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)

Can anyone give me a good source to learn about socialized medicine in Ireland?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.19.162 (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2008 (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))

"Horrified"? The Constitution says "The name of the state is Eire, or in the English language, Ireland". Pleidhce 20:55, 10 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.69.90 (talk)

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" that 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)

Also, surely the Book of Kells isn't a place. Thehappyhobo (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2008 (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)

84.65.124.10 23:31, 25 August 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)

I agree that it should be removed, it is making a mockary of the entire page. Shall we go to the Liverpool page and write "Livapuul" as Scouse-England? Ulster-Scots was created in 1990 and the name of the island derives from it's original Gaelic name - hence why it is there. "Airlann" being there, like I said, makes a mockary of the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.124.10 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that "Airlann" should be removed. The status of Ulster-Scots was agreed to under the Belfast Agreement so its inclusion in the article has some form of official legitimacy behind it at least. Let me say, as a native Irish speaker and a nationalist that our clamouring to have it removed here will not do us any favours at all I believe. Putting my linguist's hat on, I believe that Ulster Scots/Scots is definitely not a seperate language but a dialect of English. I certainly do not believe that it was invented in 1990 by Orangemen, though. I just think that most unionists couldn't have given two hoots about it until they saw the potential to use it as a political weapon. However, I think it's just about possible that some of the people pushing the dialect are not on some political mission, just as there are Irish speakers who are largely apolitical. However, its inclusion in the article takes nothing from it, I believe. I think it's important not to rise to the bait set by the more extreme unionists and froth at the mouth every time we see the dialect mentioned. Who cares if it's included in the article? Just forget about it and deal with the more sinister partitionist propaganda that is, alas, rife on Wikipedia. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, "Airlann" should be removed. Google it, 591 hits. Now google "irealnd", it gets 48,300 and it's spelled wrong! Point being, Airlann is just a phonetic spelling of a bastardised pronunciation. It is not fit to be included in an encyclopedia. In fact, point it out in Encarta or Britannica, or better yet, have a look for it in the dictionary. Why not do the decent thing and relegate the "term" to a footnote which can be deleted at a later date when no ones looking? --Anthony 00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems the majority of the people in this debate are for the removal of "Airlann" .. will Wikipedia now do the right thing and remove it, or will people continue to be allowed to push their POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.73.87 (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Ulster-Scots maybe a dialect and that Ireland is almost never spoken as Airlann. However Ulster-Scots, while it is questionable in its authenticity as a language, is a legitimate culture on this island and I think it is about time that our Unionist and Ulster-Scots cousins feel welcome and a part of this Ireland! There is too many seperatist views and suspecion on both sides of the political opinion in our country and that is why our country is still divided. For this reason I am voting to keep the reference to Airlann, along side Éire and Ireland and I hope that other Nationalists will agree! --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  20:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Parity of esteem. Keep. --Red King 00:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's absolutely legit as a culture, just as is "New York Irish" but the American page does not contain "Amirikah" as in a New York dialect. "Ireland" is the English form of "Éire", so it's perfectly reasonable to have Éire listed, but Airlann serves no historical or meaningful purpose.

Where is the resolution on this?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.157.254 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 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?

another way the tribe of the Euerni was spelt was Iverni which would expain the origin of that spellingCaomhan27 21:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

uncorrupted Name in article

Gerhard Herm's book titled "The Celts" 

states that the original name the Euerni called the island was Eueriio derived from the name of their tribe this later was corrupted in od irish to Eriu whic is pronounced the same but spelt differently and finally to Eire I would like to see the original name in the aritcle on ireland anyone agreeCaomhan27 21:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Firstly, I am disappointed that "a regular user of, and occasional contributor to" Wikipedia would deliberately and willful disregared two of the projects guidelines and invite external meatpuppets to deliberately disrupt the project just to make a point. Both are considered highly inappropriate under Wikipedias guidelines. (I recognise that this is likely not anyone here, but the we shouldn't support guideline breaches such as this).

Secondly, it has been a repeated argument that "other sources place Ireland in the British Isles" and so should Wikipedia. As noted above, while the BI label may be correct historically (and therefore may be referenced as such in older reference texts), more recently published texts acknowledge the term as having "issues" when applied to include Ireland - and so they don't. (As noted here). Wikipedia has the power to be the most "up to date" reference of all, and so should likely not be updated to reflect older texts "for consistency". And certainly not where those older texts conflict with modern usage. (As above, the modern use of the adjective "British" reflects an association with Great Britain and the UK. An association which historically could be applied to the island of Ireland. But which is not correct in a modern context. As an example, the The Spectator article linked above associates "British" with the UK.)

So, in short, the answer to the question "Why would Wikipedia wish to be out of step with every other reference book?" is that Wikipedia has the potential to be more up to date than older printed reference books, and reflecting those books "for consistency" nullifies the expressed purpose, power and value of the project. Guliolopez 11:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ho ho ho !!! So to deny that Ireland is one of the British Isles is more "up to date" is it? What nonsense. If that was so then why does the Wiki entry on the British Isles show Ireland as one of them? Is this entry out of date in some way? Of course not. The letter to The Spectator mocked the ludicrous “political correctness” of the refusal to acknowledge that Ireland is indeed one of the British Isles. My objection is also that Wikipedia should be internally consistent and it isn’t on this issue. Laughing stock time I'm afraid! Are some of our Irish contributors so insecure that they cannot acknowledge that in the real world Ireland most emphatically is geographically one of the British Isles. How sad. Censura 12:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Less of the abuse - play the ball, not the man. That Ireland is part of the British Isles is not denied (where does any article say that "Ireland is not part of the British Isles"?) This is a large article in which many "facts" could be included. Why would you like this particular fact included? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Censura. Giving you, as a relative newcomer (though self-acknowledged WP:SPA/Meatpuppet) the benefit of the doubt I will ignore the tone of your note which is mocking to other contributors. And instead will simply state that I am not asserting that Ireland is or is not covered by the term, but that more recently published texts acknowledge that the application of the term to include Ireland is problematic. And that given that the "value" of its inclusion at this level does not outweigh those problems, consensus has been to avoid the term. This avoidance is not "political correctness", rather an acknowledgement on practical and pragmatic grounds. Beyond that - per Sony and others - the argument on "Consistency" would equally be applied to "Orkney", "Channel Islands", who also don't reference the British Isles. Not because of "political correctness", but (possibly) because there is no need to. (As it is not relevant at the same level). Guliolopez 13:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And what is wrong with noting in the article that Ireland is commonly covered by the term, but this is regarded as contentious by some, and so other phrases such as "these islands" are often used instead?

A sentence or two that would be factually accurate and acknowledge the current use and disuse of the term is all that is required. "British Isles" is a common enough term; I don't think it's too crazy to opine that there's a case for its inclusion in the article. As I said above, it doesn't have to be a big deal. Martin 23:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Censura, I would like to make the argument that it is not Ireland that is insecure about inclusion within the British Isles, but it is indeed the British who are insecure about Ireland being out of their durastiction. I know you will say that this is just another Nationalist POV, however if you look at evidence snipets i have pointed out below from British media, as I find in Northern Ireland, you will see the inclusion of the whole island of Ireland, together with Great Britain and the term national somewhere along that picture. This is indeed shown in uk weather maps, the BBC's "Great British Quiz" and "Test the Nation" Television Programs, as well as even on UK mobile network websites (O2-UK and T-Mobile UK). Given that the UK currently only owns roughly 17% of the Irish island do you not think that this is abit insulting for the rest of the independent territory? Can you now see that the term "British Isles" might be taken a bit too far to mean national rather than geographical in the minds of some in the UK and see now why the Republic of Ireland and Irish citizens may want the term changed? --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI the word is jurisdiction. This is a straw man argument and I would warrant that I could go off and find numerous pages showing Northern Ireland included in some context that should rightly only include the territory of the Republic. Jooler 08:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This supposed controversy all seems to be a case of POV pushing, born out of a politics and NOTHING to do with geography. Natural historians and geographers from Ireland seem to have little problem with the use of British Isles in reference to the island of Ireland. Jooler 09:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Jooler I cannot but help to feel a sense of a dig in your method of correcting my typo error, however I will ignore it and thank you for pointing that out to me. I have highlighted an example of where the BBC have shown the "British Isles" and the word Nation beside it. This is not my POV but clearly that of the BBC. I understand that some people may be ok with this but the point of me highlighting this issue is to show why nationalists clearly and justifiably have issues with the term. that is why i have put it in the Talk section rather than the main article. It is a discussion for others to include their opinions on this issue. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  17:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed UK manual of style

This a proposal for a UK manual of style. This will of course cover the entirity of Ireland during the period 1801-1922 and Northern Ireland since 1922. I don't know how this will effect the current WP:IMOS but input would be welcome: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles). --sony-youth^pléigh 14:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

From a quick reading of it it seems to be a small number of editors trying to impose their POV on everyone else, so that they can decide on what is or isn't acceptable to them, one idea is that all people in Northern Ireland are classed as British, totally ignore the reality that anyone born there has the right to either British, Irish or Duel-nationality a right confirmed in the GFA.--padraig 14:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Could not agree more - ... on the plus side (for you) they do seem to agree with you over the flag issue :)) --sony-youth^pléigh 14:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, anti-nationalism for the Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland has always been a problem here at Wikipedia, I am totally against POV pushing in all it's form at Wikipedia and this is no exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.73.87 (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Could not agree more. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  16:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Celts

This culture, which has influenced literature, farming, navigation and so much of European life, for 4,000 years, and covers places as diverse as Portugal and Asia Minor, would be worthy of its own project. Modern areas still Celtic include Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales. Please weigh in at the proposal Chris 04:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Province's captials

This page lists Dublin, Galway etc as being the capital of their respective province's capitals. Provinces don't have administrative capitals and are cultural/historic entities not political duristictions. This should be amended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.4.117 (talk) 10:15, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

This might well be true, however take for example, county capitals. Downpatrick is the capital town of County Down yet County Down is not an administrative entity, also the historical capital of Ulster was Emain Macha . Even so, provinces still play a big part in Irish life and are recognised by all people of this island. Take for example provincial rugby teams and Gaelic leagues, these are organised on a provincial basis, thus i believe the inclusion of provinces and capitals to be justified within the article. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  16:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Label

There is a link to British Isles for archipelago, but it is labelled Britain and Ireland (which is a redirect to Great Britain and Ireland which you may describe as either a completely different article a fork for British Isles. Thus the label is misleading. This is wrong whatever way you look at it. Britain here is ambiguous. Either it should be Great Britain and Ireland (indicating the two major islands, but then with Great Britain and Ireland, some might think it a shortcut to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and there's a not unreasonable argument, that some others might make, that it could be made into a redirect for this); or it should be left as British Isles, or as per George Orwell's Newspeak references should be removed (if your into the whole Stalinist airbrushing from history thing). In any case the sensible course correct is to use British Isles. The Isle of Man is in the Irish Sea and the Isle of Wight is in the English channel, Java and New Guinea are in the Malay Archipelago. Despite and political objections from British euro-sceptics who don't like the label, Great Britain is in Europe and like it or lump it the island of Ireland is a part of the British Isles as our article at British Isles quite clearly and correctly states. If the French invaded or were sold the Isle of Wight, or the Norwegians took over the Shetlands, or Ireland the Isle of Man, wouldn't they still be in the British Isles archipelago? Jooler 10:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Long-standing issue, explained in Britain and Ireland. Piping the link is obviously the most sensible way of looking at it. Different strokes for different folks, Jooler. You say potato, I say potato (you know what I mean). Same information is given whatever term you prefer to use. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

