Talk:Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ireland article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Ireland has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Article Milestones Date Process Result April 15, 2006 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article (countries)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Ireland is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

	To-do list for Ireland:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Articles to be summarized as sections History of Ireland Politics of Ireland Geography of Ireland Culture of Ireland To be expanded Sport in Ireland Climate Needed Tourism Communications - broadband coverage etc. Economy Irish Food

Contents 1 Ulster 2 British Isles template 3 Enya?? 4 Proposed Common "British Isles" Template 4.1 General Comments on Revised Template and General Proposal 4.1.1 For 4.1.2 Against 4.2 Proposed Titles for the Ireland Page 4.2.1 British Isles 4.2.2 Ireland and the UK 4.2.3 Great Britain and Ireland 4.2.4 Great Britain, Ireland & the Isle of Man 4.2.5 United Kingdom, Ireland & the Isle of Man 4.2.6 Alternative names such as IONA, Anglo-Celtic Isles or the West European Isles 5 Corrib Gas Field 6 "British Isles" template discussions 7 Er, EU template? 8 Compromises 9 Introduction To Article 10 Map 11 Reverting all the time 12 Anti British View Projected by Editors 13 Settling Dispute by Vote 14 Seeking consensus, not a vote 15 Somethingoranother 16 Where is Ireland? 17 Irish Sea 18 Demographics & Immigration 19 First line of article 20 Copeland Bird Observatory 21 Nicknames 22 Archive 23 de jure 24 Irish flag 25 Article name "Ireland" 25.1 Opinions 25.2 Discussion 26 Missing reference 27 Ulster 28 Disambiguation notice 29 Delete the "Politics" section 30 Delete the Flags Section 31 Political Geography 32 Reference no.11 33 Places of Interest 34 Straw poll of Republic of Ireland title change 35 Flora 36 References//Footnotes 37 History

[edit] Ulster

the article states:

....although the historic province of Ulster also includes the counties Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan, which are in the Republic

The border of any province has not been static, cuchullain lived south of Drogheda, and I would never call him a Leinster man! I would propose we change this too;

....although the historic province of Ulster also extended into the what currently constitutes the Republic

any objections? Fasach Nua 22:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles template

I wish to include the template Template:British Isles on the Ireland page, according to British Isles with this map. Ireland is clearly within the British Isles.

Despite making the template unbiased and including features Irish-reltaed i.e. Four provincies flag, the template continues to be removed.

I am not trying to antagonise, but should very much like to see the Ireland page including the following template

If I were to change the name to something like Great Britain and Ireland (British Isles) would the template be accepted?

Thankyou

Lofty 14:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ireland isn't British, hence it isn't a part of the British Isles. Were the name to be changed it might be more acceptable. IrishGuy ^talk 14:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I shall change the name. However, I still do not understand the point. I am not attempting to impose a British identity on you. Ireland is not British no (well at the Republic of Ireland isn't), but it is still within the geographical region known as the British Isles. I think that this is going round in circles...Thankyou Lofty 15:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a pretty contentious area, and we've had other folks involved in the British Isles question attempt to push POV here in the past. That said, Lofty, I am assuming good faith about your intentions regarding this template. The problem is that lots of people (including me) see the term as an outdated holdover from the days of empire and British hegemony over the whole of the island. Is there a version of the template we can use (or create) which acknowledges the archipelago without the imperial connotations? Dppowell 15:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou very much Dppowell. A proper answer. I can understand your point. I have changed the name to "Great Britain and Ireland (The British Isles)", although I could see how that has the potential to imply Irish subserviancy to Great Britain...Maybe I ought to leave it after all? Lofty 15:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be okay with just "Great Britain and Ireland", provided all the constituent flags got equal billing. There are others who feel somewhat more strongly about the issue, however. I think consensus is possible as long as everyone assumes good faith, but given the history of both Republican and Unionist POV-pushing on this article (and so many other Ireland-related articles) we might have to engage in some testy discussions to just to get to the "good faith" point. Then we'll have to wrangle over the template itself. (This is just my guess of how it will go, I could easily be wrong.) I'm willing to give it a go. Dppowell 15:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As noted in the British Isles article, the Irish government's policy is that the term is not used by the government and is without any official status. As such, I think consensus should be gathered on the talk page before adding the template to the article. IrishGuy ^talk 15:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep cool and continue to assume Lofty's good faith. We've each reverted once already, and Lofty is trying to make agreeable changes. Others will join this discussion soon. I'd love to see a genuine consensus over how to acknowledge the islands' relationship emerge from a discussion on this page; it would be a minor triumph of the Wikipedia model. Dppowell 15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to hammer out a legitimate consensus about this issue. I simply feel that it will inflame the situation by putting the template on the article before a serious discussion takes place. IrishGuy ^talk 15:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, sorry about adding the template again guys. Ok, so the current proposal is "Great Britain and Ireland"? I can see that I have created a monster. There will probably be complaints from Scottish Nationalists too about the term "Great Britain". I may be fighting a loosing battle. Interested to hear more thoughts. Lofty 15:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have avoided the British Isles page like the plague, because I think the atmosphere over there is poisoned beyond repair, and it's contagious. The last time a veteran of that battle tried to force the term into this article, I let myself get sucked into the flames and wasn't proud of myself afterwards. It's crucial that everyone in the discussion try to avoid thinking of it in terms of winning or losing a nationalist edit war. Beneath all the layers of noise, there are very sound arguments on both sides. Let's hash them out, be creative, and if we're really lucky we can establish a cross-article model for dealing with this issue. Dppowell 15:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

After having a short think on this, I'd like to toss in these statements as a litmus test.

• The term British Isles, which traditionally includes Ireland, has been in use for a long time and is considered valid for common use by a large number of people, including many with absolutely no emotional investment in the issue.
• The term British Isles can very easily be perceived as an expression of British hegemony over the Republic of Ireland and is considered offensive by a significant number of people.

I'd like to humbly propose that everyone who signs on to this debate acknowledge the validity of both statements. If we can do that, we have a starting point. Dppowell 16:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Slavery has also been in use for a long time, and has been considered a valid concept by dominant cultures for quite a long time. I guess that must make it legitimate then? 89.100.195.42 17:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a wee bit extreme, don't you think? I don't know that analogies like that are helpful to the conversation at hand. IrishGuy ^talk 18:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls! Dppowell 18:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? The only troll here is the person who is trying to ram this "British Isles" jingoism of British imperialist myths into an article about Ireland. When another nation (never mind one with Britain's sanguine history against the Irish people) forces their nationalist myths on to the representation of your home country (which clearly is not Ireland), come back to us and tell us how you feel without your voice and that of your people. In the meantime, get over yourself. Thank you. 89.100.195.42 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least Lofty can see what I was talking about when this discussion began. Exhibit A.  :) Dppowell 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.77.179.85 (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I have just noticed that this template is on the Republic of Ireland page, which seems strange as, atlhough in the British Isles, does not have British nationality, whereas Northern ireland, which comprises part of the island of Ireland is both British Isles and british nationality, and yet the template can't go on this page which covers in part Northern Ireland. Lofty 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lofty, I understand your situation and accept that you don't mean anything offensive. Dppowell, yeah, I also accept both your points - and think that its important that others accept them too in order to keep a cool head on this situation - but I think it is also relevant to acknowledge that Britain and Ireland are two separate islands and therefore using one term or the other to refer to both would imply a ordinate-subordinate relationship (try saying "Irish Isles" as an imaginary entity encompassing the islands of Great Britain and Ireland; or the more tangible title of "European Isles").

As for the template Lofty, the follow need to be updated:

• Irish Free State needs to be included in the historical states section (Southern Ireland, too?)
• "List of Islands of: England • Ireland • Scotland • Wales" - change the word "island" to "countries" (include Norther Ireland, but then need to change "country"?)
• "History: British society • British language" - Needs serious revision - Ireland is not included in this at all since it is not a part of Britain (uncontroversial), also references to "society" should be in a "society/culture" section
• "Irish Gaelic" should be changed to "Irish," common/proper name for the language
• Add "British" to list or peoples

Change these and I'd be happy with its contents.

Now for the contentious part: "Archipelago of the British Isles." My personal opinion is this: the term is associated with the period of British (viz: English) rule over Ireland, as has been for a long time. Semantically, it is incorrect (would contend always have been but certainly is today): What would you call someone coming from the "British Isles"? British? But Irish people are not British. (There is also the more emotive argument: British Isles -> islands belonging to Britain -> (?) Ireland does not belong to Britain)

Might I suggest changing the title to something less controversial such as "Ireland and the UK" or "Great Britain and Ireland" or "The Archipelago of Great Britain and Ireland" (Or go wild and brave "The Anglo-Celtic Isles" or the really PC Islands of the North Atlantic!). --sony-youth 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done up a new template - maybe it is more acceptable. I do think that a common template among British and Irish related pages would be welcome. The Irish pages could use the variant appropriate to Ireland as per wikipedia guidelines, and the same for Britain-related pages (can't find the specific section right now, but similar to disputes between British and American English).

--sony-youth 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it, though I think it should just be "Great Britain and Ireland" (or optionally "Ireland and Great Britain" if folks take exception to the sequence). Or one of the other established alternative labels. As far as I know, the "The Archipelago of Great Britain and Ireland" would be something we just invented here and therefore would violate WP:NOR. Dppowell 03:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I meant it solely in a descriptinve sense (such as, describing "the countries of Western Europe"). Great Britain and Ireland seems to me like the most broadly acceptable comprimise (for Ireland-related pages), although it does put the Isle of Man in an ambigious (maybe even equally offended) position. Great Britain, Ireland & the Isle of Man would cover everything in a completely neutral tone. What if "archipelago" was put in not-bold, would it emphasise that it is meant as a description rather than a definition? i.e. The Archipelago of Great Britain and Ireland. Seems to me a complicated and silly looking. --sony-youth 15:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Lofty and Sony-youth, give up now! The owners of this article are not going allow you or anyone else to have any reference to Britain, British Isles, or any word commencing Brit..., anywhere in this article, apart from perhaps in an historical context. I suggest you find another Wiki where censorship and bigotry don't rule the day. Arcturus 18:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

/sigh Dppowell 18:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote Dppowell "The Shannon is not the longest river in the British Isles" /sigh, sigh, sigh. Arcturus 18:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, I never said any such thing. Dppowell 18:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK - so can I re-instate this fact in the article, together with "Ireland is the second largest island of the British Isles"? Arcturus 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean, can you willfully offend the constituency (which you concede exists and which has previously voiced itself on this article umpteen times in the past) that objects to that usage for contemporary Ireland? No, I think it's safe to say that you can't. As you said, I think that's only going to meet the bar within a historical context. This is why I put those "litmus test" statements at the top of the discussion. If you accept both of them (which you seem to, judging from some of your other contributions), and still take a hard line on "British Isles or bust," you're effectively saying that you either wish to offend or don't care that you're giving offense. Dppowell 19:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Arcturus, in your world, it's all the "British Isles" or it's wrong. Clearly, the consensus ran against you on that. Instead of taking a constructive approach to the discussion, your reaction has been to call all of the people who frustrated your POV insertions "bigots" and "censors" while surreptitiously trying to get your personal versions of the articles enshrined on the Wikipedia CD. Lofty has attempted to reopen the question under good faith auspices. And...amazingly!....people engaged him intelligently. If you're not willing or able to follow his example, please do us the courtesy of abstaining. Dppowell 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Arcturus, if anyone ever tell you that they "own" an article on Wikipedia, direct them here. If they then tell you that your way is wrong and their way is right, don't reply by saying that, "No, in fact, my way is right, and your way is wrong." Instead, direct them here.

What's your opinion on the proposal to include the template but with the name changed to reflect something close to what we all can agree on? We may not all get our way, but since you argue that Ireland does in fact belong to the British Isles - would you disagree to a template for that archipelago being included in the Ireland page? Albeit, with a descriptive title rather that a name. --sony-youth 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sony-youth, I'm broadly in favour of the template, but I wonder if it's a bit on the large side. It somehow needs reducing in size while still keeping the proposed content. Regarding the title, "British Isles", as simple as that, would normally be OK to use and I would favour that term. It's used in Wikipedia elsewhere. However, in this article you'll never get away with it. Personally I don't like the word "archipelago" here. The islands really aren't an archipelago. "Great Britain and Ireland" isn't inclusive enough, and its use would be misleading. Given that "British Isles" won't be allowed, I would suggest "United Kingdom and Ireland" or "Ireland and United Kingdom", probably the latter in this case; it's alphabetical, and the article is actually about Ireland. However, if you want a straw poll on this, put me down for "British Isles". Arcturus 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"United Kingdom and Ireland" or the reverse is fine with me. Dppowell 20:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a thought: I count twelve uses of "British Isles" (sic) on this talk page. What if we were to use "British Isles" as such in the template - as in Great Britain and Ireland - Archipelago of the "British Isles"? The quotes would not not have the meaning of 'so-called', but rather, as Lofty says at the very top of this section, to denote a 'geographical region known as the "British Isles."' I think if you're going to convince Irish readers/editors that it's 'only a name' it's no harm to highlight it as 'only a name'.

As I say: just a thought. Scolaire 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that almost every single person (if not all of them) pushing for the term "British" are British themselves, not Irish. There are virtually no Irish people pushing for that term. Would we allow seven Americans to tell the English editors what their country should be called? IrishGuy ^talk 21:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it in terms of 'pushing'. As I see it, no Irish person has a viable alternative name for it (and plenty of Irish people do say "British Isles" without even thinking). I'm just saying that if it's frequently referred to as the "British Isles", then let's say exactly that: not British Isles but "British Isles".

I think we need to be very careful about matching up perceived ethnic or national identities with editorial motivations, because that's when it starts getting nasty. The salient points here are 1) lots of people, including some in Ireland, use the term "British Isles" while including Ireland and think nothing of it and 2) lots of people (enough to cause changes in government verbiage and compel at least one atlas publisher to discontinue use of the term) feel that "British Isles" is an invalid expression of British hegemony. Both views have some validity. The goal should be to find a middle ground between them. As soon as we start thinking "He's British, of course he wants unqualified usage of 'British Isles'," we're sunk. Dppowell 21:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinion You absolutely MUST change "Scots Gaelic" to "Scottish Gaelic" in your template. Moran taing. -- Evertype·✆ 10:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gabh mo leithscéal, ní raibh mé cinnte faoin t-ainm ceart. (Sorry, I wasn't certain about the proper name.) --sony-youth 10:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enya??

Why so much about Enya? I know she has sold a lot of records but she is nowhere near as important as U2(they seem to be simply a footnote to Enya in this article) Culture wise, Thin Lizzy, Rory Gallagher, Horslips and even contemporary acts like 'the Frames and Snow patrol command as much detail, if not more, than Enya recieves in this article. I would correct it myself but I'm not sure my writing style is in keeping with the Wikipedia format. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackdev (talk • contribs) 00:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Write away! The community will edit if the style is that far off (and it probably is fine anyway). But I agree, let's emphasize the dominant forces of Irish music.Dmccabe 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What Dmccabe said. Do it up! Dppowell 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Common "British Isles" Template

I've made a new template. My proposal is that this template be used across all pages that related to the "British Isles." However, the title of this page is user defined, so it can be different from page to page. The advantage, I propose, of this solution is that a particular "Irish" "British Isles" template will not fork from other related pages. It will also allow us to continue the debate on the term, without disrupting other work. I propose that each community (UK, Scotland, Wales, etc.) decides independently on the title that they see fit.

The code is as follows: {{British Isles (common)|Title Will Go Here}}

The template follows, please comment on it and proposed names below. (Apologies, if it appears that I have the first word.)

Template:British Isles (common)

[edit] General Comments on Revised Template and General Proposal

(Please make general comments on the template - such as revisions to comments, etc. - here, and specific arguments for or against the template below.)

So on this template, a different name can be used for each page? What a brilliant idea. I didn't know that that could be done. Well, it looks as though I'm just about done, as the title applying specifically to the Ireland page will be no longer any of my business. Thanks everyone. Lofty 13:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I do very much like the template though , and for the Ireland page "Great Britain and Ireland" seems like a fine compromise, although this does have a certain amount of ambiguity. However, I can't think of a better description than "British Isles", which I understand is not acceptable. Do you think that the latest limerik on User:Jtdirl's page is related to theis discussion.....? Lofty 18:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have permanently signed off a few weeks ago, so I doubt it. But it speaks to the legendary contentiousness of this issue on Wikipedia. I'm pleased that we've kept the discussion amicable, so far, though I still suspect that extremists on both sides will start howling when the agreed template actually goes up. Dppowell 21:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For

• The Ireland page is specifically about the island of Ireland, which shares a geographic space with what is widely called (rightly or wrongly) "the British Isles." The nations of this region share a common and intertwined history and culture. It is presumable that a reader of the article may be interested in reading more about other places and peoples in the area. Related articles already use a similar template. Using a user-definable title would allow the Ireland article to participate in this exchange between articles while at the same time retaining the objections made above relating to the use of the term, "British Isles." --sony-youth 11:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Against

[edit] Proposed Titles for the Ireland Page

(Please add more, if necessary.)

