Talk:Ireland

Archives

---

1. Pre April 2004
2. April 2004 to August 2004
3. August 2004 to October 2005
4. October 2005 - November 2006
5. November 2006 - February 2007
6. February 2007
7. March 2007 - June 2007
8. June 2007 - October 2007
9. October 2007 - February 2008

removal of "republic of"

Is clearly misleading. Even a brief read of the opening lines of Republic of Ireland tells you that. Ireland is an island, not a state.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not misleading in this case. The introduction to the article, the infobox, complete with the terms administration and flag of the country clearly differentiate the state from the island. I agree the term Republic of Ireland is needed in some cases but this is not one of them. Describing the political states in the infobox is the place where the official name should be put. Also what has the Republic of Ireland page got to do with the Ireland page? They are completely different pages! How is Ireland not a state? 'Ireland' is the name of the state, maybe it's just our political point of view disagrees with that.Wikipéire (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to wait for someone else to chip in before I respond. You have broken WP:3RR.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire is completely correct if not a bit over eager in his/her edits. Ireland should be the term used as it is the official one. In an box where they are defining the different states it is extremely obvious that it is not the island. To suggest that someone could be confused is crazy.Melvo (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless somebody can proove, the Irish Republic covers the entire island? The 'Republic of Ireland' should be shown. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm apolitical on this topic? I'll be requesting 'full page protection', if the edit warring continues. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The infobox for Taiwan (the island) states the administration as Republic of China, even though the state is most commonly known as Taiwan or Chinese Taipei. Consistency seems in order here. I don't know what the harm would be of adding two words. But ofcourse, I'm neutral. Grsz11 (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be because the "Republic of China" is the official and legal name for the state. In exactly the same way, "Ireland" is the official and legal name of one of the two states on the island of Ireland. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe, Wikipeire has obliterated 3RR. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about an Island. One of the states on that Island takes that name for itself. By enlarge, the rest of the world chooses to clarify this by naming the state "Republic of Ireland". Bertie Ahern recently described it as such in the Dail[1]. It is appropriate to describe it as such here.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the world? What about the UN, the EU , the US government and the Australian government? Only the British and Fifa refer to it as the Rep. of Ireland. That is hardly the rest of the world considering all my sources which clearly declare Ireland. It should be reverted back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvo (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed,apart fromthe United Kingdom (and by extension Crown Colonies, Dependencies etc.), the rest of the world uses Ireland. Which leads to the irony of the Queen of Canada appointing Ambassadors to Ireland [2] while her counter-part in the United Kingdom appoints them to the Republic. Perhaps they should get together for a chat about it some time. ;O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good luck everyone. IMHO, the dispute on this topic? has become sorta petty. Therefore I depart, but again - I'm not convinced by the crowd that prefers 'just Ireland'. Why? The Irish Republic doesn't control the entire island. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, GoodDay. The Irish Republic ceased to exist in 1922. As can be seen here, the state of Ireland is named just that - Ireland - in the current Constitution, and may be described as the Republic of Ireland, following the eneacment of the Republic of Ireland Act. It is nothing to do with "control of the whole island" - in fact, the citizenship of the Republic of Ireland voted overwhelmingly to renounce the territorial claim over the whole island in a referendum which amended Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. You can read more about that in the second link above. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should redirect Republic of Ireland to Ireland (country), instead of the other way around, since it's clearly outrageous to name the country by it's full name. Grsz11 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Do I detect sarcasm? Full name? The only official name is Ireland!!!! The Republic.... is not the name at all, its a description like, 'the Republic of France'. And anyway Ireland (state) would be the page title as country is a very vague term.78.16.42.191 (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies everyone, if I caused confusion. When I say 'Irish Republic'? I mean it as short-hand for 'Republic of Ireland'. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[3] plenty of instances of republic of ireland. Including the UN[4] and the EU[5]. Like I said, the rest of the worldTraditional unionist (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Jumpin' Junipers. Just when I was certain? Bastun whips out the Republic's Constitution. Now, I can't decide. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Economic War

The section which deals with Ireland's economy contains a few inaccuracies. The Economic War with Britain wasn't started due to Fianna Fail's policy of protectionism, it was started because of Fianna Fail's refusal to continue paying land annuities to Britain, daing back to the land acts of the 18th and early 19th century. De Valera withheld the annuties, which totalled well over 3 million pounds a year, and the British responded by by placing tariffs on Irish exports of livestock. De Valera in turn imposed duties on British coal. Lazarus89 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rugby Union "Flag of Ireland"

Reading the paper this morning this got my attention, though I've seen it a thousand times before. The Irish Rugby team is commonly represented by the tricolour symbol/flag, not the IRFU "Flag of Ireland". Should any and every all-Ireland institution involving flagcruft require the Wiki-use of the tricolour rather than dual flags or synthesised nonsense that is unknown outside a tiny group? I'm thinking here of the arguments that maintain Ireland is part of the "British" Isles regardless of any legal issues or any consideration of it's repugnance to most of the inhabitants of the island. As the tricolour is the symbol the most commonly represents Ireland (the Island/Country) should we not follow Wiki-policy in this regard? Sarah777 (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no common all-island flag/symbol. Each institution/organisation needs to be examined on its own and the appropriate symbol used for each case. For example, the tricolour is appropriate for the GAA, the flag of St. Patrick for the Church of Ireland, the four-provinces flag for the Irish Hockey Association, a green field and shamrock for the Irish Cricket Union, etc. This is current practice and verifiable. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-read what I said please. I said the tricolour was "the most commonly used" to represent Ireland the island; as "British Isles" is claimed to be the most common description of these islands. I did not say that there is any "common all-island flag/symbol". Sarah777 (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Geographical entities - Ireland, the island - don't have a flag, let alone a most commonly used one! Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Info box color

Hello Ireland! Question: How did you get the info box to that very striking shade of green? I would like to propose a simular look for Wales info box but with red. Any help you may offer would be greatly appreciated!Drachenfyre (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. All Template:Infobox Islands have green backgrounds. Just happens to be a little more "appropriate" here. (The Wales article uses Template:Infobox Country which doesn't have configurable colours, so - if I take from your note that you want to apply a custom colour - you may have your work cut-out.) Guliolopez (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Humm... do you think it would be hard to have a spcific template created to allow color like this? Who would I ask to creat the template?Drachenfyre (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're deadset on it, you could open a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Country and propose configurable colours. However, I'm personally unsure about it. The Country infobox background is currently neutral to ensure concistency between pages. As well as to (possibly) avoid any partisan weirdness or association with colours. (Imagine for example a hypothetical conflict where one group of editors wanted to make (for example) the background for the Ukraine infobox a shade of Orange, while others want to make it Blue & Yellow. Or similar. Not every country has an "agreed national colour". It's probably best to keep it neutral/consistent.) Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Guliolopez. I did visit the info box country and Wikid77 has been working with Wales to create a very professional looking template. Visit Wales to see his results.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Another proposal

I have numerous concerns about the current proposal for a guideline for the use of the term British Isles and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ireland, my mother & I say "thank you".

Eh, hi. My mother insisted on me getting out on the web and posting her, and mine, respect and thanks to the Republic of Ireland for voting such a powerful "no" on the EU-treaty on some open site where some Irish people are sure to see it, and wikipedia was the site that's open for the general public that I could come to think of... So: Thank you, Ireland. - Sweden. (On a sidenote, I would like to see a notion of this decissive vote in the article.) 217.208.26.248 (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. A couple of quick things. (1) Talk pages are for discussing changes to articles, not really for general posts related to a topic. I appreciate that you're doing both, but please be aware of what talk pages are about. (2) With regard to the request to include the result of the vote in the relevant article. Firstly, this isn't the relevant article. This is the article about the island of Ireland. Not the state. Secondly, a note will probably be added in due course to the relevant article. But probably not until the vote count is complete. And - while it should reflect the realities of the vote result - POV terminology like "decisive" should be avoided. (Current indications are about 53% No to 47% Yes. Which is not really the "landslide" some commentators are making out. Guliolopez (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT culture section

A "LGBT culture" section was added recently. I have moved it under the general "culture" heading. However, frankly, I don't think there is any value to the text. The content is very very weak. It points out simply (and quite randomly) that there are "gay scenes in towns X, Y and Z". This seems pointless and arbitrary in the extreme. In particular given that, if it is notable that - for example - Sligo has a "gay scene" shouldn't that be mentioned in the Sligo article? Apologies for the flippancy, but the current text is more than a little silly, and akin to sticking a label on a map (near Ennis and Strabane) that says: "Here be gay people!".