But that is precisely the point. The piped info is not the same as what it pipes too otherwise there wouldn't be a page for Britain and Ireland linked to one article (Great Britain and Ireland) and a separate page at British Isles. Jooler 21:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what pipes are for. If you browse around you find lost of link to Ireland, Britain, Europe, etc.. The Britain and Ireland page explain the situation. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No. They don't explain your insistence of on ignoring geography because of your political point of view. Jooler 21:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

According to you County Kerry IS in the British Isles, but But the island of Ireland isn't http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extreme_points_of_the_British_Isles&diff=145697195&oldid=145632794 Jooler 21:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ever been to Kerry? Strange place :) --sony-youth^pléigh 21:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have as it happens, and Galway and Dublin and Leitrim, Longford and Donegal and Cork and and various places in between. Your flippancy and inability to justify having it both ways is noted. Jooler 22:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No having it both ways, you know what the issue is - I don't need to explain it to you. It will do neither of us any justice to get bogged down in it. I've changed your edit to a kind of "more technically accurate" description: British Islands and Ireland. This is what's used on the Republic of Ireland page. (Great Britain is even more complicated than Britain - does it refer to the island or the union on the island. It certainly could not be expandd to take in IoM of the CI.)

I understand it's an annoyance for British editors. I guess you understand that the other way around is an annoyance for Irish editors. At least peace is kept by agreeing when and where to use which term. It was a hard enough deal to broker having the British Isles template here, if the only cost is not using one term over all others (in a limited number of circumstances), then really, is it too tough a deal to keep? --sony-youth^pléigh 22:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is an annoyance to any person without a political axe to grind that politics impinges on simple geography. The British Isles as an archipelago existed long before the nations that now exist there. Geographers and natural historians and believe it or not a fair number of historians from Ireland have no problem in calling a spade a spade. Jooler 07:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No political axe to grind either. Believe it or not many geographers, natural historians, etc. from the UK have no problem calling a shovel a shovel. (See here, here or here to cite just three of the most unambigious alternatives). --sony-youth^pléigh 08:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

374, 9 and 22 hits respectively. As opposed to 1,860,600 hits for "British Isles" I make that a ratio of approximately 1/4500 or 0.02% for the combined usage of your alternatives. Hardly comparable. One might also note that the first hit here is by Irish Historian Hugh Kearney. And what do we see when we examine your hits Atlantic Archipelago more closely? Multiple references not to the islands off the coast of Europe which dare not speak their name, but to Iceland and the Faroe Islands, or Nova Scotia and the Islands off of Canada or Ascension Island or the Falklands, or the Canaries. And a fair number of hits that have nothing to do with either History, Natural History or Geography, or uses that are merely alliterative allusion. Jooler 12:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

... don't forget that most illuminious of phrases, "British Isles and Ireland." But you're shifting your point. Originally it was that, "Geographers and natural historians and believe it or not a fair number of historians from Ireland have no problem in calling a spade a spade." Mine was that, "Believe it or not many geographers, natural historians, etc. from the UK have no problem calling a shovel a shovel." Now you're doing something about comparing the number of spades and shovels. Spades exist. Shovels exits. Potato, potato! (You still know what I mean.)

(How we got here from your concern that, "piped info is not the same as what it pipes to", I don't know.)--sony-youth^pléigh 13:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Operative word being "'many" which I don't think 0.02% can really qualify as. Well done for demonstrating that a marginal view is held by a marginal minority. I can find 28,000 hits for Arabian Gulf which still doesn't warrant its usage in Wikipedia. Jooler 23:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

20 procent of irish people in administration ?

I read in german newspaper, that 20 procent of irish people work in irish administration ? Is that correct ? GLGerman 21:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Either there was a misprint, a misinterpretation somewhere, or the writer of that article should consider a new job. What newspaper was this?

If we assume this "journalist" was talking about "20 percent" in terms of people in the entire workforce, and we take the 2.5 million people who are of "working age" (between 18 and 65 years), that would mean that the suggestion is that 500,000 people work in public and civil service jobs in Ireland!?

I would strongly suggest that this is simply wrong.

According to the Public Appointments Service there are 30,000 civil servants. According to Wikipedia, there are 13800 in the police service (30000+13800=43800), and 10,500 in the Defence Forces (43800+10500=54300). Let's suggest that this "journalist" was including people in State-sponsored bodies (which I would consider inaccurate myself), and add in a generous 25000 to cover these. (54300+25000=79300) Even if we were to DOUBLE that again to account for public jobs in local authorities, the Courts services, the Health Services, and elsewhere, you would only hit a total of ~160,000. We're still off by 340,000 jobs.

In short. No - it's not correct. Guliolopez 23:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There are two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland:

• Northern Ireland - 29% employed by public sector (23% employed in public sector for the UK as a whole) - reference
• Republic of Ireland - 251,400 employed in public sector in the Republic (reference) / 2,095,400 in total labour force (reference) = 12% employed in public sector

--sony-youth^pléigh 07:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Eueriio -> Ériu -> Éire. Derivation and conflicting assertions.

The current intro states that: The name 'Ireland' originally derives from Eueriio which through Old Irish became corrupted to Ériu and finally (in modern Irish, Éire)... This word, from Proto-Celtic *Īwerjū, which also gave Middle Welsh Iwerd "Irish Sea", originally meant "fatness", in the sense of fertile..

The flow of etymological derivation laid out here is in conflict with ITSELF and several other articles, and (to my view) is somewhat dubious and (given the various theories) should be tempered considerably. Or removed entirely.

The suggestion of the current text is that the Euerni arrived on the island sometime around the 6th century B.C. from Northern Gaul, and named it Eueriio - ostensibly after themselves. And subsequent names were derived from this.

However, the Ériu article states that the Island derives it's name from a goddess of P-Celtic-speakers, who represented the land and sovereignty, and who helped the Gaels conquer Ireland. (As described in the Lebor Gabála). There is no mention here of Ériu being derived from Eueriio.

The Éire article suggests a similar etymological flow to the Ériu one. Again making no overt reference to Gallic/celtic origins in the Euerni.

Finally, there is an additional apparent conflict (between the Eueriio derivation and the "other" flow) in the association with the P-Celtic word Īwerjū, which means fertile or fat. This makes sense if it's named after a goddess of the land. It struggles a bit if the derivation is from a people who named the island after themselves.

There is no doubt that "Éire" is derived from a P or Q celtic word of considerable antiquity (given it's early appearances as Ierne in Greek geographical writings with sources as early as the 5th century BC), and the derivation is therefore going to be very complex to explain. However, the wording as laid out in the Ireland article at the moment is:

• at best in conflict with itself, and other similar articles which discuss the derivation
• at least troublesome given it's attempt to tie in all the various "theories", and
• at worst problematic from an Original Research point of view.

Personally I struggle with any derivation theory that relies singularly on an "invasion and suplant" notion, where ONE originating "tribe" colonised and labelled the island. As it does not account for the constant movement of peoples. Even O'Rahilly's historical model doesn't try and pin things down that simply.

Anyway, without getting into too much academic debate about it, I think the "derivation of Ireland" sentences in the intro need a reword. To account for the fact that there are multiple theories. And to acknowledge that they don't all neatly mesh. (As the current flow trys to suggest - instead ending up in a self conflicting mess.)

Thoughts? Guliolopez 12:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

For me the historical evidence is pretty good

why?

many names of countries today are derived from tribes

England (angles) Britain (brytons), belgium (belgae), scotland (scoti) france (franks) etc etc

One main tribe in ireland was the Euerni/Iverni

According to Ptolemy's writings regarding ireland

The territory to the west of the Brigantes is occupied by a people called by Ptolemy the Iverni. Their capital he gives as Ivernis, and in the extreme S.W. of the island he marks the mouth of the riber Iernos, by which the top of Dingle Bay called Castlemaine

Harbour is perhaps intended. The Iverni must have been a nation of considerable importance, as they play a prominent part in the historical period, where they are known as the trnai or Eraind of Munster. It would seem that the Iverni were the first native tribe with whom foreign traders came in contact, as it is from them that the Latin name for the whole island is derived. The earliest form was probably Iveriyo or Iveriyu, genitive Iveryonos, from which come Lat. Iverio, Hiverio (Antonine Itinerary), Hiberio

the spelling Eueriyo or Iveriyo would depend on the pronunciation of the tribes name but either is correct, the authors referenced use Eueriio but maybe iyo and both Iveriyo/Eueriyo should be shown

Hibernia( hibernus that translates as "wintry.")is proported to be derived form Ivernia, which in turn is latinised Ierne. Ierne was the name given to Ireland by Pytheas of Massilia

As recently as the early 20th century, "Ivernia" was used among some in Britain to refer to Hibernia.

this evidence fits together very well Caomhan27 23:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that still doesn't address the WP:OR or the self-contradiction issues. I possibly confused things towards the end of my note above by bringing my own opinion on the subject into it. I confused my opinion on the subject with my opinion on how it should be imparted. (Apologies for that).

To reclarify: the key concern is that the sentences in the intro appear to be self-contradictory. To the extent that a Template:Contradict might be in order. As noted above, the etymological derivation of Ériu from Eueriio is laid out ONLY in that one sentence, by you, and based on your interpretation. Without citation. It is also not consistent with the content of either of the relevant articles themselves. (IE: The Ériu article cites no derivation from Eueriio, and yet this article does).

It should also be pointed out that the one article that supports this derivation reads like WP:OR and WP:SYN in the extreme. (I'll follow-up on that on the relevant talkpage however.)

Comments from other editors? Is there a suggestion on a reword that might convey the possibility of multiple derivations of Ireland? Without "synthesising" an association of Inverni to Eriu to Éire to Ireland? Guliolopez 00:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

None of it is original research or "synthesising" 100% is taken from Herm, Gerhard (2002), The Celts, Ireland: St. Martin's Press, ISBN 0312313438 O'Rahilly, T. F. (1947), Early Irish History and Mythology, US: Medieval Academy of America Volume V14, Page 789 of the Encyclopedia Britannica which i cant get the link to work but will try again, which states and the hibernia article

“ The territory to the west of the Brigantes is occupied by a people called by Ptolemy the Iverni. Their capital he gives as Ivernis, and in the extreme S.W. of the island he marks the mouth of the riber Iernos, by which the top of Dingle Bay called Castlemaine

Harbour is perhaps intended. The Iverni must have been a nation of considerable importance, as they play a prominent part in the historical period, where they are known as the trnai or Eraind of Munster. It would seem that the Iverni were the first native tribe with whom foreign traders came in contact, as it is from them that the Latin name for the whole island is derived. The earliest form was probably Iveriyo or Iveriyu, genitive Iveryonos, from which come Lat. Iverio, Hiverio (Antonine Itinerary), Hiberio, Old Irish Eriu,'Heriu, gen

”

the rest is from the wikipaedia article on hibernia[[9]] which states

so if anything the tiny eriu article is conflicting with factual hictorical Encyclopedic and authored evidence of two articles so i would agree a rewrite is in order but this does not mean that the goddess story and possibly her original name may not have some baring on the tribes original name and so in effect may also be important the two may not be totally mutally exclusive, but that has to to looked into further Caomhan27 00:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for that. You have highlighted a few things here.