[edit] British Isles

• This is the best option, because it's correct and is understood throughout the world. Arcturus 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Without heavy qualification, this is a non-starter. It completely fails to acknowledge the objections to the term. Dppowell 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland and the UK

• Does not include the Isle of Man (not part of UK or Ireland). --sony-youth 11:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Britain and Ireland

[edit] Great Britain, Ireland & the Isle of Man

• Most inclusive, in my humble opinion. Great Britain may or may not include the Isle of Man - the Isle of Man article does not mention the word "Britain" once - using "Great Britain and Ireland" without including the Isle of Man may cause as much offense as the term "British Isles' did here. Politically neutral - avoids naming states, only states the geographic members. --sony-youth 11:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Sounds good to me. I find myself idly wondering whether the Channel Islands should also be under this template's umbrella, but I'm not familiar enough with their status. Dppowell 16:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be almost certain they are not - their article describes them as belonging to the "part of the British Islands, not to be confused with the British Isles." The "British Isles" article, shows their location but puts them outside of the "British Isles." Geographically, they are a part of France. Politically, they are not a part of the UK. --sony-youth 17:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Channel Islands aren't within the British Isles, strictly speaking. Arcturus 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Great Britain, Ireland & the Isle of Mann" seems like a fine compromise, although this does have a certain amount of ambiguity. However, I can't think of a better description than "British Isles", which I understand is not acceptable. "Great Britain, Ireland & the Isle of Mann" also seems to affirm the difference between Great Britain and Ireland, as its list-like nature doesn't seem to offend. Lofty 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't like this one. In geographical terms it excludes alll the island groups around Scotland and elsewhere. It's also too unwieldy as a title. Arcturus 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I like this one, more accurate. MelForbes 22:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Mel, what's accuracy got to do with it? The point is, it excludes the likes of Shetland, Orkney, Scilly Isles and many others. You obviously know that Great Britain is just a single island. Arcturus 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Arcturus, I'm surprised to disagree with you on this matter, but are not the Orkney and Shetland islands a part of Scotland, and so a part of Great Britain? Similarly, are not the Scilly Isles a part of Cornwall/England and so also also a part of Great Britain? Ireland too has many islands. We cannot mention them all. I agree with you that a single name for the whole region (i.e. something akin to "the British Isles") would be the best solution, but it's not workable, so, just so much as "the British Isles" generalises, let's also generalise to an extent - without unnecessary exclusion or offense. --sony-youth 03:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Sony-youth, as I understand it Great Britain is simply a geographic term meaning the large island, otherwise known as the "British Mainland". It excludes all other islands. I'll check again on this, buit I'm fairly sure this is the case. Arcturus 11:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah! just checked here - Great Britain. It seems like there's two meanings; the strict geographical term meaning the mainland only, then the so-called geo-political term which includes all the territories of the UK except Northern Ireland. It really is getting difficult. Maybe we've got to go with United Kingdom, Ireland & the Isle of Man after all. As I said earlier, it's a bit unwieldy, but at least it clarifies that we don't include the Channel Islands - and I think it's right that we don't. My preference is still British Isles (without quotes) as per the current template at British Isles, but failing that, then as suggested above.Arcturus 11:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom, Ireland & the Isle of Man

• Would also lend my support to this, since there seem to be concerns about the inclusiveness of "Great Britain." Dppowell 00:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm - never though of this - depending on what Arcturus and Lofty say, I might agree with this also. I trust Arcturus' opinion, despite our disagreement above, on whether this is suitable or not. It does, however, have political connotations (like "British Isles", I argue), by naming an actual an unmistakable state, rather than just a strictly geographic description. --sony-youth 04:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

When I created the template, I was aiming to create it about the geographical region of the British Isles, IONA, whatever you want to call them, so I think that naming states isn't such a good idea, especially as it might suggest political bias. i.e. in favour of unionism etc. Lofty 11:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative names such as IONA, Anglo-Celtic Isles or the West European Isles

• Not well known: does not avoid neologisms. --sony-youth 11:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Islands of the North Atlantic ("British Isles"). I don't like IONA as an acronym, and I believe in acknowledging the common use of the term "British Isles", as I stated above. Scolaire 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrib Gas Field

Corrib Gas Field. Firstly, I have no involvement whatsoever in the anti-Shell protests around the Corrib gas field of Mayo and never have (in fact I left Ireland about four months ago and am no living abroad). Even before I left however, it would have been something of an understatement to call the protests against Shell small and localised. Throughout the country here is a serious (and possibly grounded) level of protest against the manner in which the Corrib Gas line is being constructed. This should be noted.

Then it should be easy to cite a reference for any descriptions to that effect. Dppowell 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "British Isles" template discussions

Okay, taking my life into my hands I'm going to act on the "British Isles" template discussions.

To me the outcome looks like this:

There were no objections to a compromise template reflecting the groups of islands known as the British Isles being appended to the Ireland article. A new template was made which could be used across all articles relating to this group of islands, but with a title definable page by page.

What title to use on the Ireland page was discussed from a list of proposed title. "Great Britain, Ireland & the Isle of Man" and "UK, Ireland and the Isle of Man" stood out among these. Either of these would be generally acceptable, but there were preferences one-way-or-the-other for both. The first of these recieved four supports and one against. The latter of the two proposals got one strong support, a weak support and an against.

Going by this, is it okay to say "Great Britain, Ireland and the Isle of Man" is an acceptable name for the template on the Ireland article?

The new tempalte, formerly at Template:British Isles (common) has been moved to Template:British Isles, article that had linked to the redundant template have been updated. I'm now going to try to insert the template into the Ireland article (wish me luck!).

--sony-youth 16:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is political correctness gone mad. The group of islands is called the British Isles in the English language as is recognised by WP in its article naming. To pretend otherwise is just that, a pretence. Perhaps editors from the north would like this article named The island containing the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland but that would be rejected out of hand (I hope). This proposal is similar ... "Great Britain, Ireland & the Isle of Man" means nothing to anyone, whereas Great Britain is univerally understood (but not universally liked I understand that, believe me). In any event does it include Orkney and Shetland? Isn't the Isle of Man part of Great Britain? Does it include the Channel Islands? I hope common sense will prevail here and we can revert to Great Britain. Write a great article about Ireland and don't try to rewrite history or the English language. I say this as someone who loves Ireland as a visitor :) Abtract 22:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see the article regarding terminology and controversy regarding the "British Isles" and the (many and quite bitter) discussions on the British Isles talk page. Please see other areas "universally understood" such as the Persian Gulf or India.

Regarding the Isle of Man, no it is not a part of Great Britain. Orkney and Shetland are. The Channel Islands are not a part of the "British Isles" (they are a part of France) - however your confusion does hint at why the term is not considered purely geographic.

I understand that many people in Britain (and elsewhere) would consider this "political correctness gone mad", however, I hope through the links above you will see that we are not rewriting history, just trying to deal with it in a civil manner. --sony-youth^talk 23:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As I've argued previously, the past (or even present) common use of British Isles doesn't make it immutably relevant and correct, for all time. Ask Mumbai (formerly Bombay) or any number of other places that were once called one thing and now called another. This is not a Wikipedia phenomenon. The British and Irish governments both try to avoid the term. It's enough of a problem that an Irish atlas publisher took the trouble to eliminate it from its newest editions. The term is absolutely not necessary to describe Ireland, and it clearly bothers (even enrages, in some extreme cases) some people...so why the stubborn insistence upon it? It seems to me an alias for stating either "I want to offend people" or "I don't care that people are offended." Neither of those attitudes has any place here. Dppowell 01:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have only one desire - to make WP a better encyclopedia, so please accept that I have no "attitude". Surely you make the point for me whan you say "... the past (or even present) common use of British Isles ...". That is precisely what should be in WP - the common use; trying to invent another terminology for templates is surely evidence of original research, apart from being pc gone mad. However life's too short to argue against consensus ... if such exists for this awkward wording (apologies, forgot to sign earlier) Abtract 10:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no original research taking place. The names in the template are real. The article acknowledges, within the context of the controversy, the use of "British Isles" to refer to Ireland. My participation in this discussion has been aimed at finding a middle ground between the "British Isles, period" faction and those who imagine the peaceful acceptance of the term to be tantamount to inviting the Lord Lieutenant back to Dublin. Ignoring the existence of the controversy is only going to lead to a tiresome edit war with people from red-colored IP addresses who delete any/all references to the UK from the article. I don't think anyone wants that. This is the alternative. Dppowell 02:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dydh da - late for the party - from a non-Anglo/Irish viewpoint, I think we can blame the Greeks for British Isles, bracketing both main islands (Everion and Albion), and then the Romans for only conquering most of one of them but still giving the name to their provinces (Britanniae - the Britains, a plural). Subsequently that name has attached itself both to P-Celts mainly (but not exclusively) living on Albion, and subsequently to that polity called the United Kingdom. Similarly the Irish version of Albion, Alba, has attached itself specifically to Scotland, somehow excluding the rest of us on that island. Much violence from seafaring armies and occupiers ensued in all directions. I can see both sides of this debate (technical and emotional - I wish any trolls would learn both of those things), and will leave it to the locals to sort out amongst themselves - not my problem. (As an aside - keep it geographic - although saying Great Britain and Ireland, and then showing the flags of the Republic and UK seems a little odd - similarly Man is neither in those two countries or those islands, however British Isles remains the English term, and we don't have any better currently accepted or historical term to draw on. The UK and Ireland in their current form are young countries, parts of which don't even have proper government yet - so I think we can all be forgiven for not having sorted out some terminology). ONE THING - according to the internal link, Ireland/Iwerdhon is the third largest island in Europe by area, on the assumption that Iceland is in Europe. Unless there's some idea that Iceland is partially on the Eurasian/Laurentian plate boundary disqualifies it from Europe. I think a lot of people would see Iceland as a European island (especially given the indefinite boundaries of Europe - Sicily and Cyprus would be). Anyway, I won't change it - will leave it to you lot. Cheers - stay cool Stevebritgimp 07:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading up on this ireland article for a long time. I don't often chime in on things cause I don't often have any emotional involvement in the topic. It was mentioned somewhere in this minefield of discussion something about what makes what complicated for the reader. Well I can tell you guys as a reader and not so much a contributor the entire debate itself makes it confusing. I know what the British Isles are because it was what we were taught in school. I know what the British Isles consist of. This is an encyclopedia not a political commity. People come here for many reasons. Some of which include school reports, gereal information and references. Most everyone around the entire world knows what the British Isles are. People are going to come here and see this discussion and think to themselves "This is why I don't use wikipedia for this stuff, because they can't agree on what is common knowledge" I am very much not trying to put anyone down here. But if a student comes here for information about the British Isles or Ireland and comes back to any teacher virtually anywhere in the world claiming that Ireland isn't apart of the British Isles because Wikipedia says the term is seperate from the one nation that teacher is probably first going to laugh and second tell the kid not to come to wikipedia because they don't have their stuff strait. I understand completely that it's a sensative topic but these issues are for politicians to decide. If all of the UK and Ireland got together and came to a concesus to have this terminology universally changed and then did something about it to actually change it than that's one thing. But the British Isles are just the British Isles. You guys can go on arguing it here but there are plenty of hardcover encyclopedias in libraries, schools, and univirsities all of which notable and trusted which will back up that claim. Not to mention thousands upon thousands of online and other electronic sources. I can't name one person who ever was confused by what are the British Isles and what they encompass. But I bet there are plenty of people confused by this entire discussion. XXLegendXx 17:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Er, EU template?

To state the obvious to all but the most expansionist of British nationalists, just what is the relevance of this misnomer "British Isles" template when an EU template is the accurate context within which modern Ireland exists? This British template has nothing to do with reflecting modern Ireland but everything to do with contextualising Ireland within a British colonial framework. As such, that template is a non sequitur, promoted by British nationalists for atavistic British interests. Ireland is Ireland, a full member of the European Union according to the choice of the vast majority of the island's population. EU= democratic choice in Ireland; British Isles= imposition from Britain. So, what political agenda is really going on with these people, and from whence do the protagonists of the "British Isles" context hail? 89.100.195.42 03:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That sound a lot more sensible than the current situation. My main objection to the current template is that it is for a something that doesn't exist as an entity "Ireland, Great Britain and the Isle of Man" is not an entity whereas the British Isles is, however annoying that may be to some people (understandably). The current template looks silly, doubly so when you actually hover over it and find it links to "British Isles". Incidentally I assume you were not refering to me when you talk about "British nationalists" because nothing could be further from the truth. I am not going to fight over this, I just hope that other interested editors will bring an element of common sense into thisAbtract 10:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Ireland owes very little to the word British, considering they tried to bankrupt the newly fledged state, Anglo-Irish Trade War. The inclusion of BI is basically an anachronistic term pushed by vociferous few British based editors. Irish editors are being met with strong Resistance when trying to add NPOV to the British Isles page. I believe that EU template to be the proper context. MelForbes 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ireland-the-island (the subject of this article) is not a member of the EU. Demiurge 18:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

not as such, but all its constituent parts are :)Abtract 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ireland-the-island (the subject of this article) is not a member of some "British Isles" unless of course you are British/of a certain imperial political hue. 89.100.195.42 02:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromises

I'm trying to find a compromise with fellow wiki editors over the beginning of the article as to whether it should point out that Nothern Ireland is a part of the UK and the map displaying the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland misleading people to think Northern Ireland has nothing to do with the UK. Any suggestions are welcome —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somethingoranother (talk • contribs).

[edit] Introduction To Article

I had change the beginning of the article to "

" as i consider this to be easier to understand by readers but someone keeps reverting it to the less clear previous version! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somethingoranother (talk • contribs).

What about the previous version do you find confusing? Dppowell 05:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a compromise over this matter. Suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somethingoranother (talk • contribs).

I suggest you should sign your posts, by putting four tildes (~~~~) after what you write. You should then read the talk page archives of the pages you are editing. Finally you should scan WP:3RR, WP:NPOV. Please make your arguments here in the talk page, and only then when some consensus has been reached, enact your changes. I'm sorry if that isn't as you would like it but that's the way it is here. --Guinnog 06:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant only to make this article clearer for readers and to state that which is fact, as should be the case with all wikipedia articles. I am trying for and willing to reach a compromise over these issues and I am open to suggestions from editors. I meant not to cause any upset or distress. Somethingoranother 06:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion for the beginning of the Ireland article is:

What's the general consensus on this? Somethingoranother 07:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I tried to point out on the map that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom because the map looks misleading as to make people think Northern Ireland is a seperate independent nation. I think there should be a compromise over this matter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somethingoranother (talk • contribs).

My suggestion for the Ireland map showing the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland should say below it: Map of Ireland showing the state of Republic of Ireland and the UK province of Northern Ireland. What's the general consesus on this? Somethingoranother 07:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article makes clear the status of Northern Ireland without you having to add that info to the caption. --Guinnog 07:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It was just meant to be helpful to readers who might not know that Northern Ireland is in the UK and might think it's a seperate country of its own as the map gives no information that Northern Ireland is just a province of a much larger country. Somethingoranother 07:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting all the time

Why does everything I ever contribute to this page always get reverted? Somethingoranother 08:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Because you aren't discussing here first and getting consensus. Please do that in future. Thanks. --Guinnog 08:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no one else but you to get consensus from at the minute and I've never had to go through such to do over contributing to other articles before. As I say I think it's certain people who like this article a certain way and won't let other people contribute towards it, because I haven't been able to yet so I doubt many others have.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somethingoranother (talk • contribs).

I have reverted your last edits because they, inadvertantly I assume, introduce a British slant which is unecessary. For example there is no advantage to the article in mentioning that Ireland is part of the Britsh Isles; its place in Europe is quite sufficient :) Abtract 09:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti British View Projected by Editors

Come on people we're all adults here are there no compromises to stop the reverting war? Does anyone have any suggestions at all? Somethingoranother 10:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this Fair? Somethingoranother 11:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me there is a problem of an anti British view being projected on this article because whenever anyone mentions anything to do with Britain it is instantly reverted. Considering the close proximity of both and their shared history why is their such an aversion and distinct lack of mention of Britain throughout the article? On purpose? Somethingoranother 09:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

From me there is no anti British POV since I am British. If the word "Britain" is useful then of course it must be used ... however I have reverted your last edit because it used 7 words instead of the 6 it replaced which is hardly "more brief" and in any event the use of Scotland, Wales etc is actually useful in helping the reader to interpret the map whereas the more nebulous term "GB" is less helpful. :) Abtract 09:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I count 19 uses of the word "Britain" in this revision (the last before you started editing the article) plus more mentions of "United Kingdom", "England" etc.; can you be more specific about where and why you would like Britain mentioned? Demiurge 10:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It is said that the article cannot contain too much UK and British related material in case it's offensive, but is it not offensive to all UK citizens for wikipedia to say parts of their country are not really acknowledged much as parts of it at all? Afterall the people of Northern Ireland voted not many years ago to remain a part of the UK and so the idea that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK must not be shied away from and those who would be offended are a clear minority.Somethingoranother 10:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

*sigh*. As predicted, this has rapidly turned political. Now, the accusations and finger-pointing begin. - Alison^✍ 10:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This conversation has also been happening on User talk:Ali-oops#Ireland, if anyone's interested. - Alison^✍ 10:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you have now taken the matter over to WP:AN/I already. (see here). - Alison^✍ 10:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Somethingoranother, please stop making unilateral changes to geographical/political nomenclature in this article. If you want something changed, bring it to the talk page first rather than changing it yourself — for example, the Republic of Ireland is more commonly described as a "state" or "country" than a "nation". Describing it as a separate "nation" implies that Northern Irish nationalists are not part of the same nation — a highly contentious claim. Demiurge 11:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is no one is coming up with a compromise what's your idea of what it could be called fairly? Somethingoranother 11:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Demi - I see you've reverted the latest attempt. What if we just add .. and the constituent country, Northern Ireland - will this work for everyone? - Alison^✍ 11:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Somethingoranother - you seem to have an issue with the phrase, "the state also called Ireland" - is this the case and if so, why? - Alison^✍ 11:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the latest version looks too much as though it has been created simply to shoehorn in "UK" a couple more times, though obviously that wasn't the intent of the editor. I am going to rv it until a better version comes along :) Abtract 11:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The version I created was by far I think the most fair for everyone. If anyone has any points about it they would like to point out please do so. Somethingoranother 11:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• A number of editors have repeatedly pointed out stuff (see above) but you are not discussing matters. You're simply reverting again and again over multiple page edits. I suggested a compromise above which you proceeded to ignore. Abtract tried to compromise earlier but this was reverted too. What's going on here?? - Alison^✍ 12:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with compromise. what's the compromise to be? Somethingoranother 12:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• My own suggestion is there above, in reply to User:Demiurge. Ok - it's 4am here. I'm outta here - Alison^✍ 12:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should contain information which tells the reader at the begginning and when looking at the map that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, as it is in reality. Somethingoranother 12:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Other people's thoughts............... Somethingoranother 12:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• As a Protestant from NI I really don't see the problem with the current version - it is very important to keep to neutral point of view. Furthermore, anyone can easily ascertain the status of Northern Ireland by clicking on the link provided to Northern Ireland, anyway - it's not necessary to keep pointing it out on a fairly unrelated article. I'd like to quote a (sadly now deleted) comment [1] by an admin on an unrelated article which really does illustrate best not only what consensus is but why it is the best way to move forward on contentious matters. Orderinchaos78 14:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Settling Dispute by Vote

Option for first lines of the article to read:

This article is about the island of Ireland as a whole, which includes the state of Republic of Ireland, known also as Ireland, and Northern Ireland, an area of the UK in Ireland. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation).

