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

de jure

The use of the phrase "de jure" seems a little pompous and difficult to understand (to many people). I think WP style recommends such phrases not be used ... "for instance" being preferred to "e.g." and so on ... there must be an English substitute we can use, maybe "legal"? Abtract 10:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Capital City: Dublin

I'm not sure about the WP style recommendation, but I don't think there's an excuse to use "de jure" unless "de facto" is also used (which would enable most readers to understand the term from context). I think that "official flag" is the proper term, anyway, though I've just given it a shot by reducing the captions to describing what's in the image (it's redundant with the rest of the text anyway). RandomP 10:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. :) Abtract 12:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better indeed. to state that the Union Flag was the flag of Ireland 'de jure' is unnecessary pov. (Sarah777 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

Irish flag

Enthusiasts of the Irish flag - please go to Talk:Green and see the relevant comment (end of talk page). Is my assumption correct? Thanks, Arcturus 20:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? I don't get it. 86.42.166.50 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left a comment over there. As far as I know, you are correct in your assumption. Martin 14:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this version of the flag the one with true colours? It looks more like the real thing than the one currently in the article. Arcturus 19:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The green should be PMS 347, and the orange should be PMS 151.[1] The one currently in the article looks to be a better match to me, though monitor calibration is obviously an issue when comparing colours. Martin 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Article name "Ireland"

In the interest of shortening this a bit, and actually moving it into a section that's recognisable on the talk page:

There is a move to change the current naming setup for the articles concerning "Ireland", which is:

• Ireland is an article about the island
• Republic of Ireland is an article about the state
• Ireland (island) redirects to Ireland
• Ireland (state) redirects to Republic of Ireland
• there is a disambiguation note on Ireland, which also links to Ireland (disambiguation), a long list of uses of the term.

Arguments against the current setup include:

• Republic of Ireland is a derogatory nickname (is this one still upheld, what with references to the Republic of Ireland Act?)
• Republic of Ireland is awkward. This is dispute.
• Republic of Ireland is not used in Ireland (state), and is thus not an acceptable endonym (Is this disputed?)
• Ireland is more commonly used to refer to Ireland (state) than to refer to Ireland (island) (Is this disputed?)
• The official name of Ireland (state) is Ireland, and should be used in the article title

Arguments for the current setup:

• There is no good article title for an article about the island (Is this disputed?)
• The island encompasses the state, and should thus take precedence
• Using "Ireland" for an article about the state would upset those living in Northern Ireland.

As far as I can see, the main question is what the article name "Ireland" should be used for, with three options that I can see:

• the state
• the island
• disambiguation

The secondary issue is, having used "Ireland" as article title for the state/the island, what should the article about the island/the state be called? If "Ireland" is used for disambiguation, both questions need to be answered.

I would suggest that the decision on the main question is made first, and with as little reference to the secondary naming issue(s) as possible.

Furthermore, I'd suggest people share not just their "favourite" of the three main options, but disclose their full preference order by also saying which is their second favourite option (and thus, which one they dislike most), or indicate where two options are equally preferred (mathematical notation, say island > state > disambig, or state = disambig > island, should work fine for this). That way, we can also judge whether disambiguation might be everyone's second choice.

RandomP 15:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I was horrified to read that the official name for Ireland is Ireland. It is not. Where did you hear that. It is the Republic of Ireland. I can see you don't live there. Wardhog 17:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are serious you'll be even more horrified to find that the official name for Ireland is indeed, oddly enough, Ireland. (Sarah777 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Okay, it appears no one's following the second suggestion, so I might as well make a third: "status quo" is not a good way to express your opinion — not only does it read like you prefer the status quo because it is the status quo, it will also make the archives somewhat harder to read if that status quo ever changes. RandomP 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Opinions

My preference would be this. Have a page for Ireland, with just 2 options. Option (1)Ireland the Island. Option (2)Ireland the Nation. This page would not be a disambiguation page. It would only have 2 forks. 86.42.142.195 13:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Status quo. --sony-youth^talk 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Preference is for: "Ireland" to be article about the island. "Republic of Ireland" to be an article about the state. "Ireland (disambig)" to be disambig article. (IE: Status quo). Guliolopez 19:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC) (I have been following these arguments for several weeks, and, while I have not contributed (being somewhat jaded after involvement in the "Cork", "LondonDerry", "British Isles", and similar discussions), and while I understand the arguments for a change, I don't think a "move" should occur. A tidy-up of the intro passage for the article named "Republic of Ireland" may be in order, but a move will cause more problems than it will solve. Guliolopez)

Clarification: "Status quo" here means that the island of Ireland is discussed in the article called located at Ireland, the state called Ireland is discussed in the article located at Republic of Ireland, the portion of the United Kingdom sharing part of the island of Ireland is discussed in the article located at Northern Ireland, and these and other uses and meanings are pointed to from a disambiguation page located at Ireland (disambiguation). The article describing the island is headed with text to the following effect: "This article is about the island of Ireland. For the state of the same name, see Republic of Ireland. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation)."

Reasons for keeping the status quo include that this nomenclature is widely understood, . Each article title accurately describes the entities described within their respective articles without the need for clumsy clarifiers in parentheses or disambiguation pages. --sony-youth^talk 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ireland (island) and Ireland (country) is not especially clumsy; certainly Ireland (country) is less clumsy than (The Republic of Ireland) - which is neither the Official name of the country nor the name most inhabitants would prefer to use. "clear and non-partisan" - you joke! If it is 'non-partisan' why are we debating the issue a year later?!! (Sarah777 10:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

btw, I vote for Ireland redirecting to a choice of Ireland (the island) or Ireland (the country). The status quo nonsense only means we will still be disputing this a year from now.(Sarah777 10:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Discussion

Succincly put. My opinion is that we should try to look at this as though we were creating pages from scratch in which case we would conclude as follows;

• Ireland is the name of the island
• Ireland and Eire are the names of the state in Irish and English
• This is the English language encyclopedia
• Ireland is used commonly to mean both the state and the island, therefore we need a disambiguation page
• Since one meaning is not clearly the main meaning, the disambiguation page should be named Ireland
• Since Ireland has been allocated for disambiguation, the articles need to be called Ireland (state) and Ireland (island)

That is my suggestion.Abtract 17:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a preference between "Ireland" being an article about the state or about the island, or are those two options equally bad for you? RandomP 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How many times must we do this? People are still going to vote the same way. How about getting some evidience? When someone types Ireland into the Wikipedia what do they expect to see? The island or a state occupying part of the island? We don't need a disambiguation page. We already have two very understandable terms: Ireland, signifying Ireland, and Republic of Ireland, signifying a state called Ireland occupying a part of Ireland. --sony-youth^talk 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

About once a year, I'd say ;). Evidence would be great, do you have any? How many articles link to Ireland when they should link to Republic of Ireland, for example? (And be honest about this - where a present-day geographic location is described, the state is overwhelmingly what's meant).

I think your preferences are island > disambig > state, then? RandomP 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

..."Ireland and Eire are the names of the state in Irish and English", would that not be "Ireland and Éire are the names of the state in English and Irish respectively"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djegan (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

..."Republic of Ireland is a derogatory nickname (is this one still upheld, what with references to the Republic of Ireland Act?)" -- I think you might be thinking of Irish Republic? This whole business (and yes it is quite literally a business, or at least a growth-industry) of having polls and moving things around is very badly though out because beyond a few hardline Irish republicans very few Irish wikipedians really care or want to get involved in the disruption of a move. This issue has been discussed and polled at lenght before. Djegan 17:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense DJ. If it was only 'hardline Eepublicans' interested then the name would obviously have changed from RoI a year ago! Clearly there are people determined to maintain the offensive 'status quo'. So they are, what? Hardline anti-Republicans (who want to keep 'Republic' in the article title!!)? Less characterisation of the opposition and more focus on the argument please. Otherwise this may get abusive. I've already taken several abusive attacks here despite only having got involved in the past few weeks. So someone other than 'Hardline Republicans' (whatever they are) seems to care rather a lot. (Sarah777 11:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

It was said in the discussion above, and I'm not sure whether anyone still considers it a derogatory nickname, or whether we've built consensus, at least, that it's not. Whether or not "let's stay with the current setup because changing things would require effort" is a good argument might also be worth thinking about. RandomP 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --sony-youth^talk 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't around when it was discussed before. The only people whom I ever hear call (Sovereign) Ireland by the "description" ROI, are FIFA and British media. The FIFA thing was a compromise, to avoid an all out "war". And we know that the British, generally, always had a prob with Ireland, ROI, Eire, or whatever, and engaged in an economic war to destroy Ireland after its independence. Enough! 86.42.184.231 18:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No. --sony-youth^talk 19:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Republic of Ireland" is in no way a nickname or in any way derogatory; the Republic of Ireland Act states "that the description of the state shall be the Republic of Ireland". Ireland is referred to as the Republic of Ireland widely both in Ireland and abroad. A quick Google search reveals 1,550,000 hits[2], and the term is used to refer to the state by such wide ranging organisations as The General Register Office, Tourism Ireland, The Bank of Ireland, The Republic of Ireland Billiards and Snooker Association, The Republic of Ireland Taekwon-Do Association, The Republic of Ireland Bodybuilding Federation, The Irish Embassy in Washington, The Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland, The Meningitis Trust, The Apple Store, Scripture Union, UCD Racing, The Cistercian Monks of Bolton Abbey, etc, etc, etc. I could go on and on. In "Republic of Ireland" we have a ready made disambiguation term which is already widely used and understood. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone referring to the RoI as "Ireland (state)". Martin 19:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sony-youth.And it's clear the way it is now. Dermo69 18:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everyone here. It's just a technically wrong nomenclature. Opinion shouldn't count. The Taekwon-Do Association? Good grief! 86.42.184.231 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Taekwon-Do association? Are they not Irish enough or something? You said that the only people who used the term "Republic of Ireland" are FIFA and the British media. I was merely demonstrating that you are incorrect as it is used by the Irish government, various groups within Ireland, and it is enshrined in Irish law. The list above of 13 or so pages comes from the first 150 hits of the one and a half million that Google throws up. You're quite right though, opinion shouldn't count. The island has used the name longer than the state has, and it also has a larger population; thus, it takes precedence. If you change the RoI article to "Ireland", then we have to have "technically wrong nomenclature" for the article about the island, so I fail to see how your proposed course of action is an improvement. Martin 00:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Its a difficult one but as a simple test, assuming you are Irish - when you are abroad if some asks you where are you from what do you reply (no jokes please!)--Vintagekits 00:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ireland! Of course, and with my hand on my heart I never referred to my country by any other name, that is, unless I am speaking as Gaeilge. 86.42.184.231<>/font 00:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with 8642184231. If asked; always reply simply 'Ireland'. If asked "What part of Ireland?" - reply Dublin. If asked North or South? - reply 'South'. RoI never mentioned. "Ireland (Island)" and "Ireland (Country)" would be technically correct AND less offensive than Ireland and RoI. But it appears political pov is trumping factual correctness in this case. (Sarah777 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

There is no simple test. Many (though certainly not all) people from Northern Ireland would also say "Ireland" if they were abroad and asked where they are from. Nobody is claiming that your average Ireland (state) resident walks about in casual conversation referring to "the Republic of Ireland." Why would they? Its about disambiguating with Northern Ireland. When issues that relate to both jurisdictions, or when Northern Ireland issues of which the Irish state/govt has a concern, are being discussed THAT is when 'Republic of Ireland' is used. Sure, in casual conversation a phrase such as "the South" is quite common, but that doesn't negate the use of RoI. RoI's shorthand, "the Republic" is also common. And, RoI is not a British term. It was a label created by Irish people through Irish legislation as an assertion of Irish independence, and it is used commonly by Irish sources. Nuclare 15:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to know who is pushing the pov sometimes, and at other times I am very surprised to observe what some "Irish" Wikipedians will tolerate as being perfectly good. Maybe I have read too much, for too long, and I absolutely have no time for pov. Fact is fact, and opinions just don't count. ROI, is factually wrong, and as V & S point out, "Who calls it that, anyway?" 86.42.184.231 02:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point; the issue is not what Ireland is called. The issue is that there are two entities called "Ireland". For both technical and navigational issues, we cannot have two articles with the same name. Therefore, one of the articles will have to have a title that does not match its official name. "The Republic of Ireland" is the state's official description, adopted as part of the Republic of Ireland Act by the Oireachtas in order to signify that Ireland no longer had a British head of state, and that it was no longer part of the British Commonwealth. As the state has an alternative title, which is widely used and understood both domestically and internationally, it makes sense to use this to distinguish between the two entities called "Ireland".

