Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles/Archive 1

Introduction

There are many different opinions among Irish people as well as to Wikipedians in general. This Manual of Style is designed to codify these guidelines in order to avoid future edit wars in regard to English and Irish names. Above all, when in doubt, use English. ℬastique▼^talk 30 June 2005 16:24 (UTC)

Ros Muc

I fail to see the point of insisting on the English spelling of Ros Muc. It reads and is pronounced the same in both languages, unlike other names that would be mispronounced by readers unfamiliar with Irish.

Lapsed Pacifist 30 June 2005 20:44 (UTC)

Precisely because it is the English spelling--and the English spelling is notable enough, and it's, well, the English spelling. ℬastique▼^talk 30 June 2005 21:01 (UTC)

I must explain further: This is an English language Wikipedia. I've found the spelling Rosmuck on maps of the area, although there are some with the words (Ros Muc) underneath. The rule of thumb is, when in doubt, use English. WP:UE says, Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form. Except in maps specifically about the Gaeltacht area, I have continuously seen Rosmuck used to spell the name of the town. ℬastique▼^talk 30 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)

I agree with Bastique on this - we must adopt a flexiable and common sense approach to this policy. Using Irish names is often only a form of drum banging and is highly dubious at best - quite frankly, as I have said before, there is ga.wikipedia.org. I use Irish language terms where appropriate or point out that they are, in fact, official but their is no point in "sticking" it in each article for the sake of inclusion (or worse using it as an article title) and in particular the use of several variations of the Irish name is a particular disease that needs curing and is excessive. Djegan 30 June 2005 21:13 (UTC)

I take your point on the drum banging, I've seen it. My point was not specifically about Rosmuck. I just don't think it's a good example for the guideline given, as both versions would be pronounced accurately by some-one with no knowledge of Irish. This would not be the case for Inis Mór (Inishmore), which in my opinion would make it a better example. I don't think the article should be renamed or that the Irish version should be used gratuitously, although it's good that there is a redirect for Ros Muc. Articles on Gaeltacht towns and villages should also spell out clearly that the English name is not the official one.

Lapsed Pacifist 30 June 2005 21:51 (UTC)

If you read the example again, you'll see that it explicitly states Where English and Irish name are the same or similar, but English and Irish spelling differ, use the English spelling. Actually, I would have had no idea that Inis Mór and Inishmore sound identical. ℬastique▼^talk 30 June 2005 22:53 (UTC)

I would argue that for Gaeltacht (Irish speaking) areas like Ros Muc and Inis Mór, the correct spelling is the Irish spelling rather than the English version. Peoples names and place names should be exempt from the "this is an english encyclopedia rule". This is particularly true since a new law in Ireland plans to phase out all official usage of English placenames for Gaeltacht areas. Bandraoi 00:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Since the enacting of the Official Languages Act 2003 the continued use of the anglicised versions of placenames in Gaeltacht areas makes no sense at all. All road signs and official maps are now using the defined name in Irish. This practice is aleady beginning to lead to the up-dating of tourist maps. To continue to cling to the use of, often multiple, anglicised versions is unfair to those planning on visiting the country. I would suggest the way forward is to use a format similar to: Árainn (also sometimes called Inis Mór and anglicised as Inishmore. A reference to the act in relevant articles wopuld also help clarify. Whatever peoples' views on this topic Wikipedia articles should reflect the signage etc. of the area being written on. Taibhdhearc 14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You've somehow missed the entire point. This is an English wikipedia. Calling the English name for the town the "anglicised" name does not change the fact that it's the English name for the town, regardless of whether or not the town name exists on maps. There are a tremendous number of Irish persons involved in the Wikipedia project and we are well versed with Official Languages Act 2003. Please respect the fact, however, that this is not the Gaeilge wikipedia, and English will and must be used. Bastique▼^parler _voir 15:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't a point that I missed. If we in Ireland decide to call a town 'Z' and then proceed to use this name on all our signposts and government publications surely it makes perfect sense to adapt to this situation. In fact the word 'rosmuck', for example, is not an English word per se. A name is a tag to aid someone in recognising a location, particularly important if you are trying to find a place. I wouldn't recommend an article on Kingstown, Queenstown or Marysborough although a reference to the use of these names for an historic period might aid someone beginning to research history on a given area. Taibhdhearc 15:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You are indeed missing the point. The official name of London is just that, but you don't see any of use nipping over to fr:Londres and attempting to move it, do you? On this wikipedia, we use the English names for things, just as on frwiki they use French names. If you're so desperate about using Gaeilge, go to the Gaeilge Vicipéid: I'm sure they'd make you welcome. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the expression is 'the exception that proves the rule'. London is referred to as Londres on the fr.wikipedia but that is not carried through to other towns and cities, much as English people use 'Le Havre' today. It is, of course, an interesting area of debate on the respect of local naming conventions, even to the level of state names. While I would accept there is probably no black and white in this topic it would be a good thing, I believe, to see respect for the naming conventions of the local population, never mind the whole signposting and mapping aspects. Taibhdhearc 16:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  This is a peculiar problem in the proper use of 'English'. That is, most English speakers are not British, have no advance familiarity with all but a few of these names (neither form is 'better known' to most of us), and have no historic or proprietary preferences. We wish to learn. Accordingly, for most of us it might often be best (not just in article titles) to give both versions, if in common or historic use (especially when not obviously the same place or person), and to give a phonetic rendering of the Gaelic as well ... so we might learn how to say the names. That seems to be a common feature in WK articles. All the more so, if we plan to travel there, and wish both to find our way around, and give the inhabitants a sense that we want to know their country.

  As for the 'Slash City' problem, it is ingrained in Irish history, and while we may long for the day when it will be a silly legacy of the past, removing it by editorial policy also removes a good bit of reality. Our distinguishing the county and town names of Londonderry/Kerry, for instance, given its apparent non-adoption by those who actually live there, becomes a bit of fictonalizing, rather than objective ('neutral') reporting.

  Finally, this material in itself would make an interesting article! Any number of Irish-American women would be fascinated to find that they were not 'Mac' anybody, and the distinct alphabetization of names is also news to most. And the reaching of a 'neutral' point of view would in itself be a wonderful exercise. FutharkRed 04:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Stroke City" not "Slash City", "Londonderry/Derry" not "Londonderry/Kerry" (Kerry is another county). In fact that article naming compromise is neutral; locals are more consistent for the city and county but not neutral, hence the problem. --Henrygb 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I recently returned to Dublin after living in the Connamara Gaeltacht and I must point out here that the names of towns of Gaeltacht areas are called by their Irish names in both English and Irish. This is not simply as a result of recent legislation. I have been banging my head on the wall in utter frustration trying to find certain articles on Gaeltacht towns. I look at the map and there is no English, I look at road signs and there is no English, I listen to TV and radio in both English and Irish and there is never a reference to these towns with their supposed English names (An Daingean is an obvious exception to this). Wikipedia should reflect this in full. Quite simply, there should be a very different set of rules for Gaeltacht towns than there is for Galltacht towns. Jamesnp 18:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, if we look at the people naming convention, Irish language versions are used when 'someone used the Irish version of his or her name, and this enjoyed and enjoys widespread usage among English speakers, this should be reflected in Wikipedia'. Should the same not be true for Irish place names? Especially when legislation backs this up?Jamesnp 18:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Placenames Orders: watch this space

For contributers wanting to fill articles with a myriad of alternative Irish spellings, watch this space [1]. Statutory orders have been made for some places within counties and also for all provinces and counties within the Republic of Ireland. Djegan 30 June 2005 21:13 (UTC)

Spelling English

Of course I want to include a section on precicely which English to use, but I'm unsure of the ways that proper UK English and proper Ireland English differ. Have the Irish disposed of that rather ugly use of "-ise" instead of "-ize" that almost nobody except the Brits seem to retain? ℬastique▼^talk 30 June 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Actually Irish people use ise rather than ize. Many people are irritated by the Americanised ize. Hiberno-English opts to use ise where popular. I think your belief that it is only the Brits who want to keep ise is way wide of the mark. It is still widely used in International English. In fact ize is seen as part in many parts of the world as part of American linguistic imperialism. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 1 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)

It's not just "Brits" and Irish who use "-ise", but also Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, most Europeans educated using British English, most Indians, some Caribbean peoples, etc. See Manual of Style (spelling). --Mark from Oz 16:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

They would think that, and they would be wrong, because -ize is more widely use internationally than say, -or in color, and it was the original spelling of words. Americans imported it from the UK, before a spelling was standardised. Back during British Imperialism. The change occurred after we separated, and in Britain, not over here! Reason being was the derivative Latin/greek root words contained a "z" and not an "s". ℬastique▼^talk 1 July 2005 23:13 (UTC)

The reason for this is that those international organisations have adopted the spelling from the OED as standard, which uses "-ize" over "-ise". I always thought words derived from Latin were spelt "-ise" not "-ize"? --Mark from Oz

I should point out that dictionaries published in England often contain both spellings, with "ize" first. This is certainly not some recent occurance, owing to American linguiztic imperializm. ℬastique▼^talk 1 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)

Yes, some dictionaries use "-ize" first (ie. OED, Collins), but others use "-ise" first (ie. Chambers). Relying on dictionaries for standard spelling is a bit unwise, esp. OED and Collins. For common spellings in the UK, I would suggest Chambers. If your still unsure look at government documents, British newspapers and the BBC, then you'll get a good idea what is standard spelling in the UK. --Mark from Oz 16:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Surely dictionaries include words in alphabetical order ie ise comes before ize

But all I wanted was an answer to a question, not political discourse! ℬastique▼^talk 1 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)

proposed MoS addition on Irish names of people

Correct Irish orthography in naming people

1. If someone used the Irish version of his or her name, this should be reflected in Wikipedia. Thus, we do not refer to Martin Kyne but to Mairtín Ó Cadhain etc.

2. In Irish orthography, there is a space between Mac and the rest of the surname, e.g. Seán Mac Eoin, Seán Mac Stiofáin etc. In English orthography, there is apparently no space between the Mc or Mac and the rest of the surname but this is not entirely true. Some surnames do have spaces between them, it depends. An example would be "Mc Brearty".

3. In Irish, the O in surnames always takes an accent and is always followed by a space, e.g. Tomás Ó Deirg.

4. When transcribing from old Gaelic script, please relect the modern and standard forms of Irish spelling, especially in the use of the letter h. Thus, Aed becomes Aedh or Aodh, Domnall becomes Domhnall, Ruaidri becomes Ruaidhrí.

5. Fadas (accents) must always be used if necessary. There is no excuse for omitting them.

6. Unmarried girls and women are identified by "Ní"; married women by "Uí." Hence if Aoife Ní Bhraonáin were to marry a man named Tomás Ó Cuinneagáin, her married name would be Aoife Uí Chuinneagáin (or Aoife, Bean [Mrs.] Uí Chuinneagáin). Note the change in the form of the surname (Cuinneagáin --> Chuinneagáin) for females.

---

Damac added these in to the MoS page. He probably didn't know that unilateral changes need to go here first and be discussed, not directly on MoS pages without discussion.

Some of them are also incompatible with the overall MoS and so cannot be applied.

For example:

1. If someone used the Irish version of his or her name, this should be reflected in Wikipedia.

That is not Wikipedia policy at all. Its policy is to use the version of a name used by English speakers. If English speakers use Mairtín Ó Cadhain and Mairtín Ó Muilleoir, as they do, then that is what is used. But though he called himself Sean T Ó Ceallaigh, because English speakers know him as Sean T. O'Kelly the second president's name is written as Sean T. O'Kelly.

Wikipedia uses Taoiseach not because that is what the Irish prime minister is called in the Constitution but because people use Taoiseach in English. In contrast it does not use the Spanish title for Spain's prime minister because that name, unlike Taoiseach, is not used by English speakers. Similarly Wikipedia uses Kaiser because the word is used by English speakers to refer to the German Emperor. But, though he too was a Kaiser, we call the Austrian monarch Emperor because English speakers never use Kaiser when referring to Austrian Emperors. We use Wilhelm II of Germany, not William, because Wilhelm is used by English speakers so it will be recognised. But we call the last Russian Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, not Nikolai which is what he called himself, because English speakers know him as Nicholas, and would not recognise an article on Nikolai II of Russia.

Because each language Wikipedia has names in it from around the world, the rule is that each Wikipedia, whether in English, French, German, Italian, Irish or whichever, only uses the form of name familiar to users of that Wikipedia. If the native name is familiar to users of that Wikipedia it is used. If it isn't, the version they know is used. So on the Italian Wikipedia, there is no Taoiseach because no-one in Italian calls Bertie Ahern that.

The golden rule on this English Wikipedia is that the form of name used by English speakers; not the English language version nor the native language version, but whichever readers will recognise. So it is Mairtín Ó Cadhain but Sean T. O'Kelly, Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh but Rory O'Connor, Taoiseach but President of Ireland, etc. is used. If a MoS entry is created to make Irish language names different to all others then it is likely to be deleted on sight by users because everyone across all languages has to follow the one set of rules, with no deviations. Each language cannot follow its own we're doing it differently rule.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The rest of the proposed additions seem to make sense and conform with standard usage in Ireland, and I would support them, with two exceptions:

• • no. 4 is ambiguous; most Irish speakers would pick up the reference to "standard forms" as meaning forms canonised by the Caighdean Oifigiuil or in line with the spelling reform contained therein. I don't think this is what's meant, but there are also different practices widespread in standardising first names (v. common e.g. Seaghan -> Seán) and surnames (less common and rather dubious). This should be clarified.
  • no. 5: I believe wikipedia software has problems with alphabetisation of accented characters, so this may need to be adapted e.g. for category entries? Palmiro 19:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Point 4 is very ambiguous. How such names are transcribed depends entirely on context. In referring to Old Irish it could be quite valid to retain the original spelling and some old spellings are simply the normal way of referring to people. Let not go overboard with standardising. —Moilleadóir 07:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. These were simply proposals and I thought the main page was a work in progress so to speak. Thanks for all the feedback, that's what I was looking for.

I'm aware of the official naming policy in Wikipedia but think that some careful consideration should be given when naming Irish biographical articles. While I understand your position, I can't help but think that it completely contradicts much of what you have been saying in relation to the Irish Republican Army as most English speakers view and identify the Provos with the Irish Republican Army. I digress.

I have always seen, heard and used the Irish version of Sean T. O'Kelly. His is a relatively straight forward case but English speaks often refer to Irish personalities with gaelicised names in a variety of ways. Take for example the name the 1970s Provo leader Dáithí Ó Conaill. He was registered at birth as David O'Connell but chose to go under the Irish version of his name. In the 1970s and 1980s, his first and surname was spellt in numerous ways, namely

• First name: Dáithí, Daithí, Daithi, David and Dave
• Surname: Ó Conaill, O Conaill, O Connail, O Connaill, Ó Connail, O'Connell, O'Conaill

I'm not that good at maths, but there are so many variations of his name. Try any combination and you'll find it on google.

In this particular case, I think the only way to deal with the problem is to use the name Ó Conaill himself used. This problem is widespread, and not just in Irish names. Thus, we have (with appropriate redirects) pages on Gerhard Schröder, Slobodan Milošević, Józef Piłsudski, Nicolae Ceauşescu to provide a few examples. I find this extremely helpful as I learn once and for all how these names are correctly written.

Dáithí Ó Conaill is very straightforward. That was his name. There is no confusion in terms of fact. Ó Conaill is simply the original of the anglicised O'Connell/Connell etc etc. O' is obviously incorrect, and the O without the fada is used when people cannot put the fada, but are giving the respect of acknowledging it's an Irish language prefix.

You mentioned Kaiser Wilhelm and Czar Nicholas. The Kaiser was not always known as Wilhelm by English speakers - thing of all the British slogans during the first world war. These names of course were developed in a time when there was far less sensitivity for foreign names and nowadays, the more autoratative media makes an attempt to use the names that people use for themselves.

Words like Taoiseach etc are different as they are not personal names. These change in context and English speakers refer to prime minister/premier/leader etc Tony Blair.

Of course, the English-speaking Irish wikipedians should not seek special rules, it should simply adapt what other English-speaking wikipedians have done when naming other biographical articles.--Damac 10:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The point regarding the Kaiser is not that everyone called him Wilhelm in English. They didn't. But it was used widely enough to be recognisable. Therefore the native name works by recognition and can be used. Nikolai II in contrast does not, but Umberto II of Italy does. Daithí Ó Conaill is IMHO the most recognisable version. Sean MacEoin is recognisable, Sean Mac Eoin, with the additional spacing, is not and should only be used for the Irish version of the name, not the name used in English. The rule on Wikipedia is not to use the person's name as they use it, but to use the version as generally used. Sean T. always used the Irish language version of his name. Ernest Blythe did too. But as neither were generally known, however they might have wished otherwise, by their Irish name, it would be completely wrong to use it in articles here. If Gerhard Schröder was known to English speakers as Gerry Shroder, then that is how Wikipedia would name him. Luckily for him his native name is what is also used in English. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 14:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

FÉ, your opinions are based on purely subjective criteria. Daithí Ó Conaill (minus fada on the first a) may be IYHO the most recognisable form, but that does not make for good naming policy. Depending on their knowledge of the person in question or of the Irish language, people in Ireland, the UK and the US would come up with their own recognisable version that they would swear by. To avoid that confusion, I think that its best to go for the original name used by that person and in currency. What's the big problem there. IMHO it avoids confusion and will contribute to a standardisation and correct usage of the name in the media and research.

In pre-word processing days (up to 10-15 years ago), Schröder would always have been referred to as either Schroder or Schroeder (like Hitler was known as Adolph for many English speakers - 195,000 hits on google; we also had "Conrad Adenauer"). Thanks to the ease at which modern technology allows us to use umlauts, fadas, hacheks, etc., and the simple process of finding correct forms on the internet (via reliable encyclopaedias), correct forms of names are being used and are a feature in informed writing and journalism.

O'Kelly and Blythe did use their Irish names but I can safely say that I have never heard Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh being referred to as anything but by that name. I accept that Earnán de Blaghd (the Irish version of his name was incorrect when I looked it up) never gained widespread currency however. --Damac 07:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless that usage is established in a specific case, spelling Irish-language names without a space between Mac and the rest of the surname is simply a mis-spelling, just as wrong as Seán ÓFaoileáin or Roberto deNiro or Vincent vanGogh. Palmiro 14:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Any chance we could get this one sorted out - it's been lying here since August. I've read through the comments and have modified my proposals thus:--Damac 16:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Right now this MoS subpage only deals with geographical articles, but it needs to be extended to biographical articles. I think it's uncontroversial to say people best known in English by their English name (e.g. Mary McAleese) should be listed under that name and not under their Irish name (e.g. Máire Mhic Ghiolla Íosa). Likewise people who only use their Irish name, even in English contexts, should be listed under their Irish name (e.g. Cathal Ó Searcaigh). But there was a kerfuffle a while back about Geoffrey Keating, who is best known in English as that, but who was Irish-speaking and probably never used that name himself. The compromise we found was to follow the example of Ovid and list the article under Geoffrey Keating but have the first sentence read "Seathrún Céitinn, known in English as Geoffrey Keating, was...". Does this sound like a reasonable addition? --Angr (tɔk) 16:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I think that's appropriate. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 18:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct Irish orthography in naming people

• 1. If someone used the Irish version of his or her name, and this enjoyed and enjoys widespread usage among Irish and English speakers, this should be reflected in Wikipedia. Thus, we do refer to Mairtín Ó Cadhain, not Martin Kyne; Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tom Fee, etc.

• 2. In Irish orthography, there is a space between Mac and the rest of the surname, e.g. Seán Mac Eoin, Seán Mac Stiofáin etc. In English orthography, there is no space between the Mc or Mac and the rest of the surname.

• 3. In Irish orthography, note that the Ó in surnames always takes an accent and is followed by a space, e.g. Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiach, etc.

• 4. When transcribing from old Irish texts which contain lenited letters (séimhiú), please relect the modern and standard forms of Irish spelling and replace the séimhiú with a 'h'. Thus, Aed or Aod becomes Aedh or Aodh, Domnall becomes Domhnall, Ruaidri becomes Ruaidhrí, etc.

5. Fadas (accents) must always be used if necessary. There is no excuse for omitting them.

Support this, except that no. 4 would be better simply as "replace the seimhiu with a 'h'". Palmiro | Talk 14:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

incorporated your suggestion, thanks. --Damac 14:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Merely wish to clarify that no. 1 should read Thus, we refer to Mairtín Ó Cadhain, not Martin Kyne rather than as it does, Thus, we do not refer to Mairtín Ó Cadhain, not Martin Kyne. Hiding talk 14:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

incorporated your suggestion, thanks. --Damac 14:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As this has been in discussion since August and no further commments/objections have been made to my proposals, I have added Correct Irish orthography in naming people to the article page. --Damac 09:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Good move. Are there any remaining objections to points 3, 4 and 5? I would like a slight copyedit to 4, but I think they should go in as well - or are they still contentious? Palmiro | Talk 11:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Woops, I see I misread the situation. I have made my proposed copyedit: basically I want point four to be as clear and unambiguous as possible, and not to raise the thorny question of standardising spellings to the Caighdean Oifigiuil form. Palmiro | Talk 12:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A further problem arises when a difference exists between the modern Irish form of the name and the original form. For instance the article on Terence MacSwiney is listed under the English form of the name, but a disagreement exists as to how to describe the Irish version. A user listed this as Traolach Mac Suibhne, which I changed to Toirdhealbhach on discovering that that was the form used in his contemporary printed works. Damac later reverted that, making the point that the version 'Traolach' is the one used on his monument (a picture of which is on the page). However, I am not convinced this is appropriate - the monument appears to date from much later (around the 1960s or 1970s, I would guess) and reflects modern rather than contemporary usage. I am fairly sure, and will check, that MacSwiney actually used the form 'Toirdhealbhach' as his signature, and my view is that that is the form that should be used. However, I would like to hear what others think of this. Rbreen 20:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetisation of "Mc" and "Mac" in surnames

I have found no reference to this on Wikipedia. I would like to see all surnames that begin with "Mc" alphabetised as though they were "Mac", e.g. in categories. This is what the eircom phonebook does. A number of Irish Wikipedians also seem to do it this way. You will find categories with a mixture of both policies.

