Talk:Republic of Ireland

Name Mediation

After another debate on this issue (different talk page) the suggestion of mediation was made to finally end it. The request is at the top of the page. People who have discussed this issue before are included.WikipÉire ^♣ 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the other debate, on a different talk page, that decided mediation should take place and that you refer to? ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk: United Kingdom is the place you seek. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what's going on here now? Wikipéire starts a holy war on another article, and then opens a request for mediation with editors who were not involved in that debate, and on a topic ('move "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland"') which has had no overt discussion here for 4 or 5 weeks? Am I getting this right? Guliolopez (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. Should be interesting to watch at least. Narson (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yawn, yawn. This topic has been discussed about every 6 months and no consensus has ever been reached to change the status quo, so User:Wikipéire keeps flogging the same dead horse until he drives away enough decent editors and gets his way. Drop it for once and for all. It's old hat and boring. Let me repeat that, it's boring. Mediation is unneeded and unwarranted, User talk:Wikipéire likely wants to just bring in more people who have little knowledge of the topic and can be convinced by his constant pushing. ww2censor (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally perfer Ireland (state) or Ireland (country). But, whatever's decided at Mediation? IMHO, should be respected for at least 12-months. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ww2c is right. This is just flogging a dead horse, and there is no need for mediation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as long as no-one takes pictures of it, otherwise I think we fall afoul of the new British extreme porn laws. Narson (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reaction is just what I expected. You've always been against the move. Just because something has been there for a long time don't mean its right. I would have thought for WikiProject members getting the main country's name right would be important for an encyclopedia! Anyway we'll see what the mediation brings.WikipÉire ^♣ 19:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Me or BHG? I only just got brought into this...and there is no moral imperative in the wikipedia naming of the article and what is correct is a matter of perspective. Narson (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry not you. I was talking plurally to most of the other editors who have commented so far. Should have placed my comment better.WikipÉire ^♣ 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipéire, it's absolutely fine to believe that you are right, but what's not fine is that you don't seem to accept that other editors can legitimately disagree with you, and that repeatedly raising the same issue is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've volunteered to mediate this issue within the Mediation Cabal; however only if people from both camps want to go through with it - see my comments on the case page for a possible goal. I just mention it in case some of the involved editors don't watch the case page - I'll just keep it open for a while. Averell (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need to try mediation here. Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Closed the case. Only the "pro-move" camp supported the mediation, plus the original requester was banned permanently. Averell (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gay rights

Why has Ireland got a section on gay rights? I don't want to start an argument over gay rights but I don't see this on any other country article. Is this just a backlash of some sorts against the catholic church! Joe Deagan (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be because (as you note) historically Ireland was "culturally conservative" in that area, and it may be that some editors believe that including it highlights a cultural change in the outlook on some issues. Possibly. Personally I'm not sure it's an appropriate yardstick/measure for social trends or the change to a more "liberal" or open society. But then maybe it's as good as any other. With regard to "why Ireland and not elsewhere". I suppose - possibly - it's because some editors believe the polls show Irish society to be more tolerant/accepting/aware/balanced/whatever than others. Again, I couldn't say one way or the other whether it's any more appropriate to include in the Ireland article than elsewhere. Certainly the main UK article doesn't mention it. Even though LGBT partnerships do have full legal equality there - way more demonstrative of a "progressive" outlook than a simple poll. Anyway. I don't see any reason to take it out. Unless it grows into something more extensive. At which point it should be moved to LGBT rights in the Republic of Ireland. Guliolopez (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

New City And Towns Template

I see a new template has been added to the article listing Ireland's towns and cities by population by user:Drog lad. This brings the little known and slow moving Drogheda/Dundalk population dispute to the the main Ireland article. I didn't bother much when it was confined to Dundalk and Drogheda (see also asociated talk pages), but now that it's spilled over I'd like people to take a look at this alarming grave minor dispute. Fribbler (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do we even need this templatecruft when there ia a perfectly good list List of towns in the Republic of Ireland/2006 Census Records available instead of taking up so much space and adding more code to an already large page which is 92kb long? We should actually be reducing the page size not increasing it. ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey relax i was just fowolling the list of 100 Largest Towns in IrelandDrogLad 16:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this?

The table below I have removed from the article as it is hopelessly confused; some of the stats refer to counties, some to towns and the Dublin figure is was the figure for the GDA which actually includes many of the others on the list (eg Tallaght). And Dundalk seems to have gone missing. Sarah777 (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Template:Infobox largest cities

I think Drogheda was given Dundalk's population figure? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it. Surely we need to keep the Dundalk v. Drogheda issue out of here? Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on several counts. The table is vague in it's definitions of town/city boundaries - In some cases it includes the exact town or city boundaries. And in other cases takes "urban area" or "town + environs" numbers. As a result, its accuracy is a little uncertain, and it therefore has very limited value. Similarly, because of this "vagueness" it brings the (sometimes troublesome) question of "which town is bigger" into a new and unnecessary forum. And finally, there is no need for this type of table in this article. We already have lists such as List of towns in the Republic of Ireland/2006 Census Records. The main country article doesn't benefit from having this data hashed up and dumped here. (No matter how prettily packaged). Guliolopez (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of Border article

At Talk:Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border, I have proposed that the name be changed to comply with diplomatic protocol. Please comment. --Red King (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC) 24.20.169.126 (talk) what with the polls mentioned, where most north protestants feel British, and only a very small minority (3%) actually considering themselves Irish, I would have to agree, this seems the most appropriate. if you think about it, arguments about calling it "Republic of Ireland" vs. "Ireland" are simply mimicking the great argument between north and south. Calling it "Ireland" would be speaking to the geography of the land, while "Republic of Ireland" would be speaking to the political boundaries of Southern Ireland.

I agree with Red King regarding this, because it discusses the politics of the Island & the politics of Britain. What better title than one that defines the politics?