There is no political POV being expressed by calling Ireland "The Republic of Ireland", other than the factual point of view that Ireland is no longer a British dominion. I find it completely baffling that a title chosen to explicitly signify the end of British rule in Ireland is being portrayed as some kind of pro-British imperialistic POV nickname. Before now, I'd never met an Irish person who found Ireland's independence from the UK offensive. Martin 03:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin, are you trying to wind me up. Well, I am too mature for that. I never said that I find ROI offensive. My only objection is that the name of Sovereign Ireland, is Ireland, and is not ROI. And that is a fact, it's not a point of view. I know full well that many Unionist WP editors would object completely to my stance on this subject, and that would be for political reasons, and I am very sensitive to those objections too. The name is 'not the Republic of Ireland, and that is pure and simply a fact. But as I said earlier, it's not about opinions, it's about facts. 86.42.184.231 03:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Little old me, wind somebody up? :) Actually, my reply was mostly to Sarah777, though you did voice above your opinion that RoI is a term used by the British who "always had a prob with Ireland". Once again you are ignoring the real issue, and that is that while it is a fact that the Irish state is called "Ireland", it is also a fact that the island it is part of is also called "Ireland". No one is disputing that the state is called Ireland. We have to find a way to disambiguate between the two Irelands; the state and the island. The object of an article's title is not to give a completely authoritative statement as to what a country is called; it is to present information in a readily accessible way.

btw, given that you're up at quarter to four, I see you seem to sleep as much as I do - I'm glad we have something in common! Why not register for an account if you're going to be sticking around? Martin 04:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have an account, but the password evades me, maybe I'll try some more combinations. You quote me "though you did voice above your opinion that RoI is a term used by the British who "always had a prob with Ireland" ", well that is true. It's not an opinion, and it does not imply any other meaning than what is actually written. There is no hidden implication there. Maybe Ireland should be the disambiguation page, with just Ireland the Island and Ireland the Nation, included on that page. 86.42.142.195 12:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but that raises other problems. How big is the Irish nation? Is it the 26 counties or the 32? The Irish government seems to think that it is a bit of both, and there are valid arguments for and against both assertions. This whole thing was discussed in detail almost exactly a year ago here. The vote ended up being 66% in favour of keeping things as they are, and nothing has changed since then; the island is still called Ireland, the state is still called Ireland, with the official description of the Republic of Ireland, and as far as I'm aware there are no new Wikipedia policies saying that a state's official name has to be the exact title of an article. I think our energies would be best put into improving the article, rather than flogging this dead horse. Martin 16:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I still demur from the WP format. All the world knows Sovereign Ireland as Ireland, which is totally and undilutedly correct. Then WP comes along and renames the nation of Ireland, to a name that is not it's name. Got it? The reason why France, Italy, Germany etc are called those names, is because all the world knows them as such. 86.42.142.195 17:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I can totally understand your objection and I agree with the thrust of what you are saying. But, as I have pointed out before, there are two entities called Ireland, and we must make the distinction between them. The current setup is the easiest way of doing that. If you feel strongly about it, by all means take it to the streets and try and get some sort of policy whereby articles on countries are only titled with their official names as sanctioned in their constitutions. But, this is certainly not the place for that. Martin 17:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"The current way is the easiest wasy of doing that" ... I think not, the easiest way, as suggested above, is along these lines:

• Ireland is the name of the island
• Ireland is the name of the state (Eire in Irish, but this is the English WP)
• Ireland is used commonly to mean both the state and the island, therefore we need a disambiguation page
• Since one meaning is not clearly the main meaning, the disambiguation page should be named Ireland (the common factor)
• Since Ireland has been allocated for disambiguation, the articles need to be called Ireland (state) and Ireland (island)

Abtract 18:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Abtract, I agree with your analysis. WP shouldn't change traditional or historical nomenclature for expediency purposes alone. I believe a vote should be taken on this issue. If Ireland must stay with the Island, and there is a case for that too, ROI should then redirect to Ireland (State), and not the other way around. 86.42.142.195 18:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But in "Republic of Ireland" we already have a ready made, widely used and understood disambiguation for the state. A vote has already been taken here. It was decided overwhelmingly to keep things as they are. Martin 18:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish someone had mentioned that earlier; it would have saved a lot of time :)Abtract 23:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki cannot hold unverifiable 'votes' to alter the Official name of a country! This situation is not acceptable in the longer term; Ireland (island) and Ireland (country) is the ONLY accurate and acceptable solution. The title "RoI" is pure POV. And I have had to revert a bit of vandalism in this article where, yet again, certain editors attempt to insert the Union Jack as the primary flag into the article titled IRELAND. (Sarah777 10:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

OK. I vote for the solution outlined by Abstract (above) for the reasons stated. Ireland (state) is fine and I withdraw my alternative Ireland (country). (Sarah777 10:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Is Northern Ireland in Ireland? I remember some years ago having a debate about such, over high-dinner one evening with some "Northern" friends of mine. Well one strenuously denied that Northern Ireland was in Ireland and insisted that Northern Ireland was in Britain. After another glass of wine he compromised to his other "northern" friend that NI was in fact, in the British Isles. This debate, though unsatisfactory will I think go on.:)) Taramoon 01:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Again Sarah777, there is no policy on Wikipedia whereby calling an article something means that we are asserting that the title of the article is its official name. The voting was to decide what the article should be called; it was not to decide Ireland's name. After all, the state is in no way called "Ireland (state)", so by pushing for its renaming thus, you are nullifying your own argument. If you can accept that Ireland (state) is simply a means to differentiate between the two meanings of Ireland, and in no way embodies an attempt to change the country's name to "Ireland (state)", why can you not accept that calling it Republic of Ireland is a means to do so too? The only possible POV being asserted by calling the article the "Republic of Ireland", is that the state is no longer part of the British Commonwealth and no longer has a British head of state. Most Irish people seem to be quite happy about that; why do you consider its portrayal in this manner to be such a negative thing? Would you rather it was not a republic? I find it quite strange that even though the name "Ireland" is an anglicised version of the original, and thus has its roots in the British conquest of Ireland, the only English language name ever chosen by Irish people to describe the country - the Republic of Ireland - is being treated as though it was in some way anti-Irish. Irish men and women died so that the country could one day call itself a republic, so let's stop all this nonsense about it being POV. Martin 03:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

3==Re-open discussion== Aren't we missing a trick here?

• Ireland is the name of the state and the island in English
• Eire is the name of the state and the island in Irish - but it is used in English so wouldn't look out of place in the English WP

So why don't we use one for the article about the state (Eire) and one for the article about the island (Ireland)? Abtract 10:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Éire is already taken, in an article explaining the word. Even if it wasn't, I don't think it's suitable. From policy on naming conventions: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." I don't think that Éire is among the "most common name" for the state. The current set-up however would comply with the guidelines: Ireland causes a conflict between the island and the state, Republic of Ireland is the next most common name, thus Republic of Ireland is "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." --sony-youth^talk 15:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You speak authoratively but "most common"? not by the google test anyway - Eire gives 6.2 million hits but "republic of ireland" 1.6 million. And the fact that Eire is "taken" is of no account since we could easily move that to Eire (word) or somesuch. I restate my suggestion, with renewed authority after the Google test, we should move Republic of Ireland to Eire (having first moved Eire to Eire (word). Abtract 15:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Eire is an Irish word, it is not an English word (irrespective of incorrect usage) and this is the English wiki, and theirfore it is not acceptable. Just as it would not be correct to locate the article on the United Kingdom at its Anglo-Norman language translation because that latter language is used in the parliament of the United Kingdom. Lets get real. Djegan 16:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Being an Irish word matters little, if the word is in common usage in English; "Paris" is, after all, a French word. Abtract 17:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that everyone has a different preference. My one;

Ireland, for the nation

Ireland (island) for the island. Taramoon 17:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We tend to have this discussion about once every year. As soon as the editors who wanted last years change move on then this years cohort finally pluck up the courage for a new vote. The result; a lot of discussion that changes nothing but wastage of talk archive and talk page inflation. Djegan 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The simple reality is that on a cold sunday afternoon (or as per your locale) its easy to discuss what you might do, but when it actually comes to implementing the situation of a change of article name any serious wikipedian knows that "Republic of Ireland" is not the title of simply one article but rather of a rather greater quantity[3] and that their are rather better things to do, even in wikipedia.

Djegan 17:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point and thanks for not being too patronising about it. Abtract 17:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for reference, that rather intensive discussion previously, Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Poll:_Ireland_article_titles. Djegan 19:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

At least Eire would be better than RoI. There is an arrogance in DJ and Sony's dictation on this issue I find unacceptable. And I believe it is based on a political POV; just look how quick they have been to characterise opponents as "hard-line Republicans". And DJs "the result; a lot of discussion that changes nothing but wastage of talk archive and talk page inflation." If I am really a 'hard-line Republican' don't be so sure your position will win the next vote! After all, I wasn't involved in the earlier votes..... Less dictat and more compromise is the way forward. RoI can be EASILY changed and a redirect from other articles using that offensive name can be easily arranged, as you well know. (Sarah777 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

Eire is in the same league as Republic of Ireland, its imperfect. Eire is just the Irish for "Ireland", indeed this is not the Irish wikipedia. Many would find it unacceptable, it is not English and amongst many Irish it has negative cognitations. Has this become a move for the sake of a move? Djegan 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Its one thing filing the article on the state under the description of that state provided for law its another thing endorsing a fiasco that would become Eire. Education in Eire or Education in the Republic of Ireland? Take your pick. I know where I stand, as Desmond O'Malley said "I stand by the Republic". Djegan 19:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If people are serious about change then let them put their cards on the table, otherwise its time to move on. Excess discussion will solve nothing it seams. Either way it will be discussed in another twelve months. Djegan 19:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuck! I withdraw the Eire suggestion. See? I can COMPROMISE, again! (Sarah777 19:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

I think Ireland (Republic) would get over the aesthetic problems of Ireland (state). So Ireland disambig - Ireland (The Island) and Ireland (Republic) will do the trick. Ireland (Republic) gets over the suggestion that Ireland isn't really the name of the state. (Sarah777 19:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

I do understand where you and others are coming from, and if it was my decision "Ireland" would be the place for an article on the state (as it is the one of the least pov and the most accurate term for the state). However that is very unlikely to happen thus the compromise. Terms with parenthesis after them make me very uncomfortable. How do we deal with subarticles (Education in..., Economy of...)? Because their are places where these boundaries cross, between country and state, for instance Counties of Ireland and Culture of Ireland, and separation could be artificial and even detremental to articles. If we decide to use a term with parenthesis then we cannot believe that those issues will simply disappear. Djegan 20:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's actually not a bad suggestion at all Sarah, very creative, I'd back that. Deepsoulstarfish 19:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WP must be for the reader of these articles. Imagine folks who know virtually nothing about Ireland try to make sense of the opening paragraph (ROI page). It confuses me, and that something to ponder! ;)) Taramoon 20:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, how do we show in simple terms (but consistant, i.e. terms that are not confusing) for an article title, for instance that:

• Counties of Ireland, Culture of Ireland -- refer to the island?
• Education in Ireland, Economy of Ireland -- refer to the state?