Anyway, (back to seriousness) the only value I can see for the inclusion of this text is by way of intro/lead-in to the main LGBT culture in Ireland article. And readers could be directed to the fact that there is such an article by adding a simple link to the "see also" section. If someone feels that there is an innate value in this text (that I'm not seeing), then please let me know. Otherwise I'll probably convert to a "see also" link or similar. Guliolopez (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Usage of British Isles in this article

I could understand this usage being a problem at Republic of Ireland; but not here. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And why would that be? BigDunc^Talk 16:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

'Cause the RoI is political; where's this article is geographical. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This is an article about a geographical entity, one of the two main islands of the British Isles, and this should be noted. TharkunColl (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that so, then why has a geographical article got sections on

• Political geography
• All-island institutions
• History
• History since partition
• Irish Independence: The Irish Free State, Éire, Ireland
• Northern Ireland
• Science

This proves it is not just a geographical article.BigDunc^Talk 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be under the impression that a geographical entity cannot have a history, or a culture, or political activities. TharkunColl (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No I am not I am pointing out your spurious argument that this is a geographical article when clearly it is not. But this one is Geography of Ireland. BigDunc^Talk 16:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The it's offensive argument, doesn't appeal to me (but that's just me). GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the term is used in Ireland by Irish government ministers, members of parliament, and all sorts of other institutions, it can't be all that offensive. TharkunColl (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So have you resigned yourself to the fact that this is not a geographical article? BigDunc^Talk 16:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed your disruptive edits TharkunColl, inserting British Isles POV, edit-warring and altercations back in April and May on this same topic with User:Bardcom. I don't see the need to start it again on different pages like this one. There is really no necessity to add this additional British Isles description here, that belongs on the British Isles page, if all it will do is start an edit-war and offend people unnecessarily. TharkunColl, if you would cool your heels a bit you might perceive that just because you can add something does not always mean it is necessary to add it. ww2censor (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an article about a geographical enity, rather than a political entity. TharkunColl (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No matter what, why create trouble where there is none. Some things are best left well enough alone and TharkunColl, with your previous British Isles altercations, you are no doubt well aware of that. ww2censor (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Couple of points - its irrelevant what the Irish government think or that the term is offensive to some on the island. And Ireland is the second largest of the islands in the British Isles. But it doesn't need to be in the lead. Why not compromise - leave it out of the lede, but change "Shannon is the longest river in Ireland" to "...in the British Isles". Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Shannon is the longest river in Ireland and as this is an article about Ireland not the BI it should stay the way it is. BigDunc^Talk 20:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Everest is the tallest mountain in Nepal. Perfectly true, but it doesn't exactly do it justice. TharkunColl (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer having British Isles in this article, as it's in the Great Britain article. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Given that the consensus on Wikipedia is that the term "British Isles" is a valid geographical term, there is no reason why this article should form a different consensus. --Bardcom (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that argument is valid Bardcom. The very fact that there is a British Isles naming dispute article is representative of the difficulty in gaining consensus on the use of the term. Both in this project and in the real world.

The fact that many people (and by corollary Wikipedia readers) link the term "British" with the UK lends to confusion. I appreciate the "it's a geographic term" argument - but many people will not recognise the distinction. And so, adding the term in this context lends more to confusion than to clarity.

If the entire point of this article is to give people more clarity or understanding on the concept of "the island of Ireland", then deliberately including a disputed/confusing/ambiguous/"offensive" term is counter productive. Per Ww2censor, I say just leave it be. Including the term is more trouble than it's worth. Both for the reader. And for the editor. Guliolopez (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If we remove the BI term here? then it should be removed from Great Britain, as BI covers both islands. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

British Isles is an historical term which needed qualifying on that page (which is geographical) and we achieved consensus at some effort on that basis. However in the case of Ireland, historically the geographical and political link is there until the 1920s when we get the creation of Northern Ireland from six counties of Ulster. Given that Ireland has continuity as a subject (geographical or political) adding in references to the British Isles is unnecessary (other than an historical note of the conquest and incorporation then separation). [User:TharkunColl|TharkunColl]] edit and the reference to Everest and Nepal seem to miss the point. This is an article about Ireland, attempting to insert BI references looks very like a political move masquerading as a geographical edit. --Snowded (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the points raised above by Snowded. BigDunc^Talk 13:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Snowdeds last sentence states the matter clearly in its basic essence and we should just leave it out. Inclusion leads not just to confusion for readers or editors with little knowledge of the subject but also to likely edit wars. Do we really need more of those here? I don't think so. ww2censor (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think British Isles should be in this article; however, if it's gonna cause edit warring, then forget it. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

given that this discussion is not concluded I have reversed TharkunColl assumptive close pending agreement here. --Snowded (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Spanish article

Please, could you put the link to the spanish article [[es:Isla de Irlanda]]? Thanks.--83.191.46.169 (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What it means to be a geographical term

Hi, there appears to be different ideas over what constitutes a "Geographical" term versus terminology for political and cultural areas.

A geographical term refers to a geographical area. Pretty simple.

User:TharkunColl correctly states above that a geographical area can acquire political and cultural activites. I agree - but these regions are not the same as geographical regions. Politics and culture easily bleed past geographical regions.

For example.

• Geographical term = Great Britain.
• Cultural Term = British. But British "culture" and thinking, while originating in Great Britain, extends across the world (mainly due to colonization - think empire).
• Political Term = United Kingdom, which incorporates many cultures, including Irish culture from the North of Ireland. But there is not such thing as a UK culture. The political term naturally incorporates both land and sea.
• Legal Term = British islands - effectively a legal jurisdiction which may be different than the cultural and geographical areas.

Other examples are easier - think Vatican city.

It gets more difficult when there is less "bleed"...

• Geographical term = Ireland
• Cultural Term = Irish. But Irish "culture" and thinking also extends across the world (mainly due to migration).
• Political Term(s) = Northern Ireland and Ireland (Republic).
• Legal Term = Ireland (in the English language) and Northern Ireland

So what is this article? Is it intended to be a geographical article? Cos it isn't - as has been correctly pointed out, there are sections on Culture, Politics, etc. (It's a mixed up article, but being edited by 150 people can do that)

An easy solution would be to separate the geographic section from the other sections....

--Bardcom (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more examples:

• Geographical term = British Isles
• Cultural term(s) = English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh (there is no such thing as "British" culture, though the 4 nations have much in common, notably language, and all 4 have also spread abroad because of the British Empire)
• Political term(s) = UK, RoI (etc.)
• Legal term(s) = Essentially the same as the political terms ("British Islands" is only used in very limited contexts, mainly concerned with passports)

