people are so very ignorant about all things Ireland-naming, there is no reason to assume that just seeing 'ROI' in itself is going to be a magical clarification in all cases. Who's to say the ignorant won't assume ROI refers to the whole island? "...sovereign state of Ireland" could be used in the opening sentence of that page, perhaps. Nuclare (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The underlying problem is the need for a disambiguation. The republic of Ireland Act provides a description that circumnavigates that problem very well. It is not as has been suggested an invented term by another anti Irish, it was invented perhaps by De Valera, or Costello. I don't believe that it was invented to disassociate the republic swith the British Monarchy as it wasn't a matter of principle that led to the Republic being declared in 1948, it was that Alexander pissed Costello off. Therefore I see nothing wrong with using it. On the matter of the paragraph on the constitution page dealing with the ambiguity by exploring the extra territoriality claims in the Constitution, that just creates more confusion! The name Ireland is used twice in the lead, once to refer to the state, once to refer to the Island. Switching the former to Republic of Ireland is an elegant, verifiable, and perfectly legitimate thing to do.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Motivations aside, the ROI Act *did* disassociate the state from the monarchy. The two 'Ireland's on Const. of Ireland do illustrate that which is a fact: that "Ireland" has two uses. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to show. I don't really see the confusion that you claim is there, particularly if 'sovereign state of' was added to sentence one. Nuclare (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Isnt 'sovereign state of' just another way disambiguation, in the same way that "Republic of" Ireland is. Why make up a qualifier when you already have one? Djegan (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is another form of disambig., just as 'island of...' also disambigs the island. I don't see it as an invention--it wouldn't be used as a capitalized name and the state *is* a sovereign state, so says the ROI page. I'm not an opponent of ROI in the way others here may be, but I do think there is value in using what is the official and by far the most common name of the state. ROI looks so much like an official name that to use it always and everywhere could imply that it is its name. In 'matters of state' (which I think the constitution page is), where 'Ireland' appears to be the only name used by the state, why not use 'Ireland'? In some informal contexts, where confusion exists with the two 'Ireland's than I support ROI use. Nuclare (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The Constitution article does have an ambiguity over which use of the work Ireland is due to the extra territoriality that existed in the constitution pre 1998. This makes the opening paragraph read bizarrely as it uses the word in both senses within 3 or 4 sentences.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
'extra territoriality that existed in the constitution pre 1998'? Thats souns a bit like OR and a personal political feeling to me to be a valid reason! The opening paragraph does not read bizarrely at all. The use of the state's name and the island of Ireland is not strange. In fact its very accurate, which is what an encyclopedia should be.Pureditor 13:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
OR? Are you serious? You think that saying the Irish Constitution has extra territoriality pre 1998 is OR?Traditional unionist (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The "extra territoriality" is only a fact if you have a particular POV. To others, it was a fact that Ireland claimed the entire island. Inserting the phrase, and use of the phrase, should perhaps be accompanied with appropriate qualifiers such as "alleged", etc. --HighKing (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying that the extra territoriality is POV. That is patent and unjustifiable nonsense.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
No I'm saying that trying to make that a reason to not use the correct name of the state in an article, coulD be seen as OR.Pureditor 13:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you any idea what OR is?! It prevents original research being included in articles, this is a discussion about disambiguating a state which claims the same name as an island it only partly inhabits. The extra territoriality is a fact that together with the former fact makes the disambiguation more necessary, it would not be included in any article.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
1. It doesn't claim the same name, it has the same name. While my intrpretation of OR may be different to yours, I still see your opinion of that something that was previously in the constitution but is now not, makes disambiguation more necessary as OR and as something that should not be included in the article as it has no fact to it and it purely your original opinion.Pureditor 14:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't want it included it in the article, that would be OR, I am presenting it as an argument for the disambiguation. The difference between claiming and "is" is semantic. The point is that when the name of an island is claimed by a state that does not cover the entire island, disambiguation is required. Same with North and South Korea.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Eh, all of the discussions above go into that. Editors weren't talking about it above just for fun! Please just spend 2 minutes to read it all again.Pureditor 10:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Its apparent that a consensus is now very unlikely, but at the same time even I can admit that we dont want to replace one controversial solution with an even more controversial solution. Djegan (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

break

<outdent>V. interesting train of thought, however I don't think its stands up to scrutiny. What was not a matter of principle was the timing of the declaration. You are correct about Costelloe being pissed off. However the change from monarchy to republic was/is an absolute matter of principle. Crispness (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can say that. If it was a huge matter of principle why not go the whole way at the abdication crisis? Or even earlier in the independence project? In any event I think it is spurious to attach great weight to the difference between a legislative description and a name, esp when a disambiguation is required.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A valid POV, of course. Its just that there are many, particularly those with republican sentiments, who would disagree, and do so with equal validity, and just as passionately. Crispness (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Seeing above - folks you don't have to indent your postings to the extreme. It make reading them difficult. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've been avoiding this but let me make it clear that any attempt to impose the unpiped use of "Republic of Ireland" on every article about some place, person or thing in country of Ireland would be rather more than "controversial". It would be totally unacceptable. Sarah777 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
As always its gonna be consensus, not necessarily the same thing as what you want. Djegan (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Any form of imposition is obviously unacceptible - but it works both ways, no? You can't stop people using Republic of Ireland Sarah, especially when they can prove it is the most unambiguous term for a particular situation. Both flexibility and consensus will always be involved.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
As I said, the piping is already a compromise. It stays, no debate. If folk can stop me using British Isles to mean the UK as per a common minority usage I can certainly stop folk imposing RoI rather than Ireland (most common term) on my country. And Dj; Wiki "consensus" is simple majoritarianism; how often do I have to point that out? Sarah777 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
"It stays, no debate"? This and the 'tit for tat' comment are not helping you at all. Regarding the issue that I am here about - people are arguing for an option to use 'ROI' in a British Isles usage guideline (at WP:BITASK), and you are simply saying that must be a piped-'Ireland' only - with no ROI at all. That is the real "imposition" - not people merely needing to use the best term for clarity of understanding!
ROI being less-used than Ireland does not make ROI a "minority view"! It's simply just used less than Ireland. You can't use that purely benign fact as a 'tit for tat' comparison with your own "minority view" (of one) that 'British Isles' must be UK-only! Whatever the name for the archipelago is called, it must include all of the island of Ireland - it can't be "just the UK" and include only part of the island! ROI is simply a 'common name', as is Ireland - there does not have to be only one WP:COMMONNAME. Here we have two, so we must be able to use the two, very much in the manner that UK and Britain are both used.
Consensus is indeed a form "majoritarianism" - but Wikipedia is based on it! You are simply being a hypocrite over 'consensus' anyway. You have actually benefitted hugely by the 'consensus' nature of Wikipedia time and time again: you are always referring to prior "consensuses". It is always one rule for you and another for everyone else. There are some tight cabals that have achieved quite a lot by 'consensus' over issues connected to the emerald isle, in fact. It just depends whether the outcomes suit you or not.
As a football fan (AKA made-in-'Ireland, Ireland' "association football" - and they say cabals don't exist), the Republic of Ireland honestly doesn't seem like a "minority" name to me. So what if 'Ireland' is used more than 'ROI'? It's not a competition - with the "Most Used" earning exclusivity of use! ROI is a clear WP:commonname.
Being flexible with the use of ROI on things like the British Isles guideline is your best bet on keeping the piped Ireland anyway - your uncompromising "all or nothing" position is simply untenable, and in the long run won't help you at all. No-censorship is one of strongest rules on Wikipedia - why do you think Tharkuncoll is so confident? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe you meant to link to Association football article (consistency). Your sentence "So what if 'Ireland' is used more than 'ROI'? .... Roi is a clear WP:commonname" is a contradiction.
It seems that everybody accepts that a compromise of some sort must be in place. But it seems that using "Republic of Ireland" is not accepted by everyone. Is that the problem or is there a subtle facet I'm missing? Would a different Dab be more acceptable? Perhaps Ireland (state) or Ireland (republic) as has been previously suggested? --HighKing (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Where is the contradiction? 'ROI' is simply a common name, as it 'Ireland'. Do people disagree on what WP:COMMONNAME actually covers? UK and Britain, USA and America, ROI and Ireland etc are surely all common names? I've put in the uncomfortable "association football" 'pipe' into my "football" link as you suggest! I think both ways make my point though, don't you?--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
"Ireland (state)" and "Ireland (republic)" have been discussed before; they would be fine for once off article titles but in text would they be a real improvement? I think not. Why create an artificial construct when we all ready have "Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland" - for me its got to be one of those two and preferrably the latter. Six months down the road wouldn't "Education in Ireland (state)" be nothing short of a disaster? In any case it would only become a matter of time before [[Ireland (state)|Ireland]] would become the norm and we would be back to square one. Djegan (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
That would be a poor solution, I agree, but it is certainly not anything I've suggested. First of all, whilst I think there is a benefit in taking the much-fought after "Ireland" out of the equation for the island and state articles themselves, I certainly can't see any point in adding "(state)" or "(island)" to article names, where it is either obvious from the subject matter or if not that the opening sentence or two of the lead, which they refer to. The problem with using piped links, which is where this thread began, seems to be that one or other side of the fault line wants to claim "Ireland" as their own, and prevent the other from being able to use it. This is as understandable as it is ridiculous - the word means two different things. That's why I suspect that always having to use a piped link, would appear to be the best solution. Anything else is always going to be interpreted as a victory for one side and a defeat for the other and create ongoing exasperation. Except to committed edit warriors, peace is surely preferable to a 'victory' that only guarantees the prolongation of the conflict? Ben MacDui 12:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
You may strive after an easy life, I'd like to get this right. I think your accusation that this is an attempt by anyone to claim Ireland for their own is well out of line, this is a debate about getting the right solution, certainly from my end. I could say that those who oppose my viewpoint on this have ranged from ignorant of the facts to bullishly asserting that their opinion overrules consensus, making this discussion almost impossible to draw out. But I'm sure I'd be criticised for saying that. The simple fact is that there are two states in Ireland, both of whom are perfectly legitimate inhabitants of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland claims the name of the island for its own, which they are perfectly entitled to do, but it creates a problem on wikipedia of how to disambiguate between the two states and the Island. The republic has itself provided us with an elegant solution in 1948, that of a description that perfectly adequately fits out requirements. The only argument that I can see against this solution is a fairly spurious one that seeks to devalue a "description" to a one off matter of principle that matters not from the second the act was passed. That fails VERIFY and COMMONNAME. Beyond this argument I am at a loss to see why RoI should not be used, and am yet to see a convincing argument that this is the wrong way forward.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be going round in circles here. You don't seem to understand the point that using ROI is misleading as it suggests that it is the name of the state, which its not. Also if you read Names_of_the_Irish_state#Republic_of_Ireland_v_Ireland you will see that the Irish government have requested that the state is not called ROI. Those two facts should be respected and the use of ROI shouldn't be encouraged just because it looks better written down then Ireland (Republic) or whatever. Use of island of Ireland disambigs the island from the state perfectly. The current consensus of pipelinking works well and I don't see any reason to stop using the common, official and only name of the Irish state.Pureditor 13:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
You have some real problems with WP policy. 1)RoI meets WP:COMMONNAME and WP:VERIFY, therefore your first point is moot. Your second is very worrying. Wikipedia is not here to meet the demands of the Irish Government, to do so would be to run contrary to everything wikipedia stands for.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) I find your claim of ignorance insulting. ROI is not a name so it fails WP:VERIFY. Last time I checked governments define the name of their country. Thats how we verify it anyway. WP:COMMONNAME says Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The island article fails that as it shares the name with the state. If conventions were to be followed correctly there would be a disamb page like at Georgia so don't tell me that WP policy backs up your view. Your skewed interpretation of it does. Have you ever read the policy on naming disputes? It says short form should be used. It even goes on to say Ireland should be used for the state even though it makes the shocking mistake that Ireland is a synonym rather than the official name. So I say my knowledge of WP policy is perfectly good and that it is you who needs to brush up on it. Here is a clear case of wikipedia telling us to use Ireland rather than ROI!Pureditor 13:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Unionist said "The point is that when the name of an island is claimed by a state that does not cover the entire island, disambiguation is required." And disambig. is present, and further disambig. is being proposed: "island of..." is disambig. The whole sentence giving detail about Northern Ireland clarifies that Ireland#1 is distinct from Ireland#2. The proposed "...sovereign state of..." is disambig. Nuclare (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the contention that there are 2 states on the island of Ireland. There is at most one and a quarter. NI is not a state. It is part of a state, quite a small part really. I believe it is described as a province in relation to the rest of the U.K. The dispute is more like the Macedonia dispute than the 2 state solution for Israel/Palestine. The current status quo is an adequate solution, if not perfect. I have not heard anything which improves the situation in any way. Swings and roundabouts. Crispness (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that there are two states in Ireland, which ever way you look at it: Northern Ireland is a state - look at how Wikipedia defines 'state', "A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population. These may be nation states, sub-national states or multinational states." On top of that, as TU says below, the UK is a state. --Setanta747 (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The two states are the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. It is indisputable that there are two states.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you are correct that there are two states present in the island of Ireland. I am also happy to note that the term ROI is still in use (I would not say common). However, having checked this since my last edit, it seems that the UN, the EU and (since the Good Friday Agreement) the Government of the United Kingdom has agreed to use IRELAND not ROI (with the quid pro quo of no claim over Northern Ireland from Dublin). If that is the official position of the two governments involved and two international bodies then it would seem that ROI as a term is historical not current? --Snowded TALK 13:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Tell that to the Republic of Ireland football team! How else can they disambiguate? Find a single shred of evidence (not Original Research) that says the term is now "historical". It IS in common use - we have to accept that. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
That is the name of the football team used to disambiguate. At one time, there were two football teams claiming to be Irish - both selected from players from North and South, and some players even played for both sides. Since both teams compete internationally, a disambiguation was necessary. Note that the organisations do not disambiguate with their own names - "Irish Football Association" and "Football Association of Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Matt please calm down. Agreed it is in use for the Soccer team. However the key issue for me is the Good Friday Agreement in which the UK Government agree to use it, plus EU and UN use. None of those are OR, track it back for yourself. You can't define a whole policy by the name of a soccer team, agreed government and international body naming conventions have a higher status. --Snowded TALK 15:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This is pure stonewalling. I make a serious point and I get told to "calm down". Your statement "You can't define a whole policy by the name of a soccer team" is ignorant on a whole number of levels. It's just pure stonewalling the basic acceptance of common name.
It IS 'Original Research' to conclude that a term is "historical" based on this kind of research: it is your own conclusion, no-one elses. It's also wishful thinking! Demoting football in importance won't win you the love of sports fans, either.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Matt all you are proving is that ROI is the common name of the football team. They are only called that as both organisations on the island wanted the name Ireland and FIFA had to invent a solution. Imagine if the IFA (NI organisation) had their way. Then you'd be saying Ireland is the common name of NI, a part of the UK! Football has nothing to do with the commonname of a state.Pureditor 15:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
What I am saying is that like "UK" and "Britain", "US", "USA" and "America", both cases of Ireland can be used! My objection is when people say I can't use ROI at all in the British Isles guideline. It is simply a common name - so I simply can. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
You still have to deal with the Good Friday Agreement Matt, the term ROI came into being in the early part of the last century as a result of disagreements between two governments and was officially removed by its creator (the UK Government) at the end of that century. May not be convenient but it simply is. --Snowded TALK 15:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Not convenient? It is currently nothing but Original Research! ROI is a common-name, commonly used to disambiguate with, and you can't stop people from using it to do just that. And who says it was "offically removed" anyway?
The Republic of Ireland article (no pipe needed) says "Legally, the term Republic of Ireland is the description of the State but Ireland is its name" Excuse me for following Wikipedia rather than User:Snowded when editing Wikipedia. As long as the ROI article exists and says that, you can't stop me doing a damn thing with the term! Can't you see yet how badly it looks from my point of view? I can see a workable guideline - and only non-Policy 'OR' and pretty obvious 'POV' is standing in its way. Crazy.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Folks, please consider my deal (below); at least as a last resort. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matt, I think part of the problem here is that nobody is sure what is meant by "legal description". Does it have any legal footing whatsoever? If so, what does it mean and where is it OK to use the term as opposed to the name (from an Irish POV). I think another problem is that RoI is often incorrectly used in a way that suggests that is is actually an official "name", not a description. Indeed many of the suggestions here appear, to me at least, to use it as an alternative name - but it is not a name recognised by Ireland, but is in the UK where it appears in UK domestic law. So from an Irish POV, it is not COMMONNAME to the extent that it is from a British POV (and suffers from the Irish mentality of rejecting a perceived British description and imposition). Looking forward, I believe that everyone agrees that a dab is required, but it seems that RoI as a Dab is being rejected. Perhaps we should explore an alternative Dab, if that is agreeable? --HighKing (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
"Does it have any legal footing whatsoever?" - Yes, it's in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948! Anyway, why get hung up on "legal name", etc.? The problem is that the "legal/official name" is a misnomer - it is the law that causes the problem! Nothing wrong with using an alternative name which is in common parlance. I'm sure, e.g. North and South Korea are used, also Taiwan or Chinese Taipei. And of course we have "Derry" used when "Londonderry" is the legal name. Mooretwin (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
RoI isn't recognised by the Irish Government? If that's true they need to set about the repeal of the Republic of Ireland Act! Stop with this fallacy that RoI is a British invention, it just isn't, it is an Irish invention. Why would we explore a different DAB when we have one that was provided by the Irish state 50 years ago?Traditional unionist (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Ironic that you label your edit with "stop with the disinformation", and then accuse me of saying "RoI isn't recognised by the Irish government" which I never stated. Can I politely suggest that you reread what I actually posted again, take a chill pill, and then retract your own "disinformation". What I *actually* stated, is that as a name, it is not recognised by the Irish government. There was established during a high-court case whereby an extradition order was rejected for using the term "Republic of Ireland" as the name. I'll say is again - it is not recognised in Ireland as a name. This is different in UK law. I've explained all of this above, if you scroll up to the start of the "Background information" section, and although the high court case isn't mentioned, you can find info about that on the terminology of the British Isles page. In anticipation of your retraction, can you give some consideration to my suggestion of exploring an alternative Dab please? --HighKing (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Deindent. Unfortunately Irish case law states that people from Tyrone are thick, so I'm afraid it's difficult to take that seriously. The difference between a name and a legislative description is highly semantic, and to suggest otherwise is misleading. Even of we take it as you do, if nothing else, surely it is a disambiguation? If it cant be used for that what can it be used for? The solution to this problem has been provided for us, not using it makes little logical sense.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As HighKing has said, the use of ROI as a NAME is indeed British invention. You can't deny that when the Irish governement have requested that it not be used as a name. They clearly still feel the same way considering the EU website Snowded quoted above was changed from ROI to Ireland just there.Pureditor 11:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that "Ireland" is the "official name" is not in dispute! The issue is that the "official name" is a misnomer and hence the risk of confusion and ambiguity. Mooretwin (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(I've seen a lot of bollocks written about the Belfast Agreement in my time, but Snowded takes it to a new extreme. 1)The British Givernment invented the term RoI? Where are you getting that from?! The RoI act (Irish statute) pre-dates the Ireland Act (British statute)!! RoI is an Irish invention!. Second there is a commonly held fallacy that the Agreement is a legal document, and that its contents are binding. Nothing is further from the truth. The binding document is the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which, as far as I can tell,makes no mention of the Republic of Ireland. Indeed the agreement document itself (to my knowledge) makes no such mention of revoking the term RoI in UK terminology. This debate on the anti RoI side is punctuated with ignorance, quasi edit warring threats and mis information. It is nearly impossible to have a constructive discussion in this atmosphere.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

