Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 20 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 30

Another requested move

This time it's Talk:Public service of the Republic of Ireland#Requested move. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Contributors on both sides might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Art_of_the_United_Kingdom#Requested_move, where it is proposed to rename the article to "British art". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It certainly looks like a good move to me as art is an identity issue rather than a country issue but I think I'll stay out of it. Dmcq (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. Why come to Ireland Collaboration for input on a British/UK discussion? Scolaire (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
They had this idea that someone from here might support them on some point they made about Northern Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as this is Ireland Collaboration, whuch covers NI a part of the UK, and no doubt pre-1921 any art in the island of Ireland would of been considered British and part of the UK. I'd say its very relevant. Mabuska (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you opposed them by supporting the move so that didn't work out too well for them :) Dmcq (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point that there are a lot of foreign places, not just Ireland, which would hold a common heritage at some time for whatever reasons. ~ R.T.G 22:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Application of IMOS

The manual of style for Ireland-related topics states that, where confusion may arise, Republic of Ireland should be used rather than Ireland.

In accordance with this policy, I have either edited or reverted edits in the ledes in the following articles, but one user is determined to retain references to Ireland:

In all cases, the lede ought to make it clear that the organisation in question relates only to the ROI, and not to the entire island. Discussions are in place at each article, but there is input so far only from myself and the other editor. Let's try and achieve consensus, and avoid an edit war.

Mooretwin (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Or to put it correctly, one user make it his life's mission to disregard the legal name of the state whenever possible, and seeks every opportunity to change Ireland to "Republic of Ireland". What policy is being talked about exactly? O Fenian (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
We've heard those "arguments", and a consensus was reached that, where confusion may arise, Republic of Ireland should be preferred to "Ireland". The interests of the reader are more important than pedantic and politically-motivated concerns about the "legal name", which is ambiguous. Mooretwin (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Mooretwin, also don't forget O Fenian that the "Republic of Ireland" is also the official description of the state. The concensus reached however Mooretwin as far as i understand it is when the island and state are being discussed in the same context/paragraph/sentence or similar - though in the case of the League of Ireland etc. i'd say stating "Republic of Ireland" in the lede would make sense and avoid confusion.Mabuska (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The IMOS states that where confusion may arise. Clearly when discussing "national" teams and activities, it is clearly not talking about the entire island. @Mooretwin, you'll not achieve anything by attributing a political or pedantic motivation to another editor and open yourself up to pot/kettle/black comparisons. @Mabuska, again I'd say that if the sentence includes the word "national", it is another way to clarify. --HighKing (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
State is a much better term than National. A nation is "a group of people who share culture, ethnicity and language" and, as I said on the RTÉ2 talkpage, the Irish nation doesn't stop at the border. ~Asarlaí 01:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Good point, which I knew but had "forgotten". --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, that's nonsense, High King, as "national" is frequently used to refer to Ireland as a whole. In rugby and cricket and Gaelic games, for example, the national teams relate to the whole island. In Gaelic football, there is the National League. As Asarlai says, "nation" and "state" are not necessarily the same. Mooretwin (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree - use of "national" in some cases can be confusing. But perhaps RTE2 is still a "national" broadcaster for Ireland that transcends borders? And that the Leagues are still "national" with regards to a cultural context? Same as the Rugby/Hockey/Swimming/Boxing teams? I dunno... --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Given that both the League of Ireland and the Irish League contain teams based in the others area, its a bit silly to try to pretend that there is somehow an unbreachable border that surrounds the League of Ireland. The articles in question have been very stable, and there has been no huge clamour from readers that are being confused by the stable wording. It all comes back to whether confusion may arise. It seems that some people may well be pretending to be confused, however the wider evidence suggests otherwise. Fmph (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Fmph we have to assume that the reader has a little common sense and this "confusion" IMO is used to erradicate the correct name of the country which is Ireland. Mo ainm~Talk 11:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
High King, RTE is the state broadcaster of the Republic of Ireland, and the League of Ireland relates only to the Republic of Ireland, albeit that it has one member club based in Northern Ireland - it is not equivalennt to rugby/hockey/swimming, etc. It is blatantly misleading to say that RTE2 is the second-oldest tv channel in Ireland. It's not! Mooretwin (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Given that it is the state broadcaster of Ireland (why use RoI in that case? It's clearly referring to the state), then stating that it is the 2nd oldest tv channel in Ireland puts it in the proper context. --HighKing (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
1. Because its status as the state broadcaster of the Republic has no relevance to the statement about it being the second-oldest channel in Ireland.
2. Many people are unaware that the Irish state does not coincide with the island. Mooretwin (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that it is the state broadcaster of Ireland (why use RoI in that case? It's clearly referring to the state), then stating that it is the 2nd oldest tv channel in Ireland puts it in the proper context. --HighKing (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Fmph, the Irish League doesn't contain any teams in "the others [sic] area", and the League of Ireland only contains one (by special dispensation). That doesn't make either league an all-Ireland league. Mooretwin (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it incredible, although perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, that editors are unwilling to accept that a statement like "RTE2 is the second-oldest tv channel in Ireland" is not confusing. It just shows how people find it difficult to be view things objectively. Mooretwin (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So you don't think that removing the phrase is a good idea? You seem intent on a having WP:BATTLE as opposed to some consensual editing. Instead of adding your own POV to a bit of nonsense POV, why not just fix it? Fmph (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? As soon as the removal of the sentence was proposed, I supported it. Kindly retract your accusations. Mooretwin (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Mooretwin what did you expect? Its hard to find actual objective people in regards to this issue, with most of the detractors having vested personal interests. They will never see any confusion in the use of "Ireland" in regards to the state even though at times it clearly is confusing. Ireland may be the official name of the state but the Republic of Ireland is the official description of the state so it has validity in use.
Then again Derry isn't the official name of Londonderry city is it? I'd safely bet none of those who state that the Irish state's official name is Ireland and thus must stay as Ireland will equally put as much of an effort in to ensure non-bias and real objectivity in that the official name of Londonderry is used instead of the politicised and unofficial "Derry". Pots and kettles flying all over the place here...... Mabuska (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed - you'll find the exact opposite: determination that Londonderry should never be used to describe the city, combined with equal determination that Ireland must always be used to described the state. A laughable hypocrisy! Mooretwin (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Rather than fling accusations around, why not respond to my eminently sensible suggestion? Fmph (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
What suggestion? Mooretwin (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
To remove the phrase entirely. Fmph (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
As I already noted above (on 16th December), and several times over the last couple of days I agreed to that suggestion immediately! Has the phrase not been removed? Mooretwin (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The RTE2 issue appears to have been resolved. In relation to the three football articles, there don't appear to have been any valid arguments made that there is no possibility of confusion arising. All we've had is (1) HighKing's claim that "national" must mean "state", which he then retracted and admitted that it could be confusing; and (2) an unclear "argument" by Fmph, which was, in any case, based on a misunderstanding about the membership of the two national leagues in Ireland. On this basis, it would seem that the three articles should be edited so as to refer to the Republic of Ireland which is, in any case, the correct term for that jurisdiction in the world of football. Mooretwin (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