Obviously, this would affect the MoS for the whole of Wikipedia; it can't be contained to Irish articles. Scottish editors might also have an opinion on the matter, and, of course, many Americans have "Mc" surnames. What do people think? Ian Cheese 22:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

US phone books have Mac and Mc alphabetized separately (no special treatment vs. other names). You're right that it can't be contained to Irish articles, which makes Ireland-specific style probably not work in this case. But at least Ireland doesn't have it as bad as Iceland in terms of world phone book organization disparity! :) --Craig Stuntz 13:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've started a more general discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#Category_sort_key:_surnames jnestorius^(talk) 13:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland

I think we need guidelines about what terms to use for the 2 jurisdictions on Ireland, particularly in category names. Here are some proposals to get a discussion started: (See #Names of areas and #Nature of areas sections below). For the purposes of this discussion I refer to the 3 areas as C6, C26 and C32 - based on the number of traditional counties in each. Joestynes 13:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I largely agree that there is need for an official policy but any use of "of Ireland" needs to be reserved and only in cases where there is a genuine need for it for official titles. The vast majority of articles and category must have "of Republic of Ireland". It needs to be enforceable and sensible, and simple. Djegan 18:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

These look sensible enough. Would the Republic of Ireland not be an acceptable term to use for the period 1937-1949? I appreciate the state at that time did not use the term, but the only other suggestions I can come up with are State of Ireland (1937-1949) or Ireland (political state 1937-1949), and whilst I appreciate the call for factual accuracy, on the balancing hand is the call for accessibility. Hiding talk 14:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning behind the need to use Republic of Ireland in categories in so far as possible. My belief has long being that there are exceptions where Ireland, as distinct from Republic of Ireland, is an absolute requirement with official titles of offices and organs of state to maintain the integrity of presenting these titles without made up or inaccurate terms. I am not asking for a policy that will convert every use of the Republic of Ireland to Ireland. For instance official title President of Ireland, therefore we have category:Presidents of Ireland but for generic categories such as Category:Politics of the Republic of Ireland, or Category:Political office-holders in the Republic of Ireland these should stay as they are with "of Republic of Ireland" - anybody asking for the contrary would be unreasonable. This "dual use" approach will not cause many problems as long as it is used in a consistent and uniform fashion and not a free for all. Djegan 20:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Note the guidelines are intended to cover all of:

1. references within articles
2. names of articles
3. names of categories

These may not have the same issues. The Emergency can be in Category:History of the Republic of Ireland but should not itself refer to the "Republic of Ireland". A bit of rephrasing to dodge the issue is possible in articles, but not so easy in titles. Category:Prime Ministers of C26 is still something I would like to see; there is a danger at the moment of Categories separating pre- and post-1937 articles artificially. Joestynes 16:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The 1937 issue is not a major problem as some pre 1937 articles and titles will have Irish Free State as part of the title, for instance Category:Government in the Irish Free State. History is always a fuzzy term for exact dates so Category:History of the Republic of Ireland can continue to have a pre Republic of Ireland article in it without much fuss.

What I am concerned about though is that where an official title (of and office or organ of state) is used it must reflect the official name of the state (simply Ireland) if it existed before 1949, but after 1937. Thus for instance Category:Mayors of the Republic of Ireland is acceptable as it is not a title but simply a category of mayors, but Category:Presidents of Ireland is a must as it directly reflects the title of an office of state. When you say Category:Prime Ministers of C26, does C26 mean an as yet undefined name, hopefully not a category with C26? Also "Prime Ministers" may in itself cause issues, Taoiseach is better. Djegan 19:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course C26 is a nonstarter as a potential name for "Independent Ireland from 1922 to the present", it's just a placeholder. Taoiseach is definitely not appropriate pre-1937. If people think "Prime Minister" is too British we could use "Head of Government", although (a) "Government" is itself ambiguous; (b) The 1937 constitution itself describes the Taoiseach as the Prime minister; (c) we already have Category:Irish heads of government which encompasses Category:Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland. Anyway, this is all wandering off the point, which is: do we need an overarching name for C26[1922-present], and, if so, what? Joestynes 09:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe we need a overarching name for 1922 to present as we have two distinct political systems operating in the twenty-six counties during this time, viz Irish Free State (1922-1937) and Ireland (Eire) (1937-present) (i.e. Republic of Ireland 1949-present). Taoiseach would only be post 1937 in anycase, we can create additional categories for Irish Free State related articles if necessary.

Djegan, I strongly believe that we need an overarching name for the Irish government since 1922. There are far more continuities between the Free State and what followed than differences. Ministers and ministries remained the same; the parliament retained the same name - Dáil Éireann -; county councils remained the same; all major educational, scientific, cultural etc., institutions remained the same. Again, take a look at what has been done for other countries - List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_France for example which lists the prime ministers of that country under monarchs, and five different constitutional republics. Or even Chancellor_of_Germany - listing the holders of that office under Imperial, Nazi and Federal Germany.--Damac 20:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Something I would recommend is that you review the respective French and German language articles and they are arranged in a fundementally different (and more faithful to the meaning of the titles as you might expect in their own respective languages). Incidentally we already have Irish heads of government since 1919 so their is already a lot of crossover, but we need to ensure we don't over simplfy. Djegan 20:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked out the de: Bundeskanzler and fr: President de la Republique categories, and I still agree with Damac. The conceptual gap between the 1922 C26 and the 1937 C26 is very small, and the danger of exaggerating it worries me more than the danger of ignoring it. Other countries have changed name, constitution and/or republican/monarchist form without any fundamental discontinuity in the conception of the state.

As regards the French article, the Presidents of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Republics are all in the same category. I think they could usefully have separate subcategories; that would then match the structure I support for C26.

The Germans have gone to the other extreme and separated pre-unification Chancellors 1947-90 from post-unification chancellors, I guess reflecting the view that it was a merger of states rather than an absorption of DDR by BRD. Perhaps if C6 and C26 ever unite, I might revise my point of view accordingly :) One can hardly blame them for separating out the Nazis; few Irish people feel that way about Cumann na nGaedhal. Joestynes 17:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I am certainly not argueing with the continuity of the state. Take the prime ministerial offices, as an example, and discribe how we could organise them (category, or article wise) and we can discuss it from their. (we could start a new section before we indent ourselves to oblivion!) Djegan 19:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Overarching name for C26

Currently we have

Category:Irish heads of government 
  Category:Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland
    Terence O'Neill etc
  Category:First Ministers of Northern Ireland
    David Trimble
  Category:Heads of Irish provisional governments
    Cathal Brugha etc
  Category:Presidents of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State
    W.T. Cosgrave and Dev
  Category:Taoisigh of Ireland
    Bertie Ahern etc

I would rather see

Category:Irish heads of government 
  Category:Heads of government of Northern Ireland
    Category:Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland
      Terence O'Neill etc
    Category:First Ministers of Northern Ireland
      David Trimble
  Category:Heads of Irish provisional governments
    Cathal Brugha etc
  Category:Heads of government of C26
    Category:Presidents of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State
      W.T. Cosgrave and Dev
    Category:Taoisigh of Ireland
      Bertie Ahern etc

2 questions:

1. would others agree with this recategorization
2. what name to use in place of C26? ("independent Ireland"; "the southern Irish state"; "the Irish state"; "Republic of Ireland"; "26-county Ireland"; "RepOblique of Ireland") Joestynes 17:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the second is a improvement - as for C26 "Republic of Ireland" would be best but I am not so sure that others would agree. Certainly I am against clearly made up names, that have no prior usage such as "independent Ireland"; "the southern Irish state"; "the Irish state"; "26-county Ireland"; "RepOblique of Ireland" and such. Djegan 22:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for this very clear and concise presentation. It really helps in visualising and understanding what you are trying to do.

I agree with most points but have some reservations. Firstly, I object to Category:Heads of Irish provisional governments. Cathal Brugha etc was not the head of a provisional government - he saw nothing provisional about it and neither does Irish consitutional history. The 1916 "government" was provisional according to its own definition; the First Dáil however did not see itself as provisional. I'm afraid I can't think of an alternative at this stage but it's something to keep in mind.

That's really a side issue; I only listed the category as it's currently listed; any problems with its name are unrelated to this C26 discussion. Joestynes 16:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How to call C26 is a difficult one. I'm of the opinion that as we use the constitutional name of the political entity that is the C6 and also one that is widely used, we should apply the same principles when referring to the political entity of the C26, that is referring to it by its constitutional name (i.e. Ireland) and its office holders as Taoisigh of Ireland etc. Irish Republic, Republic of Ireland are non-existant names; "the State" (Irish Times usage) is not helpful either; 26 Counties is Sinn Féin/RSF talk and "southern Irish" is the preserve of the rightwing of the British Tory party. Let's keep it simple. Ireland is how the country describes itself and it is how most of the world recognises it. --Damac 23:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well so far that sounds like one vote each for Ireland and Republic of Ireland, which are my 2 least favourite options (apart from RepOblique which was my own little joke :). Personally, when all else fails, I approve of "made up" terms; provided it is clear that the term is a nonce description used as an internal convenience rather than purporting to have some official or established currency. Wikipedia already uses such nonce descriptions for disambiguation; it is clear for example that Prince (artist) is the name of the Wikipedia article but not the name of the person described in the article; his name is Prince but that name is unavailable for the article because it would be ambiguous. By the same token, we should find a Wikipedia-name which is obviously not a "name" used outside Wikipedia. How about Ireland (state)? Category:Heads of government of Ireland (state) is very awkward but the meaning seems clear (to me at least). Awkwardness seems a lesser sacrifice than inaccuracy or ambiguity. Joestynes 16:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

We need to be very conservative before we entertain any requests for a new name for the Republic of Ireland. There are very few exceptions to not using the "of the Republic of Ireland", generally "of Ireland" should only be used when combined with an official title of a organ of the state or something all Ireland. Republic of Ireland is simply, unambiguous and optimum in most cases. Djegan 20:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite family links with Dublin, I'd never realised that "Republic of Ireland" isn't the correct name for the, well, Republic of Ireland - or ROI. The problem for many with using "Ireland" for the ROI, is that it's (also) a geographic term for the whole island and thus can cause confusion. I'm no expert, but I suspect that the term "Ireland" may be the constitutional name as an expression of the aspiration of a "united Ireland". My vote (if there is one) would be for a name that clearly identifies the state to our readers - Irish Republic or Republic of Ireland may not be legally correct, but it is clear. We can then explain the legalities in the text.

BTW, has anyone read Dervla Murphy's A Place Apart? In chapter 2 "A Few Small Clarifications", Murphy discusses nomenclature, including the options for both parts of (the island of) Ireland.

"Southern Ireland" is not the preserve of the rightwing of the British Tory party. It's often used by ignorant people (often quite innocently) - which does not necessarily exclude any part of the Tory party, of course. Folks at 137 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the nature of the discussion was clear; I've re-indented it within #Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland. To summarise: We are all agreed that "Republic of Ireland" is the best name to use when talking about the state today (Geography, sport, music, etc etc etc), but it's not accurate before 1949. When we are talking pre-1949 (in a historical survey, say, or in an article like The Emergency, or giving labels to categories which include people who died before 1949), do we need a different label? This is not so clearcut. jnestorius^(talk) 23:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Names of areas

1. Prior to 1920, use only Ireland. C6 and C26 did not exist.
2. After 1920, use island of Ireland for C32 where there is possible confusion with C26.
   1. Where needed to emphasise C32, use all-island rather than all-Ireland as some Unionists dislike the latter.
      1. Use all-Ireland where official, as in All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, Primate of All Ireland.
3. Post-1920, use Northern Ireland for C6.
   1. Use Ulster where official in names, as in Royal Ulster Constabulary, Ulster Unionist Party. Do not describe Ulster as "incorrect" when referring to C6; avoid using it and alert readers to its contentiousness if it is necessary to use it, but it is POV to describe it as incorrect. (If "Ireland" can be 26 or 32 counties, "Ulster" can be 6 or 9 counties).
4. 1922-1937, use Irish Free State for C26
5. 1949-present, use Republic of Ireland for C26
   1. Use Ireland in official titles as President of Ireland.
   2. In alphabetically-ordered lists of countries, list under I for Ireland, not R for Republic.
   3. Use [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] when Ireland is needed for C26.
6. Do not use Irish Republic for C26. The article describes a historic term applicable to C32.
7. Do not use Éire for C26. It is not used within C26 except in Irish language.
8. Do not use Southern Ireland for C26 except in the specific historical sense described in the article.

I'm not sure about 1920-1922 or 1937-1949 for C26. Category:Prime Ministers of C26 would be a useful supercategory for Category:Taoisigh of Ireland and Category:Presidents of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State, but no convenient name springs to mind. Ireland would probably not be misunderstood in most applicable contexts, but I'm loath to recommmend it after all the preceding cautions.

Nature of areas

1. When contrasting Republic of Ireland with United Kingdom, describe both as states. Avoid the word country.
2. When contrasting Republic of Ireland with Northern Ireland, describe both as jurisdictions. Avoid the word country.
3. When contrasting Northern Ireland with Great Britain or its subdivisions (England, Scotland, Wales), descibe Northern Ireland as a part (I believe this is the official description?).
4. Do not describe Northern Ireland as a province (Unionist POV) or a statelet (Nationalist POV).
5. Avoid describing Northern Ireland as British if "UK" can be used instead.

Addition of (Irish name: "$NAME") to articles

Theres been some disagreement over this on Talk:Gerry Adams, with some entirely conflicting views to a similar discussion on the Irish noticeboard, and with one user effectively threatening to "start an official discussion on it", I'm doing it myself.

This is the English language Wikipedia, and the vast majority of Irish people, be they arguably or not arguably "Irish", are named in English. Yet there are large numbers of articles which feature a translation of their name in to Irish. This is an almost unique situation - in no other cases are names which are already in English converted to another language, only those which have been Anglified (e.g. from Irish itself, or, as is most common, from languages which do not utilise Latin characters - a notable Irishman himself, Chaim Herzog, serving as a good example here).

Modern names in Ireland generally do not have any genuine Irish version, everything is a back translation. These back-translations vary from region to region, and family to family depending from the same Irish surname - my own surname (Duffy) is one which varies heavily, as does O'Connell - examples of which are further up this page.

We already have a policy for people who were named in Irish or who almost always use an Irish form of their name. In these cases, their every day name is in Irish, so it should be listed as such and an English version or translation given where applicable - all well and good, all covered.

Yet we have many people whos name has never been in Irish. And there is a translation given which is completetly unverifiable - violating WP:V. Giving a translation in to one language that the name is not in and not others is a violation of the NPOV policy - WP:NPOV. And its a borderline violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), as completely unnessacery non-English text is being used

In a case like, oh, I'll take Bertie Ahern as an example, our current Taoiseach is called Patrick Bartholemhew Ahern, commonly known as Bertie Ahern. Yet we have an entirely out-of-context "Pádraig Parthalán Ó hEachthairn" thrown in there for good measure. For the google search "Bartholomew in Irish", we get such possible versions of the name as "Bairtleméad", and very few google results for "Parthalán" return "Bartholomew" as an English language version, indeed it gets returned as having an English version of "Barclay" on some references. This shows how entirely unverifiable an Irish back-translation is.

Now, Mr. Ahern was born in an English speaking area of the country in the 1950's. He was almost certainly named entirely in English and hence no "Irish version" of his name exists. Generating one for him is a clear violation of the policies on No Original Research WP:NOR. Googling for the Irish version of his name provided does turn up some decent references, however most drop the Pádraig. The Wikipedia, in Irish, is the highest result. This is where I admit that Bertie was probably a bad example for NOR...

Anyway... what could be as simple as a few words in brackets can easily lead to the violation of a huge number of Wikipedia policies. Hence, I'm proposing that for where someone was named in English, ONLY the English-language form of their name is used, as Use English would suggest. Where an Irish version of their name is used by themselves in English consistantly or they were actually named in Irish, the current rules would still apply, of course.

Nationalistic issues must be set aside here - its irrelevant that "Irish is a national language". In the case of those people from Nothern Ireland, both Irish and Ulster Scots are recognised national languages; and for the UK, I don't see a Welsh version of "Anthony Charles Lyndon Blair" appearing Tony Blair appearing on his page, despite its national language status in the UK. There is no justifiable reason whatsoever to expend effort back-translating names which are not in Irish to Irish for the English language Wikipedia. If people wish to expend effort on translation to Irish, there is an Irish language Wikipedia which is growing in usage all the time and will no doubt be happy to take any contributions. --Kiand 22:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on the back translation, everyone who has recieved instruction in Irish will know that if their legal name is in English, then they will be provided with a litany of varations that they can used to generate an "Irish name", on the basic level those that start with "Ó", "Ni", "Mac", etc.

This need to provide an Irish name is somewhat of a fetish, their must be reasonable grounds to prove that the person actually uses the Irish name in English widely (it must meet the original research requirements and thus be citeable if not accepted); it is not simply enough to prove that it can be back translated with a junior cert level of Irish.

Thus taking an extreme case it would be entirely inappropriate to provide a back translation for "George W. Bush". Moreover Mary McAleese has recently been tagged for citation for the inclusion of the Irish name, incidentially not by Kiand.

A policy is needed to formalise this issue. Djegan 22:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The questions of "back translations" and "original research" are to some degree red herrings here. As far as variant forms go, there are plenty of examples of people who never used the English version of their name having various versions of their Irish name, Aodhagan O Rathaille being an example that springs to mind immediately. So what? The only controversy I have personally seen is over inclusion of Gerry Adams' Irish name. This is eminently verifiable as being used by the man himself. The same (verifiable, with a bit of effort) goes, AFAIK, for Parthalan O hEachthairn, which I am pretty sure I have seen on official documents. The only real question is whether verifiable Irish versions of names, used in Irish but not in English, should be mentioned on the pages dealing with the subject. I don't see why not, and I don't see why this is so much more controversial than giving the Irish names of towns, which are not generally used in English either. Incidentally, some politicians do have "official" Irish names: the Oireachtas translation department provides official Irish versions for holders of ministerial office who do not already have an Irish version they habitually use and who wish to have one for use on official documents in the Irish language. Indeed, it's quite possible that this is where our friend Parthalan comes from. Palmiro | Talk 15:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So much for unverifiable: opening the Department of the Taoiseach homepage and clicking into the Irish-language version immediately reveals a greeting signed by the apparently unverifiable Parthalán Ó hEachthairn, T.D., Taoiseach.[2] It sounds like those who thought these things were unverifiable didn;t put too much effort into checking whether they were or not. Equally, whoever tagged Mary McAleese's article for a citation for her Irish name could have found it on the Aras an Uachtarain website with about as much effort as it took to put in the citation tag, if not less. Palmiro | Talk 15:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Citability is always an issue, once someone makes a request or their is a dispute. Citeability is the standard that wikipedia sets, it is not acceptable to prove simply that a name can be translated. Djegan 15:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That goes without saying. But do you object to including eminently verifiable/citable Irish names - such as those of Gerry Adams, Bertie Ahern and Mary McAleese? Palmiro | Talk 15:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Gerry Adams cannot take the benifit of the Oireachtas translation department. Generally as a matter of course when the name is verifiable/citable its not a problem, however this leds us to the question; what is the good of including an Irish name when the person themselves speak little or poor Irish or don't use that name themselves? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Djegan 16:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If the person doesn't use that name themselves, then probably it shouldn't be included except in exceptional circumstances (say if for some reason it was widely used by third parties). I'm not sure that I disagree with you here; my objection is to the removal of verifiable names that are or have been used. Palmiro | Talk 16:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The citability/original research may be dealt with for some persons, however its not always. Anyway, the other issue at stake here is that the name is still that - a translation. The fact that the person may be Irish doesn't affect it, and as I said above, nationalistic issues must be set aside. We are a unique case in here placing a translation to a second language of a name that is in English. A translation to another language falls foul of WP:UE as well as the random, pointless facts rule - its trivia, at best. There is an Irish-language Wikipedia where people can edit to their hearts content, same as there is a French language and a German language one. We have no French or German translations of English-language names on the Wikipedia. I object to including -any- translations of names to languages other than English on the Wikipedia. Their use in those languages is entirely irrelevant, this is not that languages Wikipedia. --Kiand 17:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be in a minority of one on this. Palmiro | Talk 17:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you learn to count. --Kiand 17:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled by that comment, which seems rather uncivil. On the "no Irish names, ever" side I count 1. Kiand, and nobody else. Or are you composed of several persons, some sort of Wikipedian Holy Trinity? Palmiro | Talk 17:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Theres also the "no Irish names where they just shouldn't be" side, on which theres more than one. --Kiand 17:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would appear to be the side that myself and DJEgan are on, and I suspect Damac and Kwekubo as well. Palmiro | Talk 17:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Its not, because you're idea of where they "should be" is on articles where the person themselves doesn't use the name in English. Thats the crux of the issue here. Ahern dpesn't describe himself as Parthalán Ó hEachthairn in English, hence its irrelevant to an English language article. I've got here somewhere in a text file (much digging would ensue if I looked for it) a thing from when I did Japanese that was all major European leaders names translated in to Japanese and in katakana characters. Its just as valid a translation as the one to Irish, but its never used in English.

Other examples have been brought up of where people were actually named in Irish or actually use an Irish translation of their name in English. In this case, obviously, the Irish is relevant. But when someone is named in English, speaks English and uses only the English form of their name in English, an Irish translation doesn't belong. Its pointless cruft. Just as valid as that Japanese version... --Kiand 18:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, here we go, got if off the Japanese Wiki. Our Taoiseach is "バーティ・アハーン" in Japanese. Should we include that in the article too? Or that he's "ברטי_אהרן" in Hebrew? No, we shouldn't. And yet they're just as relevant as an Irish translation.

