Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

The King of Ireland?

Getting a completely solid source on this one might be difficult and the whole constitutional order 1937-1949 is shrouded in confusion, but the Treaty gave Ireland the same constitution status as Canada. At that time the head of state in Canada was the "King of Canada" and now the head of state is the "Queen of Canada". It stands to reason that the pre-1937 Irish head of state was the "King of Ireland". Whatever the position of the King post-1937, the title presumably remained until we became a Republic in 1949. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's correct. --Cameron* 13:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Something very similar was discussed here and Mooretwin did an excellent job in explaining the situation. --HighKing (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

ireland is famous for a four leafed clover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.106.3 (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is some reference on Wikipidia in the lineage of English and Scottish monarchy but I cannot recall the changes correctly in title, the dates or, being so many unconnected articles on the matter, can I find which articles those references are on (I have recoursed the English monarchy and nothing although lineage goes right back to the Celts). I reverted a change of King of Ireland but the main reason for my revert was a large and dubious edit(NPOV). It saddens me maybe that there be no provincial kings on the Ireland article, that this article provide the link to the island of Ireland rather than the island of Ireland and that the article Politics of the Republic of Ireland give no link at all to the islands article. With so much editing over the years, hardly are these symptoms of leading a person in general to be well informed. There is a lot of accurate information but it's not all connected up at the minute. ~ R.T.G 15:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The King's title in the Irish Free State (1922-37) and in Ireland (1937-49) was exactly the same as it was elsewhere in the British Empire, being

• From 1922–1927 - By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India

• 1927–1937 - By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India

The reason the King's title changed in 1927 was because the term "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" had been superseded by the establishment of the Irish Free State and the renaming of the UK as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Rather than draw attention to the partition of Ireland, the Kings title simply referred to Great Britain and Ireland. This change did not mean the King adopted different Crowns in his different realms - That development was did not formally occur until 1953 (see also other British monarch articles regarding styles and titles). The King's title in the Irish Free State/Ireland was never simply "King of Ireland". (nor was the King incidentally simply King of Canada during those periods - these separate styles weree later developments). Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Some commentators attribute the "comma" in the latter title (Great Britain, Ireland) to mean that separate crowns were reinstated. It's difficult to find good sources for this stuff. BTW, what was the title from 1937-1949? --HighKing (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Some commentators have lots of theories. I prefer facts. The comma in no way severed the Crown. Plenty of sources on that too. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

NATO

What support is there for the statement that Ireland's neutrality is the reason that Ireland is not a member of NATO?? Wgh001 (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but I always thought that it why that is the case. Reading the Irish Neutrality page now it is clear not joining NATO is due to Ireland's neutrality and no other political reason.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What section of the Irish Neutrality page makes it clear not joining NATO is due to Ireland's neutrality and no other political reason?Wgh001 (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It also goes back to Irish neutrality during WWII and there are multiple references to NATO in the Irish Neutrality article --Snowded (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

During WWII NATO did not exist so we can discount that. As regards the Irish Neutrality article I still do not see how it makes clear not joining NATO is due to Ireland's neutrality. It does however mention one of the reasons I remember being told at school which is that Ireland would not join NATO (or any other military alliance of which Britan was a member) while Britain still controlled Northern Ireland. And if this article is correct then the fact that Ireland was willing to enter an alliance with the USA and has joined the Nordic Battlegroup would indicate that Irish Neutrality is not the reasson. Another reason I remember was/is a clause in NATO that a country with a border dispute could not join until that dispute was resolved which would prevent membership by Ireland until at least the changes to the constitution post the Good Friday agreement of 1998. (This might also have something to do with why it was not until 1999 that Ireland joined NATO-led Partnership for Peace). Of course the next question is can anybody say that Ireland was ever asked to join? NATO membership is after all by invation only. Either way the real reason this topic has started at all is the fact that Ireland's non membership is mentioned in the Lead of this page. Is this necessary here? How does it enhance the article? Should we attend to the pages of Sweden, Switzerland, North Korea etc. and state in the Lead of those pages their reasons for not joining NATO and specifying any involvement they may have with UN peace keeping? Sorry if this is a bit long winded!!Wgh001 (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Might be helpful. O Fenian (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-ireland/index.html would seem to indicate that relations with NATO are not all bad. It looks like Irish/NATO troops were together in Bosnia and Herzegovina as far back as 1997 even if it was as a part of the UN multinational stability force SFOR see http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0476/D.0476.199703190040.html Anyway does anybody have any objection if I remove the (unneccessary) NATO text from the Lead?Wgh001 (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It frequently comes as a surprise to nationals of NATO countries that Ireland is not a member. It is a significant foreign policy issue and I don't see any pressing need for its removal from the lead. RashersTierney (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I must say that I am suprised at that statement. I have lived in/worked in/visited England, mainland Europe, Africa, North America and Aisia. I have met many people from all those areas as well as from Australasia and South America. I have met people from most of the NATO states. I have been asked many things about Ireland, everything from 'are there really forty shades of green' to questions about The Troubles and even (in England) one night for an explaination of WWII neutrality. BUT I can safely say that no one has ever expressed to me their surprise that Ireland is not a full member of NATO. But if it is such an important aspect of Ireland as to have to appear in the fourth paragraph about the country we better make sure that the reason stated for not being a member is correct in case any potential military allies are using Wikipedia to see if we might join up! So again can anybody provide a source to verify that non membership is because of Irish Neutrality. I have sent email to NATO for confirmation that Ireland was formally invited to join. Obviously if that is not forthcoming we will be able to change the statement to 'Ireland is not a full member of NATO simply because it was never invited to join'!!! (go on smile)Wgh001 (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Back again like a dog wit a bone!! How about replacing the non membership statement with

Since 1999, Ireland has been a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace program.

which I robbed from the Military section. Also does anybody mind if I mention Nordic Battlegroup membership in the military section.Wgh001 (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely it goes back to the cold war when Ireland like Austria was a stated non aligned/neutral country Sherzo (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that a similar statement should be placed in the Austria lead? I can switch over there and put it in if you like especialy as Austria has German neighbours and are close to Russia (well closer than Ireland anyway) because according to the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay,

the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down".

Realy I don't think is should be in the Austrian lead any more than it should be in the Ireland or Sweden Lead. But if it must be in the Ireland lead we should at least be truthful about why Ireland is not a full member and that is not because of Irish Neutrality.Wgh001 (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Scholarship on Ireland's non-participation in NATO is thin on the ground, but if you can access JSTOR, Coming Out of the Cave': The First Inter-party Government, the Council of Europe and NATO, by Elizabeth Keane, 2004, might answer some of your questions. Eunan O'Halpín, Dermot Keogh and Michael Kennedy have also occasionally touched on it.RashersTierney (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the abstract:

This article explores Ireland's participation in the Council of Europe following the repeal of the External Relations Act and departure from the British Commonwealth. It suggests that Ireland played a more significant role in international relations than is often acknowledged and contrasts the government's participation in Europeanbased organisations with its refusal to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). It examines why Ireland, under the guidance of Sean MacBride as minister for external affairs, enthusiastically embraced the opportunity to take part in the Council of Europe, the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), and the United Nations, but not in NATO. Partition, and not particular concerns for the preservation of Ireland's neutrality, motivated the government's stance on NATO membership. Though the fixation with partition remained, participation in multilateral organisations nonetheless marked the beginning of an expanding role for Ireland in international affairs.

So now do we have enough proof that neutrality is not the reason why Ireland is not a full member of NATO. Can I go ahead and make the changes? Any objections?Wgh001 (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The above does not constitute 'proof', its an interpretation. If you mean to modify the NATO ref. in the lead, so long as it is sufficiently ref'd, then fine. But I don't think it should be removed. On the point you raised as to whether Ireland was invited to join there is the following :

On 7 January 1949 the United States informally approached the Irish government through its embassy in Washington about issuing an official invitation to consider being a NATO founding member. The United States was still resentful about Irish wartime neutrality, but, as with the Marshall Plan, Ireland's strategic location and close connections to Britain meant that it could not be completely ignored. A CIA report determined that Irish participation would be useful....
A note from Ernest Bevin to the State Department the day before Ireland received the official invitation warned that 'if the Irish raised partition as a barrier to joining the pact' the response should be that it was 'beyond their competence' to discuss the issue.92 The State Department was not as anxious to secure Ireland's membership as MacBride thought, and the American government's response to the aide-mimoire was that the partition issue was 'entirely the concern of the governments of Ireland and the UK' and that the situation was not relevant to membership of NATO.93

At this time, it would appear that Irish Gov. strategy was to trade NATO membership for unification. It can't simply be extrapolated that the reason Ireland has not since joined remains the same. RashersTierney (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont like the wording, its like saying the USSR did not join NATO because it was on the opposing side, i dont see why a country thats not part of NATO really needs it in their introduction. How about its reworded to something like..

"Ireland is a member of the EU, the OECD, and the UN. It has maintained a policy of neutrality since independence, although it does contribute to peacekeeping missions sanctioned by the UN." BritishWatcher (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. At least that is better than an unproven statement about NATO. If we have to start listing all the associations that countries are NOT a member of in the Leads these pages will get very boringWgh001 (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No-one is asking anyone to list reasons. Ireland's non-membership is not a trivial matter and is sufficiently important to be mentioned in the lead. RashersTierney (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So how about

"Ireland is a member of the EU, the OECD, and the UN. It is not a member of NATO or the Warsaw Pact, but it does contribute to peacekeeping missions sanctioned by the UN."Wgh001 (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Drop ref. to Warsaw Pact, a redundant org., and fine by me. RashersTierney (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be better than the current version, agreed theres no need for the warsaw pact. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Change made. Rashers point me to where you got 'On 7 January 1949 the United States informally approached the Irish government..'--Wgh001 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Its pg 179 of Keane's paper that I ref'd above. RashersTierney (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ThanksWgh001 (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Did the Irish Free State always have a neutral policy...I do not think so....I think the idea that neutrality was Irish policy from independence is not accurate....I suggested that the Irish neutrality article be deleted because it is of such a poor standard...I admit I have not worked on it myself. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got a point. It would be hard to reconcile any effective notion of neutrality with Art. 7( b ) of the Free State constitution:

In time of war or of strained relations with a Foreign Power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purpose of such defence as aforesaid (would be made available).

It also raises the question of when did the state actually achieve independence?RashersTierney (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Art. 7( b ) of the Free State constitution no longer applies as it is now the 1937 constitution of Ireland tha applies. How you define Independence has to be decided before you can say when it was achieved. Was a dominion of the British Commonwealth independant? Was it only when the british king was removed as head of state? Has it yet to happen while partition exists? As regards Irish Neutrality it probably deserves an artticle because it does not match what most people in the world would mean by being neutral but has an unique Irish flavor which seems to be that Ireland will not join any military alliance which includes britan while Ireland is partitioned. So Ireland is neutral only if britan is involved but if it's Sweden, Finland, Norway and Estonia it's ok. Of course the whole concept of neutrality sometimes seems to have a new meaning in britan also where it appears to be used to mean not a member of NATOWgh001 (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue being addressed was neutrality from 1922. Since the Irish Free State constitution could be, and frequently was, changed simply by an act of the Oireachtas, the question is probably moot. RashersTierney (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes

1. Ireland is not the successor state to the Free State. State succession only happens when it's territory changes.

2. The, as reverted, article gives two dates for partition: saying 3 May 1921 (unnecessary detail for lead IMHO) and then implying 7 December 1922.