All those in favour write YES, followed by name. All those not in favour write NO, followed by name.

Votes will be counted in 24 hours.

Somethingoranother 12:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

YES Somethingoranother 12:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking consensus, not a vote

• I think saying that Northern Ireland is "in Ireland" is redundant and confusing (because of the difference between Ireland-the-country and Ireland-the-island), and would prefer something like "This article is about the island of Ireland as a while, which includes the state also named Ireland (i.e. the Republic of Ireland), and Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation)." Also please note that Wikipedia is not a democracy — consensus is what's important, not counting votes. Demiurge 12:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• We need to be concise and helpful in the introduction.

I suggest the first line should be:

This article is about the island of Ireland as a whole. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation).

Followed by this simple intro:

Ireland (53°30′N 7°38′W; Irish: Éire) is the third largest island in Europe. Geographically it lies to the west of Great Britain, between the Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea. Politically it is divided into two: the Republic of Ireland, five-sixths of the landmass; and Northern Ireland, the northeastern sixth of the island.[1] The name 'Ireland' derives from the name Ériu (in modern Irish, Éire) with the addition of the Germanic word 'land'.

Abtract 13:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Over at Australia we have a similar problem - the country and the island are two separate entities, although largely coincide in area, and the continent it resides in has some dispute over its name (there's a proposal to change the name currently on the talk page but no-one can quite agree what to change it to!) The suggestion you have made seems both NPOV and concise/useful, so I'd support it. Orderinchaos78 13:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article must point out sufficiantly to readers that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom so they don't mistake it for an independent nation of its own. We take it for granted that people know this already but many people around the world do not know of how the UK is contructed. Somethingoranother 14:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to go with "This article is about the island of Ireland as a while, which includes the state also named Ireland (i.e. the Republic of Ireland), and Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom. As stated higher up Is everyone else willing to go with this too? Somethingoranother 14:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tried out using:

As the opening lines for the article. I hope not to upset anyone and anyone who dislikes this version feel free to discuss & make suggestions of sollutions. This does not have to be a final version. Somethingoranother 15:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I hope the changed one works better now Somethingoranother 15:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• That wording is unsuitable because "Ireland" is the official constitutional name of the Irish state, not a mere "common name". "Republic of Ireland" is only a description (albeit one with official legal status. Reading Names of the Irish state may be informative here. Demiurge 15:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope the changed one works better now Somethingoranother 15:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Will you please stop inserting your changes until you have gained a consensus here? You've gone so far past the 3RR you can't even see it at this stage! Demiurge 15:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was a consensus now to clarify the beginning like as I've put it Somethingoranother 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the

opening that I've suggested and seems others are following the same line too Somethingoranother 15:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The beginning I've used covers everything explaning this is an article about the island Ireland and that the country Ireland or Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland occupy it and clarifies Northern Ireland is an area of the UK for readers who don't know this. Somethingoranother 15:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• There is no such consensus for the wording you just inserted — the edit just above is the first time you have proposed this wording on the talk page, so it's clearly impossible for other people to have endorsed this version. Stop reverting and make a serious attempt to reach consensus on the talk page rather than repeatedly and unilaterally making your own changes. You have gone way past WP:3RR at this stage. Demiurge 15:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

OK do we have consensus on my version to be the clearest and fairest sollutions without just leaving it as it was and having a edit war going on forever? Somethingoranother 15:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone say if they think the version I suggested and is currently being used is the one we should all go for?......................

No .. A much simpler lead is required, This article is about the island of Ireland as a whole. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation). this says all that is needed at this stage. :) IMHO. Abtract 15:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The version I used is a compromise between the Catholic view and Protestant view otherwise this editing war will carry on forever and only the article will suffer. Other articles representing 2 groups of people with different points of view where both sides are appeasesed and so end the editing war and the article can move forwards. Somethingoranother 15:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, Somethingoranother, we do not have any such consensus. You need to stop edit warring on this page or you will be blocked under WP:3RR. Making your own unilateral changes and then putting them forward for discussion on the talk page after the fact is not how consensus is reached. Demiurge 15:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to reach consensus but stating the obvious that Unionist view won't accept United Kingdom not being in the opening and Nationalis view won't accept Republic of Ireland not being in the opening. So as far as I can see I'm the only one trying to reach consesus and compromise and no one else will sugest anything because some just wanted it to stay as it was with a Nationalist view, which will just cause Unionists to contstantly edit it unless compromise is met. Somethingoranother 16:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Plenty of people have made suggestions above, including myself and Abtract. I'm open to "United Kingdom" being included in the disambig header (see the version I suggested above). But you will not get yourself anywhere by endlessly reverting to slightly different versions of the same thing. We reach a consensus here first, only then do we change the article. Demiurge 16:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

OK write your propessed sollution for the opening lines of the article and I'll say if I think it's fair. Somethingoranother 16:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have already presented my proposed solution, scroll up. Demiurge 16:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

OK is it the "This article is about the island of Ireland as a while, which includes the state also named Ireland (i.e. the Republic of Ireland), and Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation)"Suggestion? If so I support it being used then. Somethingoranother 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to use that version of yours I will support you putting it on the article and won't change it. Somethingoranother 16:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We have consensus now about that version of yours being used? Somethingoranother 16:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, we need to wait for a few days to see if anyone else has any objections. My warning above about not reverting any more still stands. Demiurge 16:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well simply if anyone else has objections in the future they can bring them up at the time. As for now I think we should go on the proposed consensus to stop anymore editing. Unless you're change your mind on it? Somethingoranother 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So when is this new proposal going to be used? or was it never meant to be used? Somethingoranother 16:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• It will be used when everyone else has had a chance to comment on it. The old intro has been there for months if not years; a few more days won't harm anyone. Demiurge 16:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

OK so if no one has any objections over then next 3 days I can expect to see it being used by Christmas Day? Somethingoranother 16:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, you can't expect anything. There is no deadline, so don't use a lack of objections as a license to insert it on Christmas day (when most editors won't be online anyway.) Demiurge 16:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't talk down to me like I'm subservient to you or something. I don't even know you and I don't tolerate being subjected to threats of being blocked should I dare to change an article to conflict with your point of view on a subject. To be honest I think it's your desire to keep the article in an Irish Nationalist perspective bias, regardless of what others might want or what compromises might be offered and you simply cannot accept compromise which might remove the article's Irish Nationalist bias. And in future don't presume to tell me what I can and cannot expect or do. Besides I'm sure your lifestyle and love life provides you with lots of space time to harass others in the same way. This is Somethingoranother signing off Somethingoranother 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the intro is still being edited, I have put a simplified (and NPV) version in placed as proposed above, hopefully until we agree on a fuller version (if necessary, personnaly I favour simplicity). I humbly suggest we talk here about options rather than continued editing.Abtract 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Abtract's edit is tight and neutral. I like it a lot. Dppowell 17:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Good work. --Guinnog 17:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see Somethingoranother's point. A clearer distinction needs to be made between the state and the island - but too many details could cause more confusion than they would solve. I suggest something like:

This article is about the island of Ireland as a whole. For the state of the same name see Republic of Ireland. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation).

I don't think there is any problem with the map image or title. Its the same as is used on the Great Britain page.

Finally, please take it easy Somethingoranother - its Christmas, give people a chance to reply. --sony-youth^talk 17:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somethingoranother

Somethingoranother, please see discussion above with regard to the use of the term "British Isles" on Ireland-related pages before editing further. It would be appreciated if you could discuss matters on the here on the talk page before doing any more. Further information can be got from the terminology and controversy pages regarding the term. Please also see the British Isles talk page for an overview of discussion of the use of the term. Thank you. --sony-youth^talk 18:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How many people here agree that the part "Ireland is the second largest island in the British Isles." should be included in the introduction? Somethingoranother 18:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Talk:Ireland#"British Isles" template discussions very few would. « Keith » 18:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. --Guinnog 18:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it absolutly not? why can British Isles not be mentioned in the article? Somethingoranother 18:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Not in the lead I think. --Guinnog 18:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In the lead? But Ireland is a part of the British Isles whether anyone likes it or not and so it should be said that it is. Also the introduction does not say that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK. Can people please refrain from bringing their bias onto this article and allowed factual information to be added. Somethingoranother 18:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Adds little of value for the reader. Is confusing since one of the states occupying the island officially objects to and discourages use of the term. Does not follow consensus reached above. --sony-youth^talk 18:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK maybe I can see leaving British Isles out then but is it not crazy to not mention that Northern Ireland is in the UK? Somethingoranother 19:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"But Ireland is a part of the British Isles..." Splutter. Spot the troll. 89.100.195.42 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we have consensus to leave British Isles out then but mention in the introduction that Northern Ireland is in the UK? And as I am from Northern ireland I see it as very offensive and saddens me to see other people from around the world trying to make it look like where I live is not part of the UK. Somethingoranother 19:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with that either. Are you very young perhaps? I am from Scotland and spent a lot of time in NI in the 1980s and 1990s. I remember the awful events of "the Troubles" there. If you are from Northern Ireland you should know that adding this information will be contentious for some people; the point about NI being part of the UK was of course the main bone of contention around which the terrorism and war revolved. Can you see why some people feel strongly about it? --Guinnog 19:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions repeatedly that Northern Ireland is in the UK. IrishGuy ^talk 19:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Who ever said that it cannot be said that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK? It would seem quite natural to say so to me. This discussion is not about saying NI is part of UK. It is about use of the term "British Isles." --sony-youth^talk 19:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• The disambig header only exists for the single functional purpose of redirecting people who are on the wrong article to the right destination. In this case, it exists to point people who were looking for "Ireland-the-country" to the Republic of Ireland page, as this article is about "Ireland-the-island". It is not the place to go into detail on the political status of each part of the island, or to use controversial phrases such as "British Isles". The fact that NI is part of the UK is covered in great detail further down in the article, and nobody is trying to make it look like NI is not part of the UK. Demiurge 19:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK can there be consensus to say NI is an area in the UK in the intro and replace saying Ireland is the second largest isles in the british isles and instead say Anglo Celtic isles as the Irish government prefers? Somethingoranother 19:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd really like to see the intro say that Ireland is the second largest island in the Anglo Celtic Isles, and also mention NI as an area of the UK because it upsets me to see this left out as I am northern irish myself. Please could we have a consensus Somethingoranother 19:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's bad if readers have to read the whole article before they're told NI is an area of the UK. Somethingoranother 19:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Have updated page clarifying that NI part of UK and IRE is sovereign. RE: Anglo-Celtic Isles, this was discared above for being a neologism. Honestly, best to avoid British Isles - what does it add anyway? --sony-youth^talk 19:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK i fully accept the idea of dropping the isles thing but it would be nice to mention NI is in the UK in the intro so readers don't have to read the whole article before they get this info. Somethingoranother 19:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC) thannk you for listening to my comments by the way

• The UK is mentioned in the intro, the disambig header is not the intro. See WP:LEAD and WP:DISAMBIG for the difference. Demiurge 19:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Demiurge, I only just changed that. It was not mentioned before, rightfully it should have been. --sony-youth^talk 19:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks I just noticed you added it to the into so readers can see for themselves too now. Somethingoranother 19:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Somethingoranother, you have to participate in the process. That means reading the weeks of discussion that have taken place on this, and then adding your voice. You can't just shoehorn British Isles and other, more overtly unionist POV into the article because "it's right." That's not how Wikipedia works. I've reported you for a 3RR violation, which I expect the evidence will support. When you return from what I expect will be a 24-hour block, please try to use a more measured approach to your editing. Dppowell 20:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You cannot report me for 3RR made more than 24 hours ago. Your actions seem that of a revenge attempt upon me for my disagreeing with your point of view and only serves to demonstrate your own irresponsibility. Somethingoranother 20:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if that reporting policy were accurate (which I don't think it is), the edits in question were made only a few hours ago. It's a legitimate report. Dppowell 20:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, Rep. of Ireland is NOT part of the British Isles. Whether anyone likes it or not. So there is a fact to negate your fact Somethingoranother. This form of argument is easy, innit? (Sarah777 22:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC))

Sarah - looking at your contributions to this Talk page it's clear to me that you don't know the meaning of the word fact. The Repulic of Ireland IS geographically speaking, within the British Isles. The sooner you and several other editors on this page come out of denial, the better. Arcturus 11:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Arcturus, impolite tone. The notion that The Repulic of Ireland IS geographically speaking, within the British Isles is not factually based. We are not talking science or easily observable "facts" here like 'the sun rises in the east'. What we have is a geographical term coined and used used by British people at a time when the Islands were British.

'The British Isles' does NOT include Ireland as the phrase is used in Ireland. Fact.

I have previously pointed out that geographical names or the names of countries are not handed down on stone tablets from God: they are only "factual" if people agree they are factual. They are an invention. To repeat what I said (above, 8th October):

The "British Isles" was a geographical term invented when the islands dominated by the London Government. Persia was once inhabited by Persians. Names change to reflect demographic and political change. You can't get Peking Duck in Peking anymore, there is no such place as Siam. The entire Spanish speaking world knows "The Falklands" as the "Malvinas". There is no such thing as "politically neutral" geographic names.

I might also add that some of the "British" contributors here lend way too much authority to colonial British Law in supporting their definitions of Irish and British.

And "the Shannon is the longest river in Ireland or Britain" is how most Irish people would put it, avoiding a political pov. (Sarah777 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Where is Ireland?

No, I'm not arguing that it's part of the British Isles. All sensible people know that already - see British Isles, where it says so. This time I'm more concerned with relative location - where is the island of Ireland - Europe - yes, north-west Europe. Well as far as I can see on my map it's located to the west of Great Britain, in the north-west of Europe - anyone care to disagree? Thought not! So why does some bone head keep altering the caption on the map? You editors and article owners really take the biscuit (UK terminology)! Not content with burying your head in the sand regarding the British Isles, you are now trying to expunge all reference to Britain in this article. Give me strength! Reverted caption. Arcturus 11:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Arcturus, your legitimate concerns about anti-UK POV notwithstanding (I'm actually on your side on this particular issue), I'm done engaging in discussion with you until your tone changes. Now anyone who isn't comfortable with front-and-center placement of "British Isles" as one of the defining characteristics of the article is "insensible," in addition to being a "censor", a "bigot", and any number of other labels you've slapped on us previously.Dppowell 14:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And I must add Arcturus that the reference to Ireland being "west of Great Britain" is an obvious attempt to get through the back door what you fail to get through the front. I would like to add that Ireland is south-east of Iceland, south of the Arctic Circle, north-west of France.

Then I could move on to clarifying that Great Britain is east of Ireland, west of Denmark and so forth. (Sarah777 18:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC))

It is pretty immediately west of Great Britain, Sarah. I can appreciate your proper vigilance against attempts to define Ireland entirely within the context of its relation to Britain, but going to the other extreme only gives ammunition to the malcontents. Dppowell 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It is even more immediately west of the Isle of Man.... But of course the Isle of Man didn't have the Irish faoi chois for centuries; the British "civilisers" did. As JJ Lee observed many years ago in The Sunday Tribune, 'British self-definition has to a large extent been defined on anti-Irishness'. And trying to tell us we are not who we say we are but rather that we are who the British, the old colonial master, decides we are is just par for the course with a culture as supremacist as Britain's has been towards the wishes of the Irish people. Same old same old on the cusp of 2007. 89.100.195.42 01:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm mostly inclined to agree, but do you really think that defining Ireland to an equally large extent on anti-Britishness is the appropriate way to proceed? Seems a bit of a knee-jerk, and certainly not anything that distinguishes the pro-Irish attitude from the pro-British one. Dppowell 01:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No: this is about defining who we are by who we are. That is a luxury which we- a vibrant, dynamic, young, confident and culturally at ease nation- has only of late been allowed. It is only incessant attempts by outsiders to tell us that we are not what we actually are but rather are what they have labelled us and our country which turns this into some negatively defined issue. We will not smother under the cloak of a neighbouring island and the internal historical needs of their nationalism to define Ireland as being a British isle. The world is much bigger than Britain, even if our patriotic contributors from that island firmly believe that it is not, in fact, bigger- but that if the world is then it obviously must revolve around Britain. 89.100.195.42 02:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Great speech, but the editorial stance that follows from it is no more NPOV-friendly than the contention that "British Isles" is the forever-immutable name of the archipelago that includes Ireland. And we're not even talking about applying the British Isles label, as much as Arcturus might want us to be. We're talking about merely mentioning, in a purely geographical sense, the adjacent island. How is that "smothering under the cloak" of that island? See also: Saint Lucia. Dppowell 03:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Sea

Why is it not acceptable to include that Ireland is a part of the British Isles simply because the word British is included and yet include that Ireland lies next to the Irish Sea? It was said before that the reason editors of this article try their utmost to make sure not too much information relating to things British are included in this article is because it may seem offensive to the Irish. Then how exactly is having Irish Sea included in the article not offensive to the British? Considering not all people in Ireland live in the Republic of Ireland. It is both contradictory and offensive the British and to those who live in Northern Ireland to not include that Ireland is a part of the British Isles for racial bias and yet include Irish Sea, which is racial bias once again against the British and the people of Northern Ireland. Seems like double standards to me and probably to most others too. 88.110.144.94 21:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It has to be both included or neither included otherwise it is breaking NPOV. The people of the Republic of Ireland may choose not to acknowledge that Ireland is a part of the British Isles but they can't make the choice for Northern Ireland too.Somethingoranother 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly are you talking to yourself? Do you really think it will fool anyone into thinking there are two of you? IrishGuy ^talk 22:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

When the article called British Isles is exorcised of British Nationalism, and becomes an edit-free-npov-zone. Then come back here and we'll talk. MelForbes 22:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You're one to talk about British Nationalism. What about Irish Nationalism? The Ireland page looks like a page you would find on the IRA's website. Atleast the British aren't so extreme about their nationalist views that they form terrorist groups and go blowing things up like some simply because they can't accept people in Northern Ireland don't want to be a part of the Republic of Ireland. Mind you I can't blame the Northern Irish for why they don't want to. Somethingoranother 22:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment; your mask has slipped now! MelForbes 23:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