If you can give a good, justifiable reason why an Irish language translation is more relevant than any other, all well and good. But it being an "official language" isn't one. This isn't the Irish language Wikipedia. We also don't have Irish, Welsh or Ulster Scots versions of Tony Blair, nor has anyone suggested an Ulster Scots version of Gerry Adams - as its the other official language of Northern Ireland. Nor has anyone ever attempted to put even an Irish version on to Ian Paisley, who also comes from a country where Irish is an official language. --Kiand 18:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify and expand were I stand; when we are adding/retaining a disputed name we need more than a abstract web page somewhere to prove it. Moreover, the belief that we must provide a translation because someone is "nationalist" is bogus, should we provide Ulster Scots for "unionists" - no. If we give translations simply because of this criteria then this is slavish and fundementally insecure, we must show it has some degree of relevence to the article not simply a means of panning out the body of the article. Djegan 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, certainly I agree that the argument that the Belfast Agreement obliges us to give Gerry Adams' Irish name is singularly silly. But I don't see why an Irish name frequently used by someone in Irish is any less relevant to an article on that person than the Irish name of a town used to refer to that town in Irish. And as for official names, the websites of the Dept. of the Taoiseach and Aras an Uachtarain are not just "a abstract web page somewhere" regarding the names of the Taoiseach and President: they are authoritative sources. Palmiro | Talk 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

On the question of government websites occassionally the incur errors. The most notable I came across was the Attorney General of Ireland which removed the accent on "Ard" after I emailed them about it, documented on the corressponding talk page. Djegan 18:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

aside, to Djegan: They did it after you emailed them? Djegan, you rule!!! Bastique 12:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Placenames are legally bilingual, except for ones in Gaelthact areas - where WP:UE means we still use the English language version (if one exists) as primary. Peoples names are not legally bilingual. --Kiand 18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My dhá phingin on this: I agree that Irish versions of personal names should not be used without good reason. I think RTÉ Nuacht always calls Bertie Bertie rather than Parthalán, though I have seen the Irish name on the bilingual plaque unveiled at the Cork main sewerage scheme (the glamour!). Charlie Haughey was Cathal ó hEochaidh on Nuacht however; his mother called him Cathal too; he was Minister for the Gaeltacht; I'm prepared to be inclusive in borderlinecases. But in general I imagine the only articles this is being added to are politicians: would anyone put Robáird ó Catháin on Robbie Keane's page? That is a sign that something unobjective is at work.

As regards placenames, the Irish version should always be given for counties, provinces and natural features, and in the Republic of Ireland for urban areas. Not sure about new towns in NI where any neolgistic Irish parity-of-esteem name may never be used. Not sure about smallscale human features like parks, streets, buildings, stadiums, etc. jnestorius^(talk) 21:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland / Ireland in location introductions

I suggest that the political location be described in the form Townname is a town/village in County Countyname, Republic of Ireland, and is located in the geographicregion of Ireland.

So for example; Cratloe is a village in County Clare, Republic of Ireland, located in the midwest of Ireland.

What do people think? I think it's appropriate to link to both ROI and Ireland, as the places are located in both.

zoney ♣ talk 13:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

After editing the Cratloe article to include a link to Republic of Ireland, it reads as follows:

Cratloe (Irish: An Chreatalach) is a small village (its population in 2002 was 656) in County Clare, Republic of Ireland, situated between Limerick City and Ennis in the midwest of Ireland.\

I think this is an informative, easy to read and comprehensive first sentence.

zoney ♣ talk 14:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment is it possible to have a hard and fast definition of geographicregion now? Perhaps Regions of the Republic of Ireland? Djegan 20:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • How would this impact on a place in the Greater Dublin Area - I can see anon editors throwing a hissy-fit if they see their town/village (and by definition county) is included in some definition of Dublin (re: County Kildare). Djegan 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Nevertheless, I'd say just leave it to be agreed on particular articles. Imposing the strict regions you've linked to is too restrictive. Often a description of the location may not include any of those regions. (e.g. a town in the Golden Vale, or north/south/east/west coast). zoney ♣ talk 09:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• I really don't like this proposal. County, Republic of Ireland (or Northern Ireland) is sufficient. The island is not that big, regional identity is not as strong as in say England, and if place articles have a locator map it's obvious whether it's north, south, east or west. I think

Cratloe (Irish: An Chreatalach) is a village (2002 population: 656) in County Clare, Republic of Ireland, between Limerick City and Ennis.

reads better. jnestorius^(talk) 20:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Regional identity as not as strong as say England? Where are you living? Dublin? The Midlands, Southwest, Midwest, West, Northwest, Southeast are all regions with strong identities. zoney ♣ talk 14:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "Where are you living? Dublin?" LOL. On the contrary, Cork and Kerry people rarely make much common cause about "the Southwest", except if there's money available. The midlands is about the strongest regional identity (Laois-Offaly, Longford-Westmeath) but even that sometime includes Roscommon and/or north Tipp. I don't know whether locals anywhere will agree with outsiders about what region or regions, if any, they're in. Wexford is Southeast, Mayo is West, Donegal is Northwest, Clare is Midwest, Dublin is East; after that I'm not sure. jnestorius^(talk) 18:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful on this one. Regional identity in Ireland (i.e. other than counties) is not very strong. Their are no hard and fast definitions of regions. Djegan 18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation of locations in Ireland

I propose that the following preferred style be added to this page:

Articles about a location in Ireland should be named, where possible, in the form Locationname (e.g. Tralee).

Where a location, such as a town, requires disambiguation, the format should be Townname, County Countyname. For example, Kill, County Kildare where Kill is not an appropriate location for the article.

Locations in County Dublin should use the format Locationname, Dublin. For example, Swords, Dublin where Swords is not appropriate. This avoids the need to distinguish between city and county, or more particularly, Dublin's four county-level authorities.

Where a town and county have the same name, the county article should be named as County Countyname, and the town should be located at County/townname (if no further disambiguation is needed). For example, Sligo and County Sligo.

Thoughts? The existing articles on towns in Ireland near-universally follow the above format.

zoney ♣ talk 13:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support (with reservation) in particular with respect to Dublin - but agree that four local authorities could make system overly complex - would that be appropriate or otherwise though? How should this excpetion relate to other cities (if at all)? Certainly it formalises the format for locations outside major urban centers - which is to be welcomed. Djegan 21:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• • One could probably add that locations in other cities should use placename, cityname. The problem is, do we refer to the general city area, or the sometimes absurd city boundaries (e.g. in Limerick, Castletroy, etc. technically aren't in the city. Fortunately that example didn't need dab). zoney ♣ talk 09:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Irish names in content

I suggest amending this section as follows:

Once the article name is established, any alternate name for the locale should be provided on the first line of the article (whether or not the name is widely used), as well as the proper location in the information box. The first sentence of the article should use the form "Townname (Irish: Ainmbhaile)" as follows:

'''Townname''' ([[Irish language|Irish]]: ''Ainmbhaile'')

The remainder of the article should use only the place name as titled in the article

and continuing from there. This is just to ensure consistent formatting; that "Irish" is linked and disambiguated to Irish language, with the actual Irish placename being italicised.

zoney ♣ talk 14:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support Djegan 20:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment needs fine-tuning for cases like Charleville, where Rath Luirc is rightly bolded, and An Rath probably should be too. jnestorius^(talk) 18:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support generally this should be the policy except for some exceptions, some of which jnestorius mentions. ww2censor 15:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Space after Mc/Mac?

I've noticed a small ambiguity in the current wording of the guidelines on naming people and this has to do with the question when a space should be included after Mac in surnames. Paragraph one states:

1 If someone used the Irish version of his or her name, and this enjoyed and enjoys widespread usage among Irish and English speakers, this should be reflected in Wikipedia. Thus, we refer to Máirtín Ó Cadhain, not "Martin Kyne"; Tomás Ó Fiaich, not "Thomas Fee", etc.

Taking this then, we should refer to Tomás Mac Giolla using the Irish version of his name. However, paragraph 3 specifies:

3 In Irish orthography, there is a space between Mac and the rest of the surname, e.g. Seán Mac Eoin, Seán Mac Stíofáin etc. In English orthography, there is no space between the Mc or Mac and the rest of the surname.

I think some clarification is necessary in both paragraph three, and I propose that they be re-worded thus (changes in bold):

1 If someone used the Irish version of his or her name, and this enjoyed and enjoys widespread usage among Irish and English speakers, this should be reflected in Wikipedia. Thus, we refer to Máirtín Ó Cadhain, not "Martin Kyne"; Tomás Mac Giolla, not "Tom Gill" or "Tomas MacGiolla", etc.

3 In Irish orthography, there is a space between Mac and the rest of the surname, e.g. Seán Mac Eoin, Seán Mac Stíofáin etc. In Wikipedia, therefore, a space should be included after Mac if the surname is in the Irish language. In English orthography, there is no space between the Mc or Mac and the rest of the surname.

What do people think?--Damac 15:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't personally think that the original versions of Paragraphs 1 and 3 are ambiguous. But, of course, if others do, there should be a revision.--Cat Constantine 21:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I; I wrote them. However, we've had a number of re-namings recently, some by senior contributors, so the paragraphs need to be made more precise to prevent this happening.--Damac 05:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Tomas MacGiolla really English orthography though? I'd have thought that's just a poorly rendered version of the Irish name. --Kwekubo 13:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Politically neutral references to Ireland (the island)

Is there any convention on the appropriate reference to Ireland where what is being described is a genuinely island-wide phenomenon, or where the phenomoneon exists more to the North of the island (such as a geographical phenomoneon to do with the weather, social habits, etc.) where the border does not have any practical apparent significance? The problem arises because one cannot use Northern Ireland synonymously with the North of the island and on the other hand you don't want to give the impression you are deliberately avoiding reference to Northern Ireland.

The problem arose on the Coleraine aritlce re. the town centre being referred to as a "Diamond", something, I am assured, whcih occurs also in the North of the Republic. Having raised the matter on two other talk pages the two users who responded both felt that it was just not worth the hassle of referring to the north of the island. Am I being naive in thinking there must be some way of referring to the north of the island that most reasonable people from different political perspectives would find acceptable?Lucifer 11:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Ulster" should be acceptable and accurate too in your example of diamonds. I would have thought "Ireland" would be sufficent for "island-wide phenomena". Halib Frisk 09:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree Halib, Donegal is built to the diamond set up as and that is obviously in the north of the island and still in the republic. Beaumontproject 11:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Imperial vs. Metric: County Down

Currently metric units are been given second place over imperial in County Down, comments are welcome at talk:County Down. Their may be an implication for this manual of style. Djegan 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Historical references to City of Londonderry/Derry

Okay query, how should historical references be handled with reference to Derry/Londonderry. The city was called Londonderry between dates in historical periods before it's current renaming back to Derry, which is supported under this MOS. Now all present day references should be to Derry, no questions asked. I changed a couple of articles that pointed to Londonderry to point to Derry then though, hold on. Should the historical ones from when it was named Londonderry to when it was renamed back to Derry use Derry or Londonderry? It's not as clear cut as County Derry/Londonderry as there was never a County Derry, but I don't think this point has been discussed here before and a way forward on this one is needed, or is the IMOS as it currently stands sufficient for these usages? I don't care much either way, but a guidance one way or another would be useful. I personally (I know I said I don't care) weigh towards using Londonderry in it's correct historical periods prior to the council renaming, simply due to historical weight and official usage, but a guideline would be useful. Can we have a non-POV academic discussion on this and maybe a vote at the end? Ben W Bell talk 15:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see Londonderry being used as in to say, "They called the established city Londonderry", or reffering to Londonderry as the name for the city in the context such as that implies the name is an important part. I can't think off the top of my head any other instances when Londonderry would be more appropriate than Derry. In the same sense, we don't refer to North America as 'New America' in articles referring to the continent, even before it was named America unless it's appropriate. Pauric 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer articials on wiki would suggest a divide between londonderry city and derry city needs to be created on a par with Istanbul -Constantinople and Zaire -Democratic Republic of the Congo (Gnevin 16:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

I always call it "The City Whose Name Starts Fights", but this is probably inappropriate for wikipedia. Probably calling it "Derry" is most pragmatic, as Irish Nationalist trolls seems to outweigh leyalist pedants.--feline1 16:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Feline1 i remind you of WP:Civil (Gnevin 16:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

Oh surprise surprise, a user with Irish Nationalist emblems on their page is threatening a neutral user in this discussion already. Well I am just being straightforward and honest, and, as I said, pragmatic: like many neutral wikipedia editors, I find these edit wars between POV factions over things like "Derry/Londonderry" highly tedious. I suggest the best default name to use in articles might be one which minimises edit wars. Cos edit wars are baaad, mmm'kay? Too many POV edit wars, and neutral rational editors tend to desert wikipedia, and it become a trolling ground for single-issue mentalists. We don't want this.--feline1 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please try and keep this to a civil neutral discussion. I invited people here from both side of the political POV as well as users with a history of more neutral edits to attempt a balanced discussion. Ben W Bell talk 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see any point pussyfooting round the nub of the issue! This entire debate is about appeasing two bigoted POV factions. I doubt there's ever been a person alive who actually was confused which city was being talked about: clarity is not the issue, just assauging sectarian bloody mindedness.--feline1 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Feline your input here is less than helpful and for future reference I find it deeply offencive the way you spek of the Irish Tricolour as a "Irish Nationalist emblems". It may have be high jacked by nationalist but it is still the flag of my nation just as the stars and stripes is not the flag of right wing american extremist. (Gnevin 17:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

Less helpful for whom? For those who seek to get their tiresome POV-pushing taken seriously, when I just call a spade a spade and /sigh/ at it for what it is? If it's any consolation, I find your taking offence at my postings offensive.--feline1 17:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

All i ask is that you be civil and stay within wiki rules (Gnevin 17:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

ROFL!!! Use of a country-of-birth-userbox is tiresome POV-pushing, whilst accusations of "threatening" beahaviour and use of the phrase "Irish Nationalist Trolls" is neutral. LOL!!!! I nearly spilt my coffee. Get a grip on reality and behave. Frelke 18:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Tsk, as can CLEARLY be seen, my complaint gave equal parity of disdain to both nationalists and loyalists, and is thus fair and balanced, and not pushing a POV. That it was someone of the nationalist persausion who complained, not some proddy git, merely proves my point that the former are in the majority on wikipedia and that thus appeasing them would give the quieter life. --feline1 19:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've felt its necessary to report you here of breachs of WP:Civil (Gnevin 20:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

Tsk, as can CLEARLY be seen, when you got personal it was to complain about being threatened by someone, who happened to use a place-of-birth userbox which you apparently feel is emblematic of some sort of POV. Not very neutral, IMHO. Have you ever read M:MPOV? "You know you're acting in good faith, but assume many others involved are acting in bad faith." seems a very apposite quotation. Frelke 21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Typical! I did not "get personal" first - I was invited to give my view by user Brian W Bell. When I expressed that view, I was immediately threatened by Gnevin with being reported to an admin. Which he has now done. Fine. I stick to my view: that the whole debate on the Derry/Londonderry nomenclature has little to do with factual importance or clarity of wikipedia (there is little if any confusion about both names referring to the same place) - the whole reason we have to tip-toe so much is because Irish Nationalist and Ulster loyalist POV-pushers will otherwise bite each other all day long in edit wars, which is not good for wikipedia. In my not-inconsiderable-experience of seeing these edit wars take place on this subject, it seems to me readily demonstrable that the Irish Nationalists shout louder. Pragmatism thus suggests we respect this "majority". I do not feel it is fair to say that expressing this view breaches the civility policy when it takes place in the context of this meta-discussion here. It is germane and may be embarrassing to POV pushers. But it's the POV pushers who are the problem, not neutral editors like myself. They are the reason we have to have this discussion at all. Anyway I've made myself abundantly clear... I leave it to the admin's to send me to my room with no supper.--feline1 22:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Just doesn't click with the facts of the case, IMHO.

1. Invited to discussion
2. Entered discussion with highly aggressive POV posing as a balanced NPOV, that did nothing to further the debate.
3. Warned (not threatened) with the words "i remind you of WP:Civil". No mention of admins at all.
4. Then you got personal.

Go back and reread the entire discussion and try to allow that neutral mind of yours take it all in. You are the one who is causing the disquiet here. Not anyone else. BTW, just what is all this "Typical" of? Can I suggest that if you think this is typical of something its probably that everytime you spout nonsense, the typical reaction is that people point it out to you.Frelke 06:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - let's call it Londonderry then. There's about 40 million more people in the UK to take offence that there are Irish citizens.--feline1 08:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that your "typical" response ? Frelke 09:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

African or European?--feline1 09:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The compromise (Derry for the city, County Londonderry for the county) is about the article titles, not the mentions in articles. Just be sensible about the use in articles: even "all present day references [to the city] should be to Derry, no questions asked" is in fact a POV. Derry GAA is about the county, and I personally don't care where it says it covers, so long as it links to County Londonderry possibly through a redirect from County Derry. Columba's town of Derry was on the east bank of the Foyle, while the walled city of Londonderry( the original Diamond - see above) and was built on the west bank - the Irish Society did not rebuild Derry and rename it, they built Londonderry; but the link, again possibly through a redirect, will be to Derry. The siege is usually called "of Derry". The district council was called Londonderry before 1984 and Derry after 1984, though the chartered name of the city remains Londonderry. The council's members live in Derry if they are nationalist and in Londonderry if they are unionist [3] except for the one who lives in Eglinton. The county and borough parliamentary constituencies were all officially called Londonderry, unless they were called Foyle. My view is that anachronisms are worse than redirects. --Henrygb 16:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

even "all present day references [to the city] should be to Derry, no questions asked" is in fact a POV. Okay sorry about that. I wasn't expressing that as a personal preference, I was expressing that purely as what seems to be the Wikipedia consensus in applying the IMOS to articles despite the fact that reading it now the IMOS does indeed state it is to do with article names. Ben W Bell talk 17:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a good question and prob not easily answered. It could be easy to set the agenda so that articles would be written in a way to suit a particular view point, yet their maybe times when the alternative variation is neccessary. In particular quotations which occassionally get rewritten (I am not saying where) to suit an agenda. I do not think that we should slavishly follow WP:IMOS but that using the alternative variation should be the except rather than the rule. Djegan 18:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as precedent goes:

• Istanbul/Constantinople: contemporary name used.
• Beijing/Peking: modern name used even for historical articles (but "Peking" was a Western name, not what the Chinese called it)
• Stalingrad/Volgograd, St. Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad: contemporary name used
• Chemnitz/Karl-Marx-Stadt: contemporary name used

I haven't made my mind up on this yet, there seems to be precedent for both choices. Demiurge 21:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a resident of Derry - I've only lived there in short stints amounting to a matter of weeks. I do think the city should be named Derry in any reference to the present-day location, as per this current IMoS. Obviously it should be called Londonderry if the text is quoting someone, or if the text is describing, in that sentence or paragraph, the name itself, or the origin vis-a-vis the London Companies etc. Articles referring to the location before the London Companies charter should refer to the place as Derry again.

My personal preference may well be to write Londonderry, and to say Derry - but that's more to do with my own personal style than anything else really. I can't remember the history off-hand right now.. I assume the county was (re-)named after the town, whereby previously County Derry/Londonderry hadn't existed. I think the current IMoS is probably 'correct' as such, and I find it to be a pleasant compromise.

I know for a fact that the Civil Service in Northern Ireland always replies to correspondence using the name the initial contact used - a letter from Joe Bloggs, Derry will be replied to the address Joe Bloggs, Derry and a letter from John Smith, Londonderry will be addressed to John Smith, Londonderry.

I appreciate that the question is relating to the historical references, but I think the most important thing is the reader. It should be made clear to the reader (and we, as editors, should always assume the reader is ignorant) that both the city and county (and the council etc etc) are both called Londonderry and Derry, and note the 'official' names of them (to my knowledge, the official names are: Londonderry City, Londonderry County and Derry Council).

Basically, stick with the current IMoS unless the reference is specifically regarding the name, the 'controversy', or quotations. Also, use Londonderry, I guess, when referring to official laws that had been passed which refer to Londonderry. That's my initial instinct anyway. --Mal 04:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to avoid using either name? The article can use terms like "the walled city", "the historic centre" and so on - it is obvious from context that we aren't writing about Dubrovnik. If it starts to become silly, find some relevant historic text to quote (preferably older than 1690!). If the historical text used the L word, it has to stand because it is a verbatim quote. But be ultra careful to ration usage tightly and sensitively, as there is a risk of emulating the Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy! --Red King 20:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the current stance of the city of Derry, in the County of Londonderry should be followed unless there are good reasons (other than pedantry) for deviating. For example a document concerning the Irish Society may refer the historic Londonderry (city) name, or articles mentioning such things as a 'Londonderry Regiment' or 'First Londonderry Presbyterian Church'. In general though, few people refer to events in "New Amsterdam" in 1650 - they refer to modern "New York", unless they are discussing the Dutch presence in the "New World" (another disused term).. Likewise, imho, referring to the modern city of Derry should be the norm. Blowmonkey 13:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the type of discussion I have been looking for. Over the past few months I have been going through Londonderry and County Derry, basically trying to get rid of all the redirects. The easy bit was the County Derry to County Londonderry, which all needed to be changed. But I have hit a brick wall when it comes to the city. I think there needs to be some sort of consensus over when (if at all) Londonderry should be used. IMO and per this manual of style, Derry should be the norm with instances and Londonderry kept to a minimum.  Keithology  "Talk"  17:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how much use this discussion is - there will always be pedants who refuse to accept a sensible compromise. When they are done here, they will go off to spray-out the 'London' part of Londonderry on road signs (or to insert it when it has been removed). Blowmonkey 10:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly the best example to follow is Danzig/Gdańsk - the revert wars there make Stroke City disputes look like a game of chess! A policy was eventually thrashed out at Talk:Gdansk/Vote - broadly Danzig from 1308 until 1945 and Gdańsk before and after then. Timrollpickering 16:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry (again)

So does WP:IMOS onlyh apply in article titles or what is the story?