These disputes, are enough to make anybody run around, with nothing on but their clothing. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia policy there shouldn't be a dispute; policy on naming conflicts specifically instructs us to use Ireland rather than ROI as accordance with use in the English language, I'm guessing based on WP:COMMONNAME.Pureditor 11:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
"Republic of Ireland" is used in the English language! Mooretwin (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
That policy is nonsense. It is written on the basis that Ireland is a shortened version of the official name Republic of Ireland. Which is wrong. There is no commonname debate here, both are legitimately caught by commonname.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The original use of ROI was a description (republic), but its use was then enforced by the UK Government who objected in the UN and elsewhere to the use of Ireland as the name of the state. However as far as I can see the Good Friday agreement resolves that, the UK agrees to use Ireland and claims to Northern Ireland are removed with an agreement to use the same name. The previous referenced wikipedia page on this includes quotes from Hansard to that effect. Now if I am wrong on that tell me, but that is how I read it. In that case it is legitimate to reference ROI as a historical name applied by the UK, but with the removal of that Ireland is surely the correct name to use. Some editors might disagree with that politically, but I think the definition by country governments is definitive? --Snowded TALK 13:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
So by that token, we refer to the Republic of China for Taiwan/Chinese Tai'pei? The UK Government, for diplomatic reasons has accepted the misnomer "Ireland", but we are not diplomats on Wikipedia. THe name requires disambiguation. Mooretwin (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
That is a really weak argument as tHAT CASE two states in question are still in dispute over the name. The two nation states involved here, Ireland and the UK are now both agreed on the names to be used. In your opinion it is a misnomer, but where the sovereign bodies are agreed then that resolves the issue Now you may require disambiguation (state v island) but that does not justify not using the term Ireland. --Snowded TALK 23:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
So you're telling me that if the two states weren't in dispute over the name, Wikipedia would refer to Taiwan as the Republic of China? It's not my opinion that it's a misnomer: it is a misnomer - 26 counties does not equal Ireland! And it's not "resolved" - in every day life - outside the embassies and government offices, people refer to "Republic of Ireland" on a daily basis without fear of misunderstanding or causing offence. Think how ludicrous it would be for someone in Belfast about to catch a train to Dublin and announcing that he was "going to Ireland". Wise up! Mooretwin (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If there was an agreement in China that Taiwan would be called the Republic of China then the name would not be in dispute and yes Wikipedia should. The job of wikipedia is not to preserve old battle lines and support a political POV. The UK, Ireland (the state), the EU and the UN all agree that the state is called IRELAND. Seems very clear to me that the official name is now clear. Disambiguation around names such as ROI will be necessary and also some historical notes. --Snowded TALK 00:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin wrote: "26 counties does not equal Ireland." And a jurisdiction in Ireland lacking Donegal doesn't equal "Northern Ireland." So what?

"in every day life - outside the embassies and government offices, people refer to "Republic of Ireland"" And in every day life people *also* refer to the state as "Ireland." In fact, I think it is safe to say it is far more often called Ireland than ROI. And the Constitution is not an 'every day life' discussion. It's more along the lines of an 'inside' the government offices topic.

break 2

"Think how ludicrous it would be for someone in Belfast about to catch a train to Dublin and announcing that he was "going to Ireland" Pressumably a person taking the train from Belfast to Dublin would say they are taking the train from Belfast to Dublin....But my opinion on this is that there are contexts in which ROI can be used, but I don't think the Constitution page is one that needs it. The use of ROI on the Cork (city) page, for example, is one I would support. But on the Constitution page, I think disambig is present already and the addition of "the sovereign state of..." would make the disambig even stronger. Nuclare (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was a bit confused about what you ment on the Cork page, but now I understand. So your argument is that it is fair enough to have Cork listed as the sexcond largest city in RoI, but a document that once claimed all of the Island that only applies to 26 counties should use same of the Island without clarification? That doesn't make sense.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
And why do you keep ignoring what I keep saying over and over again? There *is* clarification on the Constitution page and there is more that is being suggested. The Constituion opening paragraph actually states clearly exactly what you just said: It is a document that once claimed all the island and now only applies to some of it. That statement is already in the article. The Cork situation is a) not a 'Matter of State,' in the governmenta/founding legal document sort of sense b) it is one where the state vs. the island is being compared in the same sentence--the gist of the statement itself is to differentiate the two. c) it doesn't have the kind of detailed explanation that the Constitution page has, where the state/island issue is already explained directly and clearly. Nuclare (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It is very far from clear. It uses the word Ireland to denote both the state and the island within 2 sentences without proper explanation on disambiguation. This simply compounds the problem, there are many instances where this will arise with a simple solution offered by the Irish state itself, Republic of Ireland. Political and matters of state are the best example of where Republic of Ireland should be used as a matter of course, place names are an example of where no confusion could arise.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Nuclare wrote: “And a jurisdiction in Ireland lacking Donegal doesn't equal "Northern Ireland.” --- there is only one “Northern Ireland”: it doesn’t cause confusion – there is no ambiguity!
Nuclare wrote: “And in every day life people *also* refer to the state as "Ireland." In fact, I think it is safe to say it is far more often called Ireland than ROI.” – but they don’t when it is necessary to clarify that they mean the Republic of Ireland. In such scenarios, they use “Republic of Ireland”.
Nuclare wrote: “But my opinion on this is that there are contexts in which ROI can be used, but I don't think the Constitution page is one that needs it.” --- yes and those contexts include any in which there is a need to clarify that the subject applies only to the Republic and not to Ireland as a whole.Mooretwin (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"there is only one “Northern Ireland”" Actually there is a 'northern Ireland' which put at the beginning of a sentence would be another "Northern Ireland" :-)) But,anyways, I was just commenting there about your obsession with calling the state's name a misnomer. Both names on the island are 'misnomers' in some respects. But it's an irrelevant point.
"but they don’t when it is necessary to clarify that they mean the Republic of Ireland."" Actually, I suppose what they mean is the state named Ireland, which you are recommending be dab-ed (only) with ROI. And what you and I (as opposed, perhaps, to you and other people here) are disagreeing about is when it is necessary for such clarification. I think one would have to be beyond dumb to not be able to figure out the Ireland usages in the Constitution of Ireland opening paragraph (particularly if 'sovereign state of...' was added to the first sentence, but even without it). They'd have to be so dumb--so ignorant of what a state is, what a constitution is, what an island is, etc.--that such individuals are unlikely to even understand what a "Republic of Ireland" is and how it would be different than an 'island of Ireland' that ROI use would be unlikely to yield the benefit you claim is needed there.
"any in which there is a need to clarify that the subject applies only to the Republic and not to Ireland as a whole." Is there any use of Ireland for the state that isn't in need of clarification by using ROI? Or in your view, is Ireland only legitimately used for the island or in instances where it may as well mean the island? Nuclare (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I suspect that if you used a different Dab than "Republic of Ireland", you'd find that you are both largely agreeing with each other. Most seem to agree that "Ireland" as applied to the island and the republic requires disambiguation. The disagreement is over using the term "Republic of Ireland" as the Dab. --HighKing (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