Because if we use parenthesis as disambiguation then this is a real possibilty of a failure in a new or proposed scheme. Some articles will apply to the island others to the state (this is a reality and maybe very difficult to avoid), and that is why "Republic of Ireland" is an ideal disambigator, though imperfect]] because its usage with "Ireland" as the island does not look as artificial as Culture of Ireland (island) or Education in Ireland (state). Do people see where I am coming from? Djegan 20:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I see exactly what you are saying. But would that happen in practice. Like, once the state of Ireland was defined on the page Ireland (state). That would be it. All articles thereafter would be Education in Ireland, or Education in Northern Ireland. Honestly I cannot see the problem arising, once the state was defined. There would be no need to use the tag after that. Taramoon 20:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to be devils advocate here for a while and mention that their is also the issue of categories. A significant number are in the form Category:XYZ of Ireland with Category:XYZ of the Republic of Ireland and Category:XYZ of Northern Ireland as subcategories. How would we square this? Djegan 21:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And History of Ireland, History of the Republic of Ireland, History of Northern Ireland? Djegan 21:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something here. I can't see a problem with any to these pages or links. or categories. I just don't see it. WP is is in muddied waters on the Ireland/ROI topic, already. Taramoon 21:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So it begs the question, just what is your solution? Because I am not so sure its so easy to fix something so undefineable? Djegan 21:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's the added problems that I was referring to last, like cats. I think I suggested earlier that calling Ireland by RoI could confuse, and is factually in error too. The RoI page should be, IMHO, Ireland (state). I can't see the imperative to make other changes, because of that. Taramoon 21:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect is it that you are proposing, the article title, of Republic of Ireland be changed with no other articles, categories etc changed? Republic of Ireland is not factually an error, simply an imperfect term in an imperfect world (a description). It is used in the republic when disambiguation is required. For instance the postal authority, An Post, a body established by law uses "Republic of Ireland" on business envelopes that are prepaid so that those posting in Northern Ireland known they need to buy Royal Mail postage. Then their is the Republic of Ireland Act. Organisations with bases on the island often use it, for instance: http://www.ulsterbank.com. Sorry, its not a made-up, cobbled togetheir term! Their is a very good legal basis for its use. Djegan 21:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect I might thing you are misinformed? Djegan 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, The name of the state is Ireland, (misinformed? - no), The description of its politic is RoI, (misinformed? - no). It's really immaterial if An Post does something for the convenience of customers, it doesn't establish a rule. Neither does the Ulster Bank direct nomenclature of Ireland, whether state or the island. Taramoon 21:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland Act..."the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." Certainly the official name is not "Ireland (state)" (misinformed? - definitely not). We do not always use the "official name" of things on wikipedia, as examples Germany, France, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States -- have I made my point? Djegan 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You have made your point, and I don't disagree with you. My interpretation has validity. I would like other editors to have their say on this issue too. Taramoon 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777, please retract this comment: "There is an arrogance in DJ and Sony's dictation on this issue I find unacceptable. And I believe it is based on a political POV; just look how quick they have been to characterise opponents as 'hard-line Republicans'." I have never characterized you or anyone else as a "hard-line Republican" or any other such thing. --sony-youth^talk 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Abtract, re: Google hits for Éire vs. Ireland. WP has an essay on this issue. One way to start may be to try comparing hits for Éire against hits for "Republic of Ireland" limited to the English language only. --sony-youth^talk 23:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I'd like to chime in here, with two questions:

1. What is it about the island of Ireland that makes people think it's important to have articles about it, nevermind its economy, politics (apart from the obvious issue of the conflict), etc? As far as I know, with other islands not nearly contiguous with a state, we tend not to have articles about the islands that go beyond some basic geographical data.

2. How is the situation for Ireland different from that for China, which is similarly regarded as a single country by the two sovereign states that use its name?

My personal opinion, based on what I know so far, is that the answers are:

1. Nothing. For all intents and purposes, the island of Ireland is not a political, economic, or even cultural entity that it makes sense to write about today, apart from in the context of the conflict.

In particular, it's not really been said recently (or not loudly enough, at any rate) that pretty much every European country has people disagreeing about the precise extent of the country, meaning the "natural" territory or population that should "ideally", in those people's opinion, belong to it, even though de facto sovereignty is not seriously disputed. Spain has well-known disputes, various people might consider Portugal to be an integral part of an Iberian country currently divided into two states, Corsica might or might not be considered part of the country of France (though it's definitely under French sovereignty), sovereignty of the Holy See and the order of Malta in what would otherwise be Italy is disputed (nevermind the question of whether Vatican City is a country of its own, or a sovereign state in the country of Italy, ...), various people might still consider the country of Germany to include Alsace, the German community in Belgium, might consider Schleswig to be properly part of Denmark, or Germany, or whatever, Skåne to be properly part of Denmark rather than Sweden, the Åland islands to be part of Sweden ... leaving Europe, things get really hairy in the Arab world, for example.

In short, I think writing primarily about (perceived) countries (or "nations", or whatever) is opening a terrible can of worms, and there's an easy way out, which is to write about de-facto areas of sovereignty instead. The world is conveniently divided into those, with two or three exceptions. There is no strong need for an article about the economy of the island of Ireland, for example, just as little as there is need for an article about the economy of the Iberian peninsula.

2. I think the main difference is that China does not have an equivalent of the Good Friday agreement, and sovereignty is actually, not just theoretically, disputed in China.

In summary, I think the current situation is this: After the latest constitutional changes, and notwithstanding deliberately ambiguous wording in the consitution, Ireland is a state covering five sixths of an island which no longer has a universally accepted name. In the UK, there is localised usage of the term to refer ambiguously (and, thus, arguably incorrectly) to Northern Ireland, or the island, even where context does not make clear this meaning is intended. Outside of those two countries, the term is unambiguous, refers to the state unless specifically modified, but is still frequently avoided.

It's not at all unusual for islands to be unnamed, or not to have a commonly accepted name (in fact, I think it's a bit of a challenge to find a large island that has a name - not just a description - that specifically refers to the main island). It's also not at all unusual for de-facto sovereign states to have ambiguous or disputed short names, or names they don't accept as being completely correct themselves ("United States" is ambiguous, at least if translated; Jordan and Uruguay were originally named for rivers that formed their borders, rather than actually lying in the country; Gambia wants an article; Ivory Coast would like to remain untranslated, and violate French orthography; Bosnia would prefer "and Herzegovina"; no short name for the Czech Republic has ever caught on ...)

Sorry this is getting a bit long, but I don't see a clear threshold for when Wikipedia suddenly finds it acceptable to use the short name, which is almost universally disputed in its precise meaning. It worries me that the line drawn somewhere between Ireland, Macedonia, China (short name not used) on one side and Albania, Gambia, Luxembourg (short name used as article title) on the other might not be based on NPOV-derived policies but ultimately on whether there are significant factions of Wikipedia editors on both sides of the debate. How many people must think that "Germany" is non-contiguous with the FRG before we turn that into a disambiguation article? Does it matter whether they speak English or not? How about Canada? Serbia, if and when Kosovo splits off?

And as long as there is no clear threshold, all I see is the two consistent (extreme, if you so wish) options: use the shortest name that uniquely identifies a sovereign states among sovereign states (with the single exception of not using colloquial pars-pro-toto expressions), or use the shortest name that isn't ambiguous at all, which is usually the full official name of the country. With only those two options available, it's clear that the second one wins.

RandomP 12:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You have genuinely made a good point here. Ireland, as a term to express the island, is not a very useful term. Articles about the island, apart from geograph and history, are simply just attempts at pov'ish nonsense. Much of the content, for instance, in this article falls into two categories (if its not history or geography): viz (a) exclusively or primarily about (culture, economy, sports) the Republic of Ireland or (b) very difficult to compare in a non-original research setting (population for instance is not measured using the same methodology, sometimes census even years apart; often their is just a token sentence for Northern Ireland as against paragraphs for the Republic; the two units have fundementally different health, economic, justice and political systems and a comparison would risk WP:NOR or just been plain irrelevant). Djegan 15:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't get this argument.

• "It's not at all unusual for islands to be unnamed, or not to have a commonly accepted name (in fact, I think it's a bit of a challenge to find a large island that has a name - not just a description - that specifically refers to the main island)." Try the list of islands by area. Places have names and it is not controversial for this place to be called Ireland - what is controversial is for the state occupying only a part of it to take that name for itself.

• "In short, I think writing primarily about (perceived) countries (or "nations", or whatever) is opening a terrible can of worms, and there's an easy way out, which is to write about de-facto areas of sovereignty instead" - Articles such as the British Isles, The Americas, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Los Angeles, Palestine etc. etc. (and Wikipedia, without them) would suffer greaty if this were the case.

• "... exclusively or primarily about (culture, economy, sports) the Republic of Ireland" - Its difficult for this not to be so since the the Republic occupies five sixths of the island and much of the culture of the "Republic" (e.g. GAA, FAI league, The Meteor Awards, the .ie domain name) includes the North in their remit. However, there is plently all-Ireland culture to discuss. The IRFU is all-Ireland, Cultural bodies such as Tourism Ireland, Foras na Gaeilge and Tha Boord o Ulstèr-Scotch and Waterways Ireland are is a all-Ireland bodies. Culture, history and geography is not delineated by states.

• "I don't see a clear threshold for when Wikipedia suddenly finds it acceptable to use the short name, which is almost universally disputed in its precise meaning." The threshold is quite plainly put. It has nothing to do with short or long titles: "... use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." There is no other common name for the island, there is another common name for the state. So the island is located at the article called, Ireland and the state is located at the article called Republic of Ireland.

--sony-youth^talk 16:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be saying that because there is no common name for the island of Ireland, it should be at Ireland. By the same reasoning, the article at Australia should be about the island of Australia, and exclude Tasmania. The section you quote from WP:NAME would suggest that because there are two different entities occasionally referred to as Ireland, it become a disambiguation page. However, there are also different entities referred to as France, for example, so using that rule strictly would be rather ridiculous, in that virtually every page with a country's short name as title would become a disambiguation page. In any case, the threshold at which it becomes acceptable to use a country's short name as article name appears, to me, to be uniquely identifying the country among internationally relevant political entities. There's certainly only one of those called Ireland.

