Talk:Republic of Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Why isn't this article titled Ireland?
A: Many discussions have been had on this matter, and current consensus is to use Ireland to describe the island and Republic of Ireland to describe the state. By order of WP:ARBCOM, all future discussions of this article's title must take place at a special project set up to deal with this issue. See Wikipedia:IMOS for the manual of style for Ireland-related issues.
Former good article nominee Republic of Ireland was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 11, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed


Small map of Ireland[edit]

I've reinstated the small map of Ireland in the infobox which was removed with "... and removed unnieded picture which is not important and bad looking". I've noticed other countries tend not to have any outline map like this though. Is there some reason why we make it hard for people to get a quick idea of where the capital city and a few other major landmarks of countries are? Dmcq (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

'Name' section[edit]

Following on from the Consistency section above, I think it is time for a radical re-write (for which read trim-down) of the Name section of the article. This section was edited during the Great Wiki-War of 2008-11 (sample here), and it reflects the arguments that were being used at that time rather than the real world. For one thing, try as I may, I can find no source – reliable or otherwise - that says "Republic of Ireland" is used when there is a need to distinguish the state from the island or when discussing Northern Ireland. It's used that way on Wikipedia, all right, because it says to in the Manual of Style/Ireland, but in the real world it's just used, full stop. Likewise, there is no source for the assertion that "the name Ireland became a source of contention between the British and Irish governments." True, Mary Daly's article (which is not cited here) uses the phrases 'the dispute over nomenclature' and '"word war"' (in scare quotes), but it does not suggest that there was "contention" on the scale of the contention over such things as the territorial claim, neutrality in WWII, security, the treatment of internees or even the lack of support for the Falklands War. Even if it were argued that it does, to take this one journal article from the immense corpus of work on 20th-century Irish history and Anglo-Irish relations, where this phoney war does not get even a passing mention, and use it as a basis for this claim, is against WP:UNDUE. At the end of the day, only three facts in this section are verifiable:

  1. That the name of the state according to the Constitution is "Éire", or in the Irish language, "Ireland",
  2. That under the ROI Act 1948 the description of the state is "the Republic of Ireland", and
  3. That it is also referred to as "the Republic", "Southern Ireland", "the South" and (in a republican context) "the 26 Counties" or "the Free State".

Those are the only three facts that should be stated, although a concise, neutral and easily understood explanation of why ROI is not the name of the state could be included. Scolaire (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the name section is alright as is, but I can understand your point. Most of the name issue can be dealt with in passing with a link to the dispute section of the Names of the Irish state article. Mabuska (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't even get me started on that article! Scolaire (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
A quick search of the web gives me [1] 'where a possibility of ambiguity exists use Republic of Ireland' but noting else straightforward. A shows that in practically all cases where Republic of Ireland is referred to they are also talking about Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. For the whole of Ireland they say all-Ireland or the island of Ireland. Otherwise they just say Ireland referring to the state. Dmcq (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There pretty evidently was a war over the term as documented in the Names of the Irish state article. They passed special legislation to call it Republic of Ireland in the UK and not use Ireland and in Ireland they took special care to not recognize Republic of Ireland as an official name and make certain the EC and UN and suchlike referred to it as Ireland. Until the Good Friday Agreement we had the stupid business of Ireland just referring to the UK and leaving off Northern Ireland and the UK referring to the Republic of Ireland and having different versions of the same document being signed by each side in any agreement. Dmcq (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Your one source is a newsgroup; that is not a reliable source. Your search of the Dáil debates is original research, and anyway the Dáil is by no means the only place where ROI is used, or even one of the places where it is most used.
It is by no means evident there was a "war" over the term. I had a careful read of the Names article last night before I opened this thread. It talks endlessly about Notes in Council, British Acts, Irish Acts etc. but never once gives an example of Britain complaining to Ireland about the use of the name "Ireland" or Ireland complaining to Britain about the use of "Republic of Ireland". Westminster passed special legislation in 1949 to recognise the description created by the 1948 Irish legislation (There was no point referring to the state as "Eire" if it referred to itself as "the Republic of Ireland"), but it emphatically did not legislate "not to use Ireland". That is nowhere in the Act, and no commentator has ever said that that was its intention. Having different versions of the same document may have been a "stupid business", but it was not an act of war, and the fact that each side accepted the other's version demonstrates that it was not even a point of "contention" (see John Tiley, Studies in the History of Tax Law, Vol. 1, pp. 187-9). It may be appropriate to mention the "Done in two originals" (Tiley again) in the article section, but like the explanation of the difference between Ireland and ROI, it should be concise, neutral and easily understood. Scolaire (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Scolaire: let the edit go ahead. Qexigator (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with what exactly? It was pretty obvious there was a dispute and the different names causes trouble and needs a bit of explanation. What exactly is the requirement here for obfusticating the issue by ignoring what happened? Where does this asking for high quality reliable sources and talking down anything as original research as if these were extraordinary claims rather than 'the sky is blue' come from? Dmcq (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
To answer your last question first: it's Wikipedia policy. It didn't "come from" anywhere, although it may not have been applied as thoroughly seven or more years ago when this section was written. As for 'the sky is blue', I agree with that statement but I absolutely refute your assertion that "there was a dispute and the different names causes trouble". So, apparently, does Qexigator. Therefore, it needs citations for verification. Quoting passages from parliamentary proceedings and drawing conclusions from them is not enough – see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH – we must cite reliable, third-party published sources. Far from obfusticating, my purpose is to clarify. The section as it is will make perfect sense to those who were involved in the Wiki-War, and very little to anybody else. I want to see something that will be understandable to a new reader without him/her having to go off and read another (dense) article to explain the ins and outs. Scolaire (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It's usually more helpful to make the edit, or put a draft at Talk so that we can see whether it would be acceptable. Argy-bargy does little to improve the article. Qexigator (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The current intro's been stable for quite some time. Let's not re-awaken any passions. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion is about the "Name" section. Qexigator (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Yo have just quoted policy again as a reason whereas you seem to have real feeling about the matter minimizing what you don't want and saying don't get you started about the names article. I ask you yet again, what is it that is bugging you about the section? Or are we going to get in a fight where people don't state what they are really talking about in the same passive aggressive way Ireland and the UK went on about the names business? Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Qexigator: I intend to put a draft on the talk page in the next 24 hours or so. I wanted to find out the lie of the land first, and to compose it with due care.
@Dmcq: I have never liked this section. I have always felt that it went into too much detail about stuff that doesn't matter a damn, and made claims that could not be supported. The Names article does the same, but on a much grander scale, hence the "don't get me started" remark. I didn't try to edit the section, or have it edited, during the Wiki-War since I knew it would only further inflame passions and lead to further recrimination. Three years have now gone by since that war petered out. In response to the query in the Consistency section above, I provided a couple of refs, but I realised that I could not in all conscience add the refs myself to a section that I was in disagreement with. So I decided that this was the right time to raise the question of editing it. I am not looking for a fight. I have no intention of being passive-aggressive. My desire to edit the section is driven by policy, not by emotion, and I hope you will see when I present my proposed draft that the same principle applies. Scolaire (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks. If you look at Constitution of Ireland#International response you'll see that the official British response was a complete rejection of the name 'Ireland' and saw it as part of a territorial claim. One of my relatives at the time campaigned strongly against those parts of the constitution and it shouldn't have passed with the marginal yes vote it got according to the Constitution of the Irish Free State. Personally I am sorry that they chose to call it Ireland rather than Republic of Ireland but that is water under the bridge now. I can see the section being cut down a bit but I do think the article needs an explanation of a business that still causes trouble. Dmcq (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The NYT report using the words "a legalistic protest", an un-npovish description of its own invention, could be notable to support reaction on the part of a section of opinion in USA, but does not make the position of the UK government into a "protest", given the purport of the communique' in affirming the fact, acknowledged by all parties and internationally, that naming the state "Ireland" would not affect the position of Northern Ireland "as an integral part of the United Kingdom." What "protest" is in that, apart from journalistic or partisan colour writing? Qexigator (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Quite apart from that, the NYT report, as far as we know, only related to British objections to the Constitution as a whole. There is nothing whatever to say that there was a specific objection to the name "Ireland". The quote from the British govt. communiqué of 30 December, which is also reproduced in the Names article, says, "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." It does not say that they regard the use of the name 'Eire' or 'Ireland' as a Bad Thing. Despite your protestations, the evidence for "trouble" or any synonym thereof just isn't there. Scolaire (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft[edit]

