Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:36, 28 May 2009

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:IECOLL-talk

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Irish republicanism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:V0.5

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 29, 2004 and December 29, 2005.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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 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 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 , commonly referred to as the Republic of Ireland)", or, instead of the current sentence: "It is 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 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 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: ) 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. Thus, it is described as the "Republic of Ireland" 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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"...

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's Ireland article, i.e. the wrong one. Republic of Ireland isn't mentioned by Wolfram Alpha -- either as a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's weird naming scheme. (Weirdly, Guyana is mentioned, but that's Wolfram Alpha for you :) ).

Surely this is a high-profile example of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

When the Ireland Act had been passed Attlee the British priminister 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 Dáil Éireann, while introducing the bill John A. Costello stressed that it did not purport to amend the constitution of 1937:

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Ireland articles
• Top-importance Ireland articles
• B-Class Ireland articles of Top-importance
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• B-Class Irish republicanism articles
• Top-importance Irish republicanism articles
• WikiProject Irish republicanism articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused
• Selected anniversaries (December 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2005)