-Crystal Sage 24.20.169.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Title of Wiki page incorrect

The title of the Wiki page should be "Ireland" - as explained in the main article. The title "Republic of Ireland" is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmacmanus (talk • contribs) 10:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Garda

There should be a section on the above topic. ZoofanNZ (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote

A hatnote has been added to List of basic Republic of Ireland topics, the work on just one editor: The Transhumanist. I don't think the new hatnote to a list deserves any greater prominence than any other list already in the current "See also" section. Is this an attempts to replace the much older and much more comprehensive List of Ireland-related topics that has been around since early 2004 and if anything that should be the hatnote? Besides which, we certainly don't need both, essentially duplicate, lists. Any other opinions? ww2censor (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You summarized the List of Ireland-related topics well: it is more comprehensive. The List of basic Ireland topics on the other hand is intended to be a general overview of the subject, much like the main article Republic of Ireland, but focused on links instead of prose. Unlike the more comprehensive list, it is intended to be an outline and is less index-like because of its scope (its scope is limited, whereas the related-topics list is not and has the potential to grow much much larger - see the Japan example below). Another difference is that the basic list is a member of a set of such lists (one for every country of the world) currently under construction. They are coming along nicely, and share a common format. See the rest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics#Basic topics lists for countries).

The two lists in the set that are the most complete are List of basic France topics and List of basic Japan topics (notice the format of the more comprehensive List of Japan-related topics). Please help to complete the List of basic Republic of Ireland topics to this high standard. Thank you. The Transhumanist    04:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Transhumanist. You appear to have added this "hatnote" convention to several country articles, and in doing so have created a kind of new "standard" for country related lists, and a new standard for header formats for country articles. Did you discuss this anywhere before going ahead and making changes accross so many articles? Personally I'm with Ww2censor. I don't really see what value is added by these lists. Many articles already have navboxes, "main" style nav templates and other devices to link users to the relevant "sub-articles". I don't see the value in superceding all of those with your new format. Any nods to WP:CON before you did all this? Guliolopez (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no new standard. Yet. It's just a test run. Of the 200+ county articles, I only changed the hatnote on about 20. We should see if the links actually get used - if you don't object, that is. I plan to use the hit counter to check those list articles over the next few weeks, to see if their traffic goes up. For curiosity's sake, if nothing else. If the traffic doesn't go up, then the links are useless and should be removed. I haven't sought consensus yet, because there's no data yet to bring to a discussion. If you'd like to reduce the number of test links to 10, that would be fine with me, but I figured since there are 20 completed lists, we might as well run the test on all of those (more data that way, and a test group of only 10 seems kind of scant - 20 seems about right). I look foward to your thoughts and ideas. The Transhumanist    22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I don't see that there should be any preference to a list as a hatnote over and above the prominence given to any other link in the "see also" section, so I suggest moving it there, as there is no agreement to having a hatnote on the page. You can still observe its popularity from there. ww2censor (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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 gross 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?) How vain, and how stupid! 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 kind of rabble-rousing extremism, when so few are interested? Talking about keeping pure resentment alive. Using Israel as a comparison is just dumb dumb dumb. (this was my first paragraph! --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry - Israel is a simply wild comparision)

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)
• 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 - 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 It'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. 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)

• Support per that's-what-the-UN-says argument. http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml#i has it as Ireland, cf http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml#r Republic of Korea. I'd prefer to move it just to Ireland, but as I mentioned in the package deal discussion, that messes up demographic piping from Irish to Ireland.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 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)

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)
  • [3][4][5][6], official description so lets move France to French_Fifth_RepublicGnevin (talk) 16:13, 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)

• Comment What a disaster this would be if passed -- Education in Ireland (state), Foreign policy of Ireland (state), Economy of Ireland (state), etc. Amateurish encyclopedia titles. Djegan (talk) 16:27, 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)

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)

Ireland package deal

There is a vote taking place on moving "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (state). This package deal, while worthy of discussion, is a separate issue entirely and should be in a separate section. I have re-formatted it accordingly. Scolaire (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a note before doing this - I wasn't around to make initial replies, and some slight confusion seems to have ocured already. The 'Republic of Ireland' article would not be about the football team, and "republic of Ireland" (small 'r') - is used by people - by Encylopeida Britannica for a start.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Support "Ireland" 'package deal'::

• (Reasons first): Encyclopaedia Britannica redirected my search of “Republic of Ireland” to an article called "Ireland" but uses “republic of Ireland” (small caps) throughout it. I like this ‘small cap’ option. I also noticed that Britannica doesn’t at all have an Ireland (as island) article – I’ve double checked. They have very small Great Britain and British Isles articles (basically link pages), but no article for the island of Ireland. I also notice that the Wikipedia Ireland (as island) article is mostly information forked from the Republic of Ireland article.

1. Have an article for the state called “Ireland” (per Britannica).
2. Have a much shorter island article entitled “The island of Ireland” (minimum forking!).
3. Offer “Ireland (state)” and "Ireland (island)" as optional terms, in the Irish Manual of Style guideline.
4. Suggest “republic of Ireland” (small R) as another optional 'disambiguating' expression, in the Irish Manual of Style guideline (per Britannica).
5. Have a shorter “Republic of Ireland” article offering the ROI football team at the top, that can mention 1949 etc, and effectively be a sub-article of the main “Ireland” one. PLEASE NOTE HERE: the football team is just a "See also link" NOT the whole article! The article would be on the ROI term.