On this basis, I shall proceed. Mooretwin (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not think so. There is no confusion, and no evidence presented. You came here for other opinions, most people who replied disagree with you. There is clearly no consensus for your changes at this point. O Fenian (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
There clearly is confusion - just read the contributions above. I should have thought a bold Irish republican like yourself would have understood that "national" does not necessarily mean "state", especially in Ireland. It's ironic and amusing to see you arguing in favour of a partitionist interpretation of "national". Mooretwin (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with changing the RTE2 article because I believe the sentence should be changed to use "state" rather than "national". But there's merit in changing the other articles as it there is the possibility of confusion. --HighKing (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the football changes, only if there is another national league that could cause confusion, which there is not. You are going down a slippery slope here. O Fenian (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, there is another national league, namely the Irish League! On that basis, you must support the changes. Mooretwin (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd be more unhappy with the infobox having "Republic of Ireland" as the name of the country, than changing the opening sentence... --HighKing (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
(To Mooretwin), if there's confusion in those articles? use Republic of Ireland. The fact that the country & the island it's on has the same name, requires this. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Mooretwin (talk · contribs) is not the sole arbiter of whether there is confusion or not. Fmph (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
It's clear that confusion may arise:
  • the articles say it is the national league of Ireland
  • the league is the national league, however, not of the whole of Ireland, but only of the Republic
  • in Ireland, "national" can refer both to Ireland or to the Republic
  • in sport, the whole island is often the "national" team or league - e.g. rugby, cricket, GAA
  • therefore "national league of Ireland" is likely to be understood as meaning the national league of the whole island
  • hence IMOS says use "Republic of Ireland" to avoid confusion.
No-one has come up with anything to refute this logic. Opposition to the change appears to be irrational or politically-motivated. What's wrong with saying national league of Republic of Ireland?Mooretwin (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
They might call themselves a national league, and they might be mainly or fully in the Republic of Ireland, but the Republic of Ireland is not a nation. This has been gone through at the Belfast Agreement and subsequently. People in Northern Ireland may identify themselves as they wish. Dmcq (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of anyone's political views as to what is or isn't a "nation", in football terms, it is a national league - of the Republic, not all of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not keen on using topic specific terminology and FIFA certainly strains the language a bit if they say Northern Ireland is a country or that the Republic of Ireland corresponds anyway closely with a nation. I think we should describe things as they are which is that for FIFA purposes it is associated with the Republic of Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
How about 'the FIFA national football league of the Republic of Ireland'? That replaces the word primary that's there currently with FIFA. Dmcq (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm taking out "primary" - what does it mean? By definition each country only has one national league, so the word primary is redundant - indeed to include may imply that the League of Ireland has a superior status to the other national league in Ireland, namely the Irish Premiership. What if we have "national football league for the Republic of Ireland" and footnote the FIFA designation? Mooretwin (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure that EVERY country has only one national league? Fmph (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, yes. Why do you ask? Whether or not every country has only one national league is irrelevant: the Republic of Ireland only has one. Are you now content for the football articles to change, with your RTE edit remaining? If not, can you explain why not? Mooretwin (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
If it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up to support your argument? Fmph (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
In relation to the word "primary", stating that the League of Ireland is the "primary" national league implies that there is more than one national league - which there isn't. Hence I removed the word "primary". You declined to advise whether you now content for the football articles to change, with your RTE edit remaining - can you do so? Mooretwin (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────England has 2 national leagues - the Premier League and the Football League, and I'm pretty sure that the US had 2 some years ago. I think there is only one now. I'm not sure how widespread the practice is, but if it was quite widespread, then keeping the word 'primary' in, would be ok in order to differentiate Ireland from other jurisdictions. But if not, then I'm happy for the word to go. Fmph (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough point. What I meant was that each country only has one national league championship, but I see that you're referring to national leagues below the main championship, which is a valid point, albeit not relevant in the Republic of Ireland. You still haven't advised whether you are now content for the football articles to change as discussed above, with your RTE edit remaining. There appears to be a majority in favour of the football changes. Mooretwin (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Having some trouble counting are you? I count myself, HighKing, Fmph and Mo ainm against your change, GoodDay is undecided, you, Mabuska and Dmcq seem to be in favour? How is that a "majority", unless you are engaging in Derry style gerrymandering so your votes count more than other people? O Fenian (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The RTE2 issue is resolved, with - on Fmph's suggestion - the removal of the contentious phrase. Regarding the football articles, HighKing is in favour (see his post at 02.06 on 18 Dec). Fmph isn't expressing an opinion since his initial comment having been based on a misunderstanding of the situation. GoodDay is in favour. I am in favour. Mabuska is in favour. And Dmcq is in favour. Mo ainm is against, and in your previous contribution, you said that you supported the change "if there is another national league that could cause confusion" - and, as I noted above, there is also the Irish League. That's a fairly clear consensus. You should respect that, and also the WP guideline. Would you mind self-reverting? Mooretwin (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You obviously have trouble with more than counting. GoodDay's only comment begins "if there's confusion in those articles?", that is asking a question about whether there is confusion, as "if" and the question mark make clear. It is not taking a position about whether there is confusion. I think it shows how desperate you have become to ignore that. I have read the entire discussion twice and also cannot see where Fmph says he is in favour of your change either, care to point it out? O Fenian (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
No idea where Fmph says he's in favour of change - has someone said that he did? I note you've chosen not to acknowledge HighKing's assent and your own position which is actually in favour. You appear to be working to some sort of political agenda here, as it is basic common sense that confusion may arise, as articulated above. Time to seek input from an uninvolved admin as you appear determined to edit-war. Mooretwin (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Mooretwin asked me, as an uninvolved admin, to look at this discussion. Its clear from the guidelines that, in the case of potential confusion, ROI should be unpiped. Mooretwin has made a case that Ireland is potentially confusing in a number of articles. At least some of these seem to be disputed, but for a number of different reasons. Its therefore difficult to adjudge consensus on any particular case, as the discussion has moved on and diverged somewhat from earlier comments. I would suggest that Mooretwin makes a short, explict proposal below, based on the issue as he sees it. Others can support, oppose, refute or amend this proposal. Rockpocket 11:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Quote from above: "The IMOS states that where confusion may arise. [sic] Clearly when discussing "national" teams and activities, it is clearly not talking about the entire island." When this is a fact, the one that is *clear* to you, it may be the time to intend making it clear to others. That is one idea. Another idea is that we can make this clear at some other time we define in another way. When it is not based simply on a fact, such as a common reference to "Ireland" being reference to the republic, but based on a time when those of us more knowledgeable are truly confused. We base it on our own true confusion, rather than the confusability we can establish by reason. We could rely on *confusion by surprise*, when people who didn't even expect to be confused were suddenly not too sure about something, or we could rely on ourselves to extrapolate confusion through damned solid theory, based on things which can actually be confused, explained as to why, and used as the only excuse for a course of action, or inaction. Or, we can eschew that and go with what some of us have decided we feel appropriate, due to our superior knowledge and wise sensibility. *Clearly* you are talking about people who are confused rather than the avoidance of confusion. These two terms are confusable. It is scientific, not an experience. I am not talking about a mental condition of confusion. We cannot fix mental conditions here. I am talking about the one where you switch the cups and they were exactly the same. The guy who had his hand on the cups knows he switched them but if he doesn't show others which one the ball is under... what's he doing then? I could confuse those cups myself in my own cupboard and make tea for everyone instead of hiding my balls like an idiot. ~ R.T.G 21:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Would you like to voice your opinion on the proposals below? Mabuska (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
If I can think of something I will thanks. ~ R.T.G 22:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Quote No2: "2. Many people are unaware that the Irish state does not coincide with the island." There are so many things to know about this world. Did you know that Pakistan and India were one and the same country only a few decades ago? Did you know that there are half a dozen nations scattered around Europe, and not just the Vatican or Monte Carlo, that are no bigger than a big town? Did you know that various projects in Africa have perfected techniques in recent decades to turn the desert green with trees and bushes, but nobody takes it up and a lot of them are abandoned? Did you know that Bob Marleys dad was a white dude? What does it matter that anyone knows any of this stuff? It's no use unless you are Pakistani or Egyptian or what does it matter what Bobs mum used to call him or whatever? If you were so die hard a holiday maker that you would visit the European micronations, you'd probably have known about them already before you read Wikipedia. Tehy'd turn half the desert green before we'd even see a banan up here in the ice so who cares. If I want to know that Timbuktu is a real place or that Livingstone is presumed a real person I will go and do the lucky dip at DYK Today. Or wait... isn't there an article on Timbuktu and Dr. Livingstone? What about Micronations and Bob Marley? Pakistan, India, Permaculture[1] (I can't remember the right articles for that one but I'm leaving it there anyway) No, you wouldn't know significant stuff about Ireland unless you were Irish or closely affiliated. It's not unfair to presume that people are not. It's not unfair to presume Ireland is interesting. ~ R.T.G 22:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: Ok, so I think there has been enough comments, and enough time, for a consensus to form. The only major objections are from O Fenian and I'm not sufficiently convinced by them to over-rule six expressions of support that there is reasonable scope for confusion, and therefore that some sort of clarification is warrented. "ROI" seems an acceptable solution per MOS, but I would also take on board the other suggestions here, for example Dmcq's proposal seems a novel approach that might be worth exploring. So long as "all Ireland" is explained at some point, it could be a useful term to use. Perhaps further discussions can be had on this on a case by case basis. When the appropriate edits are made to the articles, please cite this discussion for justification. If edit-warring continues, let me know. Rockpocket 10:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That the references to "Ireland" in the following three related articles be changed to "Republic of Ireland" in accordance with the manual of style for Ireland-related topics (IMOS):

IMOS states that, where confusion may arise, Republic of Ireland should be used rather than Ireland.

Confusion may arise because:

  • the articles say it is the national league of Ireland
  • the league is the national league, not of the whole of Ireland, but only of the Republic of Ireland
  • in Ireland, "national" can refer both to Ireland or to the Republic
  • in sport, the whole island is often the "national" team or league - e.g. rugby, cricket, GAA
  • therefore "national league of Ireland" is likely to be understood as meaning the national league of the whole island
  • Ireland has two national leagues: the League of Ireland in the Republic and the Irish League in the North