88.110.144.94 and Somethingoranother, I really don't get your point. However, the description of Ireland as lying between the Atlantic Ocean and the Irish sea is a bit silly: Really, if someone doesn't know where Ireland is then telling them its beside the Irish Sea is not going to be much help. "It lies to the northwest of Continental Europe with Great Britain to the east" seems to me to be the most helpful description (and word-for-word the same as on GB page). --sony-youth^talk 16:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sony-youth's comment that saying Ireland is between the Atlantic and Irish Sea doesn't help very much especially if the reader doesn't know where Ireland is already. It seems Sony-youth's more informative alternative is being rejected simply because people want Irish Sea included but Great Britain definitely not. Seems so silly people have such a grievance with Britain over what I don't really know and NPOV seems not to apply to this article and so damages the image of Wikipedia as being impartial. I'm sure many readers must read this article and think it's silly that such lengths have been gone to make this article almost bitter towards its neighbour. If even Sony-youth's version can't be used because of people's silly and damaging views then readers are really going to start thinking this article has got to the point nearly of being ridiculous. Somethingoranother 17:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite sad to see how this article has developed, and how it currently stands. Most of Wikipedia is "good", but this article reflects everything that could be considered "bad" about Wikipedia. It is now nothing more than a device to push hatred against anything and anyone British. I've visited Ireland on many occasions but I've never come across the attitude demonstrated by the editors here. Unfortunately a hard core of reverters, most of whom don't live in Ireland, are stopping any reference to Britain. Recently I modified the map caption to make it clear that Ireland is immediately to the west of Great Britain - a natural enough description you might think. Even that was reverted (see some of the utterly stupid comments about this, above). I wonder whether all reasonable people should just leave these people to their childish games with this article. There are plenty of other factual sources about Ireland. This article plumbs the depths of filth from a sewerage works. Arcturus 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides mentioning the location being near to Britain, what else needs to be done? --Guinnog 18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there needs to be an acceptance of the fact that the island of Ireland is one of the British Isles. This can be stated in the following points; that Ireland is the second largest island in the group, and that the River Shannon is the longest river in Ireland and in the British Isles. Arcturus 18:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

...utterly stupid comments...people's silly and damaging views....clearly Somethingoranother and Arcturus could take a few minutes of their day to read WP:CIV. Some have opinions which differ from your own. That doesn't make them stupid or silly and damaging. IrishGuy ^talk 18:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So how would you describe the comments of the anonymous editor 89.100.195.42? As far as I can see they are just plain stupid and I make no apologies for using the term. Arcturus 18:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You disagree with him. That doesn't make him or his comments stupid. Please learn to be civil. IrishGuy ^talk 18:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to the version describing Ireland's proximity to Britain. While we must remain sensitive to the political and historical associations around this, I don't think we can omit to mention it on these grounds. --Guinnog 20:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Guinnog re: describing Ireland's proximity to Britain. I also wholeheartedly support any initiative by Arcturus and similarly "reasonable" people to withdraw from this article's editorial process. In his failure to win any consensus for his inflexible stance on the "British Isles" issue (which virtually everyone but him agrees is at least somewhat controversial), he has now resorted to serially violating WP:CIV by questioning the sanity and/or intelligence of anyone who disagrees with him. I've tried to meet him halfway, as have some other editors, and all he does is rant about how we're a bunch of idiots in denial of Ireland's "factual" status. "This article plumbs the depths of filth from a sewerage works?" Why should I have to engage in dialogue with that? The answer is that I don't, and neither should anyone else. Dppowell 21:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Arcturus, the fact that you are claiming it to be an actual fact that Ireland is a "British isle" says more than enough about your flag-waving British irrenditism than is required for any article. The only fact of relevance is that Ireland is not now, and never has been, a British isle. That fact is so because the vast majority of the people of Ireland decide it to be so. Now, democracy- that really is a concept for the British when it comes to Ireland. And, as so many of your fellow British irredentists never fail to claim, Irish identity is based upon anti-Britishness. So 2 + 2 makes Irish nationality = rejection of the "British Isles" and similar British imperialist contextualisations of Ireland. 89.100.195.42 21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that Ireland is a British isle, as I might say that HMS Invincible is a British warship. In the former use, the word British does not denote ownership, it is used descriptively in a geographic sense, but of course you know that anyway. Incidentally, until the early part of the 20th Century all of Ireland was a British isle in the sense that you argue against. Now only part of it is, or do you deny that as well? Arcturus 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Arcturus has got a very good point about how discriminative the article appears to be towards the British through its relentless obsession of removing all things associated with Britain, which can't be any coincidence due to their close proximity and shared history proves removing all information relating to Britain is being done on purpose. Also does have the right to bring this up without having a barrage of people telling them they're wrong. Somethingoranother 21:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Also I'd like to add Ireland is a part of the British Isles whether some accept it or not as the vast majority of people around the world would say Ireland is in the British Isles. You fail to mention that how the British might find Irish Sea offensive as they might consider this as Irish imperialism claiming the sea between Britain and Ireland is Irish. Your refusal to accept Ireland is a part of the British Isles but accept the Irish Sea is Irish only affirms the obviousness of your seemingly hate for Britain. I can say for myself that I in no way hate Ireland simply because I have absolutely no reason to nor would I want to hate a country which gives me no reason to hate it and is very similar to my own and shares its culture and history. Simply this article has been hijacked by Britain haters showing no regard to NPOV and seemingly getting away with it. This page lets Ireland down and only paints a picture of hate. Somethingoranother 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, this article is classified as a Good Article (see top of this page). This surely needs contesting. While there is much good content in the article, its blatant anti-British POV drags it down. The point about the Irish Sea is interesting in that the people of Britain take it for what it is; a descriptive label rather than an ownership label, hence there is no problem with the terminology. Unfortunately a very small number of Irish people, or those purporting to be Irish, don't understand that the same applies to the term British Isles. Arcturus 21:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Trolling pov-pushers, please listen. The word British is mentioned 20 times in the article. At least when making your argument, be honest and stick with the facts. MelForbes 21:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Catholic from NI who encompasses the island of Ireland in the British Isles, so I'd disagree that using the term in this way is an obvious indication of pro-British sentiment. Indeed, "British" comes from the word Preteni, which is the name of the first Celtic group to inhabit Great Britain and Ireland. "Great Britain" is so called because it is the largest of these islands; "British Isles" does not denote possesion by "Britain".

Having said this though, I was involved with the soul destroying discussion on the British Isles page long enough to know that many people have a problem with "British Isles", and so, if only to avoid revert wars, I am of the opinion that if available, an alternative should be used (however, it should also be noted in the article that a great many people regard Ireland as belonging to the British Isles).

Please, let's stop all the pro/anti British accusations and show some good faith. Come on people, there must be some sort of compromise that will keep most of us happy. Martin 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering the article includes information on Northern Ireland, then on top of that the shared history, culture, and geographical proximity of the two it seems someone or some people have cut down information relating to the UK as much as they possibly could. Somethingoranother 21:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Somethingoranother, I count 20 references to "Britain" and 14 to "United Kingdom" in the article. I would hardly say that information has been cut out as much as possible. This is an article about Ireland, not GB or the UK; both should be mentioned where appropriate, but there is no need to cram the article full of references to them. Martin 21:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

When Jack Straw went on television and claimed Margaret Hassan as being British, it was quite chilling, and her faith seemed sealed from that time forward. If you were touring Iraq, would you be claiming the British Isles as home. I would not think so. Really, with all due respects, who on Earth would want to be called British in such a troubled world. Scots, Welsh, English yes, but British, no. Look here at the Windward Islands, a bit of déjà vu [2]. MelForbes 21:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Did Margaret Hassan have Irish citizenship, I can't recall? I think she had dual British/Iraqi nationality. AS for the Windward Islands, the argument there is not the same as that being discussed here. Arcturus 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jack straw called Margaret Hassan "British" because she was a UK citizen, not because she was from the "British Isles". Martin 22:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Very very PC. They didn't help, did they? She came from near where I live. She was an Irish national. MelForbes 22:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

PC? How so? She was a UK citizen, so the UK government referred to her as "British". She was also born in Ireland, so the Irish government referred to her as "Irish". Neither description did her any good. Are you suggesting that if she had been solely referred to as "Irish", then her captors would have launched into a stirring rendition of "Danny Boy" before all getting drunk on Guinness and letting her go? She's dead because she was captured by murderous Iraqi militants, not because someone called her "British". Martin 22:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You are missing a very important extra-dimension here. For security reasons, Irish people would refrain from any association with the word British. Also, may I add , some very prominent British people travel on an Irish passport, and I will not name them here. MelForbes 22:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a time not so long ago when Irish wasn't a terribly trendy thing to be. Dara O'Briain has a very funny story about not being allowed to leave his bags behind the desk at a model railway exhibition in England; he was told "not with what your boys have been up to". Martin 22:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact people are now reverting to saying that being called British is something to be ashamed of only proves even more just how much hate for Britain there must be among editors here. Somethingoranother 22:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Look here Somethingoranother, I was born in Scotland, and after spending several years in the USA, I have lived 12 years here in Ireland. Hate is your word, and you have mentioned it before. You claim that the word British is not mentioned in the article. It's mentioned 20 times, are you on something?? MelForbes 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No Somethingoranother, the fact that one editor dislikes the term "British" does not mean that everyone who disagrees with you is an Anglophobe. Martin 22:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not on something, reading the messages left by people on the discussion page is more than enough to come to that conclusion. Somethingoranother 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics & Immigration

In the section on Demographics, what is the source for the figures on Immigration? The last offical census figures are from 2002 and the figures from the 2006 census dealing with this have, as far as I know, not been published. I ask, because the single largest group of immigrants in the RoI in the 2002 census was the British! This is not surprising given the geographic proximity, yet the section completely fails to mention them even though in 2002, they out-numbered the combined total of immigrants from every other EU state at the time. This is a serious ommission. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.125.103.69 (talk • contribs).

Yup, the British are the largest immigrants to RoI, and they are most welcome, like myself. That's the way it has been for a long time, nothing new here. Oliver Reed, Andrew Lloyd Weber, Fergie etc, we love them all. Cool. In fact, everyone is Irish, once one sleeps here!!!!!!!!MelForbes 03:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Are British people regarded as "immigrants"? Surely one has to be an alien in order to be an immigrant, and the British are not regarded as aliens in the RoI (just as people from the RoI are not aliens in Britain). Perhaps I am drawing distinctions where none exist. Martin 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Immigrants only for census purposes; same as the census tracks movement between counties within R0I. And, for example, RoI regards all NI people as citizens of Ireland yet counts them as 'immigrants' if they move south. Other than that, as there is a common travel area I don't know of any difference in legal terms between a 'native' and say, someone from England. (Sarah777 17:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

The British are most welcome, as long as they don't attempt to claim part of our country as being their own. Can they manage it? 89.100.195.42 20:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

*yawn* I think you'll find that the British government has legislated that the status of NI is solely a matter for the people of Ireland to decide. Martin 21:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think that the length of this discussion makes it a pretty good candidate for a paragraph in the main article, right at the top, I'm born and bred Irish and I’ll never leave the country I love, but I can accept that 10 out of 10 geographers will tell you that Ireland is the second largest island of the British Isles. This doesn’t make us British, and most a proud Irishman will say we never were, but that does not change the geography my fine Irish brethren. Just to sum up, I think that the description of its location should be something along the lines of, "The second largest of the British Isles, located to the central west of Europe" and that this entire identity crisis... because that’s what it is my brethren, should be added as a point in the article.

Ferdiaob 14:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

With all this talk of "Brethren" the bemused side in me wants to know one thing: are you in the Orange Order, or were you the antihero in Clockwork Orange? As for "length of discussion", a visit over to British Isles will evidently shock you on that front. At any rate, the relevance of a few rightwing British/WASP geographers, with all the prejudices and nationalism of that culture- what? You thought they had no politics/ were impartial commentators on that elusive concept "fact"?- to the self-definition of the Irish people is what, precisely? The "British Isles" is a non-runner: there is no more political definition than it. And kindly don't bother answering until you read books like Brian Friel's Translations or Edward Said's Orientalism, both of which directly address the immense politicisation which the coloniser attaches to placenames. Open your mind to something other than British imperialist takes on the world we live in. The British do not tell us who we are and where we live anymore. By popular choice in Ireland, those days are long gone. Get used to it. 89.100.195.42 14:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

'Yawn' indeed, Martin. But a little part of that tale which you clearly, and unfortunately, are most unaware of is where your British heroes of democracy refuse to let a majority in the pre-partition unit of Ireland decide, but rather have their own little rigged statelet in the northeast of Ireland maintaining a veto on the majority wishes in Ireland. It is most, most depressing that you are clearly unaware of this important qualification. Please try and think a bit for yourself before your next finely fed post from the establishment. 89.100.195.42 14:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, no I'm not in the Orange Order, I was born in Wexford and live in the far south to this day. As for your books on imperialism, read a geography book, you call me close minded, don’t worry, the kettle is aware of the pots opinion on this.--Ferdia O'Brien 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That anonymous editor 89.100.195.42 reminds me of an old relative of mine from Drogheda. My dad met her some time in the 1970s. They had never met before, but apparently within five minutes of their introduction she was in tears as she related how the "terrible British" had massacred "all those poor children" .... wait for it .... during the Battle of the Boyne! I've been taken to task on this page before for the use of certain words, but I make no apology now for re-using one of them - bigotry; that's what we've got from 89.100... Arcturus 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, Isn't it nice that someone shed a tear. There was no-one left alive way back then in Drogheda to shed a tear. 86.42.160.47 01:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't see any bigotry in the anonymous's comments. Look how minorities in various ex-Soviet (Russians in Estonia for example) and ex-Yougoslav states were incorporated into the newly independent entities. In the case of Serbia the Serbs who wanted independence in Croatia (Krajina) and in Bosnia - and today in Kosova - are basically being told to put up - or else. By the UK! When Ireland gained independence why the different rule? Why can't the North of Kosova be partioned from the independent state of Kosova that "the west" is proposing, just as the Unionists in the Northeast of Ireland were? Don't dismiss legitimate political perspective as "bigotry". (Sarah777 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Thanks 89.100.195.42, but as a Roman Catholic from NI, I'm more than educated about what my "British heroes of democracy" (lol!) have been up to. As I regrettably don't have any access to a time machine, I'm forced to accept that this is in the past and that we in the present have to deal with the fallout. Moaning about British imperialism might be a diverting way to pass the time, but it's not much of a solution for anything. Martin 23:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin: The fact that you define yourself in sectarian terms as a "Roman (sic) Catholic" from "NI"(sic) , says more than enough about your very unmodern, unEuropean political leanings. I'm an Irishman, and I'm from Ireland. 89.100.195.42 00:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Arcturus: As you clearly, and sadly, have neither the wit, intellect nor knowledge to deny that the nomenclature "British Isles" is representative of a profoundly political British imperialist view of Ireland and that the British state overthrew democracy in Ireland in December 1920 in order to create "Northern Ireland", your reversion to accusations of "bigotry" consistently appears as your in-built response to any questioning of your own prejudices, and those of your rather unfriendly tribe. Please try and evolve beyond your little Britannia rules the waves mentality. The British Empire, like lynching in the Deep South, is dead and the "British Isles", like "Nigger" and many other words and terms in the dichotomy of dominance-servitude, is no longer acceptable. All languages are constantly evolving. Your hostility to progress will not stop it. This is reality. 89.100.195.42 00:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

erm...well, I'm a Catholic from Northern Ireland. I'm pretty sure it says nothing about my level of sectarianism, or how modern or European my "political leanings" are. But I'm also an Irishman from Ireland, so I guess we have something in common. Martin 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

czech.mate (czech.mate@email.cz); 20.3.2007: Sorry, this is my first post, so I am not so sure, how to do it. I want to react on "immigrants from the Czech Republic" in the sentence: "Since joining the EU in 2004, Polish people have been the largest source of immigrants (over 180,000) from Central Europe, followed by other migrants from Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Latvia." As I am from the Czech Republic working for a public organisation I have some knowledge of that. On the official web-site http://www.welfare.ie/topics/ppsn/ppsstat.html you can find how many people from European countries has got PPS in ROI. There are many more people from other countries (apart from people from Central Europe such as Slovakians also "1st class people" from countries such as France, Germany, Spain, ...) in ROI than from the Czech Republic. Thanks for deleting the Czech Republic from that sentence. As it is misleading and not true. As there are clearly many more people from other countries. czech.mate (czech.mate@email.cz); 20.3.2007

[edit] First line of article

So what's it to be - Irleland is the second largest island in the British Isles - preferable, I think; Ireland is the third largest island in Europe, or maybe both statements. Whatever, the current version is wrong - unless of course the idea is now to deny the very existence of Great Britain; such a stance woudldn't surprise me. Arcturus 22:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

such a stance woudldn't surprise me? Need you always be searching to provoke others? IrishGuy ^talk 23:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain does indeed exist as much as it ever did: No doubting that. The problem for you, Arcturus, is that you, being a good British imperialist, want places beyond the Realm to be part of it. This is a problem of the British education system rather than of the world. Sorry about that. 89.100.195.42 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Arcturus is dispassionately applying a geographical term in a manner that some people passionately find offensive. You both just have a difference of opinion; stop trying to label people and show some good faith. Great Britain is named after the British Isles, not the other way around. This is a fact. However, many people in Ireland find the term "British Isles" denotes British ownership of Ireland, and so they dislike the term. This is also a fact. It is not up to Wikipedia to promote one term over the other, and Arcturus's imperialism (or lack thereof) is entirely irrelevant. Martin 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I would think that saying Arcturus is arguing "dispassionately" would require one to ignore all his past comments such as [3] and [4]. Calling others "stupid" and "bigots" is not in any way being "dispassionate". IrishGuy ^talk 01:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me; I am not saying Arcturus is "arguing dispassionately". I am saying that one "side" see British Isles as a purely geographical term with no political connotations, and the other "side" see the term as being politically loaded. This is where the difference of opinion lies, and it is quite possible to take a different view of the matter without being imperialistic (or indeed, a bigot). A good helping of good faith is needed all round.