Did you see the "primarily" in the bit about perceived countries that you quote? Or are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia editors are primarily writing about entities like the ones you cite rather than (de facto) sovereign states?

As for large islands not normally being named (in an agreed-upon fashion), my argument stands. Africa-Eurasia, for example, is hardly a common term, and it does not define which "smaller islands" are included. The Americas are commonly used politically, not geographically, to include Hawaii, Antarctica usually includes both minor islands and ocean, etc. Baffin Island appears to be the largest island whose name is not usually used for an entity that includes other islands, and it's hardly important.

RandomP 19:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget; Ireland was divided into two, it was not shrunk by 6 counties. Martin 19:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

From an international perspective, the United Kingdom, not Ireland, was split in two: the new UK, and a new sovereign state, which is now overwhelmingly what people mean when they say "Ireland", outside of the UK. RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "You appear to be saying that because there is no common name for the island of Ireland ..." What I actually said was that "[there] is no other common name for the island" (except Ireland). (I assume I can pass over your discussion of Australia and Tasmania since it was logically based on this error.)

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no error! (Sorry I'm splitting this up, but I don't want to quote your entire comment).

There is no common name for the island of Australia (and there isn't one for the island of Ireland either, other than "island of Ireland"). That was my point! The situations are perfectly analogous: there's (1) an island called Australia, (2) a country called Australia, and (3) a group of islands that used to be called Australia, and includes NZ. The three are not quite identical, though now everyone agrees that (3) does not have a name, just a description as "Australia and New Zealand", (1) does not have a name, just the description of "main island of Australia", and (2) is called Australia. I don't think Wikipedia even has an article on australia+new zealand, and I don't think one is needed.

Please try to be a bit more careful. I first explained that in non-UK english, the island of Ireland does not have a name - all it has is the description "island of Ireland", or "Ireland (including NI)" if the small islands are to be included; the very same is true for the island of Australia, which I don't think there even is an article about.

RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "... there are two different entities occasionally referred to as Ireland" By what name is the island more commonly referred to as? (Since you say that it is only "occasionally" referred to as Ireland.) Can you provide evidence that this is how it is commonly referred to (i.e. more so than simply Ireland)?

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're misreading my statement. There is an entity that's commonly mentioned, and that's commonly referred to as "Ireland": the ROI. There's also another entity that is, frankly, mentioned very rarely: the island of Ireland. There is no common need to talk of (or link to) the union of a sovereign state and the smallest constituent country of the United Kingdom (particularly so in an encyclopedic context). It's not a useful entity, particularly not for hogging a sovereign country's short name. RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• ".. so using that rule strictly would be rather ridiculous ..." Yes. By the same example, having a page Northern Ireland (political entity) and Northern Ireland (geographic area) with a disambiguation page at Northern Ireland would be ridiculous. At last, we agree on something. Yet, are you not suggesting to do something similar with Ireland (state), Ireland (island) and a disambiguation page as Ireland? [edit: striking because confused you argument with another]

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that. RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "However, there are also different entities referred to as France ..." What other entity is referred to as France? [edit: added when I saw my error in the above point]

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's commonly meant to exclude the DOM, used to be used to include Algeria, might be used to exclude Corsica or the Provence ... RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "In any case, the threshold at which it becomes acceptable to use a country's short name as article name appears, to me, to be uniquely identifying the country among internationally relevant political entities." Again, I direct you towards the manual of style. That is not how the names of pages are arrived at.

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is very clear: a majority of English speakers (those outside of the UK) would most easily recognize "Ireland" as describing the state (of which they might not know it's a republic), not the island (which they have no reason to care about), with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity (and let's face it, it's not like anyone is confused about what we call Ireland ­- they're merely upset by it, no matter what we do). And linking to it? [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] is pretty much the standard way of linking to that article.

RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Did you see the "primarily" in the bit about perceived countries that you quote?" Yes.

• "Or are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia editors are primarily writing about entities like the ones you cite rather than (de facto) sovereign states?" I don't know if they are or not. I certainly never suggested they were. Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia editors are "writing primarily about (perceived) countries (or "nations", or whatever)"? What does it matter what they primarily write about?

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that writing primarily about perceived countries, rather than actual states, would be a bad idea; you implied I was wrong, indeed suggesting that those were the entities primarily written about on WP. RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Africa-Eurasia, for example, is hardly a common term, and it does not define which "smaller islands" are included." Harpalinae is hardly common term, yet it is the most common one to identify the thing that it does. What other term do you suggest for Africa-Eurasia? If you think that that page is not using the most common term, you should bring it to the notice of their talk page. Regarding not defining which smaller islands are included in Africa-Eurasia: do you seriously want Wikipedia to list all of the smaller islands of Africa-Eurasia? Gosh.

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, my point is that our readers, and the vast majority of editors, don't care (much) about entities that are defined geographically or historically over those that today are actually there and have a tangible effect on their lives. I did not say it was not the most common term for what it designates, I said it was not a common term.

And no strawmen, please. RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "The Americas are commonly used politically, not geographically, to include Hawaii." I believe it is the other way around. As the Americas page notes: "The term the Americas is a relatively recent alternative to the term America, which is ambiguous as it may refer to either this entire landmass or just the United States of America."

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I never suggested "The Americas" excluded South America, but that it included Hawaii. Totally different issue. RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Antarctica usually includes both minor islands and ocean ..." Yes, it has many offshore islands as far as I am aware. It may also include an ocean - I don't know. So?

• "Baffin Island appears to be the largest island whose name is not usually used for an entity that includes other islands, and it's hardly important." You're correct, this is hardly important. Islands commonly have further offshore islands, however this is not a defining quality of an island.

--sony-youth^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In summary, could you please try to understand the main point: Some things are more notable than others, to the point where an article name that would technically be ambiguous can be used for the most notable one. Sovereign states are notable, while islands, island groups, etc., are not, to the point that islands do not usually have articles at all, and groups of islands usually go with political, rather than geographic, boundaries.

It's simply not true that islands, or island groups, usually take up the non-disambiguated article name where there is conflict. In fact, usually we don't consider it necessary at all to have an article about them, instead describing them in the article about the political entity with which they most closely correspond. I think Ireland should be an exception to the second rule, because the process of separation has been formally completed only so recently, but not the first one.

RandomP 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I understand you more clearly now. You are perfectly correct: all articles in Wikipedia must meet specific criteria for notability, otherwise they are subject to deletion. The guidelines for notability are here. If you think that this article is about a non-notable topic then by all means nominate it for deletion. Personally, I don't think that the nomination will succeed. The criteria that you suggest (i.e. that "Sovereign states are notable, while islands, island groups, etc., are not") is not the same as the consensus guideline.

• "... islands do not usually have articles at all ..." Please browse through the article called List of islands to see the many articles on islands.

• "... and groups of islands usually go with political, rather than geographic, boundaries." This is true, however, the island described in this article does not. We are further confounded by the rare fact that one of the political boundries occupying the island is known by the name of the island (although, thankfully, it is also commonly known by a different name i.e. RoI).

As regards, the "rules" you describe in the second paragraph above - were these based on consensus, are they expressed in the MoS? If they were not, how did you arrive at them? However, I get what you are suggesting - that Ireland should be about the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain should be about the United Kingdom. Leaving aside the obvious objections of those living in Northern Ireland to being told that they in fact live on Great Britain, I disagree. Remember that we are writing an encylopedia. We should be accurate, not approximate. --sony-youth^talk 13:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop it with the straw men. I did not say anything about Great Britain. You also leave out a half sentence in quoting me. I did not say that islands are usually so non-notable as to violate WP:N, I said they usually tend not to have articles specifically about them, and that is still correct. There's an article about the state of Australia, but the main island does not have one, because it's just not a useful concept to many.

The rules are simply what is usually done on Wikipedia, and consistent with every single example I pointed out, so far (except with the one currently under discussion).

Seriously, I believe you're deliberately misquoting me (for example, I state perfectly clearly first that there are two rules that are usually followed, and then that I think in Ireland's case, one of them should be and the other one shouldn't be — making it perfectly clear how I arrived at them), and the straw man attacks are both getting old and frankly ridiculous.

RandomP 14:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

RandomP, do you really think Australia is analogous to Ireland? If I went to New York, or even London, I can guarantee that if I said I was from Belfast, people would say I was from Ireland. How would one even know that when someone is saying "Ireland", they are talking about the state? "It rains a lot in Ireland", "the grass is very green in Ireland", "I'm going to Ireland for my holidays", "my family are from Ireland", "I've never been to Ireland" are all phrases that are totally ambiguous. Even an apparently legalistic phrase like "you need to be from Ireland to have an Irish passport" or "I was born in Ireland and I'm an Irish citizen" are totally ambiguous. There is a blurred line for many people when they say "Ireland", and it's just not as simple as saying that they are always talking about the Irish state. Some are even totally unaware of the position of Northern Ireland as part of the UK, and Ireland means nothing but the island. I was actually talking to an English guy a few weeks ago who thought that they used Euros in Belfast because that's what "they use in Ireland". This is not at all uncommon, and is something I experience all the time. If you ask someone to draw a map of Ireland, I can totally guarantee that you'll see Northern Ireland on it! :) (ask them to draw the border on though, and it's not quite so easy....) Martin 14:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Summarising the rather long segment above:

The lack of a commonly-accepted name for the island of Ireland is not a good argument for using "Ireland" as the title for the article about it:

• it's inaccurate, because there are small islands off the coast of Ireland.
• most geographical entities do not even have articles - articles about large islands nearly universally use political, rather than geographical, boundaries (in the cases of Australia, Great Britain, and New Zealand, for example, those differ); or leave the question open (which makes it impossible to give even basic data, of course).

There are other arguments for using Ireland the way it is, of course, that are better, but merely having to use an inconvenient name for an article the analogue of which does not even exist for most of the largest islands in the world is hardly a problem.

The entity this article is currently about is accurately described as "Ireland and Northern Ireland", "Ireland with Northern Ireland", or "Ireland including Northern Ireland" (or "Ireland (including Northern Ireland)" etc), so it's not even true that there isn't another way to describe it at all.

Again, I think the main question we should be asking is whether there is an article subject that readers overwhelmingly mean when they go to "Ireland". The answer is, quite clearly, yes: the majority of readers doing this expects to read about the state.

Furthermore, of the remaining readers, only very few would genuinely be certain they were going to be reading about some other entity, and that very small group would then again be split between people expecting to read about Northern Ireland only and those expecting to read about the entire entity. Of course, many readers would also be looking for information specifically about the division or the conflict, but that there should be a disambiguation note for them isn't controversial, and they'd probably be aware that they're looking for one.

In short, I believe the reader who, not knowing the current setup,

• enters "Ireland"
• finds the information they are looking for on the article about the island
• would not have found the information they are looking for on the article about the state

is largely fictional. Readers who are confused by the current setup definitely do exist.