3. The article's current title is "Republic of Ireland" and that should be in bold in the lead.

4. The state was established in 1922.^[1]

5. It is wrong to say that the state "a measure of independence" in 1922. The purely theoretical possibility of British interference in Irish affairs never actually occurred and was expressly repudiated within 10 years of independence. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the obvious errors the rest are about content and need to be agreed upon before they're instated. I'm sure it'll be no problem.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Lots of funny ideas floating around there....Re "State succession only happens when it's territory changes."...Hmmm? I don't think so. Any sources? And what was "purely theoretical" about the Treaty Ports and the IFS' obligations to the UK in times of war etc...Funny ideas indeed. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

ROI in the lede

Putting it here for greater visibility: I think the current way we include it is very sloppy writing. We don't need to say "the name of Ireland is Ireland". That's just silly and redundant. I propose we follow the standard set by the United States article, where we just say "commonly referred to as" (as it is), leaving the matter of descriptions and names to its own section. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the text you propose? There is confusion about the name of the state which has Dublin as its capital so it desirable to sort the confusion between ROI which is a description and Ireland which is its name. I think use commonly known as is sloppy in fact and its better if the intro is completely accurate so readers don't get confused. The title of the article can and probably does confuse them in the first place so facts need to be declared in the intro to sort out any potential confusion.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is little room for improvement on the existing lead text. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's just "Ireland". Sometimes, people call it the Republic of... to differentiate from the whole island. There really isn't any confusion. Anyone who's confused by the title of the article being different to the official name is just stupid; we do that for thousands of articles. Look at United States again. It's called the United States of America in the first sentence. The readers won't be confused at all. Hell, I don't think people will even care. If you want an area where naming can be genuinely confusing, look at the terminology of the British Isles. It confuses even the natives (I should know; I'm one of them). Sceptre ^(talk) 21:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So if "There really isn't any confusion" why does it need to be changed? Or are you proposing that we remove any mention of "Republic of Ireland" from the lead and that no reader will question why the article is titled Republic of Ireland.Wgh001 (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The United States reference I just don't get. The "United States of America" commonly referred to as the "United States" would simply become "Ireland" commonly referred to as "Ireland".Wgh001 (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between confusion and listing alternate names. What I'm proposing, basically, is "Ireland (Irish: Éire [pronunciation], commonly referred to as the Republic of Ireland)", or, instead of the current sentence: "It is [commonly/often] referred to as the Republic of Ireland to differentiate the state from the island". Whether it's a description or name isn't really a matter for the lede; all we need to say is that it's commonly referred to as such (like the UK is often called Britain, when strictly speaking it's the bigger of the two islands). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I could go with "sometimes referred to as RoI"; certainly not "commonly". Sarah777 (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As Wiki calls NI a "country" it is essential that references to Ireland being a "sovereign state" should be changed to "sovereign country". British editors insisted in various debates that Wales and NI be called "countries" rather than provenances, states, territory etc as they perceived anything less to be a diminution of status. So a sovereign country such as Ireland must be referred to as a country unless Wiki wishes to rubber-stamp British POV. Sarah777 (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the lead is fine as it is now. It is clear and accurate in what it says and is not open to varying interpretation of the reader. It basically says its name is Ireland and while sometimes called ROI that is not its name. I'm happy with that. MusicInTheHouse (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I also think it is currently as good as it is going to get. Except of course Republic of Ireland should be "Republic of Ireland". Maybe that can be changed before the title of the article is corrected to Ireland or Belfast is once again a city in Ireland (I wonder which will happen first?)Wgh001 (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with MusicInTheHouse - the lead is fine as it is. Disagree with Sarah - I see no reason to do something just because the British do. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 07:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarah is spot on. Not because that's what anybody else does but because it has always seemed strange to me that at the top of an article (incorrectly) called Republic of Ireland, Ireland was a state and Northern Ireland was a country. It also seems strange to me that Northern Ireland was there at all. How someone looking for the article on a country(not state) called Northern Ireland mistakenly ended up at an article called Republic of Ireland puzzles me as to what they typed in the search box. Now of course if this article was called Ireland there would be some chance of that happening!!Wgh001 (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the manual of style wrt lead sections|LEADmanual of style wrt lead sections encourages that alternate names be bolded in the lead section. How about this, then?:

Ireland (Irish: Éire, Irish pronunciation: [ˈeːrʲə]) is an island country in north-western Europe. The modern sovereign republic occupies about five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned on 3 May 1921.[5] Thus, it is [sometimes/often] described as the "Republic of Ireland" [when there is a need to] to differentiate it from the island. It shares a land border with Northern Ireland to the north east, and is bordered by the Irish Sea to the east, St George's Channel to the south-east, the Celtic Sea to the south and by the Atlantic Ocean to the west and north.

The thing I'm concerned about the most is the apparent need to say that Ireland is the name of the state, when we already do that in the first sentence; the phrase "X is Y" already implies that X is the name of Y. I've included square brackets in the proposal to indicate alternate wordings. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason we have to say that Ireland is the name of the country is because the name of the article is Republic of Ireland and as it (ROI) appears in bold in the first paragraph of the article it must be made clear to the user that "Republic of Ireland" is not (and never was) the name of the country. Personally I think that no reference to "Republic of Ireland" should be mentioned until the Names section.Wgh001 (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Currently, the manual of style wrt lead sections encourages that alternate names be bolded in the lead section." would imply that there is no need to have "Republic of Ireland" in bold as it in not an alternate name for "Ireland"Wgh001 (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That fact is already apparent in the first sentence. We don't need to repeat it. And frankly, not mentioning "Republic of Ireland" until the names section is actually a POV problem. A good proportion of people do call it the Republic of Ireland (for example, FIFA) because it could be confused with the island. ROI is still a name for the country. An incorrect name (but correct description), but a name nevertheless. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And why is mentioning the "Republic of Ireland" in the first paragraph not POV? As regards FIFA you really need to read Irish Football Association and Football Association of Ireland. Using that logic to justify your position would mean that "England", "Wales", "Scotland" and "Northern Ireland" would all be suitable alternative descriptions for "United Kingdom"Wgh001 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the term "Republic of Ireland" is used by a lot of people and thus it would be an NPOV problem not to recognise this significant minority. The UK argument is a straw man; no-one uses "England", much less "Scotland" and "Wales" to refer to the country. Britain, yes, and that's included in the article. Which is why we should have ROI in the lead section here: it's a valid way of referring to Ireland, and a widely used one at that. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So you agree that the FIFA route is not the way to go. Good. Actually people do use the term England when they mean United Kingdom.Wgh001 (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Still, it's apples and pears. The UK is only ever referred to as England in colloquial speech, and even that's declining. The name Republic of Ireland is used by (at least) one international organisation because of the island/state confusion. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? Which one? --HighKing (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we still talking about what we started out about? What exactly do you (Sceptre) object to in the current text?Wgh001 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Found it We don't need to say "the name of Ireland is Ireland". Yes we do because a lot of people seem to think that "the name of Ireland is the Republic of Ireland" and we must inform them that it is notWgh001 (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, but not in the way we do so right now. It is not part of a good summary of the article to go out of our way to say that such a name is wrong. We don't say in United Kingdom that "Great Britain is not the name of the country; rather, it is largest of the islands in the British Isles", even though some people call it Great Britain. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And where in the lead for the United Kingdom does it say that Great Britian is another description for the United Kingdom? It obviously is your point of view that the summary here is not good. Your also seem to have the point of view that "Republic of Ireland" must be mentioned in the lead. Why that is I am still unclear but you are entitled to your point of view. It is my point of view that "Republic of Ireland" should not even be mentioned in the lead any more than "Southern Ireland", "Irish Republic" or any of the other terms used to indicate that the state rather the Island is in question. Obviously the name of the country is so important in this article that someone (long long before my time) went to the trouble of creating a special section called Name. It is of such importance that it is the first section of the article. Maybe to compromise or maybe achieve NPOV someone (again not me) at some stage mentioned "Republic of Ireland" in the lead but qualified its use by emphasing that "Ireland" is the name (and that "Republic of Ireland" by implication is not).Wgh001 (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There's just too many places named Ireland. The Republic could've made things easier, by choosing another 'name' (at least until re-unification). GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Union between Ireland and UK of Great Britain and Ireland

Wgh001, you are being unnecessarily pedagogic. The name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" lasted right up until 1927 in name, so you are still wrong. You are making understanding increasingly difficult to the reader. If you want to split hairs over my edits, and revert as if you have ownership of the page, then go ahead. This form of hawkishness is driving editors away from WP. PurpleA (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said (or meant to imply) that the name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" did not last right up until 1927. It is a fact that it did and I have never said otherwise.

What I am trying to avoid is that a reader will imply that the 1801 act created a union between "Ireland" and "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"Wgh001 (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

At least we can all agree, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland during King George V's reign. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ireland (the sovereign country) naming issue

Could someone tell me where this issue has gone? I thought it was being dealt with somewhere but I can't find anything that isn't closed without any conclusion. I had been asked to hold off proposing a move of the "Republic of Ireland" article pending resolution. It is rather difficult to justify calling Ireland by a "description" rather than its name in the name of disambiguity when we have just had Wiki "consensus" declare that the Irish state is part of the "British" isles on the basis of common usage. DAB requirements and potential confusion of the reader apparently don't matter at all in one case and are the only thing that matters in the other case. Clearly such double standards are not consistent with WP:NPOV. Unless someone can direct me to a live discussion of this issue I intend to propose a move from "RoI" to "Ireland" (And move "Ireland" to "Ireland (island)". Sarah777 (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarah. If you go User talk:BrownHairedGirlthat's where I last saw it being discussed. But that Dialogue closed before I got there. It really needs to be resolved as the incorrect name for this article is the root cause of most of the problems such as ROI in the lead etc. The article starts by trying to justify the article name and the whole lead is spoilt by it.Wgh001 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is BHG when you need her? I looked at that page and it seems frozen in time. Sarah777 (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Froze just yesterday. Maybe everyone is behind the bike shed smoking ;-) --Wgh001 (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dunno why you think I'm missing: I have been editing a lot recently.

The discussion on my talk page was with a few editors who wanted to talk over a few things in relation to the process at WP:IECOLL, which is still underway. I haven't sopped discussing the issue, but I closed that thread because not prepared to waste time discussing it with one particular editor whose arguments were getting daft.

The taking-statements phase of WP:IECOLL has closed, and the moderators are considering the next steps. This process will take time to resolve such a thorny issue, so please give it time to reach a conclusion, when there will be a decision one way or the other about the name of this page. A proposed move in the meantime will likely be viewed as disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

@BHG - Just because we have different opinions (and I respect yours, I just don't agree with your position) doesn't mean you should go around name calling.... But since your arguments appear to start with attributing thoughts and words to me and end with resorting to name-calling....perhaps it's a weird form of catharsis for you...I suppose if it makes you feel better...I ain't bovvered... --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't call you daft, I called your argument daft. There's a difference, and we all do daft things from time to time.