TharkunColl (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You've oversimplified something very complex to the point where it isn't valid. For example, Cornish culture? Or what about the Isle of Man as a political area? Irish travellers? British Indians? Channel Islands culture and politics? But let's not distract this discussion into a British Isles discussion though, although I'm happy for it to be moved to the British Isles Talk page.. --Bardcom (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. It is probably valuable (amongst the editing community) to ensure clarity around some of these terms - in case anyone is unclear on how/when/where to use them (and what pitfalls to avoid). However, unless we are going to add this extensive definition in line with every usage of (say) a geographical term (that could also be interpreted as a geopolitical term) then I'm still reticent about using those terms here. Specifically, as noted, while categorised as a "geographical label", the term "British Isles" has it's basis in a historical and political reality. This historical/political reality has since changed, but the term has not. IE: The term "British" has very strong political connotations in modern usage, and so applying a label (which includes this term) to an entity (like Ireland) which has mixed connections to that political entity, may confuse the reader. Or, to put it in a simpler way: Readers are very unlikely to readily recognise that the term "British Isles" is intended to be purely geographical, and doesn't infer political connections. In particular because it USED TO. And so (in the absence of an alternative term which doesn't suffer these problems) it's probably best left out. And therefore, my view remains that (because using the term is likely to DETRACT from the users understanding than to add to it), we should leave it out. Guliolopez (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The term British Isles has existed since Ancient Greek times, so cannot possibly be derived from the politicial situation you describe. TharkunColl (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - apologies if I wasn't clear, but I wasn't stating that the term the "British Isles" had it's origins in the "United Kingdom or Great Britain and Ireland", and the various historical revisions of that political entity. I was simply pointing out that the term "British" TODAY is taken to relate to Great Britain or the UK - because (for a very long time) it has been a label describing nationality and sovereignty. EXCEPT in the term "the British Isles" - where it is ambiguous. Further, the whole point is that it's NOT the ancient Greeks who are going to be reading this. So, even if the ancient Greeks had a term which could be geographically applied to the entire island group (without political overtones), we don't have one today. Too many readers (without a 20 page explanation) will have difficulty recognising that the term "British" (in its use in that term) is not intended to imply political overtones. There is already too much difficulty in explaining the complexities of the relationship between Ireland (the island), Ireland (the state) and Northern Ireland (a UK constituent) without introducing ANOTHER confusing term. Guliolopez (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think people have a problem recognising that British Columbia isn't British (any more), despite its name. Nor, that an island group can be named after its largest island, e.g. Gran Canaria. Or, that Indian Subcontinent refers, by definition, to something more than India. TharkunColl (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Firstly, British Columbia may not be part of "Britain" per sé, but then it is still a subset of the British Commonwealth and was explicitly NAMED so by the then British head of state to EXPLICITLY reflect its "Britishness". (As opposed to Frenchness or American-ness). It is therefore a totally inappropriate example for your argument - supporting as it does the assertion that the term "British" has had colonial connotations for at least 150 years. Long since usurping its Greek origins in application to the region as a geographic term.

Secondly, with regard to the Indian Subcontinent "precedent" cited, again I think you are picking a particularly bad example that only supports the argument against using BI here. Specifically, the term "Indian subcontinent" is highly questionable to people from Pakistan. And for that reason, you will note that it is not used on the Pakistan article. For exactly the same reason that British Isles is questionable here. (And, in all honesty, if you tried to add it you would likely precipitate the same kind of editor conflict over there.)

The "Canary Islands" argument is mute because all constituents share the same sovereignty and therefore the same issues don't really apply.

(FYI - Just so I'm clear, I am not advocating that BI be avoided for reasons of "political correctness", or because it may be "offensive" (as others have argued), or because it's validity is challenged by people of a particular political bent. I am advocating that it be avoided PARTIALLY because of this, but MAINLY because it is ambiguous, confusing, potentially problematic under set theory, and WAY too open to mis-interpretation, and therefore generally detracts from the article. Rather than adding to it.)

I'm stepping out of this now. As noted, constantly arguing every minor point is not adding value. Longstanding consensus has been to avoid the term here because of all these issues. If someone can come up with an appropriate term which describes the shared geographical, historical and cultural overlaps of "these Islands", then I'd be OK with a discussion on a compromise. But categorising the island of Ireland under a super-set labelled as "British" is just not cricket. Guliolopez (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think precisely for the reasons you've outlined above, editing guidelines should be clear. I believe if there were clearer guidelines on the use of the term British Isles, there'd be less to argue about and less edit warring. And guidelines for British Isles may (or may not) be unique - they may not apply generically for all geographic terms. --Bardcom (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

British Columbia is also the Political name of a province in canada so its not a valid example. I notice that while I was off line an edit war has happened. At the moment there is not agreement here to insert the British Isles and it looks to me more and more like a covert political agenda (or anti-agenda namely assuming political intent of those who do not want it). If an agreement can't be reached here then I am happy to put to to mediation if other editors are, and if anyone is prepared to face this issue yet again in yet another venue. From my perspective I argued strongly that the British Isles article should remain so named for historical accuracy, here I think it is confusing and there is not the same historical issue so I recommend we do not include it. Now I may be wrong but there are not enough editors who want it to justify the recent edits. --Snowded (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To BI, or not to BI. Personally I prefer BI being included; but, oh the headaches we shall endure to settle the matter. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We largely fought together on the BI Page itself! Here I think we should avoid it. --Snowded (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"erosion of natural and cultural heritage"

In the 'Economy' section i think there is an inaccuracy which needs to be corrected. It states that there has been an "erosion of natural and cultural heritage" due to "unbalanced economic growth". The document it references to support this does not attribute any loss of heritage to economic factors. Ireland has always in my opinion (like most countries) given too little attention/funding/legislation to protecting our cultural heritage. It was the same in the recession of the 80's, the boom of the last 15 years and it probably will always be - it cannot be attributed to economic factors, at least not without referencing something that states this. Any proven failings in Ireland's cultural/heritage support should be addressed in a "Culture" section or similar.Fin123 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: comment from Fin1213, above: I notice that the statements re: erosion of heritage were removed by Sarah777, then reinstated recently by Mudpudlles1418 with improved citations, and removed again lately by Dppowell. I agree that the references on cultural heritage last given by Mudpuddles do not definitively show a link between recent economic growth and loss of heritage. These references clearly identify an accelerated rate of loss but the link to recent economic development is not clear. But, in the case of natural heritage, the link with economic development is very clear in the referenced web site, in which a Government press release states: "The bad and poor ratings for habitats reflect the impacts of 35 years of agricultural intensification and a period of unrivalled economic growth in Ireland". Clearly this references the recent Celtic Tiger era. The detail of the associated report ("The Status of EU Habitats and Species in Ireland") also clearly identifies increased infrastructure development and land use change as two of the main drivers of habitat destruction and subsequent biodiversity loss. While I agree with Fin123 that heritage loss is a chronic issue in Ireland and elsewhere, the accelerated loss of heritage is recognised as an important downside of rapid economic growth, in Ireland and in other countries (look to China for a typical example). Therefore I suggest that (1) a reference to the impact of Ireland's recent economic growth on cultural heritage should be reinstated somewhere but only if clearly supported by unambiguous references, and (2) the comments on natural heritage are reinstated as they were - the citation already given was valid and illustrates an important issue for the sustainability of Ireland's future economic growth.

On another note, the summary attached to Dppowell's recent edit, by my reading, suggests that Mudpuddles1418 made additions constituting new research ('synthesis') and vandalism (hence use of Twinkle), and unsubstantiated POV. Can I politely suggest that substantive edits (removing or including statements with important implications for a topic) and any suggestions of inappropriate editing should be discussed? Might Sarah777, Mudpuddles1418 and Dppowell care to comment? Theartsvault (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you want a comment on? In this diff, my only recent edit, I think I was just removing POV language and obvious weasels rather than any referenced facts. Sarah777 (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "heritage" in this context - it is being constantly lost everywhere and all the time surely? What was created 30 years ago is now part of our heritage? And some of that is already being lost and replaced by tomorrow's heritage. Sarah777 (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Celtic Tiger