It is also the case that, in football, "Republic of Ireland", and not "Ireland", is the recognised name of the jurisdiction of which the League of Ireland is the national league. Here is an example from the FIFA web site, which refers to the "national league" of the "Republic of Ireland". Mooretwin (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, since its been a week without any opposing opinions expressed, I guess you have a few options: You could either ask for more input via a WP:RfC, leave a note on the respective talk pages that you intend to make the changes described, or else go ahead and change them with a link to here indicating why. If someone objects, they can then come here and explain why. Rockpocket 13:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no danger of confusion. Addressing each point:
  • Yes, because the country is called Ireland
  • Yes, because unlike a country an island does not have a national league, and there is not a "national" all-Ireland league for it to be confused with
  • What Republic? If your dislike of using the correct name of the state even extends to discussion pages, it is rather suggestive..
  • Where have you invented the majority of those claims from? They are nothing to do with football anyway..
  • No, it does not.
In my opinion the whole "confusion may occur" is a red herring anwyay, as a national league clearly falls under the exceptions listed even if there were confusion. Which there is not.. O Fenian (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
What Republic? Are you honestly stating that O Fenian? The Republic of Ireland that according to Irish statute is the official description of the Irish state. You will always never see a confusion even if a statement said "Ireland is a country in Ireland". We know the difference but does Joe Bloggs from Timbuktu know the difference? Mabuska (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to rebut O Fenian's points:
  • Yes, because the country is called Ireland
    • The island is also called Ireland!
  • Yes, because unlike a country an island does not have a national league, and there is not a "national" all-Ireland league for it to be confused with
    • The island of Ireland does have national leagues in other sports, such as rugby, Gaelic football and hurling; the fact that there is not an all-Ireland national association football league may not be known to readers - indeed, the wording of the article is likely to suggest to the reader that the national football league is an all-Ireland league! (Hence the possibility of confusion.)
  • What Republic? If your dislike of using the correct name of the state even extends to discussion pages, it is rather suggestive..
    • The Republic of Ireland.
  • Where have you invented the majority of those claims from? They are nothing to do with football anyway..
    • What claims?
  • No, it does not.
  • In my opinion the whole "confusion may occur" is a red herring anwyay, as a national league clearly falls under the exceptions listed even if there were confusion. Which there is not..
    • What exceptions listed?
I also note that you fail to acknowledge that "Republic of Ireland" is the proper name of the football jurisdiction. Mooretwin (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I've a compromise: Concerning the republic, Mooretwin suggests we avoid the pipe-link, on th basis that there's confusion concerning the showing of Ireland. O Feninan suggests we use the pipe-link, on the basis there's no confusion. Howabout going with "...republic of Ireland" or "Ireland (republic)"? -- GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Or why not just adhere to the guideline and common sense and say Republic of Ireland? What's the point in having a guideline - arrived at after a torturous process - if we can't use it? Mooretwin (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Note also that the title of the league itself "League of Ireland" is ambiguous as it refers to "Ireland", which is all the more reason to clarify in the article that it relates only to the Republic of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment. If I may make a suggestion, rehashing the same old arguments is unlikely to resolve this issue. O Fenian has made it pretty clear he has an intractible opposition to your proposal, which is entirely his right and will be noted. Might Mabuska and GoodDay be willing to express an opinion in support of objection to Mooretwin's proposal, or others on GoodDay's compromise suggestion? Rockpocket 12:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I express an opinion of support towards Mooretwin's proposal. The Republic of Ireland is not a controversial term is a controversial temr for some however it has been used by the Irish state itself on numerous occasions. I feel it's use is essential in creating clarity on matters such as this when the line between state and island can be clouded and where confusion can easily occur. Mabuska (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I prefer my compromise. But if that's not adopted, then I'll go along with Mooretwin's proposal. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Mooretwin's proposal. Many sports (e.g. GAA and rugby union) are organised on a 32-county basis, so it is important that this article clearly identifies the scope of the League at an early point in the lead. The guideline arrived at after a long process clearly indicates that when the scope needs to be clarified, Republic of Ireland should be used.
    I think it is regrettable that one editor chose to say that "Republic of Ireland is not a controversial term"; the lengthy and heated dispute in devising the guideline clearly demonstrates that it is controversial. When we have a guideline setting out how to handle these cases, it is also inappropriate to add a further variant into the mix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I've altered my statement above. I meant its not as controversial when you compare it to the term British Isles. At least RoI is a term created by the Irish government and has been used by them on various occasions, and is used in various other fields and media. Mabuska (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I prefer use of Republic of Ireland though GoodDays suggestion was fine making it clear what the scope of the organisation is rather than not making it clear. Preference in being that the topic is more closely related to Republic of Ireland than it is to Ireland. Arguements to the contrary seem only to pay some sort of homage or something which I really think is unfounded. I don't think your choice of terminology for the country is particularly significant in your homage to it, in the *use of Republic* case at least. In fact I don't like the idea that this may be the case. The republic is a completely Irish institution. I'd like to say that I was so proud of it and all this but what I would have to say is that it is Irish and nothing else and acknowledging that fact is fair. Avoiding its ackowledgement is therefore probably unfair. ~ R.T.G 23:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Rather than nessecarily pipe linking or using Republic all the time or anything, it should be made quite clear when a topic such as an organisation is using the letterhead "Ireland" while only operating in the republic. (I bet a lot of Irish people get lost at the end of that sentence... it should be made clear what? There is your confusion. I reread it and got lost there myself) Pipe linking in itself does not make that clear. Using the term Republic of Ireland might in most cases. Even if it is boring to make it known every time, does it not say on the number articles *1* is a number and *a* is a letter? There can be no disrespect in calling a spade a spade so long as you are not infering that it is a shovel. It is reassuring myself that a statement like that is true that would bring me back to consider the topic. That and the fact that I want to think of people who do not know the subject as one of the finer points of Wikipedia. "Is it okay for me to call a spade a spade today? What if I slip up and call it a spade by accident? Will it bury me?" I hope not! ~ R.T.G 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support uuse of Republic of Ireland. I'd like to see it at least once in the leader and once later. I'd also like the all Ireland ones to say all Ireland rather than just Ireland in the same way. They could just use Ireland later. The main reason is that some are all Ireland and some are not so the cases should be distinguished properly. Dmcq (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point to use All Ireland which is a commonly used term in Ireland. ~ R.T.G 10:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I changed the articles to match the outcome of this discussion, however i was bold and extended it to A Championship and League of Ireland Cup, which have the exact same issue as the three related articles above.
Onetonycousins seems to take issue with this, so can i ask for clarification Rockpocket that this outcome should also affect these two articles as they have the exact same problems as the three above did. Mabuska (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think its fair to assume this consensus would hold on these articles also. Admittedly, the new version of A Championship does read rather awkwardly, but its difficult to see a better way of resolving the potential for confusion. League of Ireland Cup is a little bit more complicated. However, I think just stating that the clubs from the League of Ireland itself does not clarify the potential confusion without clicking through. Therefore I would say there is a need for clarification in this article too. If Onetonycousins reverts again, let me know and I'll talk to him or her about it. Rockpocket 11:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll work on a rephrasing of the A Championship introduction to make it read better. Mabuska (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably worth a sentence about Derry City being in the League of Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry it is there, wonder what I was thinking of. Dmcq (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I changed the A Championship intro to read: The A Championship is the first tier of football outside of the League of Ireland, the national league of the Republic of Ireland. I think it flows better than the awkward i had it worded at the start. Mabuska (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
And I changed A Championship back. This is getting silly. We initially had Mooretwin pointing out that there is room for confusion when discussing a "national" league of "Ireland" - which is a valid argument in my opinion and he made the point well. But now we have a situation whereby Mabuska is going along inserting "Republic of Ireland" into articles wherever "League of Ireland" is mentioned. Unless the article needs clarification concerning a "national" league of "Ireland", these insertions serve no purpose whatsoever. --HighKing (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the articles that need clarification are limited. But to be fair, when Mabuska first edited the article it said: The A Championship is the first tier of Irish football, outside of the League of Ireland. That is potentially ambiguous. I note your roll-back resulted in a subtly, but importantly, different opening line: The A Championship is the first tier of football outside of the League of Ireland.. Technically, that resolves the ambiguity too, but it does provide significantly less information for the naive reader and relies on knowledge of the League of Ireland. I would suggest there are enough different ways to phrase this, that one should be agreeable without the need for edit-warring. Rockpocket 19:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
No intention of edit warring. I reverted per WP:BRD and the reasons stated above - that inserting "Republic of Ireland" in this case is unnecessary and taking the "confusion" aspect beyond the scope of what was discussed and agreed. I also see no need for stating that it is for "Irish" football - since we *are* talking about the League of Ireland in the same sentence. That said, I'm happy with the latest changes made by NebY who has linked to Republic of Ireland football league system instead. --HighKing (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a good compromise. I'll close this section again, if that is all right. Further discussion on this can be had below Rockpocket 00:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I honestly don't see what difference there is between NebY's edit and mine HighKing seeing as they both see the inclusion of "Republic of Ireland" which is essentially what Mooretwins proposal was about. Republic of Ireland is included for disambig - we all win. Mabuska (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, Republic of Ireland shouldn't be pipe-linked anywheres on Wikipedia, while the 'republic' article is at Republic of Ireland. It's confusing enough, that the country & island use the same name. We should avoid promoting that confusion. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Not so fast

Uninvolved admin you are not. You also admit that Mooretwin is rehashing the same arguments then choose to ignore the people who cannot be bothered to reply non-stop to counter his relentless point-of-view campaign. The fact he carried on a point-of-view campaign for over 18 months on the same issue on the Sinn Féin article tells you that simply because people cannot reply to the exact same points more than once does not mean anything, consensus by war of attrition is Mooretwin's aim. O Fenian (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If an administrator even says 'hello' on any of these articles, he/she's involved. The pipe-linking of Republic of Ireland should'n't be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm confident the process above was carried out appropriately, as I've not been involved in this particular dispute. If you believe I acted inappropriately with regards to framing the debate and judging the consensus of those who offered an opinion, the feel free to ask another admin to reassess. If you feel this is an abuse of process, or the tools, then you know where AN is. Rockpocket 00:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Use common names

Seriously, the name of the league is "League of Ireland". That's just what it's called. Potentially, confusing? At a stretch. And any confusion can be sorted out within the article. Certainly, much less so than two associations, one known as the Irish Football Association the other known as the Football Association of Ireland. Regardless of this, it is not the place of Wikipedia's to go changing the names of things just because they are individual editor's bugbears.

Rockpocket, you should know that this is covered by policy: use common names. --RA (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


I've begun a discussion about the application of IMOS to the RTE article here. Views of all editors are welcome. Mooretwin (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Taoiseach or Prime Minister?

As this is an English language Wikipedia rather than an Irish language one, shoudn't we be describing Enda Kenny as prime minister rather than as Taoiseach? Although the word Taoiseach is used in the English language in Ireland to describe the head of government, English language references elsewhere don't necessarily conform to this style - see for instance the headline in yesterday's BBC News website piece about Kenny's new Cabinet - Headhitter (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That debate has already been held very recently. Taoiseach is an Irish-language word, yes, but is used in English too. You can't remove one loan-word without removing all of them. Besides, the article you link to does indeed use Taoiseach. And they've also managed to get the country wrong - the Irish Republic ceased to exist many years ago. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
It's been in English dictionaries for quite some time now along with tanaiste. Dmcq (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Bastun. Will all Latin, French, etc words that the English have "borrowed" be getting the same treatment? O Fenian (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
At the very least, the article ought, like the BBC piece, to use Prime Minister as well as Taoiseach. I appreciate that in Ireland, Taoiseach is used in English as well as in Irish, but many English speakers outside Ireland will be unfamiliar with the term and will be used to seeing the incumbent in the post described (as are others in similar posts elsewhere) as prime minister or premier. They shouldn't have to go searching for their dictionary first. Headhitter (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
But they won't. Have you actually read the article? It's prominent, in the very first sentence. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It should be moved to Prime Minister of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hadn't you promised to stop with your driveby talkpage one-liners? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Please don't comment on the contributor. GoodDay (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Well the Olu of Warri in Nigeria is still described as the Olu rather than lord or king or whatever and the same for lots of other places. So I don't see the problem. The aerticle about the taoiseach already gives prime minister as an equivalent for people who don't know what it means. Dmcq (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The equivalent page in Wikipedia is called the Kingdom of Warri and refers to the "Olu (king)". Headhitter (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Not good enough, IMHO. Since my view is in the minority, I've no plans for begining an RM there. GoodDay (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Taoiseach infoboxes

I've asked for input of this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, but there seems to be nobody home. I'm considering adding the Presidents of Ireland to the infoboxes-in-question. What's the opinon here? GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Redundant. Already included as "appointer". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't find the Prez in the infoboxes. Please elaborate on its being included as "appointer". GoodDay (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Taoiseach: "nominator = Dáil Éireann

|appointer = Mary McAleese
as President" BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll need an Infobox example, as I'm not certain whatcha mean. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a rationale for including it? Fmph (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep, the President appoints the Taoiseach. It's like the realm PM infoboxes, with the monarch in them. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ireland name

In my opinion this Ireland "everybody knows it's an island" attitude gives a bad reputation to Wikipedia.

The word "Ireland", albeit technically ambiguous, in most common speech refers to the country, not the island. Obviously there has been a political dispute between the UK and Ireland, with Ireland insisting on their own ambiguous name "Ireland", and the UK using the unambiguous term "Republic of Ireland". Nonetheless, "Ireland" has also been accepted by the United Nations and ISO as the official name of the country. Therefore I find it unappropriate that the word "Ireland" links to the geographical entity as it does now.