• Support These make sense to me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Matt, you are now like water in a desert where previously you were like water in a petrol tank! I 100% support your suggestions above. You appear to have finally grasped the complex issues involved here and distilled a viable solution. Sarah777 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I think the idea of a Package might be a useful mechanism for getting beyond this cyclical 'frozen conflict'. RashersTierney (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support:I like the package deal Gnevin (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: In principle I'm in favour of compromise packages, but I'm afraid I could not support this one: "The island of Ireland" is a little used term that certainly would not be searched for by anybody; "republic of Ireland" with a small 'r' is never, but never, used; and "Republic of Ireland" with a capital 'R' is not a football team, it is a political entity. Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland would be an article on ROI as a term (mentioning 1949 etc)- the football team article will remain the same as it is. I just meant it would have a top-line "For the football team see.." style 'link' at the top. What dawned on me reading Britannica was how little information would be 'unique' to any 'island of Ireland' article. When I realised how much information was forked on Wikipedia in it I whought of the 'package'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. But the fact remains that the island and the state are two different things and both need sizeable articles. I don't believe "The island of Ireland" as a title will gain acceptance (see below), and naming the state as "Ireland" (with or without the dab) is problematic for Northern Ireland unionists as well as for many in Great Britain (the island), not to mention people like me who use ROI purely by convention. Scolaire (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Who cares what people search for that what redirects are for Gnevin (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respects, Gnevin, that is a silly comment! If nobody wants to read an article on "The island of Ireland" why have an article on "The island of Ireland"? That is most certainly not what redirects are for. Scolaire (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How is the "the island of Ireland" not an wothwhile phrase? Or article title? Do people search for "Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics"? No - they find it. Seemlessly finding it is the key.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

People who find "Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics" will be satisfied with the title; people who find "The island of Ireland (which is a the by the way) will think "what a silly name!" TBH it was Gnevins response of "who cares?" that really irked me. Scolaire (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I would endorse all of Sarah's comments here (and I mean all !). Matt has come up with an evidence based approach, that offers a way forward. Using a small "r" makes it a description not a name. Ireland can have a disambiguation line to take people to the isle page, and there ROI would link automatically. I note that the 1949 act is being pulled out again with complete disregard for subsequent history and that none of the protagonists for ROI are dealing directly with the evidence of UK government use other than to dismiss it in effect as a bad decision. --Snowded TALK 08:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the move/rename/"package deal" proposal. The current naming/situation remains the best compromise in my view. In terms of the island article, "Ireland" remains a super-set term that can be applied to the state, the island, and various sub-sets of it going back 1000s of years, and therefore applying it to the super-set is the most appropriate. (And therefore I find that having "Ireland" as an article about the geo/geo-political/hist article about the entire island is most appropriate). In terms of the state article, while "Republic of Ireland" is a compromise name, (reflecting as it does the state's "description" rather than "name"), given the clash with other uses of the word, I think it remains the best article name, as: it is a naturally formed DAB term that is officially recognised, is in common use, and meets the relevant WP:COMMONNAME guidelines. (And is certainly more easily included in any article prose and explained in DAB terms than "Ireland (state)" or some other artificially contrived label). Guliolopez (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Better than anything going - many thanks for your ingenuity, Matt, and indeed I think we may be getting somewhere here - but fear that the "island of ..." construction treads onto neologisms (in the sense that this is a newly-preferred way to distinguish between the two in dimplomacy between the GB/IRL/NI) and that writing "republic of .." as opposed to 'Republic of ..." is unintuitive so long as the term Republic of Ireland as legal, common and practical currency. Furtermore the island is not called the "Island of Ireland", but simply "Ireland" - Wiki standard practice is not to make this prone to confusion by having it has Ireland (island), which I'm sorry I don't see the need for so long as a perfectly acceptable term ("Republic of Ireland") is there, in common use, easily recognizable and used for this exact purpose already. --78.152.205.30 (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made it clearer that "republic of Ireland" (small 'r') is used - specificaly it is used all the way through the Encyclpoedia Britannica article on "Ireland" (their name for the state). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Hi anon. Have you editted before under another name? In polls such as these, I have seen cases where the opinions of anon IP addresses are ignored and not counted for obvious reasons. You might want to consider logging in. --HighKing (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Same anon as above. If another IP appears in this discussion, I'll make a distinguishing mark. Thanks again for the heads up. --89.19.88.246 (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anon, be aware that a distinguishing mark can easily be duplicated, or omitted. The usual way to have a distinguishing mark count is to use/create a login, and I'm sure you're aware of the rules on sock-puppettry --HighKing (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No its just an ip editor, he or she "chooses" to be anon. I reckon we ignore it for obvious reasons.Pureditor 10:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Pureditor, I have warned you once before. If you continue in your attack against me or to encourage other to "ignore" me then I will have to escalate this matter. Please strike out your comment. --89.19.88.246 (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A post on this, and previous incidents concerning Pureditor and my contributions, has been made to AN/I. --89.19.82.127 (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes as an ip, the administrators board have banned the editor from voting but can participate in the discussion if he or she so wishes. Problem solvedPureditor 11:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the board did not ban it. One editor there, who is not an admin said no - that is entirely different. As I think that interpretation is entirely baseless according to our policy, any striking of comments is somewhat premature; it will not harm to wait until there has been more input. I have commented there. Knepflerle (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, name it's at now is fine, and, with no disrespect intended, I don't see the arguments for moving to be anything like strong enough for this sort of "compromise" to be allowed to disrupt the status quo. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, have you seen this WP:BITASK ('British Isles' usage taskforce)? I would make that a lot less wordy for a start. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support Thats a very good suggestion Matt, it is based on fact and is NPOV. I think the aguments of "the current way works fine" is completely wrong; did they not see the massive discussions on IMOS about all the piping that needs to be done etc.?Pureditor 10:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support resolves a long running argument on WP that is inherently a political argument. WP should reflect reality, not push a political POV. I think my previous support got (accidentally) lost in the move. --HighKing (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support This makes great sense Apollo Crua (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The preceding discussion encapsulates many of the concerns of hermeneutics. Clearly, for a number of editors, both pro- the change and anti-, the name of the article sets the base-line for its interpretation and is understood to have significance beyond just a means of locating information. Legal names, in this case the name of the State, while not ‘binding’ on Wikipedia editors, should be given due weight. I previously raised the issue of the naming practice of other encyclopaedias. Only two examples have been mentioned in discussion, both of which are in accordance with the proposed change. If Wikipedia differs from the established practice, it should be accepted that it is out of step, whatever the reasons. It seems that so far, all the contribs.in favour of the package were also in favour of the initial proposal. Are any editors who were opposed to the initial move prepared to consider Matt’s package or some alternative?RashersTierney (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think the "package" may need clarification. On the face of it, it is proposing to rename this article "Ireland", not "Ireland (state)", and many of the same editors are supporting or strongly supporting both moves! Isn't that going to cause some headaches for the closing admin? Scolaire (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose -- in particular “The island of Ireland” is a truely dreadful idea. We're making a lot of mistakes here. Djegan (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. For one, "The island of Ireland" isn't acceptable. I don't oppose a change nor do I oppose the status quo, but, if there is to be a change, imho, either we should make "Ireland" go directly to a disambig. page and have a choice between "Ireland (island)" and "Ireland (state) or leave Ireland at the island and make the state Ireland (state). Nuclare (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