If you read back, you'll see that I didn't attribute thoughts to you, other than those you wrote yourself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nor did I say you called me daft... Sorry - couldn't help trying to get the last word :-) --HighKing (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The crux-of-the-issue is the usage of a long-form name versus a short-form name. The usage of Éire (in English Ireland) was a purposeful violation of the long-form name tradition of a Sovereign State. Its purpose was clear,

(i). not to recoginse the existance of the Province of Northern Ireland,

(ii). to lay claim to the whole Island of Ireland.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

@BHG. They seem to think anyone trying to remove British nationalist pov and restore WP:NPOV is disruptive. Handy that. When you block and ban the opposition you get...wait for it...yes...CONSENSUS! (in the Wiki/N Korean style)Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

@BHG - WP:IECOLL is seriously flawed. To sign up to that is to concede that the systemic bias on Wiki is fine so long as it has majority support. Nobody serious about WP:NPOV who is awake to the issues at stake could agree to the propositions put. While those indifferent to the imposition of British POV or those who support it will understandably partake, the Irish editors who are opposed to the elimination of pov from Ireland-related articles are (IMHO) lacking is understanding of the core problems if they sign on. Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, I am not the only Irish editor who takes a different view than you on this subject. I respect your right to your view, but per WP:AGF, please don't accuse those whose views you share of being ignorant. If you think that the core problems have not been properly set out, then you had an opportunity to make a statement in the WP:IECOLl process setting them out ... and although the deadline has passed, I would be happy to support a request from you to make a late statement if you want to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Right at the top of this talk page is a template about the naming dispute :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Crikey what a can of worms! I just had a look at WP:IECOLL and I must say that I can not understand how that is supposed to resolve anything. If anybody out there wants to take me under their wing and enlighten me I would be very thankful. I don't care what your POV is just as long as you can/will explain the process to me. e.g. What the hell is that triangle all about? This is probably not the place for that exercise so may I suggest my own talk page. Thanks in advance.86.45.183.60 (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hold off on the above a while. I seem to have been logged out or something and am trying to log back in again but having password problems (WGH001 here). Back soon hopefully.86.45.183.60 (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok so. Managed to log back in. So if anybody wants to enlighten me please go ahead. Thanks in advance (again).Wgh001 (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarah77 - The process on the Collaboration page has degenerated into a complete farce and has no credibility...There are no deadlines for a decision by the Moderators who mostly keep very quiet...I think it does not even have a quorum of Moderators at the moment (as one resigned....!!)....The "Statement" process...is now leading onto the "Suggestions" process....more statements and arguments under a different guise. Your input on the Collaboration page would be very welcome! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ps - For the most part, I have argued for the Moderators to step up and make the decision. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

When an editor can specifically not endorse a verifiable, factual proposition such as "The description of the state is defined in law as "the Republic of Ireland", by Section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, which says in full: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." - and not be called on it - then yeah, the process may be somewhat flawed. Still, per Arbcom, it's the only game in town. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's bad enough, but my favourite visitations from the parallel universe are elsewhere on the same page: the editor who thinks that Lough Neagh was not in Ireland in 1798, and the 3 editors who think that Martin McGuiness was not born in Ireland (check his d.o.b. when reading that proposition). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No @ BHG. McGuinness was born in Ireland (the island) but not Ireland the sovereign country. Etcetera. Your loaded questions requiring a yes/no are thus impossible to agree with. It's folk who (a) support "British Isles" including Ireland (state) on a 'common use' basis and (b) reject the common use of Ireland for the state on a dab basis and then (c) deny British pov is imposing double standards who are in an alternate universe. As for AGF, I'm running out of it - I'm made my observations on the dynamics of the Wiki-process and how it facilitates the elimination of WP:NPOV repeatedly. Sadly, if you say you don't agree with the blindingly obvious I can only assume that (1) you don't understand my point or (2) you pretend not to. Sarah777 (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, as you should well know from previous discussions, I do not support use of the term "British Isles" because there is a perfectly simple NPOV phrase available whose meaning is clear and which carries no POV: "Britain and Ireland". If the best you can do is to accuse any Irish editor who disagrees with you of having "a British POV", then you have run out of arguments are just resorting to name-calling.

As to Martin McGuinness, if you ask him "Martin, were you born in Ireland?", what answer to you think you are going to get? What answer do you think you'll get if you go and ask people on a street in Dublin or Galway or Sligo por Cork a yes/no question "was Martin McGuiness born in Ireland"?

If you think that the primary meaning of "Ireland" is the 26-county state, then the article on him is currently misleading. Per the MoS, an article should explain its meaning in the text, and a reader should not have to rely on a link to determine that a secondary use of the term is being made, so it should not say that he "is an Irish politician", because by your interpretation of the word "Ireland" that would mean that McGuinness is a politician in or from the 26-county state; it should say something like that McGuinness "is an politician in the island of Ireland". Are you going to edit the articles on McGuinness and all his republican colleagues to reflect this?

And yes, I do understand your view on that point. I just want to clarify whether you and others who want to invert the normal meaning of words accept the logical consequences of that interpretation and are prepared to implement them by qualifying the Irishness of people in Northern Ireland.

What I don't understand, though, is your opposition to Proposition 8, which reads: The following statement was true in 1798: "Lough Neagh is a lake in Ireland"]]. C'mon, Sarah, explain this. Where was Lough Neagh at the time? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Bastun,

"The description of the state is defined in law as "the Republic of Ireland"

I openly question the sincerity of the usage of the term "legal description" instead of the standard term "Name". The Irish Constitution 1937 and the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 are word-smithing ... at its worst.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty clear to me the difference between a name and a description, and I'd say the Ireland Act 1949 was another exercise in political wrangling and word-smithing. But I'm astonished at all the very old people editing Wikipedia that can attribute emotions and motives to events all that long ago. Or maybe....For those that seem to have trouble operating their time machines. This is 2009. Please rotate the dials accordingly. --HighKing (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello HighKing.

One of the intepretations of a "Name" is a "legal description". This in itself is thumbing-its-nose at legal tradition.

The Lordship of Ireland, Kingdom of Ireland, Irish Republic, Irish Free State, and the Province of Northern Ireland then Éire, ... just Éire

WHY JUST BLOODY Éire?

WHY?????

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If there were no difference the 1948 Act could be seen as replacing the constitution. There is a big difference legally. It's why names are so important. It's why the High Court of Ireland rejected an extradition warrant using Éire. It's why our diplomats now present their credentials as "Ireland" in all countries of the world. It's why the PGCN was established to correctly name countries. In your mind there may be very little difference, but I guess that's why we don't agree. In mine, there is a notable difference. --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello HighKing.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, I appreciate it very much. You are very polite to talk to, and I really enjoy discussing things with you.

Arthur Fox-Davies, Philip William Poole Carlyon-Briton,

A Treatise on the Law Concerning Names and Changes of Name (1906)

http://www.archive.org/details/treatiseonlawcon00foxdiala

I am researching the subject of "Name(s)".

Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with waiting on the Collaboration's solutions. I just hope, the sides that don't get what they wish, will accept the results. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarah had been asked to hold off proposing a move of the "Republic of Ireland" article pending resolution on WP:IECOLL with User:BrownHairedGirl suggesting that "A proposed move in the meantime will likely be viewed as disruptive" however, when I made this point here it was ignored. So we had a page move without discussion, having informed editors of WP:IECOLL. I agree GoodDay with waiting on the Collaboration's solutions, but we need to be consistent. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And you were expecting consistency were you Domer?!!! The only thing consistently at work here is the imposition of British POV. Sarah777 (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course not a chara! LOL. The move was done without discussion. You assume good faith, and point editors to WP:IECOLL. This is ignored, and supported regardless. Now if you or I had done this? --Domer48_'fenian' 11:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It makes me chuckle reading all the comments about how this article (or specific parts of it) are written from a British nationalist pov. In reality if you read the article, or any other article about Irealnd, you find a very anti-British pov being continually pushed by a small, but very committed, group of editors. I say just leave them to it, there really is no point arguing because they are always right and any other analysis of the subject is always wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.223.74 (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

PGCN, what is that?

Uuummm,

"It's why the PGCN was established to correctly name countries."

What is the PGCN eh?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies - a typo. It should have been the PCGN. --HighKing (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What the PCGN says makes no difference to the debate on the name, no one is saying Ireland isnt the correct name of the state the problem is its also the name of an Island. So like with Georgia, like with Taiwan, like with China the state can not be given priority. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What the PCGN says makes no difference to the debate on the name - I think you intended this to read What the PCGN says makes no difference to me to the debate on the name. Big difference. --HighKing (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm no, i meant what i said so please dont try and correct me. The reason this article is currently at Republic of Ireland is not because people dispute the name of the state but because there is also an island called Ireland and i fail to see why the people of Northern Ireland should be ignored. Again, i notice on the site u linked it simply says Georgia is the title of a country, and yet the country Georiga is not found at Georgia. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm ... rather big of you to dismiss a British organization set up to ensure the correct usage of country names within British government and state that it makes no difference to the the debate on the name. But I'm sure your opinions and credentials are vastly superior.... --HighKing (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You are completly missing the point, nobody is saying the republic of Ireland is the correct title for the country. What people do say is that there is also an island called Ireland and there for its wrong for the state to take priority over the island. This is what happens in the case of China and Taiwan. The British organisation also says that Georgia is the only title to describe the country and yet is a disam page on wikipedia. Your biased and opinionated views on this matter clearly clouds ur judgement so lets leave it at that. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The PGCN just confirms that "Ireland" is the formal name of the 26-county state. However, that point is not in dispute; the issue at stake in WP:IECOLL is how to disambiguate it from the identically-named island. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BHG. By way of summary, the point initially made by ArmChair was that names weren't important, and that names and descriptions were somehow, legally, analagous. I pointed to the PCGN by way of showing that names are important and taken seriously. The point made by BriWat is that what the PCGN says is irrelevant to this debate - but I'm not sure any more which debate we're talking about. I pointed out the PCGN to Armchair in reference to a single point - not as a flag-in-the-ground for the entire debate. In the overall scheme of the larger debate, it's probably notable that until very recently, the only reference that the British establishment recognized the name "Ireland" in any sort of official capacity was a rather woolly reference to the 1998 GFA, so it's notable that the British establishment now appears to recognize the name "Ireland" and recommend it's use (un)officially(?). It's up to other editors to figure out if they believe it has any relevance - no harm in pointint it out and trying to explain any potential significance. --HighKing (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Wiki-life would've been a lot easier, if the republic had chosen a different name. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

They wanted to (and did) claim the entirety of the island. They were making a point which the British reacted to. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kittybrewster.

Yes by Eamon de Valera assuming the Name of Éire (and just Éire) ... this "whole-sorted-mess" got going.

The Name Republic of Éire, or the Name of the Éirean Republic would have done very nicely.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the PCGN?

Could someone please tell me?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a link to the PCGN above. --HighKing (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Republic would have been a good name, like the Czech Republic its rather catchy. The Republic of Eire sounds very strange though. As for the PCGN, he gave u a link before http://www.pcgn.org.uk/ BritishWatcher (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Myself I think the current situation is the best; the sovereign country is Ireland, the British bit is Northern Ireland and the whole is the island of Ireland. Only those pushing British pov could pretend to be confused by this. Sarah777 (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Island of Ireland contains the Republic of Ireland and the Province of Northern Ireland (a sub-national member of the UK).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What's with this Province of Northern Ireland stuff? We've enough headaches fighting over Republic of Ireland, Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation). GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay.

http://www.flags.net/NOIR.htm

Northern Ireland

Formal Name: Province of Northern Ireland

Local Name: Ulster

Local Formal Name: Province of Northern Ireland

Take care, my friend ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

pov - we stick to facts

Which of the following is not a fact?

Ireland was officially a dominion of the British Commonwealth until April 1949.

Donegal is the most nothern county in Ireland. Wgh001 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole edit I reverted attempts to comment on the names. That is pov by its definition. It's personal opinion. Wikipedia doesn't need that.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The former is not a "fact"; a fact would be "the British called Ireland a dominion of the British Commonwealth until April 1949". The natives regarded that as a temporary fiction. Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Example: I don't live on a British Isle even though Wiki calls my home one of the British Isles. Fact. I could parody BHG's yes/no process here to illustrate how irrational it is. In fact, maybe I will! Sarah777 (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

MusicInTheHouse why is it personal opinion that Donegal is the most nothern county in Ireland? Have we been shown the maps the wrong way around or what?Wgh001 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Donegal is the most northern county in the republic. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It is GoodDay; however that is irrelevant to the actual edit that took place.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, what is today 'the republic', didn't get full independance from the United Kingdom, until 1949. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends whether you view independence as something that is given or taken. RashersTierney (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Most importantly, it occured in 1949. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been in Donegal. Sarah777 (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So everyone agrees that County Donegal is the most nothern county in the island of Ireland?Wgh001 (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But can we also agree that that fact has no reason to belong in a section about the country's name?MusicInTheHouse (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree about the Donegal statement. Donegal is home to Ireland's most northerly point, Malin Head, but we cannot say that Donegal is the most Northerly county on the island. The City of Derry is more to the North than Donegal Town, for example. If you want to just talk about the Republic, then it is clear that a very small part of coastal Leitrim is more northerly than the extreme south of Donegal. Check any good political map for evidence of this. Bonzostar (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A picture is "worth-a-thousand-words"...