RandomP 14:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

See my comments above. Martin 15:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Who are you "summarising"? If you would like to propose that this article be moved/deleted/anything, I wholey support you - talk is getting nowhere - although will vote against it when the time comes. The starting point is here. This has been run through before. Consensus was to keep things as they are. But please, don't let that stop you. --sony-youth^talk 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no commonly-accepted name for the island of Ireland? That's news to me. (It seems to be news to every travel guide book publisher in the world as well.) Why do YOU call it Ireland if there's no commonly-accepted name for it? I wasn't aware that there was a dispute about the name of the island. Who disputes that the island is named Ireland? And, I have to say, I agree with Martin's comments above. I think you are wrong to talk as if its unquestionably clear that the state is what people usually are seeking when they look for "Ireland." I might agree that the content of a page on Ireland (the island) is something that might need special thought and care (then again, one could wish this for all Wiki pages), but whatever the case may be with other islands in the world, I don't think the trans-jurisdictional unit, in the case of Ireland, can be dismissed in the way your comments would seem to suggest. Nuclare 07:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Article 4 of "Bunreacht na hÉireann", the Irish constitution, reads: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." Available: http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/html%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland%20(Eng)Nov2004.htm Accessed: 16th July, 2007. [[User:PeterHamill] 10:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing reference

Footnote #3 is simply named "cia", but there is no text in the note. From the format, I assume it's a repeat of an actual footnote that was at one time situated earlier in the article, but that must have been deleted. Does anyone recall what that note was, and whether it's worth re-inserting? If the source wasn't good we need to remove the other two references to it, whatever it was. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was a reference to the census. I've added it to the article. Martin 01:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. Thinking about the rather non-cryptic reference name "CIA", it has to have been the CIA World Factbook. Both necessary pieces of information are referenced there. Martin 01:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, Martin. Looking back through the history I found it right around when you did, but the old link was semi-broken. Thanks for adding the up to date link! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No probs! :) Martin 01:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ulster

Northern Ireland is often typically called The Six Counties (referring to the six counties of Ireland that it occupies) or Ulster (referring to the majority of the province of Ulster that it occupies). Although the above sentence is correct (I'm not trying to deny its accuracy), I think it could be made clearer that Northern Ireland is only a part of Ulster, so as not to confuse others. I just don't like the wording of "the majority of the province that it occupies". Nitpicking, to be sure, but anyone have any suggestions for a more ... "easy to understand" re-write ? JohnathanZX4 22:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to tighten that whole paragrah to make it easier to understand and to remove some POV that had crept in. Abtract 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation notice

I think the disambiguation notice

This article is about the island of Ireland. For the state of the same name, see Republic of Ireland. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation).

is not succeeding at redirecting all readers that are looking for the state of Ireland to the relevant page. It's a reasonably common misconception, outside of Western Europe, that the island and the state are in fact contiguous, and the first sentence would thus fail to have the warning effect it should have.

For example, imagine an international reader who is aware that there is a state called Ireland, but incorrectly believes that the state covers all of the island; and who wants to know the population of the state (having heard, for example, about Ireland's remarkable per-capita GDP). That reader would be totally satisfied reading only the first sentence of the disambiguation notice, and possibly leave with the impression that there are slightly under six million people living in "Ireland" with a per-capita GDP of $41,000/year, rather than either of the correct versions (4.2 million @ $41,000/year or ~6 million @ $35,000/year).

I would suggest

This article is about the island of Ireland, not the state of Ireland (state). For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation)

though that's hardly perfect either.

RandomP 14:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

# Guidelines explicitly advise against this: "Show the entire linked article title as is, to avoid confusion, which is the reason for the top link in the first place."

# Its clearer as it is. The term Republic of Ireland makes a clear distinction between the state and the island. A glancing eye may miss the the parenthesized state, while a capitalized Republic is more obvious.

* "[The disambiguation link as it is] is not succeeding at redirecting all readers that are looking for the state of Ireland to the relevant page." How to you know this? (Apart from the obviously impossible all, regardless of what methods we use.) --sony-youth^talk 19:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has three articles about one smallish place. No need for this third, orphan article. Ireland is the official name of an independent nation/state as well as the name of the island it shares with Northern Ireland, a part of the UK. The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland articles each reference the one island-two states difference, clearly distinguishing between Ireland-the-country and Ireland-the-island. They also link to each other. The Republic of Ireland article should properly be renamed Ireland. This article is redundant and confusing. It has also become a POV battleground. It has no use, other than pushing partisan agendas, and should be scrubbed from Wikipedia entirely. Olompali 05:38, 23 February 2007

Spot on Olompali, agree 100%. This is the very popint I have been making. "RoI" = POV. (Sarah777 11:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Olompali will have to clarify his/her point, then, because I don't see a claim in his/her post that RoI = POV. In fact, I wish, Sarah, that you would lay out in clear, concise terms why you think RoI is POV. You have stated that RoI is (almost) only used by the British. This is false. So, there goes one of your reasons. You've also implied that it has a pro-British bias. I have no idea how that is the case.

On Olompali's suggestion that the island of Ireland article be deleted -- I can understand some objections as far as repitition and concerns about specific content, but I do, generally, think there is value to having an island of Ireland article. This might be particularly so when it comes to linking. Having to always word things as "Ireland and Northern Ireland" in order to set up links to all that is appropriate isn't always ideal wording and can create its own confusions. There's so much in Ireland (the island) that's organized as all-Ireland that having only the two jurisdictions to individually link to doesn't seem always to be best. Linking to a disambiguation page for "Ireland" seems a less than ideal method as well and, again, doesn't eliminate potential confusion either. Perhaps there should be special attention made to trying to make this page only about that which truly can be said to be 'island' related and/or all-Ireland related, but I think the criticisms of this page need to be specific. I don't think this page is anywhere near as bad as Olompali's comments would lead one to believe. Its no more a POV battleground than the other Ireland-related pages (maybe even less than some)If there are specific partisan-leaning wordings/content/ommissions, than by all means those should be described in more detail so they can be worked on. Nuclare 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh....User:Olompali, you are a BLANK link...could we have a proper signature? (Sarah777 11:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Delete the "Politics" section

I see I've just found where everybody went off to. I wondered why it had gotten so quiet at talk:Republic of Ireland!

I'd like to make a Modest Proposal. Delete the Politics section, or at least reduce it to the absolute minimum such as "the island is divided politically between two jurisdictions: Ireland (state) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For details, see those articles". The outcome should be something like Hispaniola. --Red King 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and likewise the "Flags of Ireland" section. --sony-youth^talk 22:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone cares about my opinion. :-) But I'd be for getting rid of at least the second paragraph of the politics section (the one that begins "Typically, the two political entities...") I'm not saying the content isn't somewhat useful, but it seems rather unencycolopedic at the moment. I'm all for deleting the Flags of Ireland section. 1) because I think the tricolor and Union Flag are more suited to the individual jurisdiction pages 2) because at quick glance one could be left with the impression that both those banners are flags of a single political entity (in the way the St. Andrews flag and Union flag both apply to Scotland, for example). Nuclare 03:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, I'm leaning toward the keep Politics "absolute minimum" suggestion. There's already a history section where details about the the Act of Union/the Kingships, etc. should be included.

Regardless of what happens to the Politics section in general, the "All-island institutions" section needs, at the very least, to be moved away from a Politics section. It almost seems like the info included in that section should be worked into the content of the page in a more natural fashion. For example, the sports section already mentions the all-Ireland organization of some of the sports. As much as the prospect of having a Religion section on this page is a bit frightening (I can imagine what people might try to put in there!), perhaps having such a section would be a better place to mention the organization of the churches. I'm not saying such a section should be set up JUST to mention their all-island organization, but there's something piece-meal about the 'All-island institutions' at the moment. (And the statement in there about the percentage of Catholics in both RoI and NI just seems out of place). Nuclare 04:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Does your proposal mean that we'd change the article "RoI" to Ireland (state)? (Sarah777 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

The Ireland talk page would be a strange place to propose that, now wouldn't it? Martin 19:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought Red King up above was making this Modest Proposal and I'm a sucker for good proposals! Who am I to question where Red King might want to put his suggestions? (Sarah777 00:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Going back to Red King's "Modest Proposal", I agree: the politics section should be removed or drastically cut down. The sentence "Politically it is divided into..." in the lead paragraph is probably sufficient to inform uncertain readers about the political statuses of different parts of the island.--A bit iffy 07:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The broad consensus is for a drastic reduction. I'll have a go. --Red King 19:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete the Flags Section

The flags section is even worse. It is impossible to have such a section without getting bogged down in POV. It adds nothing of any real value. I propose that we delete it. --Red King 19:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification I've started off on the wrong foot. I did not intend to say that the material as it stands is POV, rather that it has the potential to be. My intention was to say that this is very political material on what is (or at least should be) an article that describes the island and leaves the politics to other articles. I had just come from talk:Northern Ireland, where there is a major dispute about flags going on. Maybe the flags section belongs in the History of Ireland article, but it doesn't belong here. IMHO. --Red King 20:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree --Red King 19:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree--There is nothing POV about the flags section. But generally, since the article is about the island, and all the political, government, (state-related) stuff is covered elsewhere, I think this article should be mostly about geography, ecology, land forms, location, etc. So I would say take out the flags(and minimise all the human institutional aspects) and reformat the article along those lines I cited, or leave it as it is.Gary Joseph 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I read this that Gary agrees with the removal/transfer out, but does not agree with the reasons I gave. I accept that criticism, which is why I added the clarification above. --Red King 20:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree -- finally something I can agree with Red on. Bad enough having the flags in the NI section. (Sarah777 21:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC))
• Disagree (kinda) - It's only very recently (historically speaking) that the island was partitioned into two entities. The flag section would seem to be the logical place for discussing flags that are used to represent the whole island, both historically and currently. I guess one can't get away from discussing the Irish and UK flags, but they shouldn't be given the prominence they have now. Martin 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, I understand that, but the question I'm asking is, is this the right article for it. Would you be satisfied if it were moved to History of Ireland? --Red King 20:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree -- 100% agree. Neither flag is a flag of Ireland as discussed in this article. One is a flag of Ireland as discussed in the RoI article, the other is the flag of the United Kingdom. What do they have to do with this article?? Ireland as discussed here does not have a flag, except possibly this. --sony-youth^talk 09:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the section verbatim to History of Ireland. --Red King 20:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Political Geography

Twomileborrisonianism

Yet another debate rages with reverts etcetera; is NI 17% of Ireland (Island) or a mere 16.75%. I think this is an issue well worth having a major row about. User:Manopingo, who seems to be a Twomileborrisonian defends 16.75 as being more accurate than 17 (I'll take his word for it).

But wouldn't 16.748394628364002837640117632564848% be more accurate still? And why stop there?