For comparison please consider a similar case of "Samoa". Here actually the country names are honoured rather than disambiguation or even geographical features:

n.b. Indeed I see there has been a discussion and a vote in favour of the Ireland status quo almost two years ago. However, it has been without a consensus, and so the issue is rather "quiet" than resolved. One of the critiques against changes previously has been the lack of objections from general users. Now as a general user I feel compelled to express my discomfort about the current use of the name "Ireland" by Wikipedia. As such I hope this is the appropriate place to post this statement, alternatively please if you could point me to some more appropriate place. (reposting my statement after being deleted from "Talk:Ireland") Nothingiswrong (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The page here shows that this question was 'solved' nearly 2 years ago and discussion of the subject was suspended for a period of 2 years. I suggest you wait until the expiry of that time limit before raising the issue again. Fmph (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
In fact, the post by Fmph is not entirely accurate. First, the page linked by Fmph is a preliminary page, closed before the vote began. The actual page is WP:IECOLL#Poll on Ireland article names. Nothing I am aware of says there is a two-year ban on discussing it here, on this page, and in fact this is the specifically allowed place for the discussion. It may just be that participants have decided to take a break and wait the two years out before discussing it here as well. This may also be of interest. Sswonk (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
No, Arbcom ruling was a two-year moratorium on discussing page renames/moves. Newcomers obviously don't know about the binding resolution (#4), participants obviously do. Most of us keep to it... ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
When does the 2 year moratorium end? Snappy (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
September 2011 - I'm not sure what date in September, though. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Exact date is September 18th. And the ruling forbids discussing page renames/moves. It does not forbid discussing whether the name of the article is right or wrong, or whether one name is better than another, etc. That would go entirely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Discussions are good. Although if it turns out to be a rehashing of the same old arguments again (and it would be hard to see how it would not end up like this) I have no doubt that the discussion would be closed down quickly, and all editors not familiar with the older arguments asked to read them before (re)starting a discussion. It is understandable that an arbcom-enforced content decision will be divisive since there is no consensus on the issue. But equally it behooves (sorry, word of the day) all editors to respect the decision and to avoid unnecessary rehashing of older arguments, regardless of which "side" of the argument you might be on. --HighKing (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Bastun, I needed to have the exact resolution pointed out, I read it previously but was pressed for time to find it this morning. It states: 4) Once the procedures discussed in Remedy #1 (and, if necessary, Remedy #2) are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years. To my ears and eyes that always seemed to say, as HighKing says in so many words, "don't start any Requested Move discussions for two years." I have interpreted it to allow casual discussion of the issues involved, the histories and so on, within reason. There is also the banner {{IECOLL-talk}}, which is transcluded onto the main article talk pages involved. No one has removed or altered it, and it is that banner that prompted me to write here is where the discussion that seemed to brewing at the Ireland project should be. It says Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration by order of the Arbitration Committee. That relating to is what this and other discussions as described by HighKing are in my understanding, and are not verboten. Most of the time it does show entrenched views, as has the Derry/Londonderry issue which I have participated in recently. I think actually "Ireland" should be the title, as on As a second choice, a compromise of "Ireland (state)" is good, as a compromise. Snappy, there are several position statements with very measured and diverse arguments located at that link. For the record, I ended the vote at C D E , stricken—as were several—in protest of administrative action/inaction and also due to the general mood of the discussion. I hope someone else can answer your question about the Gaeilge site as I can not read the language. Sswonk (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Wait until September 2011. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Move question

I saw somewhere an ArbCom motion that move discussions related to Ireland should take place at this project. I don't know if this still applies, but if it does (or anyway), there is such a discussion at Talk:Irish general election, 1918#Requested move, so I'm letting people here know.--Kotniski (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but the only move discussion that has to be referred here is Republic of Ireland (and it's not allowed to be nominated at all at the moment). Scolaire (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Extend the prohibition?

Should the prohibition on moves be extended? I see no change in the simple facts of the case Gnevin (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think we should have an admin-monitored, time limited discussion (say 6 weeks max?), starting on expiration day. After that time we should have a vote on one of 3 options:
  1. Start another ballot like last time, or
  2. Extend the moratorium on discussions/moves, or
  3. Extend the ongoing discussions for another 6 weeks (say)
I definitely have one alternative suggestion that might persuade some people to chaneg their minds from last time. Fmph (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with a time-limited discussion, but I can foresee a serious problem with having a vote on the next step. Simply put, it will not be possible to get a consensus on your three options, if there is not already a consensus on the core issue. Is it possible for ArbCom to make a ruling at the end of the discussion period as to what will happen next? Scolaire (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I would have thought that no consensus = status quo, therefore discussion expires and arbcom need to handle the resulting 'mess'. Fmph (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that means. First of all, discussion will not "expire" unless there is some sort of guillotine; people will not stop talking voluntarily. Secondly, I'm suggesting that ArbCom, if it is within their remit, might be proactive so as to avoid leaving a "mess". What exactly are you saying? Scolaire (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion will expire if my 'proposal' is followed because time-limiting the discussion is a key part of the proposal. I don't expect ArbCom to be proactive. It's not their style. Fmph (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be argumentative, but I still don't get it. Your proposal is to have a time-limited discussion followed by "a vote on one of 3 options". A vote necessarily means a discussion. If there is a failure of consensus, say, for (2) extend the moratorium or (3) extend the discussions, then the discussions will inevitably continue until there is agreement on whether the discussions should continue, in other words indefinitely. How do you propose to stop them? Scolaire (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
By agreeing in advance that if that happens, then extending the discussions - as now - would be considered disruptive. Fmph (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
What's the advantage to the community in trying to arrange this in advance? --HighKing (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Probably none Fmph (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Forgive my naivity but a prohibition on what moves? Mabuska (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ireland and Ireland, and any associated articles Fmph (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
A six week discussion process would seem appropriate. There may be new voices who didn't comment a few years ago. Valenciano (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
What would they say that hasn't already been said 100's of times Gnevin (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Possibly nothing. Perhaps, however, it may yield enlightenment at least for those who haven't taken part in 100s of discussions on this.
But whatever happens there will need to be a fresh ballot of some form on the matter. The last vote was explicitly to set the locations that would then be locked for two years; it would be unfair to retroactively extend the implications. And a ballot can only really work if people can easily understand the options without being sent to read 1000s of Ks worth of archives. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
@Tim - I understand what you are saying, but what I have suggested above would be as an alternate to having a ballot as an absolute requirement. I think there is a real possibility that, after 6 weeks discussion, there may be a consensus to "do nothing". And I think it would be a valid decision to allow that to happen, so long as there was another review date in place, say 1-2 years down the line. It wouldn't be my preferred option, but I think it would be a valid outcome from 6 weeks of discussion. As would a decision to move towards another ballot, or to carry on the discussions. All equally valid outcomes, IMHO. Fmph (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't involved in the last vote so i'll be one new vote in any vote. I still am a little ignorant of what exactly the page moving issue is? Whilst Fmph provided two links for me, it only makes me think this is about the when to use "Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland" IMoS convention. Mabuska (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
In a nutshell, some people want to move "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland". This would mean moving the current "Ireland" to "Ireland (island)". There are other permutations. You can see them all at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. That poll was formally closed on 18 September 2009, and there was an embargo on move requests for two years from that date. Scolaire (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Nutshell version as per Scolaire. (Much) longer version here and in the accompanying postion statements. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Your link is actually the same as my one. Scolaire (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
So it is - sorry. Was in a rush when I posted.BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I would sum it up differently and say that most people want to move "Republic of Ireland" to somewhere different. Anywhere else. --HighKing (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
You would, HighKing. Others would say that the poll result showed most people did not want to move it. You don't have to flog this dead horse in every section of every discussion, you know. In this section here, for instance, everybody else is trying to be helpful. Scolaire (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Scolaire, I can see why you read my comment as you did. What I actually meant to say is that a lot of people didn't want to move "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland" as an explicit choice. Most people were unhappy with the article on the state existing at the current location of "Republic of Ireland" and would have been happy with *any* other location, not just the example (which also happens to be the most controversial) that you picked. --HighKing (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, HK :-) Scolaire (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with HK on this. There are plenty of movement options. I don't think it is very fair to suggest that one of the least popular options in that poll was actually a significant option. There is major opposition to RoI being the main article name for the state. But there are lots of alternatives available.Fmph (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
If "most people" were unhappy with the article on the state existing at the current location, then surely it would have been the winner of the last poll. And the status quo wouldn't have been the decision from the previous seven polls listed here? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes - the good old "Divide and Conquer" strategy. Might be better this time to have a simple poll for the "Republic of Ireland" article which is "Move" or "Don't Move", and I'd bet the "Move" count would be higher. The main problem with the "Move" camp is that they can't decide where to move the blasted article!  :-) Makes me laugh. --HighKing (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Given that only one option in that poll DID NOT involve a move for Republic of Ireland, and that that option did not 'win' on the first ballot, it's fairly safe to say that the majority DID vote for a move. Fmph (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we agree on that (so why the "nonsense" in the edit summary?). Because there were so many different "move" options, the "moves" got diluted between all the options. So in a two horse race, a move might win. But there's too many disagreements over the options on where to move it to, and we'll just end up with what we've got. I'd certainly recommend cutting down on the "move" options if we get another poll. --HighKing (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

{deindent}Fmph, I'm afraid that that shows that you have a very poor understanding of how people vote in a transferable vote system. If the majority voted for a move then they would have ranked the status quo lower in their preferences. They didn't. The status quo was the most popular option on first preferences and it was the most popular when lower preferences were considered. I'm open to other suggestions this time but if such discussion is just going to rehash nonsense from last time about how the status quo didn't really win, how wikipedia articles should be written for the convenience of people who live in a country or whatever then it'll be a waste of time. Valenciano (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the status quo is at the moment the best solution. Mabuska (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This is getting very close to discussing the move which is prohibited by an ArbCom. Lets focus on whether a new set of discussions would be useful come sept 19th Gnevin (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussions about discussions? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I know the whole thing is mad. Though wouldn't discussions about discussions be tantamount to discussing the issue? Mabuska (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
So long as we avoid the substance of the issue and focus entirely on a procedure to follow come September 18th it should be fine. At the moment we have, IIUC, the position that come September 18th the prohibition on discussing moves is lifted and without any agreement on framework there will likely be either almost directionless discussion or people will start proposing polls on various aspects with limited options.
For those who haven't been following the past discussions, the issue doesn't just involve the article on the state but also the article on the island (currently at Ireland) and the disambiguation article (currently at Ireland (disambiguation)). A lot of move proposals over the years have involved at least two of the articles being relocated with all manner of combinations, creating logistical problems for how such proposals are put and polled, and not all options have been available in all packages (the last poll had only 6 out of the 8 possible combinations of its individual proposals). Exactly how a decision is to be put and determined needs to be settled by the time the prohibition is lifted, otherwise we'll be bogged down in procedure. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that my initial proposal here does just that. It is focusing entirely on the process and not discussing any moves. Fmph (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