The 1922 state, comprising 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland, was "styled and known as the Irish Free State."[1] The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Article 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, under which the state was officially declared a republic, states, "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." That act did not name the state as "Republic of Ireland", because to do so would be in conflict with the constitution, but the state is called variously "Éire", "Ireland" or "the Republic of Ireland".[2]

The government of the United Kingdom recognised the name "Eire" (without the diacritic), and, from 1949, "Republic of Ireland", for that territory that had been "styled and known as the Irish Free State".[3] There was reluctance to use the name "Ireland" because it could be used to denote the whole of the island.[4] In bilateral agreements between the two states, two separate documents were drawn up between the respective governments: while the Irish version used the name "Ireland", the British version used "Eire" (or later "Republic of Ireland"), with the agreement of the Irish authorities.[5] The differences in the descriptions did not cause problems because the effect of the two documents were in every case the same.[6] In the 1998 Good Friday Agreement both governments used the same title, "Ireland", for the first time.[7]

As well as "Éire", "ÍrelandIreland" and "the Republic of Ireland", the state is also referred to as "the Republic", "Southern Ireland" or "the South". [8] In an Irish republican context it is often referred to as "the Free State" or "the 26 Counties".[9]

  1. ^ Coleman, Marie (2013). The Irish Revolution, 1916-1923. Routledge. p. 230. ISBN 1317801466. Retrieved 12 February 2015. 
  2. ^ Gallagher, Michael, "The changing constitution", in Gallagher, Michael; Coakley, John, eds. (2010). Politics in the Republic of Ireland. 0415476712. ISBN 0415476712. Retrieved 12 February 2015. 
  3. ^ Oliver, J.D.B., What's in a Name, in Tiley, John, ed. (2004). Studies in the History of Tax Law. Hart Publishing. pp. 181–3. ISBN 1841134732. Retrieved 12 February 2015.  Note: the author incorrectly uses "Éire", with the diacritic
  4. ^ Daly, Mary (January 2007). "“A Country by Any Other Name”?". Journal of British Studies 46 (1): 78. 
  5. ^ Daly (2007), p. 80
  6. ^ Oliver (2004), p. 187, 189
  7. ^ Oliver (2004), p. 178; Daly (2007), p. 80
  8. ^ Acciano, Reuben (2005). Western Europe. Lonely Planet. p. 616. ISBN 1740599276. Retrieved 12 February 2015. 
  9. ^ Smith, M.L.R (2002). Fighting for Ireland?: The Military Strategy of the Irish Republican Movement. Routledge. p. 2. ISBN 1134713975. Retrieved 12 February 2015. 

