Talk:Names of the Irish state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ireland (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Eire and Ulster in newspaper headlines[edit]

You only have to look at Google News pretty much any day of the week! --Red King 12:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


Fair enough. Gaeilgeoirs in so many English papers, who would have thought?

Lapsed Pacifist 12:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree somewhat with LP on this one, their is approx 135 instances of "Eire" in Google News, 15 are of these are "Eire Og" (Google does not appear to respect the "fada"), additionally their are 2,280 instances of "Republic of Ireland", 38,000 of Ireland, 584 of "Irish Republic" - some of these stories are of historical nature and this should be taken into account. Using Eire for the Republic of Ireland football team is pure idleness, moreover my honest belief is that "Eire" is often used purely out of incompetence, if not sectarianism. Theirfore I would be reserved in my use of Eire. Djegan 19:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course its idleness, and arguably incompetence. That was precisely my point. Without the footnote, the article is being too precious. Yes, their are certainly cases where "Eire" (sic) and Ulster are used with malice aforethought. But the vast majority of cases are innocent, alebit culpably so. I have been asked a few times "Are you from southern Ireland", which I take as meaning "Aroo from Cork?" before realising the question meant "not Northern Ireland". The questioner had never heard of Southern Ireland. --Red King 22:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Names of Ireland[edit]

For an informal merger discussion see Wikipedia_talk:Irish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Names_of_Ireland.

Djegan 20:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cropped euro coin.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Cropped euro coin.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cropped euro coin.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Cropped euro coin.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We, the people of Éire,[edit]

I am unhappy with this edit [1]. The preamble to the 1937 Irish Constitution in English says "We, the people of Éire," rather than "We, the people of Ireland," where the Irish starts "Ar mbeith dúinne, muintir na hÉireann,".[2][3] This should be mentioned as it points to Éire being an acceptable word in English. In addition, another point is that Article 4 says "Éire is ainm don Stát nó, sa Sacs-Bhéarla, Ireland" in Irish and "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland" in English (with italics as in the original) rather than the more natural "The name of the State is Ireland, or, in the Irish language, Éire", and so fails explicitly to present Éire as being an exclusively Irish usage. --Rumping (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a misinterpretation. The 1937 Constitution declared that the first language of the state is Irish, with English as a second language. So the primary name is Éire, since that is its name in the first language. The Article then proceeds to give the name in the second language - Ireland. Remember that each version is a direct translation of the other. Thus in all legistlation (which must exist in both languages), the name Éire (or na hÉireann) is always used in the Irish version and the name Ireland (or of Ireland) is always used in the English version. I suggest you read the article Éamon de Valera to understand the background and context to this. --Red King (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Always? So what is "We, the people of Éire," a translation of? What language is it in? Why can it not be mentioned in the article? --Rumping (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Rumping. As per the use–mention distinction, the preamble uses "Éire" while Article 1 merely mentions "Éire". The latter can arguably be justified on the first-national-language argument; the former cannot. Éire in the preamble is a relic of Dev's initial support for the idea of using the Irish name in English, which he thought better of when Britain started using the name in an exclusively partitionist sense. The 1996 review advocated using Ireland in the preamble and rewording Article 1 more simply. This is all very relevant. jnestorius(talk) 11:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow? --Red King (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The preamble says "We, the people of Éire,...". Article 5 says "Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state." Why does Article 5 not say "Éire is a sovereign, independent, democratic state." Alternatively, why does the preamble not state "We, the people of Ireland,...". jnestorius(talk) 08:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
""Éire" while Article 1 merely mentions "Éire"." -- did it use Eire -- when? Any references? Djegan (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant 'Article 4 mentions "Éire"'. jnestorius(talk) 07:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
But the words Éire and Ireland have identical meaning: Ireland (island). As of Article 1, the name of the state has yet to be defined so it must not be assumed that the Article is using the word Éire to mean the state as opposed to the island as a whole. Given Dev's politics, I would be astonished if it were not the latter. He wanted to assert that the name Éire is historic and predates 1000 years of English interference. In all honesty, it seems to me that this analysis of the text and sub-text is searching for hidden meanings that were never considered, and missing the obvious.--Red King (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It also says

Article 9

1.      1°   On the coming into operation of this Constitution any person who was a citizen of Saorstát Éireann immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution shall become and be a citizen of Ireland.

So is "Saorstát Éireann" (Irish Free State) also a legitimate expression to be used in English? --Red King (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Good question. The answer today is No, but back then it was Yes. Searching the Oireachtas debates for 1936 gives 5367 matches for 'Saorstát' versus 4107 for 'Free State'. jnestorius(talk) 07:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

This should be Republic of Ireland (name) or something similar as thats what it deals with -- Republic of Ireland. Djegan (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. The name of the state is Ireland. 'Republic of' is a description to put beyond doubt that it is not subject to the Crown (of England). Please read Republic of Ireland Act. --Red King (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It was at Names of the Irish state before a couple of moves which can only be undone by an administrator --Rumping (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The article has been moved back to Names of the Irish state, but not the Talk: page; probably just an oversight. jnestorius(talk) 11:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I've fixed that. Things are now back to the status quo ante (12 August). Complaints over the ill-advised "toponymy" move spree go to User talk:Neelix please. --dab (𒁳) 15:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ireland48cstamp.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Ireland48cstamp.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Rationale added but source needed. Original uploader is retired. ww2censor (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


Colloquial names[edit]

Originally, the last section covered colloquial terms used by Irish people for their country - that is, what they actually call themselves in real life. This was a very important section, because it emphasised that the naming controversy discussed above is largely irrelevant to ordinary Irish people. Now someone has inserted a lot of quotes from the style guides of British newspapers. How are these relevant to this important section? Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-Dab material removed from Dab Ireland (disambiguation)[edit]

Of the following group of entries, only the first is a reasonable contender for the title "Ireland":

The island has formerly been subject to a number of political arrangements (arranged in reverse chronological order):

  • Irish Free State, the name, from 1922 to 1937, of the state comprising 26 of Ireland's 32 counties
  • Irish Republic, the unilaterally declared independent state between 1919 and 1922, also sometimes wrongly used to describe the current state
  • Southern Ireland, the 26-county Irish state envisaged by the Government of Ireland Act 1920
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the name of the state of which Ireland formed a part between 1801 and 1922
  • Kingdom of Ireland, the name given to the Irish state from 1541 to 1801.
  • Lordship of Ireland, a nominally all-island Irish state created in the wake of the Norman invasion of the east coast of Ireland in 1169
  • Gaelic Ireland, the political order that existed in Ireland prior to the Norman invasion

The rest of them are aspects of Ireland (the island) that are appropriate to find via the Ireland article, the accompanying article Names of the Irish state, or perhaps something along the lines of List of Irish states, Succession of sovereignties in Ireland, or possibilities i probably still wouldn't blunder onto if i kept listing possibilities.
I've moved those entries to this talk page rather than just discarding them where they don't belong, in the hope that the work of compiling them will not be wasted if the accompanying article (which is now a see-also entry on the Dab'n page for "Ireland") doesn't leave them redundant, and to draw attention to the possibility that there are roles, valid for WP but which were misplaced onto the Dab page, that should be provided for on new or existing pages.
--Jerzyt 07:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of info on the football team and the passport[edit]

Is the football team and the passport not notable? funny, I thought the football was one of the best in the world and the passport was one of the most unique in the world. Silly me that must be crap I don't understand. ~ R.T.G 14:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(moved from my Talk page)
Do not remove well sourced and relevent info such as related to the national football team and the Irish passport being unrestricted over the island[4][5]. What are you doing? If the passport bearing the states name goes outside the bounds of other legislation bearing the states name, that is not for you removing. If the football team is commonly refered to as either name, that is not for removing. If you want to discuss that do so on the talk page Talk:Names of the Irish state thanks. ~ R.T.G 14:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have trouble understanding your English. What exactly does your point about the passport have to do with the Name of the state? Likewise, what exactly does your point about the name of the association football team have to do with the name of the state? Your meandering additions to the article add nothing. I removed your additions as per WP:BRD - I suggest you familiarize yourself with this policy. Finally, keep off my Talk page. Any page I edit is on my watch list. --HighKing (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the football team names are notable and should be restored. --Rumping (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

@Highking, I said that what you did was crappy (wasteful) and I didn't understand. I shouldn't like to point such clear language out as it can be construed incivil when stressed, can it not? You understand perfectly, do you not, the edits cited were rubbishing the info? Well, the football team, the passport, and the island, they are important stuffs, older and more respected than you or I. Alter by all means (and cite the passport why don't you? I suspect it is not within your interest perhaps?). The team is a state institution. I am sorry if you think that is final. I assure you, I do not get the scent from you, like. Oh I mean, don't worry, it is unlikely you will gather my interest again is it? Yeah sure, I will note your preferences, now in a minute, thanks for the personal notes. ~ R.T.G 16:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

copied from another user talk:

Hi, you recently reverted an edit where I reverted a user trying to insert the following into an article: The state's national football team, while often referred to (including by itself) as "Ireland", officially plays as the "Republic of Ireland" because Northern Ireland also fields a team in international competitions and in 1954 FIFA was no longer prepared to tolerate two teams called "Ireland". Can you help me understand why you believe that this is relevant in the article? It appears in the "official description" section, but it has nothing to do with the official description. Is there some dispute over the description and you're using the football team as an example of something? Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The name of the national football team which plays its home games in Dublin is the "Republic of Ireland". It is the representative team of the state which has its capital in Dublin, so its name is relevant to the question of the name of the Irish state. In fact the point was in the article for some time before you were "bold" twice today[6][7] though I do not think your edit summaries fairly described what you did.--Rumping (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but what has any of that got to do with the name of the national association football team? It is the representative team of Ireland, for sure, but are you trying to state that the name of the team somehow affects the name of the state or vice versa? --HighKing (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
It is an example of a particular use which had to deal with the state/island distinction and therefore relevant. Compare with the Ireland national rugby union team, which is also a representative team, but of a larger Ireland (the Ireland international rules football team and Ireland cricket team are similar to the rugby team). --Rumping (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
So to be clear, this is being used as an example where the description of the state is being used to disambiguate between the name of the island and the name of the state? If this the correct understanding, let's split it out into it's own section and make the point more clearly. At the moment it's just not that clear why the point is being made. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Removal is denialism. Djegan (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Insightful. Still, it'd be great if someone would actually answer the question asked rather than sly personal digs. --HighKing (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
It's easy for you to say that. Sarah777 (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Simply put, it is related to Names of the Irish state. You want to suggest that football should be left out here because football is not notable? When was the last time that the national stadium was not sold out to a match of international football? Surely there is some way that people make their support of football notable and if one per cent of the population arrives for limited seats at every match..? Will I cite some of this stuff? ~ R.T.G 18:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well ... I'd much rather if you didn't presume to attribute incorrect motives to me. I am not suggesting that football is not notable. I'm suggesting that the entire point is irrelevant to this section of the article, which is describing the official description of the state. If the article was about the football team itself and was describing how the name of the team was decided, this point is notable. Or if the article had a section describing how the description of the state is used as a name for certain objects or organizations, then this could be included as a notable point. But to lump it into a section that is describing the Act and the description makes no sense and is irrelevant. While I believe I now understand why other editors feel that the point may be notable, it should moved to an appropriate section. --HighKing (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Then you move into the place it is relevant or leave it alone. Delete stuff that is incorrect or unsuitable for the article. Counter productivity will not get the job done. "I'd much rather if you didn't presume to attribute incorrect motives to me" - it's getting off the topic now, that is an wikt:obscure remark with no bearing on this article, qoute the attribution of your motives because I do not see it. ~ R.T.G 23:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Stuff as you call it, that is deemed irrelevant and off-topic, will be obviously removed. If you take the time to follow the discussion above, you'll see that there is an obvious and good faith attempt being made on my part to understand why the football team name is relevant. So far, none of the editors that claim it is relevant have tried to answer my straight-forward questions, and I'm in the dark. I've made a suggestion as to why it might be relevant, but it would be nice if you could confirm. And I also answered your query already on your "presumptuousness" - once again I invite you to read what has already been said above (hint:notability of football), or use spectacles to "see" it. That way both our times will be less wasted, and more productive. --HighKing (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The football team is very popular in Ireland you know. They represent the state. They got knocked out last time but they are world class. We love them here in Ireland. Roy Keane? Robbie Keane? Eamonn Dunphy? Jackie Charlton? Ooh ahh Paul Mcgrath? They're worth it Highking. Who is more worth it? ~ R.T.G 07:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Moving on...: We currently have 3 sections: Official name; Official description; European Union. The UN is mentioned in the "official name" section since the UN calls the state by its official name; FIFA is mentioned in the "official description" section since FIFA calls the state's team by the state's official description. The EU is separate because it's more complex. IMO, HighKing's concerns can be addressed and the article improved by removing the UN and FIFA mentions into an expanded EU section renamed something like "International practice", explaining how various international organisations currently and previously refer to the state.Other titbits for this section would be the following, which I can't yet source:

  • IOC: The OCI boycotted the 1936 Olympics because they weren't allowed compete as "Ireland"
  • IAAF: Irish athletics (BLÉ and predecessors) had to compete as "Éire" till c.1980

Some of this overlapped with Irish bodies claiming 32-county jurisdiction. I'm also unhappy that calling the state "Eire" is being presented as a purely British practice. I've seen "Eire" described in French and German reference books as the former name for the Republic of Ireland. Feel free to prove the Brits spread that canard. jnestorius(talk) 01:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Some claim that Tara was a place where European kings were crowned and in German Deutsche Europe sounds Air-ope like Eire but I cannot recall that good source for the Euro-kings study. I think this page could be moved to Names of Irish states for a better article, any opinions on that? ~ R.T.G 18:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolution and the Belfast Agreement[edit]

I don't really think the Belfast Agreement actually resolved anything on the name of the Irish state. It talked about the Government of Ireland and the Constitution of Ireland, a body and a document, but it did not seem to use a name for the state or the geographical area which is that part of the island of Ireland which is not Northern Ireland. By contrast, Northern Ireland was mentioned frequently and United Kingdom occasionally. A star to anyone who can find something better at [8] which is clearer and more explicit than either South as in "North and South", or the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution meaning the territory of the pre-1937 Irish Free State. --Rumping (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right, Rumping. If anything the document gives stronger precedence to the island of Ireland and Northern Ireland both terms capitalised as such when they appear. It says Irish Government not Government of Ireland (these people are smart). It reaffirms the right to Irish citizenship any part of the island. Contrary dispute is a) seperatist to the point of social exclusion and b) militant to the point of claiming ground on a fought for in blood basis. These are ridiculous and are ideals that surely predate the people of Ireland such as shouting "woof" and running. The rest of it is stuff like "We will meet and talk about all things that are best for Northern Ireland." "We will not be killing each other." "We will be equal people." and "We will not nick all the funds the minute we get them." As like any good legal documents do as well as stuff specific to people in specific situations. ~ R.T.G 16:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Striking, to be fair, a lot of it was fought and died for. I can't get this arguments for dulling of the islands title. Sorry and not the first time in some days now. There was no naming dispute to resolve, Rumping. It's rare Irish will object the republic because people who died for the country named it so. It is a title deserving not imposed. Any judge taking a snipe at a British document is just that and nothing more. ~ R.T.G 08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move to Names of Irish states[edit]

There has never been a the Irish state. There is of course one today that may be seen as "The State Ireland" (close but not the whole biscuit). ~ R.T.G 18:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I recommend Names of Ireland - if anything. Djegan (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Good gods. No, thank you, RTG. -- Evertype· 19:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there a the Irish state? If not, is the title accurate? Any pros and cons? ~ R.T.G 02:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a relatively small semantic issue, probably best to leave alone. Could also suggest "Historic names of Ireland (state)" for example....  :-) --HighKing (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Whats historic about it? The state still exists. Djegan (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately it should be Names of Ireland (preferred) or Names of the Republic of Ireland. No Names of Ireland (state) nonsense. Djegan (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Names of the Republic of Ireland? What a hilariously ironic suggestion!213.202.176.154 (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is Names of Ireland (state) 'nonsense'? I'd prefer Names of Ireland, but that's obviously ambiguous, also referring to the island.hippo43 (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Because neither the constitution nor the law do call the place "Ireland (state)". Disambiguation in this manner is just a nonsense and shambles. The place is more than just a state, its a people with shared culture, economy, history, etc - it is also a country and nation. A job worth doing, is a job worth doing right - so it should be "Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland". Djegan (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, why is disambiguation nonsense (and a shambles)? Disambiguation is commonly used throughout wikipedia and seems useful when a word refers to a country and an island which are not synonymous. Names of Ireland is ambiguous. Names of the Republic of Ireland is problematic because the Republic of Ireland is not a name, is one of the various terms discussed in the article and only refers to the state (as a description) fairly recently. In any case, this article is about the names of the state, not the people, nation, culture, economy etc. hippo43 (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Considering the state was founded in 1922, with the present name since 1937, and with the present description since 1949 - I would hardly refer to the description as "fairly recently". Djegan (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The article refers to names for Ireland from 1171, well before Ireland existed as a republic, so 1949 is 'fairly recently'.hippo43 (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
So it is an article on Ireland, not just the state. The state did not exist before 1922. Djegan (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The current state did not exist before 1922. The article covers older names for the state/s that previously existed on the island. 'Lordship of Ireland', for example, does not refer to the island/people/culture etc.hippo43 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
How richly ironic. You argue that Names of Ireland (state) is nonsense and argue that neither the constitution or law call the place "Ireland (state)", and then you argue for using "Republic of Ireland" instead (which neither the constitution or law name it either). Made me laugh. --HighKing (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This is pretty immature, but so amusing all the same!--Theosony (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I am still laughing at your "historic..." suggestion. Djegan (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Only because you misread what I suggested. The "historic" part refers to the names. Most people seemed to get it - not sure why you didn't. And the reason to suggest "historic" is because there is only one name for the Irish state, therefore (by process of logic), the rest are historic :-). --HighKing (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe your still laughing, but moving on to a more mature footing... There are still many people who use "Irish Republic", "Eire", "Southern Ireland", "Republic of Ireland" as the name - they are hardly "historic" names, they are very much current. The colloquial names section for instance is a reminder of how past names are anything but historic. Djegan (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why 'historic' is funny - yes, the state still exists, but has had many names throughout history - I'm fairly sure that's what HighKing meant.hippo43 (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, to discuss the naming of the Ireland article visit this place where all of my views are set out. I am just going to ask here, if nobody manages to use the word Irish in this debate except me and the articles title, are we politically biased? and, Anybody discussing a move from singular to plural? ~ R.T.G 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I Oppose any move of this article. The name of the article is very clear and appropriate. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Irish Government use of "Republic of Ireland"[edit]