WP:IMOS states "Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county for article titles. The naming dispute can be discussed in the articles when appropriate."

So does it not apply to uses in the artivle itself?

Its seems a bit stupid to me that we can't say County Derry in articles like GAA-related ones. Derry Boi 22:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Really their needs to be a consistancy between articles, Derry (city) and Londonderry (county) should be relatively stuck to; otherwise, with respect, we risk a nationalist/unionist divide and endless stand offs and revert wars on individual articles. Their was a genuine attempt recently to review the policy but posturing meant that anyone who was reasonable decided to jump ship and loose interest rather than take part in the mud slinging. Djegan 22:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:IMOS has become nothing but a whipping stick for either side to beat each other with , An articial by artical naming policy would make most sence using WP:NC(CN) as the guide (Gnevin 01:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

P.S as the WP:IMOSas it currently stands makes no reference to the body of the articial and so doesnt apply to Derry GAA and Nigel Dodds etc (Gnevin 01:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

So there's no need to write "County Londonderry" in articles such as GAA ones? It really doesn't look write saying a Derry GAA player's place of birth is County Londonderry. Derry Boi 13:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd hold off making anychanges until we have an agreement on it from both sides (Gnevin 15:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

LOL if "both sides" could agree on it, then we wouldn't *have* two different names in the first place.--feline1 17:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree its got to the stage where the agreement on {{WP:IMOS]] has become a joke. I think its not unreasonable to have a better compromise, I would suggest:
The artciles about the city and county themselves be called what the majoroty of citizens in each would refer to them as. This seems to have preedance in Wikipedia. This would mean the city article being called "Derry" and the county artcile being called "County Derry".
As fr the likes of towns, villages etc in County Derry. We should describe their location as what most people in the town/village would refer to them as. Obviouslsy, while not ideal, the only real way we could have of this is using the 2001 Census results and if a town/village is predomantly Catholic, we descibe it as being in "County Derry", and if a town is predomantly Protestant, we describe it as being in "County Londonderry".

eg Magherafelt (Irish: Machaire Fiolta, meaning "Plain of Fioghalta") is a town in County Derry AND

eg Limavady (Irish: Léim An Mhadaidh, 'leap of the dog') is a busy market town in County Londonderry

On articles such as GAA ones, we really should be using "County Derry".
Opinions? Derry Boi 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that would be messy and lead to bickering on individual pages all the time? Pauric 18:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A thoroughly bad idea, and if anything a joke. People need to accept that the article name should take precidence in linking and usage throughout wikipedia, viz Derry and County Londonderry. Djegan 18:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

So according to WP:IMOS agreement we don't have to link to "County Londonderry", only the title itself, need be called "County Londonderry"? Cause from what I can see that is the case.

You need to accept that a consensus is needed before starting to change the style of articles, just because you cannot accept the location of an article. In everyones interests their are better things to do than discuss the whole Derry/Londonderry issue to death. Djegan 20:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I was going to start changing the stlye of articles, but I'm asking you whether or not the compromise reached in IMOS extends to the use and linking of Derry/Londonderry County Derry/County Londonderry in the body of articles or only in the titles? Derry Boi 22:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If it does not then it should extend to usage in articles. Their should be uniformity (with article titles) except in the case of quotations or names other than Derry or County Londonderry. Djegan 22:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

So in essence there's no requirement to use "County Londonderry", except for title then?, regardless of whether there should or shouldn't be. Derry Boi 23:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to re-read my statements, carefully this time. Links should be simple with no trickery, and direct to the article, theirfore for instance [[Derry]] for "Derry" and [[County Londonderry]] for "County Londonderry". Put simple, no piped or redirect links - just use the term as decided by the article title for that term. If people are unhappy with current article titles then they should consider WP:RM and respect the current article title, whatever it may be. Djegan 00:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing about having different names for the same county (and to a lesser extent the city) is that it can be confusing for readers not familiar with the situations. Ultimately these articles aren't for us or for our use, they are for the reading and education of people all over the world. Using one term because one side prefers it in one instance and another in another would become very confusing for a reader without the knowledge of the situations we all have. Ultimately County Derry is a term some would like to be used, and some do use, but the term carries no official weight whatsoever. The county is named County Londonderry, it is part of the UK and that is what it is called, our personal opinions or viewpoints really shouldn't matter in a factual encyclopaedia. Ben W Bell talk 08:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Port of Londonderry

There's a revert war proceeding merrily about wartime usage. US Naval sources refer to "Londonderry" when referring to the wartime use of military bases in the Derry area. In general, I would respect the US (and historic UK) naming for their bases, probably adding a reference to Derry. Note also that Derry City Council refer to the port as "Londonderry Port" [4]. Any consensus? Folks at 137 12:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

A clear cut case for using londonderry (Gnevin 12:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

Saying "Londonderry Port, which is located in Derry" would be alright, becasue I believe that is still the port's official name, but when you say for example "a ship arrived in Londonderry", it gives the impression that that is the name of the city, especially when you're linking to the city itself and not the port in question. Derry Boi 17:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Londonderry Port, which is located in Derry" suggests Derry is the name of the county. jnestorius^(talk) 11:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it does. But if it helps it could be phrased "Londonderry Port, which is located in the city of Derry" OR "Londonderry Port, which is located in Derry City".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Derry Boi (talk • contribs)

So the consensus appears to be "Londonderry Port" with an appropriate reference to Derry. Seems ok, but if the port has its own identity (much like Tilbury has to London), what about the naval base? I take the point about distinguishing between port and town, so maybe there's a similar solution such as "HM Naval Base Londonderry" or "US naval base Londonderry". There's a similar distinction between Plymouth and HMNB Devonport. Folks at 137 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have put a stub at Londonderry Port - have fun. --Henrygb 17:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cork

Their is a vote to move Cork to Cork (city), not all the proposals confirm to this manual of style, for voting and discussion see talk:Cork#Survey. Djegan 12:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

IRA articles: usage of the word "volunteer"

There's a bit of trouble over this word across several articles at the moment (Séamus McElwaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Thomas Begley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Joseph MacManus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Bobby Sands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) and I'd like the community's help in reaching a consensus. My view is that using "volunteer" for IRA members is unacceptably POV as it has strong positive implications (just look at the Volunteer article). Also it is used almost exclusively by the IRA and their sympathisers, rarely or never by external sources.

It has been argued that this is a military rank used by the IRA, but the Green Book does not seem to support this — it uses "volunteer" as a generic term for all IRA members. My preference is to use the word "member" instead; what do other people think? Demiurge 15:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that using volunteer for the IRA is as acceptable as using private for the British army. Whilst I agree with you it's not a term really used much outside of the IRA or supporters, the same is true when the layman talks informally about grunts of any army (ie saying soldiers or members). The green book is for the most part, rather outdated and little seems to be actually known about it, so I can't see us taking much valid information from the article on it from the ranking system. I know that volunteer wasn't exclusively used for all ranks, off the top of my head there's a marked stone about three local PIRA members that died in an explosion at Toome outside the chapel in Newbridge, near Magherafelt that refers to two volunteers and one captain.

To sum up my post, I think that the PIRA were by definition an army, and therefore if we're going to drop their ranking system from the articles just because they were an illegal organisation (and seemingly as a sign of either disrespect, or even defaming or deglamourising (not quite what I mean, but the correct term slips my mind)) then it's only correct to do this for all armies. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 16:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reference that would show the IRA's rank and promotions system? (I would doubt it, given the nature of the organization.) This term seems to be used in a way that would imply it's a description and not a rank — see Jim Lynagh who apparently is both a "Volunteer" and a "unit commander". Demiurge 16:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"Volunteer" in this sense goes back to the Ulster Volunteers, Irish Volunteers and National Volunteers. PIRA traces itself back to the second of these. "Member" looks a reasonable phrase to use. --Henrygb 16:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pauric, it is a commonly used term not just inside the IRA but in the media also and as already pointed out elsewhere it steams from a historical basis via the Irish Volunteers Vintagekits 16:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also I wouldnt consider Volunteer as being POV, I would consider it neautral and terrorist or freedom fighter as POV Vintagekits 16:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Also for further information see The Green Book (IRA training manual)

• In response to Pauric, the status of the IRA as an army is highly disputed, and the unqualified use of their own military ranks to refer to their members would implicitly endorse one particular side in that dispute. "Member" is a neutral term which does not endorse either side — you can be a "member" of an army or any other organization. I would dispute that it is commonly used in the media (outside of An Phoblacht). To Vintagekits, just because "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are POV doesn't mean that "Volunteer" isn't. Demiurge 16:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• The IRA has a recognised, documented internal structure. See: IRA Army Council, IRA Quartermaster General, List of IRA Chiefs of Staff , OC, Brigades etc. These are detailed in Ed Moloney's Secret History of the IRA. These grades are used outside the IRA by the media but 'volunteer' is used by nobody but Republicans. Use of the term indicates sympathy for the IRA, in the same way that use of the term terrorist indicates disapproval. As we have a neutral term we should use that. There is nothing approving or disapproving in the term 'IRA member'. Curtains99 19:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect - the term is just statement of fact and a descrition, to deny that is like trying to say that calling someone in the British Army as a Private is POV and that they should all be called members. The terms is widely used in the media and here are some link to prove it (including some anti IRA websites!) Vintagekits 21:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/bloodysunday/article/0,2763,718401,00.html
• http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/ira070496.htm
• http://www.ulsternation.org.uk/ulster_nationalism%20an%20IRA%20view.htm
• http://www.politics.co.uk/domestic-policy/adams-calls-on-ira-disband-$8210706.htm
• http://www.sundayherald.com/print33817
• http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/07/nireland.ira/
• http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/content/camden/hamhigh/whatson/story.aspx?brand=NorthLondon24&category=whatsontheatre&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=whatson&itemid=WeED09+Mar+2005+17%3A34%3A09%3A687
• http://www.searcs-web.com/behan.html
• http://www.irishabroad.com/news/irishinamerica/news/IRALegendCahillLaidtoRest.asp
• http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/show_printer.php?aid=157
• http://www.irishecho.com/search/searchstory.cfm?id=1982&issueid=51
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/witnesses/index.shtml
• http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1015322004
• http://www.nesa.org.uk/latest_issue/ira-hon.htm
• http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200505/75e9720f-d3ed-4a47-89c5-e5a223e18caa.htm
• http://www.victims.org.uk/18-10-04b.html
• http://www.museumoffreederry.org/history-motorman.html
• http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15793337&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=ira-gives-up-its-arms--there-is-a-time-for-peace---there-is-a-time-for-justice--this-is-that-time-name_page.html
• http://www.everythingulster.com/blogs/index.php/everythingulster/2006/05/23/hunger_striker_profile_3_raymond_mccrees

Did you even look at those sites? They're all either 1) direct quotes from republicans ([5] [6] [7]) or 2) from people with apparent republican sympathies ([[8] [9]). The BBC story [10] is about the Irish Volunteers not the IRA and this link [11] supports my case by putting the word "volunteer" in quotes. [12] is about the IRA putting out a list of its own dead members so they're going to find it hard to avoid IRA terminology. Demiurge 21:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You are now clutching at straws(like you do everytime people dont agree with you)! Since when has is the Irish Voice newspaper a republican paper? and why would the guardian (a british paper) feel the need to dance around what you call "IRA terminology" - what about the other links? care to explain why those non republican source also use the term Volunteer? Finally, here are some more to get you teeth into -

• http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/Irelandclick/arts2003/sep25_IRA_volunteer_cleared.php
• http://www.birw.org/bsireports/100_120/report109.html
• http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1015322004
• http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1938070,00.html
• http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/truce/kelley88.htm
• http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/05/11/uk.spy/
• http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/031005/f031005_02.htm
• http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/political_tours/ballymurphy/murals.asp
• http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/161/161_ire.htm
• http://www.library.dal.ca/archives/doyle/8_05.htm
• http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1469627,00.html
• http://www.ivanfoster.org/article.asp?date=5/2/2003&seq=1
• http://libcom.org/library/red-action-ira-london-bombs-independent
• http://scripts.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/printable.cfm?id=88737
• http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/intro/search.cgi?zoom_query=intro+ira&zoom_page=8&zoom_per_page=10&zoom_cat=-1&zoom_and=0
• http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1999/06/25/ihead_36.htm

That kind of puts to bed your arguement that only republican use the term. Vintagekits 22:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Just looking at your first three links: [13] is a Daily Ireland article. [14] quotes directly from an OIRA member. [15] George Kerevan seems to be a leading light in the SNP and so is probably sympathetic to republicans in Ireland. I haven't bothered to go through the rest in detail, but scouring the internet until you finding a passing use of the term in mainstream media does not prove anything and it does not change the fact that the term is used almost exclusively by the IRA and its sympathisers — just look at the results for this search — all but one (historical) use of the term is from a republican or republican sympathetic source. Demiurge 22:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at this search you get the majority of the results either pro-british army / showing respect to british soldiers, historical references. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 23:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• • An almost laughable retort - you would by any chance by named McDowell? I selected the source to show the wide variation of sources that use the term volunteer. Since when is Ivan Foster, The Times, The Irish Examiner, Camden New Journal, The Ham and High, CAIN, The Guardian, The Scotsman, The Mirrior or even EVERYTHING ULSTER republican or republican sympathetic?? You are loosing a lot of credability over this issue and also starting to show your true colours. Vintagekits 22:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is that your links don't say what you want them to say. You can't distract attention from this inconvenient fact by questioning my motives. Demiurge 22:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• I could go on and on, I suppose the Irish Indo is the new Republican News also? http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=938215&issue_id=8915 Vintagekits 22:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As I said, finding a random use of the term in mainstream media does not change the fact that it is clearly identified with the IRA and its sympathisers. As you have demonstrated with your own links (and my google search link above), the overwhelming majority of uses are in the context of it being used by IRA spokesmen or sympathisers. Demiurge 23:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • I feel I am going around and around in circles with you and you wont accept any viewpoint other than your own. The links prove that term is used by all republicans, neutrals and anti republicans uses the terms. Vintagekits 23:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Journalism is written in a differnt style from a encylopedia article. It is common for journalists to use the jargon of their subjects, and to appear to identify with them as a means of demonstrating their understanding of their subject, even if the superficial identification demonstrates a deeper antipathy. So many journalists will from time to time deliberately use "volunteer" rather than member. Regardless of such instances, the evidence of google shows that "member" is strongly preferred to "volunteer"; the latter term is marked, the former is unmarked. Examples from site quoted above (feel free to add to this table):

site	"IRA volunteer"		"IRA member"
	google URL	count	google URL	count
cnn.com	[16]	1	[17]	51
guardian.co.uk	[18]	80	[19]	200
scotsman.com	[20]	2	[21]	201
timesonline.co.uk	[22]	27	[23]	69
cain.ulst.ac.uk	[24]	28	[25]	52
ivanfoster.org	[26]	3	[27]	16
mirror.co.uk	[28]	0	[29]	9
ulsternation.org.uk	[30]	1	[31]	0
bbc.co.uk	[32]	16	[33]	186
ireland.com	[34]	2	[35]	15
archives.tcm.ie	[36]	35	[37]	164

jnestorius^(talk) 02:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the term volunteer is that it is a loaded word with the connotation of being a good person who helps out in their community without pay. Possibly Republicans would describe a member as a volunteer even if they disapproved of him but this is localised usage. In general, use of the term indicates approval. Wikipedia is meant to be written with a neutral voice or the articles appear biased. Curtains99 10:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Again I strongly disagree, I would say that the would member is used as the term of ease volunteer is more accurate. if the term volunteer why would anti-republican sources use the term. I could equally argue that the term Private, Coropral or Major in the British Army indicates approval and is POV and therefore change all pages with those references to member and member only. Its a ridiculous arguement imo Vintagekits 15:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Volunteer seems fine to me. It doesn't seem POV to me. Also I'm sure (without checking) British troops are described as their releavnt rank on wikipedia.

The IRA described members as volunteers. I mightn't see the Queen as very majestic, but I suppose if I removed "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" from her page, I wouldn't get away with it for too long.

members of the "Privy Council of the United Kingdom" have "Right Honourable" put before their name. Surely if Volunteer is POV, then so is Right Honourable? Derry Boi 20:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at qe2's page you'll see that she is not described as "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II". See WP:HONORIFIC#Honorific_prefixes for guidelines on not using honorific titles in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. 'Right Honourable' is also not allowed. Remove it if you see it. Also 'professor', 'doctor' etc should not be used. You can say 'Stephen Hawking is a professor in Cambridge university' but not 'Professor Stephen Hawking lives in Cambridge'. So we can't say 'volunteer Sean Murphy lives in County Louth'. The question is whether you can say:

Sean Murphy is an IRA volunteer

To most people this is a confusing sentence. It seems to say that he was helping out the IRA. Clearer might be:

''Sean Murphy holds the rank of volunteer in the IRA

but only if volunteer is a genuine rank that we can verify and not just a term for all IRA members only used by Republicans. As the IRA does not publish membership lists and ranks, the best you could do is state that someone was alleged or found in court or stated himself that he held that rank.

So we would have:

''Sean Murphy was alleged to be a member of the IRA. An Phoblacht stated the he held the rank of volunteer

As regards army privates: if you say

John Smith was a private in the British army

There is no confusion. The sentence has no double meaning and calling someone a private does not show approval or disapproval.

Still, it would probably be better to say

John Smith held the rank of private in the British army.

You would need a source so that readers could verify the rank. Curtains99 23:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Curtains, I think I know what you are saying, maybe we need the volunteer to have a capital V and also to have a page explaining that it is a rank or acknowledgement of membership. What od you think? Vintagekits 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes make a page for 'Volunteer (IRA)' and disambiguate it from other uses of volunteer. Really there should be a page explaining the structure of the PIRA: Army council, OC, CoS, adjutant general, quartermaster general, GAC, GHQ, Northern and Southern Commands, Brigades, Batallions, ASUs, Cumann na mBan. According to An Phoblacht, Begley was a member of the 3rd Battalion, Belfast Brigade. [38] At the moment the page calls him a 'bomber' which is more POV. The page should be full of verifiable facts. People can make up their own minds what to think of him. Curtains99 00:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If we were going to do it like that, I feel something along the lines of:

Sean Murphy was a member of the IRA, who held the rank of volunteer.^[reference]

Although it's really the same jist, just formatting differences, or:

Sean Murphy was an IRA volunteer.^[reference]

perhaps. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 00:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

SOunds about right. I will do a disam page for (Volunteer (IRA)) over the next few days and then change all the references that mention that to link to that page. YOu are all welcome ot edit the IRA Volunteer page, obviously! Vintagekits 00:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to prove that Volunteer is a rank first. It will need to be verifiable information under wiki rules. I can only find references to Volunteer for provos in recetn years. They don't seem to have much of a career structure? What was the next rank up? 02:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I said. It is not clear that 'volunteer' is a rank and not merely a term like 'comrade'. Curtains99 03:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was the title given to all those who joined. I was also under the impression that even if you were given a role of higher prominence such as commander then you would still have the title of volunteer. as discussed above i am not sure of the exact details and probably need to do more reading on the topic but one thing for sure is that it is not a term that denotes sympathy. Beaumontproject 13:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is some explaination of the term in its various usages on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_%28disambiguation%29 Vintagekits 14:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Volunteer" is a loaded term, which has connotations of good acts. It was a term used by the IRA groups themselves, and as they are banned terrorist organisations (in ROI, Britain, and US), using their language would be wrong. "Member" is surely a better term as it is NEUTRAL. Logica 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Logica, have you read any of the above? I has already been agreed that the term does not infere sympathy nor is it used soley by republicans (see links provided) The only issue with the term was its definition. An article on the term has know mean written and the use of the term in pages is now disambed to Volunteer (republican) - please feel free to add to that page if you wish. Vintagekits 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been agreed — it's been asserted but definitely not agreed. Even the people in favour of its use aren't sure of whether it's a rank or a description. Demiurge 16:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Vintagekits: I have reread all the above and interpret it quite differently. It has by no means been agreed that Volunteer is NPOV. It has been agreed that, if Volunteer is a rank akin to Private, it may legitimately be used in an article as a description of someone who has held that rank, with a wikilink to the Volunteer (republican) article you created to avoid misunderstanding by the many readers who wil be unfamiliar with Republican nomenclature. Many contributors above have maintained that, outside this specific context, it is POV to prefer "volunteer" to "member". I contested your NPOV evidence with a table of web statistics to which you have so far produced no response beyond the unhelpful "I disagree". jnestorius^(talk) 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would contend that "member" is more of an informal, journalistic or lazy term and that "volunteer" is correct and encyclopedic. I would be interested to hear from you in what way you consider the "volunteer" is POV especially as it is used by neutral, pro and anti republicans. Vintagekits 17:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with jnestorius on this one, volunteer is clearly POV as many posters have stated. This is not a site for the glorification of the IRA, the recent changes by Beaumont/Vintagekits need reversing Weggie 00:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you dont answer question on your talk page I would like you to point out on what basis you consider Volunteer (republican) glorification of the IRA? It is merely a descriptive term and in each case where it is used a reference from a neutral source has been included. Volunteer or Vol. is the official name for a member of the PIRA and many other republican organisation and has a long historical background and its usage is widespread. This is not an issue about supporting the IRA this is an issue about encyclopedic correctness and accuracy. Vintagekits 00:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see a problem with the term. If you chose to join a particular incarnation of the IRA, then you are a volunteer. Just like of you chose to join the Masons or the Orange Order, you do so of freewill, therefore you volunteered.74.13.87.196 03:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The historical nature of the term must surely be known before anyone can make a judgement on this term. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Volunteers and then it will become quite clear from where the term came and why it is not as sinister as some, obviously anti-Irish republican comments, seem to think (unsigned comment).