Scolaire (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks okay to me, assuming it is proposed in place the current Names section. Is there meant to be a diacritic Í? Qexigator (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I just got carried away :-) Thanks for pointing it out. Scolaire (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The difference did cause various legal and political problems as has been pointed out to you but you just seem to want to deny and ignore and misinterpret what is said, and it has led to the situation today where lots of people in Britain think the name of the state actually is the Republic of Ireland and that is written in encyclopaedias and maps. What you said about it not causing problems is your stating an obvious falsehood. Dmcq (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Your response has been purely emotional. You have not pointed anything out to me, just repeatedly made assertions that you cannot back up. It is perfectly acceptable that people in Britain (and Ireland) call the state the Republic of Ireland and that it is written in encyclopaedias and maps. It is its "name" in all but name. Nobody in the real world has any problem with it. The only problem I have ever seen has been here on Wikipedia, and that problem seems to have been resolved. Now, I have gone to a certain amount of trouble to consult the most reliable sources and to write a neutral section which sources each and every statement, and says precisely what those sources say without going off on tangents or inferring something from something else. If you can do the same, do so. But don't keep talking about what is "pretty evident" or "pretty obvious" or what has been "pointed out" without producing any actual evidence, and don't call me a liar. Scolaire (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You are involved in denial by ignoring what you don't want in and misinterpreting what you do want in. Dmcq (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Some mention of the dispute needs to be made, though it can be kept short by linking to the main dispute article. Mabuska (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
As I have said repeatedly, and shown though multiple citations, there was no dispute. No mention needs to be made of a dispute that did not happen. Scolaire (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The Mary Daly citation "A country by any other name" explicitly says on the first page ' The dispute over nomenclature was by no means a one sided affair". Dmcq (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I acknowledged that at the very start. She also says, on page 80, "Britain had obtained the 'oral agreement of the Eire authorities' to this arrangement", which contradicts the suggestion that there was a "dispute". I prefer to rely on verifiable facts than on a single word thrown out carelessly. Scolaire (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
That they agreed a modus vivendi does not mean there was no dispute. It was an 'arrangement' not a 'resolution' and they wouldn't have needed one if there was no dispute. You are directly contradicting a reliable scholarly source on the subject about there being a dispute by saying she was careless with her language. This is what I mean by denial. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


The simple solution would be to delete The differences in the descriptions did not cause problems because if that is only unverified inference. Qexigator (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The source is Oliver (2004), p. 189: "The differing descriptions which the governments give themselves cause no difficulty because both governments were content to give effect to the Convention."
I put that in to show that, contrary to what is being said here, there was "no difficulty" and the governments "were content". It need not go into the article: the paragraph is a little too long as it stands and that is probably more detail than is required. Scolaire (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
By no difficulty they meant they were able to get along okay but it most certainly did cause trouble as is seen by the high court in Dublin rejecting warrants which said 'Republic of Ireland' on them. There was various other bits of trouble like that with embassies. I am not saying that people killed each other over it, there was no hot war or anything like that, but it most certainly was a festering sore between the two countries and that is why they bothered to fix it at the time of the Belfast Agreement. Your using a tax person finding they were able to apply the law as meant and work around the problem okay to say in general there was no problem is your maximising what you want the same way as you have minimised everything you don't want. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
So let the draft as shortened now go ahead. Qexigator (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Even with that out I can't see the point of the change. Dmcq (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
It may not be much shorter, but it flows better, making the salient points as well as quoting the bits of law that matter. It avoids making exaggerated or unsupported assertion about contention. It explains the sequence of events in a way that most readers are likely to find npov and easier to take in. Qexigator (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If anything it obscures the salient points with facts like a history book that just mentions the dates of battles. The discussion was started with 'radical re-write (for which read trim-down)'. Trim it down more and then it might become reasonable to not talk about there being any dispute and just leave a link at the top to Names of the Irish State for anyone who wants to delve deeper. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A shorter version[edit]

In view of above discussion, would this be acceptable?

The 1922 state, comprising 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland, was "styled and known as the Irish Free State."[1] The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Article 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 under which the state was officially declared a republic, states, "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." That act did not name the state as "Republic of Ireland", because to do so would be in conflict with the constitution, but the state is called variously "Éire", "Ireland" or "the Republic of Ireland".[2] The government of the United Kingdom recognised the name "Eire" (without the diacritic), and, from 1949, "Republic of Ireland", for that territory that had been "styled and known as the Irish Free State".[3] As well as "Éire", "Ireland" and "the Republic of Ireland", the state is also referred to as "the Republic", "Southern Ireland" or "the South". [4] In an Irish republican context it is often referred to as "the Free State" or "the 26 Counties".[5]
  1. ^ Coleman, Marie (2013). The Irish Revolution, 1916-1923. Routledge. p. 230. ISBN 1317801466. Retrieved 12 February 2015. 
  2. ^ Gallagher, Michael, "The changing constitution", in Gallagher, Michael; Coakley, John, eds. (2010). Politics in the Republic of Ireland. 0415476712. ISBN 0415476712. Retrieved 12 February 2015. 
  3. ^ Oliver, J.D.B., What's in a Name, in Tiley, John, ed. (2004). Studies in the History of Tax Law. Hart Publishing. pp. 181–3. ISBN 1841134732. Retrieved 12 February 2015.  Note: the author incorrectly uses "Éire", with the diacritic
  4. ^ Acciano, Reuben (2005). Western Europe. Lonely Planet. p. 616. ISBN 1740599276. Retrieved 12 February 2015. 
  5. ^ Smith, M.L.R (2002). Fighting for Ireland?: The Military Strategy of the Irish Republican Movement. Routledge. p. 2. ISBN 1134713975. Retrieved 12 February 2015. 
There was reluctance to use the name "Ireland" because it could be used to denote the whole of the island. (ref Daly, Mary (January 2007). "“A Country by Any Other Name”?". Journal of British Studies 46 (1): 78. /ref) In bilateral agreements between the two states, two separate documents were drawn up between the respective governments: while the Irish version used the name "Ireland", the British version used "Eire" (or later "Republic of Ireland"), with the agreement of the Irish authorities. (ref Daly (2007), p. 80 /ref) The differences in the descriptions did not cause problems because the effect of the two documents were in every case the same. (ref Oliver (2004), p. 187, 189 /ref) In the 1998 Good Friday Agreement both governments used the same title, "Ireland", for the first time.(ref Oliver (2004), p. 178; Daly (2007), p. 80 /ref)>