File:IslandOfIreland Counties.gif

The 32 Counties of the Island of Ireland.

The Island of Ireland holds 32 Counties. The Island of Ireland holds 4 Provinces into which the 32 Counties are contained. The Lordship of Ireland covered the entire Island of Ireland from 1171 to 1541. Afterwards the Kingdom of Ireland covered the whole Island of Ireland from 1541 to 1800. On Janurary 1, 1801 the Kingdom of Ireland joined the Union and became the 4th sub-national member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

On December 6, 1921 the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed, and this resulted in the partitioning of the Kingdom of Ireland into the Irish Free State and the Province of Northern Ireland, the latter remaining apart of the Union.

The Irish Free State received the Province of Leinster, the Province of Connaught, and the Province of Munster in their entirety. The Province of Ulster was split between the new Irish Free State, and the new Province of Northern Ireland. The Irish Free State received the Province of Ulster with only 3 Counties , the County of Donegal, the County of Cavan, and the County of Monaghan. Thus, the Irish Free State was created with 4 Provinces and 26 Counties.

In contrast, the new Province of Northern Ireland received 6 (of 9) Counties from the partitioned Province of Ulster. Thus the Province of Northern Ireland was created with 6 Counties, namely, the County of Fermanagh, County of Tyrone, County of Londonderry, County of Antrim, County of Down and the County of Armagh. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm.....I doubt is any of this will come as a surprise to anyone! Sarah777 (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarah ... the map clears up the arguement. Do you have to critisise everything? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just what argument does it clear up None of that is under dispute as far as I can see (and please, please learn to confirm with WIkipedia standards on the use of indented threads in conversations, everyone else does.) --Snowded (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

MusicInTheHouse where and why was it agreed that this fact would not be mentioned in the article? Why is it a secret?Wgh001 (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

re the above: The Irish Free State received the Province of Leinster, the Province of Connaught, and the Province of Munster in their entirety. The Province of Ulster was split between the new Irish Free State, and the new Province of Northern Ireland. Thats not quite true - The Irish Free State "received" the whole island of ireland. Northern Ireland then decided to leave the Irish Free State. To rephrase your language: The Irish Free State received the whole of the island of Ireland in its entirety. The United Kingdom received Northern Ireland from the Irish Free State. Ulster was then split between the new Irish Free State, and the new Province of Northern Ireland. ... province of NI being perhaps inapt. See Partition of Ireland. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Map in the Middle

Does anyone else think the "county" map in the middle of the article page looks bad? Ugly even? Can we downsize/redraw/reorganise it? Maybe even use this one - it looks much better. Sarah777 (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree. It looks ugly. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Maybe use which one? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was certain I linked it. Sarah777 (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Look up above - it has been deleted. Must not have been free of possible copyright. Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A data-point on the naming-issue: Wolfram Alpha trips up on the name Wikipedia uses for Ireland the state

On the Wolfram Alpha datasheet on "Ireland" (by which it means the sovereign state) I get a suggested Internet link to Wikipedia's Ireland article, i.e. the wrong one. Republic of Ireland isn't mentioned by Wolfram Alpha -- either as a Wikipedia link or as a phrase in its own right, which is fine because it's not needed in my opinion, if it weren't for Wikipedia's weird naming scheme. (Weirdly, Guyana is mentioned, but that's Wolfram Alpha for you :) ).

Surely this is a high-profile example of Wikipedia getting it wrong and/or making life harder for others on the naming issue?

The ways I got to Wolfram Alpha's "Ireland" page are: clicking "Ireland" as a bordering country from the UK datasheet; typing "Ireland" as a look-up string, and typing "Republic of Ireland" as a look-up string. All of these bring me to a datasheet called "Ireland" that refers to the sovereign state. Robertbyrne (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Who or what is "Wolfram Alpha"? Mooretwin (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Some strange new search engine - http://www.wolframalpha.com/ . The Ireland thing is the least of the problems. Enter England it takes you to the United Kingdom, but enter Scotland it talks of the Kingdom of Scotland. What a silly service. Lmao, look at Wales. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of "Ireland" in the intro

I reverted edits by Mooretwin and Rapparee71 to the opening line for the following reasons:

• Whatever about the title of the article, the official name of the state and, more importantly, the common name of the state is Ireland. See United States for a similar opener.
• The Supreme Court ruled (during the curfuffle with extradition during the '80s) that the Éire is not the official name of the state in English - only Ireland is.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why this should not follow the example of France, which starts: "France (officially the French Republic) ...". Mooretwin (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:LEDE. The title of the article should be stated in the first sentence. Hence best to have something like "The Republic of Ireland (officially Ireland) is ...". Mooretwin (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"this is not mandatory, and inclusion should reflect consensus." Consensus has been agreed to show the correct name. "if the title of a page is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text". What is ROI? A description? It does not need to be shown.MITH 13:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

ROI is not "merely descriptive" as is meant by WP:LEDE which says: "However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." ROI is used as a name in this article. Mooretwin (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

When was consensus for the current opening sentence agreed? Mooretwin (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Long ago. But never mind that consensus can change. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was long ago. Mooretwin (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, two years ago. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to explain your revert. Mooretwin's edit was quite disruptive, it went against previous consensus and he provided a misleading edit summary. How can one assume good faith with an editor when they go and do something like that?MITH 13:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please restrict your comments to the article and do not attack other editors. Please retract the above. Mooretwin (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I will retract it if you cease your disruptive editing.MITH 13:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't begun disruptive editing, therefore I can't cease. Please retract the personal attack: WP:NPA Mooretwin (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally the title of the article is the as the name of the thing, but there is no requirment to do so.

Also from WP:LEDE: "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms."

(Not to mention the following for all those to whom Republic of Ireland is merely a description: "... if the article title is merely descriptive...the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text.") --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC) (I meant this tongue-in-cheeck, but that appears to have been lost. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

"Ireland" is not a "slightly different form" or a "variation" of "Republic of Ireland". And the article title is not "merely descriptive" (see the example given for what is meant by "merely descriptive"). Mooretwin (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with "The Republic of Ireland (officially Ireland) ...". Let's edit with the reader in mind, this opener tells him straight off exactly what he needs to know. The current sentence will leave him wondering why the article refers to Ireland and not Republic of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the "Republic of Ireland" officially a name or a description? If you deny that its a description and say its a name then you are arguing this because you don't like the facts. If you agree its a description then its pretty clear what Wikipedia policy says to do with descriptions in the intro.MITH 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's "officially" a "description", but in reality it is a name (note the capital letters) and is used in the article title as a name. The WP policy is "pretty clear" as referring to descriptive phrases like of "Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers" (i.e. those which do not lend themselves to a simple introduction). Mooretwin (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That answer is just pure POV. The facts completely disagree with you. It's a description like it or not. And you clearly don't.MITH 15:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's "officially" a description. In reality it's a name and is used as a name. It's used as a name in the title of this article. If it were a description it would simply be "republic". Mooretwin (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Can any reputable source back that up? The answer is no as that is your POV intrepration and holds no weight on this encyclopedia.MITH 22:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand what the word name means in English? Republic of Ireland is used as an alternative name for the 26-county state. That is its use in the title of this article. You don't need a "reputable source" to back up basic English. Mooretwin (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No Republic of Ireland is used as an article title, not a name. Wikipedia rightly says ROI is not a name of the state. You may refuse to accept the country's real official name and like to use ROI instead but that does not make correct. The sources say its not a name; its just the way it is; like it or not I'm afraid.MITH 23:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not the "official" name, but it's used frequently as an alternative name, given the ambiguous nature of the "official" name. Do a Google for "Republic of Ireland" and it'll throw up loads of examples. Mooretwin (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The only examples google gives me are pages on the football team who have to use ROI as their name and Wiki pages. I'm not sure what a google search proves?MITH 23:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the football team is an example of using ROI as an alternative name. There must be some glitch in your browser: http://www.boi.ie/index.html 1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Mooretwin (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

MusicInTheHouse seriously just ignore that type of discussion. References talk BS walks. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Let's edit with the reader in mind, [tell] him straight off exactly what he needs to know." Let's. So with that in mind, what's more right about the opener you propose? What's more wrong with the current version? How does the current version mislead the reader? How would your proposal correct misconceptions they may have and educate them more about the topic? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What is more "right" with the opener is that it uses the article title as per preferred WP policy. The current version is more "wrong" because it doesn't refer to the article title and therefore the reader will wonder why. The current version may not necessarily "mislead" the reader, but it fails to inform him clearly and immediately that the Republic of Ireland and "Ireland" are the same. I would propose to correct misconceptions they may have and educate them more about the topic by starting "The Republic of Ireland (officially Ireland) ..." which succinctly, clearly, and within WP policy tells the reader what he immediately needs to understand. What is wrong with that? (This follows the model provided on France: "France (officially the French Republic) ...") Mooretwin (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This is just yourself POV pushing for the POV reasons you give above. Other editors don't agree with you, Wikipedia policy doesn't agree with you and the facts don't agree with you. This change has no merit.MITH 15:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"The name of the state is Ireland, while the description the Republic of Ireland is sometimes used when there is a need to differentiate the state from the island." What could be more clear or immediate without the article being about the term itself like Domer48 prefers below? Unlike French Republic, the common name of the Irish state is the official name. There is no need for clarifiers like they have on the French article. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a need for clarifiers: so as to inform the reader. Mooretwin (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Republic of Ireland, which is a descriptive term. This article should be about that and not Ireland. We have an article on Ireland and this is nothing more than a POV fork. I’ll put some information on the Republic of Ireland article together, because like Mooretwin says, the information in the article “doesn't refer to the article title and therefore the reader will wonder why. If the reader want to read an article on Ireland, they will look to the Ireland Article. If however, they want to know about the term/title Republic of Ireland they will get it here. At the moment they don't. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the state. This article will remain to be about that until/unless decided otherwise at the Arbcom-appointed process looking at the naming of Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Ireland (disambiguation). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop please! This article is titled Republic of Ireland. That is a descriptive term and is not the name of the state. Now get over it. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The European Union, note that the names of the Member States of the European Union must always be written and abbreviated according to the Interinstitutional Style Guide rules and that neither “Republic of Ireland” nor “Irish Republic” should be used when referring to the Irish State. European Union Interinstitutional Style Guide.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the European Union. Mooretwin (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't but what the European Union say means a lot more to this encyclopedia than editors making rash POV statements as if they were facts.MITH 22:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Odd, then, that WP uses Republic of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not for long Mooretwin, not for long.MITH 22:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

All we need is for Admin's who are willing to step up to the plate!!!!--Domer48_'fenian' 23:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth in lead

Could someone provide a reference for It had already ceased to participate in that organisation. in the lead paragraph? I can't see a direct reference to that anywhere else in the article and it seems an odd ancillary detail to feature in the lead of such an rich article, especially unsourced. Assuming this can be sourced, wouldn't it be better placed in the appropriate section? Rockpocket 17:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rock, the reference you'd need would be this one "Daltún Ó Ceallaigh, Britain & Ireland, Sovereignty & Nationality, Elo Press Ltd (Ireland), ISBN 0 9518777 4 7, Pg. 77" but since I think the article is nothing more than a POV fork I'll not be adding it. LOL. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland is not the title of the Irish State.

It is beyond stupidity to continue to attempt to foist this POV inspired nonsense on both editors and more importantly on our readers. Republic of Ireland is a descriptive term! It is not an official or unofficial name for the state. The article should therefore deal with the term Republic of Ireland, its history and origins and the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 Article should deal with the act itself. To illustrate this point, I have put together a brief history, which is more or less what this article should be about. It is my intension to insert this into the article, and to have the current contents move to the article Ireland were it belongs. The first editor to even suggest that Ireland for the name of the State or Country is ambiguous is flogging a well dead horse and simply pushing a POV. Because as this rough article illustrates, Republic of Ireland's use as a name for the Irish State is pure POV. It is the continuance of a debate that is long gone, over and dealt with by both the Irish, British and international community.