I find the discussion of the 'Celtic Tiger' phenomenon could do with some expansion. For example, the EU policy of pumping money from the richer states like France, Germany, Britain, etc. into the poorer states (like Ireland) was possibly the major cause of Ireland's sudden new wealth, which took the form more of fiscal than economic prosperity for the first decade or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.23.13 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a common misconception that Ireland's economic growth was majorly due to EU funding. EU (or EEC at the time) funds were mainly spent on infrastructure which was badly needed at the time and of course was a factor. Ireland's unique policy of extremely low rates of corporate tax, tax-free areas and generous grants would have had more of an impact. Having good infrastructure is one thing but getting multi-national companies to invest in Ireland as opposed to other EU countries (of similar infrastructure levels) was surely the hardest and most relevant factor. This is proven by the fact that many countries have since copied Ireland's incentives packages to try and replicate the success. If anything Ireland's membership of the EU today is a blockage to further rapid economic growth as many of these incentives are now not allowed under EU anti-competition laws.Fin123 (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd go a bit further! Despite having a very sub-standard infrastructure the Yanks invested here because of a number of reasons including (primarily) the taxation situation (plus cheap educated young English-speaking pop, etc etc). Also the level of EU aid as a % of GNP was never more than 3% at its peak and couldn't possibly explain the growth - also the other EU countries were, believe it or not, in the EU as well and the FDI didn't go to them! I'm sure the effect of getting between a quarter and a third of all American FDI in Europe for two decades dwarfed the EU transfers. I am, of course, open to contradiction from those closer to Berlin than to Boston. But it does seem to me that 30% of US foreign investment showered on 4 million people while the other 400 million had to do with the remainder, must be rather significant. Sarah777 (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

From Anglo-American relations: "The United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. American investment in the United Kingdom reached $255.4 billion in 2002, while British direct investment in the United States totaled $283.3 billion." So, it would seem that the British Isles gobbled up almost all of America's FDI in Europe, leaving the rest of the EU with almost nothing at all. A question though - if the RoI was getting all that American cash, why was it still getting EU handouts, paid for by taxpayers in countries such as the UK? TharkunColl (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean to use the term "British Isles" in this context? I'm confused. The quote talks about USA and UK. --Bardcom (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because I was talking about the combined US FDI in both RoI and UK (see previous posts). TharkunColl (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Payment for the some of the richest fishing rights in the world, which we gave to the EU? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The UK also gave up vast and economically crucial fishing rights - but we have always been a net contributor to the EEC/EU. But do we ever get any thanks for it? Not bloody likely! TharkunColl (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bring on the violins..sob! Sarah777 (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Info Box map

Ireland (red) lies northwest of Continental Europe (light grey) with Great Britain (dark grey) to the east

How about using this instead of the current squashed/distorted example. 80.41.236.95 (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tiscali user from London - which "squashed/distorted example"? They all look fairly unsquashed to me. Sarah777 (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia editor from Ireland - the "squashed/distorted example" to which I refer is that currently in the Info Box, which simply shows Ireland as a green blob off the coast of continental Europe. The map has little definition in terms of the physical geography of the island itself, and while appreciating that it falls to personal taste, I felt that the one I proposed gives the reader, (self included), a much greater appreciation of the shape, relative size and position of what the article actually concerns. Regards. 80.41.236.95 (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC) (PS Ain't "from London" - Alba gu bràth! :) )

That map would be acceptable, only if Great Britain is the same colour as France. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect France is a different shade to Great Britain as one is Continental Europe, while the other isn't. Perhaps the description beneath the map could cater for this by stating "Northwest of Continental Europe (light grey) with Great Britain (dark grey) to the east". 80.41.236.95 (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The current shading, gives the impression that Ireland & Great Britain are one country. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry -edit conflict 80.41.236.95 (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I see GoodDay that you've undone my change at Great Britain, therefore please forget I ever raised this issue. You have clearly demonstrated how easily some can become confused and think that Great Britain is the same as Ireland, and that each in turn are the same as Continental Europe, despite the shading attributed to each geographical entity being completely different in the maps which I suggested be adopted both here and at Great Britain. Best leave well alone so as not to confuse; I hereby withdraw my suggestion. 80.41.236.95 (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fear not, no harm done. Also, feel free to place your proposed map at talk:Great Britain#Info Box Map; who knows, others may view it differently. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP, having looked at the infobox I must say I find the blob a much better indication of the position of Ireland than your proposed box; how many semi-educated folk from Utah would recognise that shapeless bit of France as being continental Europe? And, remember, we are led to believe by our minders on Wiki that the average reader of en:Wiki is a borderline moron. Sarah777 (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Athletics

"Irish athletics has seen some development in recent times, with Sonia O'Sullivan..." Irish athletics didn't start with Sonia O'Sullivan. What about Eamonn Coughlan? World champion, indoor mile world record holder for many years. --Cavort (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation

the 'ire' of Ireland should rhyme with tyre, but on the first line it says its pronounced 'ar' which is wrong. i'd change it myself but the page is locked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.208.181 (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Others would pronoune the "ire" to rhyme with "oire". Still others would make two sounds to rhyme with "higher" without the leading "h". --HighKing (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Enyaclannad.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force

An Ireland disambiguation task force (WP:IDTF) has been created. It will: free up various Talk pages for their respective articles, avoid inner and cross article repetition, avoid debate-postponing moratoriums from needing to be placed, and can accommodate all aspects of the issue of disambiguating the word "Ireland". --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Flora

In the section on flora the article states that until mediaeval times, Ireland was heavily forested with various genera of trees, but is now covered with only 9% of forest. The article fails to explain the causes of de-forestation, and precisely when it began. The Mediaeval period roughly spanned a thousand years from the fall of Rome to the 15th century.--jeanne (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The cause? They were chopped down for use.194.125.52.131 (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

More than likely they were cleared for agricultural reasons. The article still does not specify which part of the middle ages this occured.--jeanne (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Celtic nations template

Please stop edit warring over the Centic nations template. It was added recently without any discussion or agreement to add it or whether it was even appropriate to this article, so should be removed until agreement has been reached on its use or not. ww2censor (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland a Republic since 1937 or 1949?

I always thought 1949, but I've seen 1937 being mentioned on Wikipedia.Hohenloh (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

1949. See the Republic of Ireland Act. However, the 26 counties acted as a republic since before then e.g. De Valera saying that there was no need to declare Ireland as a republic in 1943 because "we already are a republic". 1937 is the constitution, and a watershed date, but de jure 1949 is the actual date. If you go for 1937 then you might as well go for 1916 while you're at it. --78.152.231.130 (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ireland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of October 13, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

1. There are at least five outstanding requests for citation, some dating back to April 2008.
2. Large sections of the article are completely uncited: Geology, Science, Air, Rail, and almost all of Economy, for instance.
3. Places of interest section is a list.
4. The gallery of images should be moved to Commons and a link provided.
5. The formatting of the sources given in References is inconsistent.
6. There are two dead links.[6]
7. There is an inline external link in the first paragraph of Sport. External links should only appear in the External links section.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland has no flag

I understand the Union flag beside "United Kingdom" but Northern Ireland has no flag; and people from Northern Ireland have the constitutional right to be "Irish, British or both". There shouldn't be any flag beside 'Northern Ireland', located on the sidebar, beside 'constituent country', under United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.61.70 (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, there is a flag of Northern Ireland with a red hand, crown and red cross on a white background. Of course, I agree that Northern Irish people have the right to decide whether they are Irish, British or both, but they do have their own flag to be proud of if, say, they were playing in a football match. Bonzostar (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the Ulster Banner, this is not the flag of NI. The only official flag it has is the Union Jack. BigDunc^Talk 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Airlann

Why was Airlann removed from the introduction and infobox? Under the Good Friday Agreement (approved by a majority of people on both sides of the border) Irish and Ulster Scots are granted 'parity of esteem'. Within an all-Ireland context neither should be given preference (as Irish is on this article). Roadnote (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I had put it back several times (based on previous - if not uncontroversial - consensus discussion), after a few other editors kept taking it out. After the last deletion in August, I just got fed up with the editwarring, and decided to focus on something more positive/valuable (instead of getting bogged down in yet another pseudo-political/linguistic debate). Possibly it should go back in the infobox - though I'm not sure where anymore. It had been included (without a specific explanatory label) beneath the English name in a HTML construct. Now that the infobox template has been updated however, the equivalent Irish term is placed under the "native name" label. With all due respect to 'parity of esteem', however, while its inclusion with an explanatory label seemed OK, I'm not sure Airlann would sit comfortably under the "native name" label. If that row was labelled "other names", or "names in other languages", I could see it. But "native name" is probably not entirely appropriate. And I'm not sure whereelse in the current infobox template it can sit. Guliolopez (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I put it into the introduction, we'll see what happens. Roadnote (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This was previously removed and there was this discussion, but why reinsert it if there will be any controversy. ww2censor (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will cause controversy. I had read the above discussion, it didn't seem to have any resolution of note.  Roadnote  ♫  20:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sport

We have a rugby league team playing, or to play, don't know which, in Australia at the minute, playing in a World Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perry Groves (talk • contribs) 09:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If no-one else is going to write about it I will have to add my limited knowledge of the sport. Perry Groves (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I lack any sort of knowledge on Rugby League but I look forward to reading what Perry Groves puts up. Bonzostar (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

GA reassessment by community

Ireland has now been put up for a community reassessment here. Can you help with any of the issues mentioned? 6 & 7 have already been dealt with or don't exist.