Arcturus also raises a good point, which all this bickering has unhelpfully glossed over: Iceland is part of Europe and is 20,000 km² bigger than Ireland. This makes Ireland the third largest island in Europe, not the second (as the article currently states). Martin 04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed. This could have been done 18 hours ago when it was first brought to people's attention. However, I see some people are more interested in baiting and others in rising to it to do anything useful around here. --sony-youth^talk 15:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copeland Bird Observatory

I think the CBO should be included here - somewhere. It is a large and inportant Bird Observatory ringing birds, such as Manx Shearwaters (Puffinus puffinus) which have long lives and real seabirds which travel to the south Atlantic every year. An internationally important observatory. Osborne 11:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Osborne. If the CBO is important in the general context of flora/fauna/etc of the island, then please write a sentence or two on it in the relevant section. As you know, Wikipedia is not a link farm and putting in a link on it's own with no context or reference as to why it's important is not appropriate per the external links guidelines. (In short. If it's important, don't just put a link - write about it!) Guliolopez 12:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. If the CBO is internationally important, you may want to consider creating an article for the CBO (as Rotamah Island Bird Observatory or Bardsey Bird and Field Observatory) and linking from Bird observatory - Observatories in Britain and Ireland. As noted, just adding links isn't what the Wikipedia is about. Guliolopez 12:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames

I removed the nicknames part of the politics section, and have been removing Gareth Cash for a while now (apologies), nicknames are irrelevent, most of the people in my hometown call Germany "Beerfest", no matter how many of us there are it still doesnt deserve to be in the Germany artical. If its so important to include in Wikipedia, then make a page for Nicknames Of The Republic of Ireland & Northern Ireland and include a link in the respecive articles. --Ferdia O'Brien 13:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that noting these names is too out of the way. In fact they could be useful for readers of this article to know about. They are definitely not the name as calling Germany "Beefest" (whatever town has a majority of people calling it such). Describing the two states as the "North" and the "South" is as common on RTÉ and BBC NI, or in Leinster House and Stormont, as it is colloquially. They are not nicknames ("a short, clever, cute, derogatory, or otherwise substitute name"), but euphemisms ("an expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling to the listener than the word or phrase it replaces"). --sony-youth^talk 18:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a "nomenclature" paragraph immediately after the bullet points in the politics section. --sony-youth^talk 19:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no issue with adding it to the paragraph below, but the old layout looked completely out of place.--Ferdia O'Brien 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the term "Republic of Ireland" a nickname and it's actually used as the official Wiki title of the article about the state called Ireland? Which must make Ireland the only state on English Wiki that isn't given the respect of having its Official Constitutional name (also the name the vast majority of its inhabitants prefer) in the title of the article about it.

Frankly I'm sick of this. It isn't a matter of debate or Wiki voters - it is a matter of FACT. This vast thread above has not produced a single valid argument that Ireland is not legal name of the state referred to in Wiki by the nickname RoI".

I move to change the name the article about Ireland (the state) to "Ireland". To avoid confusion the article about the island can be call "The Island of Ireland" or "Ireland, the Island". Northern Ireland can keep the name it has in British Law.

It is time to end this nonsense where Wikipedians who, in the main, are not citizens or residents of Ireland are imposing a nickname on our country. Enough. (Sarah777 19:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

"It is a matter of FACT" - that's not relevant in this article. Try stating that "Ireland is the second largest of the British Isles". That's a matter of FACT, but it's forbidden in this article. Arcturus 21:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, as I previously wrote on the Republic of Ireland talk page, very few states have articles headed by their constitutional name in Wikipedia e.g. United Kingdom is the title of the article about the state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France is the title of the article about the state called the French Republic, Germany is the title of the article about the state called the Federal Republic of Germany, Poland, the Republic of Poland, Italy, the Italian Republic, etc. etc. Away from Europe, the article on the United States of America, is titled United States. The state called Nippon is filed under Japan. The Commonwealth of Australia of described in the article entitled Australia. The Federal Republic of Nigeria is in the article called Nigeria etc. etc. Articles about states for which the title of the article is the same as the name of the state are by far in the minority, one example among few is New Zealand.

The Republic of Ireland is not a nickname. Please consult a dictionary before calling it such. It is an officially recognised identifier for the state called Ireland and is the simplest officially recognised means to differ the island from the state. Calling the state the Republic of Ireland, not by name but by description, is correct and internationally understood. It come also with the happy coincidence that it makes it a clear disctinction between the sate called Ireland, the island, Ireland (which takes precedence as it is the originator of the name) and Northern Ireland.

Incidentally, I am a citizen of Ireland and I invite other nationals to enter into this debate. Wikipedia is an international resource. We are writing about Ireland for an international audience. The perspective of international contributors is welcomed and invaluable to our task.

--sony-youth^talk 21:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Republic of Ireland" is not a nickname, it is a legal "description" enacted by Dáil Éireann in 1949, with the Republic of Ireland Act. --Red King 22:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The current state of affairs is an elegant solution. "Ireland" can refer to the island or the state, but "The Republic of Ireland" clearly only refers to the state. Using "Ireland" for the state is not only ambiguous, but would leave us with an awkward title for the article about the island. The fact is that there are two entities commonly called "Ireland"; when one of those entities has a widely used and understood alternative title, it should be used by us to distinguish the articles from one another. Martin 00:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. Nobody in this country, when asked, will say that. They will always say Ireland. However, Republic of Ireland, as has been pointed out, is the correct official name for the State, despite what anyone might like it to be called. Despite what anyone might think, we do not live on a unified island, either. Wake up.

To Arcturus, your comment is fairly shortsighted. It is a comment that reflects the attitude that spelled the end of the British Empire - the 'We are right, and nobody else is entitled to a point of view' attitude. The fact that you can't see that use of the term 'British Isles' could be inflammatory is displaying ignorance to semantics and the power of words. Think about the connotations the word 'British' has, even now, for a great many Irish people. Just because 'British Isles' is how some people (nobody in the Republic of Ireland, I might add) refers to this group of islands in western Europe, does not make it a statement of fact, it makes it a majority view. Which can easily be changed. Just in case you don't get it, some people might interpret 'British Isles' as belonging to Britain. That is where the objection arises. Terminolgy in this article must attempt, at least, to be agreeable to all parties involved, or as much as possible. As a Wikipedian, you must know of this - consensus. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Terminology in this article must attempt, at least, to be agreeable to all parties involved, or as much as possible. No - it should first and foremost reflect what's used in the real world; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, there to deliver facts, however unpalatable some people might find them.

nobody in the Republic of Ireland, I might add) a bold assumption indeed.

Why must some Irish people continuously harp on about the British Empire and the like? For your information, here in Britain, nearly everyone couldn't care less about it. It's history - if you didn't already know. Forget the past and drag yourselves into the 21st century. Arcturus 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's history, why insist on continuing to call these isles British? What exactly is British about them? If it is a fact that these Isles are called British, a citation is in order.

Think about this - the turn of the 21st century was the the first in eight that Ireland has been free of British rule. We harp on about it because we, as any nation that has experienced the unjust occupation and stifling of culture and rights by force, will never forget, so as not ever to go back.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 22:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well until you do forget, or at least consign the issue to history, the ROI will never truly be part of the modern world. Arcturus 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"but would leave us with an awkward title for the article about the island." - Martin. So instead we have an awkward and incorrect title for Ireland the state?

Dr G, while I agree with your comments to Arcturus on arrogant British attitudes, you are wrong in this:

"However, Republic of Ireland, as has been pointed out, is the correct official name for the State".

The OFFICIAL name of the state, as per the Constitution, in the English language, is 'Ireland'. Let us please at least be clear about THAT before confusing this argument. Check out the RoI 'talk' page, where both sides of the argument agree on this and have moved on to more disputable matters. (Sarah777 07:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

As I have pointed out before, there are two entities called "Ireland", so we have to make a clear distinction between the two. The state's official description is "The Republic of Ireland", so using this for the state makes a clear distinction between the two meanings of "Ireland". It is in no way awkward or inaccurate. Rather, it is succinct and widely used and understood. No one will be in any confusion as to what "The Republic of Ireland" means. Martin 18:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My point was that RoI is not "the correct official name for the State". IRELAND is. Everyone understands what "the South" or the "26 counties" means as well. Disambiguation is a separate issue. The Constitution is utterly clear and unambiguous on the OFFICIAL name of the state. As I have pointed out before. (Sarah777 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

I was not aware that there was a separate RoI article :).The official name for the state is a moot point. De Valera and Co drafted the constitution to include all 32 counties in the entity called Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is what was established in 1949, still retaining the 32 county ideal, and as opposed to the Irish Free State. However, the Republic of Ireland is, and should be (esp. in light of recent agreements about changes to articles 2 and 3 of the constitution) used to delineate the 26 from the rest of Ireland. No matter how much De Valera wanted, the 6 counties were, are and likely to remain for the near future separate to the rest.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 21:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unluckily for us, de Valera & co didn't consider the organisation of Wikipedia when they drafted the constitution. Disambiguation is the ONLY issue. If there was not an island called Ireland, then the Republic of Ireland article could just be called Ireland, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact that Ireland is the state's official name does not trump all other factors. Aside from any organisational considerations, the island has a longer human history by several thousand years, and also has a larger population than the state, so it should take precedence. States are transitory things, but islands (at least in human terms) are not. Pick a random person off the street and ask them to draw a map of Ireland, and then tell me what they draw. Martin 02:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What about Krakatoa. You are fundamentally wrong Martin. 86.42.166.50 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for interest the Google test shows this: "Ireland island" 137 million (some of which are in Bermuda), "Ireland republic" 230 million. Having said that, I am inclined to support the status quo for all the reasons put by Martin just above. Abtract 17:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I fail to see how the Krakatoa article shows that I am "fundamentally wrong". Martin 22:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding any of the forgoing from Dr G and Martin, or the intentions of Dev, or the context of the 1937, or the removal of Articles 2 and 3 in the GFA, the OFFICIAL name of Ireland remains Ireland. If you decide to try and wish that away then I wish to state that I recognise NO British Law or terminology in relation to Ireland, the border, the GFA or anything else. We either stick to the CURRENT legal situation or we have open season on all terminology. (Sarah777 23:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

Who is trying to impose British law and terminology? Ireland is indeed the name of the Irish state, but it is also the name of the island the RoI and NI are on. It has been the island's "official" name (in as much as geographical features have official names) for hundreds of years. Just because the state shares its name with the island, it doesn't automatically mean that the "Ireland" article should be about the state. I'm very surprised that Sarah777 has what I would normally regard as a Unionist aversion to primarily associating the whole of the island of Ireland with the term "Ireland". I've met many Unionists who would agree with Sarah that "Ireland" should be about the state, because "Northern Ireland is British, not Irish". I've never encountered it from anyone south of the border before. Martin 01:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of you are correct. Ireland, the nation should not redirect to Republic of Ireland. It should link to Ireland (Nation). Linking to Republic of Ireland, is really confusing some people. And that is fact, for I have been told so by 2 other "foreign" editors. Republic of Ireland is only a description, and should not be used in place of the Correct name. The correct name is Ireland, and since that is taken, then Ireland (nation), will do nicely. 86.42.166.50 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a remark here: whether or not the "nation" of Ireland corresponds to the state called Ireland, the island of Ireland, or whatever, is also controversial. There's definitely a state of Ireland, though, so Ireland (state) should, and does, exist as a redirect to whereever the article about the state known to itself as Ireland will end up at. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RandomP (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

And then there are some real quality Wikipedians, and that's why this place survives. 86.42.166.50 02:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to go as far as renaming the Republic of Ireland article; the meaning is self-evident, and I'm at a loss as to how someone could be confused by it. Martin 13:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How fortunate you are to have such clarity of understanding. The confusion in my memory was between NI, ROI and Ireland. I do believe that it would be more clear to have; Ireland (State), etc etc. official description ROI etc etc. As far as my memory serves me the editor, thought, after reading WP, that there was no nation called Ireland, and got very puzzled indeed. DSTM. 86.42.166.50 15:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think clarity of understanding comes into it. The Ireland article states that it is about the island, and for the state, the reader should see Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland article states that the state's official name is Ireland. I don't know how someone could think that there is no state called Ireland, when it is mentioned in the first few words on both Ireland and Republic of Ireland. Martin 21:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is totally ridiculous for an encyclopedia to reference a nation by any other title than it's official title. All very amateurish. If that's to be the standard, so be it. It wouldn't be mine. 86.42.166.50 22:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above by Sony-youth: "United Kingdom is the title of the article about the state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France is the title of the article about the state called the French Republic, Germany is the title of the article about the state called the Federal Republic of Germany, Poland, the Republic of Poland, Italy, the Italian Republic, etc. etc. Away from Europe, the article on the United States of America, is titled United States. The state called Nippon is filed under Japan. The Commonwealth of Australia of described in the article entitled Australia. The Federal Republic of Nigeria is in the article called Nigeria etc."

A state's official name is of course an important factor in naming articles, but it is not the only factor. There is a long discussion about this at the Republic of Ireland's talk page; if you're interested, I suggest you check it out. Martin 01:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You have done a remarkable piece here, and I have turned all the subjects into links. "United Kingdom is the title of the article about the state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France is the title of the article about the state called the French Republic, Germany is the title of the article about the state called the Federal Republic of Germany, Poland, the Republic of Poland, Italy, the Italian Republic, etc. etc. Away from Europe, the article on the United States of America, is titled United States. The state called Nippon is filed under Japan. The Commonwealth of Australia of described in the article entitled Australia. The Federal Republic of Nigeria is in the article called Nigeria etc." I notice the relevant articles are directed to the same page, ie French Republic to France etc. But Republic of Ireland does not redirect to Ireland, so the similarities fall flat on their faces here. 86.42.166.50 11:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ireland (state) redirects to Republic of Ireland. As you can imagine, many of our cousins north of the border would be very unhappy if Ireland redirected to Republic of Ireland or the other way around, whereas I cannot think of many who would object to French Republic redirecting to France (even given that some seperatists would object to being included in either the French Republic or France). --sony-youth^talk 13:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I was merely using Sony-youth's examples to show that it is by no means unusual or indeed undesirable, for an article about a country to have a different name than that its official one. Martin 13:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. So Cuba cannot call itself Cuba for fear of upsetting the Americans in Guantánamo Bay. Oh dear, I'm wrong again! The tail wagging the dog. 86.42.184.231 13:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. --sony-youth^talk 13:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Could someone who has done it before make an archive of some of the dead discussions on this page?

Id make a run at it myself but with a talk page this active i wouldnt want any mistakes made.--Ferdia O'Brien 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Done! :-) - Alison^✍ 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] de jure

The use of the phrase "de jure" seems a little pompous and difficult to understand (to many people). I think WP style recommends such phrases not be used ... "for instance" being preferred to "e.g." and so on ... there must be an English substitute we can use, maybe "legal"? Abtract 10:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the WP style recommendation, but I don't think there's an excuse to use "de jure" unless "de facto" is also used (which would enable most readers to understand the term from context). I think that "official flag" is the proper term, anyway, though I've just given it a shot by reducing the captions to describing what's in the image (it's redundant with the rest of the text anyway). RandomP 10:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. :) Abtract 12:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better indeed. to state that the Union Flag was the flag of Ireland 'de jure' is unnecessary pov. (Sarah777 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Irish flag

Enthusiasts of the Irish flag - please go to Talk:Green and see the relevant comment (end of talk page). Is my assumption correct? Thanks, Arcturus 20:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? I don't get it. 86.42.166.50 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left a comment over there. As far as I know, you are correct in your assumption. Martin 14:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this version of the flag the one with true colours? It looks more like the real thing than the one currently in the article. Arcturus 19:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The green should be PMS 347, and the orange should be PMS 151.[5] The one currently in the article looks to be a better match to me, though monitor calibration is obviously an issue when comparing colours. Martin 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name "Ireland"

In the interest of shortening this a bit, and actually moving it into a section that's recognisable on the talk page:

There is a move to change the current naming setup for the articles concerning "Ireland", which is:

• Ireland is an article about the island
• Republic of Ireland is an article about the state
• Ireland (island) redirects to Ireland
• Ireland (state) redirects to Republic of Ireland
• there is a disambiguation note on Ireland, which also links to Ireland (disambiguation), a long list of uses of the term.

Arguments against the current setup include:

• Republic of Ireland is a derogatory nickname (is this one still upheld, what with references to the Republic of Ireland Act?)
• Republic of Ireland is awkward. This is dispute.
• Republic of Ireland is not used in Ireland (state), and is thus not an acceptable endonym (Is this disputed?)
• Ireland is more commonly used to refer to Ireland (state) than to refer to Ireland (island) (Is this disputed?)
• The official name of Ireland (state) is Ireland, and should be used in the article title

Arguments for the current setup:

• There is no good article title for an article about the island (Is this disputed?)
• The island encompasses the state, and should thus take precedence
• Using "Ireland" for an article about the state would upset those living in Northern Ireland.

As far as I can see, the main question is what the article name "Ireland" should be used for, with three options that I can see:

• the state
• the island
• disambiguation

The secondary issue is, having used "Ireland" as article title for the state/the island, what should the article about the island/the state be called? If "Ireland" is used for disambiguation, both questions need to be answered.

I would suggest that the decision on the main question is made first, and with as little reference to the secondary naming issue(s) as possible.

Furthermore, I'd suggest people share not just their "favourite" of the three main options, but disclose their full preference order by also saying which is their second favourite option (and thus, which one they dislike most), or indicate where two options are equally preferred (mathematical notation, say island > state > disambig, or state = disambig > island, should work fine for this). That way, we can also judge whether disambiguation might be everyone's second choice.

RandomP 15:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it appears no one's following the second suggestion, so I might as well make a third: "status quo" is not a good way to express your opinion — not only does it read like you prefer the status quo because it is the status quo, it will also make the archives somewhat harder to read if that status quo ever changes. RandomP 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions

My preference would be this. Have a page for Ireland, with just 2 options. Option (1)Ireland the Island. Option (2)Ireland the Nation. This page would not be a disambiguation page. It would only have 2 forks. 86.42.142.195 13:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Status quo. --sony-youth^talk 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Preference is for: "Ireland" to be article about the island. "Republic of Ireland" to be an article about the state. "Ireland (disambig)" to be disambig article. (IE: Status quo). Guliolopez 19:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC) (I have been following these arguments for several weeks, and, while I have not contributed (being somewhat jaded after involvement in the "Cork", "LondonDerry", "British Isles", and similar discussions), and while I understand the arguments for a change, I don't think a "move" should occur. A tidy-up of the intro passage for the article named "Republic of Ireland" may be in order, but a move will cause more problems than it will solve. Guliolopez)

Clarification: "Status quo" here means that the island of Ireland is discussed in the article called located at Ireland, the state called Ireland is discussed in the article located at Republic of Ireland, the portion of the United Kingdom sharing part of the island of Ireland is discussed in the article located at Northern Ireland, and these and other uses and meanings are pointed to from a disambiguation page located at Ireland (disambiguation). The article describing the island is headed with text to the following effect: "This article is about the island of Ireland. For the state of the same name, see Republic of Ireland. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation)."