It seems that the Irish Government often uses "Republic of Ireland", usually when it wishes to distinguish Northern Ireland, though not always even in that case. A wide variety of examples from different departments include [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. A Google search of the phrase "Ireland and Northern Ireland" turn up a variety of pages,[18] some of which use "Republic of" and other which do not - there does not seem to be a pattern of when it is used and when not, except when some other word can be used such as "Fáilte Ireland and Northern Ireland Tourist Board". It also seems that international agreements in the second half of 1949 and the first half of 1950 were signed by the "Government of the Republic of Ireland".[19][20] I would guess that a decision was then made to return to "Government of Ireland".--Rumping (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to what Rumping says, here are some hits for "We are an island nation" including many from the president and the taioseach -

~ R.T.G 15:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We are a nation that is located on an island. Therefore we are an island nation. We may share part of the island with another nation but that still doesn't change the fact that we are an island nation. No slip of the tongue for Biffo, lawyer trained and all that. No one is suggesting that the nation is the island, just that the nation is on one! Snappy (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
We are are an island planet, Snappy, but you have a good point there. The constitution makes many reference to "people" of the "island" before making mention of the state. I always think it is unfair to consider any as the Irish state so long as there is not only one. One was named with the design that it be the entire Irish state and the other that it be a seperate rish state. I think use of the term "Northern" is quite trivial regarding who gets to be Irish or not (also backed up in the constitution of both those states) but use of the term "Irish" in an exclusive manner may be less trivial to the ambiguity of that term. If this one is ipso de facto Irish the other one follows as not, raising a question. "Republic" is a description of the type of state that the independant one was founded as. ~ R.T.G 15:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I won't pretend to comperehend all of what User:RTG has said nor do I care to speak to all points I might understand - But Re. "it is unfair to consider any as the Irish state so long as there is not only one" - I've heard this sort of thing said before. I would try to put those willing to listen straight: - Northern Ireland is not a state (merely part of one). The UK is a state - the British state. There is only one Irish state - Ireland (or call it what you will if you have an issue with its name!). Ireland is the Irish state. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
That is a controversial matter. There is certainly more than one state on the island be a whole or in part. Britain is also an island. The "state" you speak of is a commonwealth, a pact of freindship and money, no state is called the "British State". There are "British Commonwealth States" not a "The British Commonwealth State". The United Kingdom is a unity of states brought about under the influence of royalty (kingdom). Is it any more sensible now? There is more than one state pertaining to be Irish however strong you view that Irishness to be. ~ R.T.G 14:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
How is it controlversial to say that the UK is a state and England, Scotland, Wales and NI are not states? Does anyone seriously disagree?
As for "British Commonwealth States" - Hadn't heard of it before - sounds interesting - any sources/references or articles on this expression? Who are these British Commonwealth States?
As to "No state is called the "British State" - Indeed, its the UK but what nationality is on its passports?....You seem to think it can be argued that Northern Ireland, Scotalnd, Wales and England are states...when clearly they are not. By your logic, I suppose Munster might be regarded as a state - like England, it was an ancient kingdom after all. Might I ask you a question, do you think Munster is a state? If not, why not? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way I fully agree that "[t]here is more than one state pertaining to be[ing] Irish". Nothing controversial in that. Lots of states have significant Irish populations and connections - clearly the UK is one such state; Australia; the USA and Argentina strike me as others. I cannot see that that is relevant to what I was discussing though - that there is only one Irish state and that Northern Ireland is not a state, rather part of one. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Redking7, it is very complicated what you are saying. You are saying that that which is a nation is not a state or are you? Nations with a signifigant Irish population obviously do not fall into the same category as nations which are in Ireland. Of course I would claim that the ancient nations are/were states. Irish law sets it out clearly that if his name be Jim (let us say) that does not make him a Jim, one of many Jims or the Jim. He is the republic of Jim but like her majesty her self likes to sign the name as plain old Jim regardless of any titles befitting or earned. Titles are for books and encyclopaedias to provide. ~ R.T.G 17:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Re. Of course I would claim that the ancient nations are/were states. - I guess that means you think Munster is a state. Enough said. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Look if you are just going to tell people they are dumm clear off ~ R.T.G 11:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Did I start a section above suggesting that there have been many Irish states historically? If you didn't know what on earth I am talking about and come this far on the talk with me... what are you replying to? If you are having a laugh go to cabal rouge or youtube. ~ R.T.G 11:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Explicitly recognised?[edit]

What does "Explicitly recognise" mean, in the context of this passage? :-

His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom has considered the position created by the new Constitution ... of the Irish Free State, in future to be described under the Constitution as 'Eire' [sic] or 'Ireland' ... [and] cannot recognize that the adoption of the name 'Eire' or 'Ireland', or any other provision of those articles [of the Irish constitution], involves any right to territory ... forming part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ... They therefore regard the use of the name 'Eire' or 'Ireland' in this connection as relating only to that area which has hitherto been known as the Irish Free State.

To my mind, discussing a document by quoting words used in it does not amount to endorsing it. jnestorius(talk) 01:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No question arises about "endorsement". The article does not state that the UK government "endorsed" any name. What it does mean is that the UK government "explicitly recognised" that "Ireland" and "Eire" were offical names under the Irish constitution for the newly refounded state. Later the UK government chose to use only the term "Eire" for the state. I've removed the dubious tag because its not needed. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, there. It acknowledged that those were the names used in the constitution, and it rejected the idea that they conveyed a right to Northern Ireland.
"In the communiqué, the British government explicitly recognised the two names Ireland and Éire and, implicitly, their identical meaning [...] Despite this initial response, the British government quickly decided to refer to the state only as "Eire" and not Ireland."
In diplomatic parlance, "recognising" is endorsing; "noting" is acknowledging the existence of something without endorsing or condemning it. The "Despite" at the start of the second sentence suggests the later actions contradicted the purport of the initial communiqué. I can't see any contradiction between noting that two names are used in a particular document and deciding to use one and not the other in one's own documents. I have removed the interpretive sentences and left just the facts. If you have a cited source that backs up your interpretation, fair enough. The Guardian's headline "Britain accepts new name for the Free State" is a little vague but I've mentioned it. jnestorius(talk) 22:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Have amended wording to address concern of endorsement etc. The Guardian Headline was in a footnote as a source material and has been put back there. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The point about promoting the Guardian title from the footnote is that it offers a modicum of support for the claim that the British government "recognised" the new name(s). I also don't see the point of the sentence "implicitly recognised that the two names had an identical meaning". As far as I can see, this sentence is either contentious, if it's interpreting the ensuing quote; or vacuous, if it's paraphrasing the quote. Just let the quote speak for itself. jnestorius(talk) 07:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, for clarity and to keep things as simple as I can, I reproduce here the few sentences we are discussing and add in what I can to clarify things for you:

The statement in Article 4 "The name of the state is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland" giving the state the names of the island in both Irish and English was another anti-partitionist attempt to lay claim to the whole of the island.[Not disputed by you I think][1] In response to the new constitution, the British government published a communiqué on 30 December 1937, the day after the constitution took effect.[Not disputed by you I think] In the communiqué, the British government recognised that the new constitution gave the Irish state two names Ireland or Éire.[Do you dispute this? If you do - I do not know why, here are a few words from the UK Gov. communique below...in future to be described under the Constitution as 'Eire' [sic] or 'Ireland ]' It also implicitly recognised that the two names had an identical meaning, [You appear to think this is controversial - I do not know why you think that - For starters, have a look at this: [43] and in particular paragraph 3 and 4 of that Canadian Government Circular - which says, inter alia, "The United Kingdom Government, in a statement published on December 30, 1937, recognized implicitly the identical meaning of the names "Ireland" and "Eire""] by declaring:[2][3]

"His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom has considered the position created by the new Constitution ... of the Irish Free State, in future to be described under the Constitution as 'Eire' [sic] or 'Ireland' ... [and] cannot recognize that the adoption of the name 'Eire' or 'Ireland', or any other provision of those articles [of the Irish constitution], involves any right to territory ... forming part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ... They therefore regard the use of the name 'Eire' or 'Ireland' in this connection as relating only to that area which has hitherto been known as the Irish Free State."