ROI is probably going to become a redirect to the new title for the page (whatever it'll be). Once the page moves you can try gain consensus for adding content to the redirect if you wish, although I think you're a bit early in the article title process to be raising this.MITH 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland is a descriptive term right? No one is disputing that? Republic of Ireland is not an official or unofficial name for the state right? No one is disputing that? So why is this article about the State? The name of the State is Ireland right? It is the official name for the State and country. The European Union, note that the names of the Member States of the European Union must always be written and abbreviated according to the Interinstitutional Style Guide rules and that neither “Republic of Ireland” nor “Irish Republic” should be used when referring to the Irish State. This also includes Ireland's geographical name. So it's time to end this POV inspired nonsense. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest attempting such a bold move without consensus first. It will simply be reverted. Rockpocket 22:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. There's an Arbcom-initiated process ongoing. See the notice at the top of the page. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rock we both know that The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. If by being bold I insert the information, the the burden of evidence lies with me the editor, however this is also true of editors who wish to remove it. So for example, in responce to a clear supported statement of fact like this we get idiotic nonsense like this well we all know were the burden of evidence lies. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin has a point. Your statement of fact is not disputed, but simply stating it does not help us solve the disambiguation problem which the vast majority of interested editors agree exists. Irrespective if what the EU say, our requirement for disambiguation between different topics (state vs island) necessitates an article title that is not ideal for at least one of them. Ironically, that is one of the few things the majority of people appear able to agree on (though there are difference of opinion of how to do it). You are in the small minority who don't see it that way, and therefore such a move is likely to come into strong opposition. I don't see a good outcome of this pursuit. Rockpocket 23:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, there is only one EU member called "Ireland". There is not another all-Ireland member also called "Ireland". Hence the EU has no requirement to disambiguate. It's not that difficult a concept to understand, surely. Mooretwin (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rock, as you are well aware, consensus never ever over-rides verifiability. There is no disambiguation problem! It has never been established that there is! All you have is a group of editors with a particular POV, who need to be told that wiki is not a democracy Few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a "majority rule" basis. So your use of terms like "majority" and "minority" are puerile. Like you say my statement of fact is not disputed, and the only disambiguation problem is trying to establish one based on nothing other that editor numbers.--Domer48_'fenian' 07:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I just seen Bastun's puerile attempt to subvert this discussion, that Rock lent a hand in yet another POV Fork is disappointing though. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

When the RoI issue is resolved, then that 'new' fork will be AfD'd. Even sooner, I'll support deletion. If any editor created a British Isles (term) article, it would be immediatly AfD'd, and Bastur abouve all knows that. Why is this being tolerated here? Tfz 14:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel the same way about the Names of the Irish state article? If not, mightn't it have been better to merge the material and redirect the article there> Likewise British Isles (term) would logically redirect to Terminology of the British Isles. Rockpocket 17:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's another alternative, that could be done with the fork too. Tfz 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well when he has the backing of an Admin why wouldn't he think he would get away with it. BigDunc^Talk 15:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to me, Dunc? I simply cleaned up some MoS issues. Moreover, rather than "backing" it, I made my alternative preference clear. But don't let reality get in the way of perpetuating a disagreement. Rockpocket 16:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rock it is you who wishes to perpetuate a lie to our readers that RoI is the name of the Irish State and country, plain and simple! To do this you never allow reality get in the way, or our policies. Your alternative preference is no better then the POV Fork you endorsed. You say you simply cleaned up some MoS issues, when the issue was the article being created. You have put your role as an Admin at the back door, in your efforts to push a POV which is illustrated by your refusal to stand over our policies. The proposed change to this article, which is supported by references, clearly shows the use of RoI is POV. There is not one of your merry band who can offer any sourced references to dispute one sentence in the text I have proposed. RoI is a descriptive term, and both you and Bastun endorsed that with the title chosen for the fork which places your alternative preference in its true light. Thanks Tfz for doing what an unbiased Admin should have done. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not leaving that abuse from you unaddressed, Domer. If you want to accuse me of perpetuating lie, back it up with some diffs, please, or else withdraw it. If you had bothered to check you could find many, many occasions where I make it perfectly clear that ROI is not the name of the the name of the Irish State and country and I don't support its use as an that article title (See here for an unambiguous, "plain and simple" summary of my position). So until you check the hyperbole at the door, then its not even worth discussing this with you further. I leave you to wallow in this mess on your own. Rockpocket 18:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My post above illustrates my point well enough! Your responce here also illustrates my point very well. So when I make a post like this which is both WP:V and WP:RS and is not disputed, to respond by saying the editor has a point with responses like this and this is contemptible. An editor, not an Admin had more sense by asking the appropriate question than you did. When we also then take into consideration your support for this editors conduct and contributions, (which is the only conclusion one could reach considering your above response) followed similar POV comments from the editor which were devoid of ref’s such as this, this and this. Not once did you ask this editor for ref’s. I had to step into the discussion because an Admin did not bother, a point I was not long in making. By allowing these type of discussions to drag on, allowing these editors to spout of any old unreferenced crap you perpetuate the problem. On the RoI you say above you “don't support its use as an article title” which is based on nothing other than your POV, because my proposed text shows that there should be an article on it and the text is perfectly applicable to the article title! The current text is nothing more than a POV fork and goes against a number of our policies and you’ve done nothing, why? If it’s because you “don't support its use as an article title” you’ve put your POV before our policies. You endorse puerile talk page contributions, and you endorse POV forks being created and the diff’s are there to back it up.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to my response immediately above. Rockpocket 21:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Observation. It's somewhat ignominious that disrupters are allowed on the naming of the 'Ireland article' discussion. It is an established fact that the name of of the state is indeed Ireland. At this juncture, anyone who argues that this is not the case should have their edits reversed on sight, as such editing could be viewed as disruption, and trolling, and maybe even designed to show contempt. There should be no quarter for these antics. Tfz 22:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Who are these "disrupters" exactly; who is arguing that the name of the state is not Ireland? I don't see any significant dispute over that. Rockpocket 22:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Typical, here no, see no, speak no evil. I’ve provided diff’s, having been asked and you can’t respond! So no I’ll not be withdrawing my comments. As to who are the "disrupters" exactly, well I’ve pointed you to the two you ignored. This edit is disruptive here and here, because the name of the State is Ireland. It is to perpetuate a lie and mislead our readers to suggest that the name of the State is the Republic of Ireland. By ignoring it is to perpetuate this disruptive behaviour and in fact encourages it. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet the first sentence of that diff says "This article is about the term describing the state of Ireland", which is completely inconsistent with your claim it perpetuates a lie that "the name of the State is the Republic of Ireland". Honestly, did you even read it before you cited it, because your argument is coming across as utterly nonsensical? How about you provide a diff on this page where someone actually claims that the name of the state is not Ireland, please, and then we can talk about disrupters. Rockpocket 23:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Arguing that the name of the state is "Republic of Ireland" is a total nonsense. Defending such nonsense is to be compliant with that nonsense. Tfz 23:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we got that the first time. Again, any chance of actually showing us who is arguing that the name of the state is "Republic of Ireland", preferably with some evidence of them actually saying those words? Rockpocket 01:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Rock that is my point, and the second line says For the article on the state, see Republic of Ireland. For the article on the island, see Ireland so Rock why do you perpetuate this disruptive behaviour and in fact encourages it? You edited that POV Fork and ignored this! Why do you allow the opening line in the Republic of Ireland Article say "This article is about the sovereign country. For the island, see Ireland." Honestly, are you just being disruptive and acting smart or are you just making a very poor attempt at deflection? When you said you "simply cleaned up some MoS issues" on that fork you ignored the policy issues on it, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR to name just some of our core policies. My charge against you stands! I've provided you with the diff which illustrates someone who "actually claims that the name of the state is not Ireland" but as is normal with you, you choose to ignore it. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

How is that disruptive? The article for the state Ireland is currently at Republic of Ireland so that is the perfectly acceptable and understandable dab. Note it does not say the name of the state is Republic of Ireland (which would be arguing the name of the state is Republic of Ireland - the clue, in case you missed it, is that the words are the same). It does say for the article on the state, see Republic of Ireland. That see is important because it indicates that the title is a disambiguation, it does not indicate that the title is necesarily the correct name. I can only imagine that you fail to understand the principle of disambiguation on Wikipedia if you are unable to appreciate this difference.

Let me give you a simple example. John Smith (Conservative politician)'s name was clearly not John Smith (Conservative politician). It was John Smith. Likewise, John Smith (Labour Party leader) name was not John Smith (Labour Party leader), it was John Smith. These men are clearly not the same person. And irrespective of how many reliable sources you can provide telling us either of their names is really John Smith, it does not change the fact that they are both not covered under the same article, entitled John Smith. This is because, we at Wikipedia, disambiguate between different people/things/states/entities with the same name. Its that simple. The situation here is no different, yet I don't see you - or anyone else - crying that John Smith (Labour Party leader) isn't his real name and therefore we are all violating policy by having him under that title. Why not?

So let me be clear, in case you still don't get it: No-one here is claiming that Republic of Ireland is the name of the state. We can all agree that the name of the state is Ireland, ok? The real issue is this: how do we disambiguate between two different entities with the same name. Rockpocket 01:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, so we are getting back on track here, and nobody is disagreeing with the fact that John Smith's article has a disambiguation handle attached, or that the Ireland article is at "Republic of Ireland" page. Tfz 02:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

How can the article for the state Ireland currently at Republic of Ireland be a perfectly acceptable and an understandable dab? Perfectly acceptable to who? How can it be perfectly acceptable when you say No-one here is claiming that Republic of Ireland is the name of the state. We can all agree you say, that the name of the state is Ireland? You suggest that the real issue is how do we disambiguate between two different entities with the same name? Well that is not the question were discussing here! The question here is why is the content on this article about the State, when the subject is the RoI. Now rather than just talk about it, I went and done something. I produced a body of text which addresses the subject and title of this article. Your response to it has been addressed by me above. Right now I'm not interested in the wider discussion, I just want to address the POV fork that has been allowed to be maintained on the RoI article. The current text is misleading, and deliberately so. So no more trying to deflect and expand this issue to other articles as you have done. So if as you say we all agree that the name of the state is Ireland and not RoI, lets now discuss what needs to be done to the proposed text before we add it to the article and replace the misleading text currently there. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaking the name of something (in this case the state of Ireland) with the title of our article about it. Due to a need to disambiguate, those are obviously not always the same. I don't have a problem with having your proposed text under this title, but only if you can also propose a viable policy-compliant solution to the problem it would create. If the article about the state is not under the title Republic of Ireland, but under Ireland, where does the article about the the island of Ireland go? I expect your answer will be: It should also be under Ireland. And this is where your interpretation deviates from pretty much everyone else. That solution is simply is not acceptable per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, since we all know that the state and the island are not the same entity (just as the two John Smith's, discussed above, are not the same person). Your attempt to address this issue doesn't solve the wider problem, its simply shifts it. We require a multi-factorial solution and, as you know, there is an ongoing initiative to try and reach it. I suggest you engage there, rather than pursuing this avenue which will never reach consensus. Rockpocket 18:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket: beware of trolls and the feeding thereof. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not mistaking about anything, the name of the Irish State is Ireland. This Article is about the Republic of Ireland two completely different things. RoI is a descriptive term and Ireland is the name of the State and the Country. So lets just deal with the obvious problem first the current article text. We all agree that the content under the current title is incorrect and misleading; the proposed text will address that agreed. Now I've asked you not to deviate from the problem in hand on this article, but it appears you are willing to mislead our readers to address an as yet undetermined or undecided problem. Now one more time, consensus dose not and never has trumped policy, you as an Admin should know that. I'm not at the minute trying to address any other issue. This article is not part of any "wider problem" because this issue is very clear cut. If correcting a glaringly obvious case of misleading information being presented to our reader’s cause’s problems with the Ireland article, then the problem lays with the Ireland article or the editors who are trying to link the two. If you think deliberately presenting misleading information to our readers could be considered as forming any part of a solution to the Ireland article you should hand your Admin tools back. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid if that is all you can offer this discussion, your in the wrong place. Now we all know Rock will ignore your disruptive comments, so I'll do the same. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked the editor not to be name calling, and he removed my notice. Tfz 20:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You can assume that I read it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You know fine well that we can't just remove the article on the state of Ireland; it has to go somewhere if you wish to use its current disambiguation title for another purpose (which - when you strip away all the hyperbole - is essentially what you are proposing). You are only offering half a solution, and until you are able to come up with a plan for the content currently there, then your proposal is not worth considering further. I did offer a full, three part compromise solution (see here, here and here), that doesn't involve presenting misleading information and would have left ROI free for your proposed text. But you declined to support it at the time, so you if you are looking for someone to take some of the blame for the why we are in this status quo, try a mirror.