Reasons for keeping the status quo include that this nomenclature is widely understood, . Each article title accurately describes the entities described within their respective articles without the need for clumsy clarifiers in parentheses or disambiguation pages. --sony-youth^talk 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ireland (island) and Ireland (country) is not especially clumsy; certainly Ireland (country) is less clumsy than (The Republic of Ireland) - which is neither the Official name of the country nor the name most inhabitants would prefer to use. "clear and non-partisan" - you joke! If it is 'non-partisan' why are we debating the issue a year later?!! (Sarah777 10:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

btw, I vote for Ireland redirecting to a choice of Ireland (the island) or Ireland (the country). The status quo nonsense only means we will still be disputing this a year from now.(Sarah777 10:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Discussion

Succincly put. My opinion is that we should try to look at this as though we were creating pages from scratch in which case we would conclude as follows;

• Ireland is the name of the island
• Ireland and Eire are the names of the state in Irish and English
• This is the English language encyclopedia
• Ireland is used commonly to mean both the state and the island, therefore we need a disambiguation page
• Since one meaning is not clearly the main meaning, the disambiguation page should be named Ireland
• Since Ireland has been allocated for disambiguation, the articles need to be called Ireland (state) and Ireland (island)

That is my suggestion.Abtract 17:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a preference between "Ireland" being an article about the state or about the island, or are those two options equally bad for you? RandomP 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How many times must we do this? People are still going to vote the same way. How about getting some evidience? When someone types Ireland into the Wikipedia what do they expect to see? The island or a state occupying part of the island? We don't need a disambiguation page. We already have two very understandable terms: Ireland, signifying Ireland, and Republic of Ireland, signifying a state called Ireland occupying a part of Ireland. --sony-youth^talk 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

About once a year, I'd say ;). Evidence would be great, do you have any? How many articles link to Ireland when they should link to Republic of Ireland, for example? (And be honest about this - where a present-day geographic location is described, the state is overwhelmingly what's meant).

I think your preferences are island > disambig > state, then? RandomP 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

..."Ireland and Eire are the names of the state in Irish and English", would that not be "Ireland and Éire are the names of the state in English and Irish respectively"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djegan (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

..."Republic of Ireland is a derogatory nickname (is this one still upheld, what with references to the Republic of Ireland Act?)" -- I think you might be thinking of Irish Republic? This whole business (and yes it is quite literally a business, or at least a growth-industry) of having polls and moving things around is very badly though out because beyond a few hardline Irish republicans very few Irish wikipedians really care or want to get involved in the disruption of a move. This issue has been discussed and polled at lenght before. Djegan 17:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense DJ. If it was only 'hardline Eepublicans' interested then the name would obviously have changed from RoI a year ago! Clearly there are people determined to maintain the offensive 'status quo'. So they are, what? Hardline anti-Republicans (who want to keep 'Republic' in the article title!!)? Less characterisation of the opposition and more focus on the argument please. Otherwise this may get abusive. I've already taken several abusive attacks here despite only having got involved in the past few weeks. So someone other than 'Hardline Republicans' (whatever they are) seems to care rather a lot. (Sarah777 11:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

It was said in the discussion above, and I'm not sure whether anyone still considers it a derogatory nickname, or whether we've built consensus, at least, that it's not. Whether or not "let's stay with the current setup because changing things would require effort" is a good argument might also be worth thinking about. RandomP 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --sony-youth^talk 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't around when it was discussed before. The only people whom I ever hear call (Sovereign) Ireland by the "description" ROI, are FIFA and British media. The FIFA thing was a compromise, to avoid an all out "war". And we know that the British, generally, always had a prob with Ireland, ROI, Eire, or whatever, and engaged in an economic war to destroy Ireland after its independence. Enough! 86.42.184.231 18:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No. --sony-youth^talk 19:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Republic of Ireland" is in no way a nickname or in any way derogatory; the Republic of Ireland Act states "that the description of the state shall be the Republic of Ireland". Ireland is referred to as the Republic of Ireland widely both in Ireland and abroad. A quick Google search reveals 1,550,000 hits[6], and the term is used to refer to the state by such wide ranging organisations as The General Register Office, Tourism Ireland, The Bank of Ireland, The Republic of Ireland Billiards and Snooker Association, The Republic of Ireland Taekwon-Do Association, The Republic of Ireland Bodybuilding Federation, The Irish Embassy in Washington, The Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland, The Meningitis Trust, The Apple Store, Scripture Union, UCD Racing, The Cistercian Monks of Bolton Abbey, etc, etc, etc. I could go on and on. In "Republic of Ireland" we have a ready made disambiguation term which is already widely used and understood. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone referring to the RoI as "Ireland (state)". Martin 19:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sony-youth.And it's clear the way it is now. Dermo69 18:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everyone here. It's just a technically wrong nomenclature. Opinion shouldn't count. The Taekwon-Do Association? Good grief! 86.42.184.231 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Taekwon-Do association? Are they not Irish enough or something? You said that the only people who used the term "Republic of Ireland" are FIFA and the British media. I was merely demonstrating that you are incorrect as it is used by the Irish government, various groups within Ireland, and it is enshrined in Irish law. The list above of 13 or so pages comes from the first 150 hits of the one and a half million that Google throws up. You're quite right though, opinion shouldn't count. The island has used the name longer than the state has, and it also has a larger population; thus, it takes precedence. If you change the RoI article to "Ireland", then we have to have "technically wrong nomenclature" for the article about the island, so I fail to see how your proposed course of action is an improvement. Martin 00:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Its a difficult one but as a simple test, assuming you are Irish - when you are abroad if some asks you where are you from what do you reply (no jokes please!)--Vintagekits 00:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ireland! Of course, and with my hand on my heart I never referred to my country by any other name, that is, unless I am speaking as Gaeilge. 86.42.184.231<>/font 00:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with 8642184231. If asked; always reply simply 'Ireland'. If asked "What part of Ireland?" - reply Dublin. If asked North or South? - reply 'South'. RoI never mentioned. "Ireland (Island)" and "Ireland (Country)" would be technically correct AND less offensive than Ireland and RoI. But it appears political pov is trumping factual correctness in this case. (Sarah777 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

There is no simple test. Many (though certainly not all) people from Northern Ireland would also say "Ireland" if they were abroad and asked where they are from. Nobody is claiming that your average Ireland (state) resident walks about in casual conversation referring to "the Republic of Ireland." Why would they? Its about disambiguating with Northern Ireland. When issues that relate to both jurisdictions, or when Northern Ireland issues of which the Irish state/govt has a concern, are being discussed THAT is when 'Republic of Ireland' is used. Sure, in casual conversation a phrase such as "the South" is quite common, but that doesn't negate the use of RoI. RoI's shorthand, "the Republic" is also common. And, RoI is not a British term. It was a label created by Irish people through Irish legislation as an assertion of Irish independence, and it is used commonly by Irish sources. Nuclare 15:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to know who is pushing the pov sometimes, and at other times I am very surprised to observe what some "Irish" Wikipedians will tolerate as being perfectly good. Maybe I have read too much, for too long, and I absolutely have no time for pov. Fact is fact, and opinions just don't count. ROI, is factually wrong, and as V & S point out, "Who calls it that, anyway?" 86.42.184.231 02:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point; the issue is not what Ireland is called. The issue is that there are two entities called "Ireland". For both technical and navigational issues, we cannot have two articles with the same name. Therefore, one of the articles will have to have a title that does not match its official name. "The Republic of Ireland" is the state's official description, adopted as part of the Republic of Ireland Act by the Oireachtas in order to signify that Ireland no longer had a British head of state, and that it was no longer part of the British Commonwealth. As the state has an alternative title, which is widely used and understood both domestically and internationally, it makes sense to use this to distinguish between the two entities called "Ireland".

There is no political POV being expressed by calling Ireland "The Republic of Ireland", other than the factual point of view that Ireland is no longer a British dominion. I find it completely baffling that a title chosen to explicitly signify the end of British rule in Ireland is being portrayed as some kind of pro-British imperialistic POV nickname. Before now, I'd never met an Irish person who found Ireland's independence from the UK offensive. Martin 03:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin, are you trying to wind me up. Well, I am too mature for that. I never said that I find ROI offensive. My only objection is that the name of Sovereign Ireland, is Ireland, and is not ROI. And that is a fact, it's not a point of view. I know full well that many Unionist WP editors would object completely to my stance on this subject, and that would be for political reasons, and I am very sensitive to those objections too. The name is 'not the Republic of Ireland, and that is pure and simply a fact. But as I said earlier, it's not about opinions, it's about facts. 86.42.184.231 03:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Little old me, wind somebody up? :) Actually, my reply was mostly to Sarah777, though you did voice above your opinion that RoI is a term used by the British who "always had a prob with Ireland". Once again you are ignoring the real issue, and that is that while it is a fact that the Irish state is called "Ireland", it is also a fact that the island it is part of is also called "Ireland". No one is disputing that the state is called Ireland. We have to find a way to disambiguate between the two Irelands; the state and the island. The object of an article's title is not to give a completely authoritative statement as to what a country is called; it is to present information in a readily accessible way.

btw, given that you're up at quarter to four, I see you seem to sleep as much as I do - I'm glad we have something in common! Why not register for an account if you're going to be sticking around? Martin 04:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have an account, but the password evades me, maybe I'll try some more combinations. You quote me "though you did voice above your opinion that RoI is a term used by the British who "always had a prob with Ireland" ", well that is true. It's not an opinion, and it does not imply any other meaning than what is actually written. There is no hidden implication there. Maybe Ireland should be the disambiguation page, with just Ireland the Island and Ireland the Nation, included on that page. 86.42.142.195 12:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but that raises other problems. How big is the Irish nation? Is it the 26 counties or the 32? The Irish government seems to think that it is a bit of both, and there are valid arguments for and against both assertions. This whole thing was discussed in detail almost exactly a year ago here. The vote ended up being 66% in favour of keeping things as they are, and nothing has changed since then; the island is still called Ireland, the state is still called Ireland, with the official description of the Republic of Ireland, and as far as I'm aware there are no new Wikipedia policies saying that a state's official name has to be the exact title of an article. I think our energies would be best put into improving the article, rather than flogging this dead horse. Martin 16:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I still demur from the WP format. All the world knows Sovereign Ireland as Ireland, which is totally and undilutedly correct. Then WP comes along and renames the nation of Ireland, to a name that is not it's name. Got it? The reason why France, Italy, Germany etc are called those names, is because all the world knows them as such. 86.42.142.195 17:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I can totally understand your objection and I agree with the thrust of what you are saying. But, as I have pointed out before, there are two entities called Ireland, and we must make the distinction between them. The current setup is the easiest way of doing that. If you feel strongly about it, by all means take it to the streets and try and get some sort of policy whereby articles on countries are only titled with their official names as sanctioned in their constitutions. But, this is certainly not the place for that. Martin 17:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"The current way is the easiest wasy of doing that" ... I think not, the easiest way, as suggested above, is along these lines:

• Ireland is the name of the island
• Ireland is the name of the state (Eire in Irish, but this is the English WP)
• Ireland is used commonly to mean both the state and the island, therefore we need a disambiguation page
• Since one meaning is not clearly the main meaning, the disambiguation page should be named Ireland (the common factor)
• Since Ireland has been allocated for disambiguation, the articles need to be called Ireland (state) and Ireland (island)

Abtract 18:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Abtract, I agree with your analysis. WP shouldn't change traditional or historical nomenclature for expediency purposes alone. I believe a vote should be taken on this issue. If Ireland must stay with the Island, and there is a case for that too, ROI should then redirect to Ireland (State), and not the other way around. 86.42.142.195 18:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But in "Republic of Ireland" we already have a ready made, widely used and understood disambiguation for the state. A vote has already been taken here. It was decided overwhelmingly to keep things as they are. Martin 18:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish someone had mentioned that earlier; it would have saved a lot of time :)Abtract 23:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki cannot hold unverifiable 'votes' to alter the Official name of a country! This situation is not acceptable in the longer term; Ireland (island) and Ireland (country) is the ONLY accurate and acceptable solution. The title "RoI" is pure POV. And I have had to revert a bit of vandalism in this article where, yet again, certain editors attempt to insert the Union Jack as the primary flag into the article titled IRELAND. (Sarah777 10:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

OK. I vote for the solution outlined by Abstract (above) for the reasons stated. Ireland (state) is fine and I withdraw my alternative Ireland (country). (Sarah777 10:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Is Northern Ireland in Ireland? I remember some years ago having a debate about such, over high-dinner one evening with some "Northern" friends of mine. Well one strenuously denied that Northern Ireland was in Ireland and insisted that Northern Ireland was in Britain. After another glass of wine he compromised to his other "northern" friend that NI was in fact, in the British Isles. This debate, though unsatisfactory will I think go on.:)) Taramoon 01:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Again Sarah777, there is no policy on Wikipedia whereby calling an article something means that we are asserting that the title of the article is its official name. The voting was to decide what the article should be called; it was not to decide Ireland's name. After all, the state is in no way called "Ireland (state)", so by pushing for its renaming thus, you are nullifying your own argument. If you can accept that Ireland (state) is simply a means to differentiate between the two meanings of Ireland, and in no way embodies an attempt to change the country's name to "Ireland (state)", why can you not accept that calling it Republic of Ireland is a means to do so too? The only possible POV being asserted by calling the article the "Republic of Ireland", is that the state is no longer part of the British Commonwealth and no longer has a British head of state. Most Irish people seem to be quite happy about that; why do you consider its portrayal in this manner to be such a negative thing? Would you rather it was not a republic? I find it quite strange that even though the name "Ireland" is an anglicised version of the original, and thus has its roots in the British conquest of Ireland, the only English language name ever chosen by Irish people to describe the country - the Republic of Ireland - is being treated as though it was in some way anti-Irish. Irish men and women died so that the country could one day call itself a republic, so let's stop all this nonsense about it being POV. Martin 03:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

3==Re-open discussion== Aren't we missing a trick here?

• Ireland is the name of the state and the island in English
• Eire is the name of the state and the island in Irish - but it is used in English so wouldn't look out of place in the English WP

So why don't we use one for the article about the state (Eire) and one for the article about the island (Ireland)? Abtract 10:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Éire is already taken, in an article explaining the word. Even if it wasn't, I don't think it's suitable. From policy on naming conventions: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." I don't think that Éire is among the "most common name" for the state. The current set-up however would comply with the guidelines: Ireland causes a conflict between the island and the state, Republic of Ireland is the next most common name, thus Republic of Ireland is "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." --sony-youth^talk 15:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You speak authoratively but "most common"? not by the google test anyway - Eire gives 6.2 million hits but "republic of ireland" 1.6 million. And the fact that Eire is "taken" is of no account since we could easily move that to Eire (word) or somesuch. I restate my suggestion, with renewed authority after the Google test, we should move Republic of Ireland to Eire (having first moved Eire to Eire (word). Abtract 15:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Eire is an Irish word, it is not an English word (irrespective of incorrect usage) and this is the English wiki, and theirfore it is not acceptable. Just as it would not be correct to locate the article on the United Kingdom at its Anglo-Norman language translation because that latter language is used in the parliament of the United Kingdom. Lets get real. Djegan 16:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Being an Irish word matters little, if the word is in common usage in English; "Paris" is, after all, a French word. Abtract 17:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that everyone has a different preference. My one;

Ireland, for the nation

Ireland (island) for the island. Taramoon 17:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We tend to have this discussion about once every year. As soon as the editors who wanted last years change move on then this years cohort finally pluck up the courage for a new vote. The result; a lot of discussion that changes nothing but wastage of talk archive and talk page inflation. Djegan 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The simple reality is that on a cold sunday afternoon (or as per your locale) its easy to discuss what you might do, but when it actually comes to implementing the situation of a change of article name any serious wikipedian knows that "Republic of Ireland" is not the title of simply one article but rather of a rather greater quantity[7] and that their are rather better things to do, even in wikipedia.

Djegan 17:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point and thanks for not being too patronising about it. Abtract 17:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for reference, that rather intensive discussion previously, Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Poll:_Ireland_article_titles. Djegan 19:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

At least Eire would be better than RoI. There is an arrogance in DJ and Sony's dictation on this issue I find unacceptable. And I believe it is based on a political POV; just look how quick they have been to characterise opponents as "hard-line Republicans". And DJs "the result; a lot of discussion that changes nothing but wastage of talk archive and talk page inflation." If I am really a 'hard-line Republican' don't be so sure your position will win the next vote! After all, I wasn't involved in the earlier votes..... Less dictat and more compromise is the way forward. RoI can be EASILY changed and a redirect from other articles using that offensive name can be easily arranged, as you well know. (Sarah777 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

Eire is in the same league as Republic of Ireland, its imperfect. Eire is just the Irish for "Ireland", indeed this is not the Irish wikipedia. Many would find it unacceptable, it is not English and amongst many Irish it has negative cognitations. Has this become a move for the sake of a move? Djegan 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Its one thing filing the article on the state under the description of that state provided for law its another thing endorsing a fiasco that would become Eire. Education in Eire or Education in the Republic of Ireland? Take your pick. I know where I stand, as Desmond O'Malley said "I stand by the Republic". Djegan 19:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If people are serious about change then let them put their cards on the table, otherwise its time to move on. Excess discussion will solve nothing it seams. Either way it will be discussed in another twelve months. Djegan 19:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuck! I withdraw the Eire suggestion. See? I can COMPROMISE, again! (Sarah777 19:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

I think Ireland (Republic) would get over the aesthetic problems of Ireland (state). So Ireland disambig - Ireland (The Island) and Ireland (Republic) will do the trick. Ireland (Republic) gets over the suggestion that Ireland isn't really the name of the state. (Sarah777 19:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

I do understand where you and others are coming from, and if it was my decision "Ireland" would be the place for an article on the state (as it is the one of the least pov and the most accurate term for the state). However that is very unlikely to happen thus the compromise. Terms with parenthesis after them make me very uncomfortable. How do we deal with subarticles (Education in..., Economy of...)? Because their are places where these boundaries cross, between country and state, for instance Counties of Ireland and Culture of Ireland, and separation could be artificial and even detremental to articles. If we decide to use a term with parenthesis then we cannot believe that those issues will simply disappear. Djegan 20:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's actually not a bad suggestion at all Sarah, very creative, I'd back that. Deepsoulstarfish 19:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WP must be for the reader of these articles. Imagine folks who know virtually nothing about Ireland try to make sense of the opening paragraph (ROI page). It confuses me, and that something to ponder! ;)) Taramoon 20:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, how do we show in simple terms (but consistant, i.e. terms that are not confusing) for an article title, for instance that:

• Counties of Ireland, Culture of Ireland -- refer to the island?
• Education in Ireland, Economy of Ireland -- refer to the state?