After this initial response, the British government quickly decided to refer to the state only as "Eire" and not Ireland. The British government finessed Article 4 and ignored Articles 2 and 3: if the Irish constitution said the name of the state in the national language was Éire, then that (written as "Eire") was what the British government would call it.[4] By doing so, it avoided any need to call the Irish state, in the English language, Ireland.[5] The change of name effected by the 1937 constitution (but not the other constitutional changes), was given effect in United Kingdom law in the Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Act 1938. Under Section 1 of that Act, it was declared that (for the purposes of United Kingdom legislation) the territory "which was ... known as Irish Free State shall be styled as ... Eire".[6] [OK - Hope, this clarifies things. Re the Guardian headline, I think you'll agree, sticking a headline into the article did not work. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)]

Okay, thanks for taking the time on this. The Canadian document is exactly the kind of cited source I was talking about. I'm sorry I hadn't read it before. I've added an extra cite at the relevant clause to make its relevance more obvious. I've also deleted the Guardian ref altogether as I don't see what it adds to the other references. jnestorius(talk) 22:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Good. But the Guardian ref is a further source for the fact that the Communique was made. There is no reason to delete it. Multiple sources are preferable to one. I've added it back in. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Eire"[edit]

I'm not very comfortable with the presentation of the discrepancy between the correct "Éire" and the foreign use of "Eire". While the latter is undoubtedly incorrect, we must avoid suggesting it is egregiously ignorant, still less a calculated snub. There is no evidence that either is the case. Consider the following points:

I'm unsure what kind of rephrasing might be done, or what sources might be cited. jnestorius(talk) 20:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No objection can be raised to the use of Roman characters instead of Gaeilge ones in the spelling of "Eire". But in the former, one should dot the letter "i", and in the latter one should draw a síne fada on the letter "E"; but not both in either characters.[..] Only once before has the "i" been dotted, that is in 1952 on the Thomas Moore issue, but the "E" in that case was left untouched.
I was not born in Ireland [... I] care not if Eire be spelt with or without fada and have no political axe to grind.
jnestorius(talk) 01:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Dáil Éireann - Volume 226 - 28 February, 1967; Industrial Training Bill, 1965: From the Seanad.
    • Dr. Hillery: I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:
      Title: In page 3, lines 8 and 10, “TRAENALA” deleted and “OILIUNA” substituted.
    • Mr. Ryan: Cá bhfuil an síne fada imithe? Níl aon síne fada ar “TRAENALA” ná ar “OILIUNA”?
    • Dr. Hillery: Níl an síne fada ann mar is príomh-litreacha iad go léir.
    • Mr. Ryan: Feach ar theideal an Bhille féin ar an bpáipéar seo ón Seanad. Tá síne fada ann.
    • Dr. Hillery: Níl sé ar an cheann atá ós mo chóirse.
    • Mr. Ryan: Tá sé ar an cheann seo atá agamsa.
    • Dr. Hillery: Níl ag an Teachta ach na leasuithe. Is Bille é seo.
jnestorius(talk) 01:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
jnestorius(talk) 01:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


I think this is the passage you appear to have a concern with:
After this initial response, the British government quickly decided to refer to the state only as "Eire" and not Ireland. The British government finessed Article 4 and ignored Articles 2 and 3: if the Irish constitution said the name of the state in the national language was Éire, then that (written as "Eire") was what the British government would call it.[7]
You say that "I'm not very comfortable with the presentation of the discrepancy between the correct "Éire" and the foreign use of "Eire". While the latter is undoubtedly incorrect, we must avoid suggesting it is egregiously ignorant, still less a calculated snub. There is no evidence that either is the case." The above wording "(written as Eire)" etc was based on a source I can't find off hand but in any event was certainly intended to be neutral as to motive - I have no source one way or the other on what the motive (if any) was. Have a go at rewording it if you like. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Éire" is a different word than "Éireann" ... right?[edit]

"Éire" is a different word than "Éireann" ... right?

So if Éire is Ireland in English, then is Éireann ... what?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Éireann is the genitive case of Éire. It means "of Ireland". +Angr 06:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Angr.

The Kingdom of France (c. 843-1789), and the Kingdom of the French (1791-1792) were two different countries. The series of Names of the French Kingdom, the Kingdom of France, and the Kingdom of the French in the French Language are analogous to the series of Names of the Irish Republic, the Republic of Ireland, and the Republic of the Irish in the English Language.

Now, Saorstát Éireann has a literal translation of Irish Free State,

So what would be the literal translation of Saorstát na hÉireann ... ?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Both Saorstát Éireann and Saorstát na hÉireann are literally "Free State of Ireland" rather than "Irish Free State" (which would be Saorstát Éireannach). But perhaps the official English name and the official Irish name are not literal translations of each other. +Angr 11:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha!!!!

Thank you.

Éireannach is Irish, and Éireann is Ireland.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

not quite. Éireannach is Irish, and Éireann (or na hÉireann) is Ireland's. --Red King (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of sockpuppet edits by One Night In Hackney[edit]

User One Night In Hackney has made POV edits (POV as they are not backed up by any sources but are clearly divisive in intent), being:

  • calling "Ireland" the "constitutional" name of the state - it is simply "THE" name (there is only one official name for the state", there are no "names" e.g. constitutional and legal or some such. This Edit (backed up by no source) seems intent on spreading confusion;
  • calling the "Republic of Ireland" the "legal" description of the name - See the Republic of Ireland Act - it is not the "legal" description of the State. It is simply "THE" description.

This is, I am afraid, bad faith editing. No point mincing words. 84.203.65.224 (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is the reality. "Official" is meaningless. Only the constitution and the law matter. The constitution says that the name of the state is Ireland. The law (RoI Act) says that its description is that it is a republic, i.e, that it is not subject to any monarch. To say anything else is invention pure and simple. --Red King (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Not just "a republic". The law declared "the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland" (definite article, capital R and I in English, capital P and É in Irish, capital S in both). Many observers would say that any law which changed the head of state, in this case for external purposes, was a constitional law whether or not it amended the Constitution.--Rumping (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The constituttion of Ireland can only be altered by referendum of the people not by legislation.Cathar11 (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, if anyone had thought the law unconstitutional, they could have taken it to the Supreme Court to tested. There were many precedents before and after: the people have been careful to prevent political hubris and the Supreme Court has certainly found against the government on a number of occasions. In this case, even though the large majority favoured the declaration, it would have taken just one person opposed to have tested it. So (a) approval was unanimous or (b) nobody cared or (c) legal advice suggested that it would be fruitless. Nonetheless, it does seem surprising that the matter was not made the subject of a formal referendum: the view that Cosgrave rushed the bill to the House in a fit of pique does seem to have merit. The fact that the Act did not simply say "Ireland is a republic", but instead went for the full-on, in-your-face long form seems to support the pique theory. The contrary view is that an amendment might not pass: there were many who would say that Ireland could not call it self a republic while "part of the national territory" (sic) remained under British control. --Red King (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Things can have names not defined by law. Southern Ireland is a name employed by the English media on occasion. As is Eire, which is not the legal name of the state in English (as decided by the Supreme Court).
WRT HNiH's changing of "official" → "constitutional" and "legal" → "official", I really don't see what the big deal is. It's a question of vocabulary and any which way will do so long as the meaning gets out there.
I think "official" is fine for the name. The state has only one official name, where "official" means: "relating to an authority or public body and its activities and responsibilities" or "having the approval or authorization of such a body". For that reasons, I'd keep "official" for the description also.
It doesn't really matter though - there is no authoritative adjective that accompanies either of these. However, bear in mind what Rumping has to say. To many, the ROI Act would be a "constitutional" law. In Ireland - because we have a very strong codified constitution - we tend to think of there being only one constitutional instrument. This doesn't represent a global view. We should not assume that when we say "constitutional" others will understand that by this we mean the Bunreacht. So "official", in both cases, may be the best way to go. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Most countries have a written constitution. The word 'official' is meaningless: we have what the constitution says and what the law says. Ireland has a constitutional name and a legal description. That's all there is to it. --Red King (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I take no position on whether the previous version was correct. However as is obvious to anyone who is paying attention, the IP editor is known disruptive indef blocked editor Redking7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) evading his block and he will be reverted and blocked on sight. 2 lines of K303 14:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

2 February 10[edit]

I have reverted a huge (500+ chars) reversion by User:OneNightinHackney going back many edits. This threw the baby out with the bath water. However the rights and wrongs of its origins, the article had improved significantly as a result. The text matched the legal and constitutional reality: ONiH's version does not do that. It is completely contrary to the consensus rules to make such a major edit without prior discussion. It does not matter that the change was initiated by a subsequently banned editor: a number of other editors had worked on it since. Before you revert it again, please discuss it here. Which words do you not like and what is your basis for doing so. --Red King (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you weren't in such a rush to disruptively act as a proxy/meatpuppet for an editor unwelcome to edit Wikipedia, you might have actually got something right in what you've written above. If you had checked the history you would find I only reverted changes made by *one* editor, back to the consensus version of 19 January, and the only actual changes made to the article since then were by a disruptive editor using sockpuppets to evade his wholly justified indef block who you are now a proxy/meatpuppet for. If you continue down this road, I'll ensure action is taken against you for it. 2 lines of K303 13:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If you could manage to express yourself without ressorting to insulting ad hominem attacks, I might take you seriously. --Red King (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
However I will accept the opinion of a neutral third party. --Red King (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Opening Sentence[edit]

I note that in recent Edits (over the past few months or less), the opening sentence has been changed for POV reasons. It should read simply as follows (as it did for a long time previuosly):

"The state whose name is Ireland (Irish: Éire) is and has been known by a number of other names, some of which have been controversial."