• I have submitted this dispute for case resolution. Hopefully we should get a resolution on this matter soon, as it is evidently going nowhere. You can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage. I'm not sure what happens here, but User:Vintagekits has written in the area entitled "mediator response", which I think is the space for the mediator(s) to write their understandings rather than people involved in the dispute. Does anyone know about this? Logica 00:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Have a look again to see the section that I wrote in! IT IS NOT THE "mediator response" section Vintagekits 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Volunteer / Óglach is the correct term to describe soldiers of the Irish Republic. Óglaigh na hÉireann (the IRA) - which is under the direction of the Continuity Army Council - is the National Army of the Irish Republic (hence Irish Republican Army). The Continuity Army Council is the lawful Government of the Irish Republic. As such, it is unacceptably non-NPOV to describe Republican soldiers as "members" rather than Volunteers. They are entitled to have the correct military term used to describe them, regardless of whether this upsets traitors and criminals.

The sovereignty and unity of the Republic are inalienable and non-judicable, and the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman is owing to the sovereign Irish Republic proclaimed in 1916, endorsed by the people of All-Ireland in 1918, and effectively established by the First Dáil Éireann in January, 1919.

Articles such as the "Irish Government" article should also be altered as they are seditious, and seek to imply that an illegal assembly established by England, and not legislating for Ireland as a unit, has a right to style itself as the Government of Ireland.

Long Live the Irish Republic / An Phoblacht Abú!(unsigned comment)

A little bit more hardcore than I would have put it but some relevant points non the less Vintagekits 01:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats an opinion, but one that is somewhat removed from reality. Ireland is a democracy rather than a military dictatorship and the UN does not recognise the Continuity Army Council as its lawful Government. --Gibnews

The term 'Volunteer' is an honorific given by provos and their sympathisers to a person who is a member of the IRA. There has no proof given despite requests that it is a military rank. In my view this is the usual republican effort to use their own terminology to describe fellow republicans and so stamp their POV on the page - it's a very divisive, loaded term which many people (including myself unsurprisingly) would find highly controversial if used as a standard way of describing these people. The only neutral term here is member which implies absolutely nothing about the legitimacy or otherwise of the illegal paramilitary organisations under discussion which is in my view exactly what Wikipedia should be about - neutrality. Furthermore, this would appear from the analysis provided by Jnestorius that the term most often used in the media is member Not volunteer, again in wiki terms this would appear to be the 'norm' and so the appropriate choice for editors. Weggie 19:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you. To only use the term "member" is both POV disrespectful. Google throws up c.46,000 hit for "IRA member" and c.22,000 hits for "IRA Volunteer" - this obviously shows that the use of both terms are widespread. In my opinion the term "member" is used as a term of ease or convenience in the media as some people not offey with the subject may not know that term Volunteer (hence the reason for a disam page for Volunteer (republican) to ensure there is no confusion whereas Volunteer or Vol. is used as more of an official term. Volunteer is the official term for a member of many Irish military and paramilitary organisations and has been used for almost 100 years.Vintagekits 20:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Aslo see the organisation section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA Vintagekits 20:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Vintagekits wrote on the meidation page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage#Discussion) that:

"The term is widely used but does not imply sympathy as it is used by pro republican [1], [2], [3] - anti republican [4], [5], [6], [7], [9] and neutral sources such as [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]"

May I quickly point out that link 14 (to the Mirror Newspaper) is actually quoting Gerry Adams rather than using the term "volunteer" by its own writing. But let us deal with the number of uses for "volunteer" and "member" in each of these links as follows:

Those described as "pro republican" by User:Vintagekits:

• 1. - An Phoblacht - this requires subscription, and so no search is possible.
• 2. - http://larkspirit.com. It is pro-republican and "formed to bring better visibility to the Irish struggle". It receives 9 hits for "IRA volunteer", 1 hit for "volunteer of the IRA", no hits for "IRA member", and 4 hits for "member of the IRA". Thus, 71% of references on this site use "Volunteer", and 29% "member", if we take the previous terms to highlight their use.
• 3. - http://www.sinnfein.ie/history. "Sinn Féin, the only all-Ireland party, is committed to achieving a 32-County democratic socialist republic and the end of British rule in Ireland." It receives 41 hits for "IRA volunteer", no hits for "volunteer of the IRA", 5 hits for "IRA member", and 5 hits for "member of the IRA". Thus, 80% of references on this site use "Volunteer", and 20% "member".

Those described as "anti republican" by User:Vintagekits:

• 4 - http://www.ivanfoster.org. A protestent site: "The Burning Bush, a monthly publication dedicated to the exposition of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and the application of its truths to the lives of people in this age of ecumenical apostasy and resurgent Romanism." It receives 2 hits for "IRA volunteer", 3 hits for "volunteer of the IRA", 16 hits for "IRA member", and 4 hits for "member of the IRA". Thus, 5% of references on this site use "Volunteer", and 95% "member".
• 5 - http://www.victims.org.uk. "Famillies Acting For Innocent Relatives [FAIR]". It receives 7 hits for "IRA volunteer", no hits for "volunteer of the IRA", 5 hits for "IRA member", and 10 hits for "member of the IRA". Thus, 32% of references on this site use "Volunteer", and 68% "member".
• 6 - http://www.mirror.co.uk. The Mirror - a British newspaper. It receives no hits for "IRA volunteer", no hits for "volunteer of the IRA", 5 hits for "IRA member", and 2 hits for "member of the IRA". Thus, 0% of references on this site use "Volunteer", and 100% "member".
• 7 - http://www.nesa.org.uk. The "National Ex-Services Association" - I do not understand why this should be described as "anti republican". Nonetheless, it receives no hits for "IRA volunteer", no hits for "volunteer of the IRA", 1 hit for "IRA member", and 1 hit for "member of the IRA". Thus, 0% of references on this site use "Volunteer", and 100% "member", although only out of a total 2 hits.
• 9 - http://www.ulsternation.org.uk. "Ulster Nation is an educational publication which exists to promote the ideals of national freedom and social justice for Ulster. We stand for a new loyalty - loyalty to Ulster our Motherland." It receives 1 hit for "IRA volunteer", no hits for "volunteer of the IRA", 1 hit for "IRA member", and 1 hit for "member of the IRA". Thus, 100% of references on this site use "Volunteer", and 0% "member", although there was only ever 1 hit.

Those described as "neutral" by User:Vintagekits:

• 10 - http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent - this requires subscription, and so no search is possible.
• 11 - http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer. The Irish Examiner - an Irish newspaper. It receives 4 hits for "IRA volunteer", no hits for "volunteer of the IRA", 16 hits for "IRA member", and 14 hits for "member of the IRA". Thus, 12% of references on this site use "Volunteer", and 88% "member".
• 12 - http://www.timesonline.co.uk. The Times - a British newspaper. It receives 5 hits for "IRA volunteer", no hits for "volunteer of the IRA", 35 hits for "IRA member", and 21 hits for "member of the IRA". Thus, 8% of references on this site use "Volunteer", and 92% "member".
• 13 - http://www.birw.org. "British Irish RIGHTS WATCH" - "an independent non-governmental organisation that has been monitoring the human rights dimension of the conflict, and latterly the peace process, in Northern Ireland since 1990." It receives 11 hits for "IRA volunteer", no hits for "volunteer of the IRA", 19 hits for "IRA member", and 21 hits for "member of the IRA". Thus, 22% of references on this site use "Volunteer", and 78% "member".
• 14 - http://news.scotsman.com. A Scottish newspaper. It receives no hits for "IRA volunteer", no hits for "volunteer of the IRA", 119 hits for "IRA member", and 6 hits for "member of the IRA". Thus, 0% of references on this site use "Volunteer", and 100% "member" out of a very large number of hits - 125. Although User:Vintagekits references an editorial using the term "IRA volunteer", this did not come up in the search of the site, even though it obviously exists. Nonetheless, 125 hits is highly significant.
• 15 - http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk. A local London newspaper. It receives 1 hit for "IRA volunteer" (the one User:Vintagekits linked us to), no hits for "volunteer of the IRA", no hits for "IRA member", and no hits for "member of the IRA". Thus, 100% of references on this site use "Volunteer", and 0% "member, but there was only ever one usage.

If we were to add up all of the uses for the categories given by User:Vintagekits, we find the following results:

• "pro republican": 51 hits (79%) for "volunteer", and 14 hits (21%) for "member".
• "anti republican": 13 hits (23%) for "volunteer", and 44 hits (76%) for "member".
• "neutral": 21 hits (8%) for "volunteer", and 251 hits (92%) for "member".

User:Vintagekits' argument that "volunteer" is a term also used by anti-republican and neutral sources is not supported by this evidence, even though Vintagekits defined what is "anti republican" and "neutral". This is evidence that the term "volunteer" is a term predominantly used by a "pro republican" perspective, and is used little elsewhere, with the term "member" being preferred. The neutral perspective adopts "member" much more commonly than "volunteer". Wikipedia should be neutral, and should follow this neutral trend by using the term "member" instead of "volunteer". Logica 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

NB I am aware that I have missed other phrases such as "volunteerS of the IRA" or "memberS of the IRA", but this was just a quicker way of doing it. Please feel free to look up these other terms. Logica 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • on the basis the I have never heard the term "volunteer of the IRA" I am not surprised that there has not been any hits that term. Your attempt at searching a couple of websites for that specific term is hardly a scientific approach to this issue. If you are trying to argue that because the word "member" is used more often the volunteer and therefore that negates the term volunteer as being the correct then you are on shaky ground. As point out above by Pauric, HenryGB and VintageKit it is correct to call them members as they are but it is more correct to call them Volunteers as this is the title given to them by the organisation. As Pauric outline it would be POV to refuse to call them Volunteer as this would be an attempt to "disrespect or even defame" these person as (rightly or wrongly) members of the republican movement. Beaumontproject 16:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You still havent stated how it is POV especially as it is used by all sides. Your searches have turned up no hits for "IRA Volunteer" on some sites when I have provided links to show there are those references on those sites!! Also yoursearchs on those individual site hardly constitues scientific research and even if it does what point does it prove? It only goes to show that all sides use the term Volunteer. Also as I said from my google search there are 22k hits for IRA volunteer and 46k for IRA member - what you must remember is that member is a journalistic term of ease and is not the correct term. Its like saying John X was a "member of the British Army" - however what is more correct would be to say John X is a "private in the british army" - does that mean that we take out all references to terms such as Private, Corporal etc in those articles as I could consider them POV!!! Its a crazy stance to take. On google there are c.10,000 hits for "member of the British Army" and only c.300 hits for "Private in the British Army". Vintagekits 22:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Firstly, you have not read my posts above. I said that "V/volunteer" is a loaded term because it has connotations of good deeds.
    • Secondly, I have stated that some of the sites that you referenced did not show up either because the term is slightly different, or because google search didn't pick it up for some reason. There was no deliberate exclusion. In any case, even if we did include them they would make very little difference - please go ahead and recalculate.
    • Thirdly, you have seen that what you class as "pro republican" is the only category that uses the term "volunteer" widely. Your "anti republican" category sites would surely know a lot about the topic in order to be anti-republican, and yet they doesn't use it widely, so you cannot suggest that "member" is "journalistic term of ease" for these sites.
    • Fourthly, I think you are correct in that some of the more "neutral" categories may be using journalistc ease of use. But the overwhelming majority of neutral hits do not show up as using "volunteer" very much, and given that "volunteer" is not used much on your so-called "anti republican" sites, then there must be some component to do with deliberately avoiding the term, despite a knowledge of it. The only thing that comes to mind, is a lack of neutrality. Logica 23:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Please provide some evidence that it is a load term, some article, some reference anything apart for your POV. Your arguement is based solely on POV. Vintagekits 23:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me the 'volunteer' is an honory title, not unlike the English use titles such as Sir Roger Moore. It is possibly a rank but this is a grey unproven area, Clearly, it is used in the media, as is 'member' also, therefore, for me either is acceptable. In a case of dispute I recommend it used as per the original editor and a link stub to a page explaining the use of the word and the issue of contention surrounding it Such as, 'they were not 'community do-gooder 'volumteers'. All considered there is clear evidence that there is generic usage of the word and really thats that as in elsewhere on wikipedia. I might add that strictly the capital V in Volunteer be used to make the distintion between a do-gooder volunteer ( small v ) in the community sense. and a paramilitary terrorist Volunteer as in the IRA case Mark us street Dec 4th 2006.

• I agree with some of what you say Mark us street - there need to be a clear distinction between the "community" type volunteer and the "military/paramilitary" type volunteer. I second that the "military/paramilitary" type volunteer should ALWAYS have a capital "V" and should also be lead to the Volunteer (republican) and not the volunteer page and furthermore Volunteer (republican) page should have a disambiguation notice directing to Volunteer (disambiguation) at the top of the page to completely avoid confusion. Vintagekits 02:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything in Vintagekits last suggestion. It seems the most sensible and logical way to address the issue.GiollaUidir 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple of points:

• we still don't know that volunteer is or is not a grade in the IRA
• if it is not a grade in the IRA and rather an honrific then we should not use it in the same way that an article about a communist would not refer to comrade Gromyko or comrade Chernenko
• there is a difference in saying 'Vol. Sean Murphy' and 'Sean Murphy was a military volunteer in the IRA' (wikipedia does not usually employ titles in the former style)
• The term 'military volunteer' is usually employed to distinguish between conscripts and those who have signed up. As all IRA members were nominally volunteers, the use of this term is unnecessary.
• As in many conflicts, both sides employ a battery of loaded terms when describing themselves or the enemy. These terms are by their nature non-neutral. Men of violence, terrorists, volunteers, comrades, securocrats, armed struggle. None of these terms should be used in the narrative voice of Wikipedia.
• Presumably both sides in a conflict believe that tehse loaded terms are neutral as they are so used to using them. Try telling the Americans protecting the 9/11 page that terrorist is a POV phrase.
• The agenda being pushed by use of the term volunteer by Republicans was to support the opinion that the NI conflict was a war, a view disputed by their opponents.
• Calling people 'Vol. Sean Murphy' was a shorthand adopted by An Phoblacht to refer to dead IRA members.
• Volunteer is a phrase with positive historical connotations as it forms an association with earlier military groups such as the Irish Volunteers.
• Does anyone see the word 'member' as anything other than neutral?
• Does 'volunteer' convey anything that 'member' does not (other than the POV of the author)? Curtains99 14:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

All members of the IRA hold/held the rank of Volunteer and it is not a POV term, as for the use of other ranks by the IRA as refered to by some posters here, prior to the re-organisation within the IRA in the mid-70s when that organisation introduced an cell structure, the IRA was organised with similar command structures to that of most armies with ranks of Capt etc, after the restructure these where done away with and all members where then just refered to as Volunteers.--padraig3uk 00:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that members of the NAZI Party/war machine are given their 'offical title' but people have a problem with IRA Volunteers being given theirs. Surely the war criminal Bomber Harris isn't given an offical title in wikipedia?? upthera

The fact is that the term volunteer does not inherently have a bias. While the term does decend from the Irish Volunteers the use of the term does not denote agreement with the belief of the C/R/PIRA being the legitimate successor of the Irish Volunteers (and the old IRA). Its an encyclopedic term, reasonably neutral, and in wide use. I can't think of many other terms that are neutral, encyclopedic (ex. an 'IRA man'), and in wide use. A term such as 'IRA member' simply takes away from the quality of the encyclopedia, if wikipedia was written like that, it would lose considerable detail. Denoting the position of a man within an organization, is not an acceptence of that organization (albiet all members of the IRA are generally considered vols). SCVirus 06:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This manual of style is Neocolonialist

I strongly disagree with the ethrnocentric neocolonialist imposition of English spellings over official Irish names. It's borderline ridiculous and clearly Anglocentric. It can only be explained due to the fact that English editors are more numerous in Wikipedia than Irish ones. It's so easy to make a redirect to the real official name... --Sugaar 23:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

have you got an example? Curtains99 23:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming articles: English versus Irish

1. Where the English and Irish names are the same or very nearly the same, but the English and Irish spellings differ, use the English spelling.

• Example 1: Rosmuck, not Ros Muc.
• Example 2: Inishmore, not Inis Mór.

2. Where the English and Irish names are different, and English name remains predominant usage in English, use English name.

• Example: Wicklow, not Cill Mhantáin.

3. Where the English and Irish names are different, and the Irish name is the official name, but has not yet gained favour in English usage, use the English name.

• Example: Newbridge, County Kildare, not Droichead Nua.

Do you need more? --Sugaar 01:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

When it says English, it means English language (the language spoken by most Irish people and by many people reading the English language Wikipedia) not England. --Henrygb 02:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure that English language is important in Ireland, the question is why non-official English names are imposed over official Gaelic ones. The logical thing would be that (maybe with a few exceptions of widely known sites like Dublin) the official name would be the header. I'm sure people may be speaking English and still say: "I come from Ros Muc and I'm going to Cill Mhantáin tomorrow morning". It's pro-English POV to give undue weight to English names when they are not official.

It's like having Sri Lanka under "Ceylon" or Harare under "Salisbury", you know. --Sugaar 05:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

But it isn't because Ceylon and Salisbury have fallen out of predominant usage. I understand the French list their article on London under Londres. I think that makes sense for the same reasons.--Lucifer 13:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, a point in favour of Sugaar is that the main article for Burma/Myanmar is listed under Myanmar, which is the title used by the government there (in a sense the official title although the govt. is a 'junta') but is not, I think, dominant English usage.--Lucifer 13:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly not a universal consensus. On one side there is the "this is the English language Wikipedia and so and so" (sometimes forgetting that English is today the global language and that the English Wikipedia is not just read nor edited only by people of Sussex and New Hampshire, I mean: traditional anglophones in general) and on the other is the Multiculturality aspect, validity of official names of locations (for instance you don't find directly Port aux Basques (Newfoundland) anymore but another official name that I can't recall right now).

I'd say that one thing is when talking about major entities like Dublin or London, or the Republic of Ireland (should it be Eire?) and another very different thing when talking about some ill-known town or village or county. In the first case the English name should dominate (at least as general principle), I think, but in the second there's little reason to insist on that.

Guess this issue happens in other contexts (Mumbay or Bombay? Sutee or Sati? Acadèmie Française or French Academy?) but I stumbled upon this guideline and thought it really bought the English language priority really too far by basically making impossible that even ill-known places could use their official name without breaching this guideline. --Sugaar 15:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. However, with smaller Irish towns could it not be argued that the more predominant usage amongst Anglophones 'would' be the official title, as few outside that town, or outside of Ireland, would refer to that town? So, unusually, the rule suggested by the Manual could require use of the official name?--Lucifer 15:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In most cases the people inside the town use English. Try [39] for an illustration of what the mayor of Droichead Nua (Newbridge, County Kildare) says to his constituency. The official name hasn't taken in 70 years. --Henrygb 17:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

They keep voting people who have kept that official name for 70 years, haven't they? If the people wouldn't like the official name, I'm sure they would have changed it already.

It sounds patronizing, really. --Sugaar 18:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The article on Rome is titled 'Rome' not 'Roma'. Roma is both the official name and the name used by all the people who live there but that doesn't matter because Rome is the name most commonly used by English speakers and this is the English language encyclopaedia. End of Story. Curtains99 21:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Read above: most important elements like Rome, London, Dublin, Ireland, etc. are usually named by their English name (or whichever, if in other languages) but there's really no point in calling small ill-known places by their English name when the natives have clearly decided to change it back to their native Gaelic one some 70 years ago maybe. It's not Dublin but Newbridge, that has to bear an adjective in parenthesis because there are dozens of "Newbridges" in the world (but surely only one Droichead Nua). In your example it would not be Rome but maybe Anzio or whatever. It's not fully comparable because Italy has never been under English domination, so most small places (and even many large ones) are just listed in their Italian names by default since always. But look at Mumbai, I'd say the official name is not really so much used even in India but still it has precedence. At the slightest doubt, the official name should have precendence. And in most cases considered by this policy, there is at least some doubt, yet the solution adopted is the opposite one. --Sugaar 10:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar: apart from the Gaeltacht, the English name of an Irish place has official status at least equal to the Irish one. Read Place names in Irish: for most places, the state has never got around to making an Irish version of the name co-equal status, let alone superior status to the English version establihed prior to independance. Most changes to an official Irish name took place in the period 1922-39, usually as an imposition by the government with little local support; some Irish forms caught on quickly, some took decades, some have still not caught on. The history is not one where vast numbers of locals throw off the shackles of Anglophone oppression and embrace their Gaelic birthright. Read Dingle#Name: many Irish-speaking locals favour the English name as official. jnestorius^(talk) 13:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not Irish but I'm under the impresion that the official name is decided by the local council. Maybe I'm wrong on that. --Sugaar 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong; it is the Minister who decides; see The legal status of the Placenames of Ireland. That said, if the locals want it, the Minister would be politically foolish to defy their wishes. In reality, few towns have even considered changing their English-usage names from English to Irish. The attitudes of Irish people to the Irish language are varied, complex and not always consistent within one individual, let alone collectively. See Irish language#Independent Ireland and the language. jnestorius^(talk) 17:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

NI nationality

Is there any consensus as to what nationality should be used to describe people from Northern Ireland? This comes up every so often on the C. S. Lewis article, which can go from "Irish" to "Northern Irish" to "British" (I think once it was even "English", and at one point he was simply described as an "Ulsterman"!). My feeling is that if someone from the North self-identifies as simply "Irish", then this is what they should be described as in their article. Is this already covered anywhere? I understand that it's the kind of thing that requires some sort of flexibility, but having some sort of recommendation in the MOS would be a help. I've noticed some articles just side-step the issue altogether, which leads me to believe some kind of consensus on the issue is necessary. Any thoughts? Martin 14:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: Lewis was born in Belfast in 1898, when the town was in Ireland, and Ireland was in the United Kingdom. He identified himself culturally as "Irish" (in distinction to "English"), held a British passport, served in the British Army in WWI. I have argued on the Talk page there that it is not appropriate to call him "Northern Irish", since Northern Ireland did not exist when he was born, and he never lived in it once it existed; it seems to me appropriate either (a) to acknowledge his self-identification and refer to him as "Irish"; or (b) to acknowledge his lifelong citizenship and refer to him as "British". Myopic Bookworm 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Presumably in 1898 there was no contradiction in being Irish and British at the same time in the same way that there is no contradiction now with being Scottish and British. If Lewis were born in Scotland, the article would say he was Scottish, regardless of the year of his birth. So, I would vote for calling him Irish. I think calling him Northern Irish would be anachronistic. Curtains99 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What is contradictory about being Irish and British? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MartinRobinson (talk • contribs) 02:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well we need to define terms here. When specifying someone's nationality you may be talking about their place of birth, their legal citizenship, their place of residence or their ethnic origin. So saying someone is Irish is ambiguous.