Because if we use parenthesis as disambiguation then this is a real possibilty of a failure in a new or proposed scheme. Some articles will apply to the island others to the state (this is a reality and maybe very difficult to avoid), and that is why "Republic of Ireland" is an ideal disambigator, though imperfect]] because its usage with "Ireland" as the island does not look as artificial as Culture of Ireland (island) or Education in Ireland (state). Do people see where I am coming from? Djegan 20:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I see exactly what you are saying. But would that happen in practice. Like, once the state of Ireland was defined on the page Ireland (state). That would be it. All articles thereafter would be Education in Ireland, or Education in Northern Ireland. Honestly I cannot see the problem arising, once the state was defined. There would be no need to use the tag after that. Taramoon 20:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to be devils advocate here for a while and mention that their is also the issue of categories. A significant number are in the form Category:XYZ of Ireland with Category:XYZ of the Republic of Ireland and Category:XYZ of Northern Ireland as subcategories. How would we square this? Djegan 21:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And History of Ireland, History of the Republic of Ireland, History of Northern Ireland? Djegan 21:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something here. I can't see a problem with any to these pages or links. or categories. I just don't see it. WP is is in muddied waters on the Ireland/ROI topic, already. Taramoon 21:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So it begs the question, just what is your solution? Because I am not so sure its so easy to fix something so undefineable? Djegan 21:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's the added problems that I was referring to last, like cats. I think I suggested earlier that calling Ireland by RoI could confuse, and is factually in error too. The RoI page should be, IMHO, Ireland (state). I can't see the imperative to make other changes, because of that. Taramoon 21:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect is it that you are proposing, the article title, of Republic of Ireland be changed with no other articles, categories etc changed? Republic of Ireland is not factually an error, simply an imperfect term in an imperfect world (a description). It is used in the republic when disambiguation is required. For instance the postal authority, An Post, a body established by law uses "Republic of Ireland" on business envelopes that are prepaid so that those posting in Northern Ireland known they need to buy Royal Mail postage. Then their is the Republic of Ireland Act. Organisations with bases on the island often use it, for instance: http://www.ulsterbank.com. Sorry, its not a made-up, cobbled togetheir term! Their is a very good legal basis for its use. Djegan 21:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect I might thing you are misinformed? Djegan 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, The name of the state is Ireland, (misinformed? - no), The description of its politic is RoI, (misinformed? - no). It's really immaterial if An Post does something for the convenience of customers, it doesn't establish a rule. Neither does the Ulster Bank direct nomenclature of Ireland, whether state or the island. Taramoon 21:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland Act..."the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." Certainly the official name is not "Ireland (state)" (misinformed? - definitely not). We do not always use the "official name" of things on wikipedia, as examples Germany, France, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States -- have I made my point? Djegan 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You have made your point, and I don't disagree with you. My interpretation has validity. I would like other editors to have their say on this issue too. Taramoon 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777, please retract this comment: "There is an arrogance in DJ and Sony's dictation on this issue I find unacceptable. And I believe it is based on a political POV; just look how quick they have been to characterise opponents as 'hard-line Republicans'." I have never characterized you or anyone else as a "hard-line Republican" or any other such thing. --sony-youth^talk 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Abtract, re: Google hits for Éire vs. Ireland. WP has an essay on this issue. One way to start may be to try comparing hits for Éire against hits for "Republic of Ireland" limited to the English language only. --sony-youth^talk 23:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I'd like to chime in here, with two questions:

1. What is it about the island of Ireland that makes people think it's important to have articles about it, nevermind its economy, politics (apart from the obvious issue of the conflict), etc? As far as I know, with other islands not nearly contiguous with a state, we tend not to have articles about the islands that go beyond some basic geographical data.

2. How is the situation for Ireland different from that for China, which is similarly regarded as a single country by the two sovereign states that use its name?

My personal opinion, based on what I know so far, is that the answers are:

1. Nothing. For all intents and purposes, the island of Ireland is not a political, economic, or even cultural entity that it makes sense to write about today, apart from in the context of the conflict.

In particular, it's not really been said recently (or not loudly enough, at any rate) that pretty much every European country has people disagreeing about the precise extent of the country, meaning the "natural" territory or population that should "ideally", in those people's opinion, belong to it, even though de facto sovereignty is not seriously disputed. Spain has well-known disputes, various people might consider Portugal to be an integral part of an Iberian country currently divided into two states, Corsica might or might not be considered part of the country of France (though it's definitely under French sovereignty), sovereignty of the Holy See and the order of Malta in what would otherwise be Italy is disputed (nevermind the question of whether Vatican City is a country of its own, or a sovereign state in the country of Italy, ...), various people might still consider the country of Germany to include Alsace, the German community in Belgium, might consider Schleswig to be properly part of Denmark, or Germany, or whatever, Skåne to be properly part of Denmark rather than Sweden, the Åland islands to be part of Sweden ... leaving Europe, things get really hairy in the Arab world, for example.

In short, I think writing primarily about (perceived) countries (or "nations", or whatever) is opening a terrible can of worms, and there's an easy way out, which is to write about de-facto areas of sovereignty instead. The world is conveniently divided into those, with two or three exceptions. There is no strong need for an article about the economy of the island of Ireland, for example, just as little as there is need for an article about the economy of the Iberian peninsula.

2. I think the main difference is that China does not have an equivalent of the Good Friday agreement, and sovereignty is actually, not just theoretically, disputed in China.

In summary, I think the current situation is this: After the latest constitutional changes, and notwithstanding deliberately ambiguous wording in the consitution, Ireland is a state covering five sixths of an island which no longer has a universally accepted name. In the UK, there is localised usage of the term to refer ambiguously (and, thus, arguably incorrectly) to Northern Ireland, or the island, even where context does not make clear this meaning is intended. Outside of those two countries, the term is unambiguous, refers to the state unless specifically modified, but is still frequently avoided.

It's not at all unusual for islands to be unnamed, or not to have a commonly accepted name (in fact, I think it's a bit of a challenge to find a large island that has a name - not just a description - that specifically refers to the main island). It's also not at all unusual for de-facto sovereign states to have ambiguous or disputed short names, or names they don't accept as being completely correct themselves ("United States" is ambiguous, at least if translated; Jordan and Uruguay were originally named for rivers that formed their borders, rather than actually lying in the country; Gambia wants an article; Ivory Coast would like to remain untranslated, and violate French orthography; Bosnia would prefer "and Herzegovina"; no short name for the Czech Republic has ever caught on ...)

Sorry this is getting a bit long, but I don't see a clear threshold for when Wikipedia suddenly finds it acceptable to use the short name, which is almost universally disputed in its precise meaning. It worries me that the line drawn somewhere between Ireland, Macedonia, China (short name not used) on one side and Albania, Gambia, Luxembourg (short name used as article title) on the other might not be based on NPOV-derived policies but ultimately on whether there are significant factions of Wikipedia editors on both sides of the debate. How many people must think that "Germany" is non-contiguous with the FRG before we turn that into a disambiguation article? Does it matter whether they speak English or not? How about Canada? Serbia, if and when Kosovo splits off?

And as long as there is no clear threshold, all I see is the two consistent (extreme, if you so wish) options: use the shortest name that uniquely identifies a sovereign states among sovereign states (with the single exception of not using colloquial pars-pro-toto expressions), or use the shortest name that isn't ambiguous at all, which is usually the full official name of the country. With only those two options available, it's clear that the second one wins.

RandomP 12:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You have genuinely made a good point here. Ireland, as a term to express the island, is not a very useful term. Articles about the island, apart from geograph and history, are simply just attempts at pov'ish nonsense. Much of the content, for instance, in this article falls into two categories (if its not history or geography): viz (a) exclusively or primarily about (culture, economy, sports) the Republic of Ireland or (b) very difficult to compare in a non-original research setting (population for instance is not measured using the same methodology, sometimes census even years apart; often their is just a token sentence for Northern Ireland as against paragraphs for the Republic; the two units have fundementally different health, economic, justice and political systems and a comparison would risk WP:NOR or just been plain irrelevant). Djegan 15:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't get this argument.

• "It's not at all unusual for islands to be unnamed, or not to have a commonly accepted name (in fact, I think it's a bit of a challenge to find a large island that has a name - not just a description - that specifically refers to the main island)." Try the list of islands by area. Places have names and it is not controversial for this place to be called Ireland - what is controversial is for the state occupying only a part of it to take that name for itself.

• "In short, I think writing primarily about (perceived) countries (or "nations", or whatever) is opening a terrible can of worms, and there's an easy way out, which is to write about de-facto areas of sovereignty instead" - Articles such as the British Isles, The Americas, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Los Angeles, Palestine etc. etc. (and Wikipedia, without them) would suffer greaty if this were the case.

• "... exclusively or primarily about (culture, economy, sports) the Republic of Ireland" - Its difficult for this not to be so since the the Republic occupies five sixths of the island and much of the culture of the "Republic" (e.g. GAA, FAI league, The Meteor Awards, the .ie domain name) includes the North in their remit. However, there is plently all-Ireland culture to discuss. The IRFU is all-Ireland, Cultural bodies such as Tourism Ireland, Foras na Gaeilge and Tha Boord o Ulstèr-Scotch and Waterways Ireland are is a all-Ireland bodies. Culture, history and geography is not delineated by states.

• "I don't see a clear threshold for when Wikipedia suddenly finds it acceptable to use the short name, which is almost universally disputed in its precise meaning." The threshold is quite plainly put. It has nothing to do with short or long titles: "... use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." There is no other common name for the island, there is another common name for the state. So the island is located at the article called, Ireland and the state is located at the article called Republic of Ireland.

--sony-youth^talk 16:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be saying that because there is no common name for the island of Ireland, it should be at Ireland. By the same reasoning, the article at Australia should be about the island of Australia, and exclude Tasmania. The section you quote from WP:NAME would suggest that because there are two different entities occasionally referred to as Ireland, it become a disambiguation page. However, there are also different entities referred to as France, for example, so using that rule strictly would be rather ridiculous, in that virtually every page with a country's short name as title would become a disambiguation page. In any case, the threshold at which it becomes acceptable to use a country's short name as article name appears, to me, to be uniquely identifying the country among internationally relevant political entities. There's certainly only one of those called Ireland.

Did you see the "primarily" in the bit about perceived countries that you quote? Or are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia editors are primarily writing about entities like the ones you cite rather than (de facto) sovereign states?

As for large islands not normally being named (in an agreed-upon fashion), my argument stands. Africa-Eurasia, for example, is hardly a common term, and it does not define which "smaller islands" are included. The Americas are commonly used politically, not geographically, to include Hawaii, Antarctica usually includes both minor islands and ocean, etc. Baffin Island appears to be the largest island whose name is not usually used for an entity that includes other islands, and it's hardly important.

RandomP 19:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget; Ireland was divided into two, it was not shrunk by 6 counties. Martin 19:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

From an international perspective, the United Kingdom, not Ireland, was split in two: the new UK, and a new sovereign state, which is now overwhelmingly what people mean when they say "Ireland", outside of the UK. RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "You appear to be saying that because there is no common name for the island of Ireland ..." What I actually said was that "[there] is no other common name for the island" (except Ireland). (I assume I can pass over your discussion of Australia and Tasmania since it was logically based on this error.)

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no error! (Sorry I'm splitting this up, but I don't want to quote your entire comment).

There is no common name for the island of Australia (and there isn't one for the island of Ireland either, other than "island of Ireland"). That was my point! The situations are perfectly analogous: there's (1) an island called Australia, (2) a country called Australia, and (3) a group of islands that used to be called Australia, and includes NZ. The three are not quite identical, though now everyone agrees that (3) does not have a name, just a description as "Australia and New Zealand", (1) does not have a name, just the description of "main island of Australia", and (2) is called Australia. I don't think Wikipedia even has an article on australia+new zealand, and I don't think one is needed.

Please try to be a bit more careful. I first explained that in non-UK english, the island of Ireland does not have a name - all it has is the description "island of Ireland", or "Ireland (including NI)" if the small islands are to be included; the very same is true for the island of Australia, which I don't think there even is an article about.

RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "... there are two different entities occasionally referred to as Ireland" By what name is the island more commonly referred to as? (Since you say that it is only "occasionally" referred to as Ireland.) Can you provide evidence that this is how it is commonly referred to (i.e. more so than simply Ireland)?

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're misreading my statement. There is an entity that's commonly mentioned, and that's commonly referred to as "Ireland": the ROI. There's also another entity that is, frankly, mentioned very rarely: the island of Ireland. There is no common need to talk of (or link to) the union of a sovereign state and the smallest constituent country of the United Kingdom (particularly so in an encyclopedic context). It's not a useful entity, particularly not for hogging a sovereign country's short name. RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• ".. so using that rule strictly would be rather ridiculous ..." Yes. By the same example, having a page Northern Ireland (political entity) and Northern Ireland (geographic area) with a disambiguation page at Northern Ireland would be ridiculous. At last, we agree on something. Yet, are you not suggesting to do something similar with Ireland (state), Ireland (island) and a disambiguation page as Ireland? [edit: striking because confused you argument with another]

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that. RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "However, there are also different entities referred to as France ..." What other entity is referred to as France? [edit: added when I saw my error in the above point]

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's commonly meant to exclude the DOM, used to be used to include Algeria, might be used to exclude Corsica or the Provence ... RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "In any case, the threshold at which it becomes acceptable to use a country's short name as article name appears, to me, to be uniquely identifying the country among internationally relevant political entities." Again, I direct you towards the manual of style. That is not how the names of pages are arrived at.

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is very clear: a majority of English speakers (those outside of the UK) would most easily recognize "Ireland" as describing the state (of which they might not know it's a republic), not the island (which they have no reason to care about), with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity (and let's face it, it's not like anyone is confused about what we call Ireland ­- they're merely upset by it, no matter what we do). And linking to it? [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] is pretty much the standard way of linking to that article.

RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Did you see the "primarily" in the bit about perceived countries that you quote?" Yes.

• "Or are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia editors are primarily writing about entities like the ones you cite rather than (de facto) sovereign states?" I don't know if they are or not. I certainly never suggested they were. Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia editors are "writing primarily about (perceived) countries (or "nations", or whatever)"? What does it matter what they primarily write about?

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that writing primarily about perceived countries, rather than actual states, would be a bad idea; you implied I was wrong, indeed suggesting that those were the entities primarily written about on WP. RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Africa-Eurasia, for example, is hardly a common term, and it does not define which "smaller islands" are included." Harpalinae is hardly common term, yet it is the most common one to identify the thing that it does. What other term do you suggest for Africa-Eurasia? If you think that that page is not using the most common term, you should bring it to the notice of their talk page. Regarding not defining which smaller islands are included in Africa-Eurasia: do you seriously want Wikipedia to list all of the smaller islands of Africa-Eurasia? Gosh.

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, my point is that our readers, and the vast majority of editors, don't care (much) about entities that are defined geographically or historically over those that today are actually there and have a tangible effect on their lives. I did not say it was not the most common term for what it designates, I said it was not a common term.

And no strawmen, please. RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "The Americas are commonly used politically, not geographically, to include Hawaii." I believe it is the other way around. As the Americas page notes: "The term the Americas is a relatively recent alternative to the term America, which is ambiguous as it may refer to either this entire landmass or just the United States of America."

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I never suggested "The Americas" excluded South America, but that it included Hawaii. Totally different issue. RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Antarctica usually includes both minor islands and ocean ..." Yes, it has many offshore islands as far as I am aware. It may also include an ocean - I don't know. So?

• "Baffin Island appears to be the largest island whose name is not usually used for an entity that includes other islands, and it's hardly important." You're correct, this is hardly important. Islands commonly have further offshore islands, however this is not a defining quality of an island.

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In summary, could you please try to understand the main point: Some things are more notable than others, to the point where an article name that would technically be ambiguous can be used for the most notable one. Sovereign states are notable, while islands, island groups, etc., are not, to the point that islands do not usually have articles at all, and groups of islands usually go with political, rather than geographic, boundaries.

It's simply not true that islands, or island groups, usually take up the non-disambiguated article name where there is conflict. In fact, usually we don't consider it necessary at all to have an article about them, instead describing them in the article about the political entity with which they most closely correspond. I think Ireland should be an exception to the second rule, because the process of separation has been formally completed only so recently, but not the first one.

RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I understand you more clearly now. You are perfectly correct: all articles in Wikipedia must meet specific criteria for notability, otherwise they are subject to deletion. The guidelines for notability are here. If you think that this article is about a non-notable topic then by all means nominate it for deletion. Personally, I don't think that the nomination will succeed. The criteria that you suggest (i.e. that "Sovereign states are notable, while islands, island groups, etc., are not") is not the same as the consensus guideline.

• "... islands do not usually have articles at all ..." Please browse through the article called List of islands to see the many articles on islands.

• "... and groups of islands usually go with political, rather than geographic, boundaries." This is true, however, the island described in this article does not. We are further confounded by the rare fact that one of the political boundries occupying the island is known by the name of the island (although, thankfully, it is also commonly known by a different name i.e. RoI).