Firstly, you note that the cited source talks about the derivation of "Hibernia". Not the derivation of "Éire". Which confirms to me the WP:OR aspect of "making one theory fit another". If Hibernia derives from Ivernia, then it cannot be stated definitively that Éire derives from Eueriio. This is "A and B, therefore C" stuff and classically WP:SYN.

Secondly, even if the derivation of the Latin and Old Irish terms WERE linked, the source you provide states: "Another possibility is that Hibernia is derived from Ivernia". There is a key qualifier here (the word "possibility") that was missing from how this source text was represented on this page. Again, stretching the boundaries of OR and SYN.

And so, I am back to the dubious nature of an assertion ("Éire derives from Eueriio") the "basis" for which is a source that notes "possible" derivation in an entirely different language family.

I have already tempered the relevant sentence, but stopped short of removing the Eueriio reference (or tempering with a "possible" qualifier) until someone else (not you or I) can have a look at it. Guliolopez 01:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

yes true the encyclopedic source stops at Euerio/Iverio etc

but the authored sources

Herm, Gerhard (2002), The Celts, Ireland: St. Martin's Press, O'Rahilly, T. F. (1947), Early Irish History and Mythology, US: Medieval Academy of America

make the link between Eueriyo/Eueriio -->eriu---> Eire, not me so there is no original reserach,it may need tidying up alright for clarity Caomhan27 01:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the wording is for the discussion of the various etymological theories and the historical speculations underlying them, one important thing is that this should all be discussed in one place rather than scattered or repeated across multiple articles, with consequent difficulty of reading and possibility of contradiction. I further suggest that Ireland is not the best place to put this discussion. In my opinion Éire is the best place. I accept that it is not the case that Modern English Ireland derives directly from Modern Irish Éire; indeed the English form may derive from a non-Gaelic intermediate form. Nevertheless I think the simplest and best thing is for Ireland, Hibernia and Ériu to minimize discussion of these matters and simply have a link {{main|Éire#Etymology}} or the like. jnestorius^(talk) 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Native People

I'd say it would be almost impossible to determine who is native to Ireland, hence there should not be a native peoples categorie.

Maybe native cultures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.181.8.3 (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Scots are Indigenous people?

Since when? Ulster Scots are primarily the decendants of people who immigrated to Ireland from Scotland under 400 years ago. Other people came to Ireland too during this period including Flemish, French Huguenot, English, Welsh, Galacians, Cornish, Manx, etc. What makes the Ulster Scots so special? Is it not like saying that Irish Americans are Indigenous Americans? I understand that there is a strong cultural connection between Ireland and Scotland and that people moved over and back between both countries and so on, but doesn't the term "Ulster Scot" itself signify the seperation of Ulster (a part of Ireland) and Scotland? If I'm wrong then I guess we need to add "Irish Scots" as an Indigenous people on the Scotland wiki page—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.106.14.202 (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The older term was Scots-Irish, though south of the border this has been integrated (as Anglo-Irish was throughout the island) since partition. Given the importance of this group to the island of Ireland, and given the history of Ireland, they are a crucial ethno-cultural-something-or-an-other and hardly a "foreign import" but something utterly native to the etho-cultural landscape of Ireland.

As you point out, the history of Ireland and Scotland makes it even more funny to try and say that they are not "native". If Gaelic is "native" (and are all "Irishmen" Gaelic? De Valera the Spannish-American? Yeats the Anglo-Irishman?) then how can anyone from Scotland be said to be not native? It's like saying that Kerrymen are not native to Cork. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster and don't really understand the second. Europeans have transformed North America but they are hardly an Indigenous American grouping. Likewise, what would American history be without mentioning a single European American, but its still doesn't redefine the term Indigenous American. Therefore the whole argument about the importance of Ulster Scots is nonsense if you ask me, with regard to them being Indigenous Irish. Are Polish-Irish Indigenous to Ireland? Will they be in 400 years if they retain this identity? Of course not. What about the Celtic FC supporters in East Glasgow and Western Scotland, many of whom are primarily of Irish extraction, and many of whom are proud to demonstrate their sense of Irishness? They can be defined as a crucial ethno-cultural-something-or-an-other in Scotland, if the same tag can be applied to Ulster Scots in Ireland, can they not? They have their green St. Andrews flag and other such culture artifacts. Their ancestry is traced primarily to immigrants from Ireland two centuries ago. So are they Native Scottish or Native Irish or something else?

Wiki defines Indigenous peoples as "The term indigenous peoples has no universal, standard or fixed definition, but can be used about any ethnic group who inhabit the geographic region with which they have the earliest historical connection." Therefore I think we should follow such a definition, with Ulster Scots having their earliest historical connection in Scotland, not Ireland. Likewise, Irish Americans have their earliest historical connections in Ireland, not America. Hence the fact that they are not Indigenous Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimmer79 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Irish-Americans do not have their "earliest historical connections in Ireland", they have them in America. They weren't Irish-Americans when they were in Ireland, they were plain old Irish! Not every ethnic group is indigenous to somewhere. I do feel if the term means "the first known people to inhabit somewhere", "Indigenous people" might be a tad imprecise if we want to include the various groups of people associated with Ireland in a historical context, and I'm sure there's a better alternative. Maybe something like "historical ethnic groups" or some-such. Perhaps a bit verbose, but maybe someone can see what I'm going for and come up with something clearer. If being "imprecise" in this way isn't an issue, we could just leave it as is.

On the other-hand, if "indigenous people" has to stay, Ulster-Scots could be removed. If we want to go down that road though, are the Irish even indigenous to Ireland? What does the term "Irish" even mean? The only satisfying definition I can find is "that which is from Ireland", and Ulster-Scots people certainly satisfy this definition. So perhaps Ulster-Scots is nothing more than a subgroup of "Irish", and so should be left as is. And now I'm arguing in circles with myself, so I'll leave it to someone else to make sense of my ramblings! :-) Martin 05:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Martin that "historical ethnic groups" (or wtte) is far better than "indiginous groups", since obviously many people have different takes on the time period of settlement before an ethnic group becomes "indiginous" (hence the objection to Ulster Scots and to 'European' Americans being indiginous to their respective places). On the other hand, I bet there's plenty of 'Ulster-Scots' who consider themselves indiginous. The fact is that classifying an enthic group as indiginous is subjective, and only satisfactory in situations where there is not much objection to a given classification (I think we all agree that Native Americans are indiginous to N America and the 'European' Americans not). This situation is one where conflict arises, so we should drop it, and move to the very good proposal of Martin's. Logoistic 22:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is British Isles a dirty word, here?

Ireland and Great Britain geographically are the British Isles, why is that being omitted? It's not the point- weither the term offends anyone or not- the point is, the term exists. What's next, an Afd on British Isles itself? GoodDay 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That a term is considered offensive or objectionable by some doesn't mean that it should be censored. As for why it's not found here, I would suggest heading over to the British Isles talk page and reviewing some of the endless (and quite frankly soul-destroying) bickering going back several years. Martin 19:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not just "offensive or objectionable" but an archaic hangover from an earlier time. Look at the atlases kids have in schools; nowhere will you find the term. (Sarah777 20:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

It's only offensive if you choose to be offended by it. It's a geographical term not a political one. If the UK was conquered tomorrow and renamed Airstrip One, the island of Great Britain and Ireland would still be part of the island group the British Isles. Can you imagine a Cuban or Venezuelan publisher to removing references to 'the Americas' because some people might be offended by the association to the large unfriendly neighbour? Jooler 21:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They actually DO remove references to the "Falkland" Islands. As for "It's only offensive if you choose to be offended by it" - nah, one is intrinsically offended for reasons an Arbcom (mindlessly) forbids me from repeating. And the bit of water between England and France ain't no "English" channel in any French "geographical" term. "It's a geographical term not a political one." Sez you; but if Ireland is part of the "British Isles" it is, using joined-up English, clearly a British Island. Which, equally clearly, it ain't. (Sarah777 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

1. Who's "they"? 2. I'm not sure what you mean by "intrinsic" here. I would have thought that to be "intrinsically offended" is far more suggestive of a mindless dogmatic attitude than one might attribute an ArbCom decision. 3. They also call the Channel Islands fr:Îles Anglo-Normandes. 4. Clearly not. You're conflating geographic and political entities. 'British Isles' no more means "a British (political sense) Island " than 'Irish Sea' means "an Irish (political sense) sea. Jooler 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm in. Here's a taste of literature on the subject:

• Simon Partridge: "It also challenges a burgeoning Anglo-Saxon-Cornish-Welsh British (British being derived from the Brythonic Prydein under Tudor influence) hegemony of the 16th century which felt free to name these isles 'British'."
• Nicholas Canny: "When I refer to the composite monachy ruled over by James VI and I and by King Charles I, it is always described as Britain and Ireland, and I deliberately avoid the politically loaded phrase 'the British Isles' not least because this was not a normal usage in the political discourse of the time."
• Bronwen Walter: "A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'."

And before you go deciding again that references you don't like must be from 'Irish Republician POV pushers' or other such like, these three are: a London-based pro-"British" political analyst, an Irish history prof, and a British social science prof. There are of course more, but that just sample. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to prove here. Jooler 07:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "You're conflating geographic and political entities. 'British Isles' no more means "a British (political sense) Island " than 'Irish Sea' means "an Irish (political sense) sea." On the contrary. This is dealt with extensively in the literature and accepted to be a fact. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. You've lost me. What is "dealt with extensively"? and what have the three references you've put up here got to do with it? Jooler 12:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as far as the meaning of the term "British" as used in "British Isles" goes, Ireland is totally British. The word "British" comes from the word "Pritani", which was the name for the Celtic inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland (see Cruithne (people)). In this context, "Britain" is not synonymous with "United Kingdom". "Great Britain" is so called because it is the largest of the British islands. If the islands weren't British, the largest would hardly be named so. The term "British Isles" does not denote ownership by Britain anymore than "Irish Sea" denotes ownership by Ireland.