For the record: Firstly, I don't think you are trolling, but I certainly understand how it may appear that way to someone unfamiliar with your style of editing. And secondly, please drop the incessant insinuation that I'm using my admin tools unfairly. If you had bothered to check you would notice that I have not used my admin tools for any purpose relating to this subject since 21 June 2008. On that occasion I used them to unblock you. Due to the amount of abuse issued by editors of all sides of this dispute, I made it clear around that time that I was done with trying to keep you lot policy compliant, and any further contributions made to this subject were simply as a regular editor. You've got what you wanted. This is the consequence participants spending years castigating every admin who tried to help. Its no longer worth the hassle trying to police this dipsute, so you can work it out for yourselves. Good luck. Rockpocket 20:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This issue needs a core set of Irish editors making a lead here to get the proposed changes implemented. This is not rocket science and there is no point in making it more complicated than it is. It as simple as "Republic of Ireland" moving to "Ireland (state)", or "Ireland (country)". Any editor who insists that the name of the state is "Republic of Ireland" is either pov-pushing, or downright ignorant of the facts, and their "opinions" should not vitally matter in this process. That's why ArbCom should be heavily involved, just like a judge will oversee a tribunal of inquiry. There are more than a few editors completely fed up with the situation. Tfz 21:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd think that the suggestion you make would be the obvious solution, right? Unfortunately I've spent the last 6 months trying to make that point, but editors coming from alternative POVs in both directions refuse to accept it. Instead we simply waste our time rehashing the same old arguments over and over; everyone is entrenched and no-one is willing to budge. Rockpocket 21:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to say it yet again; this discussion is not about the Ireland article yet you insist in linking the two. You’re suggesting that we perpetuate a pov fork, mislead our readers and breech a number of our policies and you expect editors to be complicit in it? I’m not proffering any solution to any problem other than the one we have on this article. As per norm with deliberately disruptive editors, you offer excuses for them to mitigate the behaviour, typical! I’ve not insinuated that you have used your Admin tools unfairly, but that you have singularly failed to use your position as an Admin to prevent disruption, in fact the opposite is the case as I’ve again illustrated above. Yet again, an editor Tfz had to do your job for you, just like MitH before that. Now you can abdicate your function and role on the project when it suits you, I not concerned, but rather accept the logic of my argument, acknowledge the effort I made and support the proposed text you opt to walk away! Bad form! Tfz, thanks again. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness and hoping that editors will accept that I am reasonable and wish to be, I’m perfectly willing to allow the current text to sit on this article below the correct text until a solution to the problem that Rock suggests that exists is resolved. I would like to see a constructive discussion source and referenced based with a strict adherence to our talk page guidelines. For that we would need Admin’s willing to put the own POV’s to one side in the interest of the project and insure we have a reasoned discussion.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold and inserted the proposed text. Since my suggestion of leaving the current text sitting on this Article pending discussion went up like a lead balloon judging by the responses, I've merged it with the Ireland Article, since it was just a mirror of it in anyway. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Having use this talk page, outlined my rational, with no editor disagreeing that RoI is not the State one Editor has decided to revert without any rational. This is plain disruptive. Their only contrabution to the discussion was less than helpful. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the ROI state: not about the term ROI. It is clear that your proposal to turn this into a POV fork lacks consensus. It is your abitrary changes to both this and the Ireland article that are disruptive: not those of the editors who reverted you. Mooretwin (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The name of the State is Ireland, you said so yourself, and not the RoI. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

Republic of Ireland

On April 18, 1949, The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 (No. 22 of 1948), came into operation. Under the Act, Ireland formally left the British Commonwealth and became an independent republic. To affirm this, section two of the Act stated "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."

Origin

This last breaking of the ties between Ireland and Britain, however, had begun in 1937. Éamon de Valera had gradually whittled away the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922 and had significantly accomplished it with a new constitution in 1937. With its introduction, there would no longer be a Governor General representing the King, but a President who would be elected by the people. This had all been made possible by the British government’s introduction of the Statute of Westminster 1931, which granted sovereignty to its dominions.

In 1938, the British government, legislating for certain accords with the Irish State, included the following in the Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Act:

“ The territory which, in accordance with the provisions of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, and the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922, ... was required to be styled and known as the Irish Free State shall be styled and known as Eire, and accordingly, references in any enactment to the Irish Free State shall be construed as references to Eire. (s 1) ”

This reflected in British law the Irish Constitution of 1937, which meant that, in British and unionist minds, the twenty-six counties had become “Eire”.

The Irish Constitution had facilitated this usage by the British government by saying that:

“ The name of the State is Éire, or in the English language, Ireland. ”

The phrase “or in the English language, Ireland” had been a late insertion, according to Mary Daly, and was adopted on foot of an amendment tabled in Dáil Éireann by an independent Teachta Dála (deputy). A typewritten preliminary draft of Heads of Constitution for Saorstát Éireann, she says, dated 18 May 1936, by John Hearne, who was a legal adviser in the Department of External Affairs, and played a leading role in drafting the 1937 Constitution, gave Article 1 as “Saorstát Éireann is a sovereign, independent state,” but Saorstát Éireann was crossed out in pencil and replaced with Eire, and this was repeated throughout Hearne’s draft. In a version dated 14 October 1936, Article 1, Daly notes, used the term “The Irish Nation”; this draft referred to “the parliament of Eire” and “the laws of Eire.”

Daltún Ó Callaigh suggests that a better drafting would have been simply “The name of the State is Ireland” and, in the Irish version, “Is ainm don Stét Eire”. He maintains that the existing style is rather like a German constitution saying in translation: “The name of the State is Deutschland or in the English language Germany.” Ó Callaigh noted that the Irish practice is peculiar, and that it facilitated partitionists by giving them a word to describe “the twenty-six counties which made the area seem to a non-Irish speaker like a natural entity in itself.”

Use of the term by Britain

The British government would not use the term “Ireland” in any official document, according to Daly, until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which included an undertaking by the Irish government to delete Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. Britain’s refusal to use the constitutional title of the Irish state, and its efforts to persuade other nations to adopt a similar practice, can be interpreted, Daly says, as an effort to exercise a residual authority over independent Ireland. Britain appeared to have gone to significant lengths, she says, to stop international organizations from using the name Ireland to designate the twenty six county state, and that this was often in response to pressure from the Northern Ireland government. In March 1938, the Irish government issued a directive to departments that “generally we should try to have Ireland and Irish used so far as possible in the English language in preference to Éire and ‘of Éire.’” The resolve on the part of the Irish government to call the state Ireland rather than Éire was, Daly suggests, a reaction to Britain’s decision to use Eire (without the accent) as the name of the independent Irish state.

According to Daly, the British government refusal to use the constitutional title of the Irish state was because they interpreted it as a claim by the Irish Government to the entire island. To support this interpretation they pointed to Article 2 of the Irish Constitution, which stated that “the national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.” However, Article 3, qualified this claim:

“ Pending the reintegration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by that parliament shall have the like area and extent of applications as the laws of Saorstát Éireann and the like extra territorial effect. ”

The Irish State was now in essence a republic, but it still did not describe itself as such. This final step would be legislated for and the Irish government signalled its intension to cut all remaining ties with the Commonwealth. In July 1948, a number of months before the Republic of Ireland Bill was introduced, the Minister for External Affairs, Seán MacBride, told the Dáil that Ireland was “certainly not a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.” The Taoiseach John A. Costello explained that Ireland’s exit from the Commonwealth had been “a gradual development.” In 1949 Ireland, by passing the Republic of Ireland Act 1949, became a republic and left the Commonwealth. This decision to declare a republic, consisted of all political parties except Fianna Fáil.

The British government then passed the Ireland Act, which stated:

“ It is hereby recognized and declared that the part of Ireland heretofore known as Eire ceased, as from the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, to be part of His Majesty’s dominions.” (s 1.1) ”

When the Ireland Act had been passed, Clement Attlee, the British prime minister, set out the protocol for future relations with Ireland, which though no longer a member of the Commonwealth, was not to be treated as a foreign state, "in view of the bonds of history and blood between the Commonwealth countries and the people of Southern Ireland."

In other words according to Ó Callaigh, it was acknowledged that “Eire” had become a republic in every sense and was outside not only the United Kingdom, as the twenty-six counties “had been in one way or another since 1922,” but the royal domain altogether, or “the Commonwealth” of which the British King was Head.

British and European accept Ireland

The 1948 Republic of Ireland Act however led to further misunderstanding over the name of the state. Section 2 stated:

“ that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland. ”

In Dáil Éireann, while introducing the bill John A. Costello stressed that it did not purport to amend the constitution of 1937:

“ There is the name of the State and there is the description of the State. The name of the State is Ireland and the description of the State is the Republic of Ireland. That is the description of its constitutional and international status. ”

In the Seanad, Costello explained 'its name in Irish is Éire and in the English language Ireland. Its description in the English language is "the Republic of Ireland".'

The Government Information Bureau in 1953 issued a directive, noting that Article 4 of the 1937 Constitution gave the name as “Éire” or, in the English language, “Ireland”; they noted that whenever the name of the state was mentioned in an English language document, Ireland should be used and that “Care should be taken,” the directive stated, “to avoid the use of the expression Republic of Ireland or Irish Republic in such a context or in such a manner as might suggest that it is a geographical term applicable to the area of the Twenty‐Six counties.” This directive according to Daly remained in use for a number of years and that a copy was sent to Bord Fáilte, (the Irish tourist board), in 1959, reminding them not to use the title “the Republic of Ireland” on their promotional literature.

In 1963, under the auspices of the Council of Europe, to revise geography textbooks, the Irish Department of Education issued guidelines to delegates on politically correct geographic terminology: “British Isles” and “United Kingdom” were deemed objectionable and that delegates insist on “Ireland” and "Great Britain." The term "Republic of Ireland" should be avoided but that delegates were no longer to insist on “the Six Counties” in place of “Northern Ireland” in an attempt to improve relations with Northern Ireland.

In February 1964, the Irish government indicated it's wish to appoint an ambassador to Canberra. The one issue, however, that blocked the exchange of ambassadors had been the insistence of Australia that the letters carried by the Irish ambassador should have the royal title as "Queen Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom, Greater Britain and Northern Ireland, Australia." This was, according to Daly, despite the fact that the Royal Style and Titles Act did not mention Northern Ireland. However that November when Eoin MacWhite presented his credentials as Irish ambassador to Australia, a circular was issued to all Australian government departments indicating to them to use the word "Ireland" rather than "the Irish Republic." Britain was by the mid 1960s, the only country not to refer to the state as Ireland.

In 1985 the British command papers described the Anglo-Irish Agreement as an "agreement between the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the government of the Republic of Ireland," with the Irish official papers described it as an "agreement between the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the government of Ireland." The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office referred to Ireland as the "Republic of Ireland" - however since 2000 it has referred to the State as "Ireland." The credentials presented by the British ambassador, Stewart Eldon, in 2003, were addressed to the President of Ireland.

Today, the European Union note that the names of the Member States of the European Union must always be written and abbreviated according to the Interinstitutional Style Guide rules and that neither “Republic of Ireland” nor “Irish Republic” should be used when referring to the Irish State.