As regards, the "rules" you describe in the second paragraph above - were these based on consensus, are they expressed in the MoS? If they were not, how did you arrive at them? However, I get what you are suggesting - that Ireland should be about the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain should be about the United Kingdom. Leaving aside the obvious objections of those living in Northern Ireland to being told that they in fact live on Great Britain, I disagree. Remember that we are writing an encylopedia. We should be accurate, not approximate. --sony-youth^talk 13:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop it with the straw men. I did not say anything about Great Britain. You also leave out a half sentence in quoting me. I did not say that islands are usually so non-notable as to violate WP:N, I said they usually tend not to have articles specifically about them, and that is still correct. There's an article about the state of Australia, but the main island does not have one, because it's just not a useful concept to many.

The rules are simply what is usually done on Wikipedia, and consistent with every single example I pointed out, so far (except with the one currently under discussion).

Seriously, I believe you're deliberately misquoting me (for example, I state perfectly clearly first that there are two rules that are usually followed, and then that I think in Ireland's case, one of them should be and the other one shouldn't be — making it perfectly clear how I arrived at them), and the straw man attacks are both getting old and frankly ridiculous.

RandomP 14:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

RandomP, do you really think Australia is analogous to Ireland? If I went to New York, or even London, I can guarantee that if I said I was from Belfast, people would say I was from Ireland. How would one even know that when someone is saying "Ireland", they are talking about the state? "It rains a lot in Ireland", "the grass is very green in Ireland", "I'm going to Ireland for my holidays", "my family are from Ireland", "I've never been to Ireland" are all phrases that are totally ambiguous. Even an apparently legalistic phrase like "you need to be from Ireland to have an Irish passport" or "I was born in Ireland and I'm an Irish citizen" are totally ambiguous. There is a blurred line for many people when they say "Ireland", and it's just not as simple as saying that they are always talking about the Irish state. Some are even totally unaware of the position of Northern Ireland as part of the UK, and Ireland means nothing but the island. I was actually talking to an English guy a few weeks ago who thought that they used Euros in Belfast because that's what "they use in Ireland". This is not at all uncommon, and is something I experience all the time. If you ask someone to draw a map of Ireland, I can totally guarantee that you'll see Northern Ireland on it! :) (ask them to draw the border on though, and it's not quite so easy....) Martin 14:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Summarising the rather long segment above:

The lack of a commonly-accepted name for the island of Ireland is not a good argument for using "Ireland" as the title for the article about it:

• it's inaccurate, because there are small islands off the coast of Ireland.
• most geographical entities do not even have articles - articles about large islands nearly universally use political, rather than geographical, boundaries (in the cases of Australia, Great Britain, and New Zealand, for example, those differ); or leave the question open (which makes it impossible to give even basic data, of course).

There are other arguments for using Ireland the way it is, of course, that are better, but merely having to use an inconvenient name for an article the analogue of which does not even exist for most of the largest islands in the world is hardly a problem.

The entity this article is currently about is accurately described as "Ireland and Northern Ireland", "Ireland with Northern Ireland", or "Ireland including Northern Ireland" (or "Ireland (including Northern Ireland)" etc), so it's not even true that there isn't another way to describe it at all.

Again, I think the main question we should be asking is whether there is an article subject that readers overwhelmingly mean when they go to "Ireland". The answer is, quite clearly, yes: the majority of readers doing this expects to read about the state.

Furthermore, of the remaining readers, only very few would genuinely be certain they were going to be reading about some other entity, and that very small group would then again be split between people expecting to read about Northern Ireland only and those expecting to read about the entire entity. Of course, many readers would also be looking for information specifically about the division or the conflict, but that there should be a disambiguation note for them isn't controversial, and they'd probably be aware that they're looking for one.

In short, I believe the reader who, not knowing the current setup,

• enters "Ireland"
• finds the information they are looking for on the article about the island
• would not have found the information they are looking for on the article about the state

is largely fictional. Readers who are confused by the current setup definitely do exist.

RandomP 14:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

See my comments above. Martin 15:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Who are you "summarising"? If you would like to propose that this article be moved/deleted/anything, I wholey support you - talk is getting nowhere - although will vote against it when the time comes. The starting point is here. This has been run through before. Consensus was to keep things as they are. But please, don't let that stop you. --sony-youth^talk 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no commonly-accepted name for the island of Ireland? That's news to me. (It seems to be news to every travel guide book publisher in the world as well.) Why do YOU call it Ireland if there's no commonly-accepted name for it? I wasn't aware that there was a dispute about the name of the island. Who disputes that the island is named Ireland? And, I have to say, I agree with Martin's comments above. I think you are wrong to talk as if its unquestionably clear that the state is what people usually are seeking when they look for "Ireland." I might agree that the content of a page on Ireland (the island) is something that might need special thought and care (then again, one could wish this for all Wiki pages), but whatever the case may be with other islands in the world, I don't think the trans-jurisdictional unit, in the case of Ireland, can be dismissed in the way your comments would seem to suggest. Nuclare 07:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing reference

Footnote #3 is simply named "cia", but there is no text in the note. From the format, I assume it's a repeat of an actual footnote that was at one time situated earlier in the article, but that must have been deleted. Does anyone recall what that note was, and whether it's worth re-inserting? If the source wasn't good we need to remove the other two references to it, whatever it was. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was a reference to the census. I've added it to the article. Martin 01:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. Thinking about the rather non-cryptic reference name "CIA", it has to have been the CIA World Factbook. Both necessary pieces of information are referenced there. Martin 01:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, Martin. Looking back through the history I found it right around when you did, but the old link was semi-broken. Thanks for adding the up to date link! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No probs! :) Martin 01:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ulster

Northern Ireland is often typically called The Six Counties (referring to the six counties of Ireland that it occupies) or Ulster (referring to the majority of the province of Ulster that it occupies). Although the above sentence is correct (I'm not trying to deny its accuracy), I think it could be made clearer that Northern Ireland is only a part of Ulster, so as not to confuse others. I just don't like the wording of "the majority of the province that it occupies". Nitpicking, to be sure, but anyone have any suggestions for a more ... "easy to understand" re-write ? JohnathanZX4 22:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to tighten that whole paragrah to make it easier to understand and to remove some POV that had crept in. Abtract 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation notice

I think the disambiguation notice

This article is about the island of Ireland. For the state of the same name, see Republic of Ireland. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation).

is not succeeding at redirecting all readers that are looking for the state of Ireland to the relevant page. It's a reasonably common misconception, outside of Western Europe, that the island and the state are in fact contiguous, and the first sentence would thus fail to have the warning effect it should have.

For example, imagine an international reader who is aware that there is a state called Ireland, but incorrectly believes that the state covers all of the island; and who wants to know the population of the state (having heard, for example, about Ireland's remarkable per-capita GDP). That reader would be totally satisfied reading only the first sentence of the disambiguation notice, and possibly leave with the impression that there are slightly under six million people living in "Ireland" with a per-capita GDP of $41,000/year, rather than either of the correct versions (4.2 million @ $41,000/year or ~6 million @ $35,000/year).

I would suggest

This article is about the island of Ireland, not the state of Ireland (state). For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation)

though that's hardly perfect either.

RandomP 14:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

# Guidelines explicitly advise against this: "Show the entire linked article title as is, to avoid confusion, which is the reason for the top link in the first place."

# Its clearer as it is. The term Republic of Ireland makes a clear distinction between the state and the island. A glancing eye may miss the the parenthesized state, while a capitalized Republic is more obvious.

* "[The disambiguation link as it is] is not succeeding at redirecting all readers that are looking for the state of Ireland to the relevant page." How to you know this? (Apart from the obviously impossible all, regardless of what methods we use.) --sony-youth^talk 19:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has three articles about one smallish place. No need for this third, orphan article. Ireland is the official name of an independent nation/state as well as the name of the island it shares with Northern Ireland, a part of the UK. The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland articles each reference the one island-two states difference, clearly distinguishing between Ireland-the-country and Ireland-the-island. They also link to each other. The Republic of Ireland article should properly be renamed Ireland. This article is redundant and confusing. It has also become a POV battleground. It has no use, other than pushing partisan agendas, and should be scrubbed from Wikipedia entirely. Olompali 05:38, 23 February 2007

Spot on Olompali, agree 100%. This is the very popint I have been making. "RoI" = POV. (Sarah777 11:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Olompali will have to clarify his/her point, then, because I don't see a claim in his/her post that RoI = POV. In fact, I wish, Sarah, that you would lay out in clear, concise terms why you think RoI is POV. You have stated that RoI is (almost) only used by the British. This is false. So, there goes one of your reasons. You've also implied that it has a pro-British bias. I have no idea how that is the case.

On Olompali's suggestion that the island of Ireland article be deleted -- I can understand some objections as far as repitition and concerns about specific content, but I do, generally, think there is value to having an island of Ireland article. This might be particularly so when it comes to linking. Having to always word things as "Ireland and Northern Ireland" in order to set up links to all that is appropriate isn't always ideal wording and can create its own confusions. There's so much in Ireland (the island) that's organized as all-Ireland that having only the two jurisdictions to individually link to doesn't seem always to be best. Linking to a disambiguation page for "Ireland" seems a less than ideal method as well and, again, doesn't eliminate potential confusion either. Perhaps there should be special attention made to trying to make this page only about that which truly can be said to be 'island' related and/or all-Ireland related, but I think the criticisms of this page need to be specific. I don't think this page is anywhere near as bad as Olompali's comments would lead one to believe. Its no more a POV battleground than the other Ireland-related pages (maybe even less than some)If there are specific partisan-leaning wordings/content/ommissions, than by all means those should be described in more detail so they can be worked on. Nuclare 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh....User:Olompali, you are a BLANK link...could we have a proper signature? (Sarah777 11:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Delete the "Politics" section

I see I've just found where everybody went off to. I wondered why it had gotten so quiet at talk:Republic of Ireland!

I'd like to make a Modest Proposal. Delete the Politics section, or at least reduce it to the absolute minimum such as "the island is divided politically between two jurisdictions: Ireland (state) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For details, see those articles". The outcome should be something like Hispaniola. --Red King 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and likewise the "Flags of Ireland" section. --sony-youth^talk 22:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone cares about my opinion. :-) But I'd be for getting rid of at least the second paragraph of the politics section (the one that begins "Typically, the two political entities...") I'm not saying the content isn't somewhat useful, but it seems rather unencycolopedic at the moment. I'm all for deleting the Flags of Ireland section. 1) because I think the tricolor and Union Flag are more suited to the individual jurisdiction pages 2) because at quick glance one could be left with the impression that both those banners are flags of a single political entity (in the way the St. Andrews flag and Union flag both apply to Scotland, for example). Nuclare 03:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, I'm leaning toward the keep Politics "absolute minimum" suggestion. There's already a history section where details about the the Act of Union/the Kingships, etc. should be included.

Regardless of what happens to the Politics section in general, the "All-island institutions" section needs, at the very least, to be moved away from a Politics section. It almost seems like the info included in that section should be worked into the content of the page in a more natural fashion. For example, the sports section already mentions the all-Ireland organization of some of the sports. As much as the prospect of having a Religion section on this page is a bit frightening (I can imagine what people might try to put in there!), perhaps having such a section would be a better place to mention the organization of the churches. I'm not saying such a section should be set up JUST to mention their all-island organization, but there's something piece-meal about the 'All-island institutions' at the moment. (And the statement in there about the percentage of Catholics in both RoI and NI just seems out of place). Nuclare 04:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Does your proposal mean that we'd change the article "RoI" to Ireland (state)? (Sarah777 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

The Ireland talk page would be a strange place to propose that, now wouldn't it? Martin 19:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought Red King up above was making this Modest Proposal and I'm a sucker for good proposals! Who am I to question where Red King might want to put his suggestions? (Sarah777 00:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Going back to Red King's "Modest Proposal", I agree: the politics section should be removed or drastically cut down. The sentence "Politically it is divided into..." in the lead paragraph is probably sufficient to inform uncertain readers about the political statuses of different parts of the island.--A bit iffy 07:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The broad consensus is for a drastic reduction. I'll have a go. --Red King 19:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete the Flags Section

The flags section is even worse. It is impossible to have such a section without getting bogged down in POV. It adds nothing of any real value. I propose that we delete it. --Red King 19:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification I've started off on the wrong foot. I did not intend to say that the material as it stands is POV, rather that it has the potential to be. My intention was to say that this is very political material on what is (or at least should be) an article that describes the island and leaves the politics to other articles. I had just come from talk:Northern Ireland, where there is a major dispute about flags going on. Maybe the flags section belongs in the History of Ireland article, but it doesn't belong here. IMHO. --Red King 20:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree --Red King 19:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree--There is nothing POV about the flags section. But generally, since the article is about the island, and all the political, government, (state-related) stuff is covered elsewhere, I think this article should be mostly about geography, ecology, land forms, location, etc. So I would say take out the flags(and minimise all the human institutional aspects) and reformat the article along those lines I cited, or leave it as it is.Gary Joseph 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I read this that Gary agrees with the removal/transfer out, but does not agree with the reasons I gave. I accept that criticism, which is why I added the clarification above. --Red King 20:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree -- finally something I can agree with Red on. Bad enough having the flags in the NI section. (Sarah777 21:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC))
• Disagree (kinda) - It's only very recently (historically speaking) that the island was partitioned into two entities. The flag section would seem to be the logical place for discussing flags that are used to represent the whole island, both historically and currently. I guess one can't get away from discussing the Irish and UK flags, but they shouldn't be given the prominence they have now. Martin 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, I understand that, but the question I'm asking is, is this the right article for it. Would you be satisfied if it were moved to History of Ireland? --Red King 20:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree -- 100% agree. Neither flag is a flag of Ireland as discussed in this article. One is a flag of Ireland as discussed in the RoI article, the other is the flag of the United Kingdom. What do they have to do with this article?? Ireland as discussed here does not have a flag, except possibly this. --sony-youth^talk 09:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the section verbatim to History of Ireland. --Red King 20:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political Geography

Yet another debate rages with reverts etcetera; is NI 17% of Ireland (Island) or a mere 16.75%. I think this is an issue well worth having a major row about. User:Manopingo, who seems to be a Twomileborrisonian defends 16.75 as being more accurate than 17 (I'll take his word for it).

But wouldn't 16.748394628364002837640117632564848% be more accurate still? And why stop there?

I think it was Dean Swift who write a storey about us Little Enders and Big Enders? (Sarah777 00:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

lol....I think 16.748394628364002837640117632564848% is a capital idea! Although, it might just be easier to say "slightly less than 17%" or some-such. Of course, then we'll have to define what we mean by "slightly less", providing appropriate references to back up how many quarters of a percent "slightly" can encompass. What fun! :) Martin 00:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As it is written at the moment, I guess someone other than Ireland or the UK has control of 0.25% of the island. Would that be the Polish by chance? ;-) Nuclare 05:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the embassies! The US and British Embassies (especially the official residences) in Dublin are very large. However they are about to build a railway through the grounds of the British Ambassador's crib - so that should give us back something (Sarah777 09:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

I've put it back the way it was before I changed to avoid repeating the intro para, before we get into fractal algebra. Five sixths and one sixth, within the limits of experimental error. --Red King 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference no.11

Just noticed en passant. There is something wrong with ref no. 11. If I try to correct it I may do more harn than good. Best leave it - Osborne 15:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ok - fixed!! :) Thanks for pointing it out - Alison^☺ 15:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Places of Interest

Can this list be anything more than subjective? Is there some independent source that gives a "top 10 by number of visits"? --Red King 21:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll of Republic of Ireland title change

I've opened a straw poll on support for a change to the title of the Republic of Ireland article and related articles. --sony-youth^talk 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flora

Happened to be reverting some vandalism in the 'flora' section when I noticed it is utterly dire. It has a single sentence which may be nonsense so far as I know. Somebody must know enough about plants in Ireland to put a few paragraphs together????? (Sarah777 15:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Yes I do - a bit. But I dont like the way references are mixed up!Osborne 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Osborne. I noticed that you have reverted my change and restored a "list off introduced plants" in the Flora section. Per my note in the edit summary, this is likely way too specific for a general Ireland article. I am going to reword again, and - per my note - if you want to create a "Biota of Ireland" or "Flora of Ireland" (where such a list would be much better suited), then please do. Cheers. Guliolopez 17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where you think the algae should be noted - I'm not sure. Some phycologists not consider algae as part of the "Flora". I don't mind, however the Flora and flora of Ireland is a bit confused to my mind as the Flora is "rerouted". I will probably let the whole site alone an stick to the sites I was working on. Osborne 08:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References//Footnotes

These are confused. References are mixed up. Oh please sort them out - it's too much for me!Osborne 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

I'd like to make some edits under history, and I want to float the topics here first.

1) The reference to a system of "apartheid" under the Penal laws strikes me as not representing a neutral point of view, even if there is a reference for it. There are many cases in history where groups (often majorities) have systematically been disadvantaged in law and in practice, and the logic for specifically choosing to equate Penal Law Ireland with apartheid South Africa seems to me to be about rhetoric and politics, rather than a close similarity. On a practical level, Catholics could (and in many cases did) change their religion, while the disenfranchised majority in South Africa could not change their ancestry. Irish Catholics were not restricted as to where they could live. A reference to Catholics being disadvantaged systematically under the Penal Law regime should suffice. There would then be no need for the reference quoted.

2) There is a problem with the section on the impact of the Vikings on Ireland here (and indeed in some other Wikipedia articles too). It is that warfare and raiding were common within Ireland at the time, so that the impression given of a peaceful land afflicted by invaders is seriously inaccurate. For balance, the article needs a reference to warfare within Ireland at the time.

3) The reference to bribery in securing the Act of Union, while accurate, seems like unnecessary detail in a summary article such as this. Including such a politically-loaded detail in a summary seems to me to be non-neutral. I propose deleting it.

4) The reference to the failure of attempts to achieve Home Rule as causing "the eclipse of moderate nationalism by militant separatism" is, at best, non-neutral POV, and arguably demonstrably false. A Home Rule Act was passed in 1912 (although there was never an opportunity to implement it), and up to the time of the Easter Rising in 1916 non-militant separatism, whether of the Home Rule or Sinn Fein variety, remained clearly in the political ascendent among the nationalist population. What then brought militant separatism to the fore depends on which historian you happen to believe. I propose editing to just say that militant separatism eclipsed moderate nationalism, eliminating the commentary on the cause.

Haroldsx 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)