Qexigator (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2015‎

In view of the above discussion, I would say that this would be even less acceptable to Dmcq and Mabuska, since it further minimizes the "dispute" that they want to see represented. For myself, I would say that it is far closer to what I originally intended. But we can't have everything we would like.
To avoid a protracted dispute, I am willing to reinstate the original word "contention". Since that single word seems to be the only difference between us, I will go ahead and do the edit now. Scolaire (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The main thing I though was missing from the shortened version was that Ireland and the UK had resolved their differences since the Belfast Agreement. One should at least give what's happening now whatever about the history. You could leave out "That act did not name the state as "Republic of Ireland", because to do so would be in conflict with the constitution, but the state is called variously "Éire", "Ireland" or "the Republic of Ireland"." Yes if it is any longer than that shorted version by Qexigator it would be silly to try and whitewash that there was a dispute. Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, I'm very happy with this solution, since my desire at the outset was to trim the section down. Scolaire (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Name v description[edit]

I am not happy that, after I allowed three days for discussion, and then went the extra mile to address the concerns of another editor, my edit was immediately changed without any discussion. It is important to explain in simple terms why, if the name of the state is "Ireland", it is officially called "the Republic of Ireland". Years ago I tried to have that explained in the lead, but everybody insisted that it properly belonged in the Name section. It was in the name section before my edit and it is in the Name section (neutrally worded and with a proper citation) now. There is no justification for removing it. Scolaire (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a minor issue in the section if it is being cut down. There are lots more important things than some discussion eighty years ago which anyway was nowhere near as clear cut as that sentence implied. You said in reply to me above 'Obviously, I'm very happy with this solution, since my desire at the outset was to trim the section down' where I described that sentence should be taken out to make the section small enough to ignore the dispute over the name. Then you just went and stuck it in. That was not an extra mile of anything. There is no particular requirement to cater for the bee in your bonnet but I tried to do so and then you complain after agreeing with what I said and immediately ignoring it. Dmcq (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Scolaire: While not insensitive to your concern after the above discussion, I feel the removal of the allusion to a supposed contention probably does more good than harm to the article, whatever the merits some may feel for talking it up ot talking it down. To my mind, the present trimmed version, which is based on your draft, is certainly an improvement from the point of view of most readers, who, we may surmise, will not be particularly interested in this, and would not be thankful to have much more about it impeding their progress in reaching what the rest of the article has to say; but a few others will be looking for the sort of detailed information that they can choose to look at by the link to the Name article. Qexigator (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dmcq: I didn't "stick" anything in. I opened a discussion, then proposed a draft, then waited until I got agreement. You said that Qexigator's draft was okay, except that it left out the GFA, which I took on board. You said I "could" leave out that sentence, not "should". I took that as an off-the-cuff suggestion, since you gave no reason, and went ahead with what had apparently been agreed.
The sentence is not about any discussion eighty years ago. Neither has it anything to do with the "dispute" between Ireland and Britain over the name. It is an explanation of what the act does and doesn't do. It says that the state is to be called "the Republic of Ireland", but it does not make that the name of the state. "Éire", "Ireland" and "the Republic of Ireland" are all used today. This is necessary information for readers of the article. The section is pointless without it, since the opening sentence of the article already says what the three names are. It was in the previous version and it needs to remain in the section. Scolaire (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted the whole section to before you stuck in the change. It seems there was no consensus about what the change was in aid of as you seem to be determined to push a POV rather than just trim the section to what's of interest nowadays and leave people to go to the other article otherwise. If they had a will to change the name they could have quite easily, they wouldn't have been bothered about legal niceties any more than they were bothered about the vote required to change the constitution. Is that really more important than why they had to wait till the Belfast Agreement to use each other's proper name? Dmcq (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I shall try yet again to compromise with you. You say that the sentence was simply to reiterate tht the name of the state hadn't changed and that it repeated the names which were used nowadays. I see no need for repeating the names but that can be done in the last sentence so I'll try just putting in a statement saying that the official name remained Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm grateful that you are willing to compromise. I want to re-iterate that I am not trying to push a POV, and I am at a loss to know what POV you thought I was trying to push. Whether the three names go in the second paragraph or the last doesn't matter to me, so that part of the edit is fine.
The question I am trying to address is this: why did the Republic of Ireland Act not say "the name of the state shall be the Republic of Ireland"? Other things being equal, that is the only logical wording to use. You and I know the answer to that, but the average reader does not. Therefore the whole Name section makes no sense to him/her. Why is the name one thing and the description another? Why have a description at all? Factually stating the reason (and I want to re-iterate that the reason has always been stated, and has never attracted comment, never mind criticism) does not favour any political or other agenda. It only answers a question that the reader is bound to ask. Scolaire (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
You are totally deluded if you think some technicality would have stopped them if they really wanted to do it. They had an argument over it. I wish it had been resolved to avoid the claim to Northern Ireland but that isn't what happened. What you're trying to stick in is unbalanced without the rest of the stuff in the article about this and has not got enough weigh to stay here in a chopped down section. Dmcq (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
To say the least, the article content needs to be enough to let readers (as well as some past and possible future editors) have a npov inkling why, as result of editorial discussion, we have an article titled "Republic of Ireland" which begins "Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland..." with its infobox headed "Ireland", annotated with "Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland declares that the name of the state is Ireland; Section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 declares that Republic of Ireland is "the description of the State". Qexigator (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dmcq: Who is this "they" you are talking about? Who are the people who could have disregarded the constitution with impunity? "They wouldn't have been bothered about legal niceties" – really? Are you saying that John A. Costello was a despot? That he, and all the other TDs from five different parties who passed the bill, were in the pay of the British? What, exactly? And explain this to me, if "they" could do what they wanted, why did they bother their heads making up the designation "description"? What purpose did it serve? And if all of this (whatever "this" is) is common knowledge, why is it not in the article? Scolaire (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
They is the government of Ireland at the time and they could easily have called for a constitutional change to say 'Republic of Ireland' as part of a show of hands that people agreed with becoming a republic, and they would almost certainly have got it thorough quite easily on that basis. The point is they were well aware there was a problem with Britain calling the state Eire but they did not have the will to fix the problem properly. It was not some legal technicality that stopped them. What was said was a technical truth covering up a bigger untruth and does not deserve a place with weight in the article. None of this deserves a place in the article because the section has been chopped down and is past history and the problem is resolved. Dmcq (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Please point me to where this is in the history books (or anywhere else). Scolaire (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
To my npov mind, the present version of the article serves its purpose as it stands. Enough is known to history to show that, despite deep differences of feeling and aspiration among them, de Valera and other leading republican politicians, on the one hand, conducted themselves vis-a-vis the UK and in the international arena, with no little skill, and on the other hand, the kings (V and VI) and those proceeding in their behalf, acted with a measure of prudence and dignity in these serious matters affecting internal and external affairs of grave consequence. Let them RIP. Qexigator (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Recommend that WP:BRD is respected, folks. Be sure ya'll have a consensus before implimenting any major changes. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your solicitude, but we're we were getting along quite nicely so far without brandishing WPs as weapons of last resort. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Scolaire has invoked 3RR against me so it really is up to you what you want to do. It looks like I should have just invoked BRD rather than trying to edit to some compromise text. Dmcq (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