Places of interest: I thought that using one of the popular travel guide, such as Fodor's would be a good source for a reasonable listing of places of interest. I could work on this in the next few days if others agree. ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ww2censor - I think that would be a good idea. I've made a stab at improving/adding references to a few sections (which was mentioned as a possible GA failure issue). I may also have a look at cleaning up the "further reading" section. Though I may simply delete.

The other key remaining "issue" relates to the length/uncited nature of the economy section. (Which as has been discussed before could do with review, summarisation and improved citations). If someone else can have a look at this, that would be great.

This would leave the "format and consistency of references" as the sole issue. Frankly this last one would take up a lot of valuable time, and - as has been noted - would not be a GA stumbling block on its own. It can therefore possibly be left for correction in a more organic fashion over time. (Or possibly to some future [not invented yet] robotic to sort out). Guliolopez (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a start on the "format and consistency of references", if you like. I've been doing a bit of that "tedious" work recently on other sites (yes, doing it properly is time-consuming!). I've been using the citation templates at WP:CITET--would that be OK? Hohenloh ⁺ 23:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the article and tagged a few statements which need citations. I located and added one citation; time permitting, I may try to work on some others later this week. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hohenloh, I have deleted the Image Gallery and made a start on paragraphing the places of interest. Hope my work isn't too shabby.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides which there is already a Commons Ireland link at the bottom of the page so removal of the gallery is not a problem. ww2censor (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started going through the references. I'll go through them around 10 at a time, remove the bad ones first, then replace them with good ones or fix what needs to be fixed. If I can't find a good one I'll tag where it's needed. OK? Hohenloh ⁺ 04:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Places of Interest

In relation to tidying up the places of interest. ZincBelief, I think your initial steps are fine. However, to stop it turning bac into an exhaustive list again, I think some "criteria for inclusion" are needed. I think a good start is: UNESCO sites (and "proposed sites") per ZincBelief. (Brú na Bóinne, Causeway, Skelligs, Burren, etc) The national monuments of major significance (Glendalough, Clonmacnoise, Cashel). I'm not sure what criteria to apply, but possibly Kilkenny (as uniquely ancient medieval city), Ring of Kerry/Dingle/Killarney (as major "attractions"), and Cliffs of Moher, Bunratty and Blarney as (as "quintessentially" unique). And leave it at that. If someone can find a source that might rank a "top ten" in terms of visitor numbers, that would be great. Possibly a Bord Fáilte report exists. Guliolopez (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK I just found a Bord Fáilte report from 2006 which lists the top free/fee charging "attractions" for that year. I'm going to have a look at it as the basis for finalising the "places of interest" section.

Unsurprisingly it lists Blarney, Bunratty, the Rock of Cashel, the Cliffs of Moher and Holy Cross Abbey, so I'll include these on that basis.

In Dublin it lists the Guinness Storehouse, Dublin Zoo, Book of Kells, St Patrick’s Cathedral, and several museums/etc. I'm not sure all these should be mentioned separately, so I'll see how they might be combined/summarised.

I'm a little surprised that Killarney/Dingle/Ring of Kerry aren't included - but then the nature of an "attraction" focused report is that a "general area" wouldn't have a man with a ticket booth counting passers by. Perhaps instead these could be covered under a "heavily touristed areas" sentence. That might include a summarised Dublin (as above), Kilkenny, Galway and the Aran islands. And I think that should be enough. Guliolopez (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I started working on a list from Fodor's which is rather long but with little if any apparent criteria. The new list with its criteria is much better though a little short. Perhaps we can find another list source to expand it a little. Well done and thanks folks incl. ZincBelief. ww2censor (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In a few days time I'll have access to the Encyclopedia of Ireland, so presumably that would be useful for some missing citations?Hohenloh ⁺ 17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers

Newspapers are included under All-island institutions. Can this be improved? A newspaper is not an "institution" (I think).

The paragraph begins: "A significant number of newspapers on the island are circulated in both jurisdictions."

Is "jurisdiction" the correct term in this respect? ?Hohenloh ⁺ 20:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Take it out, along with 50% of the economy sprawl--ZincBelief (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree...?Hohenloh ⁺ 02:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Soccer player

Can that paragraph about the NI soccer player playing for Ireland be removed from "All-island institutions"? IMHO it's uncited and unencyclopedic and its removal would simplify an already contentious section.Hohenloh ⁺ 23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support that, especially as the ROI team is not an all-Ireland institution! (Nor is it political). Mooretwin (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

It was suggested that this article should be moved to Ireland (island) or Island of Ireland. Please comment at Talk:Republic of Ireland#Proposed move. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Update - further discussion on the above (whether "Ireland" should be a disambig page or not) is now ongoing at a different location, at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Statement_and_.28semi-.29formal_proposal_by_DDstretch Regards, MartinRe (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

New Ireland project

Hi all,
I've started a new Ireland related project which I hope will bridge a gap I feel exists between the two Wiki community's with an interest in Ireland related matters. The project has just started but I hope it will allow us to work together at first on uncontroversial articles such as Sports in Ireland and if successful I hope will allow for a more constructive and friendly approach to the controversial issues Gnevin (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sport is uncontroversial? Ha! Just kidding. It's a great idea. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That looks interesting. Any chance of getting George Mitchell to lend a hand? Hohenloh ⁺ 06:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Boxing

I think it should now be included in the sport section about the fantastic performance in the recent Olympic Games in Beijing by Irish boxers. Our silver medal and two bronze medals should defnitely be mentioned and I will do so if people are alright with that. Bonzostar (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Article layout

Anyone else thing the big plain green map under the infobox is ugly? (And a bit repetitive and too big). Also the pictures of Boyle and Joyce are way too big. The layout needs a bit of attention here; compare it with the United States of America article. Sarah777 (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I took out the "nickname" nonsense but I have left "Ireland" floating free above the infobox - anyone know how to fix that (without reintroducing the nickname and "native" name? Sarah777 (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. To your points.

1. Location map in Infobox - I think this looks fine. It is consistent with the infoboxes of other islands.
2. Names in Infobox - Can you explain precisely why you feel that "Éire" as the native translation for "Ireland" is nonsense? What's nonsense about it? Surely it's factual and verifiable? When I saw you remove this earlier I was more than a little perplexed. Compare to island infobox for Hispaniola (an island comprising the Dominican Republic and Haiti) this has a native translation for the island's name. La Española. Quite appropriately in my view. What precisely is the difference here?
3. Title of the Infobox - "Can anyone fix the title floating free above the box"? Again, what is there to fix exactly? It is consistent with the island infobox template in use all over the place.
4. Duplication in infobox - Again, this is perfectly consistent with island infoboxes elsewhere. Compare Great Britain or Borneo. What duplication is there? I can't see any.
5. Boyle and Joyce pics are too big - I have applied the "upright" standard to those two thumbs. That should address.
6. Compare to the United States article - What specifically are you comparing? The infobox is obviously different. As one deals with a nation and the other an island. So, I can only assume you mean the body text. Is there any "best practices" from the US article you think should be applied here?