Tommy Graham editor of History Iraland in the May/June 2009 issue said the correct name for the country is "Ireland" not "the Republic of Ireland," except when talking about the international soccer team.

External links

• The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 (Commencement) Order, 1949
• Government of Ireland
• Britannica

Comments

Excellent stuff, Domer, if a little dependent on one source. Now available at Republic of Ireland (term) for improvement. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is nice work, though it would probably be better merged and redirected to Names of the Irish state rather than stand alone. There does appear to be a significant amount of repetition between the two. Rockpocket 23:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would have merged it into Names of the Irish state too. (In any case, can we clear it up for here? It's sandbox stuff and clutters up the talk page.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes! This article is titled "Republic of Ireland" and this is were the content should go. Republic of Ireland is not the Irish State, therefore the current article content is simply a POV Fork. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What the bloody hell is going on here? There is an ongoing debate linked at the top of this article on the Ireland naming dispute. Why the hell are people here trying to make changes without even informing people this debate is being had in the correct location. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no debate going on here, everyone agrees the name of the State is Ireland. Everyone agrees that the RoI is not the State. This article is about RoI, not the State. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you drunk? You know full well there is an ongoing debate at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration. Why are u making such silly changes without even informing people there this was happening? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RoI and the state are one and the same. The former is an alternative name for the state and, indeed, the "official description". It is used as a disambiguator on WP and elsewhere because the "official name" of the state is ambiguous and potentially misleading. Mooretwin (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

the former is an alternative name for the state - typical comment from the uneducated, but I'm surprised that you'd make the same mistake. See if you can follow the next sentent. Republic of Ireland is *not* an alternative name. This has been shown and proven several times. Please keep up. --HighKing (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and have a look at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 for examples of the use of Republic of Ireland as a name for the 26-county state. See also Wikipedia for another example. Mooretwin (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please illustrate how the edit to this article is incorrect? The information on this page was about the Irish State. RoI is not the Irish State. There is a discussion above, join it, and please use references to support your opinion, unlike the editor above. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the proposal and there was no consensus on it either. This information belongs in the Names of the Irish state article. ~Asarlaí 16:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And please explain why? Is the information incorrect? Is it not related to the subject of the article? Please tell us? Does every one not agree that RoI is not the name of the State. Does not everyone agree that the name of the State is Ireland? Do we not already have consensus on that? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No we don't have a consensus. Whether you like it or not, Republic of Ireland is the official description of the state. You know full well there's an ongoing debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. ~Asarlaí 16:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Whether you like it or not, Republic of Ireland is the official description of the state." Who said different? RoI is a description of the state not the name of the State. Is there not consensus that the official name of the State is Ireland? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that description is necessary to distinguish the state from the island. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is the place to discuss this, not here. ~Asarlaí 16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No! We do not mislead our readers! You accept that the name of the State is Ireland, but want to mislead our readers by using another name? The description is not necessary to distinguish the state from the island. It wrong, it's incorrect and it is misleading. Now the text that was added is correct according to our policies and not your POV. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Since this is goinging no were, based on this discussion here, the text is going back in. To leave it as it is now is a violation of our policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV. Consensus never overides policy. This article is about the RoI not Ireland, simple as. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That would mostly likely be blockable. I wouldn't advise trying it to find out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Misinforming, or put it another way, lying to our readers is blockable. Now unless an editor can come up with a policy based reason for lying and depriving our readers of the correct information, it will be changed. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

See the guy is threatening to make the move again despite countless reverts, hes going to end up breaking the basic rules of wikipedia if he does make the change, let alone the 1RR for Ireland articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, saw this on ANI and came to say Holy God. Ireland is the technically correct name for the state, and RoI is a disambiguator for that state, one that is universally recognized, accepted and indeed identified with here in the state, with the exception of, apparently, some wiki editors. These are two facts. Therefore it doesn't make a blind bit of difference which title the Ireland (state) article is under: positions whether aspiring to push for a slight tiny miniscule suggestion of a 32 county POV, or feeling threatened by such from a Unionist POV, or just being very very picky encyclopedia writers who want the technically correct title, need to just knock it off! Either way is fine! Sure didn't we in Ireland vote by referendum to remove a claim to the Six Counties from the constitution expressly so lads editing from north, south and britlandia could relax the ould head. Totally WP:Lame. 86.44.18.14 (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Due to the current mass edit warring I've protected this page for 2 weeks before anyone has to get blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please lock Ireland too, hes been vandalising that page as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No what you have done, is allowed our readers to be mislead. The RoI is not the name of the Irish State. Not only that, but you have removed the oppertunity for editors to correct this. You have prevented editors from informing our readers on RoI. There is not one editor who does not accept that the correct name for the Irish State, and the official name for the State is Ireland. There is not one editor who disagrees that RoI is a descriptive term, and not the official name of the State. You allow our readers to be lied to, and say it is to prevent edit warring? You are violating all that wiki is about, and ignoring our policies. Don't worry BW they have your back. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No such thing has been done. First paragraph clearly states "The name of the state is Ireland, while the description the Republic of Ireland is sometimes used when there is a need to differentiate the state from the island." Plus I do not have anyone's back and am not weighing in on anyone's side, simply stopping an edit war before editors start getting blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 19:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Because of your silly edit war today the articles need to be locked to keep you from making a mess of them again before the naming dispute has been resolved. The introduction of this article makes very clear that Ireland is the name of the state, and republic of ireland is just a description.

Please take a look at China and Taiwan, Ireland is not being treated in a different way to them. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the 2-week protection of this & the Ireland page (as I'm an opponent of edit wars). GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not over ride policy. This article is about the Irish State, and RoI is not the name of the Irish State. All the information on RoI has been removed and this is misleading to our readers. No ArbCom would support this, and no ArbCom ruling was violated. GoodDay, I see you don't like edit warring, how about lying to our readers? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is not lying, its been like this for years. You have only just suddenly thought its sooo important to change it now? What crap, the only thing lying around here is yourself. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's more than enough times calling Domer a liar. WP:CIVILITY, please.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i think he is being economical with the truth, but he is accusing others of misleading the readers, i find that rather offensive too. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats just as bad BW, WP:CIVIL and WP:GF apply to people who disagree with you as well as those who agree. --Snowded ^TALK 19:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes everyone calm down, I don't want to see anyone get blocked over this and I think protection is better than editor blocks. Canterbury Tail talk 19:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:Civility "Assume good faith as much as possible. The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence;". Considering some people want Domer to be banned for a certain period of time i thought there was evidence hed been "acting up", especially following some of his comments which clearly goes against facts.

But it turns out i am the guilty one? How wrong i was :\ There was me being offended that for months on end we have gone through the nightmare of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration, and some editors come along and make radical changes without even informing people there and then accuse us of "misleading the readers" BritishWatcher (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Such name calling as above by BW should get a block, because it's ongoing, and will continue. Any admins about? Tfz 19:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not just this article BW, you have been hitting out on several of late. Please calm down. --Snowded ^TALK 19:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry i have used the term liar today in the past few hours and said someone has been lying. I did not know such comments were against the rules when its obvious to everyone that the facts prove this to be the case. How else should people be informed that someone is not telling the truth?

As for "hitting out on several of late", the only thing i can think of is in relation to the British Empire or Military history of the peoples of the British Islands articles, where i see good reason to question some peoples motives and i dont think i have violated WP:Civility or WP:GF in those cases. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You made several general accusations on British Empire BW none of which were justified by anything that anyone had actually said in the conversation. Its important to address content issues and arguments as they are presented, not to impute motives to everyone who disagrees with you. I also note that you are not actually apologising above. You can are fast on the revert button yourself and very happy to assert your opinion. Given the same freedom to others. --Snowded ^TALK 20:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for calling him a liar, it wasnt meant as a personal attack. I thought such a description was justified as the evidence proved it to be the case and the person i was talking about now appears to of been blocked for a week anyway. However i dont think i have anything to apologise for when it comes to matters dealing with the British Isles which is a very different issue and has nothing to do with this. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility goes across all articles you seem to be showing a trend of attacking editors on talk pages. Calling someone a liar is a breach of AE sanctions on the naming dispute which the Arbs dealt with namely, Conduct and decorum. So should you be blocked seeing as you seem to gloat at another editors block after you have personally attacked them? BigDunc^Talk 20:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think its getting to the point where only an ANI report will change the behaviour. I love the idea that calling someone a liar is not a personal attack. --Snowded ^TALK 20:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, since truth is a defense against libel, it's possible for "liar" not to be a personal attack. For example, Domer claimed that he had not been notified of the Enforcement request 20 minutes after I edited his talk page -- with the diff where I edited his talk page clearly visible a few lines above the claim.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Are you saying SarekOfVulcan that you know for a fact that Domer knew that his edit was a move, as I do not see it as one and that is what Domer said on the talk page not that he wasn't aware of the ArbCom ruling. BigDunc^Talk 20:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

To SarekOfVulcan, your understanding of law is little, if that's what you believe. One cannot call a person a liar just because you disagree with an interpretation of events. It can be legally correct to claim a person told an untruth, but indefensible to call someone a liar. Check it out wit a lawyer before you start lawyering. Tfz 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc Where exactly have i "gloated" about an editor being blocked. I pointed out the person i was talking about had been blocked for a week. The reason for the block was related to why i considered him to be "lying". It is amazing that i am the bad guy in this situation when i have simply been following the process set out by Arbcom in relation to the Ireland naming dispute. Many people have been contributing on the wikiproject and yet some people here saw fit to make the changes without even informing people there that this was going on even though they knew all about the ongoing debate. I think that shows a complete disrespect for the process. Again i am sorry for calling him a liar, i considered his comments to be misleading and i wanted to point it out but it was not meant as a personal attack. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2)I said he lied about whether I notified him or not. I'm not making a call on whether he knew about the ArbCom ruling in advance, but it seems improbable, given his edit to the Ireland Naming discussion that I linked elsewhere. Once it was made clear to him, though, arguing that a cut-and-paste move wasn't a move was just being disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(ecx3)You used it as some sort of excuse for your attack they have now been unblocked so is Domer now vindicated using your logic? BigDunc^Talk 21:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm no i didnt use the fact he was blocked as an excuse, i explained my reasons for using the term because i considered some of his comments to be misleading or as Tfz put it "an untruth". The fact he has been unblocked does not mean his actions were correct as he has agreed not to do them again. I also notice that he did not even have to apologise for his actions despite them being seen as worthy enough for a week ban at first. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't misinterpret my words to back up your uncalled for utterings. There is a whole world of a difference. I think you should withdraw and apologise, because your behaviour and attitude are now being viewed as disruptive by the wider community. Tfz 21:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm i think i did say sorry for describing him as a liar, i dont know how much clearer i can be on the matter. As for my behaviour and attitude, its not been my acts this afternoon that has led to todays chaos. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail I'll make this simple for you. Not one person is suggesting that RoI is the name of the State, not one! Not one person is suggesting that RoI is the official name of the State, no one! This article is about RoI not the Irish State! However, this article text is about the Irish State! Now the text that was removed, was about the RoI and nothing else! It dealth with the subject matter, and informed our readers all about the RoI! Now at the minute, I don't care were the currect text goes, but it can't be left here to misinform our readers. So what policy allowes us to decide that giving our readers the wrong information is a solution to a problem with a compleatly different Article? I was blocked for calling an editor a lier, but then I was an Irish editor. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% Domer, but Canterbury Tail is probably doing the right thing. Leaving the articles open might well lead to blocks. In my experience CT is better able to leave his personal POV behind when dealing with these issues than nearly anyone. Except maybe you and me:) Sarah777 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever its title is, this article has always been about a state. If you don't think "Republic of Ireland" is a suitable title for the article (I tend to agree with you there, I'd personally prefer Ireland (state)), then as I am sure you are well aware, there are ways to move the article to another title instead of doing what in essence is a WP:CUTPASTE move. And yes, you need consensus for that. Consensus overrides your thinking that you are right in your interpretations of policy and facts—it even overrides your knowing that you are right. All you can do is try to influence consensus, and I'm sorry to say that your actions are not helping much. —JAO • T • C 19:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah. Now I'll unprotect the page if there is consensus here to unprotect it, from all sides. Remember, consensus people. However, if the page is unblocked and there is a repeat edit warring, I'll start temporarily blocking editors rather than protecting pages. And be aware, I have a zero tolerance policy for personal attacks, not even a warning to editors who know better. And I believe since everyone on this page is an established editor we all know better. So everyone calm down, be civil, and lets work through this. Canterbury Tail talk 21:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Republic of Ireland" is it a suitable title for the article

JAO has made some reasonable points above, and I'll address them in a reasonable way. JAO you say this article has always been about a state, well things chang you'll agree. People once believed the world was flat etc. We agree that the "Republic of Ireland" is not a suitable title for the article. Would you also agree that it is not suitable because of the subject matter i.e. that the article content is not about the same as the title.

