Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Disambiguation task force/Archive 3

Summary

Having read a good bit of this argument, it seems to me that there are a number of different points that should be separated.

The two opposing views appear to stand in either of these two camps

Refer to the state as "Ireland" <-----------> Refer to the state as "Republic of Ireland"

There are a number of arguments for and against each of these terms, each with their own merits. Alternatives have also been discussed, none have achieved consensus. --HighKing (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See my post above. It's kind of relevant to what you just said. Scolaire (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, is there any sort of agreement or consensus that has come out of this? It seems to me that there are two related issues. One is "how should we refer to the state [compared to the island]" and the other is "how should we name our article on the state [compared to the island]". While the two are related, they are not interdependent. We regularly refer to articles without using the name we give them using pipes. So I would suggest a two step process:

Resolve the first issue by deciding the state should be referred to inline. It seems obvious to me that the state should be referred to as "Ireland" unless it needs to be distinguished from the island, and only then should it be "the republic of Ireland" or "Ireland, the state". Likewise, the island can be referred to as "Ireland" unless it needs to be distinguished from the state, and then it should be "the island of Ireland" or "Ireland, the island". Personally, I can't quite see why this is controversial, but what do I know. Whatever is decided the name of the article can be piped in, meaning this issue can be resolved by itself.

Then we have to decide which article, The island or the state (or neither), gets the coveted Ireland title. I really don't think it matters all that much, since piping would make the title all but invisible anyway. I would be tempted to argue that the island has it currently therefore it should stay that way. But if its causing a problem for some people, and the people who take issue are willing to go through and fix all the incorrect redirects themselves, then let them do it.

I apologise if I'm stating the obvious here, but thats my tuppence (or 2 cents). Rockpocket 01:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing, Rockpocket. The short answer to your first question is no. The task force was pretty well inactive for all but a month until I put up my own tuppence-worth on Saturday. There's three of us trying to crank it up again at the moment.

On the question of how we refer to the state there are two opposing, but not exactly opposite, POVs. Those who oppose "Ireland" see it in terms of the state "laying claim" to the whole territory of Ireland; this can be done subtly, or even accidentally, by linking to the wrong article, thereby sometimes changing the meaning of a sentence. On the other hand, there are those who believe that to call it anything other than the "constitutionally correct" name of "Ireland" is an insult to the Constitution and therefore the people of Ireland, that "Republic of Ireland" is a name pushed on us by the British government and therefore POV by its very nature. In between are a lot of people including, I believe, most Irish Wikipedians, who think that this is not an issue in the real world and that the important thing is to write articles that are readable and unambiguous, without edit-warring. All three are inclined to get very emotional when the issue comes up and inevitably people start talking of a "political agenda", although the lines are not drawn on any clear "Ireland v Britain" or "unionist v nationalist" lines, so it's sometimes hard to see what the supposed "agenda" is. Piping can be used and was used and was used for quite a long time, but eventually it became another weapon in the war - see here for example.

As for the article name(s), I'm afraid I don't share your view that the question will be easily resolved once the other issues are dealt with. The article name is too closely bound up with those issues and, for me at least, it is the more important of the two issues (see my statement on the project page). How the two articles, and any eventual dab page, are named is going to be a critical factor in determining how the state and the larger country of Ireland are dealt with across WP in the long term.

That's my (somewhat biased) view, anyway. Keep watching this space and maybe (hopefully) some pattern or framework for consensus will emerge over the next few weeks or months. Scolaire (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its only seems easy(ish) to resolve if one doesn't have a horse in the race. I understand its galling to have one's own country referred to by a name coined by a colonial power. But at the same time, we can't get away from the fact Ireland herself chose, in establishing her name by constitution, to align the name of the state with the island (for understandable political reasons). Its also a fact that that the island and the state are not (currently) the same thing and therefore need to be disambiguated for our purposes. So, I guess my first question is, for those who object to using the "Republic of Ireland" as a disambiguation title, how would they propose to disambiguate between our articles on the Island and the State? I ask because I see lots of people moaning about British Imperialism, but only a handful doing anything constructive to propose a solution. Rockpocket 18:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howabout changing Republic of Ireland to Ireland & Ireland to Ireland (island). Or, use Ireland as a disambigous page & move RoI to Ireland (country). GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, these have all been proposed, discussed and rejected, which is really the reason we have the task force. What's actually needed IMO is for people to put down in a clear-headed and unemotional way why they are opposed to the various alternatives. Actually, it's pretty easy to come up with possible compromises, but coming up with an effective compromise requires you to know beforehand exactly what POV you are addressing, and how the proposal satisfies that POV. If you read my own statement on the project page, you will see why I have problems with both "Ireland (island)" and "Ireland (country)", and why I object to "Ireland" being either an article on the state or a dab page. Since I'm in a majority of about 51% (hence the failure of umpteen RMs over the years), these kind of issues need to be thrashed out before we can see what kind of a solution might have a chance of working. Scolaire (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody explain what the objection is to "Republic of Ireland" as a dab? It is an official name provided for by the Dublin parliament, it is accurate (the country is a republic), and it still refers to Ireland (even though its jurisdiction does not correspond with Ireland). The "imposed by the British" claim is a myth. Mooretwin (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People need to read the discussions first instead of asking the same questions as though they were "a new fine question that had never been asked before" (Kipling). Just four short paragraphs up, right here on this page, I have explained to Rockpocket as best I can what the perceived problem with "Republic of Ireland" is. If you think you can help to resolve the issue, why not read up the discussion and then try to put together a coherent statement of your own position. FWIW, my own POV is pretty close to yours (on this question only, I hasten to add), and you can read my statement on the project page. Scolaire (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 3c. I've seen this "It's a myth" many times now, and it's not new or novel, and it's been answered. To be blunt, if an editor continues to make the same point again and again without taking into consideration the responses or subsequent discussions, it's difficult to take the editor seriously. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where I argue in detail that it's a myth. Can you point me to where that argument has been answered conclusively? Scolaire (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Scolaire's and Sarah's statements

I don't have any well organized/articulated 'statement' to make on the project page. But I just wanted to comment on this notion of 'country.' To me, it simply doesn't matter if Ireland (the island) is a 'country.' Whatever it is or isn't, Ireland--meaning the island--is a very, very widely used term. That, to me, is the important point. I don't think this project should become an argument on whether the island is a country. I know people have made comments such as "sovereign states trump islands on Wiki" in these debates, but I see no evidence that this is, of necessity, true. I tend to see China and Korea as interesting ways of looking at how to organize terminology in these kinds of situations. Even if the prized "Ireland" location isn't given to the state at Wiki, it doesn't follow that the state needs to stay at ROI, but I do hope that a battle over "country"-ness doesn't dominate this debate. Nuclare (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I really don't want the debate to centre on whether it is a country. Really, I was making two points in my statement: that the word "country" is ambiguous, and so "Ireland (country)" is a non-starter for dab purposes; and that the word "island" suggests something small or insignificant, something less than a country or countries with a shared geography and people, which is why I also dislike "Ireland (island)" as a term. I'm not sure from Sarah's statement if she believes the use of "country" for the whole land was meant as a "territiorial claim". It certainly wasn't. I only meant that if I got into conversation with a Belfast man about the Ulster team's famous victory over Munster, I wouldn't be aware what church he goes to or who he voted for in the last election - only that, to me, he is a fellow-Irishman. Scolaire (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info, Georgia (country) is so named, so at least Ireland (country) would be consistent. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you follow your own link? Ireland (country) is itself a dab page, so how could it be useful as an article name for either "Ireland" article? Scolaire (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia (country) is so named only because Georgis (state) would itself be ambiguous. This ( as far as I can see)is a unique case where 'country' is less ambiguous than the more legally precise term 'state'. RashersTierney (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why it is a DAB page - the second link is unnecessary. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion! That's why there's a task force here. Scolaire (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the word "island" suggests something small or insignificant - places like Australia have been referred to as an island - it simply means a land mass surrounded by water. But if "island" is a problem, would you be happy with something like "Ireland (land mass)"? There are two entities called Ireland and we need to disambiguate them somehow; I appreciate your view is that we should stick with the status quo, but if things were to change, do you have any views on what the names should be?

In particular, in response to your statement on the project page (which I think is well written and clearly explained) I should point out that WP policy is to use the most commonly used names, which aren't necessarily the official names. So while the current situation may be correct in terms of officialdom, we need to consider how the entities are referred to on a day to day basis, and what most people mean when they say, or search an encyclopaedia for, "Ireland". Waggers (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Land mass" is far worse than 'island'. I understand what Scolaire is saying, but "island" may be the only choice. Maybe. In response to your experience, as related on the project page -- I'd say we need to differentiate between people who are going just to Northern Ireland and those who are going to the island and will be, or potentially could be, going to both NI and the ROI. Yes, if one is just going to NI, its not unlikely they'd say "NI"--and we have a Northern Ireland page to define that. But if someone plans or might cross the border in either direction, how often would someone say "I'm going to Ireland and Northern Ireland"? Somebody might, sure, but, imho, "I'm going to Ireland is the far more common way of describing such a thing. Nuclare (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I just did a search of the phrases (in quotation marks) 1) "I'm going to Ireland" vs. 2) "I'm going to Ireland and Northern Ireland" vs. 3) "I'm going to Northern Ireland and Ireland." #1 yielded over 19,000. #2 yielded 1 and it was a 'Count the number of countries you've visited' context, where the ROI and NI are counted are treated as different countries. #3 yielded 0 results. Not that these sorts of things *prove* much, but, just an fyi... Nuclare (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Waggers (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is. Out of the "going to Ireland" links, how many referred to going to anywhere in the island as opposed to going to locations solely in the state of Ireland. For example, I'd use the phrase "I'm going to Ireland" in both contexts. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understand that. The search certainly isn't any scientific thing, and I wasn't meaning to present it as such. It was just a whim to test the phrase "I'm going to Ireland and Northern Ireland." The presence of the "I'm going to Ireland" uses is less the point than the *absence* of "I'm going to Ireland and Northern Ireland" uses--if you see what I'm saying. But, again, the search was just an afterthought whim. My first and main point was exactly what you have confirmed: that "Ireland" is used in both contexts. Nuclare (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]