According to WP:3RR I should revert my most recent edit so I'll do that. It is the one you just thanked me for doing! Dmcq (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
BRD does not apply. My edit was not bold. It was discussed extensively beforehand. It was the modification proposed by Qexigator, and was agreed by all parties, including Dmcq. Unless you mean that Dmcq's subsequent deletion was bold, in which case I'm content for discussion to continue, as long as it's realistic and leaves out vague and unsubstantiated accusations of POV-pushing.
@Qexigator:, Dmcq is saying or implying that you are now opposed to my edit (which was actually your draft) and prefer this version of his, that he has had to revert. Can you confirm that? Scolaire (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Since you ask, when I saw Dmcq's edit[2] I sent a 'thank' message. Qexigator (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
That is not what I asked. Are you now opposed to going back to the version that you and I agreed? Scolaire (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you are driving at. You have my answer. I have nothing to add to it. Qexigator (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Driving at? I want to know whether it is worth while continuing this discussion, or whether you now think there is nothing to be gained by going back to the agreed version. I have never at any stage spoken anything but clear English, but now it seems you are joining Dmcq in only speaking in riddles. This whole thing could have been sorted in a civil way if people had only been willing to say what they meant and not got caught up in non-existent conspiracy theories. I am not going to continue hitting my head against a brick wall. I wish you and Dmcq many happy edits together. Scolaire (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Resorting to reporting Dmcq as edit warrior was a bad move in my view, like it or not.[3] I regard either version here[4] as acceptable. The present version of the Name section is mainly your draft and is an improvement on what was there before. The less argy-bargy[5] between editors the better. Let all parties carry on the good work of improving Wikipedia as best they can. Qexigator (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
If he had stuck to abusing me endlessly on the talk page he would probably have got away with it, but there was no way I was going to let him get away with abusing me and edit-warring at the same time. Since he self-reverted, he probably won't be sanctioned. But, as I say, I'm going to leave the two of you to your love-in. I have better things to be doing. Scolaire (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
How about just saying why [6] was a bad idea? I removed the duplication of the names and the reference and put in'constitutional' instead of 'official' which shows pretty clearly that it was an act and so didn't affect the constitutional name rather than them having to refer to a note. The names are in the last paragraph as current as well as being metioned in that paragraph so the note would bring that up to three times. That's the basic facts. What more than the basic facts are you trying to say? Dmcq (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The fact that interests me is not that the act was an act. We don't need an encyclopedia to tell us that. The fact that interests me is that there is a reason for the use of the word "description". The reason is that, constitutionally, the act can't use the word "name". I said that at the start. Why are you now coming at me with "How about just saying why that was a bad idea?" I say what I mean. There is no hidden agenda underneath it, and I wish you would once and for all tell me what you think I am trying to conceal and what I am trying to misrepresent. If you don't agree that that simple fact is a fact worth stating, then so be it. But stop with the aggression. It's really wearing. Scolaire (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, I said that I was okay with not having the three names three times. It was Qexigator that put them back in when he added the footnote. Nothing to do with me. Scolaire (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
As you say it doesn't need an encyclopaedia to tell us that an act can't change a constitution. Saying the name 'Ireland' is the constitutional name is enough explanation for that. The interesting thing is why they used the phrase 'Republic of Ireland' in the act in the first place which that 'explanation' throws no light on at all. As to an agenda the wording in isolation makes it appear they wanted the official name to be 'Republic of Ireland' but weren't able to because of technical difficulties and what followed was just good buddies working round the problem. We should just avoid trying to present a side on all that in a section as small as that. Dmcq (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
First off, I said we don't need an encyclopedia to tell us an act is an act, not that an act can't change the constitution. The question I was asking was why the act couldn't make the name "Ireland" and the answer is that it couldn't because of the constitution. Why did they use "Republic of Ireland"? They were fed up of the British saying "Eire" and they wanted to establish in law that the state was a republic, so "Republic of Ireland" was the obvious name. They did want the official name to be "Republic of Ireland", they weren't able to, not because of technical difficulties but because of the constitutional question, and they didn't try to be buddies with anyone, just passed the bill through the Dáil against the protests of Fianna Fáil and with the slimmest of majorities. This is all, as you say, basic facts. It is not partisan; there are no "sides". It's narrative history. If you don't want to include it, fair enough, but again, please stop with the "taking a side" remarks. Scolaire (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Some acts can change some constitutions, and the point, when relevant, should be made clear. But, yes, the footnote needed trimming, as now done. Qexigator (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think that is nice, factual, concise, neutral and informative. Scolaire (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Emphasizing that the note is about the name rather than a desire on their part helps, with that it could be merged back I think. If the government had really wanted to name the state the 'Republic of Ireland' a I said before they could have done it quite easily at the time with a constitutional vote which they could link to becoming a republic. The act was passed unanimously, Fianna Fáil did not oppose it. Dmcq (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the vote. Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I would not be opposed to an edit putting the footnote content inline. Qexigator (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I have merged it in as suggested by you both. It involved over-writing "but the official name remained Ireland" (which Dmcq in his self-reverted edit had changed to "but the constitutional name remained Ireland"), because that was only saying the same thing. If either of you disagrees with that, feel free to put it back in. Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I put it back, but changed it to the present tense and put it after the ref because it is not stated in the cited source. Scolaire (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I put back 'official' as constitutional was only there to explain why it wasn't changed and now that is inline just beside it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcq (talkcontribs) 12:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
"Official" has no meaning. Its name is Ireland according to the consitution, and its description is "Republic of Ireland" according to the 1948 Act. Both are official. Either it should say "The official name remains Ireland and The official description remains Republic of Ireland" or it should be taken back out. Scolaire (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Qexigator attempted a "tweak" here which to my mind only shows the pointlessness of continuing to try to "tweak" it (no offence, Q). I'm pretty sure that when both of you said above that the footnote could go back inline, you meant that it could over-write what had previously replaced it. I added that second sentence as a belt-and-braces approach to avoid deleting anything, but it was a mistake. It adds nothing to what is in the previous sentence, and only leads to conflicting views on what it means. Let's quit while we're ahead. Scolaire (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's grand now. Walk away from the dead horse. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The conditional isn't a tense, it's a mood. Scolaire (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You have some peculiar ideas of English sense not knowing what official name means and thinking this is wrong. See for example [7] "Her little pranks she did not deny, To do so she would have had to lie, And lying, she knew, was a sin," where practically that exact form is used and works well. Dmcq (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
It's conditional mood, not conditional tense. "...would have put it in conflict with the Constitution" is the perfect tense, conditional mood. I was poking a little fun at Laurel's edit summary. Will I never again be able to say anything on Wikipedia without you launching into another personal attack? Scolaire (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks? Where? If so they are the most tame I've ever seen on this site. Also official has a meaning. If the state gives itself a name and a dexcription then they are the official descriptions of that state as its government dictated them. Mabuska (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I made a mistake and thought Scolaire was putting in the clunky language and explaining why here rather than that they were trying to make some sort of joke. A good illustration I guess that humour doesn't work well on Wikipedia unless heavily marked as such and even then can be misunderstood. Dmcq (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Now that the concerns about revising the Name section have been resolved, may we not adopt the suitable mood for letting this go and moving on? Qexigator (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