The relationship between Britain and the island of Ireland has changed since 1898 from Ireland being a subsidiary of the UK to now where a portion of the island has become a nation state of equal legal status to its neighbour. In the past to say someone was Irish and British was like saying someone was French and European - tautological. There was no need to specify the British part because that was understood.

Now the situation has become more complicated because the ROI chose to style itself 'Ireland' and its citizens 'Irish'. Bizarrely, this irredentist approach to language probably had the opposite effect to that intended. The word Irish has been officially appropriated by the ROI to describe its own citizens rather than using a term like 'Southern Irish'. Everyone else with a claim to Irishness seems a little less Irish as a result. So I would say that prior to independence saying someone was Irish and British was a tautology and after independence, only someone who had two passports could legally describe themselves as such.

In any case, the question here is what to call CS Lewis and the answer is Irish in the same way that most people born in Scotland are called Scottish on Wikipedia. Curtains99 09:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

the situation has become more complicated because the ROI chose to style itself 'Ireland' and its citizens 'Irish'........rather than using a term like 'Southern Irish'. - Well Ireland has always had a claim to the Northeast of Ireland so would not have any reason to differenciate, also you have the issue that the furtherest point north on the island is in "the South" Vintagekits 11:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

One needs to distinguish nationality from citizenship.

The former is what you feel in your heart and can never be taken away by boundary changes or legislatures, the latter is a legal concept and determines what passport you are entitled to (and perhaps whether a state can lawfully conscript you). I have an Irish passport (but do not really feel loyalty to a state that ambushed my famous ancestors) but tend to schizophrenia when Ireland (C32) plays New Zealand at Rugby. By contrast, although my kids were born in New Zealand and carry NZ passports, they always root for Irish sports teams (and like most of the Irish diaspora are oblivious to fine distinctions between C32, C26 and C6) since we have brought them up to think of themselves as Irish.

I have yet to find someone born in the C6 who regards his nationality as anything other than Irish. Even when I spoke to the Rev. Dr Paisley he conceded that his nationality (as opposed to Citizenship) was Irish - but he would have had apoplexy if I had suggested that his Irish nationality would ever mean surrendering his British passport or that he was legally entitled to apply for an Irish Passport (stet)!

What does seem clear is that there is no such thing at present as being Northern Irish (either Citizenship or Nationality) and a symptom of this is that there has never been any legal guidance as to what someone travelling to Germany from Belfast should stick on the back of their car; many put nothing (and break German law), many nationalists put IRL (even though their car is no registered there) and a few Unionists put GB (even though their car is also not registered there) Gaimhreadhan 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

When I'm asked about my nationality I would always say Northern Irish, but I would never make the distinction that I therefore wasn't Irish. GB, as the ISO_3166-1_alpha-2 code (some countries use a single letter some use the ISO_3166-1_alpha-3 code) for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, should be used on number plates, but for obvious reasons isn't.

I don't see why in the European Union at least, the UK can't use UK, the Ukraine use UA , we already use it as our TLD. « Keith » 12:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of Irish language on NI pages

Over the past few months there has been an increase in alternative Irish names at the top of Northern Ireland pages. Most placenames have an Irish version and so it makes sense that the Irish name is displayed where it exists. This is particularly true where an English name is derived from the Irish. What is rather odd is the making up of unsourced Irish versions of somebody's name or of a government department.

There was recently an issue with the Seamus Heaney page - this has now been resolved, apparently.

Don't get me wrong - some departments such as the Department of Education do use the Irish language and the website - [40] does include the English, Irish and Ulster Scots versions of the name on its front page. Others such as the Department for Employment and Learning do not and have never done so. Searching "An Roinn Fostaíochta agus Foghlaim" provides one link - namely the Wikipedia article!

The reason for the differences in the use of Irish language goes back to when there was devolved government and relates to which ministers were allocated which portfolios.

I think we should respect the views of those ministers and only mention an Irish language version of the department at the top of the page if the name is displayed in the department's logo as seen on their website.

There is a grey area where other government departments have used an Irish language name. I think it is pretty clear cut that departments such as Employment and Learning should not have an obviously made up Irish Name.

The same rules should apply to Ulster Scots where versions exist and are used prominently. What do people think?

NotMuchToSay 21:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what you say sounds sensible. This is an English-language website; names in other languages are given where they constitute useful information and are in some way attested and material. Palmiro | Talk 21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

European law comes into effect next year whereby all text has to be transcribed into Irish Gaelic. In Northern Ireland specifically, the Belfast Agreement upholds the notion that both Gaelic and Ulster-Scots be recognised as important aspects of culture in Northern Ireland. The spirit of the Belfast Agreement should perhaps be reflected here insofar as the Gaelic and Ulster-Scots equivalents should perhaps be mentioned somewhere in the articles in question.

As this is the English language version of Wikipedia, English names should always take precedence. --Mal 10:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Irish is now an official language of the EU, but that doesn't change anything as regards Northern Ireland government departments. NotMuchToSay 17:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Irish is also equal to English in the North, per the Belfast agreement. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 19:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That maybe quite correct, but this encyclopedia, is not bound to the terms of that agreement in these matters. Djegan 19:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was really just replying to NotMuchToSay's statement that implied Irish names didn't have the same right as such in the North, whilst they actually do. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect can we provide a citation or citations that prove their is equality of languages? Djegan 20:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Irish names do not have the same status as English names. Under the Belfast Agreement, the British government has to promote Irish in various ways where it is desired, but Irish not equal to English. English is the main language, some departments use Irish, some don't and Ulster Scots is used even less. NotMuchToSay 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Remembering that this is the English language wikipedia we may need to demonstrate reasons why we are adding non-English content at times (indeed these may need to be sustantial reasons). It is often neccessary to demonstrate use and usefulness and above all relevance to the article content. It is simply not enough to show that something has a non-English name or variation. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Djegan 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I broadly agree with all the above. Where government departments/bodies/etc do not actually have non-English versions of their names then it makes no sense to compose one, and where they do have non-English names, the main version used in the article should be the one used by English speakers. On the topic of DELNI: the Irish version in the article is wrong - the "Foghlaim" at the end should be "Foghlama". This corrected version does turn up some Google results [41], including promotional material etc on the DELNI website. --Kwekubo17:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, an Irish version of their name should be inserted wherever and whenever possible Vintagekits 19:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

But most organisations/companies/bodies/whatever do not have an Irish version of their name, which means translations would be original research. For example "Aerfort Chathair Bhéal Feirste" was given as the translation to "George Best Belfast City Airport". Even I know that in English that simply says "Belfast City Airport", quite different. « Keith » 20:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If we are to include any non-English translations then we must show both prior use and relevance. We are not in the business of supplying translations that anyone with a high-school level of Irish could cooble togetheir. We need to make wikipedia as professional as possible, if people feel they need to provide appropriate and original translations then they should consider setting up their own website that catters for such things, even better set up a business to do it. WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY are very clear and just that something can be included does not mean that it must be included. Djegan 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Renaming/moving County Dublin placename articles (e.g., Swords, Dublin to Swords, Fingal)

Please see Fingal and Talk:Fingal for the background to this. But in a nutshell, the entity formerly known as County Dublin no longer exists, and hasn't done so for approxmately a decade. Instead, we have Fingal, South Dublin, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown and Dublin City Council areas. Yet at the same time we still have, for example, the Swords, Dublin article, which is particularly ironic given that Swords is actually the 'county town' of Fingal. A search for ", Dublin" (comma space Dublin) brings back many similar results for towns, villages and suburbs that are listed as being in County Dublin rather than their new county. I had proposed a move for Swords, Dublin article to Swords, Fingal on its talk page, but Djegan rightly pointed out that such a move would probably be controversial and should be discussed here first to get consensus. So - what I'm proposing now is a 'mini-project' to identify all such articles with an incorrect "(place), Dublin" appellation and a subsequent move to their appropriate "(place), (new county)" article name. Bastun 16:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I dont think anyone would state that they are from County Fingal or there address is Swords, Fingal and still use Dublin and County Dublin Vintagekits 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this proposal. The current standard was proposed above #Disambiguation of locations in Ireland, explicitly recognizing that it is somewhat exceptional. I recognise it was only a proposal, never moved from the Talk: page to the project page. Nevertheless, in favour of the status quo are the following:

• Postal addresses are still overwhelmingly given as "Dublin". Fingal County Council's own website has as its contact details (emphasis added):

Fingal County Council

P.O. Box 174,

County Hall,

Swords,

Fingal,

Co. Dublin

• Placenames in Northern Ireland are qualified in Wikipedia with the county, not the district (admittedly these are to be abolished, but I doubt the coming of their replacements will provoke a mass renaming).

In summary, the word "incorrect" used above by Bastun is itself inaccurate and misleading as a description for what remains a widespread convention. jnestorius^(talk) 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this move swords, dublin is still the most common usage and thus WP:COMMONNAME applies. Fingal is little more than a Administrative county (Gnevin 18:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

To quote Djegan (from the Fingal talk page): "The law of the state is quite clear on the status of the county of Fingal, it is simply a "county" and nothing else, it is not an "administrative area" or "administrative county" - any suggestion that "It's an administrative area, not a true county" is patently incorrect. In particular Local Government Act 2001 (Section 10) does not assign any other term or the accompanying schedule[42].

Futhurmore the term used Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1993 (Section 9) of "administrative counties" is defunct[43]." In other words - the reality of the legal situation - admittedly if not yet everyday usage - is that there is no such thing as County Dublin. The latest OSI maps no longer show it, either, instead using the new counties. Bastun 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The local government act is all well and good but WP:COMMONNAME over rules it (Gnevin 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

There can be no question that Fingal has a real and important identity which is not to be belittled. The question is whether the naming convention on Wikipedia ought to be "Where aricles about towns in Ireland need a disambiguating qualification in their name,this should be the name of the legally-defined county in which they lie as opposed to the historic/traditional/GAA/postal county." I disagree with such a policy, because the obolete counties are still so widely used that the more general Wikipedia convention of using most common local names becomes relevant. There is no danger of spreading inaccuracy or fudge, or of denigrating the new counties; the currently-defined county can and should be mentioned in the opening sentence of the article. The name of an article does not represent Wikipedia's opinion about the "most correct" name for the entity under discussion; it represents the name at which it will be easiest for the bulk of readers (and wikilinking editors) to find it. Other details can be mentioned and discussed in the article iteself. I will say this, in regard to amending the current styleguide:

1. Swords, Fingal should not be a redlink; it should exist (as a redirect to Swords, Dublin).
2. The introduction of the Swords, Dublin article does not currently give adequate prominence to Fingal as being its location, mentioning it only at the end of the (long) opening paragraph. It would better begin something like "Swords is a town in the county of Fingal, in the former county of Dublin in the Republic of Ireland. It is a northern suburb of the city of Dublin, and the location of the administrative headquarters of Fingal County Council." jnestorius^(talk) 21:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've struck out "local" in the preceding; I don't think it's relevant in the argument and contradicts some supporting analogies (like why we have an article at Munich rather than the legally correct München, i.e. user-friendliness) jnestorius^(talk) 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst the three new counties within the former county of Dublin are becoming more commonly used (they are in the latest OSI 1:50,000 map of the city and former county) it is probabily quite premature to make a move at this point. For instance people still use County Dublin in their postal address though this is possibily more to do with tradition and reminding folks that you live outside the city and conveying the idea that you live in a country area or trendy town then correctness.

For anyone with a serious question they could access http://address.anpost.ie/ which gives postal addresses as recommended by the states postal authority, An Post, it is important to remember that this is the postal addresses recommended by An Post and can vastly vary with what people use themselves! From a postal perspective it will be interesting to see if the proposed postal code changes things. Djegan 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok - Djegan and Jnestorius have convinced me :-) Consider the proposal dropped by me for the forseeable future. I particularly like Jnestorius' suggestions for adding redirect links, and for giving more prominence to the new counties in article intros. Perhaps the easiest way to do it would be with a new, single, article on the three new counties which could be linked to from intros. I'll get started when I have time (real life has just intervened and will likely keep me busy for a few days). Bastun 01:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer - again

Was this ever resolved? See Ballinderry - there's so much POV on this page, I don't know where to start!

NotMuchToSay 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I see how you might not want the Irish Volunteers member mentioned on the page, but where else is there point of view? -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 14:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Want Irish to be removed from Northern Ireland towns and cities

When you are driving on the roads of Northern Ireland the road signs telling you what way a town is. Is in English NOT irish. More then 75% of people in Northern Ireland speak English, the system to paid by UK tax payers NOT irish tax payers.Newtownards 01:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

However wikipedia is not paid for out taxes so it's really something that is considered. Truro includes it's Cornish name.Geni 03:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In parts of the UK, non-English languages are widely used for public information, as public service and to disseminate information. In the Brick Lane area, in London, a strongly Bengali area, street names are in Bengali and English. Previously, when it was a Jewish area, Yiddish was used on the streetnames. In Wales, Welsh is an official language. The point is, as a monoglot Brit, I don't mind any of this - it neither threatens me nor does it seem a pointless waste of cash. Plenty of UK citizens have English as a second language, but still pay taxes. So, Irish is used in Northern Ireland. This is the UK - inclusive! Hurrah! Don't allow Irish to become the preserve of any one political group. Folks at 137 08:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are forgetting that Northern Ireland is part of the island of Ireland, and that the vast majority of the names of places in Ireland are the poorly anglicised original Irish names. Maybe we should just go the whole hog, and start denying what island we're on, and claim it's part of England, and become historical revisionists and just deny ireland or the thousands of years of history before thte Anglo-Saxon invasions ever happened? I for one vote to change the name of the six counties to West Britain. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 14:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Perhaps I expressed myself badly. My point is I see no problem in the use of Irish in or about Ireland (or north London, where that helps). I was pointing out that this country (the UK) is usually inclusive. In addition, as a reference work, Wiki has to record English and Irish equivalents (and Scandinavian) when appropriate. Pauric, perhaps you may have mistaken my drift. Folks at 137 18:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Folks at 137, that was aimed at the Newtownards user, I just indented badly. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 22:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Irish is not used in Northern Ireland. When you are walking the streets of any part you dont hear people talking Irish and the matter of fact the newtownards was named because it was a New Town in Ards so there is no irish about that.

Well even if that was the case (which it isn't, the Ards part come from thre Irish for heights/hills).....not all town in the six counties are called Newtownards. The vast majority of places are as Pauric says, bad Anglicised version of the original Irish names. Also there are plenty of places were you can hear people talking Irish. Derry Boi 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You are from Ireland NOT Northern Ireland, and if your username has Derry in it, its clearly that you are irish or class yourself as irish. And Ards area is at North Down so that is why there is just one town in Northern called Newtownards. Newtownards 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am from Ireland, South Derry to be precise. and yes I am Irish, and I know where Ards is (and believe it or not Ards is derived from the Irish language, and therefore so is Newtownards. What exactly is your point? Derry Boi 12:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Some information about the official status of Irish in Northern Ireland and the number of people in the province who can speak Irish is here. Curtains99 22:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Newtownards, in the case of roadsigns, yes - the vast majority of them are in 'English' only throughout Northern Ireland. However, the vast majority of them also have meanings which come from Gaelic or Scandanavian origins. Some of them make intresting stories, but most of them are descriptive as far as I'm aware. The same is the case in Scotland, Wales and in England. Most placenames throughout the British Isles have been 'Anglicised', which basically means they've been spelled phonetically at some point. It is a point of interest that, not only the origins of the names of places is included in the articles, but also the meanings of each - for this is the English language Wikipedia: the meanings of the original Irish, Scandanavian or Middle-English words aren't always apparent. --Mal 00:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We want to delete Section of the Style Manual

The following paragraph appears in the manual:

Republic of Ireland / Ireland in location introductions

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

The statement at the heart of this nonsense "This is misleading as it creates the impression that Ireland is one state" is rubbish. The article on Ireland continues to be called "RoI" (which is NOT the name of the state) and this is 'justified' by supporters who claim that calling the article by a different name to the entity it refers to does not imply calling the country by the name of the article.

Yet this "style manual" would have us referring to, say, Dublin as being in, not IRELAND, but in a place called after the title of a Wiki article!! Let the discussion commence; if there are no reasioned and sustainable objections I'll delete that section in 24 hours. (Sarah777 14:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

You can't just arbitrarily delete sections from a Manual of Style without a proper discussion. A lack of discussion on this sort of topic does not mean agreement. The compromise seems quite suitable, after all on screen it would say to the reader Dublin, Ireland, but then link to the correct country article and not an article on the island as a whole. Ben W Bell talk 14:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, User:Ben W Bell has the right of it. Opposed to any change. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient reason to get rid of a very workable compromise. Bastun 15:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing 'arbitrary' about my reasons for deletion. I have explained that I am not prepared to state that my home town is being part of a country that bears the name of a Wiki article rather than the name of my country. The compromise is not workable, I certainly won't be working it - so if 'discussion' isn't agreement then how do we get some change? (Sarah777 15:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

Oppose: The compromise as it is is certainly workable. Linking to the Ireland-the-island article would be misleading. To use Sarah777 example, changing the current guideline would mean saying that "Dublin is the capital of Ireland", whereas in fact "Dublin is is the capital of Ireland." Piping links in the way this guideline provides is clear and perfectly acceptable to the wider WP:MOS. It also reads better and is more accurate.

This proposal (which is the same as the fierce and recurrent one on the Ireland and Republic of Ireland talk pages), does show that we need a more concrete guideline for how to discriminate between the island and the state. Personally, I think the status quo is generally fine, but it needs codifying. --sony-youth^talk 16:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. The usual heavies out to crush 'lil ole me!! OK. I withdraw. Again. I am down but not out; like Slattery's Mounted Foot I flee to fight another day. Too busy trying to devise a template for use on the National secondary roads articles to engage fully - did you know the N80 road is 140km long? (Sarah777 17:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

LOL. --sony-youth^talk 17:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This topic has been well discussed and agreed on during a number of discussions as mentioned above. None of us want to rehash old turf because it is becoming extremely boring repeatedly seeing the some old arguments. We have better things to edit that argue. Ireland, the island, and Ireland, the state, are pretty much unique from a naming standpoint. I'm sorry Sarah777 but if you have been through, or observed, this discussion previously you will concur that the consensus agreed on will stand, even if you personally disagree with it, so please don't be like a dog with a bone and get on with making constructive edits that we need from newer editors. Please read the old discussions, so we don't have to see it repeated here and go through the same discussion again and again. Thanks ww2censor 18:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay this appears to have changed with User:Sarah777 now changing all mentions of Republic of Ireland in the Northern Ireland article to Ireland. The MOS here is about the towns and villages IN the Republic of Ireland. The references in the Northern Ireland article are talking about sharing a land border and other international relations where just calling it Ireland and referring to the island of Ireland in the same sections is confusing at best, and bordering on ludicrous. Ben W Bell talk 19:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just following the style manual. And I DON'T agree that bad decisions must remain forever. How do I change it? Should I be trying to organise a ballot? (Sarah777 19:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

And I suggest the reason you get repeated arguments is that new editors like myself keep popping up and are astonished and outraged at the set of rules for naming our own country some earlier Irish Wikipedians have acquiesced to. This will not end, in fact it could get much, much worse until a more balanced group of editorial opinion is assembled. I have withdrawn my call for deletion as I said; I can compromise. Now to APPLY the instructions implicit in the style manual. (Sarah777 19:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

Despite my suggestion that Sarah777 read the previous discussion, it seems she did not do that, otherwise she would realise that it is within the last 5 weeks this was discussed on two talk pages, which is during her editing time here. Sarah777's last post seems very much like she will insist on POV-pushing as she does not want to accept the consensus agreed very recently. I think that in the end POV-pushers will likely have their way because I am seeing good editors leaving because of the persistence of some editors to push their own views without consensus. I hope that is not what will happen here but I to am becoming fed up with repeat discussions instead of improving articles. Cheers ww2censor 19:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Just following the style manual." - This makes it difficult to assume good faith. --sony-youth^talk 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "difficult to assume good faith"? I have made my objections explicit, open and have rarely actually changed an article despite not being in any way impressed by the 'consensus'. I spend as much time here combating mindless vandalism as most others. And certainly at least one of the recently 'retired' editors was insufferably arrogant, rude and abusive (in my OPINION). But arising from the Ireland/RoI issue I have viewed a large number of other such disputes involving "nationalist" type issues; example - the use of 'volunteer' in IRA articles (to describe members of paramilitaries) appeared to draw many of the same people who refused to budge on the RoI issue to the "anti-Republican" side of the argument. Ditto Derry/L'Derry. So I am seeing possibly a concerted pov being imposed by certain folk here. I am almost afraid to read the numerous articles on Irish history and politics because I feel I'd spend my whole time fighting pov - whereas all I really want to do is write, organise and categorise articles about the villages, roads, hills, lakes and rivers of IRELAND. But I will not be a doormat either. Regards (Sarah777 23:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

As far as I remember, "Republic of Ireland" is what the constitution of that country states should be used in the case of ambiguity. Certainly that's what departments and representatives of the Dail use, as well as various other professional bodies over a vast array of public arenas, when there may be confusion. It is the same in Wikipedia. It doesn't merely seem to be the general consensus - it also makes perfectly sound logical sense.