I think it was Dean Swift who write a storey about us Little Enders and Big Enders? (Sarah777 00:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

lol....I think 16.748394628364002837640117632564848% is a capital idea! Although, it might just be easier to say "slightly less than 17%" or some-such. Of course, then we'll have to define what we mean by "slightly less", providing appropriate references to back up how many quarters of a percent "slightly" can encompass. What fun! :) Martin 00:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As it is written at the moment, I guess someone other than Ireland or the UK has control of 0.25% of the island. Would that be the Polish by chance? ;-) Nuclare 05:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the embassies! The US and British Embassies (especially the official residences) in Dublin are very large. However they are about to build a railway through the grounds of the British Ambassador's crib - so that should give us back something (Sarah777 09:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

I've put it back the way it was before I changed to avoid repeating the intro para, before we get into fractal algebra. Five sixths and one sixth, within the limits of experimental error. --Red King 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference no.11

Just noticed en passant. There is something wrong with ref no. 11. If I try to correct it I may do more harn than good. Best leave it - Osborne 15:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ok - fixed!! :) Thanks for pointing it out - Alison^☺ 15:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Places of Interest

Can this list be anything more than subjective? Is there some independent source that gives a "top 10 by number of visits"? --Red King 21:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll of Republic of Ireland title change

I've opened a straw poll on support for a change to the title of the Republic of Ireland article and related articles. --sony-youth^talk 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Flora

Happened to be reverting some vandalism in the 'flora' section when I noticed it is utterly dire. It has a single sentence which may be nonsense so far as I know. Somebody must know enough about plants in Ireland to put a few paragraphs together????? (Sarah777 15:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Yes I do - a bit. But I dont like the way references are mixed up!Osborne 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Osborne. I noticed that you have reverted my change and restored a "list off introduced plants" in the Flora section. Per my note in the edit summary, this is likely way too specific for a general Ireland article. I am going to reword again, and - per my note - if you want to create a "Biota of Ireland" or "Flora of Ireland" (where such a list would be much better suited), then please do. Cheers. Guliolopez 17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where you think the algae should be noted - I'm not sure. Some phycologists not consider algae as part of the "Flora". I don't mind, however the Flora and flora of Ireland is a bit confused to my mind as the Flora is "rerouted". I will probably let the whole site alone an stick to the sites I was working on. Osborne 08:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I have added a bit about flora. It should be enough to make a start. See here [4] Gold_heart 21:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it is a start, jolly good. I'm sorry I will be resiging my post at the end of this month and without a computer can't add to Wikipedia. However I love your photograph - the English built well in Ireland! I don't know how to put photos on wikipedia. Can you teach me - within the next week!!! Best contact me on my talk page if you wish. I may not look at this again! Osborne 11:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

O'Connell Street was built in the 1920s, by Irish people. It had been flattened in 1916 by the English.18:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

References//Footnotes

These are confused. References are mixed up. Oh please sort them out - it's too much for me!Osborne 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

History

I'd like to make some edits under history, and I want to float the topics here first.

1) The reference to a system of "apartheid" under the Penal laws strikes me as not representing a neutral point of view, even if there is a reference for it. There are many cases in history where groups (often majorities) have systematically been disadvantaged in law and in practice, and the logic for specifically choosing to equate Penal Law Ireland with apartheid South Africa seems to me to be about rhetoric and politics, rather than a close similarity. On a practical level, Catholics could (and in many cases did) change their religion, while the disenfranchised majority in South Africa could not change their ancestry. Irish Catholics were not restricted as to where they could live. A reference to Catholics being disadvantaged systematically under the Penal Law regime should suffice. There would then be no need for the reference quoted.

2) There is a problem with the section on the impact of the Vikings on Ireland here (and indeed in some other Wikipedia articles too). It is that warfare and raiding were common within Ireland at the time, so that the impression given of a peaceful land afflicted by invaders is seriously inaccurate. For balance, the article needs a reference to warfare within Ireland at the time.

3) The reference to bribery in securing the Act of Union, while accurate, seems like unnecessary detail in a summary article such as this. Including such a politically-loaded detail in a summary seems to me to be non-neutral. I propose deleting it.

4) The reference to the failure of attempts to achieve Home Rule as causing "the eclipse of moderate nationalism by militant separatism" is, at best, non-neutral POV, and arguably demonstrably false. A Home Rule Act was passed in 1912 (although there was never an opportunity to implement it), and up to the time of the Easter Rising in 1916 non-militant separatism, whether of the Home Rule or Sinn Fein variety, remained clearly in the political ascendent among the nationalist population. What then brought militant separatism to the fore depends on which historian you happen to believe. I propose editing to just say that militant separatism eclipsed moderate nationalism, eliminating the commentary on the cause.

Haroldsx 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

missing several topics...

There is great need to elaborate on the Flora section, its very... bare. Also the currency of Ireland should be clearer, many researchers using this encyclopedia may not be familiar with the euro system and which contries use it. Although this information is easily attainable in other places, finding Ireland's national motto was impossible. In personal opinion I prefer a clear list over tedious paragraphs. Convienince for both you as the creators and the readers would be best acomplished with some form of a "T" chart.

                                With Concern of Convienince, 
                                            A Critic

Spanish

Please, the link to spanish language is not "Isla de Irlanda" (ireland, but the island), is "Irlanda" (es:Irlanda). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.152.176.48 (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Demography: Ancient migrations, Scottish

I changed the suggestion that the initial inhabitants of Ireland were from central Europe from a "theory" to an "idea" (hypothesis would work too), since it has been clearly demonstrated (Oppenheimer's "Origins of the British, chap 2) that Ireland's ancient demic influx came from Spain/France and not Europe via England etc.

Also, is there a significant number of Scottish here? Anyone got census figures? Apollo Crua 08:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

THE FLAG - Hypocritical!

Why is the former standard of the government of northern ireland used as the "de facto flag of northern ireland" yet the Irish tricolour, the flag designed to represent the island, the flag which is obviously the "de facto" flag of Ireland, not used on this page?

There has been a very biased feel to every Irish article, whether it's the island of the the north, on this website for a while, and it's quite ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Firstly, the Northern Ireland flag is not used on the Northern Ireland page (thanks to an overtly political campaign to have it removed). Secondly, there were many flags designed to represent all of Ireland including the Saint Patrick's flag, the four-provinces flag and the harp flag. The fact is that the island of Ireland is not a political entity so has no flag. This article is about the island, not the state. beano 23:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Redesign of the "Irish states template"

I'm proposing a redesign of the "Irish states template", you can see my proposal at the talk page there. Please let me know what you think, good, bad, or indifferent - and also suggestion to improve it. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

History of Ireland - section?

Just a thought: should the history of Ireland section be divided into sections for legibility? I wouldn't know where to start myself, but is looks poor - some sub-headings and pictures who liven it up and make it more pleasant to read. Apollo Crua 14:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going away for awhile and won't be on wikipedia so please feel free to make any modifications to paragraphs, sentences or external wikilinks that you think are important concerning the history of Ireland. I'm new to wikipedia and put some sentences and paragraphs in which I thought were important and recently a picture got overlapped on a few letters of a sentence that I put in. Maybe adding a picture of Ceide fields since it was a primary important neolithic site from which the present Celtic speaking Gaels got thier language in addition to more Celtic speaking Gaels from Galicia(Spain) who, over time from the neolithic to bronze age, made Ireland a Celtic speaking community. (old Irish archaeology which is somehow linked to the Basques or most likely Galicia Spain) [[5]] Karohatch 01:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

ireland

hey, doesn't ireland have more to give than just body? It isn't talked about very much, though lots of people are irish. Ireland is a very rich wealthy piece of the world and it needs more sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.236.250.206 (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Amen!

Climate section additions

Hi all. Any thoughts on the latest additions to the climate section. I was tempted to remove them but thought I'd check first for some kind of consensus. In my opinion, they're not quite appropriate for the article as:

• the key points are already covered in the "body" of the climate section (highest/lowest temp/etc)
• those that aren't smell like "trivia" to me, and may not be entirely relevant to a high level Ireland article (Where/when on the island the highest ever hourly rainfall was recorded?)
• there are no sources cited,
• the formatting isn't per MOS, and
• and (last - and probably least) a list at this point in the article doesn't sit right. (At least - that's my opinion - not quoting any guildelines with this one)

At first I thought about just reverting. Then I thought about trying to merge some of the important points into the "body" of the climate section. But I couldn't figure out how to (given the "trivia" nature of some of the points.) Any thoughts/suggestions? Guliolopez 19:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello -

Average temperatures in the island vary from -4°C (min) to 11°C (max) in January, and 9°C (min) to 23°C (max) in July.

One of the coldest nights for the past few years was recorded on Monday, 5 February 2007 when air temperatures in Dublin dipped to -5ºC (23ºF) with parts of Ulster recording lows of -9ºC (15.8ºF).

I'd delete the above, because it is simply wrong!

The "list" below is factually correct and is the sort of data frequently given in a summary of a country's weather; it might look less 'trivial' if compressed and boxed in some way.

Highest recorded air temperature: 33.3 ºC (92 ºF) at Kilkenny Castle, County Kilkenny on June 26, 1887.

Lowest recorded air temperature: -19.1 ºC (-2 ºF) at Markree Castle, County Sligo on January 16, 1881...etcetera.

These do give (to folk interested in this topic) a reasonably good feel for the climatic parameters. (Sarah777 20:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

I'm still not sure about the value of these stats.

I tried "consolidating" into a paragraph, but it remains something of an impenetrable stat fest:

Other statistics show that the driest year on record was 1887, with only 356.6mm of rain recorded at Glasnevin, while the longest period of "absolute drought" was in Limerick where there was no recorded rainfall over 38 days from 3 April to 10 May 1938. Conversely, the greatest monthly rainfall was 790.0mm in the Cummeragh Mountains, County Waterford in October 1996, the greatest annual rainfall was 3964.9mm in the Ballaghbeena Gap in 1960, the greatest hourly rainfall was 97mm in Orra Beg, County Antrim in August 1980, and the greatest daily rainfall was 243.5mm at Cloore Lake, County Kerry on 18 September 1993.

I still have two main problems with this data. Firstly, my reading of the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information" guideline (particularly "that something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia") suggests to me that (in particular) the hourly/daily/monthly rainfall stats represent irrelevant over-supply of info.

Beyond that, when I went looking for corroberation of these stats, I found that the list (in its current form) is a complete "copy and paste" job from the Met Eireann website.

So, given that the info is available elsewhere (and can be provided in the ref) I'm going to do is DUMP the hourly/weekly/monthly stuff, and just leave:

Other statistics show that the greatest recorded annual rainfall was 3964.9mm in the Ballaghbeena Gap in 1960. Conversely, the driest year on record was 1887, with only 356.6mm of rain recorded at Glasnevin. (While the longest period of "absolute drought" was in Limerick where there was no recorded rainfall over 38 days during April and May of 1938). [6]

Comments welcome before I do so. Guliolopez 19:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and dump! I'm certainly not going to battle for the stats...(Sarah777 19:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

Demographics section inaccurate

Some of the figures quoted in the Demographics section are inaccurate.

Their is a figure quoted for 180,000 Polish people being here. The latest CSO census figure has the number of Polish immigrants at 63,000 if I remember correctly. Likewise, mentioning the "high number" of Chinese immigrants while omitting the larger number of Americans is a bit odd. And the biggest immigrant nationality - the British - don't even get a mention!

Likewise, commentary on why immigrants choose to immigrate sounds like propaganda. A lot of Irish people emigrated to the UK in the past for example but for most it was because there was work there and it was English speaking, not because of the "high standard of living" (If it were just standard of living, people would presumably have all gone en masse to Germany or Denmark).