which is ludicrous given that the dab under discussion was provided by the Irish state.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Show me where it says that "Republic of Ireland" is to be used to disambiguate from "Ireland"? --HighKing (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes. What is wrong with Republic of Ireland, exactly? It's in common use in Northern Ireland (by both nationalists and unionists), and also in the rest of the UK. Why does its use attract all this excitement? Mooretwin (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Given that it is the official name according to domestic UK law, I'm not surprised that it's in common use in Northern Ireland and the UK. Although more recent events appear to be overtaking this older view and usage... --HighKing (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
A bad approved by a former Irish PM.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Just because an ex-Taoiseach mentions the term doesn't mean that he Approves it's usage as a dab! I've used the term several hundred times, does that mean that I've approved it as a dab too? Don't read any more into it that what it actually is. --HighKing (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
When pushed and he thought he needed a dab (even though he didn't), the first thing he reached for was RoI. The head of Government uses RoI, and you think that he doesn't necessarily think it is an adequate dab? Pull the other one.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Pushed? You might wish to think that he approved or that he was pushed, but that isn't supported by the footage. My very simple point is that he wasn't using it as a dab at all. What was he disambiguating? --HighKing (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Did you watch it?! Someone asked him about Cavan, he mistook Cavan for being in Northern Ireland and dabd RoI!!Traditional unionist (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Did *you* watch it? How do you get that he mistook Cavan for being in NI? He was merely continuing with his script of addressing the nationwide issue, not getting sidetracked by a local problem brought up by the local TD who knew he was on telly and wanted to show his constituents what a great job he was doing in the big smoke! --HighKing (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
So you can't articulate what is wrong with ROI? Mooretwin (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
So you haven't read anything from the thread above? --HighKing (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose one of the interesting aspects of this dialogue is how hard it seems to be for some us of to understand the problem when looked at from the "other point of view". Let me try an analogy. Suppose the citizens of a much larger and more more powerful country repeatedly referred to the UK by an inaccurate name. Say, for example, they kept calling it "England". Reasonably enough UK editors seek to redress this issue and are met with a variety of arguments such as "everyone calls it England all the time"; "there are statements from YouKay minsters calling it England"; "Your President Tony Blair is from Scotland and he calls it England sometimes" etc. etc. Maybe it is possible to imagine how annoying it might be to have to continually point out that England is only one part of the whole. Perhaps (who knows?) editors of UK related pages have to do this on a regular basis. For my part, I personally find neither ROI nor Ireland, when used to describe the state that is aka Eire, to be a problem. I do however note that I would find it annoying to have my country called something that wasn't its correct name by editors from somewhere else. Doasyouwouldbedoneby is my suggestion. Ben MacDui 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't need me to tell you that I have two or three opposite analogies for you. However your analogy is very imperfect. There are not two meanings of UK, England or Scotland. There are two meanings to the word Ireland. One is an Island, and two states occupy that island, both claiming it's name in some form. One of those states simply claims the name of the island. That causes an ambiguity around which WP must find a way. Except that state has already provided a way around it in a piece of legislation, and the immediate past head of government is known to use it as a dab. Problem?Traditional unionist (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Having reread this thread, it has been repeated many times and argued cyclically that it isn't true or acceptable practise to:
  • interpret the 1948 act as the creation of a 2nd name for the state
  • ignore the official explanation of what the desciption is
  • propose that the Act and the desciption somehow makes it official to accept as a dab
  • and use this as a reason to ignore the official name
  • but continue to push the domestic UK legal name as an alternative name on WP
  • without regard to what is accurate and official and acceptable to editors on WP
I once again suggest that the only way forward on this issue is to
  1. Accept that a Dab is required
  2. Explore alternative dabs to RoI
  3. Attempt to classify and identify articles where a Dab is required.
--HighKing (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You can't legitimatly argue that RoI is unacceptable as a dab as it isn't a second name AND accept that any other dab is necessary and acceptable. if RoI is unacceptable, any dab is unacceptable.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Completely left scratching my head as to your criteria for legitimately - especially given that I bullet-pointed one logical train of thought for you above. Don't think I can fisher-price it any more....but there are several other Dabs that can be discussed. For example, Ireland (republic) or Ireland (state) were mentioned in a previous discussion you participated in. I'm sure there's lot more too... --HighKing (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
And it;s been pointed out why those would wind up being ridiculous. And that would eventually wind up back here again. We have evidence submitted that the Head of Government of the Irish state accepts it as a dab, world football including the FIA accept it as a dab, it is a dab invented by the Irish state, with the distinction between a "name" and a "description" still left ambitious at best and ludicrously tenuous at best. So it looks like a dab, and it quacks like a dab.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I've not seen a lot in the way argument from you other than a lot of exclamations of "ridiculous". And it's laughable to say that a YouTube video is Evidence :-). You've happily ignored the time and effort editors have put into explaining the history of the football association, and happily ignored the fact that the FAI state they are the association for Ireland on their website. And FIFA avoid the controversy by using yet another Dab - "Ireland Republic". And you happily ignore a direct quote from the person who introduced the 1948 act explaining the difference between a name and a description. And you'll happily ignore this too. Thankfully it's consensus that counts. --HighKing (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I've happily ignored nothing. The FIA use Republic of Ireland as a......what is it now? oh yes, a disambiguation. Do you want me to go and get the transcript of Bertie using RoI in the Dail? Will it make it better for you to see it written down? The person introducing the bill matters little. What matters what it is used for now. And that use puts little significance on whatever difference there is between an alternative name and a "description" of a state.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The F-A-I stands for the "Football Association of" .. what is it now? Oh yes, Ireland. The other association the I-F-A stands for the "Irish Football Association". The name of the international team is "Republic of Ireland" to disambiguate from "Northern Ireland". This is the way the football teams chose to dab the team names 60 years ago. It's of dubious relevance to the current debate, especially since FIFA dabs differently, and the UK government has now started to drop their usage too. It might be convenient to ignore the explanation afforded by Costello to explain the 1948 Act, and the explanation behind Name and Description, but an argument depend on the existence of the Act on one hand, yet reject the explanation and interpretation of it on the other. Smells of WP:OR to me. As to the transcript - go ahead and get it if you think it'll make any difference, but the video makes it clear that he says that he isn't talking about Cavan but about the entire state - the "Republic of Ireland". And he's not using it in this context as a Dab from Ireland (island) or from Northern Ireland (perhaps a Dab from Cavan :-). so again it's difficult to see how this adds weight to your assertion that this is Evidence that the Taoiseach approved its use as a Dab for "Ireland". He even uses the term Ireland in other places in the footage... --HighKing (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I asked High King to articulate what is wrong with ROI. He replied by implying that such articulation has occurred in the thread above. Yet, it seems to me that the objection is based purely on Republic of Ireland not being the "official name". But if this is the objection, then it cannot be possible ever to have a disambiguation, as there is only one "official name". Yet, I understand that High King does not object to a disambiguation per se. So ... I ask again ... what is wrong with "Republic of Ireland"? Why does it apparently get people hot under the collar? Mooretwin (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Apologies Mooretwin - I believed it was clear from the preceding thread. There are a number of problems, and not all to do with the term itself:
  • Usage: It's not very clear to a lot of editors when a Dab is required in relation to RoI. This is compounded by the fact that the name of the article, Republic of Ireland, is actually a Dab and not the correct name. In turn, this has lead to a number of editors assuming that "Republic of Ireland" is the correct name, and its only a bunch weirdos insisting on using "Ireland" and using the piping to the article. In of itself, this is a problem. The name of the main article should not be "Republic of Ireland", and it leads to editors believing that it is a valid *name*.
  • Term: The RoI term itself is a term popularized mainly by the UK - probably due to the fact that it is still to this day the official name of the state according to UK law. It is used extensively throughout the British media (and why not? It's the legal name after all). The state itself does not use this term as a name. Ireland's *name* is "Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Dab: There is no doubt that a Dab is required. But using RoI as a Dab on WP, coupled with its use as a name in the UK and the UK media, coupled with the objections many editors have to this term being used, indicates to me that we should look for an acceptable alternative.
  • Suggestions: Many alternative Dabs have been suggested and I won't relist them here. But to ask the same question to Mooretwin, what is wrong with an alternative? Why does it *have* to be RoI? --HighKing (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
RoI is the obvious term. It is in every-day usage, unlike "Ireland (republic)" or "Ireland (state)". What about "Irish Republic" - is that better - it is often used? Mooretwin (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
If you follow the link of Irish Republic you'll get the answer to your question. The disamb that I think would appeal to everyone is Ireland (Republic of). It uses the ROI way of disambiguation, but also uses Ireland which will appeal to those looking for accuracy.Pureditor 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
"Ireland (Republic of)" might be useful in an alphabetical list, but it doesn't work in prose. Mooretwin (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Can I just also add the fact that ROI is still discouraged by the government. This has already been mentioned, but I'll mention it again. User:Snowded raised the point that the term ROI was openly used on the EU's website here. Amazingly it was removed less than a day later to just use the correct term Ireland; so dissatisfaction of the term ROI is very much current and real.Pureditor 11:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is the RoI government dissatisfied with the term? Mooretwin (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The Irish government is dissatisfied with ROI as its not the same of the state. You can read all about it here. It's like if people insisted on calling the UK England. It's common but most definitely inaccurate.Pureditor 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not at all like UK and England! There is no amibuity with either of those names. There is, however, with "Ireland". Ironically, in respect of RoI, it is the "correct" or "official" name which is inaccurate.Mooretwin (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Totally different situation. 1)We are not here to do the irish Government's biding. 2)England is wrong for the UK because is bigger than England. The Republic of Ireland is smaller than Ireland, therefore a dab is required. And I repeat my point, it is not possible to legitimately argue that a dab is required but that RoI is unacceptable. RoI is an IRISH invention, not a British one as has been insinuated. RoI accurately, succinctly and verifiably acts as a dab.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Except that it inaccurately suggests that it is the name of the state which it is not. Also when does one define a time when one needs to disambiguate? I would have thought that the Constitution of Ireland article would have been an obvious situation where one uses the correct name of the state. You obviously think otherwise.This confusion bewtween state and island does not exist in real life, the instance of not using the correct name of the state still bemuses me. If someone's not sure which one it is, the wikilink is there. It's the way Wikipedia works.Pureditor 12:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

break 3

Let's leave aside the politics and history lessons. I believe that everyone recognizes (and acknowledges) the need for a Dab. Rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reasons, RoI does not appear to be agreeable to everyone. Consider these questions:

  1. Why does the Dab *have* to be "Republic of Ireland"?
  2. Are there any acceptable alternatives? If so, what are they?

--HighKing (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. It's the obvious name to use - it enjoys common usage and was legislated for in both RoI and UK. It works in prose.
  2. The only ones that work in prose are "Irish Republic", "Southern Ireland" and "26 counties" - the first is already used for something else, however - the second does not enjoy common usage, the third is probably politically POV. Mooretwin (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
They are very dated and POV recommendations. I do find it interesting that those opposing the correct usage of the name of the state are from Northern Ireland. As a Canadian, looking at this from an international point of view, Ireland (something) needs to be used if we want to be in anyway accurate. Otherwise I don't see the current consensus and Wikipedia guidelines of pipelinking ROI being changed.Pureditor 13:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
"Republic of Ireland" is neither dated nor POV. Mooretwin (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it is not surprising that those objecting are from NI - since it is they who are at the sharp end of the confusion caused by the "official name". Mooretwin (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
How can "Ireland (Republic)" be accurate yet "Republic of Ireland is not accurate? Mooretwin (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mooretwin, thanks for responding. On reflection, perhaps a multi-question poll is required where people can register if they agree or disagree. I've started a new section below. --HighKing (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's make a deal

Look familiar? Like I said before folks - We either A) pipe-link RoI as [Republic of Ireland|Ireland] & allow British Isles to be shown on Irish articles or B) We pipe-link BI as [British Isles|Great Britain and Ireland] & allow Republic of Ireland to be shown on Irish articles. It's time to get tough folks. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know consensus building had anything to do with blackmailing! Wow.Pureditor

I'll sell my soul (even though I'm atheist), to bring harmony to those disputed articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well lumping them together as one issue isn't going to solve anything you'll be sorry to hear.Pureditor 15:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy, flexibility and 'common sense' will win out on the BI guideline - we won't need to make a deal just because of scraping feet! --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider this a when all else fails suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this going to be a other consensus like the stroke city Consensus ? Gnevin (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
No this one will not breech other WP policies.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The schism continues (see above). The deal folks, consider the deal. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Three Questions on Irish nationality terminology

These set of questions are a result of numerous threads and discussions taking place on Wikipedia. My intended purpose is to establish whether the current practice, when referring to the state named "Ireland", of piping the word "Ireland" to the article "Republic of Ireland" should continue, and whether the current use of ROI as a 'disambiguator' is acceptable. --HighKing (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please register whether you agree or disagree below. For now I am assuming that the Background facts are agreeable - if not, register your disagreement before the start of the poll.