Finally, I am actually tempted to reinstate the native and nicknames. As I don't see how "nonsense" applies - certainly when applied to a literal native translation that pre-dates the English term, and a commonly held "romantic sobriquet" that has been in use for several hundred years. (From the mid 1700s at least). Guliolopez (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gulio. Infobox looks fine now, IMHO--could we leave it at that? Smaller pics look better too. Maybe the green map might be a little smaller? Could someone finish off the remaining citations that need to be done? There's not many left. Still needs a little pruning--emigration and economy come to mind. Hohenloh ⁺ 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Snowded's last edit - removal of Army pipelink

What other army would it be? It's unnecessary to specify "British Army". Mooretwin (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move to Ireland (island)

Per Wikipedia naming policy and the disambiguation guideline, as well as following extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force, it is proposed that Ireland (disambiguation) be moved to Ireland. This will enable these pages to accord with Wikipedia-wide policy as well as the opinion of most of the task force editors. In order to make way for this move, it is proposed that this article is moved to Ireland (island). waggers (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The new Ireland article will have the contents of Ireland (disambiguation), and so will now correctly disambiguate, per the rules of Wikipedia. All the many incorrectly-linked "Ireland"s on Wikipedia that actually refer to Ireland-the-state (ie the Republic of Ireland article) will now link page that gives them a choice: Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Ireland (island).-Matt Lewis (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

-- As always with these Ireland related polls after it starts there are retro-fitted statements to clarify a bad start. Djegan (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support waggers (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• 'Strongly Support --Snowded TALK 11:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• {{Recentism}} is a fault for which we have a tag already made. No. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  I wouldn't call 1921 recent, but hey... waggers (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  If that is what you believe, then that supports Angus McLellan's accusation of recentism. Mooretwin (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - there is a disambiguation task force looking at the whole area of how to disambiguate Ireland, which is highly controversial and complicated. No moves such as this should take place until the task force has completed. It is against the ethos and spirit of the task force to hive off particular moves and deal with them separately. This arbitrary action by Waggers is out of order and reduces the likelihood of achieving compromise agreement on the whole issue. Mooretwin (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion has been extensive and prolonged, Waggers is not taking arbitrary action, Mooretwin is attempting a filibuster to preserve a minority position. --Snowded TALK 12:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He is taking arbitrary action. He has pushed for this over the last few days, and abitrarily decided himself to take this course of action. This is not a filibuster - I have regularly argued for compromise, but it seems that those determined to push a particular agenda are not interested in compromise, confident that they can force measures through by majority votes. This behaviour leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Mooretwin (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Moortwin, there is no evidence of you attempting to compromise in any meaningful sense of the word and you have this time (and historically) done your level best to prevent discussion moving forward so that you can retain the status quo. Your comments abound with accusations and conspiracy theories - enough, please. --Snowded TALK 13:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence. I have proposed a compromise on the name of the article in return for an agreement about usage within texts. I also proposed bringing Derry/Londonderry into it. Again, I make an appeal that you and others do not engage in misrepresentation of those with whom you disagree. Mooretwin (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, make a proposal to move Derry to Londonderry. Argue for it in light of the argument that its formal name should be primary. -- Evertype·✆ 19:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you just made my point for me, bringing a shopping basket of controversial requests is exactly not what a compromise is about, its a way of protracting the issue and obscuring it.--Snowded TALK 13:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the task force was to deal with the issue in the round, so suggesting that this is actually what should happen is not "bringing a shopping basket of controversial requests". It is better to deal with controversial requests in the round, rather than divide them up and force them through one by one, as appears to be happening now. Mooretwin (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a controversial request since it is simply a ratification of existing policy. As has been explained to you countless times, the purpose of the task force is not to solve all of the Ireland-related issues in one go. The notion that it should fulfil its entire remit on one go (and do nothing until it is at a point of being able to do so) is absolutely ludicrous. waggers (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support This RM has been made now, and it was unquestionably the most fully and cross-supported singlular approach (even if it does leave the name of the Irish state for another day). One of the best arguments for it is here. In no way will the outcome of this effect the taskforce - that will remain solid. A number of people felt confident about going this way (including admin) - and they are entitled to do it. It's a question of people's time as much as anything - people want to see something positive happen here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• comment Whatever may happen to the ROI state article, this current forked-info, state/island, 3-choice-link-inducing, eroniously-linked-to ambiguity-causing 'Ireland' article is supported by few people indeed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no confidence in the task force now. It seems clear that a group of editors with a particular agenda is determined to force its will by pushing majority votes on each individual issue. Mooretwin (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to blame the taskforce - it was only ever a place for discussion and straw polls. If people feel strong enough to move on it, then no one can stop them from doing it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nuclare (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, won't work and needs more time, and the task force hasn't deliberated as yet. PurpleA (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Bazza (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support  DDStretch  (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose An entirely unnecessary move. Valenciano (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  Care to give a reason why it's unnecessary to abide by the guidelines? waggers (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose (strongly) - what is this "Wikipedia-wide policy" - bogus? This is a nonsense move request. It should be withdrawn immediately. Djegan (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  The answer to your question is in the links above. In a nutshell, there are (at least) two entities called Ireland, therefore Ireland should be a disambiguation page per WP:D. waggers (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah the Ireland (island) and Ireland (state) nonsense that would lead to nonsense like Counties of Ireland (island) and Education in Ireland (state). That is daft. No thanks. Djegan (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course it wouldn't. Have you not read this cogent argument, or do you not understand the nature of pipelinks. This bogus argument devalues your otherwise legitimate opinion.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So we are going to "keep" Education in the Republic of Ireland, rather than Education in Ireland (state). Because moving the Republic of Ireland article to Ireland (state) is the ultimate objective? Isn't it? Djegan (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This proposed move is purely about the Ireland article, to make way for Ireland (disambiguation) to move here. There are no hidden motives. waggers (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So its death by a thousand cuts? Oh bugger. Djegan (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? This ignorant paranoia has been devastating for Wikpedia - 'Ireland' being in such a mess is the clear the problem for most Wikipedia-concerned people - but we are not allowed to address it because of petty squabbling by the likes of you, over ROI. In the meantime (and over the years) the Irish articles flounder in a confused mess themselves. Some of them have cobwebs from not being touched. But do you care about that at all? In any case, even if ROI was changed, I've explained to you before that Education in Ireland (state) won't need to happen - Education in Ireland would be absolutely fine! At the moment we have countless 'Sport/Decycling/Abortion in Ireland' (etc) format articles anyway (some including Northern Ireland, some not)! It is all a mess. If you had the courage to support this disam-page Move, the chances are that ROI would never be changed. But I wonder if keeping ROI really is your wish - or if you are really fighting for a unified Ireland, via keeping hold of this mish-mash 'single-state-appearing' Ireland article that we currently have? -Matt Lewis (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"...ignorant paranoid...fighting for a unified Ireland...petty squabbling by the likes of you..."; Calm down Matt, but above all else don't loose it - you do more damage than good for your cause!. You say that Republic of Ireland is confusing, yet you want counties of Ireland for the island and education in Ireland for the state. That is confused? This is not though out. Djegan (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Will you stop this stupidity? I never once said Republic of Ireland is confusing in itself! It is the mixed 'Ireland' that confuses everything - and is being dealt with in this Move request. Counties of Ireland rubs against using ROI anyway, as it covers the periods of the state! You want every period in covered in ROI too. It is you who have not thought anything though - and you are simply reacting here with nonsense. Also, I simply corrected you saying that Education in Ireland (state) would need to be used if Wikipedia used Ireland (state) - that simply isn't true. I don't care what happens to ROI - neither does waggers, who started this Move. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You have dug yourself a hole, and are still digging; good luck. Djegan (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That is just a losing shot. Everything you said above was foolish. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ROI: Just read your own comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force. Enjoy. Djegan (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy reading my arguments? Another empty comment. I have said Ireland (state) could (in a pedantic sense) cover more history than ROI (which was an official name for only 50 years) - but that was only to state an order preference - as we all were doing! I have supported an ROI-based proposal, and I started the whole taskforce because I had problems with not being allowed to use ROI myself(!). I even got rid of the 20-plus sockmaster who endlessly removed it from Wikpedia (which took hour and hours of my time). You know the problems surrounding Ireland full well - but you resent anybody trying to deal with it. Why? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I must call this one. Matt - you are 100% correct in this instance; while I wouldn't call DJ stupid in the classical sense he is clearly pushing blatant POV in this case. I also find his taking refuge in abrasive comments when he finds himself losing the argument is contrary to the Wikipedian spirit. Sarah777 (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you're inadvertently paving the way here for more changes - firstly the change in the name of Republic of Ireland. Let's get wholesale agreement across all the issues before making individual changes such as this. Mooretwin (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't perform this Requested Move - but I understand why it was done, and I support it now it is done. Nobody backed the two 'hatnote' suggestions at all - and the extended version of this (which included the state) had less support. There is nothing actually illegal about this RM - and most of the arguements against it are on side matters. This RM can actually work whatever happens (or doesn't happen) to the Irish state article. I've never myself accused anyone of 'filibustering', but I'm certainly tired of the endless card playing - if you have your own proposal, put it down for gods sake. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If, for example, the "European Union" decided tomorrow that its new name is the "European United" would we have two articles which deal the terms separately (thats just dumb) or would we create a made-up title "European (politic)" (even dumber). No, we would just rename the original article (and have one article "European United") and carry on. Djegan (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What a truly iritating post. One cannot logically see what those examples refer to at all (nothing actually logical I am sure) - you really are being a wilful fool now. You shouldn't be taking this as a joke - unless unpsetting people really turns you on?--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC) by