Also the figures for the City populations are questionable - what exactly is the "Greater Dublin Area"? These days that could include all the commuter towns, such as Navan, Blessington or even Mullingar and Carlow! The population of a city is the people that are inside the city's boundaries and not those of the neighbouring counties as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.125.79.200 (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Irish Culture

I am working on a project, and need to know these things about Ireland. A) Average high/low temperatures in June-August B) Population C) Typical Irish slang— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.94.145 (talk)

For A) Check [7] B)[8] C) I don't think the Irish use slang. Regards (Sarah777 17:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

For slang, look here (its the first hit on Google for "Irish slang"). There are also several books. Look up Hiberno-English for English as it is spoken in Ireland. For a detailed examination of Hiberno-English see here, for a nice overview see here. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Chips and beans with a boiled egg.

Sony, that link you gave seems a bit of a bum steer if you'll excuse the slang! Did you read it?!! Like the "chubbing up" which is apparently what some Irish folk describe eating a full breakfast, according to Wiki! Mind; the photos in that article makes me VERY hungry! (Sarah777 21:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

I only glanced through it - yeah! saw "chubbing up" in the Full Breakfast page. Moved it to trivia and marked it as dubious. You're Dublin-based, yeah? I thought it was something what the trendy kids were saying. Wouldn't know myself being from down the country, like. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish neutrality during World War II

The article Irish neutrality during World War II has been nominated for deletion. Please add your opinion to the discussion on AfD. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change of intro

The intro is pretty anemic, straining itself to avoid pov and ends as nothing. My proposed intro would be something like follows. Some minor tweaks.

Ireland (Irish: Éire; Ulster Scots: Airlann) is the third largest island in Europe and the twentieth largest in the world. It lies to the northwest of Continental Europe. It is surrounded by hundreds of islands and islets. To the east of Ireland, separated by the Irish Sea, is the island of Great Britain. Politically, the state known as Ireland, covers five sixths of the island, and Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, occupies the northeastern sixth of the island. The name 'Ireland' derives from the name Ériu (in modern Irish, Éire) with the addition of the Germanic word 'land'.
Gold♣heart 23:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ireland is also the second biggest island in the British Isles - why did you remove that fact, Goldheart? The British Isles is the most immediate geographical entity to Ireland - failing to mention it in the article just looks silly and is surely a breach of WP:NPOV and possibly WP:NOT#CENSOR. Waggers 08:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It (without BI), seems the pretty standard introduction from the Google searches of "Ireland" and "geography". Introducing BI into the first para, is confusing, and is often disputed. The whole object is to make the intro clear and simple. To introduce a "quasi political" term into a geography page could well addle the reader further. Although BI gets many hits in Google, in all reality, it is not a commonplace term. Most maps don't allude to BI at all, and simply refer to Great Britain, Ireland, etc. This was discussed last year, as per archives. Also there are 100s of other articles about islands around Great Britain which fail to mention BI in their introductory paragraphs, articles that I have never edited. Here are some examples.

Northern Isles, ** Orkney, ** Shetland, ** Fair Isle, ** Lindisfarne, ** Farne Islands, ** Mersea Island, ** Isle of Sheppey, ** Portsmouth Islands, ** Hayling Island, ** Portsea Island, ** Isle of Wight, ** Isle of Portland, ** St Michael's Mount, ** Isles of Scilly, ** Islands of the Bristol Channel, ** Lundy, ** Steep Holme, ** Flat Holme, ** Islands in St George's Channel** Caldey Island, ** Skokholm, ** Skomer, ** Ramsey Island, ** Bardsey Island, ** Anglesey, ** Islands of Furness, ** Islands of the lower Firth of Clyde, ** Isle of Arran, ** Bute, ** the Cumbraes, ** Hebrides, ** Inner Hebrides, ** Small Isles, ** Outer Hebrides, ** St Kilda, * List of islands of England, * List of islands of Isle of Man, * List of islands of Scotland, * List of islands of Wales, * Isle of Man, * Channel Islands, * Rockall Gold♥ 16:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

On the basis that British Isles is a "quasi-political" term and therefore inappropriate in a geography page, would the same apply to the use of Europe with reference to Switzerland? hillocks 14:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Title for {{British Isles}} template

I understand that there's some controversy over the term "British Isles" (and I don't think I'll ever understand why, but that's a separate issue) but the term "Ireland, Great Britain & the Isle of Man" does not describe the same thing. "British Isles" includes all the islands in the group, whereas "Ireland, Great Britain & the Isle of Man" includes just three of them. Any ideas for a better, more inclusive title?

My personal view is that it should just be left at "British Isles" since that's the name of the article on the island group, and it's been discussed to death there with no consensus for change ever being established. It seems strangely inconsistent to refer to the same thing using different terms in different places on the encyclopaedia. Failing to use the term "British Isles" just because it's controversial is a breach of Wikipedia policy. Waggers 12:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider having a look at Talk:Ireland/Archive_5 for the discussions about this template, its title, and the complexities of using a label to describe the complex relationship (cultural, historic and geographic) between these islands. There are also other discussions in other archived versions of the Ireland talkpage. In short, (while the current label does exclude some of the islands of the archipelego) the reason that the template is managed differently in the Ireland article is because it is the only constituent covered by the banner which contains substantive communities who do not consider the label "British" to be appropriate. Guliolopez 14:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the title of the template needs to be the same as the title of the article? Does the title of the template even need to be a name, let alone the most common name? Can it not be a description in the same way that the article on Ireland uses a descriptive title?

I don't mean this discussion to blur over into discussing that the British Isles article should be renamed - that (in my mind) quite clearly should stay titled as it is. "Great Britain, Ireland and the Isle of Man" isn't the best description, for sure - "British Islands and Ireland" fits perfectly. I'd support a change to that (specifically, and only, for the template). If you feel its important to use the same title for the template across the encyclopedia, then I'd support that title being used througout, as well. Although - despite it being a perfectly legitimate description - I think you'll find that it will be tough fight to convince other communities to accept it (WP:NOT?). I'll support you if you want to take up that mantle, but understand also if you choose to shy away from the challenge. --sony-youth^pléigh 07:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"British Islands and Ireland" is a great alternative name - the only problem with it is that it would exclude the islands of Ireland that form part of the Republic - but it's far more inclusive than "Ireland, Great Britain & the Isle of Man". The name of the template itself doesn't really matter (you could move it to {{adslkjadskjasdfjakljckwdcw}} apart from the WP:NAME breach but the contents would stay the same!). My concern was really that it seems strange to have a link to the British Isles article without referring to it by that name. I certainly accept it's a sensitive issue but equally doesn't the status quo breach WP:NOT#CENSOR and WP:NPOV? (The former is fairly clear; with the latter the Ireland article should be written from a neutral point of view not an Irish point of view). Having said all that, it's not really a big deal and I don't want to alienate all our Irish editors through a silly dispute - but it sticks out like a sore thumb and (in my view) such inconsistencies make Wikipedia look a bit silly. Waggers 08:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have imagined the "Ireland" as excluding the islands off Ireland in the Republic, as I would have read both as political terms: the British Islands referring to the areas of the British Isles under British Crown jurisdiction, Ireland referring to the areas of the British Isles under Irish government jurisdiction.

I can see where you're coming from re: NOT and NPOV, but what I meant by WP:NOT#CENSOR was that if that is a valid title for the template (leaving aside arguments that the title of the template should be the same as the title of the article), why would it not be acceptable across the encyclopedia? I my opinion, I don't think that it would be accepted by other communities because they would not accept any phraseology other than "British Isles." That too is breaches WP:NOT#CENSOR.

Regarding, NPOV - the argument here is that the term British Isles carries with it a certain POV about the relationship of the islands and their peoples. That is does so is argued also in the "real world" to the extent that:

• It is not recognised by one government in the islands, and its potential use is threatened by formal objected
• It has been removed from school atlases in the same jurisdiction
• A pan-island sporting team has been renamed itself (ostensibly to avoid it offense to a section of its team members and fans)
• Long-winded euphimisms are employed to get around using it in relations between our peoples. Politicians from all areas of the islands acknowledge issues with the term and seek avoid using it so as not to cause offense or imply a lack of neutrality.
• A large number of historicans and political commenators from all parts of the islands describe it as an outdated and political-loaded term.

Clearly, you will of course agree, in the "real world" it is understood to carry a certain POV. In any case, It might be worthwhile to remember that British Isles does not pass the "name test" for naming conflicts:

1. Most commonly used name in English: Yes
2. Current undisputed official name of entity: No (disputed by Irish government)
3. Current self-identifying name of entity: No (not used by British-Irish Council), or, at best, N/A

Personally, I would see the current solution to the template name as a quite a generous compromise on the part of some Irish editors. By seeing it as only a local-name issue, allows those unwilling to asknowledge issues with the name quite a large degree of breathing space and freedom. Whether this is, in fact, worth the trouble ... as the person who originally suggest it, I'm beginning to change my mind. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Awww ...

What happened to the Gallery? While it might not have been the most informative element of the page, I think it showed a good breadth of the island. It was just a positive thing and many (all?) of the pictures in it showed quite interesting things. A picture, a thousand words (a million monkeys) sort of thing. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed it as I felt it was a bit unencyclopedic. Someone else has replaced it. In my opinion, there are other ways to see (and display) image galleries. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. --John 05:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's more a Places of Interest section than a gallery. I propose that it should be named such. Some very interesting pages linked from that section. -User:86.42.167.203|86.42.167.203 14:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hate to bring it up again, but....

Can someone give me a brief reason why the current location of the article on the island, being where it is, doesn't blatantly violate WP:NC? It says:

Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

Now in the case of Republic of Ireland its more common name is irrelevant - if it is Ireland it conflicts so would need another name, if its Republic of Ireland, it doesn't conflict so it doesn't matter. However, in the case of the island, whether or not the use of the name Ireland is more common for the state, or for the island, it absolutely can't be denied that this name does conflict with a name used for the State. Regardless of people's opinions, I still fail to see why this isn't just a case of enforcing policy. Not to mention the fact that I could easily dig up over 50 examples, quite quickly, of incorrect links to this article which should be to the State. Again, I'm just wondering why people think the current setup, regardless of preference, doesn't violate policy (not a general debate on the issue - I've seen the archived ones) . - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 10:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" - so does the name of the island conflict with the name of the state, or does the name of the state conflict with the name of the island?

Hey wait! ... "Republic of Ireland" is quite a common 'name' for the state and doesn't conflict with the name of the island. Hey presto! Problem solved. (See long drawn out discussion in archives of Talk:Republic of Ireland and most recent straw poll). --sony-youth^pléigh 10:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But that means that the island should be taken as the more common use for Ireland and I don't think there are any sources for that (if there are, then thats fine). Also, the policy is that the article name, doesn't conflict with the name of other things, not that it doesn't conflict with the article title of other things (therefore this article's name still conflicts with the name of other things). - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 12:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It assumes nothing of the kind. Read the piece you cited again: "... use the the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." It does not say, "use the most common name, full stop". It says "use the most common name that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Republic of Ireland is the most common name that does not conflict with the name of any other thing. The name of Ireland-the-island, I'm afraid, will always conflict with the name of the state.