NOTE: These questions are not intended to achieve consensus, and they are not polling for change.

Background Facts to which we all agree

  • Ireland is the official name of the island, consisting of all 32 counties
  • Ireland is the official name of the state described by the state itself as 'Republic of Ireland', consisting of 26 counties
  • We often need disambiguate between the island, the republic, and Northern Ireland

Question 1: "Ireland" (as the state) pipe-linking to the state article is acceptable

When the word "Ireland" is used to represent the state (as opposed to the island), the current practice of 'pipe linking' it to the article on the state (whatever that article may be called) is an acceptable practice.

Question 2: "Republic of Ireland" is an acceptable disambiguation term to be used instead of other alternatives

Given the acceptance that ambiguity can occur, and 'disambiguation' is then required, are people happy with being able to use the term "Republic of Ireland" when terms like "Ireland" could be confusing?

  • Generlly disagree It is inaccurate and misleads people into thinking the name of the state is RoI etc. However, generally as long as an article does not try to mislead people, RoI can be used in places. Sometimes it is ok. Common sense approach. I also agree that the term island of Ireland can be used to avoid ambiguity. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Redking7 (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree for reasons stated elsewhere (see my comments below on forum-shopping for this question). Scolaire (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Question 3: "Republic of Ireland" should continue to be used as the title for the article about the Irish state

"Republic of Ireland" should continue to be used as the title of the Ireland (as state) article.


Poll on starting again

I feel the above vote was badly conceived from the start and has descendent into farce with changing scopes,questions and bindingness. I would propose we ignore it stop voting and discuss are new set of straw polls. Where we will have WP:CON in advance which will argee

  1. The need for a poll
  2. The background to the poll
  3. What we agree on
  4. What we don't agree on
  5. The questions for the poll
    1. How the questions interlate
  6. The scope of the poll
  7. The bindingness of the poll
  8. How fixed the poll should be ,can it chance mid way? Gnevin (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Clearly Support I feel between all the sections and explanations here , where have the guts of a good straw poll to find levels of support and move the discussions forward. However the currently votes/questions are all over the place and we need to reformulate and integrate these questions correctly with agreement on the key points above,for is example is question 3 just a WP:RM by a different name ? Gnevin (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree - so some people want to change the rules now. Tough. Djegan (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - there are no rules to change! This is a chaotic farce. Sarah777 (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: These Questions are now fully clear, and fully accord to HighKing's original intent. Reports of it being a "farce" as just bad faith, IMO: it has been properly handled and revised - and all contributors have been messaged over the amendments. There is no point re-doing this one - they are HighKings personal questions, for a start. Replacing it has been objected to, too. If anyone wants to try anything similar in the future, they are of course entitled to, and can simply use this as an example of some of the technical problems that can arise. Nothing has been a "farce": and everyone can easily amend any comment that might have been made through misunderstanding a previously-ambiguous question. A disclaimer is now in place that clearly states that the questions are not intended to amass consensus, or poll for change.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Matt, your constant accusations of "bad faith" against those who don't agree with you are rather tedious and probably breach WP:CIVIL. Sarah777 (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Gnevin. I'm not sure what you mean. This poll is very simple, and we're not voting on "solutions" to any problem or voting any issues away. In fact, we're trying to establish if there are any issues in the first place rather than making assumptions. We've also established at least 3 things that we agree on. We're trying to narrow down exactly what is the problem with the term "Republic of Ireland", or even if any problem actually exists (and more importantly, to not make any assumptions and to try to clearly see what the problem is). The poll asks three questions to see if the usage of "Republic of Ireland" is fundamentally objected to, or only within certain contexts. The various discussions above tended to highlight a number of areas.
The first question in the poll tries to establish if people object to the current practice of using the term "Ireland" in the text and piping to another article.
The second question tries to establish if the term "Republic of Ireland" is objectionable within articles when referring to the state called Ireland.
The last question tries to establish if there are objections to the article referring to the state being named "Republic of Ireland".
So far, I think the poll is showing that a problem exists and that it appears to be associated with the term "Republic of Ireland". But we're a long way off any kind of resolution yet, but at least we're starting to see the size of the elephant in the room. --HighKing (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happry to vote/give my opinon on the above 3 Polls. But, I find the questions confusing. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we have an example/for instances added to the Poll questions? GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to put in examples (as these can change, and it just makes it more wordy), but I've had a go at making it clearer. I agree it was confusing. Is it OK now? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm increasingly against pipelinking Republic of Ireland; therefore, how would I vote? GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You mean you are against pipelinking to the ROI article? Then vote "Against" in Poll 1. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Matt. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Poll headings

It appears to me that the meaning of some of the polls has changed since I registered my position.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt made a mistake, I've corrected them.Pureditor 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - what was my mistake? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You changed the headings incorrectly. The 2nd poll is about using ROI for disambig purposes not the article title, the 3rd is about the latter; not redirecting articles to ROI. I put them back to the original meaning.Pureditor 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I find them confusing. Can someone make them clearer? For Poll 2: What is "Dab" exactly here (and why use this word?). And clarify Poll 3 please?--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Their is a massive case of WP:Vote going on here. To quote the guideline You might miss the best solution (or the best compromise) because it wasn't one of the options. This is especially problematic when there are several issues at hand. Gnevin (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That is a problem for sure, but we need to work it out now it's started. What option(s) do you thing is missing? I would argue that we need a poll arguing for general flexibility of term use, too. One of the problems is that some people complain when they are asked too much (which has happened already). --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The headings are looking clearer I think. I've disambiguated the word "Dab"(!) as I always thought it meant a specific disambiguation page, rather than just a term used to disambiguate something. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

However well intentioned altering headings after people have voted is not on. If there is going to be a vote then agree the issues, stabilise the words and start again, this is a nonsense. --Snowded TALK 21:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you didn't realise, it these aren't my polls - but two people at least now (myself and GoodDay) have found some of it confusing, so both myself and HighKing have had a go at making it clearer. Are you saying the polls have now changed from what you initially understood them to be? I think it's difficult to start again when so many people have voted, so the only way is to try and clarify things. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone still think this group of polls is unclear, or needs any new option perhaps? --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry -- the issue now has legs - the polls - and theirs no stopping it unless people request such a stop en masse. Djegan (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
In the (above) section, I've been begging for clarification. I need examples so as to understand the Polls. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys! These were not my polls at all but I'm doing my best to help. It's clear that a number of people have been confused by them, myself included. How do they stand now? If they are OK I am prepared to message everyone who has voted on them that they have been 'amended'. If people still seriously object to them, I say we ask HighKing to scrub them, and we can discuss starting again (or not). --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If people want to scrub them and represent them, I'm OK with that. I understand that some editors felt that the poll headings were changed and reflected different questions than the ones they answered. It's not something that was made clear at the start, the the questions shouldn't be changed, but it's easy to represent them. If 3 or more people ask for this below comment within 24 hours, we'll scrub and represent. For now, lets continue with the current poll. --HighKing (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont think its that easy to scrub a poll - "3 or more" - that sounds like an advert. We cannot scrub it just because two people dont like the whats happening - this thing has legs now. Djegan (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Nor can you change the terms as the poll continues - their is a clear consensus on at least two polls. Respect it. Djegan (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Am I clairvoyant or what? Did I not say that certain editors would claim these "polls" represented "consensus" regardless of what the folk who started them called them?! And as the third vote you now have the number you need HK to scrub the questions/polls/farce. Please feel free to do so. Sarah777 (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
As HighKing says below - it might look like the questions have changed, but it's only been a case of clarity being added. When people are confused there is nothing else we can do. Anyone who wants to change their initial vote they can easily do it. When it settles I'll message all involved (as I did a fair bit of the amending, and I said I would be happy to).--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Matt I know they are not your polls (just to be clear). I am very happy for there to be a poll, but its a very simple and basic rule - after people have voted or commented the text cannot be changed. If HighKing or whoever would like to stabilise and agree the text and then publish them with a "no further change" or similar I will happily indicate agreement or otherwise.

Great now we have people claiming WP:CON from these polls Gnevin (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Polls/Questions, easy come - easy go. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification and Examples

I believe the poll has "settled down" and I don't believe the current poll is asking questions that were any different that the ones I originally posed. Nevertheless, I ask that the current poll headings remain untouched.

Editors that withdrew their opinions are welcome to reregister their opinions once again.

The purpose of this poll is to try to establish if an issue exists with using the term "Republic of Ireland" when referring to the state, and if an issue does exist, to try to establish the scope of the issue.

People have asked for clarification and examples. I believe this is a good idea.

Question 1 is trying to establish if people object to pipe-linking a piece of text (e.g. "Ireland") to an article of a different name (e.g. "Republic of Ireland") as per the current practice. This question has a slightly wider scope in that it is also asking the question that if the name of the article on the state (currently Republic of Ireland) is changed to something else, would people still object to piping. Examples: Ireland and Ireland (state). People will either agree with the practice of piping or not. If not, we can explore if any alternatives exist.

Question 2 is trying to establish whether people object to using the term "Republic of Ireland" when disambiguating between either Ireland (as an island) or Northern Ireland, as is the current practice. Examples: The Republic of Ireland uses the Euro as official currency. The Republic of Ireland has green post boxes. Ireland is reknowned as a friendly country and millions of tourists visit the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland each year. People either agree that "Republic of Ireland" is OK, or not. If not, we can explore if any alternatives exist and are acceptable.

Question 3 is trying to establish if people object to the current article on the state being named Republic of Ireland. People either agree that the title is acceptable, or not. If not, I think that we may have to explore what options are available.