One problem here is that when facing very short disambiguation pages, Wikipedia style guidelines suggest using the top of of the articles instead. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a very short disambiguation page. In fact, it's not short at all: Ireland (disambiguation) Nuclare (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NPOV213.202.169.124 (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

'package deal' continuation break..

• Oppose: I have much the same problems with this proposal as the one above; I think Scolaire's concerns are also valid. Knepflerle (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire made two errors his assesment (over the use of 'republic' with a small 'r' and the football team article) - can you clarify you own reasons? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The main reasons I oppose are given in the above debate as they apply equally here. Further, the spirit if not the letter of Scolaire's response is correct: "island of Ireland" and "republic of Ireland" are very rarely seen as the chosen label for these entities, even if Scolaire was exaggerated by saying they are never used. Personally I feel uncomfortable with condoning/proscribing titles that are in very much minority use; the policies here feel the same way - we do have WP:COMMONNAME, and these names just aren't common. And as I say, this is before the problems I stated earlier which I feel are significant. Knepflerle (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that 'ROI' is a COMMONNAME, but as I can no longer see a reason not to use "Ireland", that is simply the bigger and better COMMONNAME for me now. Regarding us adding the choice of using of 'republic'(small 'r') to the Irish MOS style guidline - it's basically a side matter, isn't it? I might have been better not including it - it's a bit of a distraction. The phrase "island of Ireland" is used all the time: It has over 500,000 Google hits (though I know this can be a deceptive figure). Bit not bad for a disambiguating term. Plenty of Wikipedia articles have these type of headings - it's not against MOS at all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: What Giuliolopez said. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, because this messes up piping from Irish to Ireland in demographic descriptions. I self-identify as Irish-American (or Italian-American, if food is the topic :-) ), and my ancestors on that side came over at least 4 generations ago. I have no idea which county they came from: just which island. I strongly suspect this is the case for a very large percentage of Irish-Americans, but have no evidence to that effect.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I feel you are personally 're-interpreting' a geography article, really. You actually could be decended from British, with no Irish in you at all. In the 1800's Ireland was British, and more importantly - the 'plantation' of people in Ulster were British. This is covered in the Ireland article. You can't do better than an Introduction to clarify this. It's wrong to use a geographical article to underpin your pride in being 'Irish'. Not all of the island of Ireland is Irish. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, and I'm working on not being offended by your questioning of my ethnicity. However, another part of my argument is that when my family emigrated, as far as I know, there was only one Ireland to refer to, and it covered the entire island.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)

Please don't take offense - none at all was intended. Before NI was created Ireland was always one Ireland, even under British rule (but I was talking mainly about Ulster). I hope you don't feel there is anything wrong with being British should someone choose to be (or happen to be)! Chances are you are not from British descent (especially if your family identify with being Irish). I was just clarifying some of the problems with using the whole island 'culturally'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm sorry, but it's utter, utter nonsense.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think its fair enough here to ask "why?" --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - and it is the proposal to change the status quo that I would support. Crispness (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose the present arrangements are infinitely preferable. Having the "Republic of Ireland" talking about the football team and the "Ireland" article about the Irish state turns WP:COMMON on its head. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not an act of parliament we can't just define what words mean to suit ourselves. Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've struck-out the misinformation on the football team here, and removed the line on football from the proposal - people are clearly only scanning it, and not reading it properly. It just meant a standard page-top link. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not wanting to get on your case, Matt, but you should have struck out the line on football from the proposal, not deleted it - too many people have already responded to it. And I for one read it properly and did not just scan it. The problem was that the sentence was ambiguous and lent itself to that interpretation. Also, editing other peoples' posts is against policy. I have undone the strikeout. Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You put this up as a proposal (without propely reading it), and began your "oppose" by misleading people on a couple of issues, so you certainy should not get on my case, no. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. I am not going to put up with this incivility any longer. Scolaire (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I read it perfectly well. Please put strike throughs on your own comments not other peoples. I didn't just scan the proposal, I just identified what I thought/think was its more important aspect. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Further Comment Discussing the republic of Ireland as opposed to the Republic of Ireland splits hairs over capitalisation and is very unintuitive. It also completely ignores the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 which made the "Republic of Ireland" a proper noun. Blue-Haired Lawyer