This article is about the name of the State. Not other things like its description etc. 84.203.65.224 (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The lede sentence is quite clumsy and very poor per WP:LEDE. I've added a new one. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
No you didn't want to summmarise the article in the lead like you're supposed to. You're supposed to remove the hated phrase "Republic of Ireland" which Redking7 hates so much he even piles the pressure on the ever-overloaded Wikimedia servers by editing an article to change [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] to [[Ireland (state)|Ireland]]. Nice job on the new lead, and due to its use as a name (disputed or not) RoI would need to be in there no matter how much Redking7 doesn't like it. 2 lines of K303 14:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Due to its use as a name? That would be British legislation. This is Wikipedia, not Britipedia. --HighKing (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the terms "conventional short form name" and "conventional long form name" (well ok I think I do because I speak Wikpedish, but I don't believe that the man on the Hackney omnibus would). What does the word 'conventional' mean? Is the same as common name?
Let's take the French Republic and the Italian Republic (their respective constitional names). Does 'conventional' mean that they are most often known as France and Italy respectively [and incorrectly: geographic France contains Monaco and the Channel Islands, it does not contain the Overseas Départements; geographic Italy contains San Marino, the Vatican and (arguably) Corsica]. In the case of Ireland, the 'common name' and the 'constitutional name' are both the same, Ireland. [except in the UK, when jounalists use Eire (sic), the Irish Republic (sic!), Southern Ireland (sic), or the Republic of Ireland - and ordinary people just say 'Ireland']. Or are we talking about the UK case where the legal form is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' and the common names are UK and Britain? The former (UKoGB&NI) is not a 'conventional' long form, it is the full legal title. The other two are what I would call common names.
So can we change 'conventional long form' to 'constitutional name' and and 'conventional short name' to common name? --Red King (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The conventional long and short form names are different from the "constitutional" name of a state. Most countries don't explicitly state, 'My name is...' in their constitutions. The constitution of France for example consistently refers to the state as being "France" and never the "French Republic".
The conventional long form and short form names are simply internationally accepted names for the country - only one being merely more of a mouthful than the other. France may like to be referred to as French Republic for the pomp of it but after a while that would grate even on Sarkozy's ears. That's when people switch to the conventional short form. Some countries, like the Czech Republic, have no distinct conventional short form name so, alas, their long form name is the used as their short form name. Other countries, like New Zealand, don't make a fuss with "fancy" names so they have no conventional long name.
We should not change 'conventional long form' → 'constitutional name', not least because it would lead to the sentence that, "The state has no [constitutional name]." --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
So what is a "conventional long form"? Does such exist or is it the OR that I think it is? --Red King (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've found it in the CIA Fact Book cited. So next question: is this nomenclature unique to the CIA? I have never seen it before. --Red King (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Who gives a monkeys about long / short name or the CIA naming convention?Cathar11 (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Czech State has the long-form Name of the Czech Republic, and the short-form Name of Czechia. Google Search: http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0&oq=Czechia&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_en___CA321&q=Czechia Czechia Website: http://www.czechia.org/ ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)IMHO, introducing the current row over Ireland/Republic of Ireland in the lede detracts from what might otherwise be a good article. I'd cut everything between "However... " and "Historically". as it's well covered in the subsequent section concerned with the name dispute. It would also keep the lede short and factual while steering away from potential controversy. --HighKing (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello HighKing.
The crux-of-the-matter is contained in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. The usage of the legal term description as opposed to Name pisses the British Commonwealth of Nations off. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
That's the Commonwealth of Nations & using Republic of Ireland in the content is allowable, as long at the country article has that name. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Historical names[edit]

I've checked the Annals of the Four Masters at http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T100005A/ but can't find any of these names. Am I missing something obvious (because some are well known). --Red King (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about this edit creating the Ancient section, by User:HighKing in May 2009. Perhaps the Annals of the Four Masters statement is missing a bullet and was not intended to cover the other bullet points. Hibernia for example has much older sources. --Rumping (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Whether or which, all of these names lack citation. --Red King (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Name issue again[edit]

I've no real problem with the current name, except that mythological names are included in the article, e.g. Ériu, Fódla, etc, which do not refer to any state in a ny modern sense. Perhaps there could be a split in the article with a new article created at 'Mythological names for Ireland'.

Another issue is that the article deals with the name on an all-Ireland basis, then suddenly from 1921 stops dealing with the north.

Third issue is the 'Irish state' clearly refers to the post-1921 state, not any of the pre-existing states, so the article, if dealing with more than one state (by common usage, the post-1921 one), the title should be pluralised and should also include names of Northern Ireland.

As a proposed solution, there could be a 'Names of Ireland' page giving pre-1921 names, then a split into 'Names of the Irish state' and 'Names of Northern Ireland', similar to what's done with the history articles. - Dalta (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Duplication of content in 'Republic of Ireland (term)'[edit]

I'm not sure why we have the article Republic of Ireland (term). The material it covers is fully covered in this article. The title Republic of Ireland (name) redirects here rather than there. Why does that article exist? It looks like a pointless fork to me. --Red King (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A pointless fork is what it is. I've redirected it. JonCTalk 19:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Reverted pending discussion here. JonCTalk 20:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've merged everything I though was maybe okay and turned it into a redirect. Dmcq (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Eire[edit]

Is it worth making a list of reference books that state that state that "Eire" was the name from 1937 to 1949? The newly published 5th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary can be added to any such list: see Ireland. jnestorius(talk) 18:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would a list of misspellings be interesting? --Red King (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not talking about "Eire vs Éire"; I'm talking about the official name in British law vs the official name in Irish law. There are modern American and French dictionaries which have an entry on Éire or Eire, defined as "the official name for the Republic of Ireland [or even Irish Free State] from 1937 to 1949". For a British dictionary to do so is arguably correct, since it was the official name in Britain. But for other countries, the "official name" should surely be the Irish name, not the British name. jnestorius(talk) 23:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The issue itself is mentioned:

Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "[t]he name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Hence, the Irish state has two official names, Éire (in Irish) and Ireland (in English).

And use of Eire in UK law is discussed in a section of its own.
What would the purpose of making list of books that state that Eire was the name of the state from 1937 to 1949? Any book that says so without qualification is ambigious at best and arguably plain wrong. --RA (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Some errors are widespread enough to be notable in their own right; as full articles (e.g. Category:Urban legends) or as statements in other articles (e.g. Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940)#Resonance hypothesis). I was not suggesting adding a list of books to the article itself; the article would only state something like "many current reference books continue to describe Éire as having been the official name of the state from 1937 to 1949, without specifying that this refers to British law rather than Irish law". The question is how to do this without WP:NOR or WP:SYN. jnestorius(talk) 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
This kind a scenario is something I've often thought about too. It's a bit of a Catch-22. It's not possible to cite any secondary source so it would be WP:NOR or WP:SYN to say that these sources are wrong. At the same time, we wouldn't cite any of these sources because we know they are wrong.
If you really want to include a line about this then I think you'd have to go down the route of WP:IAR. Post a proposal for a sentence here with some example refs and get consensus for its inclusion, regardless of the "rules". Personally, I think the rules are there for a reason and so it takes a better reason to ignore them. I accept the truth of what you are saying, but I don't believe it is important enough to ignore the rules to include.
I'd say if you hang in there, there are actually refs out there that would support something like what you want to include and it is better to wait, find them and cite them in an article than take the easy route, IAR and add an unsourced sentence to the article. --RA (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Document No. 2[edit]

I added the following into the article:

In his 1921 alternative proposal to the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the so-called "Document No. 2", Eamon de Valera was happy to use the name "Ireland" for the five sixths of the island which would form his proposed state.[8] The position he took in terms of state names was subsequently reflected in the contemporary Irish Constitution.