Thank you. ==HighKing (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as the article Republic of Ireland, is called that? then that's what we should be showing. If RoI is a problem? change the article itself. In otherword folks, no pipelinking. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The need to make explain and further explain this polls show exactly why these polls are farcical Gnevin (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
With respect, I wouldn't say they are "farcical". The editing of them may have been a distraction - but they are clear and stable questions now at least. The only further amendment I would make to them, in fact, is to call them "Questions" an not "Polls", as they don't cover every outcome as people have said. But that is cosmetic. As three questions they are fine - and nothing hangs on them, so people can simply answer and comment - or not. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Well you've called them polls above ,i'd call them votes and as for the non binding issue well as per WP:Vote Even when a straw poll is stated to be non-binding, sometimes people decide afterwards that they should nevertheless do what the majority wants, in effect retroactively treating the straw poll result as binding. Gnevin (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone should change "Poll 1:" etc to "Question 1:"? I won't do it (it's somebody else's turn..), but it does seems wise. I do agree that 'side effects' can sometimes happen with polls. I know HighKing thinks in retrospect that Questions would have been better - why don't you or HK give it a go? Also you could add a strong non-binding disclaimer at the beginning (they do make people think twice about referring to them in terms of consensus - I've used them myself).--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
This poll is a complete and utter farce as all it does (IMO) is give us a headcount of the relative numbers of Irish nationalist and British nationalist editors active in this area. We already know the results. And then people will treat it as "consensus" in favour of a particular POV. (As happened in "Years in Ireland", for example). And then Irish editors who don't accept the declared "consensus" will be accused of edit-warring and blocked and banned by the British Admins - as promised/foretold by Matt already. Sarah777 (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree. I'm certainly neither an Irish Nationalist or British Nationalist. I think many of us have views which can't be categorised this way and I would resent being pigeonholed as I have no political agenda.The Thunderer (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, these suggestions of Irish editors being oppressed by British Administrators & British editors is getting boring. It also unhelpful. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding a strong disclaimer "NOTE: These questions are not intended to achieve consensus, and they are not polling for change.". Hopefully this will help it from being deleted again - deletion has aleady been proposed (by me, with HighKings backing) and been objected to. We surely can't delete it when someone objects to doing it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to be a poll on opinions, when little is being done to establish the facts. Howabout HighKing states his three issues for COMMENT only, no poll and we all restrain ourselves to determining where evidence could be found, or where there is equal evidence and more than one position has to be stated. --Snowded TALK 17:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
It's struck a chord, this line of questions. From my POV, it's a simple line of questioning with the sole purpose of ascertaining where exactly the disagreements are originating. The questions are not trying to presume any particular answers.....but essentially the questions try to distil the problem to see if:
  • Is it the term "Republic of Ireland"?
  • Is it pipelinking?
  • Is it something else?
From my point of view, I don't need to ask any more questions. For me, it's obvious that the problem stems from the term "Republic of Ireland" and that this compromise has not worked.
But I don't know if there's any better compromise than the one that is already in practice... --HighKing (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The question is: what's wrong with the term "Republic of Ireland". In my view - nothing!The Thunderer (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that it is not used by any official government body any more? --Snowded TALK 07:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that it isn't either the legal/official or WP:COMMON name of the country the article is about? Sarah777 (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bertie Ahern used it as a dab in the Dail earlier this year! AND it does pass COMMON, clearly!Traditional unionist (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bertie is a clown who has admitted to a High Court Judge at a tribunal that is memory is virtually non-existent :) but notwithstanding that it isn't the commonest name for the former Free State - Ireland is! Sarah777 (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Ahern was using the term as a disambuguation (even though he was mistaken, he was talking about Cavan, which he seemed to think was in Northern Ireland). Head of Government, when under pressure reached for the first disambiguation he could find, and it was RoI. What a surprise.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Comment "Determing the scope of the problem". That's what the original simple questions were trying to do.... It seemed to me that everyone thought they knew what the "problem" was, yet nobody had tried to ask a few questions to determine exactly what people are disagreeing on. So I asked some questions - an "opinion poll" of sorts without having to stand on street corners with a clipboard. I carefully picked the original questions so that there were no binding elements, and no decisions being taken. The mistake I made was in assuming that people would have read the discussion leading to the questions before answering, and that editors would leave the questions unchanged, etc. But even when questions were changing, I wasn't bothered too much because to me, it wasn't a binding or consensus-forming exercise, etc. As far as I'm concerned, this exercise is over. I've gotten enough answers to satisfy the reasons for asking in the first place. If others want to turn this exercise into a consensus-forming binding set of decisions, that's something completely different. Personally, I'd prefer to continue asking questions of the non-binding non-consensus-forming variety first. At least that way we might end up knowing how big the elephant is (metaphorically) --HighKing (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the difference in non binding and consensus finding. 70% of those involved believe that RoI should be used as a matter of course for the state, that's consensus broadly speaking.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Some people botched it. Tough. Lets move on. Djegan (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
That specific question wasn't asked. Is there still some confusion (despite several explanations) on what questions you were answering? --HighKing (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree that this exercise is over. Whatever the question was or is the answer would appear to be "No consensus". I don't see how you can possibly argue for an agreement from a contentious straw poll in which the questions were changed half way through. Ben MacDui 12:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed for weeks. We don't need a series of polls just because this was a a botched farce because the terms were changed mid-way through the poll. Some people were clearly uncomfortable and decided that voting was not enough, but rather they had to twist and change the poll questions and create a fiasco in so doing. Could this farce and fiasco happen again? Yes. We should resolve to have this question over within a week, whatever the outcome. Djegan (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This is very childish. Nobody "twisted" the poll! It is only a "fiasco" because you seem absolutely determined for it to be one. That stikes me as very hypocrictial on the 'fairness' issue. Make a comment - fine. But why toss over the board? People have rectified the problem.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the above comments on the necessary amendments are very disrespectful, IMO. Everyone knows what the questions mean now, and everyone has been informed of the amendments. They were not just "changed half way through". People make mistakes, and it couldn't just be left ambiguous. People can easily rectify their comments. If someone wants to start a poll and people don't like it they can either not contribute, or make a strong comment objecting to it. Or perhaps help disambiguate it themselves? To make such mileage out of human error shows some poor character, IMO. Nobody had a choice but to make these amendments: and the questions are now according to their original intent. It is simply the easiest thing to revise a comment if that is needed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the merit of otherwise of the clarification, or the intent of those seeking to clarify it there should be no change to the text once a vote has started, other than by first suspending the vote and getting agreement to any changes. One person's clarification is another persons change of meaning ≈
It could not be put simpler than that. Djegan (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
How silly! If there is a error/ambiguity it need only be immediately rectified, and people notified. This happened, and you can't ask for any more than that. There clearly were two possible meanings: It had to be addressed, and it was. This simple rectify/notify approach is always used in simple situations like this one. You are talking about this like it's some kind of knife-edge nuclear treaty! Nobody has been 'conned', and it's borderline trolling to say "whatever the intent", and to make such a bloody great mountain out of a molehill. Sometimes to be a adult you have to politely accept the mistakes of others, and not keep flicking at them (and ganging up) like a schoolkid. If anyone believes I've personally tried to hoodwink people (rather than address the situation) have the guts to come out and properly say it. To strike your vote, and keep it as struck even though the meaning is now clear, and to maintain such a silly drama - when someone has put all the work needed into rectifying the problem - is childish in the extreme. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to the 3 points that preceded the questions you participated in, and formed the basis on which you should answer the questions. One of the points states that "Ireland" *is* the name of the state. --HighKing (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

break (further discussion..)

This boils down to something very simple. You're right there. You highlighted the fact that opposition to using the correct name of the Irish state is only there for political reasons. Wikipedia is meant to reflect the real world. Everyone uses Ireland as the name of the state and everyone also understands that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. An United Ireland has nothing to do with discussing whether to use the correct name of a state. To suggest otherwise is a sad reflection on Wikipedia and its editors. This confusion between the island and the state doesn't exist either and quite the POV argument. I'm sure the right and correct thing to do will be done and politics will be taken out of this argument and verification of using what the world uses and understands will be done. I am actually happy for ROI to be used in areas of confusion. However I can just see editors claiming ambiguity left, right and centre for example Constitution of Ireland, where this whole debate started. The question of how an island could have a constitution, was ignored and the issue of using ROI was raised as I can see now for political reasons. Maybe GoodDay's suggestion of making an agreement is the thing to do. We need to do the right thing, rather than the insisting on the thing we want to be seen done.Pureditor 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's for political reasons. Politically the Republic of Ireland is a separate entity from Northern Ireland and must be seen as such in an encyclopedia. You can't write an article which may mislead a reader from the Middle or Far East. You've got to clearly show that Ireland is a geographical mass and not a country - politically speaking. Please don't assume that because I'm speaking in terms of politics that my own politics are behind it. I am using political in its true sense here - not encouraging people to go out and vote Paisley/Adams.The Thunderer (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC) As a matter of further thought I should say: as somebody above said "Bertie Ahern is an arse!" Yes he may well be but he's a democratically elected arse and he represents the people of the Republic of Ireland. If you said he represents the people of Ireland that makes it appear to the uneducated reader of the encyclopedia that he also speaks for the six counties. So every time you write "Bertie Ahern represents Ireland" you've got to qualify it by saying he doesn't represent Northern Ireland - it's a nonsense.The Thunderer (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Ireland is a country. Just ask the EU, UN and the world's population. Ask those same bodies is the whole island one country and the answer wil be no. Misleading someone from the middle east by factually incorrectly using ROI as the name of the state because of an hypothetical argument of 'they'll think the island is one country' is' your own politics as the rest of the world does not do or say what you are saying should be done. A major compromise needs to be done on these Irish/British arguments so that any political POV is removed and a fair world view is shown. Do any other editors agree?Pureditor 15:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
That's where you're wrong. Ireland is NOT a country and that isn't because that's how I want it to be. It's a pure simple fact that Ireland is an island which contains two countries and that's how it should be shown in the encyclopedia. You'd be mistaken to think I have a personal political agenda on this. I don't give a toss what it's called - north or south.The Thunderer (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be arguing that "Ireland (the state)" has no right to call itself by the name it has selected. Am I misinterpreting? --HighKing (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You're misinterpreting. We always have to bear in mind why. Everything about Ireland, north and south has an underlying politcal meaning or intent.The Thunderer (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Just out of interest answer me this question. Is there a country/ sovereign state in the world whose name is, or is called, by the one word name of Ireland? Just a yes or no will suffice. It's a simple question and will say a lot about you and of the problem we have here.Pureditor 15:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - and it's official description is the Republic of Ireland.The Thunderer (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
It's good to hear that you agree the name of the state is Ireland. It is a fact, as you yourself acknowledge, and as an encyclopedia we can't ignore facts.Pureditor 15:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
It has to be agreed that the Irish state has a right to call itself whatever it wants to but you MUST bear in mind that there has always been political argument about the name between the UK and Ireland. All we're doing here is repeating that argument and it's making all of us look as if we have political agendas. The 1949 Republic of Ireland Act makes provision for the description of the state to be the Republic of Ireland. There is already a WP article on this and I think that's enough. I happen to be from Northern Ireland but I tell people I'm from Ireland and I refer to myself as Irish - that doesn't make me politically disloyal to Queen & Country, it's a simple expediency and I think that's what we should be striving for here, not trying to score cheap political points off each other to the detriment of the encyclopedia.The Thunderer (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The 1949 act is the British Act whereby the official name of the state, in the UK (and only the UK) is "Republic of Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
No, the 1949 Act is Irish.The Thunderer (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This debate was already old when I arrived on Wiki over 2 years ago - but let us be absolutely clear that some facts have now been established beyond any dispute: Ireland is the common name, locally and internationally, of the state whose capital city is Dublin. There is no other state in the world called "Ireland". So I'd ask participants here, in order that we may continue to reasonably their good faith, not to use any reasoning/remarks that imply otherwise.
Given the above facts I believe that any suggested "need" for disambiguation is politically motivated and should no longer be entertained. Sarah777 (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The ROI act did not change the name of the state it changed the nature of the states government !Stop throwing it around as support for ROI as the states name Gnevin (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The very use of the name Ireland for the state is politically motivated as we all know and has been the subject of international disagreement and protest. Let's just leave things as they are and stop this political shite. Set an example of tolerance please.The Thunderer (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Pure WP:Pov and who cares if it was politically motivated , so was the naming of USSR we don't call that the large russianish communist state towards the east not to offend, If a offence name is use and is offically used it not up to wiki to cleanse the name to suit peoples sensibility . Also who cares if their is internation disagreement, the Irish government and the Irish people can rename the country The french smell of chesse_land tomorrow and no matter the objections of the french government it would still be the countries name. Wiki isn't tolerant or censored. I'm sure Jackeen,Taig offend people but we still have them Gnevin (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh if it were that simple but I don't think it is which is why I think this entire argument is doomed. The current arrangements suit the encyclopedia.The Thunderer (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
But it is that simple , we should use the official and common name of the state and your objections don't make sense Gnevin (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
In my view the common name is The Free State that doesn't make it rightThe Thunderer (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
One problem with that: "the Free State" is not the common name anywhere, and is hardly used outside NI. Sarah777 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The use of names is as Thunderer says politically contentious, but with regret s/he has missed the point. For some time the UN and the EU have used IRELAND for the state, and until the good Friday agreement it was common in the UK. Post that agreement the Irish Government agreed to recognise Northern Ireland (so we get rid of six counties) and the UK agreed to Ireland. This is now the clear and unequivocal official position which means in Wikipedia terms it is the language we should use. To hark back to politically contentious language with a long history of bitterness (ROI/Six Counties) is not only factually incorrect, it is also morally wrong. We need to move on, and the WIkipedia should not be a vehicle for people to perpetuate old battles when they have been resolved at government level.

I don't think I have missed the point. I've managed to take this argument past the political now the only thing to do is to agree on what is the common name. In my honest opinion that is the Republic of Ireland.The Thunderer (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Pureditor: You suggest, "Everyone uses Ireland as the name of the state", but that is not correct. You also suggest that "everyone also understands that Northern Ireland is part of the UK". This is also incorrect. I have spoken to people from both England and the USA (and elsewhere) who had not understood this. So quite obviously "This confusion between the island and the state" does exist.
You also suggest, "opposition to using the correct name of the Irish state is only there for political reasons". In fact, the opposite is true:



It is clear that the intent of the government of the Republic was to create ambiguity for a reason. That reason was to deceive people into thinking that its claim to the whole of the island was a matter of fact. A similar problem is the nationality descriptor of that state, which is "Irish". For example, while I am Irish, I am not a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. So the problem was created, specifically and purposefully, by the state that is known as the Republic of Ireland. --Setanta747 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)For those not familiar with the quotes above, they have been taken from Names of the Irish state. Some of the context is lost with the selective quoting, so I'll replicate the relevant text below. In my opinion, it most certainly does not support Setanta747's claim that the intention was to deceive...

After the adoption of the Constitution, de Valera's government generally encouraged use of the name Éire (rather than Ireland) but not always. His government also appreciated the significance of the name Ireland. So for example, when the Irish ambassador in Berlin, Charles Bewley sought instructions concerning the new name of the State, he was advised by Joseph P. Walshe, for decades the top civil servant in the Irish Department of External Affairs that:

And apologies for this longer quote, but it's required in order to get the full context

However in 1948, with the passing of the Republic of Ireland Act (discussed above), the name Éire generally fell out of usage by both the Irish government (except in the Irish language) and internationally. The British government considered how to respond. The following note of what Prime Minister Clement Attlee said at a British Cabinet meeting on 12 January 1949 illustrates some of the considerations involved:[1]

‘N.I. [Northern Ireland] Ministers accepted the name “N.I.” eventually [the Northern Ireland Government would have preferred the name Ulster]. They wanted us, however, to go on using “Eire” [for the Irish state]. But other countries won't do so. Suggested therefore we shd. [should] use “Republic of Ireland”. N.I. prefer “Irish Republic”. But let us not speak of “Ireland”. Can we put Republic of Ireland on Bill: but use in official pp. [papers] etc. [:] Irish Republic or Southern Ireland. Agreed.’