I don't understand what you mean by the last part. In any case, this sounds like a little too much WikiLawyering to be healthy. How's about a rational what, why and how you would like a change? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to make Ireland a disambig page and move the Island to Ireland (island) --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 13:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be the best thing to do? --sony-youth^pléigh 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Because both the country and the island have the same name I fail to see why a landmass should be given preference over the state. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 15:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny then that the state is named after the landmass because it is the opinion of the state in question that the landmass does, in fact, take priority. In any case, sounds a bit like an "I don't like" it argument. Care to argue from our readers point of view? --sony-youth^pléigh 15:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the state is more important than the landmass look at Australia the state is given prefrence over the landmass Australia (continent) --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 16:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct Barry. I'm convinced the current "settlement" is based on neither policy nor common sense. (Sarah777 19:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Ireland may refer to:

• a state, so-called by its own constitution, but better known as "The Republic of Ireland", "The Irish Republic", "The Free State", "The 26 Counties", "The Whore of Babylon" or "The Soyth"
• an island lying north-west of the continent of Europe, sometimes claimed as part of the British Isles, which gets up a lot of people's noses

Do we not have enough hassles as it is without adding a disambiguation page? Scolaire 13:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

! Well Scolaire, I'd normally respond in similarly robust terms - but (see below) that would get me into trouble! Seriously though, I'd totally support a disambig page. Though now that we in RoI seem all cosy with bombers in Shannon I guess "The Whore of Babylon" moves up the list of candidates. (Sarah777 06:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

RFC/USER discussion concerning Sarah777

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Sarah777. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777, where you may want to participate. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Random Question

what would i be required to do before moving to Ireland from America?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.42.71 (talk)

Contact one of these people and you're all set to go. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

National Holiday of Ireland

Hello,

maybe I missed it in the text, but is the national holiday of Ireland, St. Patricks Day on 17th of march, really not meantioned? In the german wikipedia on Ireland, you have this day already in the head of the text. Binninger 10:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)--

Yes. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove Airlann

Who cares what the name is in "Ulster-Scots"? Airlann!! Wow! It's not even a language, it's dialect pushed as a language for a unionist agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.212.130 (talk • contribs)

Whatever the opinion about it, its officially "part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland." By vote is for keep. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The point isn't whether it is part of the cultural wealth (which it is, of course), it's whether it is a language and should be referenced as such in the above page. It clearly is not a language but a dialect and should not be called the former. Do other pages have a the name of their country in their various dialects? They don't from what I can see anyway. Take France for example, does that page have France listed in: Acadian French African French Aostan French Belgian French Cajun French Canadian French etc..... whether it be different or not (in this case it probably isn't different, being La France I'd imagine in all. However I am sure that there are countries in which the name of the respective states do differ in their various dialects but are not listed like Airlann is) {unsigned|87.198.212.130}}

Minor point, none of the dialects you menioned are dialects spoken in France. But, please sign your posts with ~~~~ --sony-youth^pléigh 11:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point none of them are spoken in France your so smart. Shall I be bothered to list the ones that are just for you now. Meridional is one which is spoken within France. How about Spain?

   * Andalusian Spanish
   * Canarian Spanish
   * Churro Spanish
   * Extremaduran
   * Murcian Spanish
   * Northern Spanish

all spoken within Spain. I doubt the page on Spain would have any differences in these dialects listed if they existed. So by your logic of the "cultural wealth" why don't we throw in Oirland for the dubs and their rich dialect or Areland as I've heard it being called. PS I'm not bothered creating an account for the English version of this since I rarely use it except to add to the Irish version, which is what I was doing when I came accross this Airlann rubish.

If there was any official recognition given to these dialects/languages, of course they would be listed on the page on Spain. I think a large part of your confusion is that you assume that when people agree with you that Ulster Scots is a dialect, you assume that you have consensus that it's a dialect of English. Marnanel 14:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So tell me what language it is a Dialect of then, if not English? (please answer this as it's imperative I know right away) And your missing the point calling those Spanish dialects, dialects/languages. They are dialects of the Spanish language just as Ulster Scots is a dialect of English. Also the argument isn't about whether it is listed or not, it's about the fact that the name of Ireland is named in Ulster Scots which is a dialect and the name of any other country on wikipedia dose not have it's name listed in any of it's dialects. If you had read the thing before you wrote this you would have saved yourself "confusion".

Ulster Scots is a dialect of the Scots language. It is the only dialect of Scots spoken in Ireland, and has explicit official recognition from both governments. Any language can be described as a dialect or group of dialects; would you suggest the name "Éire" be removed because it is the name for Ireland in the Munster, Ulster and Connacht dialects of Irish? By the way, please sign your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~--Kwekubo 18:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Scots Language! are you joking me? Why can't you see that the classification of such as a Language is political in nature. You think the granting of status as a language to something that is clearly a dialect by a government is just? Ulster Scots was simply granted language status to appease Unionists in the Good Friday Agreement and to put it on level pegging with Irish, which I believe it dosen't deserve, seeing as when it comes down to it it's a bastardized form of english and nothing more. While Irish is a credible language whose roots and evolution can clearly be traced as far back as Indo European. And so you know, my argument here that Irish is more credible isn't simply because it's older. There are many new languages that have come into existance in the past few hundred years or less even, Tok Pisin for example. The main differnce between these however and Ulster Scots is that they have their own grammatical systems and not just a vocab of bastardized words and an accent. (I created an account just to please you aswell >>>>>>>>Kerronoluain 11:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can really argue that the distinction between what's a language and what's a dialect is a political question. Nevertheless, your (and my) opinion on the matter is irrelevant: what's important is citation of reliable sources. Three very important points in the matter are:

1. Scots (which is a very different thing from Standard Scottish English-- you might do well to read History of the Scots language) is recognised as a separate language by ISO 639. To say that Scots doesn't have its "own grammatical systems" and is "just a vocab of bastardized words and an accent" just shows your ignorance of the subject.
2. Ulster Scots is spoken in seven counties of the island (the six currently under British administration and Donegal). It is not confined to the six counties. Even if it was, this article is about the island Ireland and not the state.
3. the Belfast Agreement, as ratified by both the Irish and British governments, agreed on giving both the Irish language and the Ulster Scots language equal status to the English language. This means that Ulster Scots has some measure of official recognition by both states currently existing on the island. (This is not to say that it's equal to the recognition of Irish given by the Irish constitution, of course.)

Which of these points are in dispute? Marnanel 16:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care what any ISO says, and neither would anyone who had any understanding of the political situation regarding language in the six counties (besides Unionists of course, who regard the Irish language and Scots as weapons of opposing sides in a "cultural war", they believe to be going on). And until any of you school yourselves in what is actually going on there you can throw all your genaralised citations around, but they are completely unapplicable to this situation. It's obvious to me that you have just cited something without any real knowledge of why Ulster Scots has just crept out of the woodwork of late. It's because its "rival" (as Unionists would percieve it), the Irish language, has gained some status. Do you realise that before Irish did gain this, nothing was heard of Ulster Scots, there were no attempts made to revive it?(and therefore it certainly would not have been mentioned on this page in the form of "Airlann") NO? I DIDN'T THINK SO Kerronoluain 10:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I have made a proposal to move the Republic of Ireland to Ireland See:

Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Proposal_to_move_this_article_to_Ireland.--

Oh ghods, not this again. Can we have an FAQ or something? Marnanel 03:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ibheriu

I read that the oldest name of Ireland was Ibheriu and only later Eriu. Is this right?

Flag colours and Original uncorrupted Name for Ireland

I agree with the poster above the flag colours are wrong it should be a dark green colour like PMS 347 as suggested and the orange PMS 151

regarding the original uncorrupted name for ireland

i have read the following the Euerni, or Erainn, belonging to the Belgae people of northern Gaul, began arriving about the 6th B.C. They called their new home Eueriio, which would later evolve through the Old Irish Eriu to Eire, and from Eire to Ireland

also

Barry Fell, author of America B. C,. It is true, as Tacitus relates, that Agricola contemplated adding Hibernia(ireland) (as he rendered the name Ibheriu) to the roman empire

Consistency

The Wiki British Isles entry correctly states that Ireland is one of the British Isles. For consistency so should the Ireland entry.--81.158.157.116 20:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of the term is disputed in Ireland and is never used by the British and Irish governments when dealing with each other.--padraig 20:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the use of the term to refer to Ireland, Great Britain etc is disputed, but the term itself is not. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. The page is in the Islands of the British Isles cat....I see nothing wrong with mentioning it in the article and briefly mentioning that the use of the term can be contentious. No need to make a big deal out of it. Martin 23:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why your refering to Great Britain, Ireland was never part of it, but the British Isles is, the dispute is even mentioned in the template you refer to.--padraig 23:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times (see here and here for instance). The majority of editors have agreed that it doesn't belong in this article. IrishGuy ^talk 23:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi anon editor 81.158.157.116. Referencing a statement made on a talkpage (where no consensus exists) as basis for a change is not appropriate. Nor is repeat flouting of 3RR. Please stop including this text based on unilateral arguments on "concistency".

Per comments made by multiple users (Irish and otherwise) over quite some time, consensus in this article has been to apply a representative template and cat, but not to include (in the intro) a term which is disputed (politically and academically) in its application to the island of Ireland.

While it may be applicable in certain historical contexts, it is acknowledged as having problems in its application in a modern context.

Specifically, the "British" adjective in the label (where it reflects that which "pertains to (Great) Britain or its inhabitants") is particularly problematic. Where the term "British" is interpreted in modern usage as "pertaining to Great Britain", the term "The British Isles" may be interpretted as "The islands of (Great) Britain". And while Great Britain and it's islands include England, Scotland, Wales, Wight, Anglesey, Scilly, Hebrides, Orkney, Shetland, and others, it does not include Man, the Chanel Islands, or Ireland.

Therefore (given the ambiguity and asserted problems with the term) it was determined that inclusion of the term had the potential to reflect more inaccuracy or misinterpretation than otherwise. And so consensus was (and has been) to avoid the term in its application at this level. Guliolopez 23:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have followed this debate with interest. Having checked in my local library all the encyclopaedias, atlases and other reference books on the shelves I find that when referring to the geography of the islands of North West Europe they are all unanimous that Ireland is one of the British Isles. There is no reference that disagrees with this. The British Isles entry in Wikipedia says the same. The Ireland article is the principal entry in Wikipedia on the GEOGRAPHY of the island of Ireland. So it really must show that the island is one of the British Isles. Censura 09:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"British Isles" is certainly a common phrase for the archipelago, but not the only one, and neither is it necessary to mention it. For what little benefit its inclusion would add to the article, the cost in terms of the trouble it would cause would by far would outwieght it. I would suggest paying a second visit to the reference section and you may come across less clean-cut references such as these. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia wish to be out of step with every other reference book? It is arrogant and wrong to continue to claim that Ireland is not one of the British Isles. I was inspired to get involved by the following letter in The Spectator editon of 7th July:

Sir: Christopher Howse (Books, 23 June) is quite right in his conclusion about Wikipedia that it is a ‘useful tool, if used with judgment’. As a regular user of, and occasional contributor to, the website I can confirm its value, but would also say that it can be a huge source of irritation. One of the frustrations is that some entries are the jealously guarded preserve of the politically correct. To see what I mean go to the entry on the island of Ireland. Nowhere in this entry does it say that the island of Ireland is one of the ‘British Isles’ — notwithstanding the fact that this is self-evidently true. Your readers might amuse themselves by editing the entry so that its correct geographical descriptor is shown — and then see how long it takes for the ‘anti-all-things-British’ guardians of this entry to change it back again! Censura 10:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)