If you are irritated (because, fundamentally, you see my point) then imagine my surprise at this initial post by you. Don't get too upset, but my comments are robust and made in good faith - and no apologies. Djegan (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sound bites are everyting on Wikipedia, aren't they? Impressive looking 'diff' links that lead to the same discussion a few comments up. Clearly you think readers are as thick as planks. Not a single point you have made above has been "robust" - not one single point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article about Ireland is in the right place.  Roadnote  ♫  14:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - In current form. Per MattLewis, if this move were arrived at as the result of a broader agreement on how to deal with the complex Ireland DAB issues, then I'd be happy to support. However, this singular move request has been carved out of the big ball of complex issues, and shouldn't really be completed until some of the other issues are resolved. (Namely: when to pipe, when not to pipe, when to say Ireland (when referring to the state), when to say Ireland (when referring to the island), when to say Republic of Ireland (when DAB absolutely required), etc, etc.) Moving this article, in the absence of some closure/guidelines around the other issues is premature and problematic. Guliolopez (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you lay out at the taskforce what you will accept yourself? This is the one thing nearly all of the 'No. No. No.' people just aren't doing - the more you all hold back, the more stressful it gets, and the greater chance something breaks out from the taskforce (like this Requested Move). --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly support per Una Smith: "An ambiguous title such as Ireland should be a disambiguation page, because it is Ireland that will accumulate incoming links needing disambiguation and the task of disambiguating them is made vastly more difficult if Ireland also has "correct" incoming links that refer to one topic by that name." Since the Ireland should point to the disambiguation page, the correct thing to do is to move that content to Ireland (island) as proposed here. -- Evertype·✆ 19:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support per reasons above.Yman88 (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per the reasons above, particularly Mooretwins. I don't see a need to move this page give that people only wish to make a disambiguation page out of it! :) --Cameron* 20:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes we do - so all the thousand's of incorrect "Ireland"s - incorrect because people actually meant the Republic of Ireland - link to somewhere sensible, and not this geographical island article! --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}} I just checked the first twenty links to Ireland, which is closer to being a random sample than your carefully selected handful. Of those, only one appeared incorrect to me. Do you think Limerick or Wexford or Waterford would do as well? And if ambiguous Irish stuff offends, there are over a hundred links to Cork, as well as whatever's left for Clare, Kerry and Mayo, for Sligo, Galway, Kildare, Roscommon, Antrim, and Leitrim, for Cashel ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

But do they go to Ireland? Looking at them, they are mostly 'pipe-linked' Republic of Irelands! The first link in "What Links here" to Ireland is Algeria, and 'Ireland' sits amongst a list of 10 or so states! My examples in the taskforce were not "carefully selected" at all, they were all the uses in the Ireland info box! If you looked around all the Wikipedia articles you would realise how many link to Ireland meaning the state - in my opinion, the majority of over 10,000 links on Wikipedia clearly mean the state (states are always referenced more than landforms). Not 'pipe-linked' Republic of Ireland's (which appear as 'Ireland'), but straight-linked "Irelands"! --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

First 20 links to Ireland: Algeria - refers to Barbary Corsairs attacking the Republic of Ireland (RUBBISH - Ireland IS USED) in the 17th century; List of characters in Atlas Shrugged - Riordan is a surname with Republic of Ireland (RUBBISH - Irish IS USED - AND LINKS TO Ireland) origins; Algae - dulse can be bought in shops in the Republic of Ireland [only, never in Northern Ireland]; (RUBBISH - it says "..in shops in Ireland", although it used ROI elsewhere) A Modest Proposal - Jonathan Swift's satirical look at poverty in the Republic of Ireland; (RUBBISH - IT MENTIONS Ireland 7 TIMES) Atlantic Ocean - borders the west coast of the Republic of Ireland [but not of the island]; (RUBBISH - LINKS TO Ireland TWICE) Anglican Communion - the British Empire expanding beyond the limits of Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland; (RUBBISH - LINKS TO Ireland) August 22 - French troops in the Republic of Ireland in 1798; (RUBBISH - LINKS TO Ireland) Achill Island - largest island in the Republic of Ireland [but not largest of the island]; (RUBBISH - USES Ireland THREE TIMES) August 1 - some success at last! the Buttevant Rail Disaster really did take place in the Republic of Ireland [but also in the island, so not exactly wrong]; (RUBBISH - LINKS TO Ireland TWICE) April 26 - Trudpert, a C7th monk from the Republic of Ireland; August 8 - forces of the Republic of Ireland defeated at Dungans Hill; (RUBBISH - USES TO Ireland) ... Thousands of incorrect links? Really? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You lied in every single one!!! Non of them pipe - they all go to this Ireland article. You WILL be blocked for making me do that to the above. Why are you willing lie about this? Every era of the irish country/state is currently covered by the Republic of ireland article. This Ireland article is supposed to be for the rock only. That is supposed to be the situation! By supporting it, you and Cameron are just proving how people knowingly cheat it! You will really regret doing that above, by the way.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sad, answering my own question, but Waterford had at least three wrong in twenty. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely Ireland has existed far longer than ROI? ;) Say I want to write "Queen Victoria visited Ireland"...I don't want it to link to ROI! Either way there has to be some extent of pipelinking...I merely believe this way is the easier of the two. --Cameron* 16:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is simple proof of what happens here! Queen Victoria went to The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - Ireland was a British country during her entire reign. Cameron makes it clear she went to a visit a social structure, not a lump of rock, and says that this geographical article must stand in for ROI (which only lasted for 50 years as an official name) on certain occasions. But ROI is supposed to be Wikipedia's state article for the whole of Irish history. Don't you see that it is cheating to use a geographical one too, just when it suits some editors? It creates a seriously mess-making two-way approach, and often makes it look like Northern Ireland doesn't exist, too. The Irish state is the only country on Wikipedia with an effective choice of modern state articles like this - it is cheating, it is political at times, and it has got to stop. This Ireland article begins, "This is the article for the island, for the state..." for a reason, but it is consistently abused.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you know she didn't want to see the "Lump of Rock"? I've heard the scenery is supposed to be quite nice! :) --Cameron* 17:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support move proposal. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, for reasons given in detail here. --Scolaire (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose While the state and the island have the same name, it makes more sense to have the island at the primary title/topic as per WP:D because, barring corner cases, things in the state, are also on the island. (but not vice versa) Thus, very few incoming links will be "incorrect" per say, - at worst they will be less precise than intended. However, to make this a disambiguation will only serve to make all links less precise and useful for *everyone* by creating unnecessary disambiguation. While he disambiguation guidelines describe many ways of handing potentially ambiguous topics/names, we should not forget that the fundamental point behind these guidelines is to get the reader to the article they want as quickly and as easily as possible. So, making things worse for one set while not making it any better for any other set makes no sense to me, and seems to run contrary to the basic idea behind the guidelines. Regards, MartinRe (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Refering to Northern Ireland as "corner cases" (I assume you mean the 6 counties of Ulster) - that's just a little bit rude isn't it? To say that a link that refers to the state - but instead goes to the island - is not wrong "per se", is a particular POV that I 100% disagree with. It is wrong for the links to mislead. The island of Ireland is shared between the Irish state, and the UK's Northern Ireland. The Irish state is NOT superior to Northern Ireland. The basic idea behind all guidelines is to be correct. All disam pages involve that extra click, it is hardly a chore, and most disam pages inform at the same time. Let's at least keep these politics hidden, eh?--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: The Ireland article is and should remain an article about the whole island of Ireland, period. ww2censor (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not just an island article though is it? It forks political material from the main articles, and is essentially used as a second Irish state article - a place for those thousands of Ireland links. It is utterly and completely wrong. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that you, Matt Lewis, always have to make some comment when you disagree with editors views? Please don't reply to that question. What you say is just plain rubbish; it is not a second Irish state article. About 2 screenfuls is all the political information in the article, the rest is about the island as a whole. ww2censor (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You must be joking!!! Compare it to Great Britain! Where is the Sport section in that? Culture? Modern Architecture? Science? Economy? The History is way too long - we also have it in Republic of Ireland and History of Ireland (which is almost all forked over to the supposedly island Ireland article!!). It is all done to make Ireland a plausible cover for the Republic of Ireland state article. Unsurprisingly Northern Ireland is hardly covered. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE GEOGRAPHICAL ARTICLE FOR THE ISLAND!! It is totally bullshitting Wikipedia's readers - and it only hasn't been addressed because a group of around 10 people have never allowed it to be. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that Ireland is merely a geographical article. For example, Ireland exists currently as a cultural entity distinct from either of the two states (the obvious example of this is sport, but also religious organisations, trade unions, etc.). Material relating to this should feature in the Ireland article as well as geographical material. Also, Ireland existed as a single political entity for many centuries before the Irish Free State was created. Mooretwin (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he is joking Matt. As you say, he must be. Sarah777 (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, with no reasons to add. Srnec (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - as per policy; "Ireland" must be a dab page (if it isn't the page about the country). Sarah777 (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Must? Srnec (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