I noticed that Encyclopedia Britannica uses "republic of Ireland" (small 'r') all the way through its Ireland article: that shouldn't be sniffed at, IMO. But this, like the 'football' issue, is really just a distraction, IMO. A reason to focus an 'oppose' on, that would otherwise be difficult to effectively reason perhaps. I really only meant that 'republic' is a new ambiguator that many hadn't though of: and people are entitled to use it if they wish to: and it can be mentioned in MOS. I must say that whatever side of the issue I see, I do see elemets of censorship. People are entitled to use either 'republic' or 'Republic', surely? The current situation of having 'ROI' as the state, and having 'Ireland' pipe-linking to it - with so little flexibility allowed by people - is a very difficult one when people like me just want to write the best prose, and to have the best choice. Surely we can solve this situation? --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, the island has held the name Ireland alot longer then the republic. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this: When the Republic of Ireland is viewed as a continuation of the pre-British "Ireland", which came first is not so easy to argue. "Ireland" as island and state where originally 'one and he same', surely? I thought that is why the island is called 'Ireland'.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the island article must not be moved. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't even have an island article! I think "Ireland" was a name for an area of people, and later was used to describe the whole island (as the people lived clearly over all of it). But is it rock-first, or people-first on Wikipedia? --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I cannot see that this resolves any ambiguity or otherwise makes the title-article correlation any better.That the current title is not official is a minority position. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that didn't actally propose this on that principle: ROI is simply a less-used COMMONNAME than Ireland, in my opinion. I can see why not to use Ireland, providing we use "island of Ireland" and keep a ROI article too (for the term). Why doed Wikipedia put so much weight on the island, when Britannica puts absolutely none?? Most of the Wikipedia 'Ireland' (as island) article is text forked from ROI. That can't be ideal.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that didn't actally propose this on that principle: ROI is simply a less-used COMMONNAME than Ireland, in my opinion. I can see why not to use Ireland, providing we use "island of Ireland" and keep a ROI article too (for the term). Why doed Wikipedia put so much weight on the island, when Britannica puts absolutely none?? Most of the Wikipedia 'Ireland' (as island) article is text forked from ROI. That can't be ideal.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - it's a nonsense and it will confuse too many articles.The Thunderer (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it a nonsense? --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's a nonsense for all the reasons I've already stated on other pages. To start explaining again just has us all jumping through the same interminable hoops and is achieving nothing.The Thunderer (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

14 against and 11 plus WP:NPOV and all the rational arguments in support. Matt, I think we have enough here to declare "consensus" in favour of your proposal. Sarah777 (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What I find encouraging is the lack of real argument against it - it's basically a case of some people choosing 'ROI', or so it seems (and I expect for a number of different reasons). Despite the stats, that is encouraging in my eyes. If no-one can prove that is isn't a better option, we can advance it to somewhere more neutral.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it (but I won't fight it). GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I presume you have your tongue in your cheek as usual :-) But I'd still like to have some clarity on what's actually being proposed. For instance, what does "optional expression in the MOS guideline" mean? Scolaire (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A Manual of Style guideline is the 'Style' guideline on Ireland here. It can suggest ways of expressing things, dealing with issues etc.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I know what MOS means, but what does "optional expression in the MOS guideline" mean? Scolaire (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"4. Suggest "republic of Ireland" (small R) as another optional expression, in the MOS guideline (per Britannica)" means that the MOS Irish guideline can suggest the use of the term "republic of Ireland" (small R) as another optional expression to disambiguate with, along with "Ireland (state)" and "Ireland (island)" in the preceding point 3.

I'll add the term "disambiguate" to the text if it helps. I'll be risking accusations of mid-poll deception if experience with this issue has taught me anything. I wish you started this poll with a comment stating that you felt it was not clear, instead of adding you opposition in the way you did, and bringing this up now. Had I made this a proper 'Poll' myself I'd have re-worked a lot of it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Once and for all, I did not start any poll. You posted a "support" to the RM that was waay off topic, several people responded to your post, including me, Snowded then added a heading, effectively making it a separate topic, three more editors then added their comments in the form of votes. At this point I changed Snowded's subsection to a section, to try to resolve the confusion, and changed my response to an "oppose", in line with other people's. Okay? I am not responsible for your off-topic comment - which never belonged on this page to begin with - becoming a poll in its own right. And I do not want you to edit your original proposal, I want you to re-state it so it makes sense. IMOS does not need "optional expressions", it needs clarity. Explain what exactly you propose to insert, and where, in order to bring clarity. Scolaire (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