Ultimately, the British responded by passing the Ireland Act 1949 which provided that “that part of Ireland heretofore known as Eire ... may [be referred to] as the Republic of Ireland.”[2]

Hence, the Ireland Act formally provided for use of the Republic of Ireland as an alternative to the use of the name Eire in British law. Later the name Eire was abolished entirely in British law under the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1981.[3] This has meant that the Republic of Ireland is the only name for the Irish state officially recognised in domestic UK law. Notwithstanding the Ireland Act, as suggested by Prime Minister Atlee, the British government would often continue to refer to the Irish state by other names such as the Irish Republic or Southern Ireland.[4] The name Irish Republic has even sometimes been used in domestic UK legislation.[5]

However, even with the Ireland Act and its acceptance of the Republic of Ireland as a name, a dispute over the names of their respective states was to rumble on between the UK and Irish governments. For the Irish, the Republic of Ireland was still not the name of the state, merely its description. The Irish government continued to insist that the name of the Irish state was Ireland. A report in The Times on 8 August 1949 (just a few months after the Republic of Ireland Act took effect), makes this clear, reporting that:[6]

‘MacBride, the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs, tonight sent an official request to the Council of Europe to refer to his country simply as Ireland and not as Eire or as the Republic of Ireland. This request is seen by observers here as part of a systematic campaign by the Government in Dublin to link the question of the partition of Ireland with every organization of which it is a member.’

Indeed, with the passing of the Republic of Ireland Act, the Irish government gradually became more consistent in its practice. Rather than styling the state alternatively as Éire, the Republic of Ireland or Ireland, it began to consistently refer to the state as simply Ireland and itself as the Government of Ireland. The Irish state joined the United Nations in 1955 as Ireland over protests concerning its name by the United Kingdom.[3] Similarly, the United Kingdom protested when the Irish state was admitted to the European Economic Community in 1973 as Ireland.[3]

--HighKing (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

AND, the UK has now moved on and agreed to Ireland, and the Irish Government has removed its claim to Northern Ireland. Yes the original intent may well have been to reinforce the claim to Northern Ireland. Yes, the UK was asserting its claim. Guys, its over; persisting in using ROI is an attempt to continue old battles now hopefully resolved. I repeat (and will continue to do so) that the role of WIkipedia is to reflect facts. The official name without any contention from any other nation state or international body is IRELAND. That has to be accepted --Snowded TALK 21:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
No-one's doubting that "Ireland" isn't the official name. The problem is that the official name is a misnomer and ambiguous. Mooretwin (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
with respect that is not a matter for editors to decide, it constitutes a POV. Yes we need a disambiguation line at the top to redirect to Ireland (the island or however qualified). But it is plain wrong not to name a country article after the name of that country when there is no longer any official disagreement about that name. --Snowded TALK 22:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This isn't only about the title of the article. Mooretwin (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Well it should be as that is the proposal on the table. The history of ROI may need another article, and/or some changes on history etc. However the language has now been settled by the two governments concerned and is acknowledged by international bodies. Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions or about keeping symbols going after their time (and ROI is symbolic hence the advocacy in part). We should agree names, then move on to ensure the political history (and the political present) is reflected in the ledes and elsewhere. --Snowded TALK 22:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't be. The discussion began about references to ROI in articles - the name of the article arose as part of that discussion, and there is a separate poll about it. "Ireland" is ambiguous, and "ROI" is an adequate and reasonable alternative to use in other articles. Mooretwin (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


(de-indent) "And apologies for this longer quote, but it's required in order to get the full context"

I'm sorry High-King, would you care to explain the extra text you added to the "longer quote" you provided for us?

My version:

Your version:

I can't see anywhere that you have proven it wrong that the Republic of Ireland's intent was to effectively deceive people into thinking that that state's dominion was the whole of the island of Ireland, rather than the twenty-six counties. On the contrary, you seem to have supported my observation.

"the UK has now moved on and agreed to Ireland": Snowded, out of curiosity, can you show me where this policy is written down? So far as I can tell, the official legal position, as regards the UK, is that the twenty-six county state can be referred to as the "Republic of Ireland" - as ratified by the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 in the latter country.

To answer your other points: firstly, there is no "attempt to continue old battles" - certainly not from my perspective. "The Republic of Ireland" is simply the logical choice to use when there are problems of ambiguity. Wikipedia does reflect facts (..mostly!), and in this instance, it certainly does. The article makes it quite clear that the name the country decided to choose for itself was "Ireland". I have no doubt that other articles are also at pains to point this out, too. So people have "accepted the fact". In fact, it wasn't ever in doubt by any participant in this discussion, so far as I can tell.

There is no "point of view" with regard to their being ambiguity. As has been shown, the purpose of choosing said name was specifically to create ambiguity. What would be "plain wrong" is that Wikipedia should attempt to pretend that no such ambiguity exists, and not cater for that ambiguity by explaining it. This is easiest done by using the name (or "description", if you prefer) provided for by the twenty-six county state itself. --Setanta747 (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Its well documented here Sentanta. You can't keep harking back to 1948. Yes the original intent was to make a claim (you are right there), but its moved on. Resolved, perpetuating old sectarian language is wrong. Lets find another way to disambiguate. --Snowded TALK 06:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
So the commonly-used term "Republic of Ireland", legislated for by the Dáil, is "sectarian language"? This discussion has descended into farce. Allegations such as this achieve nothing. Mooretwin (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a rather thin-skinned way of looking at it Mooretwin and I don't think that's the inference at all. I think Snowded was referring to "sectarian language" in general but not pointing fingers. The Thunderer (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way. Mooretwin (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I do. I also think there's far too much over-reaction on this page about Irish sectarianism and politics. They're a fact of life and we're never going to escape them so we should get used to seeing them mentioned and not take offence when they are. The Thunderer (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thunderer has it right - I am trying to move this forward It will never happen if we use ROI, or equivalent language such as six counties. Ww all know this, we know the background Surely it is not beyond the wit of a group of editors to find new language? --Snowded TALK 10:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Japanese maybe?The Thunderer (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"ROI and equivalent language such as six counties" ... Good grief. Can we bring this discussion back to reality please? Mooretwin (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)You mean you consider what's been going on reality? I thought my PTSD was playing up - thought it was flashbacks again! The Thunderer (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It does seem surreal to say the least. The reality is that we need to move on from language that was sued to reinforce difference. How about attempting to move forward Mooretwin rather than continuing to make the case for outmoded language? All relevant government bodies have managed to, surely we can follow? --Snowded TALK 08:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? "Language that was sued to reinforce difference" = what does that mean? The Republic of Ireland is different from Northern Ireland - it is because there is difference that we need disambiguation! I'm not using any outmoded language: Republic of Ireland is used day and daily by all and sundry. What is your objection to the term? Mooretwin (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you being reading all the previous comments? Have you not seen how not using the proper name is offensive to several editors? Have you failed to read the material on UK Government changes? Why was this a matter in the GFA if not an issue? We need a disambiguation solution that does not use ROI. Insistence on ROI in the face of official government use of Ireland and all this discussion seems to me to indicate a political agenda not one to produce a WIkipedia solution based on facts. At the moment, other than arguments of style you seem only to advocate 1949 as evidence (and that has been handled already without rebuttal). Move on please, lets try and find a way forward. --Snowded TALK 09:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't see where anyone has explained how the term is "offensive". I can't imagine how anyone could be offended by the term. "Official government use" is not helpful, since it is ambiguous usage. I've suggested that the way forward is to rename the article as "Ireland (state)", but use "Republic of Ireland" pipeed to "Ireland (state)" in other articles which link to the main article. Mooretwin (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we do need to get back to reality. First of all, the "sectarian" equivalent of "Six Counties" is "Twenty-six Counties"; on the other side it's "Irish Republic". Neither republicans nor unionists use "Republic of Ireland", only neutrals who want to disambiguate the state called by that name from the land of Ireland. Secondly, from reading all the posts I can see how some people strongly object to ROI, but not how they find it offensive. The careful use of language is important here, as elsewhere. This debate is impassioned, certainly, but it's not primarily political, still less sectarian, in nature. Scolaire (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There has never been one simple set of sectarian terms. My experience says people sometimes say "The Republic" or often "Dublin", ie in day to day conversation disambiguation is not difficult. We all accept (as far as I can see) the need to disambiguate the state of Ireland from the country. What I am suggesting is that we need to focus efforts on finding a way to do that which does not involve ROI. The simple plain fact is the country is called Ireland (by all official sources) and that should be the name of the article. In part the offence is the failure to accord that basic respect, in part (my opinion) the use of language which was used to make a political point in the past. Yes we need to use careful language, but that language needs to avoid old conflicts and associations. I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe there is not a political motivation in at least some of the insistence. How about assuming that ROI is not on, and trying to explore other uses (suspend judgement, not committing to an alternative solution but at least exploring it)? --Snowded TALK 10:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
What I am suggesting is that we need to focus efforts on finding a way to do that which does not involve ROI ... Why are you suggesting that? ROI is the obvious term, used every day by ordinary people without controversy.
"use of language which was used to make a political point in the past" - What?? What was this "political point", and who was making it? Presumably the ROI parliament. Mooretwin (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
When I said that the careful use of language is important here, as elsewhere, I was specifically referring to expressions such as "that language needs to avoid old conflicts and associations." It's my belief that the majority of those who favour retention of ROI do not regard it as part of a conflict or of an "old" anything. I would have no problem with suspending judgement and exploring alternatives, but only if we suspend the "old conflicts and associations" judgement at the same time. Scolaire (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) very happy to suspend all judgements if we can explore different solutions, I read Mooretwin as saying that s/he is only prepared to consider ROI however, hopefully I am wrong. --Snowded TALK 18:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Snowded: "Its well documented here Sentanta."
Exactly. There is no difference between the quote I produced and the quote HighKing produced, and both support the fact that the name was chosen in order to deceive.
"You can't keep harking back to 1948. Yes the original intent was to make a claim (you are right there), but its moved on. Resolved, perpetuating old sectarian language is wrong. Lets find another way to disambiguate."
You ought to direct that to Pureditor, to whom I was responding. While I used the example of the quotes from the 1948 era, I was trying trying to show that this intention, far from having moved on or having been resolved, continues to this day. There is no reason to find another way to disambiguate, when the way provided for by the state in question is perfectly adequate.
Why use the name of the whole island when describing the state, when the state does not encompass the entire island? To deceive. However, with that issue aside, the simple fact is that we have a problem with regard to the naming of that state within articles of this encyclopaedia: that it is ambiguous - the name describes the island and the implication to the novice or the ignorant is that the state claims the whole of the territory of the island - that the two are synonymous. They clearly aren't. The very same state provided a label (or a name, or a description), that is, the Republic of Ireland.
Further to this, you suggest that Mooretwin should "move forward". Toward what goal, may I ask? You suggest that the use of the name "Republic of Ireland" is "offensive" to some editors. While I cannot personally see why that should necessarily be so, perhaps I should point out to you that some editors may well take offence at the use of the name the state has given itself. However, Wikipedia's remit is not to protect the sensibilities of some editors (or even all of them), but rather to present facts clearly. This involves disambiguating problem terms (or names, or descriptions).
"Insistence on ROI in the face of official government use of Ireland and all this discussion seems to me to indicate a political agenda not one to produce a WIkipedia solution based on facts." Again, insistence on "Ireland" in the face of common (disambiguation) practice seems to me to indicate a political agenda not one to produce a WIkipedia solution based on facts.
"In part the offence is the failure to accord that basic respect, in part (my opinion) the use of language which was used to make a political point in the past." I remind you that you suggested to me that we should move on from the past. The name "Ireland", as applied to the state may well afford "respect" to that state. However, doing so doesn't "respect" Northern Ireland in that it suggests that Northern Ireland is a part of that state. "language needs to avoid old conflicts and associations." Using the name "Ireland" to describe the state, without explanation or clarity, does exactly what you suggest we should avoid. "am finding it increasingly difficult to believe there is not a political motivation in at least some of the insistence." Certainly there is - and that is as a result of the course of action taken by that state. As I'm sure you're aware, the Constitution of the Republic included claims on territory outside of that state's jurisdiction. --Setanta747 (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think your last sentence summarises the issue. Yes the Constitution of Ireland contained that claim, the claim was removed at the same time as Northern Ireland was accepted as the name of the province/country and the UK agreed to use Ireland, not Republic of Ireland. I can understand that some editors want to continue with ROI and find the term Ireland offensive, however to reject the official name of the state is censorship. I have elsewhere defended the continuation of the term British Isles evening though I know the term offends some editors. However it is a valid geographical term. All the arguments for ROI either hark back to 1948 and/or express opinions as to the historical intent of the Irish government, state (POV) that the term is not liked etc. etc. Face it this is at least for some editors a fight to maintain the current title in the face of facts. The name is Ireland. I repeat again, lets explore methods of disambiguation that do not use ROI. If we can't do that then I think we are in a clear statement of the facts and other opinions and start it through the cycle that ends up in Arbcom. At the moment I see no willingness to resolve this. --Snowded TALK 22:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom? Get a grip, Snowded! Some people want to change the article name; they can't get a consensus for it. That's all there is to it. There is no "censorship", no "harking back", no "fight". The majority of us just think things are fine the way they are! Why is that so hard to get your head around? Scolaire (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Though I prefer Ireland (state)? Arbcom isn't the way. Such a route would be unadvisable. If a consensus is lacking for change? we should respect that - less we be seen as bullying. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Snowded: Northern Ireland's name wasn't an issue. Again, where is it written that "the UK agreed to use" 'Ireland' in place of 'Republic of Ireland'? Where is this legislation? Not that it matters - Wikipedia isn't Westminster. Nor is it the Dáil.
I don't see anyone particularly rejecting the term/name "Ireland" as it pertains to that state. What I see is more along the lines of solving a problem of ambiguity. For me at least, that's as simple as it really gets.
Your suggestion that all pro-RoI arguments hark back to 1948 etc, is incorrect. For myself, I only brought up the historical facts as a response to another editor's comments. Had the RoI not provided the alternative name, Wikipedia would still be in the position of having to disambiguate between the island and the state.
Having said that, I still cannot see where the problem lies with the use of the "description" Republic of Ireland. Nobody, so far as I can see, has offered a valid reason to consider a change in the status quo.
To be honest, this argument strikes me aas being a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - similar to the argument against the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland in Wikipedia. --Setanta747 (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I was surprised at your response Setanta747. The more I look into this, the more the facts support the view that insisting on the continuation in use of ROI is in effect the continuation of a contentious issue now resolved between the UK and Irish governments. The historical nature of that dispute is well summarised here. The section in that article titled resolution makes reference to some Unionist demand for the continued use of ROI, objecting to the use of Government of Ireland. It references Lord Dubs in the house of Lords who states [7]