'Name' section part 2[edit]

The 1922 state, comprising 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland, was "styled and known as the Irish Free State."[1] The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Article 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 states, "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." The 1948 Act does not name the state as "Republic of Ireland", because to have done so would have put it in conflict with the Constitution.[2]

The government of the United Kingdom used the name "Eire" (without the diacritic), and, from 1949, "Republic of Ireland", for the state,[3] it was not until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement that it used the name "Ireland".[4]

As well as "Ireland", "Éire" or "the Republic of Ireland", the state is also referred to as "the Republic", "Southern Ireland" or "the South". [5] In an Irish republican context it is often referred to as "the Free State" or "the 26 Counties".[6]

  1. ^ Coleman, Marie (2013). The Irish Revolution, 1916-1923. Routledge. p. 230. ISBN 1317801466. Retrieved 12 February 2015. 
  2. ^ Gallagher, Michael, "The changing constitution", in Gallagher, Michael; Coakley, John, eds. (2010). Politics in the Republic of Ireland. 0415476712. ISBN 0415476712. Retrieved 12 February 2015. 
  3. ^ Oliver, J.D.B., What's in a Name, in Tiley, John, ed. (2004). Studies in the History of Tax Law. Hart Publishing. pp. 181–3. ISBN 1841134732. Retrieved 12 February 2015.  Note: the author incorrectly uses "Éire", with the diacritic
  4. ^ Oliver (2004), p. 178; Daly (2007), p. 80
  5. ^ Acciano, Reuben (2005). Western Europe. Lonely Planet. p. 616. ISBN 1740599276. Retrieved 12 February 2015. 
  6. ^ Smith, M.L.R (2002). Fighting for Ireland?: The Military Strategy of the Irish Republican Movement. Routledge. p. 2. ISBN 1134713975. Retrieved 12 February 2015. 

The above is really slippery, sneaky stuff. The words "because to have done so would have put it in conflict with the Constitution" suggest there was an intention to rename the State. The Irish have a habit of having referendums. If they'd wanted a new name, they could have had one at any point. It ignores entirely that there was most certainly a diplomatic dispute about the name. It's seems to me to just be written (1) to gloss over the importance so many Irish governments have attached tothe name "Ireland"; and (2) minimise how inappropriate the prominence given on WP to the ROI description is. Stylistically, its horribly written too. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