MOS does offer accepted disambiguation at times: it is there to help. Flexibility is the key. Nobody can pretend that we are in comfortable position as things stand. I think the fact that people get funny when polls are amended is just a fact of life with Irish nationality issues - it wasn't a personal comment on you. I've amended it anyway. I would have been happy if someone originally re-wrote it, and started it again when the other one was over. I wasn't planning to poll it myself, but I do very much want it to work. The more the debate has gone on, the more I can see it is the best way, with new reasons coming up. The term "Ireland" was originally about a defined group of people within a boundry - not the ecosystem. I've yet to hear a good arguement against the package. Without the package, yes - but not as a whole package. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's an attempt to make peace it's very late in the day! You've been making personal comments on me since 4.30 yesterday (3.30 UTC). Only one person has "got funny" on this page that I can see. And to use your own expression, if you think you have "yet to hear a good arguement [sic] against the package" you haven't bothered to read the discussion. Scolaire (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not an attempt to "make peace" - I'm saying that it really wasn't a personal comment! I pointed out your continual mistakes in my Talk page, yes indeed. Your constant moaning about me in here is 'personal' in itself - you ought to realise that. Regarding the arguments, I am somebody who does read things (you walked into that one, given your gaffs today). I simply have yet to hear a good counter-argument against the 'package' proposal. Call it my "opinion", if it helps. People have said they prefer 'ROI', and "I can't be bothered to say it all again" - but that's about the limit of it. You can glibly say "then you haven't bothered to read the discussion" - but that's just very silly - and you know it's not true, too. I can see by the lack of decent counter-arguments that the package will make for an improved situation. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire, I don't usually have my tongue in my cheek, but you might be onto something in this case :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you yourself think the opposes signify? I must say they don't seem to be particularly 'pro-British'. I personally think some people prefer 'ROI' as to them it highlights their perceived injustice, and some people don't want any ambiguity that Ireland isn't 'allowed' to be the whole island. But that is just my take. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a wild guess, but could it be that the opposes think that "Republic of Ireland" is a good name? Just that - no 'injustice', no 'allowed', no pro-anything? Is a belief that "Republic of Ireland" is a good name in any way acceptable? If not, why not? Scolaire (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good way of putting it. My belief is that ROI is a dignified and acceptable way of defining the Irish state whilst leaving "Ireland" as the means of identifying the geographical mass.The Thunderer (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is dignified and it is acceptable, but it isn't the name and it isn't the most common name. I don't oppose the state's page being 'ROI' and I don't oppose use of ROI, but I do oppose overuse of ROI. I think if Wiki editors take the ROI page title to mean that ROI can/should be used everywhere and anywhere that the state is being referenced, than I think Wiki is giving off a false impression. ROI looks so much like an official name that overuse can/will be taken as if it is the official name. Nuclare (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: One big problem is that the 'geographical mass' hardly ever needs to be referenced, whereas the state does all the time. This is a major factor here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that just simply isn't true. The island is quite frequently referenced, probably more so than the state. And the Brittanica method leads to certain sillinesses--calling only a portion of the island 'the Emerald Isle', for example. Nuclare (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I simply can't see how that can possibly be the case. Unless accidentally (ie using 'Ireland' to mean the state - another problem we have). I can think of countless reasons to mention Ireland the country. But the island? Very limited, surely.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Surely not. Sorry, Matt. But I disagree. Nuclare (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I could disagree more. I'll try and find out. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even have an island of Ireland article. There is the term 'British Isles' too, of course, which limits the 'island use' further. How often is "Ireland" used (without any argument) to mean the whole island? It can't be anything like as much as the state is referred to! Or would you argue that an actor being described as "from Ireland", is being described as from the island, rather than the country? As I say, I'll try and find out.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone asked for a list of "actors from Ireland," the idea that Northern Ireland actors, such as Liam Neeson, wouldn't be added or welcomed is just not at all likely, so, yes, I would argue that 'from Ireland' in such contexts most often would be meant and taken to mean the island. One certainly hears Northern Ireland actors (and people from all walks of life) say that they are 'from Ireland.' Travel-oriented uses are almost always island-based. Every single travel guidebook, for example, names their texts "Ireland" and such guides always cover both the ROI and Northern Ireland. So, that is a whole slew of 'Ireland' as island usage. (An official tourism site is also 'Ireland' as island oriented: [www.discoverireland.com].) I think one could expect to get a drawing of the island, if one asked someone to "Draw a map of Ireland." Lots of (but not all) churches and sports are all-Ireland organized, which means the "Ireland" of those organizations is going to mean the island rather than referring just to the state. Just general cliched statements like "It rains a lot in Ireland." "Ireland is very green." "Ireland is very beautiful." "The people of Ireland are friendly." "Ireland has had a troubled history." aren't often going to be ROI/'state' directed. I don't know what went into Britannica's decision, but I think Wiki's is better. Wiki's articles may need a lot of work, but it's set-up is better, imho. That doesn't mean I think the state's page *has* to be at ROI, but the island page is not dispensible. Nuclare (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on! there's a shedload of cheating going on here!!! Firstly - you are changing your whole tune to now include the island with the state, when we were originally comparing it to the state (which is easily used more on Wikipedia than the island). And I am talking about Wikipedia of course - or are you changing that too? In Wikipedia terms, you are effectively advocating a Wikipedia article that says Nothern Irish actor Liam Neeson is from the ROI, as it pipe-links from the word Ireland! Either that or you are suggesting an article that says he's just from Ireland the island!! Both are rubbish of course - Wikipedia simply says where he is from, and if he was from the republic (and not NI), Wikipedia would still not point to Ireland the island!! Secondly - have you ever been to Britain??? When we say "Ireland" we mean the ROI!! This is the whole bloody point. We know damn well that Northern Ireland is a different place. Deary me! I hope this is just a fanciful American Oirish perspective. What you have just done is bonded NI to the ROI in the most fanciful way! The island is used in some areas of life (nobody would argue that) - but you have blown its use sky-high, and out of all proportion. It's as if Northern Ireland, let alone the troubles, never existed.--Matt Lewis (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

'package deal' continuation break 2..