‘actually represents the welcome disappearance of one small but significant difference in practice between the British and Irish Governments that the [Belfast Agreement] has made possible. Hitherto, the Irish Government have referred to themselves, and generally been referred to in international circles, as the “Government of Ireland”. We, however, have called them “Government of the Republic of Ireland”. Similarly, while the proper name of this state is the “Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, the Irish have used solely the name “Government of the United Kingdom”. With the agreement we have aligned our practice. We will call them by the name they favour, and they will use the name for us that we favour. Since the constitutional status of Northern Ireland is no longer a matter of disagreement between us, we can put an end to the argument about names.’

I think this is very clear and supports my statement that continued insistence on ROI in this article is in effect (if not the intention of all editors) is to support a political POV that is now outdated. The facts are that the name of the country is Ireland, that is agreed by the UK Government and all international bodies. I did not say that all arguments go back to 1948, I said that the only FACT presented was 1948, the rest is opinion and a large part of it, however dressed up a political POV. I repeat, we need to find a way to avoid confusion between the Government of Ireland and the island of Ireland (although I think that is much exaggerated) which does not use ROI. The continued use of ROI is in effect to perpetuate a pre 1998 political position, and regrettably a post 1998 position from one section of the Unionist community. One reason why I think this may have to go "upstairs" is that the status quo is being used to support an extreme political position (As stated earlier I accept that this is not the intent of all editors). --Snowded TALK 05:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your blockquote is indeed very clear, but it does not support your statement "that continued insistence on ROI...is to support a political POV that is now outdated." The British government now says "Government of Ireland", that's fine, but the name of the government is not being debated here, and there is nothing in this speech, or elsewhere, to say that use of ROI for the state, to distinguish it from Northern Ireland, or the land of Ireland, was wrong or has been discontinued. Taking a statement about one situation and applying it to another is synthesis, even if you do it on the talk page. Scolaire (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that is very weak. We have clear evidence that ROI is a politically contentious term historically, and the the one official body (the UK government) has agreed to cease using it. It is therefore clear that using ROI as the name for a state which all official bodies now call IRELAND is in effect to support a minority political POV. Calling it synthesis is a incredible statement, why can't you come to terms with reality and agree a form of words to disambiguate state from island that does not use politically contentious terms? --Snowded TALK 07:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
It's simple! "Government of Ireland" is unambiguous, so the British government stopped using the tortuous term "Government of the Republic of Ireland". That's what Lord Dubs says in the quote. If it represented an admission that "Republic of Ireland" was wrong or out-dated he would have said that. Why would he say "we have called the Irish Government the 'Government of the Republic of Ireland'" if what he meant was "we have called Ireland 'The Republic of Ireland'"? What he said is what he said, and to say he said anything else is synthesis. Scolaire (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Really you are clutching at straws, the quote from the noble Lord ends Since the constitutional status of Northern Ireland is no longer a matter of disagreement between us, we can put an end to the argument about names. Please note the words argument and names. --Snowded TALK 09:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Please also note the words "constitutional status of Northern Ireland" and "synthesis". Scolaire (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh I did, very careful attention and its a part of the argument from facts that I am making and you are avoiding. --Snowded TALK 09:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
What was in question was the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, not the constitutional status of the Republic of Ireland. "Put to an end the argument about names" means "we will call the Irish Government the 'Government of Ireland', as they asked us to", and says nothing about what the state shall be called or should be called. Stop saying it does when it manifestly doesn't! Scolaire (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh please, The UK has called it the Republic of Ireland, they now agreed to call it Ireland, in part because the constitutional status of Northern Ireland was no longer in dispute. You are stretching the limits of credulity with that interpretation. You might also want to read the whole of the well referenced article. I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that support for ROI is a clear political POV, will not be resolved by consensus (if edits are prepared to go to the lengths you are here to reinterpret material). Please, please, try and engage with finding a different way to disambiguate this. --Snowded TALK 10:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
When somebody engages you in a totally non-political way, and you run out of answers, you "come to the conclusion that support for ROI is a clear political POV"! And I for one don't want any part of any resolution that doesn't come by consensus. I have nothing more to say on this. Scolaire (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry, I am trying to handle this with facts. I find your reinterpretations of evidence tortuous to say the least, and the refusal of you and others to discuss options other than ROI increasingly difficult to interpret in any other way than as a political POV. I'm --Snowded TALK 10:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)not running out of arguments, but I am running out of my ability to assume a NPOV intention.

Continuation break...............

Actually I don't find the use of "26 counties" or 6 counties" offensive or sectarian. Everyone has developed a style since 1968 which was different to the norm then and that includes those terms and things like "Stroke City" or the "Maiden City" which in my view are intended to avoid disrespect when referring to them. That is a major issue here - respect. For the umpteenth time people need to stop being over-reactive, this is supposed to be an intellectual discussion. The Thunderer (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, then show some respect. I'm not trying to describe NI as "the six counties"; don't you insist that Ireland is described at the RoI based on a manifestly political British Act passed in 1949. They lost that debate. Ireland is both the official and common name of this country, in Ireland and abroad. Time is long past that Wiki continue to indulge this blatant British POV. Sarah777 (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Er, the Republic of Ireland Act was passed in 1948 by the Dáil! Dear me. "Ireland" is a misnomer, hence the need for disambiguation. ROI is the obvious name to use. What's your problem with the term Republic of Ireland? Mooretwin (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Respect? The passage I wrote above was intended to convey what I have discovered to be innoccuous terms coined over the years to avoid disrespect. Did you find part of that difficult to comprehend Sarah, did that cause you to write such an ascerbic comment? Nor was I referring to the British Act, I was referring to an act passed by the Oireachtas and have made that very clear. I don't mind you being "prickly" in your comments as I realise that stirring that cauldron must be hard work at times but I do respectfully suggest you actually read what I type? The Thunderer (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Move to Ireland (state)

See here Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Requested_moveGnevin (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to your notice on Irish Wikipedians Notice Board I found the RM at Talk:Republic of Ireland. Through it I found the discussion here. This discussion refers to a discussion on Talk:Constitution of Ireland, and the name is also under discussion at Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force#Let's make a deal. None of these were on my watchlist. How on earth is the discussion ever going to be resolved if it keeps jumping from page to page, each time some involved editors being left out and previously uninvolved editors being brought in? If you're going to have another poll, why not have one on where the issue is going to be thrashed out, and let us poor Joes know where we are to go? Scolaire (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Ireland names dispute, Scolaire. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think Scolaire is more than familiar with the lunacy of avid supporters of one Irish faction or another ;) The Thunderer (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
No lunacy; this is a matter of Wiki policy which neither Scolaire, yourself nor the defenders of the British 1949 Act can continue to impose on Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
We're not referring to a British Act, we're referring to the Republic of Ireland Act passed by the Oireachtas in 1948. In which,as described here on the Irish statute book, the official description of the state shall be "The Republic of Ireland". I have a coupon here for a free examination at Specsavers, it's valid in the Republic - would you like it? The Thunderer (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

List of canal tunnels in Great Britain

Advice requested. Should we have List of canal tunnels in Great Britain and Canals of Ireland, or List of canals in the United Kingdom and List of canals in the Republic of Ireland. Discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Waterways#UK_versus_GB.3F. There is a preference for List of canal tunnels in Great Britain and Canals of Ireland, though we thought we'd check. SilkTork *YES! 14:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Both are wrong. The obvious thing to do is create lists under the names of the two countries. So therefore it would be List of canals of Ireland and [[[List of canals in the United Kingdom]]. These two titles are more correct and accurate.78.16.205.198 (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Poor old SilkTork :-) Your seemingly innocuous query came right in the middle of a royal ding-dong over the use of "Republic of Ireland" to refer to the state. Personally I think for canal tunnels, one for the island of Britain and one for the island of Ireland would be appropriate. I'll say so on the relevant talk page. Scolaire (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
My opinion would be that since the canal infrastructure in Ireland is island-wide that it should be Canals of Ireland. The Thunderer (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there would be many objections to the creation of a UK list, but there definitely needs to be an Ireland list. Water tends to flow across borders, etc. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with List of canals in the United Kingdom and List of canals in Ireland, with some duplication between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispness (talk • contribs) 16:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point - there will be some duplication but not much, little enough to justify the repetition. The Thunderer (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
However all the other canal categories, and generally all categories, are organised by country, not geographic entity. So it should be split into UK and Ireland (country not island). Wikipedia convention tends to be using countries/states. Yes canals cross borders, but the island of Ireland is not a special place, there are scores of examples of them crossing other borders in other countries. Canterbury Tail talk 17:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Workgroup of IMOS: Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force