All this in an article whose sneaky leade reads "Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland, is a sovereign state in western Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland." That presentation with the putting in bold of the ROI term is, in my opinion, trying to fudge that ROI is not the state's name. So this is more of the same. A few years ago, the lede was far different from the sneaky one it is now. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
For those who weren't on Wikipedia a few years ago, this is how the lede used to read (I picked this from a random version back in 2008): "Ireland (Irish: Éire, Irish pronunciation: [ˈeːrʲə]) is a country in north-western Europe." No sneaky reference to Republic of Ireland to confuse the reader in a lede and no reference to five sixths of the island which is a lot of detail to put in a lede.... The latest re-write of the name section is certainly in the same mould. Gloss and fudge. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why you have to invest so much feeling in it. I think the lead is fine but I agree with you that the sentence " The 1948 Act does not name the state as "Republic of Ireland", because to have done so would have put it in conflict with the Constitution." conveys a falsehood even if it is technically true. The act didn't try to rename the state, it gave an official sanctioned description of the state and there really isn't anything more to it. It is true the act couldn't rename the state but so what? However the citation does back up what is said and gives the same impression even if patently false so I can't see that much can be done about it. What exactly is it you want to say though other than to complain alleging that editors are being sneaky? Dmcq (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I should have written in a way that was consistent with the assume good faith regardless of the reality and my instincts. Sorry for that.
Pretty clearly, I think (i) the old Name section was better; (ii) the new name section glosses over the fact there was a diplomatic dispute with the UK over the name and this should instead be clearly stated; and (iii) specifically on the wording we both mention is problematic: yes the wording is backed up by a source..but so what? That doesn't mean it doesn't convey a false impression - the wording suggests the Irish wanted to change the name to the ROI but didn't on account of the constitution...this isn't true; successive Irish governments have gone to considerable lenghts to insist that the proper name is simply IRL. If all that is too complicated, I simply would like the old section back again. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Stating that the Act did not change the name because the name in the Constitution was "Ireland" is factually correct given that for whatever reason, actual or surmised, the Constitution had not been changed. Further details are given in the linked article Names of the Irish state. This has all been discussed at length above (including Archive 18[8]). Qexigator (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Well it is factually correct that I haven't beaten my wife for the last two weeks (no citation I'm afraid so no verifiability) but that also might convey a falsehood. But as I said the citation does incline towards saying something like that so we'd need a good citation saying something different to do much about it I think. Dmcq (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I really don't want to start this all over again, but I am really and truly puzzled about this and I would love for somebody to give me a straight and comprehensible answer. Article 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 states, "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." If it was not the intention of the framers of this act that the state should be referred to as "the Republic of Ireland" what was their intention? We have references to "a diplomatic dispute about the name." Am I to infer that Article 2 was added just to give the Brits a chance to create a diplomatic dispute? I am not trying to be clever or funny here. I just genuinely don't understand what it is that Article 2 was supposed to do or why it was put in, if it wasn't so that the state should be called "the Republic of Ireland". Obviously, if it was intended that the state should be called "the Republic of Ireland", then it needs to be clarified that it did not change the name of the state. From where I'm standing, there is no fudge in the article section as it stands, but the arguments against it lack clarity. Scolaire (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and I do not understand why the grumble keeps rumbling on, now that the point has been encyclopedically settled for the purpose of this article, all as previously explained and discussed. Qexigator (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Two purposes, to assert that Ireland was a republic and to stop Britain referring to Eire. It could be described as the Republic of Ireland. However the name remained Ireland. What more is needed? The problems of insisting on it being called Ireland without having a standard description are obvious now and must have been obvious then too. They knew what they were doing, they discussed this very point about the difference between the description and the name. They could have changed the name if they so wished by having a referendum on the constitution, as a package to assert independence it would have passed without any problem. Probably some people would have liked to changed the name - I certainly think it would have been better to - but there is no evidence that they wished to do so. About all we can infer is that it allowed Britain to use a more acceptable name. Britain was told that the name was Ireland but that it could be alluded to as the Republic of Ireland, everyone else they asked to refer to it as Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
To assert that Ireland was a republic, it was only necessary to say "It is hereby declared that Ireland is a republic." There would have been no room for ambiguity then. So we're left with "to stop Britain referring to Eire." But no domestic legislation can stop a foreign nation from doing anything. And if all they wanted was to suggest an alternative description to Britain (which they could then have a fifty-year dispute to stop them using!) all they needed to do was to write a letter or make a phone call. Article 2 states, "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." It is imperative, not permissive. It says "you shall use it", not "you may use it". So why do that? It doesn't accomplish either of the things you said there. And as for this assertion that they "could have passed a referendum without any problem", Mr. Kenny and several of his predecessors could tell you it's not as easy as that. Sometimes it's easier to legislate to get around the constitution than to risk losing a referendum and thereby losing everything: look at the recent abortion legislation. So, again, why enact a law saying the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland if your particular desire is that that description should not be used? Scolaire (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