{deindent}Okay it's been another month and the lifting date is getting closer. I think we need to get some kind of framework in place now so that once the restriction is lifted we have a clear way forward. Fmph's suggested timeframe seems good and a definitive vote on the next step at a pre-arranged time will allow things to move beyond either endless discussion or sudden RMs being initiated. There are some matters that need to be resolved, particularly how any multi-option ballot is to be conducted. I wrote a few thoughts on this last time and here they are:

The Alternative Vote is often mistakenly believed to be a voting system that is biased in favour of middle of the road compromise positions and produces the most consensual outcome. In actual fact it is closer to a "last person standing" contest and tends to first show which are the two or three most popular positions and then transfers votes from other positions to determine which of the most popular prevails. Middle of the road compromises are frequently very few people's first choice and often drop out early on before they can benefit from later preference transfers. In an election between candidates the candidates themselves may move towards the compromise position as part of a preference friendly strategy, which contributes to the impression AV is compromise friendly, but that is a product of how candidates react to the system rather than the system itself. In a vote between several predefined options with some quite polarised positions it is not going to produce a compromise but rather it will show which popular option prevails over another.
If there is to be another multi-option poll to seek a compromise then it needs to be run with a system that is favourable to compromise options and allows them a chance even if few have them as their first option. But that needs to be balanced with being a system that's easy to grasp for the layperson who can look at the count sheet and simply understand how the outcome is produced. I think the Borda count comes closest to these in a way that AV doesn't. (For that matter Condorcet fails because it's just too complicated to explain and make the count sheet comprehensible.)

Timrollpickering (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I agree this is necessary just yet (discussions may show that there is no reason to poll or whatever), but if we are considering various options can someone please make the case for not using STV as we did last time or FPTP (with reasons) as we do most of the time? Fmph (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Well your proposal includes a poll at the end of a time limited discussion and it seems likely that whatever the outcome there will be some form of poll on some matter. And I'm not sure a poll on the substantial issue is avoidable. Either way it's best to have the best available system in place.
As for systems, certainly last time discussions during the poll did centre on the problem that the various compromise options were crashing and burning because they were lots of people's second choice and few people's first choice. In a situation where the desired outcome is not a "win" for one side or the other but a compromise that the most possible people can be satisfied with then a system that seeks that is best. (There are other issues as well but they tread on some of the substance of the matter and I'll refrain from posting those until September 18th.) Timrollpickering (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
One can't help observing from the outside that the "most possible people can be satisfied with" criterion only holds if the people concerned are genuinely and neutrally interested in making the encyclopedia better, rather than in pushing one or other stupid something-ist agenda. A poll to see how many tendentious editors the respective sides have managed to recruit recently would be fairly pointless. (Yes, I know people are going to respond to this unpleasantly, but facts must be faced - this is an area where politically inspired emotion is more than capable of drowing out arguments of encyclopedic quality, unless we find some way of preventing that.) --Kotniski (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I won't respond unpleasantly, in fact i agree with the concerns. Mabuska (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Settlement issue

Updating some articles i came across Lenamore. Does this kind of "settlement" article qualify for deletion for it contains next to nothing other than two unsubstantiated claims, and one of them is that its a village. According to Logainm its simply a townland, so at best it might possibly be a very small hamlet?

No doubt there are more articles like this one, but how do we deal with it? Propose for deletion or keep them as hardly notable stubs? Mabuska (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's been updated since you posted that because it doesn't claim that it's a village, it says it's a townland. There are plenty of townland articles, there'd be a whole lot of deleting going on and a lot of historical information would be lost if we started that. I'd say leave it as a stub and let nature take its course as people add to it. I'm sure even the longest article on wiki was a stub once. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep mistreating that navbox "Villages and townlands" bar as just villages. Actually articles like this one have been deleted before. It has nothing to substantiate it at all and fails notability. Many townland articles that survive do so as they have either notability or they share the name of a town which is the article linked to. As i was once told, if we create articles for each and every townland, we'd be here forever with articles containing next to nothing (in response to me creating a wheen of townland articles - which are more substantiated than this one). Mabuska (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland boxers nationality issue

Recently an issue has arisen on Northern Irish boxers. When i was removing flags per WP:MOSFLAG i noticed that the nationality parameter in the infobox stated "Irish" despite the fact no proof was given that any of the boxers where Irish citizens and not British citizens.

The parameter nationality does refer to citizenship, and i took a similar approach to the article ledes. WP:MOSBIO also says nationality as in citizenship and no ethnicity unless its important to the overall article.

Due to the fact many Northern Irish boxers could be considered of Irish nationalist persuasion i decided it'd be better to just leave the nationality parameter blank as it would be hard to find credible sources on a boxers nationality to state whether they are one of the other, and as press sources often sensationalise Northern Irish people as simply Irish, that is not credible or reliable proof that the boxer is an Irish citizen - GFA or not.

One editor has taken offense to the removal of Irish, so i would like to see if a concensus can be reached and agreed on this issue.

I propose that due to the problems of proving a boxers actual nationality, dual-nationality, or whatever and due to the ambiguity created by the Good Friday Agreement, and the fact some of these boxers have boxed for both NI and the RoI that to avoid arguements and future arguements over nationality that we blanket ban the nationality parameter in Northern Ireland boxer infoboxes and have "British" and "Irish" omitted from the lede with it just stating where the boxer is born or from.