I would suggest to you that the "same people" are drawn to many articles because of the comparitively small number number of (active) Irish Wikiedians. A sense of "imposition", one of "refusing to budge" and a feeling of being a "doormat" is undoubtedly shared by many Wikipedians besides yourself, including some who don't happen to agree with you. --Mal 00:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"As far as I remember, "Republic of Ireland" is what the constitution of that country states should be used in the case of ambiguity."

It says no such thing. Hence this whole debate. (Sarah777 01:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

I do beg your pardon - it was in the ironically named(!) Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 I believe. It was that Act that allowed for that country's transition to a republic and subsequent departure from the Commonwealth. Regardless anyway - the logic of the use of the 'description' is close to faultless. --Mal 15:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Mr Bell above says "The MOS here is about the towns and villages IN the Republic of Ireland." No it's not!!!! It is the MOS for Ireland-related articles - it says so on the tin!! Now can you see why I have problems with the reasoning behind the irregular naming conventions being dictated by a small group of editors here? FACTS appear to be irrelevant to the current controllers.

(I note a double revert of my CORRECT reference to RoI in the NI article, by Sony and then Bastun; - this is your idea of consensus?) (Sarah777 02:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

I didn't revert the article. I made a regular edit. Batsun did, although I would have if I'd see it first. The relevant section in the MoS refers exclusively to towns and villages in the RoI. But, hey, aren't fact irrelevant? --sony-youth^talk 07:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777, you may wish to read the Republic of Ireland Act that defines that the official description of the state is Republic of Ireland. This is quite explicit in the act. Ben W Bell talk 08:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777 asked on my talk page why I reverted her edit on the NI article "without any discussion or consultation". I should indeed have put in an edit summary, so apologies for that. My answer was: "Hi Sarah. Plain and simple, clarity. The previous version was The remainder of the island of Ireland is governed as a sovereign state, Ireland, also described as the Republic of Ireland. I thought it was a clumsy construction at best and confusing as hell for someone not familiar with the island. The replacement is clearer and accurate." Bastun 10:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777, like the comments on my talk page by you, more troll activity. Its quite clear at this stage that you will push your agenda irrespective of what anyone else thinks. Note to serious editors: get out while you can, is wikipedia really worth this type of nonsense? Djegan 10:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that Sarah777's edits are whatever seem to suit at the time. This edit [44] (the creation of a new article) clearly shows that not long ago she was happily using Republic of Ireland as a descriptor of the country, but apparently has since changed her mind. Ben W Bell talk 11:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I note that Ben Bell added "RoI" reference to the Delgany article in what, in my OPINION is a hostile gesture in the circumstances of this debate. Furthermore, Ben, we have discussed the Constitution of IRELAND endlessly here and I finally (after others had debated the issue for over a year) nailed the FACT that the one and only NAME of the state is IRELAND. As for the category thing, I cut and pasted the links and categories from earlier articles to save time and only noticed the error the other day. Most of my articles rigorously avoid any reference to the RoI. Like the Delgany one. Re the NI article: "I thought it was a clumsy construction at best and confusing as hell for someone not familiar with the island." That, in my opinion is totally OTT;it MIGHT be slightly less succinct but it is more accurate and doesn't carry the embedded pov. Anyway I have repaired the damage, again.(Sarah777 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

I see that Mr Bell is going down the list of my articles and provocatively adding RoI references to them. Is this what Wiki consensus is all about? And Mr Egan (allegedly retired) has referred to an explanation I requested for a poor edit he made as trolling. I have also had an edit called 'vandalism' and I have been called an 'extremist' by this group of "no pov!!!" editors. I become ever more convinced of the need to recruit some new moderate editors to restore some balance and achieve some compromise in relation to these issues. (Sarah777 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Actually if you check my edit history you'll see this is something I do as I come across it. Yes I spotted some of them off your edit history, and some off the recent changes list, and some off the random articles link. I've done nothing wrong here, I'm acting on the consensus of the community and supporting the Manual of Style that you keep interpreting your own way and going against the consensus of opinion (see your recent edits again to the Northern Ireland article [45]. You have already stated your disagreement with the policies and your implication that you'll continue to do it your way, so it is only dutiful that myself and others as editors should check to see what is being altered and what needs changing. In addition some of those "provocative" changes were actually adding the country to the article as it had made no mention whatsoever of a country, so readers wouldn't have known where the article was talking about. Ben W Bell talk 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben, in most articles I avoided naming the country to avoid controversy. I REFUSE to use RoI as the name of this country, however I guess if you feel you gotta clean up my errors you gotta do what you gotta do! At least you're polite. Unlike some. (Sarah777 22:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

With regards to not mentioning the country at all, I personally feel (my opinion here) that every article that is about a location should state the country. To not state the country means that a reader (not one of us editors, but a random reader) can come across the article and not have any idea as to where it is thus removing the context of the article. Not every reader will know, for example, that County Wicklow is in Ireland, it could be in Zambia for all they are aware of. We cannot presume geographic knowledge on the reader and should put the levels of detail in to provide them with a better reading and understanding experience. This is my viewpoint on the country inclusion point. Unfortunately stating that you REFUSE to use RoI as the country does mean you are announcing your intentions to go against the flow and consensus of the Wikipedia community, and that doesn't paint your case in a good light. I believe that if you feel really strongly on a subject, and have a real strong POV on it, you shouldn't be editing articles on it on Wikipedia as you cannot divorce yourself from your POV. Ben W Bell talk 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777 has a valid point here, and most Unionists object to the sovereign state Ireland, on the grounds of POV. Taramoon 22:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If people feel that they must REFUSE to follow wikipedia consensus, policies, etc then they should leave, point blank. Because this is no place for trolling, which is the fundemental tone of Sarah777. Calm down. Its not the end of the world. (sarcastically). In wikipedia the community comes first not what one person insists on (and it does not help your case when said editor makes snipes at the Irish wikipedia community which is documented above). Wikipedia is not a dictatorship. Dont anyone fire back a comment about assuming good faith because that day is long gone, just look at the unwarranted torrent on my talk page. Trolling. Djegan 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The POV word is a dirty word on WP, and it shouldn't be brandished about willy nilly. Saying that, everyone has a point of view. Calling a state by it's proper title is not POV. Otherwise, I'm not getting involved if editors conflict. I made a small edit to NI (re-edit as you like), I think proper wordage could solve this. Taramoon 00:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fundementally people we brought this problem onto ourselves. A failed compromise was reached at Republic of Ireland and now seamingly one editor is going to implement that as their policy and REFUSE anything else. This is a form of failed fundementalism. Whatever the name of the Irish state, adopted in this encyclopedia is, when referring to said state then that adopted term should be used consistantly throughout. This does not mean that we would deliberately misinform on the name of an document or office, for instance, Constitution of Ireland or President of Ireland, or that we could not point out that the name of that state is "Ireland". But it does mean that the adopted name is used firstly and most prominantly when referring to the state. Anything else is just illogical and opens the door for trolls and pov-pushers, or whatever this weeks topical term is. Djegan 00:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello DJ, Your increasingly abusive attacks on me are becoming tedious. Must you always talk in such OTT terms? "just look at the unwarranted torrent on my talk page." Unwarrented torrent? !!!! In the context of the abusive remarks that you addressed to me, really!

Here is the 'unwarrented torrent': Kindly do NOT revert my corrections without any consultation. You do not own this article, as you appear to believe. RoI is ONE of TWO "Official descriptions". One is in the Act you cited; the other is in the Constitution.

Yep folks - that's it! Taramoon is absolutely correct; sometimes pov is so embedded that the owners simply can't see it. (Sarah777 00:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Actually their is more that just that on my talk page by you (indeed much of it borders WP:NPA), and people are welcome to view it for themselves and make up their own mind. If people think my comments constitute (or indeed do not) WP:NPA then they are welcome to comment here or where ever said comments are. Djegan 00:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on guys, make peace not war, shake hands, have a glass of wine, and easy on those keys. I'm not preaching, for I have been there, and have suffered too. Not worth it:) Taramoon 00:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am always willing to adapt, change and move on, but I am not willing to stand by as one hard line editor ruins it for everyone else. If anyone thinks I am fundementally wrong here I am listening, I am not going to retaliate with a torrent of abuse against anyone. But lets not get too amaturish in accepting one view. Djegan 01:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, not much sign of reaching-out there! As you ask, fundamentally wrong DJ. I have made numerous efforts to compromise on the various 'naming' issues only be be greeted by the uncompromising stance of DJ and some others. (Sarah777 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Necessary tweak to the Derry / Londonderry naming conventions

Hi all! Wikipedia uses Londonderry for the county and Derry for the city; this is quite an arbitrary naming convention not used anywhere else. I propose that, like everywhere else, Wikipedia employs the name Londonderry for articles pertaining to unionists and unionism and Derry for articles pertaining to nationalists and nationalism. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 01:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats a very pov method. Just how do we define if an article pertains to unionist or nationalist? What about an article split 50/50 in those political terms? Your proposal is unworkable. Not though through. Their are too many politically charged terms in Irish politics to make this sort of proposal work. Where is this "everywhere else", and whatever next? Djegan 01:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It actually helps reduce POV, by applying the correct labels to the correct articles. To dismiss this as unworkable, especially without any experimentation is a bit silly, innit? In addition, our current naming convention is and completely arbitrary and inappropriate, as it mandates certain biographical articles on unionists to have their birth or location as "Derry" and articles on nationalists to be from "Londonderry" gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an experiment. Their is a good reason for the current convention. What about articles without a unionist or nationalist slant - shall we have two articles for each, one that uses Derry one that uses Londonderry? You have not though this through. What happens to the Derry and County Londonderry articles? Sorry, you will need a consensus for any change. Djegan 09:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately I do not believe their is a precident on wikipedia that we use two terms alternatively and select them based on culture or politics. Dividing articles in this way is a nonsense, wikipedia should be consistant throughout - what about people who want simply the facts with as little spin as possible? Their are very sound reasons for calling the city Derry and the county Londonderry, indeed their would be a very sound case for Londonderry all round. Because if we do what you propose this is classic pov and nothing else. Djegan 11:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the "tweak" as well. How could we decide which articles are unionist and which articles are nationalist? The current set-up is working, as far as I can see. For example Derry GAA (where Derry is the name of a football team, not the county) article refers to county Londonderry, and Unionism in Ireland refers to the county Londonderry and city of Derry. Why break something that working, when we all know it would only open an opportunity for edit-warring? The current set-up is hardly "arbitrary and inappropriate" either as the Derry City Council has changed its name from Londonderry to Derry and attempted to formally rename the city through (failed) legal routes. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with this "tweak". It's not a tweak, it's opening an even more massive can of worms that what we have now. The current situation seems to work, within limits, with the County as Londonderry and the city as Derry. Changing it to the proposed idea would allow editors to just alter them to whatever their personal preferences are which could cause chaos. The current situation calls the county Londonderry, as it's never had any other official name, and the city Derry, which the residents of the city have shown they wish their city to be named by renaming the council. If your "tweak" were to go through, what about articles like the "Apprentice Boys of Derry"? A unionist topic article where they call it Derry in their name, or historical references to County Coleraine being renamed. It just wouldn't work. I say we keep the status quo, at least the established editors by now are aware of the accepted ground rules among the community. Ben W Bell talk 14:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove from Northern Ireland Topics

Irish is not an Offical Language of the United Kindom (which includes Northern Ireland) or the EU. If you wish to put Irish in all Northern Ireland Articles i suggest that you also include other lanuages used in the UK Mainland. Wikipedia wants to enforce Irish onto Northern Ireland topics then Other languages used in the UK should be included in their articles too. It is only fair and correct to do so as it follows the same lines are you focus northern ireland topics to be writing to. Craig7006 16:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well English isn't an official language of the United Kingdom either but we write in that. Irish is a recognised and promoted second language in Northern Ireland, and most modern place names in Northern Ireland are derived from the original Irish names. Ben W Bell talk 16:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly a case for guidelines on how to judge where to use Irish on NI articles appropriately. There should be worked out. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A number of towns and cities in Northern Ireland no longer speak or know how to speak Irish. Adding Irish to every North Ireland Artilce is not fair or correct. Irish is not an offical or premote language of Northern IReland nor is it an offical language of the EU. If it was a premoted language in the UK / Northern Ireland then it will be included on Road Signs and place names, which is doesnt. Editors need to undersand that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kindom not Ireland (ROI) and as such can not always have irish in its artilce people need to understand also that it needs to be put in contents. For Example County Down in northern Ireland is quite as Unionist area i.e. British, and as such adding Irish to its artilces is incorrect. Another example is Ards Newtownards does not speak Irish there may be 9% or more correctly 5% Catholic but just since they are catholics does not mean that they know or understand Irish. Craig7006 16:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't speak it myself I know of many people in Ards that speak Irish, and it is taught at the towns largest school. Ards is also a very good example to pick, the name being derived from the Irish for the original settlement and which is used for the entire Ards peninsula. The fact that most of the names are derived from Irish, and have official Irish names in Northern Irish governance is relevant. Ben W Bell talk 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Craig, you've stated twice that Irish isn't an official language of the EU - you're incorrect. See Irish language. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bastun you are correct however the Irish debate on Wikipedia and Northern Ireland has been going on forever. the irish language only offical became from 1Jan07 not the UK. Why should Northern Ireland a United Kindom Country have to have Irish included in its articles, Irish is not an language the the UK speaks. there are a number of other speaking languages in the UK these should be included in the England Articles. Ben the schools in ards do not teach Irish as i checked before commenting on the topicCraig7006 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I cannot understand your second sentence above, it makes no sense to me, can you rephrase it. Also schools in Ards do teach Irish, Regent House definitely teaches it. I managed to do Latin instead though. Ben W Bell talk 21:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Craig, with regard to place names in Northern Ireland, it is my understanding that Irish-language places names, where they exist, for places in Northern Ireland are valid under Northern Irish law. I'll look this up further but for the time being see the Department for Regional Development Code Of Courtesy For Irish:

"The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 provides that a District Council may place a version of a street name in another language alongside the English name. ... When a person has used a lawful Irish language street name staff should use the Irish form in replying to correspondence or while processing applications.

"... There are no restrictions on using Irish versions of other parts of an address e.g. townland, town, county, country."

--sony-youth^pléigh 21:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Republicanism's Norman Vincent Peale

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

To quote Sarah777, this is nonsense, rubbish and tripe. Using the word Ireland gives the impression it is one state? How, exactly? The power of republican positive thinking? This is absolute bilge, and seems to be the work of Ben W Bell, acting unilaterally. Despite being told of an "agreement" and a "compromise", I found neither. Not here, not at WP:IWNB.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

LP - I fundementally disagree with you, "Republic of Ireland" should be used. But considering that you where a big pusher of "six counties" I am not the least surprised at your comments. As you can only name one person who supports your view thats prima-facie evidence that only one person actually (in addition to yourself) supports your view. Regards. Djegan 23:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? The work of myself acting unilaterally? I had absolutely nothing to do with the implementation of this style section, I've simply followed it on ocassion. Ben W Bell talk 07:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The conversation took place at Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive13#Naming of Republic of Ireland towns/villages. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "conversation". I was originally told of an "agreement" and a "compromise", but there's no sign of those. And if we write the name of the state for places south and west of a line running through Ulster, why do we use a regional name for places north and east of it, rather than the name of the state which currently has jurisdiction over that area?

Lapsed Pacifist 10:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That was discussed as part of the conversation to reach a compromise that led to the agreement. See the discussion that Stu pointed to. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason we didn't use Republic of Ireland for the state south and west of the line is that most editors on Wikipedia from that country objected to using just Republic of Ireland as it isn't the state's name, but Ireland is the official name. This aspect of the conversation can be found on the Republic of Ireland talk page. Ben W Bell talk 07:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The main discussion is on the talk page but there was even a straw poll on this and the results of that are here. ww2censor 12:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The debate on the guidelines for what to call the Twenty-six County Area doesn't concern me. Rather it's that the use of the state rather than the country for locations is being insisted upon. Most people who live in the TSCA don't identify as "Republic of Irish". Their country is Ireland, and they're not referring to just part of it, whatever a particular state's official title. No-one has been able to explain to me why the state's name isn't being used for locations in the Six Counties. If the regional name gets preferment there, why not regional names for the rest of the country?

Lapsed Pacifist 13:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Irish English

It may be helpful to add that when the English spoken in Ireland differs from other varieties of English, it should be followed in Irish articles; this is already in MOS itself, as national varieties of English, but it may tend to turn down the heat here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

NI places infobox

Browsed to the Lurgan article and noted that it had the UK places infobox. I thought that it should have been the Ireland places infobox? There could be more, have't checked. --Bill Reid | Talk 09:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that too...is this something that should be changed when encountered, or should it just be left alone? Perhaps raising it on the article's talk page in the first instance would be the best option. Martin 01:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Came across this by accident, but I have an interest. Since, say, Lurgan is both in the UK and in Ireland, what are the arguments against using the UK box? I don't mean political ones, since this is unlikely to be reconciled here. The Irish one (as used for Dublin) has several items that are not relevant for a place in the UK (Dail constituency, IEpostcode, etc) whereas the UK one contains items relevant to NI as well as the UK in general. (BTW, this is a genuine query, not a wind-up.) Folks at 137 20:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be pedantic, Lurgan is in Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, and on the island of Ireland - therefore using the Irish infobox makes no sense. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Increase in Irish translations at beginning of articles.

I've noticed recently that there is an increase again in the number of articles having an Irish translation provided at the beginning of the article, mainly the NI airport related articles. Now, correct me if I'm wrong by all means, I was under the impression that the Irish version was if there was an official Irish name it was known by, or an original Irish name that the name was Angliciinsed from. I was under the impression that it wasn't simply to be used as a means of translating the name into Irish. Wikipedia is not an English/Irish dictionary. So can we have some clarification on this as it is causing some minor edit wars on some of the airport articles (and I'm sure elsewhere). Should an Irish translation be provided if that is all it is, a back translation, or should it only be used if there is an official Irish name used for the location (in these cases an airport) or if it was Anglicised from an Irish name or word. I personally don't believe it is there simply to provide a translation, but others do think otherwise and the MOS isn't clear. The example I talk about at the minute is Newtownards Airport. Now this airport doesn't have any Irish translations on its signage or any official paperwork associated with it, and the Irish put on the page is simply someone translating it into Irish. Ben W Bell talk 11:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If its suspected that its just a high school level back translation then I think initially {{fact}} would be appropriate, followed by removal per WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia is mirrored extensively and the last thing we need is to fill up the site with high school level back translations that anyone with a half-assed understanding of Irish could contrive. This is not limited to airports but all articles; proper verification on request or outright removal. Djegan 11:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, agree. If an Irish name does not exist then it should not be made up. The MOS need to make this clear. DJ, we've already disagreed over whether QUB should have an Irish translation. Clear guidelines are needed. My perference would be for something like the following:

• Places: 1) the "original" name; 2) if it is the official Irish-language name (so Charleville is in, Shankill Road is out);
• Institutions: only if they are used by in an official capacity by the institution themselves
• Events: if it can be cited from a blue-chip publishing house, so Battle of the Boyne is in, but Celtic Tiger is out

(On a separate note, I've slowly began a project to translate Irish-language names of places to give their meaning in English - see for example Derry or Breaffy - should the MOS provide guidance for this too?) --sony-youth^pléigh 13:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In parallel, something also needs to agreed on Ulster Scots. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure its clear cut, we should base our guideline on wikipedia policies.

Places -- whats the "original" name? Some places have two or three versions of the same name in Irish. Where are these "original" names been sourced from, any citations for cities, counties, and towns? Their is not too many people using "original" Gaelic script, but modern post Gaelic script standardised Irish can hardly be referred to as "original" names, particularily in Northern Ireland where they are chiefly of historic value. If its a language of worth than we need to prove that its a living language as well, not just something found on the back cover of a middle ages manuscript.

Institutions -- wikipedia is not the corporate branding implementation or press office of any institution, just that something is not official it does not follow that it is not of worth. We dont remove "unofficial" matter, wikipedia guidelines and policies decide what is appropriate not institutional politics.

Events -- what is a "blue-chip publishing house", the national tabloid, or a well respected, balanced local newspaper. Again everything is subject to wikipedia guidelines and policies here.

No need for a parrallel Ulster Scots process, same rules for all. Focus on wikipedia policies for any guideline. WP:IMOS is a guideline and its primarily focus should be how and when to integrate names other than the commonly used name in English, its not the version of WP:VERIFY for Irish-related articles. And any policy drawn up here will be subject to official policy. Djegan 13:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

eh ... yeah, you're kind of losing the plot here, DJ.

• What I mean by "original name" was not the medieval name for a place (or anything about orthography) but the fact that most English-language place names in Ireland are derived from Irish names. Current practice is to show that Irish name italicised and bracketed in articles on place names. I don't understand what you are arguing above, do you want to end that practice? What I mean is that official and "origianal" names for places are fine, but let's not make stuff up. Shakhill is a choice example. Derived from Seanchille meaning Old Church, it would be quite fine to include Seanchill bracketed afterwards. But Shakhill Road, translated as Bóthar na Seanchille, is not acceptable, because it is neither the "original" name for the place, nor an official name for the place.
• As regards institutions, we do not want to invent names either. Ben's example of Newtownards Airport is a good one. Aerfort Bhaile Nua na hArda would be the name for the airport in Irish, but this is the English-language Wikipedia and until Newtownards Airport calls itself Aerfort Bhaile Nua na hArda then we will simply be making something up by calling it such here. The same applies to QUB. Alternative names, fine. Neologisms, or just slapping in Irish-language names because we want one, not fine.
• A blue-chip publishing house would be Routeledge, Oxford University Press, McMillian, etc. If an Irish name for an event is not referenced by one of these, then I suggest that, as a rule of thumb, it is not notable enough to merit mention. I know this isn't the best of solutions, but what would you suggest?