In my view Scolaire's reasoning is convincing, but we remain with conjecture, and Dmcq has acknowledged above we'd need a good citation saying something different to change it. Unless that is produced, we have no basis for reopening a discussion on this point with improving the article in mind, for the simple reasons stated above (factually correct in itself, linked to article giving further details). The present version says all that needs to be said there and is better suited to this article than the earlier one (as at 13:38, 7 February[9], which tended to verbosity and needless, tendentious, and possibly unfounded, detail. Qexigator (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do want to thank Dmcq for saying that we shouldn't change it without a good citation. I notice that the OP has started tendentious threads on a couple of other talk pages at the same time as this one, so probably we should decline to pursue this further. That is, of course, without prejudice to Dmcq's right to respond to my last post if he wishes. Scolaire (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
If they had really wanted Ireland to be generally referred to as the Republic of Ireland they would not for instance have written to the Council of Europe that the state should be referred to as Ireland. It was only to Britain where they said they they could refer to it as the Republic of Ireland even though the name was Ireland. How else could they suggest anything besides Eire to Britain and get it accepted?, any name needed some sort of official stamp and a phone call doesn't do that. I hope that makes it abundantly clear to you that they did not wish it to be generally referred to as the Republic of Ireland but they would prefer Britain to use that compared to what it was doing before. There was no two sides about the Act like there was for abortion and it is just plain silly to compare it to that. 'Sometimes' does not cover this case, becoming independent had overwhelming support. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
...we still remain with conjecture, we'd need a good citation saying something different to change the article, and unless that is produced, we have no basis for reopening a discussion on this point with improving the article in mind, and the present version says all that is needed encyclopedically. Qexigator (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
As to your edit comment yes it is silly as in stupid or daft to suggest they wanted to do something when they wrote to people saying the exact opposite. Dmcq (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Not silly, stupid or daft to differ from another's pov, particullarly when, it seems invested with so much feeling, unsuited to the bona fide work of editing Wikipedia. Qexigator (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Pov? It is Scolaire who pushed for the inclusion of that piece and who interprets the bit you say is purely factual, they see it as shoring up their pov. Do you still assert it is just purely factual and not a support of a pov? There is no evidence from the time to shore up that pov and there is good evidence against. Dmcq (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do think we should all just stop this theoretical discussion, not add anything more and not respond to anything. I'm done, at any rate. Scolaire (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────What if we changed the sentence to, "The 1948 Act did not name the state as "Republic of Ireland", and could not have done so, because that would have put it in conflict with the Constitution"? Scolaire (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I would personally see no objection to inserting and could not have done so, if that were actually helping a reader to understand anything more than the present version, but when others see that later someone could well be tempted to trim it out as unnecessarily pedantic or verbose, without adding any clarity. I do not see it does anything for the point of view that has been grumbling about the present version, but it is more likely to excite unverified conjecture, as given above at some length. Your previous proposal is the better one: stop this theoretical discussion, not add anything more and not respond to anything. Cheers, all! Qexigator (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Might as well just leave it as it is. I was just saying to Frenchmalawi that I felt there was something wrong too but there was no point just going on about it without some citation. I don't think moving the words around a little or putting in a few more will make much difference to it. Dmcq (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Scolaire (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
What about:

"The 1922 state, comprising 26 of the traditional 32 counties of Ireland, was "styled and known as the Irish Free State." The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 describes the state as a republic [1] and leaves the name of the state (Ireland) unchanged.

    • ^ Note: Republic of Ireland Act 1948, Article 2 states: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."
    Other citations temporarily removed for clarity. This improves readability and eliminates weasleiness. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    It may be better still to use words closer to the act's section 2, thus: The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 declared the description of the State to be "the Republic of Ireland", while the name "Ireland", as given in the Constitution, continued unchanged. Qexigator (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

    Wait, wait, wait! We've just managed to get agreement for the second time on the same wording. The first time around Laurel Lodged told us to stop flogging a dead horse. Now he wants a complete re-write! And he wants to take "Republic of Ireland" out of it altogether! The paragraph tells the reader (please remember this is for the readers, not for the people who want a discussion on the talk page) how the "Republic of Ireland" came to be, and why the act that gave it the description did not change the name. Please just leave it alone. Scolaire (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

    True enough, and good enough. Cheers, all! Qexigator (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

    I can back the proposal at the start of this sub-ssection. Mabuska (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)