User RashersTierney deleted it on the basis that it was original research and (as I read his comment on my page) not sourced. It was sourced. Document No. 2 is linked to the sentence and Document No. 2 describes the state De Valera envisaged as "Ireland" (not Irish Free State or any other name). I am happy to drop the term "happy" from the sentence in case that suggested he was somehow smiling about the issue or something to that effect. Beyond that, I cannot see how what I have included is objectionable and will add it back in without the "happy" word. Happy to discuss if there is something to discuss. 84.203.65.158 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

'Document No. 2' is a primary source. Your analysis that use of the term 'Ireland' in this case related to "five sixths of the island", and not the entire island, is original research not supported by the source given. 'Happy' is not the issue. RashersTierney (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
In fact, there's direct evidence that Dev was referring to the entire island, seeing as how the Annex mentions Belfast harbour. --HighKing (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Guys - The below is the full text of de Valera's Document No. 2; I have put in bold some text that I make a few points about further below:

PROPOSED TREATY OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN IRELAND AND THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH

In order to bring to an end the long and ruinous conflict between Great Britain and Ireland by a sure and lasting peace honourable to both nations, it is agreed

STATUS OF IRELAND

(1) That the legislative, executive, and judicial authority of Ireland shall be derived solely from the people of Ireland.

TERMS OF ASSOCIATION


(2) That, for purposes of common concern, Ireland shall be associated with the States of the British Commonwealth, viz.: the Kingdom of Great Britain, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa. (3) That when acting as an associate the rights, status, and privileges of Ireland shall be in no respect less than those enjoyed by any of the component States of the British Commonwealth. (4) That the matters of "common concern" shall include Defence, Peace and War, Political Treaties, and all matters now treated as of common concern among the States of the British Commonwealth, and that in these matters there shall be between Ireland and the States of the British Commonwealth "such concerted action founded on consultation as the several Governments may determine." (5) That in virtue of this association of Ireland with the States of the British Commonwealth citizens of Ireland in any of these States shall not be subject to any disabilities which a citizen of one of the component States of the British Commonwealth would no be subject to, and reciprocally for citizens of these States in Ireland. (6) That for purposes of the Association, Ireland shall recognize His Britannic Majesty as head of the Association.

DEFENCE


(7) That, so far as her resources permit, Ireland shall provide for her own defence by sea, land, and air, and shall repel by force any attempt by a foreign Power to violate the integrity of her soil and territorial waters, or to use them for any purpose hostile to Great Britain and the other associated States. (8) That for five years, pending the establishment of Irish coastal defence forces, or for such other period as the Governments of the two countries may later agree upon, facilities for the coastal defence of Ireland shall be given to the British Government as follows (a) In time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are indicated in the Annex hereto or such other facilities as may from time to time be agreed upon between the British Government and the Government of Ireland. (b) In time of war such harbour and other naval facilities as the British government may reasonably require for the purposes of such defence as aforesaid. (9) That within five years from the date of exchange of ratifications of this Treaty a conference shall be held in order to hand over the coastal defence of Ireland to the Irish Government, unless some other arrangement for naval defense be agreed by both Governments to be desirable in the common interest of Ireland, Great Britain and the other associated States. (10) That, in order to cooperate in furthering the principle of international limitation of armaments, the Government of Ireland shall not (a) Build submarines unless by agreement with Great Britain and the other States of the Commonwealth. (b) Maintain a military defence force, the establishments whereof exceed in size such proportion of the military establishments maintained in Great Britain as that which the population of Ireland bears to the population of Great Britain.

MISCELLANEOUS


(11) That the Governments of Great Britain and of Ireland shall make a convention for the regulation of civil communication by air. (12) That the ports of Great Britain and of Ireland shall be freely open to the ships of each country on payment of the customary port and other dues. (13) That Ireland shall assume liability for such share of the present public debt of Great Britain and Ireland and of the payment of war pensions as existing at this date as may be fair and equitable, having regard to any just claims on the part of Ireland by way of set-off or counter-claim, the amount of such sums being determined, in default of agreement, by the arbitration of one or more independent persons being citizens of Ireland or of the British Commonwealth. (14) That the Government of Ireland agrees to pay compensation on terms not less favourable than those proposed by the British Government of Ireland Act of 1920 to that Government's judges, officials, members of Police Forces and other Public Servants who are discharged by the Government of Ireland or who retire in consequence of the change of Government effected in pursuance hereof. Provided that this agreement shall not apply to members of the Auxiliary Police Forces or to persons recruited in Great Britain for the Royal Irish Constabulary during the two years next preceding the date hereof. The British Government will assume responsibility for such payments to any of these excepted persons. (15) That neither the Parliament of Ireland nor any subordinate legislature in Ireland shall make any law so as either directly or indirectly to endow any religion, or prohibit or restrict the free exercise thereof or give any preference or impose any disability on account of religious belief or religious status, or affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending the religious instruction at the school, or make any discrimination as respects State aid between schools under the management of different religious denominations, or divert from any religious denomination or any educational institution any of its property except for public utility purposes and on payment of compensation.

TRANSITIONAL

(16) That by way of transitional arrangement for the administration of Ireland during the interval which must elapse between the date hereof and the setting up of a Parliament and Government of Ireland in accordance herewith, the members elected for constituencies in Ireland since the passing of the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 shall, at a meeting summoned for the purpose, elect a transitional Government, to which the British Government and Dail Eireann shall transfer the authority, powers, and machinery requisite for the discharge of such transitional Government shall have signified in writing his or her acceptance of this instrument. But his arrangement shall not continue in force beyond the expiration of twelve months from the date hereof.

RATIFICATION

(17) That this instrument shall be submitted for ratification forthwith by His Britannic Majesty's Government to the Parliament at Westminster, and by the Cabinet of Dail Eireann to a meeting of the members elected for the constituencies in Ireland set forth in the British Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and when ratifications have been exchanged shall take immediate effect.

ANNEX

(1) The following are the specific facilities referred to in Article 8a:

Dockyard Port at Berehaven

(a) British Admiralty property and rights to be retained as at the date hereof. Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties.

Queenstown

(b) Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties. Certain mooring buoys to be retained for use of His Britannic Majesty's ships.

Belfast Lough

(c) Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties.

Lough Swilly

(d) Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties.

Aviation

(e) Facilities the neighbourhood of the above Ports for coastal and defence by air.

Oil Fuel Storage

(f) Haulbowline and Rathmillen: to be offered for sale to commercial companies under guarantee that purchasers shall maintain a certain minimum stock for British Admiralty purposes.

(2) A Convention covering a period of five years shall be made between the British and Irish Governments to give effect to the following conditions:

(a) That submarine cables shall not be landed or wireless stations for communications with places outside Ireland be established except be agreement with the British Government; that the existing cable landing rights and wireless concessions shall not be withdrawn except by agreement with the British Government; and that the British Government shall be entitled to land additional submarine cables or establish additional wireless stations for communication with places outside Ireland.

(b) That lighthouses, buoys, beacons, and any navigational marks or navigational aids shall be maintained by the Government of Ireland as at the date hereof and shall not be removed or added to except by agreement with the British Government.

(c) That war signal stations shall be closed down and left in charge of care and maintenance parties, the Government of Ireland being offered the option of taking them over and working them for commercial purposes subject to British Admiralty inspection and guaranteeing the upkeep of existing telegraphic communication therewith.

ADDENDUM

North-East Ulster

Resolved:

That, whilst refusing to admit the right of any part of Ireland to be excluded from the supreme authority of the Parliament of Ireland, or that the relations between the Parliament of Ireland and any subordinate Legislature in Ireland can be a matter for treaty with a government outside Ireland, nevertheless, in sincere regard for internal peace, and in order to make manifest our desire not to bring force or coercion to bear upon any substantial part of the province of Ulster, whose inhabitants may now be unwilling to accept the national authority, we are prepared to grant to that portion of Ulster which is defined as Northern Ireland in the British Government of Ireland Act of 1920, privileges and safeguards not less substantial than those provided for in the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland signed in London on December 6th, 1921.