A Google search for "British Isles" brings up 14,400,000 hits, so it's perhaps not as archaic and unused as you imagine. However, regardless of the rights and wrongs of doing so, some people do not like the term, so if it was used in the article, this should of course be mentioned. Martin 22:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As I promised not to involve myself in this discussion, and in order to save space without irrelevant commentry, I've replied on your talk page. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an article British Isles naming dispute. I don't know that there's a specific Wikipedia policy about when it's acceptable to use this particular term, but there is a policy of using the local variety of English which in this article would be Irish English, where the term "British Isles" is avoided. jnestorius^(talk) 23:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

By a small minority. Jooler 23:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And I guess in the KKK article, we should call black people "n*ggers", huh? That's the term they use, isn't it? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. This doesn't concern a regional difference in English. Martin 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to question the existence, extent, or reasonableness of the alleged contemporary Irish antipathy to the phrase "British Isles", then I think you need to take this discussion to Talk:British Isles naming dispute. Come back here when you establish a consensus there. jnestorius^(talk) 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

But that's the point: the "reasonableness" is totally irrelevant. Wikipedia should show all points of view fairly, it should not decide on one over the other. Great Britain and Ireland are often referred to as the British Isles. Some people don't like this. Surely it's not beyond our powers to note these two facts in the article? Martin 00:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought the question was "Why is British Isles a dirty word, here?". I quite agree that the current phrasing of the intro para is crap. It is wilful blindness to refuse to state the bald geographic fact that Ireland is part of [an island group also including Great Britain] to the northeast of [mainland Europe]. What words are used to express this may be tricky; nevertheless, it is an essential fact and must be mentioned explicitly in the intro rather than being danced around as at present. jnestorius^(talk) 00:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative phrasing is fine, if it's though necessary. But the willfulness to push one phrase over another, despite knowing that's problematic and unwelcome, is obnoxious. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is why a term used 99.8% of the time is more appropriate than any other. Jooler 00:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"99.8%" - do you have a source for this, or are you just making that number up? --sony-youth^pléigh 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm making it up. No actually I'm not. I was using the stats posted above in the previous discussion. Although actually it should be 99.98%. Jooler 01:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I do not consider myself a European. Every single attempt, successful or otherwise, to undermine British sovereignty has come from Europe - the Romans, the Catholic Church, the Normans, Napoleon, Hitler, the Common Market - the list is endless. I find European culture completely alien, with its cafe bars, hairy armpits, frogs legs, beer kellers, its bull fighting, Jew gassing, horse eating, garlic smelling philosophies such as fascism, communism, corporate state-ism, nihilism, positivism and any-other-ism you care to mention, and its insistence on speaking a whole bunch of different yet equally incomprehensible languages such as French, German, Italian, Spanish, etc. etc. etc. Europe is a large landmass situated directly to our east that has interfered in the affairs of this island for centuries, distorting and perverting our own development. I find its comedy risible, its food disgusting, and its attempts at popular music appalling. There is nothing about Europe that I can think of right now that I like. And yet, even though the very word "Europe" conjures up all these negative feelings, I am not so insular, stupid or politically motivated as to try and claim that the UK is not, in fact, part of the European continent. TharkunColl 07:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Any how many people from Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh would say they these countries are not part of the Indian subcontinent. Jooler 07:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Jooler: "Any how many people from Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh would say they these countries are not part of the Indian subcontinent." - I don't know. But, the Pakistan article doesn't mention it. The Sri Lanka article says that it is "separated from the Indian subcontinent by the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Strait." And, the Bangladsh article only mention is obliquely. In any case, what relevance would does have? The phrase you insist on inserting is known to be problematic in relation to Ireland, known to be best practice to avoid in relation to Ireland, and known to be inflammatory by our readers. Other phrases exist. What do you have against them? Or is it just that you want the word "British" in there come hell or high water? It sounds as if you are less interested in having "facts" in there, than you are about having "your word for the facts" in there.

Thark: "Every single attempt, successful or otherwise, to undermine British sovereignty has come from Europe ..." - You live on an island in Europe. Everyone around you from Europe. Where do you imagine that any attempt to undermine British sovereignty would come from? Mars? If you mean "Europe" as in "the continent", then that's every one of your neighbours bar one. It is that one singular neighbor that you are convinced has it in for old Blighty now. How about you drop the paranoia?

But let's run with this. Suppose the word Europe was commonly accepted to be problematic in relation to the United Kingdom. It inflamed readers of the United Kingdom article. Published material discussed the semantic problems with the term and suggested alternative phrasings. Thankfully, the same fact could be expressed using a different phrasings. Wouldn't common sense and NPOV be to use the alternative phrasing? What's more the point? To say Europe, or to explain that the United Kingdom is in Europe? Now, suppose some overtly European editors appeared on the UK talk page insisting that the word EUROPE be included in the UK article despite the known-issues with the term and despite other phrasings being capable of expressing the same thing. Wouldn't you think that they were just being a dick. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't insist on anything other than a commonsense reality check. Yes Ireland is an island in the island group known as the British Isles like it or lump it, and all the and venom and bluster that that might be put in to arguing otherwise doesn't change that, the supposed substitute phrases have negligible usage and acceptance, are mere politically motivated euphemisms, and have all but zero acceptance in academic fields such as geography and natural history. Jooler 12:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely my point. The word "Europe" does indeed have many negative connotations for a large number of British people - yet they are not so foolish as to make an issue over nomenclature. Whilst the linguistic warriors of the PC brigade argue over words, actual errosions of sovereignty slip through unnoticed. And my European analogy was very much deliberate, since I strongly suspect that there are many in Ireland who would say that all attempts to erode their sovereignty have come from Britain. Well where else would such attempts have come from, given geography? In fact, of course, they would be mistaken, as the EU has eroded Irish sovereignty just as much as it has the UK's - more so, since they have relinquished their currency - and now that all their lavish subsidies (paid for by the UK, among others) have been diverted to Eastern Europe, the Irish might start to regret this. TharkunColl 11:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Time out, people. We are drifting waaay off the point. jnestorius^(talk) 11:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jooler - "the supposed substitute phrases have negligible usage" - I asked you already not to make things up, Jooler. For example here is what literature has to say on the matter: "At the outset, it should be stated that while the expression 'The British Isles' is evidentially still commonly employed, its intermittent use throughout this work is only in the geographical sense, in so far as that is acceptable. Since the early twentieth century, that nomenclature has been regarded by some as increasingly less usable. ... 'Britain and Ireland' is the more favoured expression, though there are problems with that too. ... There is no consensus on the matter, inevitably. It is unlikely that the ultimate in non-partisanship that has recently appeared, the (East) 'Atlantic Archipelago' will have appeal beyond captious scholars." (Ian Hazlettm, 2003, The Reformation in Britain and Ireland: An Introduction, Continuum: London)

You could read the same conclusion by consulating an atlas. See here or here for maps of "Britain and Ireland", now including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

Thark - yes, your politics are known to us all, thank you very much. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sony , re the maps, so what? I can find plenty of maps that show England, Scotland and Wales and don't mention Great Britain. That doesn't mean that one is an acceptable or common substitute for the other. "Great Britain an Ireland" are two islands in the British Isles, but the island group is more than these two islands. You could NOT have proved my point any stronger than by selecting that particular quote. The selected highlights! - "use throughout this work is only in the geographical sense'" (thus the term is used in the very context that this discussion is focusing upon) - the ultimate in non-partisanship that has recently appeared, the (East) 'Atlantic Archipelago' will have [little] appeal beyond captious scholars 20:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Earlier in the discussion, somebody mentioned the Irish Sea; Interesting, how there's few complaints there (I know, that's another article). GoodDay 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess calling a bit of the ocean "Irish" isn't as daft or offensive as calling soverign Irish territory "British". But if you feel that in articles about Blackpool and Liverpool you want to call it "the sea between Ireland and Britain" I'd certainly wouldn't try to force the issue. (Sarah777 23:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Who is there to complain? No one lives in the Irish Sea. Being *next* to something (the British in relation to the Irish Sea) is not analogous to being treated as *in* or *part of* something (the Irish in relation to "British Isles.") Nuclare 02:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that "British" is a Celtic word that was appropriated by the Stuart Dynasty. The English resisted being called "British" for a hundred years. When I say British, I mean English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh. And there is nothing you can do do stop me identifying with those four nations as my own. TharkunColl 23:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Jooler, you having been wrong on what Latin Americans might call parts of Latin America and what Ceylonese and Pakistanis might call their bits of Asia you now say: "zero acceptance in academic fields such as geography"; wrong again, as a quick look at the geography texts of Irish school kids will show you. (Sarah777 23:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

I think the best than can be said is that the term "British Isles" is not used very much in Hiberno-English, but is freely used in all other dialects of English. Let us remember that Hiberno-English is a proper, independent dialect and that no other dialect has the right to impose on it in any way at all. Conversely, Hiberno-English has no right to impose its views on any other dialect. TharkunColl 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"You having been wrong on what Latin Americans might call parts of Latin America...." - wha? - how do you work that out? Jooler

By reading what you wrote Jooler(Sarah777 23:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

And that's wrong in some way? You're not being very clear. Jooler 23:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarity is my middle name Jooler (Sarah777 23:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Okay obviously I'm as thick as pig shit because I haven't got the faintest idea WTF you're on about. Please humour me. Jooler 23:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't let the POV pushers get to you. They cannot tell either us, or the rest of the world, how to use the English language. I think it's their attempts to do so that offend me the most - that and their constant accusations of "British nationalism" (whatever that is). TharkunColl 23:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thark doesn't know what British Nationalism is! Obviously no point telling you how to use the English language!(Sarah777 01:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

My point, of course, is that there is no such thing. There is English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish nationalism (and possibly Scots-Irish), but "British" nationalism is a bit of a confusion of language. When analysed, "British" nationalism, even if it calls itself that, turns out to be English nationalism (or perhaps Scots-Irish in NI). The reason for this is simple - the term "British" does not refer to a nation, but a collection of nations. TharkunColl 08:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thark, no-one can force you to use the English language in a different way, but (a) people can ask you politely to change the way you use the English language and (b) others can change the way they use the English language whether you like it or not. Until a major text references the way you use the English language we'll have to take your word on your preferences on usage, but it's not relevant for WP. You can continue to use the term "British Isles" in conversation or your own writing as much as you like. However, it's very widely referenced by major texts that the term "British Isles" is no longer generally accepted within Ireland, which fact is reflected in atlases, textbooks, etc. That fact IS relevant for WP. It's also widely referenced that the term "British" was (as you put it) adopted by the Stuarts as a political project. The fact that the English resisted the term "British" for a century is interesting, as is the fact that the Irish mostly resisted it then and now. Hughsheehy 10:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thark, I'll run with with your Hiberno-English argument. Please see the Wikipedia guidelines onnational varieties of English: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. ... Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternate terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia." That should clear this whole mess up. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree that there is not a cat in hell's chance of getting the phrase British Isles to stick in this particular article about Ireland. But what about international articles that use the phrase? International articles do not tend to use Hiberno-English - they usually use American English or British English, in which the phrase British Isles is the standard designation for the islands. TharkunColl 12:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

....if we're to split dialects of English (which on first reaction seems extreme), we should then also note that OUP, CUP, Routledge, etc.,etc., have all published texts in British-English and American-English which have commented about how "British Isles" is controversial, disliked, out-of-date, etc. Therefore, if we were to follow the logic of splitting dialects of English we'd not use "British Isles" at all in Ireland based articles and would footnote use of "British Isles" in all other articles. This seems a rather wide-ranging proposal from Sony and Thark. Hughsheehy 12:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

International use is as international use. I saw you and Sarah wrangle over the issue on "Megalithic Culture ..." British Isles is appropriate there, IMHO. I would ask however for a little sensitivity on all sides. Issues with the term are dealt with in literature, and they are real. A reference you might enjoy Thark is this one, which argues against the term from a British (in the sense you take from that word) nationalist perspective. Objections to it are not driven by wild-eyed terrorists, neither is its use a sign of imperialist jingoism. Different strokes, different folks.

The only thing I would say is that for Ireland-related articles, it should be avoided, without any intention of implying offense. On all other articles, it would seem quite right.

Would you object to a link to the dispute in the infobox of other islands in the group? Jooler's argument from before has convinced me to use British Isles in the infobox here but to link to the dispute. If nothing else, it could be an exchange of peace offerings for all sides. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Irish related articles shouldn't be given special treatment. Again, the it's offensive argument is a weak argument. Internationally, British Isles is a recognized geographical term, just like Irish Sea (which the British don't like) or English Channel (which the French don't like). Why make exceptions for the Irish only. GoodDay 15:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor point, but I know of no British person who objects to "Irish Sea". Such linguistic objections are just plain stupid. The term "Irish Sea" has been brought into arguments like this simply to illustrate this point. TharkunColl 15:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, if Irish Sea is acceptable, British Isles should be equally exceptable; because both are internationally recognized terms. GoodDay 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Again, Thark, Goodday, I also know of no-one who objects to the term "Irish Sea", but my personal knowledge is irrelevant. The point is that I know of no reputable reference that says the term "Irish Sea" is disliked, avoided, etc. by any number of people and no-one else is providing any such references either. Similarly, you may view objections to the term "British Isles" as something that is just as stupid as objecting to the term "Irish Sea"...but your view is IRRELEVANT. What is relevant is verifiable reference, which has been produced ad nauseam to demonstrate that many people DO regard the term "British Isles" as objectionable, to be avoided, etc. Similarly, as I mentioned to GoodDay recently, you may (or may not) view the existence of God as a nonsensical idea, but the verifiable fact is that many people DO believe in God and your personal belief on the existence (or not) of God is NOT grounds to go editing articles to say that people shouldn't (or should) believe in God. Same with British Isles. Your personal knowledge or opinion is NOT relevant. Hughsheehy 16:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm neither pro-British or pro-Irish. I'm just annoyed with the it offends the Irish reasoning, for dancing around the word British. I'm just unconfortable with the 'double standard'. GoodDay 16:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

PS- what the Irish want is 'irrelevant, too. GoodDay 16:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Gooday, no-one is arguing to give Irish articles "special treatment," just that we should follow Wikipedia guidelines on national varieties of English. Again guidelines are:

"An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. ... Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternate terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia."

If you do not agree with this consensus, please take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

As for "what the Irish want is 'irrelevant" - please read what is meant by a neutral point of view and remember, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is 'absolute and non-negotiable.'" --sony-youth^pléigh 16:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikpedia is supposed to be NPOV, not Irish PoV concerning edits. Honestly, I'm simply amazed as to how a 'small minority' controls these British/Irish related articles -Simply amazed-. GoodDay 17:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

People are always amazed whent their POV isn't truth. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The truth or Irish truth? Anyways, you guys win. GoodDay 17:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If Irish Pov prevents the addition of British Isles? Then it's only fair to change Irish Sea to Manx Sea. Afterall 'Manx Sea' is NPOV (see proposals below). GoodDay 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Perhaps you should defer to, and respect, the Irish Government's view on this matter as described here. The term is an old fashioned imperialistic one that needs be banished along with other trapping of the empire that are long gone. Or do some of you still yearn for the British Empire;s existence? ww2censor 16:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously expecting us to believe that views of political government constitute an example of the neutral point of view. That's crazy talk! Clearly the government of Ireland is politically biased towards Irish interests.--feline1 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, you have a neutral point of view. Enough said! ww2censor 16:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn right I do! Parity of derision for all! :)--feline1 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Rephrasing the intro

Rather than going round in circles, can we try to suggest some acceptable NPOV wording? The current wording is

Ireland (Irish: Éire; Ulster Scots: Airlann) is the third largest island in Europe behind Great Britain and Iceland. It is also the twentieth largest in the world. It lies to the northwest of and is surrounded by hundreds of islands and islets. To the east of Ireland, separated by the Irish Sea, is the island of Great Britain.

Here's my suggested replacement:

Ireland (Irish: Éire; Ulster Scots: Airlann) is an island to the north-west of Continental Europe. It is the twentieth largest island in the world and the second largest island of the "British Isles" (a term which is controversial within Ireland). The larger island, Great Britain, lies east of Ireland across the Irish Sea. Many other small islands lie off the Irish coast.

Any constructive comments? jnestorius^(talk) 13:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that that integrates both ideas too well. I also honestly don't see the problem with not using the term, as evidence by published opinion on the matter. I'd be happier with smething like:

Ireland (Irish: Éire; Ulster Scots: Airlann) is the third largest island in Europe behind Great Britain and Iceland and the twentieth largest in the world. It lies to the northwest of Continental Europe and is surrounded by hundreds of islands and islets. To the east of Ireland, separated by the Irish Sea, is the island of Great Britain, with which it forms an archipelago.

I'd also suggest changing the info box to read "British Isles" as the archipelago name but with link to the dispute i.e. British Isles (naming dispute) The should be repeated across all info boxes for other islands in the group. For Ireland-related articles (and Ireland-related articles only), I would suggest avoiding the term where possible and use alternatives. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've quarantined this off from the pointless handbags in the other sections, just in case people want to have a discussion about improving the article. A few comments on sony's response:

• There is a guideline on the form wikilinks should take:

  It is possible to link words that are not exactly the same as the linked article title — for example, [[English language|English]]. However, make sure that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link.

  I think archipelago breaches this guideline. An ignorant user will wonder: "does this archipelago not have a name?"
• I'm not sure what you mean by two ideas that need integrating: is it "Ireland is in the British Isles" and "Irish people seldom call them the British Isles"? If so, see my previous point. Otherwise, please clarify.
• I hate the description of the Britain-Ireland group as an "archipelago". To me, an archipelago is a large number of islands scatted across a large expanse of water, as with the Aegean Sea, Micronesia, or metaphorically The Gulag Archipelago. As a technical geographic term, it's completely accurate, but for a general audience it doesn't quite hit the mark (See SARA corpus; Oxford; Cambridge; MerriamWebster; AmericanHeritage). Imagine someone who doesn't look at the maps in the article and reads the intro. I don't think the description will give an accurate mental picture of Ireland's environs. There's no need to resort to a generic term when a specific name is available. (The President of the United States is a homo sapien).
• Ireland is not "surrounded" by islands. There are lots off the west coast, but very few off the south, and very few off the east and north coasts unless you go as far as the islands off Great Britain, which I assume are not meant to be included.
• Saying "Ireland is surrounded by hundreds of islands" rather contradicts "Ireland forms an archipelago with Great Britain".
• I don't think being the third largest island in Europe is particularly noteworthy, and certainly not for the opening sentence. It's not the first thing anybody thinks of when they think of Ireland. Also, Iceland's Europeanness is pretty marginal.
• Going a couple of sentences further down, the etymology of Ireland is too obscure for such detail in the intro.

jnestorius^(talk) 22:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything you say, although Iceland certainly is in Europe and European, and if you go with Tharks "ancient term" argument, it's even in the British Isles. Your point about how well Britain-Ireland can be described as an "archipelago" is exactly the point at hand. Ireland is an island in north east Europe, Great Britain is to it's east. End of story. Pretending they form an archipelago in the usual sense of the word in non-sense. If it were not that we were dealing with islands (where boundaries are fixed by nature) the term would have been consigned to history with the Low Countries. To top it off, there is no need to go creating trouble by insisting that word "British" be must put in there. Many alternative phrasings exist, if people really want to make the point. These are more popular in Ireland and thus should be used in Ireland-related articles per guidance on naming conventions and national varieties of English. If people are still worried then the info box to the right should suffice. (Regarding "surrounded by islands", could we write "Ireland is surrounded by hundreds of islands and islets, among the most famous being Aran, the Blaskets and Great Britain."?) --sony-youth^pléigh 10:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Again the guidance fromthe manual of style is:

"An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. ... Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternate terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia."

--sony-youth^pléigh 10:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you are saying that the British Isles are not a real geographical entity? I agree though that archipelago gives a wrong impression, because in Greek it means "chiefly sea", and refers to a group of small islands with larger areas of sea between them. The British Isles, conversely, are actually mostly land, as the area of the Irish Sea is smaller than that of the islands either side. So in the absense of a specific word to describe a group of islands that consist of two huge islands and lots of small ones, we can only use the term "island group". TharkunColl 10:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"a real geographical entity" - is Corsica-Sardinia are real geographic entity? They would appear so (and to be an actual archipelago). What is it called? People survived without a name for Britain-Ireland for thousands of years. Only in the past few centuries when they formed a geo-political entity was a name required (a name and entity that included islands outside of the "island group" i.e. Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, etc.). That geo-political entity is defunct. It has been replaced by another. That new entity eschews the older name. In any case the phrase is not used in Hiberno-English, nor does it follow local naming conventions. Per guidelines, alternatives should be used on Ireland-related articles, if any. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Tharkuncoll, as Sony quite rightly points out, if the "British Isles" includes the Channel Islands (which most definitions include) then "British Isles" is clearly NOT a coherent island group in physical geography, and although the remainder of the islands may well form a coherent island group in physical geography they're not the "British Isles". Similarly, "British Isles" may have been coherent in political geography for a while, but isn't any more. (and you've said elsewhere that "British" shouldn't be applied to England, which is even more interesting.)

Even looking at in the purely political arena, where there are various "special relationships" between the islands, the name "British Isles" is now specifically NOT used in those arenas.

Meantime, "British Isles" is widely used internationally, is widely rejected/disliked in Ireland, is widely used in confusing varied ways, etc. All demonstrable facts. Meantime, your apparent view that "British" should be applied to Ireland but should not be applied to England is highly interesting, but unconventional enough to be undocumented anywhere in literature, which means we should not take it into account. Hughsheehy 11:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this then:

Ireland (Irish: Éire; Ulster Scots: Airlann) is an island to the north-west of Continental Europe. It is the twentieth largest island in the world and the third largest in Europe. Many small islands lie off the Irish coast. To the westeast across the Irish Sea is the larger island of Great Britain. The two large islands and their smaller neighbours form an island group which has often been called the British Isles, though this term is controversial within Ireland.

jnestorius^(talk) 13:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

GB is to the east. And I suggest "The two large islands and their smaller neighbours form an island group which is often referred to as the British Isles." There is no concensus on any other name for the island group as a whole unit. The Irish preference for not including Ireland (island) in "British Isles" does not address this. So leave the naming dispute for its own page. Bazza 13:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, fixed east, thanks. I don't like linking the dispute under the word "often", which seems less obvious (see my earlier comment re the guideline on the form wikilinks should take). I agree that discussing the naming dispute should be left to its own page, as should the lack of consensus on an alternative name, and the alternative definition of "British Isles". However, I think this page needs to be explicit that a dispute exists. jnestorius^(talk) 14:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There is consensus within Ireland to avoid phrase. Per the manual of style and naming conventions, Ireland-related articles should reflect the use of English within Ireland, not the use of English without Ireland, and that is to use alternative phrasings. Having the infoxbox to the side should be enough. I don't mind "British Isles" appearing there for consistency across articles so long as a link to the dispute article also appears across all pages. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Jnestorius, this debate started off on other articles and spilled over here. What ever decision is reached at will be taken as the lead in all Ireland-related articles, not just here. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there are many articles specific to Ireland that use the phrase: a cursory Google didn't show me any, and I imagine most such could be rephrased to circumvent the issue. The position of the "Ireland" article is somewhat different from more speccialised Irish-related articles: although Irish people doubtless read it to "see what others are saying about us", as an encyclopedia article it is aimed at imparting knowledge to the uninformed, which I imagine primarily means foreigners. Many of those will have some familiarity with the phrase "British Isles": thus it will be a useful orientation point to mention the term, and doubly enlightening to mention the controversy surrounding it.

If there were a standard Irish term ("Anglo-Celtic Isles" or whatever) then I would be all for [[British Isles|Anglo-Celtic Isles]]; but I can't support [[British Isles|an island group]] or the like: it's just too pussy-footed. I think it's overstating the case to suggest the term is taboo in Ireland to the extent that it's not a feature of the native dialect; in the absence of a standard alternative, hedged forms like "what used to be called the British Isles" are quite common. A few other cases where outsider-terms are prominent in insider articles: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints akaMormon Church; Qatar is on the Persian Gulf; Australian electoral system : preferential voting aka instant runoff voting and "The form of preferential voting used in the Senate is technically known as the single transferable vote or STV. This term is not used in Australia.".

As regards info boxes: this is just a personal observation, I don't know if I'm exceptional in this regard, but by default when reading a Wikipedia article, I ignore the infobox, though I would look at the picture, if any. I regard an infobox as a summary of the article, so if I read the article I don't need to read the infobox. I would read it in two main cases:

• if my attention is drawn to it by the article text (for example, statistical data not repeated in the running text).
• if I'm scanning a number of articles of a fixed type, it's handy just to compare the infobox data.

If I see something in an infobox that's not mentioned in the article, I may become confused and/or suspicious. jnestorius^(talk) 15:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"outsider-terms are prominent in insider articles" - this argument is irrelevant in this case, the question is one of guidelines to use local naming conventions and national varieties of English for articles relating to specific English-speaking countries. This does not apply to any of the examples you gave as none were specific to any particular national variety of English or any specific place.

• "Single transferable vote" is not used in Australian English; the article states this but uses the term anyway.
• Ireland has at least 2 "national" varieties of English: Hiberno-English and Mid Ulster English. One million native speakers of the latter happily use the term "British Isles".

"I don't believe there are many articles specific to Ireland that use the phrase ..." - this only demonstrates that current consensus is to avoid use of the term in Ireland-related articles, as I would suggest.

Your earlier point was that "What ever decision is reached at will be taken as the lead in all Ireland-related articles, not just here." I'm saying this article is a special case. There will be no need to add British Isles to any other article simply because it's in the intro para here. jnestorius^(talk) 19:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Would my suggestion below do anything for you? --sony-youth^pléigh 17:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I can't find it. jnestorius^(talk) 19:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mid-Ulster - yes, touché, got me :)) my suggestion is at the section immediately below: British-Irish Isles - a neologism, yes, I know, but I think it's acceptable under guidelines ( see below for why) and is used by a some Mid-Ulster English speakers, at least. It's purpose is to get beyond just the kind of impasse we are dealing with. I'd also suggest that this terminology be used for example on River Shannon which was warred over before. This is also why I don't think a "here only" solution will work, this is a long and ugly edit war spanning many articles, one, especially the 'main' Ireland article will set precedent for all others and Wikipedia does work on precendents.

(re: Australian English etc. yes there are guidelines on this in the Manual of Style, it differs if an article concerns a specific country or not. PRSTV or whatever the Ozzies call it is hardly specific to any particular place. An article on elections in Australia, however, would use the local terminology.) --sony-youth^pléigh 19:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

British-Irish Isles

For Ireland related articles, how about using British-Irish Isles. This is a neologism but, I think, fits as per guidelines for neologisms: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that Wiktionary is not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)"

This is a defined term, for example see British Civilization: A Student's Dictionary:

British-Irish Isles, the (geography) see BRITISH ISLES

British Isles, the (geography) A geographical (not political or CONSTITUTIONAL) term for ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, WALES, and IRELAND (including the REPUBLIC OF IRELAND), together with all offshore islands. A more accurate (and politically acceptable) term today is the British-Irish Isles.

For other secondary sources about the term, and that recommend it, see:

• British Civilization: An Introduction, page 10
• The British-Irish Council: the trans-islands symbolic and political possibilities
• Kearney, Richard (1997). Postnationalist Ireland: Politics, Culture, Philosophy. London: Routledge, p. 179

--sony-youth^pléigh 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The objections to British Isles is frustrating to me (I'm not a fan of political censurship). However, I will support British-Irish Isles. Perhaps this could start a good trend? British-leaning names on British related articles & Irish leaning names on Irish related articles and in this case (when British & Irish is involved), a combinaton name will do. GoodDay 14:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(As also seen in Northern Ireland.) --sony-youth^pléigh 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Support I can accept British-Irish Isles, sorta has a nice ring to it. GoodDay 14:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that it elevates Irish to an equivalent status to British. A name giving properly equal weight would be something like English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh Isles. TharkunColl 15:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, Thark, is is "trouble" to "elevate" Irish to an equivalent status to British? Furthermore, since neither England, Scotland or Wales are islands, your suggestion includes the Isle of Wight, but not Great Britain itself". In any case, since IIRC WP is not supposed to create neologisms, something you have often said yourself, there's no point in creating new names. Hughsheehy 15:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In this context however, British is a geographic term (meaning Great Britain). GoodDay 15:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember, Irish is an umbrella term too, Thark, encompassing Anglo-Irish, Northern Irish, Ulster-Scots and Irish Traveller, not just Gaels or citizens of the Irish republic, in exactly the same way as British is. In any case, WP:OR as you know. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There may also be objections from Manx nationalists, decrying the blatant imperialist agendas of the British and Irish. TharkunColl 15:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

They've (the Manx) lived this long with the British Isles term, I'm confident the British-Irish Isles term, will be alright too. Guranteed, the universe won't go into chaos. GoodDay 15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But just like IONA, Anglo-Celtic Isles, Islands of the Atlantic, it's just a neologism invented by one specific interest group. British Isles remains standard in the English language. TharkunColl 15:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Difference is that this one appears in a dictionary. You can ignore it if you like. I hear ignorance is bliss. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Irish Sea

We should consider re-naming the entry of Irish Sea at this article. Perhaps Irish-British Sea or Manx Sea would be more politically neutral. GoodDay 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Afterall, it is an 'international' body of water, isn't it? GoodDay 18:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How about UK Sea, as 86.207 percent of its coastline is UK territory? TharkunColl 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thark, you are struggling with the parity concept; my vote goes to the Manx Sea. (Sarah777) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Manx Sea, I agree. GoodDay 19:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppressors! It's the Welsh Sea.--feline1 19:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll settle for Welsh Sea or Irish-Welsh Sea or Welsh-Irish Sea. See folks, this my reasoning: If it's wrong to have British Isles, then it's wrong to have Irish Sea. GoodDay 19:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest "The Anglo-Celtic Sea Amongst the Islands of the North Atlantic - and Ireland" (ACSAIONAI), or "This sea" Wiki01916 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"This sea" - lol! --sony-youth^pléigh 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You see folks, as I've been relatively new to this British/Irish discussions, I naturally have an 'outsider' view of it. I've found that the Irish PoV has been pushed too much; imagine the reaction if it were the otherway?, the British PoV being pushed too much GoodDay 20:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Nobody here is worried about changing the name of the "Irish Sea" - so long as it ain't called the "British Sea". But the article about Ireland and the British Territories is called the "British Isles". THAT is what I'd call pushing British POV too much. Ergo, G'Day, it IS the other way around.(Sarah777 22:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

:::::::So we're in ageement, change the Irish Sea to Manx Sea? PS- you'd accept Irish Sea but not British Sea? GoodDay 22:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, GoodDay, you may call the Irish Sea whatever you like in personal conversation and writing. It's not relevant for WP. Hughsheehy 06:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

:I'm glad we agree, to call something what it is. No more political censures - Irish Sea is Irish Sea, English Channel is English Channel, British Isles is British Isles, Sea of Japan is Sea of Japan etc. GoodDay 12:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning British Isles, Sony has caught my attention with a compromise proposal (see above), British-Irish Isles. GoodDay 15:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparent from these two posts that AGF should go out the window for GoodDay too. GoodDay is trolling. Hughsheehy 15:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop labeling me (I haven't been labeling you). I'm not a troll - I'm fairly new to these topics (British/Irish), and I've nothing but 'good intentions'. PS- What's AGF? GoodDay 15:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You're trolling. AGF means "Assume Good Faith". I did exactly that for a couple of days. No more. You're trolling. Hughsheehy 17:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And you're stocking me with false accusations. GoodDay 17:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that they're false. Hughsheehy 18:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's end this he's a troll, he's a stalker mini-dispute. We're bigger then that. GoodDay 18:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ireland - a biased name

I suggest the rename the island formerly known as Ireland as Ireland-Northern Ireland, so as to incorporate the official names of both political entities that exist on the island. TharkunColl 18:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not, after all some unionist in Northern Ireland might be offended with Ireland. GoodDay 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it's a fact that Northern Ireland is no longer part of Ireland, because that term now only applies to the Republic. According to Irish law, that is, and as we all know legislators and politicians have the ability to change language. TharkunColl 18:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you had any heart at all, you'd call it "the 26 counties to the west of Britian wot have quite a load of Chinese and Polish people living in them"--feline1 19:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was shocked to discover that many (most?) Ulster-men do not consider themselves Irish. I'm not sure I understand their opposition, but it's clearly important to them, and calling them "Irish" actually causes them distress (far more seriously than, for instance, telling a regular Irishmen he lives on the British Isles). Under the circumstances, we should avoid using the confusing term "Ireland" to refer to the island as a whole, and keep it for the political entity to the South. Fortunately, the geographically correct and neutral expression "Lesser Britain" is available (and has almost certainly been in use since Celtic people started building sea-going boats around 50,000 years ago). I propose that the name of this article be changed to neatly and correctly reflect both the geographical and political realities. PR^talk 21:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Lesser Britain"? Brittany? (And more like under 1000 years ago.) But didn't know it was still in use. In any case, this is the Ireland article, Palestine, your discussion should be moved to Talk:Brittany. You are of course right, that many Ulstermen (and women, too!) don't consider themselves Irish. That's why Ulster-Scots is listed as one of the indigenous people of the island. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but UlsterScotch was just made up so they could have parity of sectarianism LOL --feline1 22:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. Much like the "British Isles or not" debate, it's reported, substantiated by literature, and therefore accepted to be real without question. That's why Ulster-Scots, ethnicity and language, both appear in the article - and why the phrase "British Isles" does not. You see, feline, it's all about keeping an NPOV. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah Thark; if we wanted to reflect the political division we'd have to call the island formerly known as Ireland as Ireland-Failed Entity; which sounds ambiguous as it could be read as a commentary on the 26. So maybe Ireland and the Failed Entity? Yep: The Island of Ireland and the Failed Entity has a nice ring to it. (Sarah777 22:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Actually, it may (or may not) surprise you to learn that I totally agree with you. The partition of Ireland was a crime, perpetrated by a bankrupt and morally disenfranchised government reeling from the effects of WWI. The creation of two gerry-mandered states on the island formerly known as Ireland has been an abject failure. TharkunColl 23:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this before, Thark. It was the 1914 Home Rule Act that partiton Ireland indefinately. That act predated the war (receiving Royal assent three months in). --sony-youth^pléigh 23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

But it was the war that caused the British government to lose its nerve, and allow a massive chunk of its own territory to fall under the sway of a bunch of (originally German paid for) terrorists and hooligans. TharkunColl 23:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Which bunch of German paid-for terrorits and hooligans were these: Door Number 1 or Door Number 2. In any case, partition happened before the war. (Though, as GoodDay points out, we are off-topic ... though what was the topic of this section again? - oh! yes! trolling ...) --sony-youth^pléigh 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, let's leave politics out of this and concentrate on geographics, shall we? GoodDay 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ireland - a biased name; Act II - The Vote

Alright folks, if you want to 'move' this article to Ireland (island), I'll support it. We can leave Ireland as ambigous. GoodDay 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OH GOD! Not this - AGAIN!! Please, GoodDay! Please! Look though archives before dragging more bitter arguments out into the open. The decision - from both north and south - was to keep the arrangement as it is. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't fear, the chances of this aritcle's name being changed is minimal. GoodDay 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Support - Inspired suggestion GoodDay; we need more outside perspective here. Thark, you are being offensive again. (Sarah777 23:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Support - I think Ireland (island) is more appropiate. GoodDay 23:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Support - Ireland (island). Ireland should be ambiguous. The reader should be given a choice before launching into the respective articles. It would help/force to educate new readers of the political makeup of the island. That's my 2 cents. Wiki01916 00:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Support - excellent idea. Per Wiki01916 PR^talk 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(This is a fake poll!) Wiki01916 21:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So, is this a *real* poll or just a continuation of your multi-page, faulty-analogy-based clown-show, GoodDay? Nuclare 03:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm also unclear on what exactly is going on here. I was going to respond with humour, but I'm not sure everyone here is joking. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Word, Kathryn. Currently this "debate" seems like a polemical waste of time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's apparent that GoodDay and Thark are again using their personal "knowledge" and their personal opinion as arguments. Their opinions/knowledge are irrelevant. Thus, however this is all intended, it does not need to be taken seriously. Hughsheehy 06:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Hughsheehy. --Domer48 07:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Domer; he is nodding again. (Sarah777 22:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)|)

Per Kathryn, Hugh, and others, this "rename" discussion seems to be motivated, not by any genuine or serious intent to name the article about the island "Ireland-Northern Ireland", rather as a disruptive exercise. As above, initial reading would suggest it's an attempt at humour. However, it doesn't seem to be carrying forward as such. I would therefore respectfully draw the proposers attention to the guidelines about NOT disrupting the project, just to make a point. Guliolopez 11:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's is "motivated", I dare say, by desire to satirize the incessant monopolization of wikipedia by POV-pushing loons who use wikilaywering to get articles edited to fit their own silly agendas. WP:POINT is a load of old fuss and nonsense anyways, and would be better renamed WP:LookTheCabalAreInCharge AndDespiteAllRationalPoliciesHavingFailedTo AcheieveSensibleResult, YouHadBetterJust ShutUpAndLikeIt--feline1 11:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

For those against moving the article - simply state Oppose. As I've said earlier, the chances of it being moved are minimal; and if the article was moved? guranteed the universe won't fall into chaos. Now, please stop questioning my motives; discussing things ain't gonna harm the article one bit. GoodDay 12:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes this poll is for real, no joking. GoodDay 17:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone for Planet Zog -:) We've been here before, it's like Groundhog Day it just keeps going on and on and on and on and on and on and on... Caveat lector 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Caveat; it is just taking a long time to get it right. I think GoodDay is the Messiah on this; the one foretold who will lead us unto disambiguation. Oppose "Planet Zog" and Support Ireland (dab). Those who don't see this as the way forward are on the wrong side of history, as Mr Rumsfeld said of the Iraqi resistance. (Sarah777 22:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Support "Planet Zog". It's the only way to be sure. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry. I'm getting punchy. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be renamed "Island to the west of Britain" as the name "Ireland" is offensive to NorthernIrishists and implies that the Republic of Ireland has control of the whole island.--feline1 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Arragh 'tis only offensive to some NorthernIrishists - who cares? Feline, you have some serious perspective issues. (Sarah777 23:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Actually, Sarah777, I like this idea of yours that a name only being offensive to *some* people means the issue is unimportant and that we should cry "who cares?" and get some perspective. I'm sure Sarah777 will agree with me in applying this ethos to the use of the term "British Isles", since that term is only "offensive" to a small fraction of the Islands' 80 million or so inhabitants. Perhaps we should therefore use it, and those offended could just get some perspective?--feline1 23:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

80 million? Wow! Obviously your perspective is dysfunctional; hence my advice. I didn't mean that you had no perspective! You miss the point that the 10% minority you refer to in your statistically challenged way is not a "minority" but a huge majority on the non-British Island. The UK is a tiny minority in Europe, so why should you be entitled to independence or consideration by your reasoning? The Brits are a "tiny minority" in Ireland; thus similar reasoning applies. These issues are easily resolve if you have proper perspective. (Sarah777 00:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

Sarah777, I think you need to stop oppressing the Cornish, Welsh, Scots, Manx and English by lumping them all together as "British". It's imperialism like this which caused the potato famine, you know.--feline1 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The POTATOES did not starve!(Sarah777 07:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

Guess this legitimate straw poll has ended. Regretfully, some may have not viewed it as serious. GoodDay 16:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cassiterides

Has anyone considered Cassiterides? In some contexts at least, it has been applied to the British Isles as a whole. Being a Classicist, I might even support that one, in certain contexts. It is also real, and not just made up for the sake of political correctness. TharkunColl 15:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thark, you are trolling. Please stop. Hughsheehy 15:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, enough is enough. Tharky, cool down. GoodDay 15:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It was actually a serious suggestion (though some of my others have been intended to be humurous). TharkunColl 15:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Trolling

My brother trolled this article on 3 Oct. Take this into account, please wikipedia. (Willieboyisaloser 15:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)WillieboyisaloseWillieboyisaloser 15:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Semi-Protection

This page needs to be semi-protected. During these last few days, it's been (and still being) bombarded with anon vandalism. GoodDay 18:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC) :I noticed the 'top infobox' of this article British Islands and Ireland?, not this article too? GoodDay 19:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Talk:Irish language#Order of the First Paragraph

Edit: Wrong talk page. But if anyone's interested. Wiki01916 04:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

== Irish Sea (part II) == I've noticed Irish Sea is still mentioned in this article (concerning geographics); isn't Southwestern UK bording the eastside of this sea? Wouldn't Irish-British Sea be more neutral (since British Isles is barred from this article)? GoodDay 21:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Science section - summarise

As with some of the other sections (since largely cleaned-up) the Science section is fast becoming a "list of Irish scientists". While it is likely worthwhile exploring individual contributions from Ireland to "the sciences", this article is not the place for potted biographies of "selected" Irish scientists. As with the "music" and "culture" sections, I'm going to try summarising. Any thoughts on how to approach it are welcomed before-hand. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better and concise. Perhaps we now need a Science in Ireland main article giving much more details. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed content

A number of editors keep adding this All of the above-mentioned individuals except Cosgrave were Irish Protestants. Irish Catholics have been notably very few and far between in the chronicles of innovation in science, engineering and mathematics, until very recent times. Irish Protestants, in sharp contrast, have been at least as numerous in the worldwide chronicles as people from other parts of the British Isles, when weighted in proportion to the overall numbers of Protestants living in the island of Ireland. This sharp contrast is part of the historically non-trivial cultural differences between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants. The referenced source used dosen't mention or support anything in the above text, if anything it shows that Catholics where deliberately excluded from science positions in Ireland by a small group of protestants based purely on religious reasons or sectarian reasons, and where forced to leave Ireland to find work.--Padraig (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it is just ONE editor and I've dropped a few comments on his talkpage User talk:Caoimhin MacAbhoidin (one I had to create!) Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The text was added first by User:Seanwal111111 which was removed, then by User talk:Caoimhin MacAbhoidin, then another anon IP added it again, they may or may not be the same person, that would require a checkuser, in either case the source dosen't support the text.--Padraig (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my mind Padraig - you are edit-warring while discussion is ongoing and I call on you to stop it now. Sarah777 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That (rather bizarre) paragraph is completely POV - and the "reference" doesn't support it in any way. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bastun can you remove it as I can't as I have already done so twice.--Padraig (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, done. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I first saw this edit by Seanwal111111 and was very surprised by it. Earlier today I saw it had been added again by Caoimhin MacAbhoidin and was doing a revert when Sarah reverted it with the edit summery: I'm not looking for any reference; I think the addition is pointless, sectarian and provocative - hence unsuitable. So I am surprised to see that Sarah now wants the edit to remain. I don't understand her position. However, when it was re-added again later I reverted it because I actually looked at the given reference and that does not support the edit as made, even in part, besides which it is definitely POV and as Sarah stated sectarian and provocative too. If the edit was supported completely by verifiable sources in might be considered but not as it stands. ww2censor (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"... that would require a checkuser ..." - somebody call? Per checkuser policy, due to the level of disruption that has gone on here today, I have checked the three editors here and indeed, they are  Confirmed to being one and the same. Blocked now for a period of time. Please view the edit history accordingly - Alison ^❤ 02:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protected for 96 hours. Sarah, everyone else, discuss here. If you come to an agreement early, I'll unprotect it before it expires. SirFozzie (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:IMOS

Hi. I've seen a couple of reverts here quoting WP:IMOS saying that we should be using British English on the page. I can see no such injunction on the WP:IMOS page itself. Am I missing it? Hughsheehy (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's actually in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). My bad - Alison ^❤ 22:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh Gawd! Another Wiki-error to be put right. Sarah777 (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Irish English (i.e. English as spoken and written in Ireland) has more in common with British English than with American English, but it´s not black and white. We definitely talk of boots and not trunks, bonnets and not hoods, no mention of sidewalks, etc., etc.,etc. but AFAIK the -ize spelling is pretty common in Ireland....I know I've seen it a lot. Hard to be dogmatic about it. For instance, a search on the archives of the Examiner shows 500 mentions of emphasise and 85 with emphasize. In any case, I have the impression there's increasing use of American variants over time.. Let's not get our knickers in a twist about something trivial. On Irish articles I'd suggest that we tolerate either spelling and that we resist the temptation to go spellchecking all over the place. Hughsheehy (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In any case, Oxford (as in the OED) seems to regard -ise spelling as incorrect! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Spelling. Hughsheehy (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Could be down to MS spellchecker. Despite setting mine to British English it still tries to change ise to ize; which of course is phonetically correct. It also tries to change spellchecker to spell-checker though in Eire we hate gaps and dashes! (Sarah777 (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

It's got nothing to do with MS. Oxford (i.e. the Oxford ENGLISH Dictionary) regards -ise spelling as incorrect, and -ize spelling as correct. That would mean that emphasise/emphasize has nothing to do with American/British English differences. Read the material on the subject. One WP article states that -ise/-ize spelling differences are often INCORRECTLY seen as an American/British English difference, but that it isn't. Alison's change and injunction to use -ise & British spelling on the page is just not pointing anyone in the right direction. In any case, Irish English is still more like British English (often fairly antique or regional British English) than like American English. Hughsheehy (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We live and learn. I'd have bet my house that "ize" was American and ise was British. Obviously a fairly common misconception. Maybe because English newspapers use "ise"?? (Sarah777 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

<reduce indent> I would have made the same bet. I'm still a little surprised. Hughsheehy (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Single red link / Ballaghbeena?

Anybody familiar with "Ballaghbeena" and/or the "Ballaghbeena gap"? There's a reference on this page that notes "Greatest annual rainfall of 3964.9mm at Ballaghbeena Gap in 1960". With a valid ref to MetEireann. To give this sentence some more context, I had thought of qualifying where on the island this place is. But I can't find it on any maps. Given other rainfall metrics, it's probably in Kerry, Galway, or Donegal, but does anyone know for sure? Where is "Ballaghbeena"? In this context? Guliolopez (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't find any reference to it anywhere except in relation to the rainfall record. Obviously its had its 15 minutes! Sarah777 (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Places of Interest (again)

Reopening this again, as we've yet to have any kind of consensus on what the "notability criteria" are for inclusion here.

I personally am unsure about the value in having both a "gallery" and a "places of interest" section. Not least becase, as has been noted by others before, addition seems to be based on POV.

However, I expect the list exists as some kind of "most list of important/notable touristic spots". Personally I’ve mentally compared it to those “6 places you must see if you’ve only got 2 days”, “can’t be missed highlights” type lists one sees in the opening pages of The Lonely Planet or Rough Guide or equivalent.

If that is the case, then, it’s WAY too long. At the very least, I’d seriously like to see the existing list summarised a bit. Or, more properly, we'd probably benefit from some kind of (lightweight) "inclusion criteria".

I suggest this because, with all due respect to those who visit Ballyteige on their holliers, natives of Drogheda, and frequent hill walkers on Slieve Gullion, there are some very non-notable "places of interest" on this list. (Certainly if one compares the relative importance of Brú na Bóinne, the Giant's Causeway, Trinity/BookOfKells, the Burren, etc.)

What do we think? Delete the list because of POV issues? Decide a max length? Reduce size based on accepted criteria? Or just leave it grow incrementally until (every so often) someone crys "enough!" and tidies based on their own idea of notability?

Thoughts? Guliolopez (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The National Roads Authority has the same problem. They are rolling out a policy of tourist signage that will eliminate 90% of the roadside clutter and have made a list of about 10 major attractions that merit signage from Primary Routes. (I think they have a second tier as well). Might help as some sort of guide. If we don't use some neutral agency there will be parish v parish wars flaring up everywhere. I've even heard it suggest that Sandyford should not be on the list - which is patently ridiculous. Sarah777 (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Of critical importance would seem to be reference to this guideline which basically says don't use too many images and only use them to illustrate text not just adding them because you can. If possible don't use a gallery but put the images into the commons and link to that instead. Personally I am against the overuse of images in this article and many other Irish articles too. It is really a case of editors keep adding images of favourite places because they can but they have no text to add that makes the image use significant in any way. If in doubt leave it out. Remember that Wikipedia is not a tourist guidebook. ww2censor (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Since I opened this issue, a further 2 places (Lahinch and Leap Castle) have found their way on to this list. Evidence of a sort that the "problem" remains. Namely that (in the absence of any guidelines) people will add in their favourite beach/castle/whatever as nationally notable. Frankly I can't blame them, as the island abounds with "places of interest" every 10 miles or so. However, this list continues to expand, and continues to interrupt the flow of the article. (Constituting a 40 line page break between "Sport" and "Culture").

I think Sarah's idea on following the NRA model is great, but I couldn't convert their policy document into something we could use here. As a result, I'm going to go back to to the "Guide Book" proposal, and cull anything that is unlikely to appear in the "highlights" section of a guidebook that deals with the island/country as a whole. (In the "if you only have a fortnight in Ireland go to these places" section.)

To that end (unless any objections) I'm going to remove 10 items or so: Achill (in favour of Aran), Ballyteigue (in favour of Cliffs of Moher), Céide Fields (in favour of Newgrange), Drogheda (in favour of Galway), Jerpoint (in favour of Kylemore) Navan Fort (in favour of Carrickfergus), Lahinch (in favour of the Burren), Leap Castle (in favour of Tara), Slieve Gullion and Slieve League (in favour of Mourne Mts), The Spire (in favour of Trinity), and Tory (in favour of the Skelligs).

From there, we can discuss, but should probably be even more ruthless. For a few reasons. Firstly, as noted, this list is ever expanding and is impacting the readability of the article. Secondly, the lists appears to remain only because "it was always there". And finally, it exists as some kind of tourism summary, going against the fact that Wikipedia is not a guidebook. (Personally I think there is SOME value in it, but not as a 50 point list). Guliolopez (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral move

Hi. Someone unlilaterally moved "Ireland" to "Ireland (island)" and made "Ireland" a redirect to "Republic of Ireland". This TOTALLY flies in the face of previous discussions in which there was no consensus agreed for such a move.

Can someone with Admin rights consider undoing this move until this move is discussed (yet again)? (Can't move "Ireland (island)" back to "Ireland" because page name already exists) Guliolopez (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree this has been proposed many times but never achieved consensus, also at the moment it effects numberous links on wikipedia.--Padraig (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked a admin to undo this move, which they have now done.--Padraig (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Demographics error

I believe there's a mistake under the Demographics section.

It says: "Ireland's largest religious group is the Catholic Church (about 50% for the entire island, and about 60%[64] for the Republic). "

This statement's quoted source is www.cso.ie. I took the liberty of consulting this site and found that over 87% of people in the Republic classed themselves as Roman Catholic in 2006.

This would give an island wide Catholic population of 74% based on 2006 Republic figures and 2004 Northern Ireland figures.

The paragraph finishes with this sentence: "Over 10% of the republic's population describe themselves as atheist [65]."

Again this quotes the website www.cso.ie. And again, it is incorrect (not just grammatically). The total describing themselves as having No Religion is only 4.2% in the Republic in 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.19.65 (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ulster-Scots"/Ireland name

Since Ulster Scots is listed in the first line, should Chinese, Polish and various African language be listed also i.e. the other languages which arrived in Ireland and have no relation to the meaning or the origin of the name "Ireland"? Ulster Scots was created in 1990 after all..

Either that, or we list Eire, from the native language of the island and the origin of the Anglican name Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.215.236 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason Ulster Scots, Irish and English are listed is because each of these have official/legal status in the jurisdictions of Ireland. (Irish and English in Ireland. Irish, Ullans and English in NI.) The others you mention have no status. Simple as that. Guliolopez (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Scots has no official status. It's recognised as part of "the cultural wealth of the island" but it has no official status.

The languages that do throughout the island is Irish and English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.2.203 (talk • contribs)

Ulster Scots is an official languae of the UK specific to Northern Ireland. WHich means Ulster Scots has official status on the island of Ireland.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It has no official status. North or South of the Irish border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.145.147 (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Economy section - summarise, combine, move?

(Me again) For a while now, I've been considering a summarisation/rewrite of the Economy section. I think it needs a review for a couple of reasons:

1. Length - Seems unnecessarily long - Compare ~1200 words in Economy section to ~900 words in Sports section
2. Balance - Focused on single jurisdiction - Most of the content is focused on the Republic of Ireland, and little on NI. Despite the fact that (in context) it should probably cover the economic position of the entire island.
3. Focus - Most of the text is on "Economic history" rather than "Economy" per sé - The section primarily deals with the Economic History of the country (in 1932 X happened, in the 1960s protectionist policies were implemented, in the 1980s there was high unemployment... etc) rather than on the *current* Economic position (In total, Agriculture represents approx 4% of GDP, Industry 46%, services X% etc. In NI Heavy industry is more prominent than ROI... etc).

Before I go about reorganising to address these, I wanted to ensure that (a) it was generally accepted that this was a problem that needed solving, (b) captured any thoughts/opinions on how to go about it, and (c) there were no objections to merging the current "economic history" stuff where I think it actually belongs. (Namely, in this article). Guliolopez (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No thoughts/comments? If not, I'll just go ahead and make the changes. Namely, as noted, I plan on reworking to focus more on Economic position, and less on Economic History, and with more of an "all island" focus that the current single jurisdiction outlook. Guliolopez (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems sensible enough to me. Work away. Dppowell (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

school

i want to learn about scools like how old they are when they start and end school or the types of classes they have or how many grades do they have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.130.75 (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider reading Education in Ireland. Guliolopez (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of formation of the United Kingdom?

(please note that I am notifying Irish Wikipedians as Ireland was in the UK: 1 January 1801 until 6 December 1922)

After much debate, the editors of the United Kingdom article seem to have settled on 1707 as being the foundation of the state (I note with concern though that this date lacks any external referencing, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY).

But this article - List of countries by formation dates - claims that the UK was actually founded in 1603 (again, completely unreferenced). Both articles cannot be correct, so which is it? Please come to the party armed with some proper external refs, because I am not sure if we can stomach yet another verbally diarrhetic Talk page splurge with largely consists of ad hominem attacks and statements of totally unsourced opinion. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

removal of "republic of"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an article about an Island. One of the states on that Island takes that name for itself. By enlarge, the rest of the world chooses to clarify this by naming the state "Republic of Ireland". Bertie Ahern recently described it as such in the Dail[10]. It is appropriate to describe it as such here.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Indeed,apart fromthe United Kingdom (and by extension Crown Colonies, Dependencies etc.), the rest of the world uses Ireland. Which leads to the irony of the Queen of Canada appointing Ambassadors to Ireland [11] while her counter-part in the United Kingdom appoints them to the Republic. Perhaps they should get together for a chat about it some time. ;O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[12] plenty of instances of republic of ireland. Including the UN[13] and the EU[14]. Like I said, the rest of the worldTraditional unionist (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Economic War

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

Rugby Union "Flag of Ireland"

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

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

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

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

Info box color

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

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

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

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

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

Another proposal

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

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

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

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

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

LGBT culture section

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

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

Usage of British Isles in this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spanish article

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

What it means to be a geographical term

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

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

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

For example.

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

Other examples are easier - think Vatican city.

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some more examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"erosion of natural and cultural heritage"

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

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

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

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

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

Celtic Tiger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Info Box map

Proposed map for use in Info Box

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

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

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

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

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

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

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