    Must. waggers (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

    • Use common sense Message from XENU^{u, t} 10:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

      Exactly. And common sense accords with the policy: that there are two entities called Ireland, the island (this article) and the state (Republic of Ireland), therefore Ireland should be a disambiguation page since the same term could refer to either entity. waggers (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

      It is sad to see that Waggers cannot distinguish a global policy from an essay giving advice and opinion. It is up to the Wikipedians involved in this discussion to determine what the best locations for the three articles under dispute are, not any supposed "rule". Srnec (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • It is even sadder to see someone making such a comment when this requested move is based entirely on global policy - WP:NAME, and yet they continue to oppose it without giving a reason why WP:IAR should apply in this case. waggers (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - I don't think I even need a reason. It's a country. There is no need for this ridiculous move. Message from XENU^{u, t} 10:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

  The country article is located at Republic of Ireland; this article is about the island and the island only. waggers (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I know that the issue regarding Ireland is a unique one. Most other island countries (e.g. Malta, Cyprus, Australia) have the one country, thus making the page about the country itself rather than the island. While if that was the only argument, then I would approve, since the official name of my country is Republic of Ireland, then it makes more sense to promote the topic about the island itself for the main name, and leaving the "This page is about the island. For the country" etc. there to redirect people looking for more specific information. Seriously, if someone comes to the page directly, they're likely looking for information on the country or the island. Since the country is at Republic of Ireland, then it makes sense for the article on the island to remain here. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 11:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

  TheChrisD, the "official name" of your country is defined in Bunreacht na hÉireann and is "Ireland", not "Republic of Ireland". There is legislation which states that "Republic of Ireland" is the "official description" of the state. That is not the same thing. The problem is that "Ireland" is ambiguous in a way that Malta and Australia are not. The proposal here is for Ireland to be a disambiguation page, because there's no way of knowing what people are looking for when they look for "Ireland". -- Evertype·✆ 11:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This is not an either or case. Naming policy is in this case calls for reference to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), which in the case of the use of the name Ireland is in disute, and so cannot be cited as supporting anything regarding this specific move. The disambiguation guideline is just that, a guideline, a thing that can be ignored when following it produces an undesired worse position. The undesired worse position in this case is this: requiring all articles with Ireland in their name to be listed at Ireland, when there are are only two possible contenders for the primary topic of Ireland that people typing in Ireland could possibly be looking for. (Nobody looking specifically for Northern Ireland the state is going to type in Ireland). None of the other entries on Ireland (disambiguation) merit a liting anywhere other than on Ireland (disambiguation), with that linked to in the usual way from a hatnote at the top of Ireland. And since the two meanings of Ireland (ROI/island) have a linked common history and deduced meaning, they do not merit a plain disambiguation as per to two unrelated topics, as can be seen in Georgia. As the disambiguation guideline is thus irrelevant as it cannot handle two inter-related primary topics for a title, we turn to the only possible solution, a common sense compromise of acceptance of the (in the grand scheme of history), recent dual use of the term, and writing an article covering that term, along the lines of China and Korea (and in this case there is even more justification for doing this, as Ireland is not just the common name of both, but the official English language name of the state and the de facto official name of the island in the English speaking world). This article would not cover either the geography or the ROI state in undue detail compared to other aspects such as history and culture, per the summary style, with both of those topics dealt with in detail in differently named 'home' articles, (which would also settle the pipe wars where the specific target is one or the other) for example Ireland (island) and Ireland (state), or Island of Ireland and Eire, or Bill and Ben, (and settlement of the wording of those exact names is irrelevant to this move). Or we can just keep arguing over whether Ireland is a state or an Island, y'know, whatever. MickMacNee (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• WP:D is indeed a guideline, but WP:NAME isn't, it's a policy. And what does WP:NAME say about disambiguation? It says follow the guideline. Therefore it is policy that we follow the disambiguation guideline. And that guideline is clear: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"." I think that's clearly the case here. waggers (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I may be wrong, but I cannot help feeling that the proposed move has less to do with disambiguity or usability issues and more to do with political manoeuvering. Also see Guliolopez's points above. Hohenloh ⁺ 20:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly believe that you are wrong. I am not engaging in political manoeuvering. -- Evertype·✆ 22:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons of this Move is to remove unwanted 'politics '(ie using this article to make Ireland appear to be a single unified island)!! If that is "political manoeuvering", then it is only for the good of Wikipdedia! ie to tell the truth!--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

@Hohenloh: Ever heard of WP:AGF? If you're going to make such an accusation, please provide (a) some evidence and (b) a bit more clarity - what kind of political manoeuvre do you think I'm trying to pull off by making it easier for WP users to find the articles they're looking for? waggers (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. "Ireland" is an ambiguous term, hence Ireland should be the disambiguation page, with "Ireland (state)" and "Ireland (island)" articles linked therefrom. 81.174.147.155 (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Djegan, Mooretwin and others. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I accept that there is force in arguments on both sides but I think we have got it more or less right at the moment. There should be a substantive article at Ireland, something for people to read, and an article on the geography and general history of the whole island seems the most appropriate article to have there. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What you think appropriate is hardly the issue? What is consistent with WP:COMMONAME is the only issue. And RoI is not. Sarah777 (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I am a bit perplexed by the proposal. Despite the current assertion at the top that the article is about the island, the article clearly encompasses both geography as well as political and national histories with breakout articles for additional details on many aspects of both. It seems well situated as is. It actually seems more confusing to me to put the disambig page here. Look at England or Great Britain for similar geographical/political situations. Neither goes directly to their disambig pages although I think they clearly could. Pigman☿ 23:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

  The Great Britain article is about the island only. And there is no ambiguity. Ireland is ambiguous in a way that causes problems. -- Evertype·✆ 00:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)