Mabuska (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Why limit it to just boxers? If it applies to boxers it applies to all surely? You are just an anti-Irish POV pusher. Some neutrality would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talkcontribs) 11:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
How is that not neutral? How is it not anti-British as well? Surely by the very fact i informed you of this discussion shows that the matter is being treated neutrally by me. I'm not the one imposing nationalities with no proof other than dodgy sensationalist press articles where i've identified the problem with above.
For now the issue is solely boxers, should the issue spread then we will deal with it. Mabuska (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Mabuska. I agree with you in general. But the issue arises primarily because many editors tend to treat, as the same, attributes like citizenship, nationality, and ethnicity. And for sports people in particular, we can also add Country (being the country they compete for). And of all of them, nationality is arguably self-identified. And for Boxing as a sport, it is organized on an all-island basis, like most sports. Complex stuff. I'd suggest that for sports people, if they compete for a national team, that should go in the info box. After that, it's down to verifiable sources or left blank. --HighKing (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
"If they compete for a national team, that should go in the info box" - do you mean under nationality or that country parameter?
Boxing may be organised to on an all-Ireland basis, however that doesn't supercede nationality as in citizenship which the nationality parameter is for, though if a Northern Irish boxer has only represented the RoI then it could be argued to state he is of Irish nationality. However how do you treat boxers who have fought for both Northern Ireland and the Republic then as several of the Northern Irish boxers have done? Northern Irish isn't a nationality so we can't state that alongside Irish, and stating British may be troublesome as they may have represented NI due to being born there but may not be British citizen. Stating Irish on then would also be troublesome if they have represented Northern Ireland as they may be British citizens as well. Without sources in those circumstances what would be the best option - just blank it?
Barry McGuigan, though being a southerner and not relevant to this discussion, is sourced as being of dual-nationality so there is no problems with his infobox, and i agree if we can get credible sources where a Northern Irish boxer is identified as being of Irish nationality then it should be stated - however can press sources be judged as reliable evidence especially when they make sensationalist claims and it can pass the fine-line on synthesis to judge someone as being of a certain nationality if they are described as being "Irish" or "British". Mabuska (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
In other words erase the fact that anyone could be Irish, which is your main agenda on wikipedia from what I have seen. If a Belfast boxer walked into the ring in shorts of the Irish tricolor with the Irish flag being carried behind him and the Irish national anthem being played, you would still argue that he was British. What a joke. Erase, delete, cover-up. Sssshh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talkcontribs) 12:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey Ruairí, lay off the nationalistic comments and stick to content issues, otherwise you will be in breach of policy, and you'll find that WP:CIVIL is enforced more readily these days, especially if editors don't take heed. --HighKing (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
So wanting to remove Irish from Wikipedia that i supported having Darron Gibson stated as Irish. Mabuska (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The national team they compete for should be a separate parameter, even if that means making changes to the standard info box. The standard info box is overly simplistic - and while it's fine for 95% of cases, it's not for the remaining 5%.
Nationality is not the same thing as citizenship - but they're often confused. Your example is a good case in point. It's also why I'm saying that the problem with the info box is that is lumps each of these different attributes into one single parameter. It would be very possible to have a boxer who was born in France to a Northern Irish father, has lived in Belfast since the age of 6 months, self-identifies as Irish, but has boxed for, let's say, Morocco. One parameter is insufficient.
BTW, which boxers have fought for Northern Ireland and the Republic? --HighKing (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph states citizenship according to nationality law, so i'd assume that to avoid contradictions with the infobox, the nationality parameter in the infobox refers to citizenship. Some biography type infoboxes include an "ethnicity" parameter, which would deal with cultural and ethnic nationality. A country parameter might be too ambiguous unless it was able to make it clear that it refers to the coutnry they competed for.
Let me trawl through the list of Irish boxers to find the examples, can't remember them off the top of my head. Mabuska (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hugh Russell is one example of a boxer who fought for both, but there are others out there as well. I didn't realise there was a category for Northern Ireland specific boxers, and most of these have "Northern Irish" stated as nationality which is wrong as its not an nationality so that will need dealt with. Others i've came across such as Martin Rogan have potential issues as do you have to be a British citizen to fight for the Commonwealth title?
The nationality field for Northern Ireland boxers is a complete mess and really needs sorted somehow. Mabuska (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me guess, you are going to change all of them to "British"? Just a hunch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talkcontribs) 13:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
If you've read any of my comments, you'd see i'd actually prefer to have it blank due to the ambiguity and personal opinion problem. That is a more neutral solution that just labelling everyone from Northern Ireland as Irish without reliable sources as you have been doing. Other than inputting it once or twice in one or two articles, i don't think i've even suggested we use British at all. Mabuska (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I suppose where I'm coming from is that for nearly all cases, nationality and citizenship will have the same value. But not for all - and that's where the current infobox is perfectly adequate for most bio's, but inadequate for a small minority. And rather than argue over which value should go where, we'd be better served having a more elaborate infobox for these small minority of people, in the interests of NPOV. --HighKing (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could take Rory McIlroy's lead and take a pass on British/Irish by just noting "Northern Irish"? Just an idea ... Fergananim (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it'd give the impression that Northern Irish is a nationality, and even though a growing number of Northern Irish people now identify as Northern Irish, it's still highly debatable whether we could classify Northern Irish as a nationality of any kind. Though many Northern Irish boxing articles do seem to have it and no arguements as far as i can tell, so it might work.
@ HighKing - what exact kind of a more elaborate infobox, as in what kind of additional parameters? I'm assuming it might avoid the nationality parameter due to the problems with it in regards to Northern Irish people, however i don't really see what exactly we could add to elaborate it, as many (but not all) boxing articles seem to already have a small infobox detailing their matches representing a specific country. Mabuska (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I would remove the nationality information if the boxer has not stated their preference or had not been referred to as being of a nationality in a reliable source - i.e. I'd require a citation. Boxing for Ireland is not such a statement. Next option would be to put country of birth if there is no overriding indication as before but I've always disliked stuff being just stuck into those boxes to fill the parameters. Dmcq (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly my thoughts. To be complete, there should be parameters for:
  • Country of Birth
  • Citizenship
  • Nationality
  • Ethnicity
  • National team (for sports people, etc)
Not all of these parameters need be filled, and only filled with verifiable facts. --HighKing (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with the sport of boxing but would I be right in saying that boxers are a bit like snooker players or tennis players in that they don't compete as part of national teams but simply as individuals? In sports reports their nationality is listed nonetheless. Surely if sports reports list their nationality and meet WP:RS then that would be the nationality that should be listed in the article infobox. Or if a reliable source can quote what the athlete says he is then that should be what is used. For example Eddie Irvine the Formula 1 driver was from Northern Ireland but made no secret of the fact that he was Irish and stood to attention for Amhran na bhFiann when he won a grand prix. To me that would suggest that his nationality should be listed as Irish. If a boxer can be quoted as saying he's British then list him as British, if he says he's Irish then list him as Irish. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but Eddie Irvine also self-identified with his "Orange" Protestant roots through his helmet: "It's orange because I'm a Protestant from Northern Ireland, and it's got green on it because I don't want to get shot by the IRA." JonChappleTalk 10:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
If declaring citizenship seperately HighKing, is there a need for both a nationality and ethnicity parameter when nationality would then cover it as citizenship would be already declared? National team may need reworded with something that means the same but portrays the fact they may represent a country but not be part of an actual national team.
In response to Eamonnca1, if the person can be quoted as calling themselves Irish as in Irish and we can tell not just as shorthand for Northern Irish (as the tabloid press all too often seem to do which makes them unreliable for this aspect) then i can agree to that. Yet many times Northern Ireland football players or the team in general are sensationalised as simply Irish and that can't be taken to mean that they are all Irish nationals (in the sense of citizenship). Official boxing organisation sites would be a safer bet for sources i think than the press especially tabloids. Then again you did also state if a reliable source can be found which could trump all. Mabuska (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to nitpick, but why do you describe the Irish label as "sensationalised"? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
No need to be sorry, blame an admin for putting that word into my head when they were describing sources. The press, especially tabloids tend to sensationalise things, reporting things not as accurate or specifically as they should sometimes do. When i say the Irish label is sensationalised i'm referring to when the press refer to people from Northern Ireland as simply Irish regardless of what the person self-identifies as etc. How many times has The Sun for example done a report on the Northern Ireland team after a match and headlined them as simply Irish? Thats why i don't think the press or tabloids could be considered reliable enough for determining a nationality (as in citizenship). Mabuska (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Mosbio is very clear -
"3. Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);
In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national (according to each nationality law of the countries), or was a citizen when the person became notable.
Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
..but on the other hand the 1998 Belfast Agreement allows Northern Irish people to apply for Irish passports. Therefore mosbio's "nationality law" is flexible in this case, and so it would be best to apply "UK" as the default "country" in all such cases unless we know that an N.I. person has an Irish passport. In fact, can that be IECOLL's policy? And save ourselves all the nitpicking...Red Hurley (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
We shouldn't just stick in guesses. In fact verifiability isn't enough to start sticking labels onto persons. It needs to be something they have identified with or have been referred to as. Dmcq (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, sticking in guesses would be wrong, and possibly lead to future problems.
To represent a country in boxing do you have to be a citizen of it? For boxers from Northern Ireland who have boxed representing the Republic could then be argued as having Irish citizenship? If not then maybe just leaving it blank is the best solution - stops us guessing and making the wrong call if we can't get reliable sources to back it up.
@ Dmcq, it doesn't matter what the person self-identifies as if we go by Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Guide_to_finding_UK_nationality, which provides the following example: "Look specifically for evidence that the person has a preferred nationality. You may wish to refer to the evidence in a footnote. The writer Iris Murdoch considered herself to be Irish, though some feel she was perhaps wrong to do so:[4] the consensus on Wikipedia was once to call her "Dublin-born", but the first paragraph of her article now describes her as English."
Though that example has since being changed back to "Dublin-born". Mabuska (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, boxers from England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, should be described as British. The Union Jack should be used aswell. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
No flags to denote nationality according to WP:MOSFLAG. Mabuska (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
That's cool. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:UKNATIONALS is just an essay. Fmph (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
That guideline is a mess and does make a mockery of point 3 of WP:MOSBIO (nationality/citizenship based on the nationality laws of that country). Unfortunately i don't think these boxing articles can be easily sorted by that essay for these boxers nationalities aren't as well detailed by reliable and verifiable sources as authors, historians, politicians etc. The only thing i've seen so far is press sources, which may not be referring to nationality when they say Irish in regards to Northern Irish people. Hence why i feel that unless we can get a quote or good evidence maybe we should just blank the nationality parameter out so none of them are stated as Irish or British.
Mabuska (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The whole point is that it is not a guidline. It is an essay. It has no authority whatsoever. It was an attempt to get agreement on a new guideline which failed. Just ignore. Fmph (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My view is that I have no objection to NI boxers being described as Irish due to the fact that they are Irish and boxing is organised on an all-Ireland basis. The problem arises, however, because MOSBIO says that nationality refers, not to nationality, but to citizenship (i.e. in the legal sense). Essentially everyone born in NI is a UK citizen, therefore, for boxers from NI it should really say "British" and, in addition, if it can be determined that they are also ROI citizens, "Irish". Mooretwin (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


So what do we do about it then? There have been suggestions but no real responses on each others ideas:

  1. Remove the nationality parameter from NI boxer infoboxes altogether to avoid the problem over what they identify as, as in most cases we might not find any evidence to support one over the other.
  2. Remove the nationality parameter unless a verifiable and reliable sources makes it clear that they are a citizen of either.
  3. Expand the infobox to include more specific parameters.
  4. Simply go by what they are by default, British, unless they have stated they are otherwise or there is evidence they hold an Irish passport.
  • They may however hold dual-nationality, which for me gives further credence to my idea of removing the parameter as we can't be certain if they have or don't.

What do you guys favour or any other ideas?

Mabuska (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If the place is within the United Kingdom? go with British. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
What place? Fmph (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
4 isn't a runner, as anyone from NI can hold Irish or British citizenship, or both.. #2 would therefore seem the obvious choice, in keeping with WP:V - nothing unless it can be vereified. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd go with 2 and 3 both. --HighKing (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
2 --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
2 also. JonChappleTalk 18:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
How about option 5 - don't get too worried about any of it. If there are some that you really think are wrong, put a {{fact}} tag on them. Fmph (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Well spoken. End of discussion really. --Ruairí Óg's (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Its not that simple. One editor is intent on enforcing "Irish" on the Northern Ireland boxer articles, and when reverted pursued it using terribly inadequate sources such as tabloids which stated "Irish boxer" which is atrocious as a source for nationality (citizenship) especially when the press often shortern Northern Irish to simply Irish. I would revert them again however they will only keep trying to enforce it so think it would be better to get a consensus on the issue. Mabuska (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I assume you are referring to me. When did you ever try and discuss the strength of any of the sources I put forward. If you wish to discuss the merit of sources then I would have been prepared to discuss those with you. However, you prefer edit warring.--Ruairí Óg's (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Rather than make unsubstantiated claims, why don't you try to provide a defense of your sources? I've described how press sources are poor in regards to this issue above and at ANI. Mabuska (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
What nonesense. If you have an issue with the credibility of sources that have been provided then raise that on the articles talk page. Isn't that how things are supposed to be sort out are here. I just get the feeling that you enjoy hassle. --Ruairí Óg's (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Due to the fact many articles are involved, it makes more sense to take it to a central place of discussion where other editors can get involved in it for as broad an opinion as possible. Mabuska (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that makes sense at all. These are local content disputes and should be handled locally. When they accumulate they can brought together (with diffs) to a single place. But try sorting them out locally to the article first. Fmph (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
1 & 2 - forgot to state my preference. Mabuska (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
All of the options put forward are invalid and imposes an unprecedented level of evidence needs to be put forward to denote a sportspersons nationality or should we be more specific sporting nationality. It treats a specific type of nationality and sportsperson different to all others why? Why treat sportspeople from Northern Ireland different from any others around the world and why treat boxers different to any other sports? Mabuska has a clear agenda, his agenda it to make it as difficult as possible for any person or anything to described as Irish even if they are described as Irish in multiple source or even self identify as Irish. Mabuska isnt happy for an Irish boxer to be described as an Irish boxer unless they come out and say 'I am Irish, I have an Irish passport, I do not have a British passport', that is completely unrealistic. Where are the other options? I only see options that are accepted to Mabuska's agenda. The whole process is flawed. --Ruairí Óg's (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Well we do need evidence to state someones nationality (citizenship just to clarify for you) when its dubious or problematic as it is in regards to Northern Ireland which is ambiguous due to the GFA. A situation most countries in the world don't have. You are enforcing-with very poor sources-that boxers from Northern Ireland are simply Irish and nothing else disregarding any possibility that they may be-or most likely are-British citizens instead or that they may have dual-nationality.
In regards to boxing in general against other sports - case by case as each situation may be different for example footballers have their own infobox that now doesn't state nationality at all (see documentation that its not even a parameter), just pure and simply where they are born. So you just can't blanket-arguement this issue with all sports, though obviously this discussion can be used as a basis for elsewhere where there is an issue. Mabuska (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I would go for 2 and require a high level of evidence. Perhaps 1 and just leave it to the text. In Northern Ireland it is a question of personal choice. We need to have very clear evidence that a choice was actually made rather than putting in some default or just depending on some newspaper talking about an Irish boxer. Evidence that a person is a nationalist is not evidence that they identify with the republic rather than with britain. It is perfectly possible they see themselves as citizens of Northern Ireland and the fact that it is part of the UK is immaterial to them or they might just like both parties to hell and gone. Dmcq (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I would tend to go with (1), although I'm not sure what is proposed at (3). (2) doesn't work because a reliable source may be found that a boxers is an ROI citizen, but he will also be a UK citizen and this would not be reflected if there were no reliable source. Similarly, a reliable source that someone is a UK citizen will not accurately reflect someone who is a dual national. (4) doesn't work, because "holding an Irish passport" doesn't mean that one isn't also a UK citizen. Everyone born in NI is a UK citizen regardless of whether or not they "hold an Irish passport". Mooretwin (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Exact reason why i support option 1 above all the rest, but there is overwhleming support for option 2 at the moment, though it largely follows option 1 unless a source can be found that states the person is a citizen of said country. Mabuska (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Go with the tried and tested fact tag, no source no entry simple really, talk about drama for the sake of it. Mo ainm~Talk 12:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Option 2 then Mo ainm. Looks like a clear general consensus for option 2, even though it has its own flaws (dual-nationality etc.), but it's the most Wikipedia way forward. Mabuska (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Going by recent discussion over nationality in regards to people from the UK in all fields (and hence Northern Ireland), the rule of thumb would be that we are to go with the person's self-identification. If sources can be found for a boxer or anyone self-identifying as British or Irish or whatever then we are suppossed to use that. I can accept that as a reasonable and more NPOV way seeing as we are going by what the person themselves use. Mabuska (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


Just a quick simple question for Ruairi Og's clarification so i don't have to raise this multiple times over many article talk pages: Which of these sources should be used or not used when using as a source for a boxers nationality?

  • [2]- it simply states "Irish super middleweight warrior Brian Magee"
  • [3] - it states "Barry McGuigan – the fighting Irishman who acquired a British passport to win the domestic title before becoming an authentic world featherweight champion in demanding company"
  • [4] - Explicitly declares "British citizen"

It's pretty obvious which source makes it clear what its referring too and what one could probably be synthesis to use it as a source for nationality (citizenship), but just to clarify for the sake of preventing repetitious discussion. Mabuska (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Acquiring a passport is not the same as acquiring citizenship. Many people go through their whole lives without acquiring a passport. Not doing so does not mean that they are not a citizen of any country.
If we are to use the above sources without senthesis then we can say that Brian Magee is Irish and Barry McGuigan has a British passport. If we are to go by the above sources we cannot say that Barry McGuigan is British (or a British citizen) without synthesis (i.e. we would have to combine seperate sources to conclude that "Barry McGuigan has a British passport" + "only citizens of the UK can acquire a British passport" (incorrect anyway) => "Barry McGuigan is a citizen of the UK".) --RA (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Firstly i never said you have to be a UK citizen to acquire a British passport, obviously that's incorrect. But by acquiring one makes you a British citizen, no? Does that not explain the mad rush for British passports amongst the Hong Kongese prior to China retaking control of Hong Kong?
The point i'm making with the above sources is that one explicitly makes it clear what its on about whilst the other one doesn't. The first can't be taken as a definite source for nationality/citizenship as it doesn't specifiy what its on about and may simply be the typical press/tabloid manual of style of abbreviating "Northern Irish" to just "Irish" as they so often do. So in that regard would it not be synthesis to assume thats what it is on about?
Obviously you don't need to have a passport to be a citizen of a country your born and live in, unless you want to visit another country - but by acquiring another country's passport makes you a citizen of it in most cases, no? Barry McGuigan is a citizen of the RoI citizen/national and still is, but he is also a citizen/national of the UK due to taking the passport. This reference also from the Independant makes it explicitly clear he's a British citizen (i've added it above to the list also).
So to put it more simply, the first source has issues, whereas the second one isn't explicitly specific but does give credence to stating a nationality (citizenship), whilst the third one is explicit. Mabuska (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Anymore RA? Mabuska (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, Mabuska. I didn't see your response. If I can summarise what you wrote, the question is, can a person get a British passport without being a British citizen? The (possibly) surprising answer is 'yes'. See here for a list of persons who are eligible for a British passport. The specific case of Hong Kong is also explained on that page.
The point I was making is that the no original research policy means statements must be explicitly referencable for good reason: we might assume something to be true (e.g. if you have a British passport then you are a British citizen) when in fact that assumption is incorrect.
Now, in the case of McGuigan that was a pedantic point. It's relatively easy for any Irish person to register as or to become a British citizen and the Independent sources (and others) explicitly states that he is. The only point I was making was about assuming things to be the case when they are not explicitly supported by sources. --RA (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It is actually pretty pointless discussing the issue with Mabuska or Chappelle. Completly pointless. They ignore all reason and wikipedia policy in favour of what they like or dont like. Here is an example of the logic they employ around the subject we are discussing. Igive up with them, it feels like banging your head up against a wall. Talk:John_Duddy#Nationality_reference. --Ruairí Óg's (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wider context

Going to dip my toe in here on the wider context of nationality of biographies relating to Ireland and Northern Ireland. This is a thorny issue generally and is not as clear-cut as MOS-BIO might suggest. For example, historical bios often end up warring between Irish, Anglo-Irish, English and British. All of it tends to generate more light than heat as the reality is that a person may be all of these nationalities at once depending on context and perspective. Citizenship doesn't really help either, as in the past "nationality" in term of "citizenship" doesn't really exist.

In the case of Northern Ireland, today, a similar tensions exists between Irish, Northern Irish and British. In law, Irish citizenship pertains to the island of Ireland in the same way that British citizenship pertains to the territory of the UK. "Northern Irish" may not exist in terms of nationality law but in a practical sense, when talking about biographies, it can be just as valid a description.

My experience, from other bios, it that it is better to leave out explicitly saying nationality and give context e.g. "X was a Y from Z in Ireland" or "X is a Y from Z in Northern Ireland".

(In looking at some of the articles above too, I see another annoyance to do with saying things like, "X is a Y from Belfast, United Kingdom". Regardless of whether the United Kingdom is mentioned or not - I think it is "fairer" not to - I think it is better practice always to say things like, "X is a Y from Belfast, Northern Ireland". "Belfast, Ireland" is definitely out, IMO, post-1922.)

--RA (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there really any need to go any further than "X is a Y from Belfast"? Fmph (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a need as every article i see where it states the location someone is from states the settlement along with the region or country it is in. So it would appear to be a solid convention.
In the article lede i can agree to just stating where the person is from and nothing else as that keeps it simple and avoids the problem of identification. The problem really would be the infobox which has the nationality problem, hence the above section.
In the wider context, the end result here could be used as a benchmark. Mabuska (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


All sportsmen are notable for their success in sport. Citizenship law is a clear matter of law in all states. If a Northern-Irish born Welsh resident playing for Inter Milan wants an Irish passport, that is his legal right, but it must be verifable to deserve a mention on wikipedia.Red Hurley (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
"Citizenship law is a clear matter of law in all states." It is. Citizenship law on this matter is quite plain. Speaking in generalities, it is that everyone born in NI is a British citizen and an Irish citizen. The only way to resign one is to write to either the Home Office in London or to the Dept. of Foreign Affairs in Dublin explicity stating that you do no longer wish to be a citizen of the UK (London) or Ireland (Dublin). You will be asked to provide evidence that you will still be a citizen of at least one other state (a UN requirement). If you can do that then they will write back to say you are not a citizen of the UK/Ireland.
From the perspective of Wikipedia this means that, speaking generally, a person from NI is a UK and an Irish citizen unless you can verifiable prove that they have resigned one or the other. And that is what puts us in a bind because "nationality" is not equivalent to "citizenship". Whereas (speaking generally) all persons born in NI are both British and Irish citizens, the "nationality" of all persons born in NI not that clear cut. --RA (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe you are correct in what you say. And here are the reasons why. Birthplace only gives an entitlement to citizenship. It is not automatically conferred. There are plenty of arab princes born in expensive private hospitals in London, but none will become British citizens immediately. It is an offence under Saudi law for a Saudi citizen to hold a second nationality. I believe this is also the case with other nationalities.
And as the parent of British-born Irish nationals I know that the Irish Embassy in London certainly don't believe it. They continue to supply consular services to British-born Irish nationals despite being forbidden from providing such services to dual nationals in the home country of the alternate nationality. So they don't believe that birth automatically confers citizenship. Fmph (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Jus soli was removed from UK nationality law in (I think) 1982. In Irish nationality law, it was removed with the 2004 referendum. Also, Irish nationality law has changed frequently since the mid-90s. This is why I said I was speaking in generality above. The law is very complicated. It depends on your personal circumstances. For us, this means that it is all the more complicated.
With regard to dual citizenship. Many places prohibit dual nationality. Ireland and the UK do not. --RA (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Relevent section of Irish law is here: --RA (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
RA is only partially correct. While persons born in NI are, obviously, UK citizens, they are not necessarily ROI citizens. They are entitled to be considered as ROI citizens from birth, but it remains a matter of choice. The relevant law (as linked by RA) states that a person born in Ireland is entitled to be an Irish [sic] citizen (paragraph (1)). Only those not entitled to citizenship of any other country are deemed definitely to be an Irish [sic] citizen (paragraph (3)).
Therefore, any person born in NI is a UK citizen unless there is evidence that he or she has renounced that citizenship. But positive evidence is required to demonstrate that such a person has taken up his or her entitlement to ROI citizenship. Mooretwin (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
That would back the proprosal to state "British" as default unless a source shows they have taken up Irish citizenship as well. Yet blankety blank would also work well to solve disputes over possible dual-nationality or whether they resigned their British citizenship. Mabuska (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Let's be honest - no-one will have resigned their UK citizenship. Not even Gerry Adams. But try sticking "British" in his infobox and see how long it lasts. (Incidentally, does this proposal relate only to boxing articles? If so, why? Mooretwin (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
@Mooretwin, you seem to have missed section 2, though you cite sections 1 and 3:

"... a person born in the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth if he or she does, or if not of full age has done on his or her behalf, any act which only an Irish citizen is entitled to do. The fact that a person so born has not done, or has not had done on his or her behalf, such an act shall not of itself give rise to a presumption that the person is not an Irish citizen or is a citizen of another country." (My emphasis.)

Yes, RA, a truly horrible piece of drafting with a double negative, but "not being presumed not to be" a citizen is not the same as actually being one. It remains the case that ROI citizenship is merely an entitlement. I had this confirmed to me by the ROI Department of Justice. Mooretwin (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Back to square one. Unless it can be demonstrated that a person has renounced their Irish citizenship, we cannot presume that they are not an Irish citizen. That's the law as much as saying that we cannot presume they are not a British citizen.
Do however, bear in mind, that "citizenship" and "nationality", as we often mean it, are not exactly the same. --RA (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Not so. To renounce one's Irish [sic] citizenship, one would have to have it in the first place. For those born in NI, one is only an ROI citizen if one wants to be. Mooretwin (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
"To renounce one's Irish [sic] citizenship, one would have to have it in the first place." Correct. And renouncing Irish citizenship is something that only an Irish citizen can do. See section 2(a) of the act. However, the only way you can definitively not be an Irish citizen is to renounce it. See section 2(b).
WRT "merely an entitlement", there is no distinction in law between the ROI and NI for Irish citizenship. Making out that there is is completely unsupportable. The law applies the same to persons north and south of the border without distinction. Only those who are not entitled to citizenship of another country are subject to section 3. All others are "merely entitled", as you put it, but may not be presumed not to be Irish citizen. --RA (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
"…'not being presumed not to be' a citizen is not the same as actually being one." You are correct here. By the same token, for our purposes, it cannot be presumed that someone is a British citizen, which you appear to be advocating. --RA (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
@RA - However, the only way you can definitively not be an Irish citizen is to renounce it. See section 2(b). No. As you acknowledge, “not being presumed not to be” is not the same as “being”. If someone doesn’t want to be an ROI citizen then, providing he or she does not do something that only an Irish [sic] citizen can do, he or she is not an ROI citizen. He or she does not need formally to renounce it. If someone does want to be an ROI citizen, however, he or she need not do anything. Essentially, it’s a matter of choice. This is in contrast to UK citizenship, which is automatic.
WRT "merely an entitlement", there is no distinction in law between the ROI and NI for Irish citizenship. Making out that there is is completely unsupportable. The law applies the same to persons north and south of the border without distinction. Of course. No-one is making such a distinction with regard to the law. However, your own next line admits the distinction in reality, when you accept that: Only those who are not entitled to citizenship of another country are subject to section 3. In reality, this means that, generally, people born in ROI are ROI citizens, because generally they are not entitled to citizenship of another country. Generally speaking, however, everyone in NI is a UK citizen, and therefore people from NI are only entitled to ROI citizenship.
By the same token, for our purposes, it cannot be presumed that someone is a British citizen, which you appear to be advocating. It can be presumed for 99%, because being born in NI means one is a UK citizen. (Unless neither of one’s parents is a UK citizen.) Mooretwin (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Going to back down from what I originally said. Generally, speaking:
  • A person born on the island of Ireland is or is entitled to be an Irish citizen (source)
  • A person born in the UK is a British citizen (source)
There is no distinction between NI and ROI however. Also, as I originally wrote, we are treating citizenship and nationality as being exactly the same, when nationality has greater connotations than simply political rights and entitlements in a state.
--RA (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
More like it, but, as noted above, there is a distinction in reality between ROI and NI, because generally people in ROI are not entitled to citizenship of another country (thus they are ROI citizens), whereas people in NI are UK citizens (thus they are entitled to ROI citizenship). Obviously there are exceptions to this, but that is the general picture for the vast majority in both jurisdictions. Mooretwin (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem of nationality having a dual meaning rather than just a single meaning. Whilst i am inclined to agree with Mooretwin's points on UK citizenship, for all we know a boxer may have rescinded it, but then surely if the boxer was notable enough or became notable enough it would have made the news somewhere and possibly be sourced? Mabuska (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, let's be realistic - no-one will have rescinded his or her UK citizenship.Mooretwin (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
(I also asked whether this proposal relate only to boxing articles and, if so, why. No-one answered.) Mooretwin (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with what your saying, but we'd still need sources. Also i have already answered that question two or three times above. This may affect other articles other than boxing ones too, hence why i said way above it can be used as a benchmark if needs be. It won't affect footballer articles as their infoboxes no longer have the nationality parameter (maybe an idea we could use for boxers too). Mabuska (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree. We cannot, for practical purposes, (if we are going to include citizenship information) insist on verifiable proof that such-and-such a person is a citizen of which every state. For practical reasons we will have to presume. This does put us into the realm of OR and we should acknowledge that.
With regard to Irish citizenship in NI, 400,000 Irish passports were issued to people in NI between 1998 and 2008 (source). Applying for a passport is just one way to 'activate' one's Irish citizenship, so the number of people for NI who are not just entitled but are Irish citizens is not insignificant. If we are presuming British citizenship, without verifiable evidence, then we should at least give a nod to Irish citizenship also.
If we are to give citizenship information for people from Northern Ireland (I would say don't - and not just don't for NI people) then we could also add possibly an asterisked note to say that they are also entitled to Irish citizen in common with the rest of Ireland. --RA (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
1. Of course the number of people in NI who are ROI citizens is not insignificant. Nonetheless, 400,000 ROI passports in ten years indicates maybe around half of the population of NI being ROI citizens, compared to 100% being UK citizens, and 100% of the ROI population being ROI citizens.
2. Hard to see how we can "give a nod to Irish [sic]citizenship" without evidence. Asterisked notes too messy. Mooretwin (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
You're not seriously proposing that we describe ALL people from NI as unequivocally British, and British only, without evidence to the contrary? --RA (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
If there's evidence that they also have ROI nationality, then "Irish" should also appear in the box. That's how it should be, but there are too many people with political agenda here for that ever to happen. Mooretwin (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
RA, we can say it is illogical and so on, but that is the current Irish and British law when read with WP:MOSBIO, which is not an essay. Citizenship is not nationality. Anything else smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Red Hurley (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Whilst Mooretwin is correct, it is highly unlikely to happen. Though just to remind you both, there was a very clear majority of editors above opting to back leaving the parameter blank unless it's sourced. Whilst not a perfect solution for obvious reasons, sources do go great. What about where a boxer fights for the British title? Do they not need to be a British citizen for that? Hence Barry McGuigan getting British citizenship to fighr for it? Mabuska (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be blank or default unless it's sourced otherwise. On the point of holding both UK and Irish passports, it is irrelevant at Irish law where an applicant for an Irish passport is also a citizen of Timbuktu. What matters is whether or not the applicant is entitled to hold an Irish passport. In contrast, US citizens cannot hold multiple passports without specific consent.Red Hurley (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The default would be British, then. Mooretwin (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but does citizenship help a boxer when he is in the ring doing what he is notable for? Boxing is a short career and he might change his citizenship when he retires. By contrast, if the stripper Raven Riley ever got an Irish passport then her "Irish-style blow-job" might be seen to have some notable cultural resonance.Red Hurley (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Birthplace does not convey citizenship. Ask Prince Philip. Just because someone is born in Belfast or London, does not convey British citizenship. It only conveys a right to British citizenship. This point seems tyo be continually ignored here. Fmph (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I have a right to walk to the North Pole, but if I don't walk there then it'll never go on my CV. The presumption in the real world is that a person born and reared in the UK of GB & NI is a citizen of that state. Those citizens of the UK of GB & NI that take up their right to buy and travel on an Irish passport are still entitled to have, and travel on, a UK passport. If any NI resident has an Irish passport, and it's verifiable and notable, then put it on wikipedia, end of story.Red Hurley (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
That may well be true for someone born and reared (and I don't necessarily accept that it is), but that is not what is in contention here. What I am disputing is @Mooretwins assertion that birth alone conveys that citzenship. It doesn't. Fmph (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
It does if one's parent is a UK citizen which, for 99.9% of people born in the UK, is the case. It's not a case of mere entitlement. As Red Hurley says, in the real world, the presumption is that someone born and reared in the UK is a UK citizen. That includes Mr Neeson. Mooretwin (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Presumption by whom? By you and Red? As I said before, birth alone does assign citizenship. It needs something else, be that parents nationality, parents choice, bloodline, whatever. So long as we are now over that hurdle, we can discuss the application to individuals. Fmph (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Well we all know that there are several things on Wikipedia that don't conform to reality or real-world. The point of this whole discussion when i opened it way above was primarily about the infobox's nationality parameter. I'm happy enough to go along with the so called standard of "self-identification" for the nationality field seeing as for too many editors it doesn't refer to citizenship despite the fact it more than likely is going by non-UK articles. Mabuska (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
But is "citizenship" what we mean? Per the MOS, what we want to achieve is to give context. As the MOS says, "in most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national". But as we all know, the context of Northern Ireland does not always conform to "most modern-day cases". The same is true too (for similar but also different reasons) for the rest of the UK. George Orwell was an English author. Ewan McGregor is a Scottish actor. Tom Jones is a Welsh singer. And so on.
We have to consider what is a genuinely "neutral" approach to this question with regard to Northern Ireland. (And, iin trying to imagine what is "neutral", I am reminded that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.) If I was to pick up an encyclopedia and see it describe each-and-every person from NI as "British", unless there was verifiable proof otherwise, I would have serious doubts about the neutrality of its authors. That is not the context of NI. And it is that context that we want to convey so far as it is relevant, which it may not be at all. --RA (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
RA, you are right to say "That is not the context of NI", as we all know, and so if you really want neutrality then the best IE:COLL policy is no flags at all as a default, unless a particular NI sportsman is known to hold an Irish passport and that fact is (somehow) notable to his success. Fact is, NI is a part of the UK for the foreseeable future. If a sportsman is on an Irish team then a flag is relevant as we long-suffering taxpayers are sponsoring him/her indirectly.Red Hurley (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
RA, you've misread what i've said or implied. I was stating i'm content to go with the standard used for all other UK biographical articles - self-identification backed up by sources. I was just stating what i feel the parameter refers too but saying that the self-identification makes sense in the context of the dual meaning of nationality. Mabuska (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't necessarily arguing with you. My comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular. Apologies if my indentation made it appear as if it was.
I agree that self identification is probably best. That does however raise a question about how to deal with people who identify as many things at once. And of course flags are out of the question: "Irish" does not necessarily mean Republic of Ireland. --RA (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree, though i don't know why Red Hurley talked about flags, when we try to abide by WP:MOSFLAG anyways, which states none for nationality. If someone identifies as Irish and British then we could state both - i don't think too many people will state a whole dictionary of nationalities they identify with. Mabuska (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)