Talk:Republic of Ireland

File:Yeats1923.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Yeats1923.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Name on map

This had been for a while redirecting to the island then someone change it to redirect to the article itself, then back to the island today then to the article . I tried to sort it this afternoon with no luck. After follow RA's comment to here [1]. So I tried it again, also if you see other looking at other examples I changed it. Now it has been reverted by an editor who added an uncivil accusation in the process. I will revert it to the version that seems to have most support.Murry1975 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverted to longstanding version, since this is about the state and not the island, the use of Ireland on it's own is misleading, take it to WP:IECOLL if necessary. Mtking ^(edits) 01:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually not longstanding version, if you read the history until last August 20th [2] it linked incorrectly to the island. WP:IECOLL or WP:IMOS which one wold be better. Both deal with issues of an Irish nature, I have been on IMOS before so I probably will raise it there.Murry1975 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As the article is about the state, and Ireland (unqualified) is used throughout the article, I disagree. I also disagree that this is a matter for fresh discussion at WP:IECOLL. The matter was discussed at great depth at WP:IECOLL and resulted in a section being added to the manual of style:

... where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating states, politics or governance) where [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the island of Ireland, or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland").

--RA (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Brought it up on IMOS RA. Thanks. Will I move it to IECOLL? Murry1975 (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the name of the state as opposed to this article now in dispute? RashersTierney (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is misleading to those not from the British Isles Mtking ^(edits) 05:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is no more misleading that the term Republic of Ireland. Those from the region are accustomed to a distinction in language between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. For those not from the region, why would they imagine that the Republic of Ireland would not be coterminous with the island of Ireland?

That the island of Ireland is partitioned is explained every early on in the article. If further doubt remained there is a map accompanying the text under discussion clearly showing that the territory of the state is not congruent with the island. The kind of argument put forward by Mtking would mean that in no place, ever, could we use Ireland to refer to the state for fear of "confusion". That's obviously unreasonable. The common (as well as the official) name of the sate is Ireland. There is no way an reader of this article could come away with the impression that the territory of the state is coterminous with the island: it is stated in the first sentence and for further avoidance of doubt an map showing the extent of the territory of the state is also given.

I agree that it is confusing that the state and the island/country of Ireland are both called "Ireland". However, marking this article as containing "parts that are misleading" on account of that is unfair. The authors of this article have to deal with the fact that both the state and the island are called Ireland (both commonly and in law). If someone thinks that that is so confusing that action needs to be taken, the correct venue to air those concerns is with the members of the Oireachtas, not with editors here. --RA (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I was on the point of posting something similar, if a bit less restrained. The previous post is just plain condescending to other editors (and readers) where-ever they might be from. The new edit to the infobox more correctly reflects WP:IMOS on the use of Ireland/Republic of Ireland, as has been pointed out. RashersTierney (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for making things kick off in this issue but at least the current version is now correct. However is NI being shown in a different colour green a bit nationalistic/POV?85.179.140.190 (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, and well done to DrK for thinking of it, but I don't think the best implementation. It may make the distinction between the state and the island less clear. The {{map caption}} template has a option location. That option replaced the next that appears in parenthesis in the map caption. Possibly return to this map and set the location option to "dark green, on the [[island of Ireland]]". That way the caption would read:

Location of Ireland (dark green, on the island of Ireland)

--RA (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wording now as per WP:IRE-IRL example 3. Hopefully this can be the answer.Murry1975 (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Just read what it says on top of the info box in big bold letters, with note a beside it. However I do believe that having this open here and at IMOS might not be the best idea. Should we close here or direct the IMOS comment to here?Murry1975 (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Or how about leavingit blank [3] as I previously said the words are on the top of the info box any way, so is there a need to repeat, there may be to show its relation to the EU and Europe.Murry1975 (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

History section shouldn't start in the 19th century

I'm disappointed to see that the history section for the country starts only in the 19th century with the Home rule movement. This is quite ridiculous, every other nation has its entire history going back to prehistory on its main article page. And yes, I know what you're going to say "the article is about the Republic of Ireland, not Ireland itself", well frankly that's a load of bull and it's a distinction that is not applied to any other country. For instance, both the North Korea and South Korea articles have full history sections going back all the way (thousands of years before those states were created), the UK's article likewise has a history section going back a lot longer then just the creation of Great Britain, as do the articles about Armenia, or France, or any country you can think of. It's really a farce that people are coming to this page to look for basic information about Ireland and they are not being given it. I think the full history section should be reinstated immediately. --Hibernian (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If people want information about Ireland, wouldn't they go to the Ireland page? Mooretwin (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No if people want information about Ireland on wiki they go to the Ireland article ;)Murry1975 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This article would have the same pre-19th century history as Northern Ireland. So, whatever added or restored here, would likely have to be added/restored there. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree Mooretwin and with the general make up of these articles. After briefly giving an review of the Plantation of Ulster, the Northern Ireland articles begins in the 19th century also. In contrast, the articles on England, Scotland and Wales go back to the year dot.

The 19th century is included in this article in order to give background to the history of the state (the state didn't exist until 122 year later). The United Kingdom article similarly skips haughtily from 1066 to 1707 before begining for real in the 19th century.

The purpose of a Wikipedia article on the Republic of Ireland is not to recall the glory of the Irish nation. That can be found in the article on Ireland or History of Ireland. The History of the Republic of Ireland makes for an entirely different topic. --RA (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And these can be found in the article itself following links under the heading of the section titled , er, "History".Murry1975 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I would accept those arguments, if they were applied to all country articles equally. They are not being, as I've explained, just because Ireland is divided into two countries does not mean that each country article shouldn't have a history section. Every other country (or even locality) article I can find on Wiki has an integrated history section, not just a "See history of...". "The purpose of a Wikipedia article on the Republic of Ireland is not to recall the glory of the Irish nation." and I suppose the USA article is there recall the glory of the American nation? or the France article is there to recall the glory of France? No, this article is being held to a different standard to almost any other article. It is not too much to ask the very basic thing of having a short explanation of the history leading up to the formation of the country. That's the very least a country article should have, it has nothing to do with vaingloriousness, it's to do with basic Wikipedia standards. --Hibernian (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Constitution Review Group and Name

The article currently includes the following:

In 1996, a parliamentary body charged with reviewing the constitution, the Constitution Review Group, stated that the wording of the article was "unnecessarily complicated and that it should be simplified". An amendment was recommended to state that "The name of the state is Ireland", with an equivalent change in the Irish text. The Constitution Review Group also considered whether it should be amended to also give the name as Republic of Ireland. The review group deemed the legislative provision declaring the state's description in the Republic of Ireland Act sufficient. Republic of Ireland is frequently used to distinguish the state from the island. Irish Republic, the name of the unilaterally declared republic at the time of independence, is also often used by the international, particularly British, press.

The report of the Constitution Review Group (an unelected group with no powers - persons simply appointed to prepare a report which has since mostly gathered dust like most Government reports) is all very well.....But is it really so central to the story / explanation of the State's name that it should be included in the main Irish state article? I think it should be deleted....That level of detail is fine for the Names of the Irish state article but seems OTT here. 86.44.66.50 (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly right, but people are kind of obsessive about the name of it around here... ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the level of detail is excessive for this article, but, per TirNan-Og ... --RA (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the "excessive detail". 86.45.54.230 (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision?

Ireland won the Eurovision 7 times (absolute record). I think that deserves to be mentioned.Srelu (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I disagre - I don't think its important enough to warrant inclusion. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a mention with links. RashersTierney (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And I've added appropriate inline citations. ww2censor (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)