--sony-youth^pléigh 18:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sony-youth, rather than the slightest suggestion that what I have said has any merit, you decide instead to dismiss me as a crack. If you think I am "losing the plot" then show where. Comment on content, not on the contributor, WP:NPA.

Bascially what you are proposing is a convoluted process of what already happens, and I think thats a bad basis for proposing anything - rules on rules. Its anything but a manual of style, its a guideline come policy (content and rationale). As things are material gets included through consensus and that material is subject to verification on request. Their was neither consensus nor verification for Newtownards Airport.

I know what a "blue-chip publishing house" is but nothing is WP:VERIFY states that sources must be so and theirfore we should not limit ourselves in that manner. Its as simple as that, no need for a whole section procrastinating how we should decide if Irish is included because its just recodifing existing guidelines and policies. I know about WP:NOR and stand over it, but QUB was a different matter. University College Cork uses the term in its history section[46] - would that pass WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY - yes (I am sure their is more citations available, I believe some where provided, but their was no accusation at the time that the QUB Irish name was "made up"). Are we the corporate identity police of any third party - no. If a term or fact is known in wider society than that maybe a basis for inclusion if it passes WP:VERIFY, and other guidelines and policies. We don't include things just because a third party says its so, and don't exclude it just because they don't say its so. Sorry, this isn't kindergarten or the press office of whatever place, organisation, or event.

The manual of style should be used to determine layout, not content, its not a quasi-official rewrite of official policies and guidelines for Irish language in articles. Djegan 19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, DJ, didn't mean to dismiss you like that - I meant it more light heartedly. To take the QUB example - sure, there are examples of Ollscoil na Banríona in use, just like, as I wrote on that talk page, there are examples of L'université de la Reine in use. The link you gave is to an Irish-language source. That source of course uses the Irish-language version, just as a French-language source would use the French-language version. The topic of this discussion, I thought, was to decide when and where we should use Irish-language names for things and places on the English-language Wikipedia. Or am I wrong? That is a matter for a manual of style, not for WP:VERIFY etc.. We can verify that Ollscoil na Banríona is the Irish for Queen University, we can even verify that people use that phrase to refer to Queen's University in the Irish langauge, but should we include that phrase after Queen's University in the English-language Wikipedia?

I say no. The reason why I say so is because this is the English-language Wikipedia and common practice is to include the names of places and things in other language only if they have some sense of being the "official" or "original" or "native" name of that place or thing.

The same goes for Newtownards Airport/Aerfort Bhaile Nua na hArda or Shankill Road/Bóthar na Seanchille.

Now your turn: Why would you include the name of a place or thing in language other than English on the English-language Wikipedia. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should not translate terms wholesale, and that we should keep very high standards. What was very disagreeable about the QUB episode is that the editor that original removed it and pushed for its removal did so on the grounds that their was no Ulster Scots version! Not because it was the English wikipedia, or because of a guideline or policy or indeed a rationale as though out as appropriateness of use. I dont want us just to remove material just for window dressing.

I agree as well that its not appropriate that every Irish (or Northern Irish) institution to have the Irish name stated in wikipedia. But I am not sure we can write a usable policy beyond common sense, consensus and verifibility.

Their are some very fundemental questions over the use of Irish in Northern Ireland articles, but their are also other very important questions related to usage of Irish in articles generally. Take for instance biographys and in particular those of politicians. Their is not a Irish politician of worth that does not have an Irish version of the name in a wikipedia article, yet little if any mention of sources or even if the person themselves uses it. Take a look at Bertie Ahern, it points to a single speech. Great damage has already been done and I am not sure that we be able to rescue things simply by removal of Irish from a few articles. Djegan 15:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, all what I was thinking too. That was also why I suggested doing a guide for the use of Ulster-Scots in parallel. I've seen "parity of esteem" being pushed in too many places either as a reason to either remove Irish or, very rarely, to insert obviously makey-upey Scots. Its a NI-related territory marking issue for the main part. Irish names for people, I've never really had a problem with, but I can see how it would get on some nerves. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction: "all what I was thinking" except that I think it's possible to make a guide for it (but needing wider involvement). --sony-youth^pléigh 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ireland pre-independence biographical convention?

While browsing I came across this, where someone's birthplace is listed as "Cork, County Cork, UK". I decided to change it to Ireland instead of the UK, and tried using [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Ireland]] (which I've seen before) as a possible compromise as the editor has been edit warring over that and contributes to plenty of Northern Ireland related articles (surprise, surprise!). Only that wasn't good enough, so they linked Ireland directly and added on UK afterwards. So my questions are these:

• Is there any need for the "UK" adding on the end? It's rarely done with England, Wales, Scotland etc, but it seems the Irish should always be oppressed in this way?

• Is "[[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Ireland]]" acceptable to begin with? Again, it's rarely done with England, Scotland or Wales. You don't see "[[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|England]]", so why is this standard being selectively employed against Ireland?

Input welcome. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer that question ONIH, the reason is that simple, there are a lot of British Wiki editors determined to push British pov in relation to Ireland. (Sarah777 03:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Don't see why "[[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Ireland]]" shouldn't be used in these situations. On the basis that:

• The link takes you to country she was born in.
• The pipe is the region of the country she was born in, and,
• The pipe is also the common name of the country that her place of birth currently is.

I think the difference between Ireland and the British nations in this instance is that the UK is a direct continuation of that country that was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Ireland isn't (i.e. it became new state). Rockpocket 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So why do people from England, Wales and Scotland get to assert their own individual nation of birth while people from Ireland don't? It's a huge inconsistency is it not? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is a huge inconsistency. People born in Ireland 100 years ago should be simply stated as born in Ireland, I don't think any reader would be confused as to where that is. If we are going to go down this route, then folk born before 1918 should be referred to as being born in "Occupied Ireland". I think sticking to the modern nation states convention would be better than the edit wars that would result. (Sarah777 03:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Well, it depends what you are trying to say. The reason we say England/Scotland/Wales is because those places are both political and geographical locations that have not really changed in the time frame we are discussing. So whatever permutations the UK went through in the last few hundred years, Scotland (geography) remained Scotland (country) in the UK. That cannot be said for the area that is now the ROI. There is nothing wrong with saying and/or linking to "Ireland" if you want to indicate they were born on that Island. But Ireland (geography) ≠ Republic of Ireland ≠ Irish Free State ≠ UK. So if you want to explicitly express what nationality they were (for whatever reason) then linking to Ireland isn't particularly informative. It all depends on the context, and it that sense it is only inconsistent because Irish geopolitics is inconsistent in comparison to the British nations. The reason I suggest [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Ireland]] is because it provides more information - its tells you geographically in the pipe, and politically in the link. But I don't think its a big deal if one is simply noting location of birth. Ireland (the island) is just fine. Also, using language such as "oppressed" isn't really helpful. Making links, correctly or otherwise isn't oppressing anyone. This is a complex and delicate issue, but assuming people are using it for political reasons is hardly in the best faith. Rockpocket 04:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to bear in mind how people born in Ireland before 1921 described the country they were born in and how others described it. I think I can saw with certainty and there were very few people indeed who were born before 1921 and who would have described themselves as having been born in the "UK" or the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". The convention then, as now, is that these people are described as having been born in Ireland. Similarly, people born in Ireland pre-1921 were generally and have generally been referred to as Irish. To describe these people as having been born in the UK would represent an entirely new and unprecidented development in encyclopaedic conventions, and a most unwelcome experiment in my opinion.--Damac 08:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

When I was a kid members of my grandparents generation were all entitled to British citizenship if born pre-1922. Hardly anyone availed of that and the very idea that they or their kinfolk would have described themselves as "British" in the early 1900s is laughable. Only the minority of Unionists would have done so. (Sarah777 13:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

I think it should be listed as Ireland. Pre-1922 what is now Northern Ireland should still be referred to as Ireland. As others have said, while technically correct the terminology of UK wasn't really used back in those good ole days. Linking to Ireland shows the area they were born in and people can derive from that article what they want to take from it if they even click on it. As said everyone else gets England, Scotland or Wales so pre-1922 should get Ireland. I know there has been changes but I think it's the best way of doing it and has the benefit of being factually correct as well with few reasons to oppose it from a political motivation perspective. Ben W Bell talk 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, do you mean Ireland? Rockpocket 16:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's what I mean. Ben W Bell talk 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ben and Damac. Isaac Newton was English and born in England, not British or born in the United Kingdom. Use of the terms British and United Kingdom, as we understand them today, are quite new and, though technically correct, would not be exteded so casually to Ireland pre-1922. Much better described as Irish and being from Ireland. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh. Now there we go. I didn't know there was an Irish people article. Sony-youth's proposal gets my vote. Rockpocket 17:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sadly political agendas very often creep into Wikipedia, and really the project is ill-served by this stance. We never read that X,Y or Z were born in the French First Republic, French Second Republic, French Fourth Republic or indeed the French Fifth Republic. Even this conversation is unnecessary, immature and bewildering. 13:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.93.52 (talk)
• I have a case similar, but slightly different to the Mother Jones article. John Bodkin Adams was born in 1899 in Randalstown, so the info box originally read County Antrim, Northern Ireland. Perhaps it didn't reflect history per se, but it was clear and reflected the fact that the subject was from the north and was British (he lived his whole adult life in Eastbourne, UK). For months no one had a problem with it. Recently 'One Night In Hackney' decided to highlight the 1899 situation by changing this to County Antrim, Ireland.

This is problematic: readers not au fait with Irish/British history will think Adams was Irish, which he wasn't. I suggested therefore 'Ireland (now Northern Ireland)' - yet One Night thought this was 'offensive' - my suggesting that the entity Ireland was now known as Northern Ireland. I contend that few readers would think this and fewer readers will be confused by this compromise, or even just 'Northern Ireland' on its own (lets face it, the majority of readers will want to know where the town is now not where it was then), than his sole 'Ireland' version - since few will realise an old state is being referred to (unlike an old-fashioned name like 'British India' - which would set off alarm bells and let the reader know a past state is being referred to).

Perhaps 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' would in fact be best since it is accurate and reflects Adams' British nature? Any views? Malick78 10:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• For everyone's information, the city of Lviv has an analogous situation to Randalstown - once in Poland, now in Ukraine. If one checks the pages of Stanisław Leszczyński and Stanisław Lem though, we see their birth as being in 'Poland (now Ukraine)'. This seems uncontroversial and commonsensical. Can it be applied to Adams? Ie. 'Ireland (now Northern Ireland)'? Thanks. Malick78 10:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite analogous - in fact not analogous at all. Randalstown was in Ireland in 1899 and is in Ireland in 2007. Saying that he was born in Northern Ireland is about a correct as saying that the Duke of Wellington was born in the Republic of Ireland.

I really don't understand the statement that "... readers not au fait with Irish/British history will think Adams was Irish, which he wasn't." He was born, rared and educated in Ireland, to parents born rared and educated in Ireland, and carried an impecibly Gaelic Irish surname. Sounds to me like a good candidate for an Irish person! Do you really believe that no-one was Irish prior to the establishment of the Free State? And then only those from the 26 counties, and presumably Catholic? It sounds to me like to are performing a backward reading of contemporary, and quite new, identity divisions in Northern Ireland (see Image:IDinNI-Prot.png). Furthermore, secondary sources describe him as Irish (see). --sony-youth^pléigh 13:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• You mean 'a' source. And it's tertiary btw. Furthermore, I have an Irish surname too so please don't assume I have an anti-Irish prejudice, I just seek clarity. As for Randalstown being in Ireland now - sure it's on the island, but the country is still Northern Ireland and countries are what we refer to. My analogy which you disliked, was simply to show that 'country (now country)' - is not an offensive system (as claimed by One Night) of clarifying changed geopolitical matters if other non-Irish-related articles happily use it. Adams, btw, lived in England from his 22nd year until his death at 84 and had a British passport (Cullen, 2006). Malick78 14:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Country (now Country)" example, and the analogy with the Ukraine/Poland border, is balderdash (I don't see how it can be "offensive" though) on a number of counts:

• To be truely analogous it would read "United Kingdom (now United Kingdom)" as Randalstown has not changed states. This would clearly be nuts. (The analogy would only be relevent to persons on the other side of the 1922 border e.g. "Daniel O'Connell was born in the United Kingdom (now Ireland)".)
• Saying that the entity once known as "Ireland" is now known as "Northern Ireland" is utterly unfounded. Ireland was partitioned. One area didn't "shrink". It was cut in half. No area is the "true" successor to the "original" "Ireland". This is reflected in "national" sporting teams where the whole Ireland is the represented team e.g. rubgy, hockey, cycling, etc.. Even the exception to the rule, football, has ain't so simple - both the southern and norhtern associations competed simultaneously as all-island "Ireland" teams until the 1950s.
• Writing that someone was born in Ireland (now Northern Ireland) is nonsensical as Northern Ireland is very definately in Ireland. Partition did not remove Northern Ireland form the island of Ireland.
• Adams was born in Ireland (b:1899). He certainly was not born in Northern Ireland (e:1921). A person born in Belfast today is still born in Ireland, but can more accurately be described as being born in Northern Ireland. This is not the case for Adams. It's either "United Kingdom" or "Ireland", convention is to break the UK down into its constituent parts for these kind of things.

As for "a" source and "tertiary", you are quite right. I pointed to it as being just one among many. What does Cullen say? Finally, exactly where did I assume that you had an anti-Irish prejudice? --sony-youth^pléigh 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• What I claimed was offensive was the staggerly incorrect and ignorant piece of text you added, that said Ireland is now Northern Ireland. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• But 'Poland (now Ukraine)' doesn't offend Poles, so why should 'Ireland (now Northern Ireland)' be "staggeringly incorrect and ignorant"? It doesn't say one is the other, just that names and boundaries have changed. You know exactly what is meant, you're just being over-literal and seeing 'oppression' everywhere. Let's improve articles, not pick fights. Malick78 15:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should link historical figures and events to the modern countries. If we do that then we need to go through and update almost every historical article. Countries and borders change over time, it always happens. I think we should just list them as they were at the time. For instance I've removed some people from various Northern Ireland categories as they died before the existence of Northern Ireland. Do we list people being born in Jerusalem in 1920 as being born in Israel? No, we list it as Palestine which is what it was. We should keep politics and modernity out of it and put it down simply as it was. If people didn't know that it later became Northern Ireland, well they can learn this is after all an encyclopaedia and that is the goal, assuming knowledge and reactions isn't a good idea. Titanic was built in Belfast, Ireland. Belfast is in Northern Ireland (when discussed in modern day), but the two can easily exist. Ben W Bell talk 13:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• 'Jerusalem, Palestine (now Israel)' would hardly be problematic if it were appropriate in a particular case, would it? The Stanisław Lem info box reads quite clearly after all. Malick78 14:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see a compelling reason why Adams should be an exception. If we allow "...Ireland (now in Northern Ireland" for him, it's a slippery slope leading to it in every single article. I'm sure there are articles that may merit such an exception, but this isn't one of them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Itš clear given ongoing controversies over this that referring to someone born in Belfast pre-1920s as being born in Belfast Ireland may not be the best solution. A tweak to something like Belfast, Island of Ireland could be a better solution as its factual and avoids POV disputes over the political status of the areas concerned. Valenciano (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Inis Mór

Irish Wikipedians - (And yes I include User:Rockpocket !!) - Please see this article and recent edit history.

• Recently the Irish Government made the Irish form of the names of places in the Gaeltacht the only legal form; English removed from signposts etc (though generally these were only in Irish anyway).
• In some cases the Irish version will be that widely used by the locals; in others cases not.
• User:Wiki01916 and User:RedKing have been changing the Gaeltacht place names in Wiki articles to reflect the official position.
• User:Djegan reverted some of this work on the grounds that this is "en" Wiki.
• I restored Wiki01916's version citing the example of Bagnelstown.
• Dj reverted again pointing out that the new name didn't match the article name as per Wiki MOS.
• So I moved the article to Inis Mór; now the Irish name and article title match.
• THEN I realised this could affect hundreds of articles and such a mass movement should be fully discussed here as the merits of each case may vary.
• Even at the risk that ye may make the wrong decision yet again I await your verdict before making any page moves. (Sarah777 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Disputed issues seems to suggest there is/was consensus on Inishmore at some point in the past. In general it seems we should use English names, rather than local names, unless there is a good reason otherwise. I wouldn't want to be the one moving articles en masse - think of all those redirects you would have to fix... Rockpocket 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Standard Wikipedia procedure is to use the English language version of a name. There are English language versions of these towns so they should remain as such. Certainly mention in the articles their Irish name, but the articles should still be under the English name. Ben W Bell talk 20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who is this User:RedKing who allegedly has been changing Gaeltacht place names, but it is not I! , though I have opposed obsessive Gaelic re-naming in the Gort and Kinvara articles. (And anyway, as gaeilge, there is no such place as Inis Mór - the correct name of the large island is Árainn. Inish More is an artefact generated by the English Ordnance Survey that has gained currency over the years). --Red King 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Red, couldn't recall which - you or Wiki1916 (or both) was adding the Irish names and who was reverting. (Sarah777 20:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

I never have trouble with redirects funnily enough...some Bot follows me around. Not sure that the past is a good guide to the present on this issue; when Innismore was created that was an official English for many of the places; now there isn't; thus the likely problems. Also some areas officially now only having an Irish name are in breac (dodgy) Gaeltachts, ie they don't actually speak Irish anymore. In these cases name changes would be more difficult to sustain - though in the Bagnelstown case the last native speaker died in the Great Genocide of the 1840s!(Sarah777 20:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

A couple of points: firstly to confirm Ben W Bell's point that in English Wiki, English versions of names are used. Have look at the talk page for Bruges where a consensus on a similar point has been reached - quoting several other European examples. In the Irish wiki, what names are used for, say, Dublin, London, Bruges, etc? (Not a rhetorical question.)

As a side issue, I'm surprised that "Recently the Irish Government made the Irish form of the names of places in the Gaeltacht the only legal form; English removed from signposts etc ". As a regular visitor to Dublin, I'm used to seeing bilingual road signs (as in Wales): does English have the same status in the Gaeltacht as Irish does elsewhere? Also. on a visit to Aranmore a while ago, I wasn't aware of Irish being used as a first language, despite it being in the Gaeltacht. (As this is "off-topic", answers to my talk page would seem appropriate. Thanks.)

Folks at 137 21:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the English wiki and thus the names uses should be those used most commonly in the English language (i.e. not neccessarily English), thats an often repeated guideline. And this is not the press office of the Irish Government. Their is a wiki at ga.wikipedia.org for those who wish to use Irish. Djegan 22:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"does English have the same status in the Gaeltacht as Irish does elsewhere?". Yes; but not the English version of placenames. Where there is only an Irish version in use, eg Dún Laoghaire, then no English version is required. An Irish version is required everywhere. As for "this is not the press office of the Irish Government"; interesting that the inaccurate description of NI as a "country" was justified by heavy reliance on a Downing Street website. We had editors intoning it as if it were sacred writ. (Sarah777 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

From where I sit, Dun Laoghaire (and Cobh and Laois) are the commonly used names in English - so no anomaly there for English wiki. Irish versions of placenames often take precedence on signs in Ireland, but in a bilingual country, why then are English versions not acceptable in the Gaeltacht - or is English not an official language nationwide? Still interested to know how Irish Wiki handles "foreign" placenames. Folks at 137 06:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Londain, Baile Átha Cliath, Brugge. Rockpocket 06:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My personal likening would be to use the Irish-language names, but this isn't reality or the ga.wikipedia. What I would propose as a compromise is to embolden the Irish-language name for Gaeltacht place names to reflect that they are they are the official name. e.g.:

Dingle (Irish: An Daingean or An Daingean Uí Chúis, meaning The Fortress of the Husseys) ...

In this case, An Daingean is the official name, whereas An Daingean Uí Chúis is not.

The case of these place names is quite different, I beleive, as it is the offical name of these places in an English-speaking country. Think about that for a moment: Ireland is an English-speaking country, An Dangean is the only official name for the town in an English-speaking country. This is quite a different situation from place names in other countries that are not English-speaking. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I find that proposal good. I understand what you are saying about it being an English speaking country. Depends on how it comes down as the common English language name for the place. Some towns and villages are known in English under their Irish names anyway, and that's perfectly acceptable as that's how it is. Ben W Bell talk 13:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what Sony's point about "English-speaking country" is. In some of these Gealtacht areas Irish is still the spoken language; and in some it isn't. Surely whether a place is an "English-speaking place" or not is more relevant than Ireland being an English-speaking country? (Sarah777 00:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

I mean that English is an official language of Ireland. And so, in an English-speaking country, the official name of a town is An Daingean, not Dingle. This is a very different situation from a non-English speaking country where the official name of a city is Wien, and not Vienna as we call it in English. Wien is clearly German, and not English; but An Daingean is in a grey-zone - it's Irish, but the official name for a place in a country where English is an official language.

Because of this, a sentence such as, "The work covered by this contract consists of the sinking of approximately 15 No. exploratory holes at An Daingean Harbour, Co. Kerry, the taking of samples as required and the furnishing of a detailed report and recommendations," (from here) is not therefore mixing languages. However, a similar sentence in English that called Vienna Wien would clearly be mixing a German-language place name into an English-language sentence.

Do you see the grey-zone that makes An Daingain different from other non-English-language place names, such as Wien? An Daingain might be Irish, but it is valid English also. Wien is never valid English, it's German, end-of-story. Only Vienna should be used on the English-langauge Wikipedia, but it is not so clear cut with An Daingain. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I won't concede that you've lost me yet Sony....but you're getting there! (Sarah777 01:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC))