Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(a continuation of the Ireland (state) Move poll).

Copied from the WP:RM page:

  • Republic of Ireland → Ireland (state) — I'm suggesting we move this article to Ireland (state). This move will move the article to the countries offical name and not a discription of the state, the countries common name, and will satisfy WP:DAB, Remove the need to pipe link [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] which is troublesome --Gnevin (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

I'm suggesting we move this article to Ireland (state). This move will move the article to

  • the countries offical name and not a discription of the state
  • the countries common name
  • Will satisfy WP:DAB
  • Remove the need to pipe link [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] Gnevin (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
While I agree it is the correct thing to do, we should wait on this discussion until more info comes to light from the IMOS discussion.Pureditor 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree -- "Ireland (state)" is not "the countries offical name and not a discription of the state" nor is it "the countries common name" as claimed. "Ireland (state)" is a wikipedia disambiguation whilst we have the perfectly official description Republic of Ireland. Djegan (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree - while Ireland is the official declared name of the state it carries a political connotation. It is better to use the official state description as provided for in Ireland's own Republic of Ireland Act 1949.The Thunderer (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Of course it is sometimes called Ireland and sometimes Republic of Ireland, but why move it to an unnatural disambiguation when it's already located at its natural and the most common disambiguation name, the name just about everyone inside and outside of Ireland uses? Strange proposal. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
If this was was WP:DAB name it should be at Ireland (Republic) or Ireland (Republic of) per DAB .Gnevin (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Which looks absolutely daft and in my opinion is disrespectful to the people and government of Ireland and that MUST be avoided at all costs.The Thunderer (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
More silliness. Sigh. Djegan (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
What's silly about it? As far as I can see one of the major issues here are people with very avid, fundamental views and that is leading to disrespect and lack of good faith. In my opinion we should remove that from any discussion.The Thunderer (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I was responding to the proposal "it should be at Ireland (Republic) or Ireland (Republic of)" -- isn't that just another way of proposing Republic of Ireland? Especially given the use of capital R in republic? Djegan (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - there is no other option other than using simply Ireland as the title with Ireland (island) as the dab for the geographical entity. The argument that the common and legal and internationally recognised name of a country can't be used on Wiki because it carries "political connotations" is mind-boggling in its implications for the names of Wiki-articles well beyond these islands. (The first of which would be, thankfully, the end of the term "British Isles"). Sarah777 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
There's the current option and that's good enough.The Thunderer (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
No - it is contrary to Wiki policy. Maybe we should rename "Israel" to "The Zionist Entity" because the name is political? Sarah777 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
There is similar disagreement over the name Israel. I fear that's not a good example. As you are aware though there are many who would prefer to see the ROI called something else and certainly YOU might agree that Northern Ireland is not properly named.The Thunderer (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The use of Israel as a comparative example shows a real lack of perspective. Do people really feel as victimised over the the "ROI" and "British Isles" as terms, as 'third-class' Muslims feel genuinely oppressed in areas of Israel (or even regarding the whole state-creation issue of Israel?) I initially have sympathy with the BI and ROI issues, but when I hear this kind of 'victim' mentality, and see a prosperous and thriving Ireland (whatever it is called), and an Irish people who are welcomed wherever they choose live, work or visit, I get completely turned off. Is there anything worse than this type of extremist view, when so few want to hear it? Isn't it keeping resentment alive? Using Israel as a comparison is just plain daft IMO: and I think it will have to end up with a name change (probably "Israel and Palestine") for the very future of the country, if not the entire region, or further still. (this was my first paragraph! --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry - Israel is a simply wild comparision.) Paragraph now amended. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring the unsigned troll; Israel appears to be a rather good comparison - that is the Wiki name of the place. It adds
For other uses, see Israel (disambiguation).
But, and this is the key point, the state is called simply Israel. Sarah777 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Is the word "Ireland" better as the island, or as the state? I know a lot of people feel that geographical terms come first. As I'm not Irish, I'm personally on the fence.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Stop been stupid Republic of Ireland has been sanctioned by Irish parliament, it wasn't forced on anyone. Djegan (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Warning: please stop calling people "stupid" - that is a clear breach of WP:CIVIL. Sarah777 (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Stop wiki-fiddling by misrepresenting my comments. Djegan (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
In the interests of fairness I think the argument is that the name hasn't been sanctioned by the Dail. It has been provided as the description of the state.The Thunderer (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Or [1] Mediocre Britian , because claiming to be great is surely pov. When was ROI santioned by the dáil? And sure Article 4 outweighs any law Gnevin (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The term Great Britain is geographical and not political however and article 4 doesn't exist anymore.The Thunderer (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Mediocre britian was a joke , i understand its meaning. Article doesn't exist anymore ,thats news to me and the supreme court, have you told them you've removed it? [2]Gnevin (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Might be a joke but based on the "logic" being applied here if some politician used the phrase in the Commons it would be taken as "British Government policy"! Sarah777 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Would the words have to be after each other because I'm sure the phase it's be a mediocre year for britain has been said in the commons , maybe call the article mediocre .... britain :D Gnevin (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
He he! To go with British (ahem) Isles ;)Sarah777 (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree for all the reasons stated in the previous discussions this year already - sp. the silly season has arrived again this year! ww2censor (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing remotely "silly" about trying to have my country called by its common, locally and internationally recognised legal name. Nothing. Sarah777 (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, don't read what is not there. Did I say the idea of this discussion was silly? No, but the fact that this is the third time this year makes this the silly season. ww2censor (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Apologies Ww; I am actually livid this vote was called as I thought we had a workable solution. Sarah777 (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

*Support per common-usage & to avoid pipelinking. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support per all the well established reasons above.Pureditor 17:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Must we go through this again? RoI is a dab invented by the Irish state, and passes WP:COMMON handily.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
It appears we must TU - but don't blame me! The RoI/Pipe was a solution that was working fine until some absolutists decided to try and suppress it thus bringing this article back into play again. Sarah777 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Though not exactly the same thing: the Georgia situation was solved -Georgia (U.S. state), Georgia (country)-; why shouldn't the Irelands be solved easily. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Not wishing to be trollish but you could argue that both Georgias are (were?!!) US states :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose I agree Ireland is the official name but it is a misnomer. Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment So is Northern Ireland for that matter - what would you suggest for that Article? --HighKing (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Sarah's reasoning above concurs with my own view. The names of many states are problematic, but it is not for a group of Wikipedia editors to manufacture some supposed compromise. As the name of the state is Ireland according to the constitution, and as it is so registered at the United Nations, no alternative should be seriously considered. RashersTierney (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)RashersTierney (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC) revert to support
  • Support An encyclopedia does not makes points or play politics. The name of the state is "Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The ambiguity is an issue for me. Our core policy WP:NAME states "Titles should be brief without being ambiguous.", WP:DAB states "For disambiguating specific topic pages, several options are available: 1. When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta), that should be used." Picking names on legislative grounds is not standard, see WP:OFFICIALNAMES. So given our policies and that I believe a new reader of en.wp is most likely to pick the longer form than guess correctly our bracketing disambiguation format, and that the long form is commonly enough elsewhere, I oppose. Knepflerle (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Although I am not wild about the alternative. ROI is no longer used and carries huge political baggage. Northern Ireland is now the undisputed official name (see amendments to the Irish Constitution) for what was contentiously called by some the Six Counties. Similarly Ireland is now Ireland in all official circles. It is not correct to argue that it is a misnomer, that is a POV Blue-Haired Lawyer --Snowded TALK 22:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: You say "now" as if this is some new development? The UK may have become more ammenable to referring to the southern jurisdiction as Ireland since the British-Irish Agreement (addressing the president as the President of Ireland as so forth) but internationally Ireland has been Ireland since 1937. Republic of Ireland is no more out-dated now that it ever has been, it is still the official description of the state, and still the common way to differentiate the Ireland-the-state from Ireland-the-island (intra-Ireland-the-island terminology such as "all-island" aside).
The proposed change seems needly complicated to me, when a perfectly run-of-the-mill solution already exists. --78.152.197.185 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose IP address- RoI is the official description and a common name of the state properly called Ireland. The current solution is normal practice for disambiguating Ireland-the-island from Ireland-the-state. The current solution is clear - where the name is clearly stated to be Ireland, but the means to disambiguate Ireland-the-island from Ireland-the-state is intuitive and uses "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" (WP:NAME). In reply to specific arguments put forward by the proposer:
    • "the countries offical name and not a discription of the state" - the official name of the country located at France is in fact the French Republic, Germany is officially the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom is officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Spain is the Kingdom of Spain, and so on and so on and so on ... As a rule of thumb, you can be certain that an article on a country on WP will NOT be located at the official name of that country - and with good reason. Ireland/Republic of Ireland is no different.
    • "the countries common name" - Since 1949, RoI is the common way to distinguish Ireland-the-state and the Ireland-the-island. Would you like us to go back to 1937-49, where we will have to use Éire to differentiate the two? Republic of Ireland, while it might not be the official name, is undoubtedly a very common name for the state if not the most common name.
    • "Will satisfy WP:DAB" - the current solution satisfies WP:DAB, and - more to the point - satisifes WP:NAME: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Republic of Ireland is perfectly easily recognizable, eliminates ambiguity and at the same time makes linking easy and second nature.
    • "Remove the need to pipe link [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]" - by requiring the need to pipe link [[Ireland (state)|Ireland]]!?
--78.152.197.185 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Interesting that you use the date 1949, which is the date of the UK act (although you pipelink to the correct 1948 act). Also, just to point out for your benefit, I have seen occasions where the opinions of anon IP addresses are not given weight in polls, although you do appear to have a firm grasp of the argument. Perhaps you merely forgot to log in? --HighKing (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, there's usually 2 IP ranges (78.xxx.xxx & 86.xxx.xxx) that frequent these discussions. Yet, they choose not be registered users. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't get too excited, GoodDay. Those two ranges include thousands of people that happen to live in an area where people are likely to have an interest in Ireland. Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The Republic of Ireland Act 1948, operation from 1949. No confusion/error at all! Djegan (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Its better to just use the name of whatever act is being referred to, or to call it the 1948 act. Especially since the UK passed an act in 1949. Otherwise it is confusing - of course your mileage may vary. --HighKing (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but our anon editor was not wrong, but you were clearly implying s/he was. Djegan (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
HighKing - "Interesting that you use the date 1949" - per Djegan, 1949 was the year that the act came into force. Thanks for the heads up on IPs and weight, it's a choice to use an IP. I've already had the comments above struck out by the proposer because according to his I was "an obvious sockpuppet". --78.152.209.132 (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support IP AddressIt's the name of the country and any opposition to the change is only for political reasons.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:78.152.209.132 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Could this be another sockpuppet as previously on this vote, in any case are anon votes counted? Djegan (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
They're usually ignored as the voting can easily be abused by ips so I don't see why we should do things any different. They should be discounted.Pureditor 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Bizarrely, the above IP-based contribution has been disclosed as a sock puppet of Pureditor, presumed to be as part of a campaign to discredit my contributions. See here. --89.19.88.228 (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Bizarre indeed! Whatever next? See you in 48 hours, Pure(?)editor. Scolaire (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, yet again. The article name is a name of the state which is unambiguous. I don't see any reason to change this to any other variation. The name is provided by the Republic of Ireland Act of 1948. That the preferred official name of that state is "Ireland" is not in dispute. Ireland, however, is the name of an island - thus the need for the disambiguation when it comes to the state territory which claims the exact same name as that of the island: the two are not the same, despite the existence of a political desire for that to be the case. --Setanta747 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it is not the name of the state. I've asked above that folk stop suggesting that it is. Falsehoods should render a "vote" invalid. Sarah777 (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose ROI is a perfectly adequate and unambiguous name, is in common usage and reads better in prose than Ireland (state). Would be less opposed, however, if "Republic of Ireland" (piped to "Ireland (state)") were to be accepted as the rule when referencing in other articles. Mooretwin (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Like you, I (and most editors) believe a Dab is required - but your suggestion doesn't makes sense for articles needing to Dab - in effect you're saying that "Ireland (state)" isn't an adequate Dab, or are you saying you just want article to continue to use the term "Republic of Ireland"? --HighKing (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See Haddocks' Eyes#Naming: The State's name is Ireland, but the State is called (by law) the Republic of Ireland. This is therefore the appropriate name for the article. Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Support It's pretty good. --HighKing (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly support This seems like the best solution to the messy way things currently are Apollo Crua (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Given that there's a reasonable alternative, a confusing parenthetical disambiguation isn't needed. Scolaire and Djegan also have good points. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support IP address . It is the only accurate name of the state.213.202.169.124 (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Accurate? Is it not a republic, then? Scolaire (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It is indeed accurate. ROI is not a name.Pureditor 14:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
ROI didn't stop being a label or phrase English-speakers use to refer to the country when it was officially designated as a description. It is one of the two names English-speakers most commonly use to refer to the country. Names have an existance in usage outwith official sanction, and there is a non-trivial link between the two. Here on en.wp, WP:NAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES put usage and unambiguity over officialdom. Knepflerle (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting list that, thanks for the link. It does also contain Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Timor-Leste, Syrian Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania too though, none of which are the first choice here. I wonder how they pick which of all the possible names for a given country to use for different uses (full forms on treaties, shorter forms for titles etc.), whether they have a policy for it or whether they just use what comes naturally to the secretary if there are no legal implications. Interesting! Knepflerle (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible Oppose - It's not an improvement on the current problematic name. Lets not ditch one frying for an equally obnoxious fire Crispness (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - absolutely not - Alison ❤ 14:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Any reason why Alison?Pureditor 14:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Primarily per DJ's rationale - Alison ❤ 15:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
There's another discussion below - any views on that? --HighKing (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The state has an unique official name, namely "Ireland". The island also has a unique name, also "Ireland". However, this uniqueness does not work in reverse, so there is a clash at what article appears at "Ireland." It is currently the island, which seems reasonable, as the state is a subset of the island, not the other way round. (which is why I would disagree with having the article for the state at that title as per package below) Thus, the debate is basically what to call the article for the state, given that the article title at its official name is unavailable. (Hence it seems to me that arguments based solely on official name are somewhat moot) The disambiguation choice given here is between "Ireland (State)" and "Republic of Ireland". Given that the former is not its official name, and the latter is the official description, the latter choice appears to carry the most weight. I also believe that the opposing suggestion of "Ireland (State)" has additional problems of potential confusion, given that one of its historical names was the Irish Free State. To address the RM issues directly, a) the requested move target is neither the official name, nor its common name, but the current title is a official description. As for WP:DAB, the current situation satisfies it better (point 1), imo, as a "confusing parenthetical disambiguation" (as Angus described it) is unnecessary, given that the other option of a title (the status quo) has actual official standing (as an official description). Piping is a minor issue, given that this will have to be done anyway no matter what disambiguated title is chosen, and in any case, given that Ireland (state) is already a redirect to the current article, it can be used now without any move required. Unfortunately, like many disambiguation issues, there is no perfect solution, all we can aim for is the best/least bad one, and I believe the current layout is just that, hence the oppose to this move. MartinRe (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Current disambiguation is better than the option offered both in stylistic and recognition terms. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support IP address I support the proposal that 'we move this article to Ireland (state).' It's more than unusual that the internationally accepted and recognised name of our state, Ireland, is not used here. What is really going on? And Ireland (state) is a good compromise that does not detract from Ireland, the whole country. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, let's look at the argument first.
    • the countries offical name and not a discription of the state
      • Pardon my extreme boldness, but I have never seen mention of "Ireland (state)" in the media or anywhere on the Internet. Just imagine the headlines (albeit fictitious): "SIX COLLEGE STUDENTS KILLED IN IRELAND (state)" or "IRELAND (state)'S RELATIONS WITH ELBONIA CHILLIER THAN EVER". Please.
    • the countries common name
      • Then why not move this article to Ireland and rename the island's article Ireland (island)? The fact is, Ireland is the island, and while Ireland could be considered the state/country as well, Republic of Ireland does the job better than any other title could. Please bear with me for a moment; I know almost nobody has not heard of Ireland, but let's take the case of someone who might not. OK, so I type http://www.wikipedia.org into my browser and go to the article Ireland (state). How would I know, without reading the article perhaps quite in depth (depending on how soon and how clearly it was stated that Ireland is a republic), that Ireland is not a democracy? Or a dictatorship? Pardon, fellow Irishmen, but I think my point has been made.
    • Will satisfy WP:DAB
      • How?
    • Remove the need to pipe link [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]
      • By introducing the need to pipe [[Ireland (state)|Ireland]]? Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul? Pissing in your shoes to keep your feet warm? Very admirable reasoning.
  • All in all, I think Strong Oppose could be inferred from what I've just said. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  02:17 27 August, 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per User:Alison. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support over the makeshift incorrect and Wikipedia-specific name, and per Georgia (country). +Hexagon1 (t) 01:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Djegan and my own arguments every other time this comes up... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: This was appended here from the bottom of the talk page, and contains votes which will be duplications of the votes in the above Regested Move to Ireland (state) poll. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Commment Surly the redirect page Ireland (state) takes care of the linked pipe problem ([[Ireland (state)|]] generates Ireland), so that is not a justification in itself for a move. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support (duplicate opinion, due to survey merge ) - this is a far more acceptable solution than the current situation which is in clear breach of Wiki policy. Sarah777 (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    Please point to the "wiki policy" that that current situation is in "clear breach of", rather than continually alluding to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I have pointed to the policy dozens of times. Ireland is both the common name and the actual name of the country. If it needs a dab (which it doesn't) than (state) is better and less ambiguous than implying that RoI is the name. Sarah777 (always at work) 12:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
British editors are vastly outnumbered by American editors. What is keeping this article here is a) indifference, b) a lack of a clear rationale, and c) people discrediting themselves by labelling the whole thing as a British conspiracy. No Chris, wrong. The key flaw in your reasoning is that most editors have no interest in the issue at all. Of those interested, the vast majority are Irish or British and that is where the numbers come into play. Sarah777 (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


The common name is "Ireland", not "Ireland (state)", and the actual name only has a certain weight - not using it doesn't "breach" any policy. And in my dictionary "indifference" (my first point) is the same thing as having no interest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Chris, if you are clear about the definition of the word then I assume you can see the flaw in your reasoning. Of course "Ireland (state)" isn't the common name, it's a dab. But unlike the 'RoI' dab it doesn't mislead people about the name of the country. Sarah777 (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I have already noticed there have been opinions from editors who have not posted here before, and hopefully there will be more to come. I have no idea where they come from, who knows, they may not be British or Irish. Skipper 360 (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support (duplicate opinion, due to survey merge)- Clearly something needs to be done, and this solution is acceptable to me. --HighKing (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - This is a compromise that is a weaker solution than what we have already, IMO. People would still use the word "Ireland" for the state - it would just now be pipe-linked to "Ireland (state)". What about historical uses of the word? People are always a little flexible with history (ie some anachronism is allowed for clarity) - but 'state' is a very modern word. You can't always get brackets (parentheses) in flowing prose either - which is why I proposed "island of Ireland" for the island (though that can be a redirect-page too a main "Ireland (island)" article too). The problem remains with this proposal, of people going to the "Ireland" article and seeing an island and not the state: I think that needs to be seriously addressed now if we are to do something solid here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Matt, I actually think you're idea to dab the island and simply call the state "Ireland" is far better than this - but I think this is better than the status quo. Sarah777 (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support(duplicate opinion, due to survey merge)- as more closely reflecting contemporary naming convention of the state while allowing for possible ambiguity. The present contentious Wikipedia article name closely reflects a former convention perpetuated mainly by a particular party for political reasons, and is not in my view the best compromise, no matter how often that line is repeated.RashersTierney (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Question: which particular party, Rashers? It was introduced by the coalition (of every party except Fianna Fáil) and retained by Fianna Fáil (and the others) for sixty years. Scolaire (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Answer The 'party' in question was the British Government, who used the phrase as a name. None of the Irish political parties used 'The Republic of Ireland' as the name of the state.RashersTierney (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hang on! - Is the RM here or is it here? I have already voted in an ongoing RM. Will my votes and others be counted or will we just be ignored unless we come back and do it all again? Have you posted notices out to those who have already voted? I certainly wasn't notified. This discussion was already a mess - now it's a shambles! Scolaire (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed - if anything will prevent a move its the fact the issues been discussed to death and a consensus is confused. Having said that I oppose any current move requests. Djegan (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
At this stage I think the precautionary principle is to register a vote anytime you see what looks like a poll :) Sarah777 (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the point of the discussion here is having editors who wouldn't normally take an interest in this bring fresh views to this subject. Perhaps you will find people voting here who have never done so previously. Skipper 360 (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • this is a cynical poll - Even the 'proposal 27' name for it is cynical. It's 'disolving' genuine support for the last poll too, which concerns me. I think 'double-supports' and these mini 'forked' polls (from other page) always lead to the status quo remaining. People need to focus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs) 13:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
What would you suggest Matt? Do you mean concentrating on the discussion without constantly polling everyones opinion? Skipper 360 (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
All this needed to be was a comment with a link to the previous poll - not another poll. As you had asked for outside opinion, we should have left it there for a while. Whatever happens, I'm taking the 'Ireland'-as-Irleand very seriously indeed: it's the only one that makes logical sense. It didn't originally make it a 'poll' myself becaure we must try a focus on things one at a time! But the idea clearly took too off, and it was polled, I and I saw no technical or logical argument given against it working fine. As Sarah said above, is certainly better than any other option available. I'll give you more news on this soon. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree (obviously) that it should not have been started as though it was a new RM. As for your idea-that-became-a-poll, perhaps it wasn't a great idea to introduce it in the middle of an ongoing poll; that's when things began to get muddled. But that's water under the bridge now. Since it was (is) your baby, I think it would be a good idea for you to count the votes in favour and against. If there is a clear consensus in favour then there would be no point in pursuing this current poll; if not, then it might be better to park it until this one is decided. Scolaire (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I go by arguments, not votes. That's how change happens in life. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Scolaire's point is valid- can clear expressions in support for and against move to Ireland (state) be consolidated in one location? I have changed my position on this, having followed discussion, and it is not always easy to know for sure where a simple view should be logged rather than elaborating on the merits of change or otherwise. I have in mind a simple list of editors with Support or Oppose, reflecting their latest opinion.RashersTierney (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If we are going to have a poll we should first of all ask the question, should this article be named Republic of Ireland. Then if the answer is no the discussion can then go on to what it should be called. Skipper 360 (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose (duplicate opinion, due to survey merge). See Haddocks' Eyes#Naming: The name of the State is Ireland, but the State is called (by law) the Republic of Ireland. This is therefore the appropriate name for the article. Note: this is a duplicate vote, on a precautionary principle per Sarah777 above. Scolaire (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Since we're getting into semantics, the English word name is defined as a word or set of words by which something is called. In many lanugages when asking someone for they name they simply same "How are you called". The Republic of Ireland may well not be the state's official name but it certainly is a name. We are not writing a statute here but an encyclopedia article. Our chief reference point should be the English language, not law. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC) I misread. Blue-Haired Lawyer
CommentScolaire, you are (unintentionally) misrepresenting the Republic of Ireland Act. Its a legal document and must be read as such. It describes the nature of the State, it doesn't 'call it' ie name it anything.RashersTierney (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
An aside Not quite. If they just wanted to just do that, they would have just declared the state to be a republic. They didn't. Instaed they declared that the state should be described as the Republic of Ireland to supply an alternative term to "Eire". The act didn't declare the state to be a republic but by abolishing the monarchy the Act made the state a republic, (or at least cleared up the confusion of the matter which existed at the time). Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Rashers, I am not doing anything unintentionally. I am registering my vote (again!). My arguments are above if you care to look for them. Scolaire (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose (duplicate opinion, due to survey merge)So instead of piping [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] we will pipe [[Ireland (state)|Ireland]]. That's a real improvement, isn't it. NOT. (Can I vote for Proposals 28 thro' 58 while I'm here?) Crispness (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Worse we're just end up doing [[Ireland (state)|Republic of Ireland]] Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
They show a high level of discontent with the current article title, and a certain determination to ignore those concerns.RashersTierney (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe a concern to keep the article where we think it belongs? Scolaire (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the poll taking place to here to enable the Rfc discussion to continue and hopefully continue to bring in opinions from outside editors. I hope nobody minds. Thanks. Skipper 360 (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

This RM is still only a few hours old, but it has already become bogged down with discussion. All further discussion should take place below here. I have been bold and moved all previous discussion, except discussion of actual votes, down here as well. Scolaire (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment the Discussion at IMOS is going around in circles , this RM will either solve the naming issue or the pipe link issue , which will allow greater focus on the remaining issue Gnevin (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  • "Ireland (state)" is not "the countries offical name and not a discription of the state" nor is it "the countries common name" as claimed. "Ireland (state)" is a wikipedia disambiguation whilst we have the perfectly official description Republic of Ireland. Djegan (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • While Ireland is the official declared name of the state it carries a political connotation. It is better to use the official state description as provided for in Ireland's own Republic of Ireland Act 1949.The Thunderer (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment You need to be consistent Thunderer, if you want to go back to that act, then we need to also take that period's position on Northern Ireland/Six Counties. We need to move on from old disputes and be consistent. --Snowded TALK 22:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment What political connotation seems like your WP:POV to me, care to prove it? Gnevin (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment how about you proving that "Ireland (state)" is "countries offical name and not a discription of the state" and "countries common name"? Djegan (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I thought it wasn't the countries common name as you claimed above is it now? Gnevin (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I've always called it the Free State or the South. That's not out of disrespect, these are the names commonly used in the circles I grew up in - which were of mixed ethnicity.The Thunderer (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course it has a political connotation. Please don't insult my intelligence or your own Gnevin by asking me to prove it. We'd be here for a year and still not come to agreement. That's what happens over everything with Ireland, north & south. I'm not here to change the world, I'm just espousing common sense. Djegan, I happen to agree that the country's name is Ireland and believe their own 1937 Act is sufficient proof. That's what I mean about argument however - we could still be at this in a year.The Thunderer (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Are we talking about the country or the state here; thats what confuses people. Nobody denies that "Ireland" is the name of the country (in the broad sense) - but the state is something different, even though it is also officially "Ireland". Using the same for country and state is a nonsense. The states official discription is "Republic of Ireland" - and using that makes good sense. Djegan (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
My contention is that we should be showing some kind of tolerance here and setting an example to all Irish people no matter what nationality they are.The Thunderer (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree.The Thunderer (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the difference between the state and the country? We do use Republic of Ireland when describing what kind of government the state of Ireland has. Just like the US is a federal republic. But it's blue and wet is a description of a thing named water not its name Gnevin (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The difference is six counties - jaysus man surely you knew that?The Thunderer (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
That's the difference between Island and State Gnevin (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem however. Using the name Ireland for the state implies that it IS the whole island, which is exactly what it's supposed to imply. Common sense must prevail.The Thunderer (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
No it doesn't. No more that ROI implys that .Gnevin (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The use of the name Ireland was instituted for political reasons. There can be no denying that - sorry.The Thunderer (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Nor can it be denied it was the right of the nation to pick what ever name it wanted political or otherwise and the nation it's government and it constitution are the only offical sources of the name of the country and that name is clearly stated as Ireland ! Gnevin (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
If that were true I would agree however the nation didn't pick the name as we all know. The Long Fella didn't give people choices like that.The Thunderer (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
And that matters to wiki, why? Article 4 ,is my final word on this ! Gnevin (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments: [7] [8] [9] [10] France is not a state which also shares the exact name as that of an island. Likewise with Israel. The term Great Britain doesn't refer to Britain as being "great" in the sense of being "good". It refers to comparative land mass or to a derivative population. --Setanta747 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Comments You know I do find this use of the 1948 act amusing, it has been seized on to perpetuate a term which (along with others) exemplify a conflict which we all hope is over. Whatever the intent in 1948 it came to be used symbolically thereafter.. The UK Government made a conscious choice to stop using it. This is not like France or the other examples. If the argument is for something which is unambiguous then Ireland (state) is exactly that requiring no further explanation. I can see no reason to retain ROI in the face of the facts, and an unambiguous alternative. --Snowded TALK 23:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense, patent nonsense. The use of the words "Republic of Ireland" never had anything to do with the conflict, except maybe with fundamentalists with baseball bats, secret bunkers and semtex. Claims like that are unreasonable and cannot be backed up with facts. This is the sort of foolish claims that Matt Lewis was trying to draw attention to above. Headlines, with little fact. Djegan (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Surely the names disputes with Uk section of the names of the Irish state article would suggest otherwise?Pureditor 23:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Doesn't match my memory or experience Djegan and I'd support Pureeditor in suggesting you look at the reference he makes. I made the statement in good faith, please treat it as such. The facts actually show negotiations over the name being serious ones. --Snowded TALK 23:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Why do you folks go into WP:AGF protected mode so easily? By the way, what facts? Lots of claims on this name/description negotiation. Any citations? Djegan (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I only go into WG:AGP when I see the sorts of comments above (in case you hadn't seen why I mean aggressive statements, accusations that other editors are being foolish). It really doesn't help things you know. In respect of citations you have been referred to another Wikipedia article which has a whole load of them. --Snowded TALK 23:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Not many (relevant) references when I checked. Djegan (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Is the conflict and dispute been referred here one and the same thing? I think not. To claim otherwise would paint a poor and backward picture of Anglo-Irish relations. Djegan (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
"You know I do find this use of the 1948 act amusing" - No great mystery. That is where the term "Republic of Ireland" originates. If it wasn't for that act we would be arguing whether the article should be located at Éire or Ireland, as was the common way to disambiguate Ireland-the-state from Ireland-the-island from the introduction of this confusion with the constitution of 1937 until the 1948 act introduced a new way to disambiguate the two (probably accidentally - the intention was probably to rename the state from "Ireland" to "Republic of Ireland", but that would have required a referendum which in all likelihood could have failed with great embarrassment). --78.152.209.132 (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: Just wondering how other encyclopaedias have resolved this issue, not that Wikipedia should necessarily conform, but if there is an established pattern it might help take some of the heat out of this contentious issue.RashersTierney (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough Encarta and Britannica both have Ireland down for the state, with Ireland (island) for the island. With all the POV flying around from editors, I doubt the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia will ever be as good as those though. You never know, a NPOV might happpen and the article titles here might be the same.Pureditor 23:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
However although Encarta has the article under the name Ireland it says "In 1937 the Free State’s name changed to Éire" and "Today, the country is commonly referred to as the Republic of Ireland to set it apart from Northern Ireland." Also The text is confusing because it mixes up Ireland and Republic of Ireland. For example the second sentence starts "The Republic of Ireland lies to the west of Great Britain, the largest island in the archipelago." Yet it has not mentioned what the "Republic of Ireland" is! The first paragraph would be a much clearer article if it replaced Ireland with RPI and RPI with Ireland! The Britannica article has similar problems "But while many may think of Ireland as an enchanted land, the republic has been beset with perennial concerns—emigration, cultural and political identity, and relations with Northern Ireland (comprising the 6 of Ireland’s 32 counties within the province of Ulster that remain part of the United Kingdom). " and "The republic of Ireland occupies the greater part of an island lying to the west of Great Britain, from which it is separated—at distances ranging from 11 to 120 miles (18 to 193 km)—by the North Channel, the Irish Sea, and St. George’s Channel. ... Ireland, which, like Great Britain, once formed part of this landmass ..." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Vote currently stands at 8 - 8; this is the nearest yet in the series of "votes" to a vindication of WP:COMMON and WP:NPOV. I suggest that if the opponents of WP:NPOV don't get at least 70% of the vote we take that as "no consensus" for a deviation from normal naming policy, and move the article forthwith. Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
One step at a time - don't count your chickens yet. Its not even a day. It could go either way, but likely "no consensus". Djegan (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
First, this is not a vote. Second, you might benefit from studying the diagram over a WP:CON - or maybe start small and ask someone to draw you a Dougle-style diagram of Dreams vs. Reality. If all that sounds like too much effort, how about by starting by suggesting what you believe would be a suitable compromise because unless you can effect a change to consensus, things stay as they are. --78.152.209.132 (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure who you are referring to here Mr IP. @ Dj - yep; bar a miracle we are heading towards "no consensus". But that is the chicken I'm counting on! Sarah777 (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Those who prefer Republic of Ireland are striving for NPOV; just like we are. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Albeit with political motivations behind them. A lot of editors who support ROI have been quite open about that fact.Pureditor 23:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The same charges could be made to us (who support 'Ireland (state)'. We must be careful, what we say. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you (Pureditor) trying to slur certain editors? That sort of thing is bound to backfire. Djegan (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is?Pureditor 00:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe I have misinterpreted your comment, you mean that "Ireland" supporters are not open about their political motivations? Djegan (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Guys calm down. Lets keep this objective. --Snowded TALK 00:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to be objective, but I read the above comment to mean that ROI supporters have "political motivations" to editing. Djegan (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Some pro ROI editors have admitted as such. Just read above, or I can give you some diffs if you like. I'm not sue what political motivations Ireland supporters would have, from what I can see all they're trying to do is use the constitutional name recognized by the EU and the UN as the title of the state like the way it is on professional online encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta. But then again, I'm not Irish or British so I may be missing some political motivation, but considering the name is established in the real world I don't think I am.Pureditor 00:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
At various stages on this and related pages we all have suspicions as to political motives. The essence is to focus on facts so I suggest the exchange above cease. --Snowded TALK 00:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Your no more neutral than anyone else[11][12]. You struck out the first edit, whilst you tidied up the second. Djegan (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a position on this, and I am trying to argue a case. My request was for all of you in this last sequence to move on from attributing motives it doesn't help --Snowded TALK 00:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK so the two relevant governments call it Ireland, so does the EU, so does the UN. In addition two other Encyclopedia entries use Ireland. The arguments against reference a 1940's act and their opinion that it is wrong to call it Ireland as it does not cover the whole of the geographical entry. Come on guys, this is meant to be an objective discussion, not a rehash of old disputes. --Snowded TALK 00:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I've noticed Republic of Ireland is slowly continuing to be pipe-linked throughtout Wikipedia (sorry Sarah). Is that a good thing, while this page movement thingy is being conducted? GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I'm so slow G'Day - but have you any idea how tedious this work is? Sarah777 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This *is* a rehash of old dispute. See the archives. The official name of the state is not in dispute. Whether is it better to use "Ireland (state)" or "Republic of Ireland" is. The 1948 act is the originator of the latter term. From 1937 until then people used Éire to disambiguate Ireland-the-state and Ireland-the-island. Since then Republic of Ireland' as become the commonly-used differentiator. Please do not make straw man arguments it insults both your own intelligence and the intelligence of other's for having to respond to you. --78.152.209.132 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Watcha talking about? GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
the "Straw Man" point seems an assertion to avoid engagement. All the books cited are pre 1995 --Snowded TALK 00:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Pre 1995 means pre the 1998 Belfast Agreement where the UK agreed to stop using ROI and use Ireland as the same of the state. (sorry for stating the obvious.)Pureditor 00:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
"Straw man" is a logical fallacy. If the straw man point is valid, then engagement in argument is impossible as a logical argument does not exist to respond to. As for Google books, I suggest you click onto page two to see more references. Or, if you are truly lazy (as I suspect you are), you can follow this link where it will show you only books from 1996 onwards - or indeed this one, which will show you only books for 2008. --78.152.209.132 (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Accusing folk of being "truly lazy" is clearly in breach of WP:NPA. As you are an IP I'll be forced to remove your comments with extreme prejudice is you continue to engage in personal abuse. Sarah777 (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
That's for an admin to decide, not a known belligerent like yourself. Remove my posts and we'll continue this discussion over at AN/I. --78.152.205.30 (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
My degree is Philosophy so I do know of the Straw man fallacy, but I will freely admit that at 0200 in the morning I may not have scrolled through all the pages on your reference. Even having scanned them now I not a lot are travel guides, with some political books that reference ROI. However the context of their reference (current or historic) is not revealed by the google search. I note that you have chosen not to deal with the arguments relating to official government bodies, or for that matter as yet to answer my question on your talk page as to whether you have previously edited the Wikipedia under any other name ( a fairly standard question to new IP addresses - your first edit was yesterday - who enter controversial areas). --Snowded TALK 00:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
"The arguments against reference a 1940's act and their opinion that it is wrong to call it Ireland as it does not cover the whole of the geographical entry." Snowded, that was the straw man (OED: "A sham argument set up to be defeated."). You right, I did not engage with the straw man argment, because no argument existed. If you don't have the curtsey to engage with others in a forthright manner, why should others engage with you? I explained in my response how the straw man was fallacy. I am still await you to respond or to apologise for misrepresenting your fellow contributors.
You left a message on my talk page? Then you have about as much understanding of DHCP as as Pureditor. Was it a standard question to ask? No, it is not.
(p.s. "the context of their reference (current or historic)" - you are a funny guy! The term 'Republic of Ireland' refers only to the current Irish state from 1949 to present. It refers to no other entity every in history. The entity that is refers to is still in existence and the statute that defined the term is still in force. A "historic" reference is impossible.) --78.152.205.30 (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi anon, I also don't understand the point you're trying to make. That some books published use the term? The "Republic of Ireland" is still the legal name of "Ireland" under UK domestic law. How many of these books are British? How many use the term to Dab against Norther Ireland? How many are incorrect (for example, in the 2008 link, the 2nd book mentioned on European Human Rights incorrectly quotes the case as Lawless VS Republic of Ireland when the actual case was Lawless VS Ireland..." --HighKing (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
With the Google books search results? To show that the term is widely used indicate the state and to distinguish the state from the island. (Snowded had inferred in his staw man that people did not use the term any more, or that use of it was out-dated.). "How many of these books are British?" Books themselves have no nationality. I assume you mean to ask how many of those books were published in the UK or written by British authors. A proportion, I suppose, given that it was an English-language search. Maybe try a different language if you don't like the Queen's English. "The 'Republic of Ireland' is still the legal name of 'Ireland' under UK domestic law." The "Republic of Ireland" is still the legal description of "Ireland" under Irish domestic law - and, more to the point, still the common way to distinguish Ireland-the-island from Ireland-the-state. What's your point? And what is your obsession with the UK and all things British? This is in international encyclopedia and this article deals with Ireland not the UK. --78.152.205.30 (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Since history appears to be important here, I will add a little of my own. The 1948 Act was introduced by the Coalition Government of John A. Costello in September 1948 and opposed by Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil subsequently were in government for 16 consecutive years under de Valera, Lemass and Lynch, but never even suggested repealing the Act. Since the Good Friday Agreement and the amendment of Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution, Fianna Fáil have been in government for 10 years but, again, no suggestion has ever been made that the Act be repealed. I for one don't have any problem with the Irish or British governments using "Ireland"; there is no law that says they can't. But the fact remains that the description of the State is The Republic of Ireland. Therefore that is a correct and appropriate name for the article. It is the people who say "The Constitution says 'Ireland' so the article must say 'Ireland'" that are wikilawyering. Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The description of Guinness is a black,alcoholic liquid with a white head. That doesn't change the fact that it's name is Guinness. The article should be at the name of the state not the description hense, Canada is the name and its at Canada not constitutional monarchy federation of Canada—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnevin (talk • contribs) 10:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
But there's a very big difference between a description and a name. The article about the act explains it all very well. It all suggests that obviously, the name should be used.That's what a name is isn't it? My user page doesn't say User: Canadian Wikipedia Editor it gives my name.Pureditor 10:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
But I'm not suggesting the article be name "A country in north-western Europe", am I? It's time to drop the Reductio ad absurdum! The State is called (by law) The Republic of Ireland. That is a perfectly good name for the article. Scolaire (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)@Snowded, I posted a fuller account of the background Talk page of WP:IMOS and your interpretation omits Costello's explanation as to the different between Description and Name which explains what a description actually is. I've duplicated the text of that post below: The 1948 act states that It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland., and declared that the state had "ceased to be part...of His Majesty's dominions" and thereby left the Commonwealth of Nations.

The distinction between a description and a name has sometimes caused confusion. The Taoiseach, John A. Costello who introduced the Republic of Ireland Bill in the Oireachtas explained the difference in the following way:

If I say that my name is Costello and that my description is that of senior counsel, I think that will be clear to anybody who wants to know. If the Senator will look at Article 4 of the Constitution she will find that the name of the State is Éire. Section 2 of this Bill declares that “this State shall be described as the Republic of Ireland.” Its name in Irish is Éire and in the English language Ireland. Its description in the English language is “the Republic of Ireland.”.

The following year, the British government passed the Ireland Act 1949 which carried a provision which stated The part of Ireland referred to in subsection (1) of this section is hereafter in this Act referred to, and may in any Act, enactment or instrument passed or made after the passing of this Act be referred to, by the name attributed thereto by the law thereof, that is to say, as the Republic of Ireland.

Thus the practice of referring to the state as "Republic of Ireland" is thus shrined in UK law, but not Irish law. From an Irish point of view the fact is that Ireland is a republic, and this is enshrined as the official description. From a British point of view, this has meant that the Republic of Ireland is the only name for the Irish state officially recognised in domestic UK law.

While I believe that the above summary explains why there is a disagreement between editors on this subject, and explains why a number of editors view continuing the practice of using RoI as being a British-only POV, it does little to suggest a compromise or work-around. Inspiration from the Belfast Agreement suggests that the British government accept "Ireland" as an official legal name - but until the 1949 act is amended, it actually has no legal basis in UK domestic law.

--HighKing (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And until the 1948 Irish Act is amended, "Republic of Ireland" is a perfectly good name for any article on the State. Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm bemused by the fact that you still don't see that a description is not the same as a name.Pureditor 10:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
A description such as "A country in north-western Europe" is clearly not the same as a name; "The Republic of Ireland" is a name, to all intents and puposes. As an article name, it is perfectly good. Scolaire (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
@Scolaire, the 1948 Irish Act does not legislate for RoI as a name, and Costello makes it very clear how to interpret the Act. Is there any reason why you chose to interpret it differently? --HighKing (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The Taoiseach, unlike the Pope, does not speak ex cathedra during Dáil debates. Costello may have been a constitutional lawyer (I don't know) but his idea of how to interpret the Act was disingenuous to say the least. If his idea of a description were to be followed the Act would have said "The decription of the State shall be a republic" or "an independent nation with a President as Head of State". Now, let's get real here. Any reasonable person reading the Act would read it as "The State shall be referred to as The Republic of Ireland." I can guarantee you that if it was referred to the Supreme Court, that is how they would read it, and Costello's ham-fisted "explanation" would not even be taken into account. I mean, this is not even under discussion in the real world; it's only here on WP that anybody is pursuing this "description" stuff. Scolaire (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Scolaire, I understand your point, but on the face of it, Costello's reasoning must be given more weight than that. The problem, I believe, is that on the one hand this argument relies on the 1948 Act to make it seem that there is an Irish legal justification for using Republic of Ireland as a name (and thereby also avoiding the real possibility that the term was popularized as a name due to the UK 1949 Act), but on the other hand it doesn't suit to accept the explanation of the Act by the man who introduced it. --HighKing (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, HighKing, some more history: The UK Act did not popularise the name, it was enacted simply and solely to recognise the name (yes, the name) given to the State by the Irish Act of the previous year. Why does the Act call it a description and not a name? Because it couldn't be called a name without a constitutional amendment i.e. a referendum, and Costello knew damn well he couldn't carry a referendum; he could barely hold on to a majority in the Dáil! Why did he offer such a lame interpretation of the wording? Because he couldn't tell the truth - that it was simply a change of name by the back door. That's what politicians do. I'm not trying to make it seem that there is an Irish legal justification for using Republic of Ireland as a name; it's blindingly obvious that there is an Irish legal justification for using Republic of Ireland as a name! The "description" argument is just a red herring; I've said it several times already and I'll say it again as often as it takes. If this was the subject of heated debate in the Dáil or in the newspapers I wouldn't mind, but it's not. Everybody in the real world is fine with "Republic of Ireland" as a name. Scolaire (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on renaming it either way, but I would like to add that having to pipelink Republic of Ireland is not a good reason to change it to Ireland (state). If it were Ireland {state), it would still have to be pipelinked, as I'm sure you wouldn't place Ireland (state) in every instance of the country either. Kman543210 (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Ireland/Archive_8&oldid=1145923900"