An Ireland disambiguation task force (WP:IDTF) has been created as a workgroup of IMOS. 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) 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not be honest Matt, YOU created the Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force that is already been nominated for deletion. Where is the IMOS agreement to start such a workgroup? There is none on this page. So can we assume this is Matt's own task force? It really appears you are still forum shopping. Can't you even wait until the deletion discussion is finished and then, if it is not deleted, propose such a workgroup or was seven weeks of discussion above not enough for you to realise there is no consensus for change right now. ww2censor (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Your tone says everything. From where I'm looking there is a huge desire for change. But what do you call a 50/50 deadlock? A glass half full or a glass half empty? If you support the status quo, it's a full glass I suppose. The taskforce is simply needed, whether my 'kicking-off' proposal works or not. You should be ashamed of the current confusions, not so conceitedly proud of them. All I've seen in the last week or so is scoffing. You just don't know how frankly immature it looks.--Matt Lewis (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
YOUR desire and community consensus are entirely different issues. There is no consensus for change. It doesn't matter what you think or desire. This is not Mattopedia. There is no confusion. Crispness (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
By personally attacking me (as a group of three of you are doing) you are simply using a tactic to try and delete a taskforce that you don't want to see. You say there is is no confusion? Have you seen Wikipeire's work? Have you read these cross-usage tables? It's a mess.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Matt, no one is personally attacking you, they are attacking what you are doing. The simple answer is that your actions are being attacked because you refuse to accept a consensus that you don't like. As you well know, consensus is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. You are, however, the most persistent person I have ever encountered who keeps trying to sway opinion because you don't get your way. If you stop, I, and I am sure others, will stop too. Let's get on with constructive editing instead of this disaster you are imposing on us. It is no wonder that constructive editors lose interest with specific projects and Wikipedia in general when there is a constant barrage that takes away from the focus of real constructive editing.
You did not even have the courtesy to propose a possible Task Force (which you well know it isn't) here, or at the WikiProject Ireland, or the Republic of Ireland talk pages either. You could not get your way after seven weeks of discussion on this page, so now you are doing everything in your power to try to influence the renaming of Ireland related articles elsewhere. You call the result of the discussion on this page a 50/50 deadlock, well that is the consensus, which means the status quo remains. You say: From where I'm looking there is a huge desire for change; well where is it after seven weeks? Not here. Anyone mature enough would graciously accept the consensus for now. Why not you Matt? Let me quote you again (out of context of course) It's an appalling situation. Indeed you are right, it is appalling that Matt cannot let go and agree to accept the consensus. Move on man. ww2censor (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. There is little that is more depressing that watching the constant constant constant constant constant constant constant constant argument over "Ireland" vs "Republic of Ireland" and "British Isles" vs whatever preposterous alternative is offered on a particular day. -- Evertype·✆ 07:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Then help find something less preposterous rather than persisting with a name no longer used by the other main encyclopedias or any other international body and whose use was revoked by the UK Government as a part of the GFA. --Snowded TALK 08:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
What's your point? Be specific. From what you've said, I can only surmise that we cannot call Ireland "Ireland" because some Unionists disagree about it. And we shouldn't call Ireland "Republic of Ireland" because the Irish Constitution and the UN don't call it that. I know! We'll call it "The Country that Dare Not Speak its Name". Then we'll be in the same company as Macedonia. Won't that be nice. And then we can wring our collective hands because some Irish people don't understand the word "British" in "British Isles" and we can, as you suggest, "help find something less preposterous". Unh hunh, -- Evertype·✆ 08:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. We cannot call the state Ireland because that state claims the name of an island it does not fully control. Simple fact.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That is the big conceit here. The current 'Ireland' article is a political article about the ROI and NI. Why? Why do so many ROI-named articles redirect to equivalent "Ireland" articles that either include Northern Ireland or simply represent tht ROI? Why are there not seperate ROI and NI articles?? There are currently two republic main articles: the ROI one, and the "Ireland" one - which is full of ROI politics, with NI stapled to it. Why? The inconsistency has caused havoc throughout the sub articles. We have to be allowed to make sense of it, and only full tilt bullying has stopped people from doing it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It's funny how the CIA, the EU, the United Nations, NATO, World Trade Organisation, Universal Postal Organisation, Interpol, International Monetary Fund, OPEC, African Union, International Maritime Organisation, IOC and the OECD all disagree with your pov and that "fact". 78.16.36.189 (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. They simply allow the state to assume the name of the Island it does not control. Wikipedia is not here to engage in the Irish state's propaganda.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
What a POV comment. So it's allowed to engage in British propoganda then? If something is internationally accepted it's not propoganda. It's your opinion versus the other 6 billion here, I wonder which is right?78.16.36.189 (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
My point is really very simple. I think Ireland is logical, but I understand that the objections would be too strong. I think ROI is clearly wrong. So instead of warring between those two alternatives, how about a good faith approach to finding an alternative to either then we can all move on --Snowded TALK 08:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
"I think ROI is clearly wrong." Either you think it's wrong, or it's clearly wrong. Since as many people disagree with you as agree, it must be the former. Either way, starting from the position that one alternative is wrong is a guarantee of failure if establishing a consensus is your aim. I do, however, support a good faith approach to finding a resolution. Scolaire (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I was being polite, it is wrong based on the evidence. I have yet to see people deal with evidence other than to call it Irish State Propaganda (Traditional Unionist) or just ignore it. We need a good faith approach to finding something new. --Snowded TALK 15:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It might be of interest to read this post, if you have not seen it here which sums up Averell's neutral opinion. ww2censor (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - I once offered to mediate this very same issue in an ill-fated attempt at the mediation cabal, and I just kept the talk page on my list for entertainment. I'm completely neutral as to the underlying dispute, I won't touch this topic directly again. I'll quickly wanted to give a short notice to the uninitiated here: The "problem" is mainly how to name the article. This is highly politically and emotionally loaded for some editors on both sides. The topic has been discussed excessively in the past, in different places. No consensus on any position has ever been reached; and it's my personal opinion that no consensus will ever be reached. In the absence of consensus, since the article must have a name, the status quo has been retained. It seems a good idea move this discussion away from the talk page, so that not 90% of it are devoted to discussing the article name. However I seriously doubt that this "task force" will have any tangible outcome. Averell (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)"
Though I prefer Ireland & Republic of Ireland changed to Ireland (island) & Ireland (state) & Ireland being the name of a disambigous page? There's yet to be a consensus for those changes. Remember folks, the onus falls on us to get that consensus (which I haven't seen, yet). GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
True, but the two recent posts from Traditional Unionist clearly indicate the political agenda here. In the face of evidence of use, reinterpret to fit your political prejudices. That sort of problem is best handled by getting the facts properly arranged, remove the smokescreen of opinion and then get some neutral editors involved. --Snowded TALK 12:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Political PoV charges can be laid on both sides of the dispute. Though I disagree with the RoI pushers? I understand them. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
We need to get away from the assumption that (political) POV is something to be deplored! In writing articles, NPOV is often achieved by representing all POVs, rather than pretending they don't exist; in MOS/naming disputes, consensus can only be achieved when all POVs are recognised and due respect is given them. Nothing is ever achieved when a political POV is called a "political agenda" (there is no agenda here anyway - just a free-for-all) or "political prejudices". TU and I would disagree on many things, but we have never resolved a disagreement by one of us forcing the other to abandon his POV (even in the face of "evidence"), but rather by finding a formula that both of us (and hopefully others) can live with. In other words, civil (even if heated) discussion between people of differing POVs usually produces a result that is better than what was there before. If you want to know why your wording/formula/proposal does not have unanimous enthusiastic support, you have to try to see it from the other person's POV. That's my POV anyway. Scolaire (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I do understand RoI supporters. They feel 'too many Irelands' can be confusing to unfamiliar readers; a confusion reduced by using Republic of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! And hurling accusations of "prejudice" etc. is never going to win them (us) over. You have often stepped in with a short, calming few words, GoodDay, and I respect you for it. Scolaire (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Scolaire. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
So step in with some calming words and suggest that another route but ROI be found to disambiguate GoodDay, then we might get somewhere --Snowded TALK 18:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm workin' on it (admittedly, it ain't easy). But, I prefer Ireland as the disambiguous page. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Holy smokers. I can't come up with anything - my mind's a blank. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland / Ireland in location introductions

This section refers to location articles specifically talking about their lead section. There appears to be no guidelines for the use of this for other situations/uses. The guideline need updating to cover what happens in other situations and types of article. Keith D (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Replacing out of date text

I've made this new edit:

(Use of 'Republic of Ireland' and 'Ireland' for the Irish state)

Currently Irish articles display a number of different approaches to denote national identity. Concerns have been expressed that using the word 'Ireland' alone can mislead, given that it refers to both the Irish state, and the whole island (which contains Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom).

An Irish disambiguation taskforce (a subpage of this MOS) has been set up to discuss issues surrounding the use of 'Ireland'.

Variations currently found on Wikipedia are:

  • Republic of Ireland - a commonplace disambiguator, which will link directly to the Republic of Ireland article
  • Ireland - which will link directly to the Ireland article (which currently covers both the Irish state throughout history and the island)
  • republic of Ireland - which when linked as 'republic of Ireland' leads to the Ireland article
  • Ireland (written as [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]) - a pipe-link which leads to the Republic of Ireland article

Please follow consensus in the article's talk page if any route is disagreed with.

(The previous section read:)

"A large number of Republic of Ireland towns and villages (and other types of articles too) state that they are in Ireland, not Republic of Ireland in the opening paragraph. This is misleading as it creates the impression that the island of Ireland is one state. A compromise has been proposed at WP:IWNB that the form "is a town on the coast of [[County Cork]], [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]" should be used. This is already widely used and will allow it to appear as Ireland whilst linking to Republic of, as per Follow local conventions."

The "compromise proposed" was in May 2006 (when the parag was written), and I see no evidence that the piping was actually "widely used": it's mainly been inserted in the last 9 months. I think we should just be open and say what is currently being used on Wikipedia, and try and focus on the taskforce at WP:IDTF.
In my revision, I have called Republic of Ireland a "commonplace disambiguator", perhaps a better phrase can be found for it (perhpas no phrase?) that won't involve too much information given on the relative officiality of Ireland v's ROI. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment Like User:Djegan I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, Matt, but in future, please do not make changes to the WP:IMOS without first proposing the change here and seeing if there is consensus for it. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 19:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you link to articles where "republic of Ireland" is used, please? I have never seen it and if I did I would disagree with it. Scolaire (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where else it may be on Wikipedia (and it's hard to check with a case difference), but I used it in an article I originally started called Countries of the United Kingdom (no doubt after seeing that the Encycopedia Britannica uses it) and all the subsequent editors (at least 20 different editors) left it in during a little over 2 months. Looking at the article now, I notice that Jza84 rearranged the article about a week ago, and has used Republic of Ireland. At the time I think I was pissed off that someone piped my original 'Republic of Ireland' (no doubt a sock puppet of Wikipeire) and I untypically for me made an 'Irish change', no doubt as it was originally my line. I didn't plan to replace the 'republic of Ireland' compromise if a genuine editor took umbrage to it (and all the arguing should be done at at WP:IDTF, imo) but it is interesting that it lasted 2 months, and jza himself passed the line till he recently moved larger parts of the article around. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
If that's the only place you know about, and it is now replaced, it probably shouldn't be in IMOS. It's certainly not in common use and I wouldn't say there's any consensus for it other than the "consensus of silence" in your article. What about "Ireland (state)"? I don't remember seeing that in an article either. Scolaire (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Virtually all consensus is silent - it could be 'silence in protest' for sure, but would be pure conjecture to simply assume so. Ireland (state) can be seen by looking at 'What links here' on its redirecting page. Take out the examples if you want, I'm finding the Irish issues far too stressful at the moment. It's all a work in progress, that much is clear to me. The main thing is that a misleading and wildly out of date paragraph (over 2 years) referenced by a notorious sock-user to excuse his unwanted-by-many edits, has been addressed by someone who would actually rather be ten thousand miles from the entire subject right now.
As for coming to Talk first, I guess I'm too unfit at the moment to be clambering the 20 ft high stone walls so needlessly laid in everyone's path. And as for me potentially 'edit waring' here, I just find that intentionally rude. I'm entitled to replace my edits once, and once is (with only a very few exceptions) as far as I ever go on Wikipedia. I doubt that there are many prolific editors around any more law abiding than that. If people want to edit my changes, go ahead.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(Use of 'Republic of Ireland' and 'Ireland' for the Irish state)

Currently Irish articles display a number of different approaches to denote national identity. Concerns have been expressed that using the word 'Ireland' alone can mislead, given that it refers to both the Irish state, and the whole island (which contains Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom).

The main variations currently found on Wikipedia are:

  • Republic of Ireland - a commonplace disambiguator, which will link directly to the Republic of Ireland article
  • Ireland - which will link directly to the Ireland article (which currently covers both the Irish state throughout history and the island)
  • Ireland (written as [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]) - a pipe-link which leads to the Republic of Ireland article

Please follow consensus in the article's talk page.

Note, discussion of the above is at the IMOS subpage, Irish disambiguation taskforce.

I've removed the two examples Scolaire was concerned about. There wasn't much linking to Ireland (state) on a second look. Rather than try and tackle again with the previous paragraph (it was put back by a new editor), I've replaced my paragraph with the two changes and a slight re-write. Beyond what I've just done, I can't think of another change though. I do think its more sensible to amend and improve what I've done, rather than to revert it to such a clearly unhappy paragraph. Discussion is taking place, but I don't see enough going on to warrant ironing it out here first. Nothing is likely to happen if no-one is engaging with ideas, whereby Wikipedia favours boldness. Scolaire showed some concerns, so I've addressed them. Hopefully it's now better..--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note that this page is a Manual of Style that should be used to instruct people on how to form articles, and what standards to adhere to. These sections that have been added aren't that, they're merely a collection of various ways of putting things are in use, not a manual of style. This article should be instructional, not discussional, and put forward a how things should be done. The MOS for that section now no longer reads as such. If there are rules, then they should be in here as the central MOS for Ireland related articles. Canterbury Tail talk 15:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not ideal for a perfect MOS perhaps, but the preceding paragraph had the same problem, and referred to an 'ongoing' discussion at the Irish Wikiproject that was taking place over two years ago. Essentially there are different Irish naming approaches on Wikipedia, and IMOS needs to address it somehow. Wikipedia is full of "Ireland" linking to Ireland, and meaning the state (see examples at WP:IDTF - just the tip of the iceberg). People have recently been talking of a 'moratorium' enforcing people to not change one naming approach to the other (essentially ROI to the piped Ireland and vice versa). I'm hoping the new parag - or something along its lines - is effectively a polite way of saying "don't edit war, there different approaches in use, and there is ongoing discussion too.." (which currently is at IDTF, not the Wikiproject). It's similar to what the old parag was doing, but up to date, more open about what exists, and not unfairly misleading people regarding the piping issue. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with all of that. Scolaire (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ C.M. 1(49) - Meeting held on 12 January 1949. C.M. 1(49).
  2. ^ Ireland Act 1949.
  3. ^ a b c Austen Morgan, The Belfast Agreement, 2000, p99.
  4. ^ Immigration and Nationality Directorate, UK Government Website, EEA Nationals [16].
  5. ^ For example: The Irish Republic (Termination of 1927 Agreement) Order 1987.
  6. ^ John Davies, The Correct Name for Ireland[17]. Interestingly, the text of the 1949 treaty establishing the Council of Europe (registered by the British government with the UN) refers not to Ireland or the Republic of Ireland but to the Irish Republic. It is not known to the author whether the Irish government's text used the same terminology.
  7. ^ Hansard, House of Lords, 19 October 1998
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles/Archive_2&oldid=1190128201"