The title of this article is "Republic of Ireland" therefore it should be about the "Republic of Ireland." The current text is about the Irish State. Well everyone agrees that the official name of the State is Ireland. Everyone agrees that "Republic of Ireland" is only a descriptive term a point made at the time in Dáil Éireann, by John A. Costello who stressed while introducing the bill, that it did not purport to amend the constitution of 1937. None of this is disputed, so why is the text which is actually about the "Republic of Ireland," it's history, it's use and abuse removed, and replaced with text that belongs on a different article. It's suggested above that it is being used as a solution to a problem on the article on Ireland. Well regardless of what the problems are on the Ireland Article, creating problems on this article is not the solution. The descriptive term "Republic of Ireland" and the official name of the State are two completely different things. Now the article text which was removed, illustrates how using "Republic of Ireland" for the Irish State goes against WP:NPOV. This is not just a matter of opinion, but based on sources which are both WP:V and WP:RS. Now problems on the Ireland should not be dealt with here. On this article we have a clearly defined problem, and a clearly defined solution. The text which was removed is subject specific to the article title, the current text is not. The current text is misleading to readers, and fails to address the subject. Now I'd like reasons why the text was removed, based on policy. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's a suitable title for the article, this is not a suitable place to discuss it. See the huge box at the top of the page for the correct place.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly do you propose this discussion should be held? BigDunc^Talk 22:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about where the article on the country of Ireland belongs is ongoing at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration, this is the location the Ireland naming dispute is trying to be resolved at, which is the reason the changes today were undone despite the debate on this articles talk page. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to address the obvious question. The descriptive term "Republic of Ireland" and the official name of the State are two completely different things. The current text is misleading to readers, and fails to address the subject. Regardless of what the problems are on the Ireland Article, creating problems on this article is not the solution. Now I've raised reasonable questions, and your answer is hardly reasonable. Regardless weather or not this article is misleading our readers, and regardless of how many of our policies it violates, this is not a suitable place to discuss this article? Please see the pillars upon which Wiki is built. Reasonable questions? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, there should (obviously) be an article on the Irish state. There already is such an article (this one). There's no reason to change the article to suit its current title. If the title is no good, the solution is not to ditch the article on the Irish state (this one) and recreate it somewhere else, it's to properly move the article on the Irish state (this one) to another title. It's much, much less disruptive that way. (Your view that article titles are inherently right and only content can be wrong is not held by the community at large—it's very often the other way around, which is why pages can be moved in the first place. In this case, the article is (at least mostly) fine, it's an article on the Irish state. The title may or may not be fine.) And then, after that move, something else can be written on the Republic of Ireland page, which has then become a redirect (although that's where I disagree with you, I think that redirect should be kept). Now, as several other people have said, the way to achieve this move is discussing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. —JAO • T • C 23:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, more prevarication! This is not about Ireland (state) or Ireland (island) this is about “Republic of Ireland.” It is a clearly defined descriptive term! If correcting a serious error on this page causes you problems on another article, you’ll have to deal with it there. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Please read the text which was removed, does it or does it not illustrate how the use of “Republic of Ireland” is POV. Not only POV, but a long dead one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domer48 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland(Description): An article that explains how when and why it was used to describe the state. Ireland(State):An article on the state. Ireland(Island) An article on the island of Ireland. Don't thank me, I do it for wikipedia. 81.159.14.141 (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll only deal with Republic of Ireland (Description)! The rest has nothing to do with this article. One question, why not Republic of Ireland? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, alright then, Republic of Ireland. I just thought it would be an immediate pointer to the fact that it's a description of the state rather than the name. I'm not one to quibble though. 81.159.14.141 (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Irrespective of the fact you persistently ignore the need for disambiguation as the reason why this article cannot have exactly the same title as the island (which currently under the title, Ireland),the way you are attempting to rectify it is simply not acceptable, Domer. That is because we need to maintain attribution for licensing reasons (which over-rules any other policy, since it is a legal issue). If you wish to change the contents of this title wholesale you have two options:

• You do a page move so that the current contents (the article about the state) and all its history is under another title and you replace the the redirect with your content of choice. Page moves are currently under ArbCom sanction, so you can forget about that.
• You replace the current content (the article about the state) with your preferred content in a regular edit, but don't reproduce the current content elsewhere in article space. If you do this, you leave the project without an article about the state of Ireland, and many thousands of links that lead to the wrong place. Clearly that will not be acceptable to the community, as an article with a less-than-ideal disambiguator is much better than no article at all. So you would be reverted per WP:BRD, and rightly so.

So, in short, no matter how hard you try to there is nothing you or anyone else can do to resolve this in isolation, the only way you are going to get this page moved is to engage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, form a consensus there, and get ArbCom's pagemove ban lifted. Anything else will get reverted because of GFDL issues or because you have removed key content from the encyclopaedia. Rockpocket 00:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The short bit - If the RoI article is not to be moved to "Ireland", I agree with the compromise proposal that:

• the RoI article to "Ireland (state)";
• the island article to "Ireland (island)"; and
• "Ireland" be a DAB.

For those who wish to read on:

There are a bunch of states that have geographic names that do not fully correspond with their borders – Examples:

• Luxembourg – The state of that name does not include Luxembourg (Belgium);
• Mongolia – The state of that name does not include Inner Mongolia;
• Samoa – The state of that name does not include American Samoa;
• Solomon Islands – The state of that name does not include the North Solomon Islands;
• South Africa – The state of that name does not include lots of places in South Africa such as Swaziland;

....The names of all of the above states have Wikipedia articles that follow their usual names.Why is Ireland being singled out? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And there are states where, like Ireland/Republic of Ireland, the opposite is the case. E.g.:

• China/People's Republic of China/Taiwan/Republic of China
• Congo/Democratic Republic of the Congo/Republic of Congo
• Korea/North Korea/South Korea
• Micronesia/Federated States of Micronesia

As we all know, too, hardly any articles on states on WP are located at their "official" names. This discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Nobody is "singling" Ireland out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you back Rock, after walking away being unable to support your arguements. "maintain attribution for licensing reasons" is just another bottle of smoke. You admit that this article is about the State, therefore it is not about the "RoI." It is you who has the option of a page move for the current text. Now you could move it to the Ireland article, and then wait for the ArbCom to come back with a responce. The fact that without any decision yet being made, your prefared option is already in place. If you do this you don't leave the project without an article about the state of Ireland. You still have not provide any sources to support your opinion that Ireland is ambiguous. It's all based on opinion, editors opinion. What if ArbCom come back and say that Ireland is not ambiguous, and no sources have been provided to support the arguement, were as there is tons of references saying the opposit. Having admitted that this article is currently about the State, which it is not, the onus is on you to come up with a solution on were the current text goes to. Does the text that was removed address the needs of the article title, having accepted that it is currently about the State well then it must. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the name of the island? Mooretwin (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Jebus, I go away for a couple of days and all hell breaks loose.

• Domer had written an article here on the talk page about (mainly) the term Republic of Ireland and the use/misuse of it and Ireland. I thought it was worthy of an article in and of itself (even if there was really only a single source) and created it at Republic of Ireland (term). And went away.
• Domer's fellow-traveller BigDunc arrived post-haste and prod'ed the new article, with a reason of "This is a content fork all this content is already covered and if not will be in other articles. This is disruptive with ongoing discussions about the name."
• Obviously realising that that reason was a bit silly ("and if not will be"?! Nice prescience. And Domer couldn't do his cut/paste move if people from his camp were already calling it disruptive...) BigDunc removed the prod.
• Rockpocket commented that Names of the Irish state already covered much of the content. Correct, I'd forgotten that article. My bad. A lot of Domer's article could be incorporated there.
• Tfz redirected Republic of Ireland (term) to here with an explanation of "absolute pov-fork".
  • I fail to understand how an article on the term and its use is a pov-fork. But obviously, having the article extant didn't fit in with Domer's plans.
• Domer - in full knowledge of the Arbcom process, which he had participated in - carried out the cut/paste moves, got blocked, and got unblocked after promising not to do so again.
• Domer is still looking for "evidence" that there is ambiguity around Ireland.
  • Most of you will probably have hovered over the previous link to check whether I'd pipelinked to the article on the island or the state. Point proven.
• It has once again been pointed out that many (most?) 'state' articles do not reside at their official name. Yet nobody seems to be insisting that the articles on France, Germany or Mexico should be about the descriptive terms rather than be articles on the French Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, or United Mexican States, respectively. Why should Ireland be different?
• Bottom line, Arbcom have - for better or worse - put a process in place, ignoring that process is not helpful, and participating there rather than here (and several other places) would save everyone a lot of time and energy. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason I removed the prod and I said as such was I felt that it didn't meet the requirements namely article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate it wasn't and I had intended to bring it to AfD but it had been redirected si I left it no more no less, so please show some assumption of good faith instead of trying to muddy the waters with your fellow-traveller comment. BigDunc^Talk 09:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The name of the island is Ireland Mooretwin, now what is your point? What does the name of the island have to do with this Article being about the Irish State? Now is no one going to address the issue? Is stonewalling the order of the day? We have Rock admitting that this Article is currently about the State. Is there anyone suggesting that RoI is the name of the Irish State, provide references? Bastun, read WP:TPG, and try offer something useful to the discussion, I know it involves actually finding references but hey I did it. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So, if you accept that the name of the island is Ireland, why do you apparently not comprehend the need for disambiguation? Do you understand that there cannot be two articles on Wikipedia under the same name? (Or, alternatively, have you recently had a brainwave and decided that it would be "clever" to start arguing disingenuously that this article is not about the state?)

Here's another question for you: what is it that the "official description" is describing? Mooretwin (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The name of the island is Ireland. The name of the state is Ireland. Therefore disambiguation is necessary. The article titles to be used to actually render this disambiguation are being discussed at the project. Please participate there. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

-Domers statement at the project said exactly the same thing. He seems to think Ireland is not ambiguous but he accepts there is an Ireland called Ireland and a country called Ireland. It doesnt make sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No. "Republic of Ireland" is fine as it is a commonly used term when referring to the 26 counties, aswell as being the official name. Whatever is done though, do not move it to Ireland (state) as that would give the impression to some that Ireland isn't a free country, instead a dominion of Britain.--FF3000 (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland is the description of the country, its not the official name (thats Ireland). I agree in part about confusion caused if we put (state) but this is not the place for that debate. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration where this matter is being resolved and join in there. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is written in the constitution that it is the official name.--FF3000 (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland? I was under the impression that "Éire" or "Ireland" was the official name: Article 4 of the Irish constitution adopted in 1937 provides that: "The name of the state is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."[3] The Constitution's English-language preamble also described the population as "We, the people of Éire". The Republic of Ireland Act enacted in 1948 makes clear that the "Republic of Ireland" is a description and not a name of the state. Ireland (in English) and Éire (in Irish) remain its two official names. Regardless, the correct place for this discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)