Comment: Also - wasn't "Ireland" originally the name of the nation? Perhaps someone could clarify this - I'm not sure. The mostly-forked article doesn't have an Etymology section.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The nation? You mean as in the "A Nation Once Again" sort of thing? The island was called Ireland, definately. Eire, in Irish. The Irish no doubt were a 'nation' -- culturally fairly homogeneous (in relative terms; more so than the English, for example), but there wasn't really a unified state to speak of, if that's what you mean. I think the kings were always bashing one another in an *attempt* to forge a unified power and some pretended to have done so and had their bards write poems saying they'd done so--that sort of thing. At least one came close to it, but got killed before it was meaningful. I suppose the short answer is, well, yes, but no not really. Nuclare (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'Republic of Ireland' was a return to the 'nation' of Ireland (minus Northern Ireland of course). That's my point. If the island did not come first 'name-wise', then it was clearly named after the 'nation' of Ireland (however many kingdoms it had). So it strikes me that the island needs disabiguating, not the nation, on this ground too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Irish, as Nuclare says, were a nation long before the arrival of the Normans. Ireland - the island, the country, whatever - has been a nation since before 1800. The whole purpose of the Act of Union was to subsume the Irish nation into the British kingdom. Long term, it didn't work. The State is far younger and, as a republic, younger still. Therefore, Ireland - the island, the country - is one thing and the Republic of Ireland is another. Where's the confusion? I still don't see it. Scolaire (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: I'm asking the question: was the island named after the Irish people (ie the 'nation' called "Ireland" - whatever it looked like internally - kingdoms etc)? If it was, then the name "Ireland" was originally for the 'nation' (ie group of people). Or was it originally the name for the land mass? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes the island nation was referred to as "The Kingdom of Ireland" as far back as Tudor times (if not before). The IRB et al coined the phrase "Irish Republic" in 1916 which was followed by (after the Free State) Eire (or in English - Ireland). Your problem there is that the UK didn't agree to the use of Ireland as the name of the state because of its implied claim on the six counties. That's basically how we're getting to the shenannigans here now. The Irish "Republic of Ireland Act" of 1949 gives us the legitimacy of using "Republic of Ireland" but there's no reason why this could not be further explained on the naming convention article. That leaves us free to use Ireland as the geographical term, ROI for the south and Northern Ireland for the north. (or just call it the Black North as everyone else does in the ROI). The Thunderer (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually to further qualify what I've said and to perhaps just be a little pedantic I've checked some scholarly facts. Ireland was not a unified kingdom prior to the Norman invasion of Britain or in the time of Maewin Succat. There seems to have been a conciousness that there was an island to be ruled by around 1080AD but it certainly hadn't been achieved by Turlough O'Connor by 1106 and what was achieved (which was a lot) had to be reconquered time and time again as the 100 odd "kings" of Ireland reasserted themselves in their own fiefdoms. So by the time Strongbow invaded in 1169 Ireland had not been unified as a nation and wouldn't be until English kings made it so. In fact though there has never been a United Ireland under Irish rule.The Thunderer (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My question was only this: Was the word "Ireland" used first to mean a group of people (ie nation, group of kingdoms, whatever), or as a geographical term for the island? Was it first 'cultural' or was it fist 'geographical'? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been geographical and coined by someone who wasn't Irish. The first politcal use of the name I'm aware of is from Henry II who appears to have coined the phrase the "Kingdom of Ireland". The Irish themselves (rather a mongrel bunch of Vikings, Welsh immigrants etc etc - but NO CELTS), don't seem to have been aware that they were in an island and couldn't stop fighting turf wars long enough to form any kind of central jurisdiction although stronger "Kings" of various patches seem to have been able to demand fealty (i.e.from Tara) but didn't have any kind of tax system or kingly/governmental institutions. Presumably the Christian influence from Wales meant there had to be a name for the island but what would they have used - would they have used "Enu" or did they have their own name for it?The Thunderer (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC) I'm prepared to be corrected on this as I'm working from the Mk 1 Brain here and it's old and decrepit.The Thunderer (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are getting in too deep here, Thunderer. 'Ireland' is an English word, but it clearly comes from Eire: 'Eire-land,' that is. It's a statement of the obvious that the ENGLISH version of the name (Ireland) would have first been used by someone English. But Eire comes from Ireland and the Irish language. That was 'their name for it.' And this notion that they 'didn't know they were on an island' is rubbish. Nuclare (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland isn't an English word actually, it's a mixture of Garlic and German. "land" is adopted from German. Henry II would hardly have given it an English name either as he and all his court spoke French. I can assure you that most people in the 12th century didn't know they were on an island, they didn't know what was outside their own territory because if they'd strayed out of it they'd likely have been duffed up by some Huns from the next parish, kind of like West Belfast or Ballymun today.The Thunderer (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Go to sleep Thunderer. First of all, "Garlic"????? :-))) Every last in-land peasant may not have known about their surroundings, but "they don't seem to have been aware they were in an island" as a generalized statement about the Irish is utter rubbish. Nuclare (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a little thing called humour old chap. You do need to be alert to get it though. Dismissing someone else's educated opinion is considered rather uncivil. Perhaps you should try to remember that? Otheriwse your opinions may be treated with the same dismissiveness by others. The Thunderer (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dismissing someone's opinion is not uncivil. It is either a correct thing to do or an incorrect thing to do depending on whether the opinion is factual or not. People are free to dismiss my opinions where they are wrong. But, calling a fair, young maiden an 'old chap,' now *that* is uncivil! :-)) Nuclare (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Thunderer, you managed to be civil for so much of this discussion that it's a pity you had to descend to such bigotry late on! "The Irish themselves (rather a mongrel bunch of Vikings, Welsh immigrants etc etc - but NO CELTS)" -I beg your pardon? "couldn't stop fighting turf wars long enough to form any kind of central jurisdiction" - that's not a stereotype, is it? "Presumably the Christian influence from Wales" - the Irish were unchristian and uncivilized? "it's a mixture of Garlic and German" - that's a little thing called humour, is it? "they didn't know what was outside their own territory because if they'd strayed out of it they'd likely have been duffed up by some Huns from the next parish, kind of like West Belfast or Ballymun today" - not like the peace-loving people of East Belfast and Portadown, you mean? And during this same period, I suppose, the British were a homogeneous people, sending each other Christmas cards every year, doing charity work for the very few poor they had and listening to Greensleeves? For your information, the Irish knew they were an island to the extent that they ruled the whole of Scotland ("Scot" originally meant Irish), exacted tributes from all along the coast of England and Wales, and sailed to America! Do try not to lose the run of yourself again. Scolaire (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: There is no Etymology section on the island of Ireland article. I think this is something that needs to be pursued. Eire seems to be linked to Ériu (Old Irish (6-10C). As a name, "Irleand" is clearly pre-Norman (or so it seems to me). It would be helpful to know.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's about as much as I can glean for the moment.The Thunderer (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Like most of Europe Hibernia (the Roman name) was subject to successive invasions, colonisations etc and yes it did include celts. It also held a distinct identity through the dark ages with a very distinctive christian tradition that was subjected to an early form of imperial control through the synod of Whitby. .There is a clear concept of Ireland as a nation in dark ages narrative (very closely linked to Welsh legends but distinct), and there is a concept of High King. In so far as anywhere in Europe pre the tenth century was a nation, Ireland was too. It still seems to be in this debate that we have a set of objective facts (Encarta etc. UK Gov, EU, UN) on one side, and on the other we have a series of opinions (either POV or OR) and one fact from an Irish Government act pre 1950. Maybe its time to summarise the evidence and stop exchanging opinions which seem depressingly sectarian. --Snowded TALK 07:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But was it called "Ireland"? This is all about the word, not specifically the sense of 'nation', or even Irish identity. Did the actual word originally mean the geographical rock, or the area of people on it? If it was in the cultural sense first, I can't justify at all putting a lump of rock before a people on Wikipedia: the state article would have to be called Ireland. --Matt Lewis (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis has said above that there has been no "good argument against the package". To get this discussion back on track I'm going to re-state my arguments against, then maybe we can talk about whether it can be saved or how it can be improved:

1. Using "Ireland" - on its own - as a name for the State instead of the island is wrong. The land is ancient, the State is less than 100 years old. Tourists travelling to Ireland want to see the land and its people, not the government or the civil service. Business people exporting to Ireland want to know the air and sea routes to the land of Ireland - they may pay duty to the State but they don't care if their goods are consumed by Staters or Northerners. Students of history are at least as interested in the thousand years before 1922, and the majority of those studying the late 20th century history of "Ireland" will be studying the Northern conflict. Yes, Britannica uses "Ireland", but the vast bulk of the article is concerned with the land of Ireland, with place-names etc. confined to southern places to give the impression it only applies to the 26 counties. Does the soil and the climate change when you pass the Killeen border post? Are the people's skin a different colour?
2. "The island of Ireland" is an absurd name on so many levels. First, it is a the - that's a no-no. Second, it suggests some small island (Rockall, maybe?) belonging to Ireland. Third, none of the tourists, business people or historians above have ever heard of this strange land. The term has some use as a dab e.g. "the biggest mountain/company/chancer on the island of Ireland", but that's it.
3. "Offer “Ireland (state)” and "Ireland (island)" as optional terms, in the Irish Manual of Style guideline." Despite repeatedly asking, I still have no idea what this means. Apparently IMOS is to be amended, but to say what? "Editors are encouraged to say Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) in all articles to avoid ambiguity"? "Editors will not be flogged for using Ireland (state) or Ireland (island) because they are now offered as options"? "Some people think Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) are cool terms so please try to fit them into some article somewhere"? Why do we need to be "offered" these terms when we know they're there already. And more to the point, who will benefit from the offer and how - there must be some benefit to somebody if it's to be included in a "package".
4. "Suggest “republic of Ireland” (small R) as another optional 'disambiguating' expression..." Again, why? Since the expression is used nowhere on Wikipedia - and the idea that we should have it just because Britannica has it is ... well, an underwhelming argument - what is the benefit of adding it to IMOS as an option? And again, how would it make the "package" more attractive and to whom?
5. Why on earth would we need a separate article on the 'term' "Republic of Ireland"? WP is already top-heavy with "Irish" terms, most of which tell us nothing more than that they are terms used in Ireland. If you're going to write about the term, write it in the "Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" article, or wherever it's moved to, if it's moved.
6. The package as a package: in what way is it bigger or better, more NPOV, more inclusive or more worthy of consensus? How will it, as a package, improve the situation? I'm afraid I see nothing more than a collection of half-baked and unrelated ideas more likely to create confusion than consensus.

That's my analysis. I would like to see other people's view of the package as a whole, positive or negative. At least then we'll have some idea what it is we're actually discussing. Scolaire (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Debate on ANI

Yes I see what you are saying User:Pureditor WP:Sock is very strict on what can and can't be done in votes. It was my misunderstanding I didnt realise that it was a vote. In this case User talk:89.19.82.127 you will have to not take part in this as it is a vote from which IP votes are not generally counted as it can be open to abuse. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.Pureditor 11:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replied on AN/I asking for clarification, BountyHunter says that WP:SOCK "is very strict on what can and can't be done in votes." WP:SOCK does not state that IP-based editors cannot contribute to discussion. What's more WP:NOT is clear that WP is not a democracy. We do not "vote" here, we discuss. --78.152.209.11 (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about. It isn't a vote. The IP editor has as much right to a voice here as you (in fact I'd weight his comments more heavily, given that he doesn't have a serious misunderstanding of a core WP policy). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly doing nothing more than weakening the signal/noise, but I would like to second what Chris said. Badger Drink (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I third it. And, by the way, #Ireland package deal is not actually a proposal at present - the RM is in the section above it - so none of the "supports" or "opposes" have any validity in that sense. But if it was a proposal, it should be up to the closing admin whether to count an IPs vote or not. Scolaire (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to comment on the AN/I request, but all things being equal my right to contribute on an equal footing to any logged-in user appears to have been roundly vindicated. A choice quote IMHO is that "IP editors who understand policy are first-class citizens in any debates regarding article content." In a bizarre twist, Pureditor has been blocked for 48 hours for disruption after it was disclosed that he/she used an IP sock puppet, presumably as part of a campaign to discredit my contributions. See here. --89.19.88.228 (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I sure wish you would become a registered user, though. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too, if only for the duration of this discussion. Scolaire (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I see more abuse from registered users than anons. I don't think that I will contribute any further the discussion as it stands, but out of courtesy, if I do, I will mark my contributions in some fashion. --78.152.202.221 (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, using some small signature or marker would be appreciated (at least by me, anyway!). Thanks, Knepflerle (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting posts

User:Matt Lewis has deleted posts by GoodDay and myself. This is not on. I have reverted back to before the deletion, incidentally removing some later posts by Matt Lewis himself. This could not be helped. If proper standards are not going to be adhered to this will have to be dealt with in the appropriate place. Scolaire (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool with Matt, he deleted my posting accidently, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did I do that? You have just deleted all my last 5 or so comments! I've deleted nothing at all! Why on earth would I want to?--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here. GoodDay says it was accidental. I can't see how it could be. You need to press the 'delete' key to do that. Can you explain? Scolaire (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened it was an error somewhere - probably when I put the ==break== . You could have easily have returned you own comment - instead you deleted a number of comments of my own and have made it really difficult for me to put them back - you didn't have to do that at all, I'm sure. You certainly didin;t have to start this section questioning my integrity. What appalling lack of faith towards someone who's done nothing but try and help. Thanks a bundle. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See, I knew it was an accident. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me you're having a laugh, Matt! Here's what I got when I was doing nothing but trying to help! You have done nothing but question my integrity since you logged on this afternoon. What else was I to conclude when I saw my post deleted and it was you that did it? Scolaire (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've not questioned your integrity - I've just pointed out your mistakes (and on my own talk). Seems like you are having a bad day, perhaps? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like somebody is having a bad day! But there's no point in prolonging this. If you say it was an error I accept that. Scolaire (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)