COMMENTS (1) The highlighted bold text is the key text with regard to Northern Ireland. De Valera accepted what had been agreed with respect to NI in the Anglo Irish Treaty (i.e. that Northern Ireland would have the right to opt out of the new state which is what it did shortly after the Irish Free State was established). Therefore, de Valera envisaged that the new state "Ireland" would sit along-side the UK region, "Northern Ireland". This is not OR, it is in Document No. 2. (2)HighKing - with due respect, you need to read the Anglo Irish Treaty. It also refers to Belfast harbour etc in identical terms. Yet the Anglo Irish Treaty (just as Dev's Doc. No. 2) envisaged that Northern Ireland could, if it so chose, continue on as part of the UK. The harbours were referred to because the Treaty also contemplated what would happen if NI decided it was happy to be part of the Irish Free State. De Valera's treatment of Belfast Lough is identical to that of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. 84.203.65.158 (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to look again at the use of the words "five sixths" etc. Strictly speaking, neither the Anglo Irish Treaty or Doc. No. 2 envisaged NI occupying a sixth of the territory. Instead a Border commission was to be established under both documents to determine just how big NI would be. The fact remains simply that (1) Dev envisaged "Ireland" as the name for the state and (2) Dev envisaged that even if the people in Northern Ireland decided to not remain in the new state named "Ireland", the new state would continue to have the name "Ireland". These are the only two points I would like to make clear in the article. I think they are quite interesting and very relevant to the article which is about the Irish state's name. Are either of you objecting to these points being made? I am happy to look at any proposals for a new sentence or two making them. 84.203.65.158 (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
As this didn't get anywhere I don't see it as particularly relevant to this article not that it would have been particularly relevant even if it did. I think the de Valera or Anglo-Irish treaty articles sounds more appropriate if any of this is going anywhere. Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
BTW original research here means that it isn't something that is blindingly obvious from the source or which some secondary commentator has inferred from it. Editors drawing their own inferences is counted as original research in Wikipedia, we're supposed to summarize what others have said. Dmcq (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
What de Valera proposed as a name for the State he envisaged seems pretty relevant and interesting to me. Any other views? 84.203.65.158 (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I have no particular issue with reference to Doc No 2 in relation to the envisaged name of the state, just the speculation re. the territorial extent of that state. RashersTierney (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see exactly what can be added from that. de Valera wrote 'Ireland' in draft no 2 without any sort of context or anything since no commentator said anything about it? What would it mean even if we had been able to write something about it, it would just have been some document that means nothing much. People are always writing drafts before settling on things after some talk. We'd need some commentator say why this was significant in any way. Dmcq (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
User Dmcq - The article is probably several thousand words long; it's very thorough and to me a very well cited and well written article overall. Adding this extra bit about De Valera's take on the name issue in 1921 simply adds that bit more. You may not be a history buff or appreciate it but I for one do see it as having merit. From what RashersTierney has written above, I think he does too. In any event, it is ultimately a small and uncontroversial edit once it is understood (which it is now I think):
Turning to the wording around this, how about the following instead of what I originally proposed:

In his 1921 alternative proposal to the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the so-called "Document No. 2", Eamon de Valera proposed the name "Ireland" for the new Irish state which would exist alongside Northern Ireland which could remain part of the UK.[9]

84.203.65.158 (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you need to read the entire paragraph, not just the part you bolded, to understand the context of the term "Ireland" in this document - 'That, whilst refusing to admit the right of any part of Ireland to be excluded from the supreme authority of the Parliament of Ireland. It still appears to me that Dev was referring to the island. As to your suggested wording above, it's still WP:OR as Dev did not propose the name "Ireland" anywhere in the document - he was simply using the name of the island because he was always referring to the island of which the proposed parliament would be the supreme authority. I understand - fully - why such a point might be significant, but I disagree that the point is being made here. --HighKing (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Fully agree with HighKing. There really would need to be an analysis in some reliable secondary source. It simply is not an absolutely obvious conclusion as shown by the disagreement here. In fact him being 'happy' about Northern Ireland staying with the UK strikes me as quite unbelievable given the amount of trouble he caused on that point. And that's from a person who admires him for his stand against the religious bigotry. Dmcq (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
There should be secondary sources for any notable conclusions to be drawn from Doc No. 2. Any personal analysis is only going to be challenged anyway, if not immediately then later. RashersTierney (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

RashersTierney: I feel the other two are not editors who I can reach. No point in speculating on the reasons why. For whatever it's worth (perhaps only my curiousity), I ask you do you disagree with either of the following: (1) Dev envisaged "Ireland" as the name for the state and (2) Dev envisaged that even if the people in Northern Ireland decided to not remain in the new state named "Ireland", the new state would continue to have the name "Ireland". 84.203.65.158 (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you think 'subordinate Legislature' refers to? Dmcq (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The addendum dealing with Northern Ireland starts off by setting out a matter of principle: that no one has a right to exclude any part of Ireland from the new State's parliament - including by way of some treaty between a "subordinate legislature" and a foreign Government. The reference here to a "subordinate legislature" obviously could be and really is a reference to the NI Parliament. However, the addendum goes on to set out an exception to this principle. The excpetion is admitted because of the desire to prmote "peace" and "not to bring force or coercion to bear upon any substantial part of the province of Ulster". The addendum proceeds to state that Northern Ireland shall have the rights given to it in the Anglo-Irish Treaty (which rights include the right to opt out of the new State). There is no doubt whatsoever that the addendum envisaged NI not being coerced and that NI could choosse to remain in the UK. It expressly sets out that there is no desire to "coerce" Northern Ireland. This is all abundently obvious from reading the addendum.
Again, (1) Dev envisaged "Ireland" as the name for the state and (2) Dev envisaged that even if the people in Northern Ireland decided to not remain in the new state named "Ireland", the new state would continue to have the name "Ireland". I think these two statements are clearly consistent with Documnet No. 2 and it's worth noting this in the article. 84.203.65.158 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
You are reading too much of your own opinion into it. Just because something is absurd doesn't mean Dev didn't think it as quite clearly indicated by the clauses claiming Northern Ireland for so long in the Irish constitution. There is no place for private speculation in Wikipedia as per WP:OR. Even with a reliable source we'd probably have to say 'According to xyz ...' Dmcq (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
What I have explained to you is there in the Addendum in plain English. No speculation on my part. 84.203.65.158 (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Dmcq - I have taken the time to explain exactly the meaning of the Addendum. Please could you explain your interpretation of it in the same detail please so that readers can assess the credibility of your rejection of what I have written. 84.203.65.158 (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source which back up my interpretation of the NI addendum in Document No. 2 (i.e. that the addendum clearly accepted that NI would not be coerced into a united Ireland and would be allowed to continue on as part of the UK, in short that it was a “partitionist” settlement proposal): [44] “Collins challenged de Valera to suggest an alternative, and the Long Fellow introduced Document No 2, which contained all of the partition clauses of the treaty. Partition really had nothing to do with the controversy. [Irish Examiner article] There are of course other sources out there. 84.203.65.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC).

On 'interpreting' Doc No. 2, Collins had this to say. Salutary words perhaps. RashersTierney (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not see the link added anything. Would you care to spend the time (as I have) setting out why you disagree with what I have said above or otherwise explainging your interpretation of the Northern Ireland Addendum to "Document No. 2". It may take some time - but that is what is called for. Thanks. 84.203.65.158 (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
...Disagreeing without giving proper reasoning is a bit unsatisfactory...and not too impressive. 84.203.65.158 (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
To be blunt, I wouldn't. My interpretation here, no less than yours, would be considered WP:ORIGINAL, and (rightly) open to removal at any time. Not sure the message is getting through. It matters not a jot on Wikipedia who agrees or not with other editor's interpretations of primary material. Will probably spend a bit of time looking at Doc No. 2, but only out of personal interest. I think its time to let this go. RashersTierney (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was posting much the same message as Rashers. In a nutshell, unless it's actually clearly written down somewhere in a reliable source, you cannot include it in an article. This is considered WP:OR. You've asked above for people's "interpretation" of documents. You cannot "interpret" meaning and place it in an article - that is also WP:OR. You may be right. It may be the truth. That doesn't matter. In a lot of respects, Wikipedia editors are transcribers, not highly intelligent and informed editors. --HighKing (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Guys - the text of Document No. 2 is very clear: it uses the name "Ireland" for the new state and it includes provision for Northern Ireland to opt out of the new state. There is no "interpretation here". It is not ambiguous or unclear. It is there in plain English in Document No. 2. I wanted to add in a sentence saying:

In his 1921 alternative proposal to the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the so-called "Document No. 2", Eamon de Valera proposed the name "Ireland" for the new Irish state which would exist alongside Northern Ireland which could remain part of the UK.[10]

You are refusing to allow inclusion of this. Your decision not to give reasons shows the weakness of your position. Sad day for WP when editors take such positions. I can only guess it must be some kind of power trip. As for this being OR, most of the article is OR (in the sense of it is not picked up from articles dealing with the State's name - there are pretty few out there). If that is your standard, you need to delete most of the article. That would be a pity. 86.42.190.57 (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Lede[edit]

Discussion re Lede[edit]

Editor Asarlaí has re-written the lede of the article. No discussion of this was undertaken. I personally don’t like the old lede (or Editor Asarlaí’s). I welcome the chance to discuss it, try to reach a consensus and then have a better lede. I have reverted Editor Asarlaí’s lede as until there is consensus for change, we have to stick with what we have. Again, I would like to discuss changes and improve the article. Below I describe some problems with Editor’s proposal:

  • “There have been various names for the state that is today officially known as Ireland.” Not correct. The Irish state is regarded as the successor of the Irish Free State. As such it has only ever had one name: “Ireland”. Even if the nicety of constitutional change is ignored, the Irish state has only ever had two names “Irish Free State” and “Ireland”. We cannot rightly say it has had “various name”. I think it is incorrect or certainly misleading.
  • “The state makes up almost five-sixths of the island of Ireland.” This too is incorrect. Ireland makes up over five-sixths of the island. 13,843 (NI square kilometres) expressed as a percentage of 84,421 (island square kilometres) is 0.16397578801. One sixth is 0.16666666666666.
  • “Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, covers the rest of the island.” Does it really need to be said when we have already explained how much of the Ireland covers? That is my subjective viewpoint.
  • “When the state was created in 1922 it was named the Irish Free State.” Again, this ignores the fact that Ireland is not the same state as was created in 1922. This is a subtle point but if we want to be correct, we ought to try harder.
  • “In 1937 it adopted a new constitution, becoming Ireland in English and Éire in Irish,[1] although the latter was often used in English too.” We are ignoring here lots of niceties. The Irish Free State did not adopt a new constitution. The Irish people did by plebescite etc. Also, why are we noting here an Irish language name when we didn’t in respect of the Irish Free State’s Irish language name. Inconsistent. You will find that it was used a lot in English too. Moreover, much more commonly used than “Éire” (in English) was “Eire” (sic) (in English). Again this too is ignored / not correctly presented.
  • “In 1949 it declared itself a republic and adopted the term Republic of Ireland as its official description while keeping the name Ireland.” I though this sentence was fine.
  • “The terms Republic of Ireland (ROI), the Republic or the South are often used when there is a need to distinguish the state from the island or when Northern Ireland (NI or the North) is being discussed.” I don’t think any of this flows very well. It also leaves out terms like “IRL”.
  • “Irish republicans avoid calling the state Ireland because they view it as partitionist.” This is such a small aspect of the article that it hardly warrants inclusion in the lede. It is also unsourced and sounds like a huge generalisation. I never saw Martin McGuinness arguing against the name of the State when he was running for President etc. I would take it out from the lede. Keep it short.
  • “Unionists in Northern Ireland also tend to avoid it, because they view it as the state making an irredentist claim to the whole island.” This too apportions rather a lot of emphasis on something that takes up very little space in the article itself. I would take it out from the lede. Keep it short. Moreover it is unsourced. What sources say in the post Article 2+3 context that Unionists regard the name as “irredentist” etc. I don’t think this is an appropriate statement for the lede.
  • “The United Kingdom's government objected to the name for the same reason as the unionists.” Are you really saying that the UK government’s reasons were identical to those of the NI Unionists? Where is the source for that? Was it consistently the case during the 60 year dispute?
  • “By the 1960s the United Kingdom was the only state in the world not to use the name Ireland, but since the late 1990s it too has used the name.” This is probably ok but, again, so much of the article concerns this that putting all that other stuff in the lede gives an unbalanced summary of the article. It's rather crowded out by the marginal stuff.

Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is the general rule and reverting because there is no consensus to change is wrong. You have to actively disagree or be able to point to something which was agreed firmly, e.g. by a discussion, before just removing new edits. Dmcq (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
On the business about republicans not wanting to call it Ireland there is a cited section in the article "Irish republicans, and other opponents of Partition, often refer to the state as the Twenty-Six Counties or 26 Counties (with Northern Ireland as the Six Counties or 6 Counties) and sometimes as the Free State (a reference to the pre-1937 state)." Dmcq (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says that the lede should be able to "stand alone as a concise overview of the article". The former lede didn't do this. It merely gave the state's current name and description and explained that the UK formerly objected to that name. I thus re-worked it so that it better summarized the article.

Thanks for bringing your objections to the talkpage Frenchmalawi, and for making your points so clearly. I'll deal with them in the same order you made them.

  • The term "Irish state" generally includes the current state, the Irish Free State and Irish Republic.
Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC) I agree that the term "Irish state" is generally regarded as including the IFS and Ireland. I don't agree that it includes the "Irish Republic". If that is seriously being put forward, sources are needed. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In the article it seems to include the Kingdom of Ireland and the Lordship of Ireland also. If the term does include those states, then we could go back to the old wording "there have been various names of the Irish state".

I think we should take out all the stuff that doesn't relate to the state and that which immediately preceded it ("Irish Republic" and Southern Ireland"; all the other stuff is off-topic and should be removed from article). The title of the article cannot properly be construed as anything other than a reference to Independent Ireland.Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If the term only includes the current state, then we could re-word it like this: "A number of names, official and unofficial, have been used for the current Irish state".

I would not like that. It's silly. Every one knows places are called by many terms. USA is Yankeeland, U.S., America, Land of the Free etc....That's just an example. The sentence any way is inelegant. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You're right about the fractions. It should be "The state makes up just over five-sixths". The mistake came from the main article, which wrongly says "just under five-sixths".
  • I think we do need to mention NI here. It's the whole reason why the state's name is disputed and why there's been a host of other names for it. It doesn't seem right to say that it covers five-sixths of Ireland and not say what covers the rest until later on.
If it must be in, please keep it short. Don't bore readers to death. How many times have you opened a Wiki article and asked yourself, when will they start telling me about stuff I don't already know. Every one knows these sorts of things. You don't click on a marginal article like this without not even knowing there are two jurisdictions on the island. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • If we're treating the Irish Free State as a different state, then we could re-word it like this: "It succeeded the Irish Free State (Saorstát Éireann in Irish), which was created in 1922".
I sense this will all be very inelegant and cumbersome in a lede where people want short and snappy. Hard to discuss this sentence in isolation. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, if we're treating the Irish Free State as a different state, then we could re-word it like this: "In 1937 the citizens of the Irish Free State adopted a new constitution, creating the current Irish state. It named itself Ireland in English and Éire in Irish, although Éire or Eire were often used in English too".
Isn't this supposed to be a short, snappy lede? Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think these terms and this line needs to be in the lede. The article is about the names used when referring to the state, and these are very commonly used names for it. However, we could maybe nix the initialisms.
I don't like your lede, above all because it creates so much repetition. Keep it short.
  • The Irish republican view doesn't take up much of the article right now, but it is noteworthy enough to be in the lede. The republican movement has been a major force in Irish politics for the past hundred years. Anyone familiar with Irish politics knows that the republican movement avoids calling the South "Ireland" and avoids calling the North "Northern Ireland". It's sourced in the main body but I'm sure more sources could easily be found. Furthermore, leaving it out givs readers the impression that it was only the British Government who opposed the name.
This sort of stuff "everything is important so let's put it in the lede" is why Wiki ledes are so horrible for readers. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The unionist view also doesn't take up much of the article right now, but I think it too belongs in the lede, for the same reasons why the republican view belongs. Whether unionists still tend to avoid calling the state "Ireland" for the "irredentist" reason is debatable, but that was certainly the reason up until the GFA.
As above. Additionally, on Wiki something like that is only debatable if you provide sources. I would be interested to read them. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As the section about the name dispute with the UK makes up such a big chunk of the article, we could maybe add a bit more about it to the lede to even things out.
Please no! The last thing we want is an even longer lede than that essay. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

~Asarlaí 17:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

For me, something that long can't rightly be called a "lede". It creates so much dull repetition in the article. It's retrograde. Any way, basic Wiki principles like discussion and consensus are being ignored here. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • ^ Undoubtedly, the Irish government's desire to unite the territory of the island influenced its choice of the name Ireland for the state. A letter as early as 12 March 1932 from Joe Walshe to President de Valera is indicative of this. In it Walshe states: "I believe that you can achieve the Unity of this country within seven years and that we can have our complete independence without calling this country by any particular const[itutional] name. "Ireland" shall be our name, and our international position will let the world know that we are independent" in Ferriter, Diarmaid, Judging Dev, Royal Irish Academy 2007
    • ^ Circular dated 1 April 1949 from the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs to Heads of Post Abroad (Circular Document No.B38, 836. DEA/7545‑B‑40)
    • ^ The Manchester Guardian, 30 December 1937 Britain accepts new name for the Free State. Full text of British Government's communiqué cited in Clifford, Angela, The Constitutional History of Eire/Ireland, Athol Books, Belfast, 1985, p153.
    • ^ Note: Under the Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Act 1938 the name Eire, without the correct síne fada (accent) over the first E, was used. This practice of omitting the síne fada over the E was consistently adopted by the UK government and some Commonwealth countries.
    • ^ Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, State of the Union: Unionism and the Alternatives in the United Kingdom, 2001: 173, 181.
    • ^ Oliver, JDB, What's in a Name, in Tiley, John, Studies in the History of Tax Law, The Chartered Institute of Taxation, 2003.
    • ^ Note: Under the Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Act 1938 the name Eire, without the correct síne fada (accent) over the first E, was used. This practice of omitting the síne fada over the E was consistently adopted by the UK government and some Commonwealth countries.
    • ^ Document No. 2, 10 January 1922
    • ^ Document No. 2, 10 January 1922
    • ^ Document No. 2, 10 January 1922