Talk:Ireland/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Title problems

This argument needs to be sorted. This page is unfair to the citizens of ireland But if we gave this title to the state of ireland it would be unfair on Northen Irish people

We could sort this method out in three simple ways

1. Rename this page "Ireland (Island)"

2. Rename the Republic of Ireland page "Ireland (State)"

3. Make a page called "Ireland" that will just contain links to the above two —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.167.201 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This belongs at the bottom of the discussion page. That's where new discussions are begun. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved this to the bottom of the page where it belongs as GoodDay said. You may be interested to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration where there is an ongoing attempt to resolve the naming dispute. If you are interested in this issue you could register and then join the project and try to contribute to resolving this problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems close to the consensus. It has been mentioned above that "Ireland (country)" would be more in line with other usage. I would recommend this option. The Georgia page is such a simple disambiguation, which starts out with "Georgia has two principal meanings: * Georgia (country) * Georgia (U.S. state) Georgia may also refer to:". The Ireland page could be a similar disambiguation page which starts with "Ireland has two principal meanings: * Ireland (country) * Ireland (island) Ireland may also refer to:".

I suppose that even if this is agreed upon there would be a long discussion on the order of the two links. I suggest that alphabetical order would not show a bias between the two terms.

Of course, links to "Republic of Ireland" should forward to "Ireland (country)".

There is currently a disambiguation page for "Ireland (country)" which states "Ireland (country) can refer to either: * Republic of Ireland, the political state of that name * Ireland, the island whence Irish people come".

This does not make sense to me that a restriction of a name to "(country)" should be considered to refer to the island. Red King made this a disambiguation page 11 August 2008; Rockpocket attributed the name "Republic of Ireland" to the country 1 November 2008; and 84.203.49.145 added a line (with typos) about the naming controversy. I just now corrected the typos and removed the claim that "Republic of Ireland" is the name of the country. I suggest removing this from being a disambiguation page even before the naming issue for the pages for the country and island of Ireland is resolved. Dfoxvog (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that the Ireland (country) had just become another edit-warring battleground in the ongoing dispute about Ireland (state) v Ireland (island), I accept Dfoxvog's argument and so have undone my original disambiguation and the series of edits that arose from it. But it should be recognised that, to a large body of people (including Rugby, for one), Ireland is a country that is divided between two jurisdictions/states ['Ireland' and 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'] - which is why I introduced the disambig. But I think we had just best accept the generic Wikipedia definition that 'Country' ≡ nation state', otherwise we will never resolve it. --Red King (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Corrib Gas Project needs link

This should not be controversial, but the page is locked, so i have to ask someone to do it.

There should be a link \[\[Corrib_gas_controversy|controversial decision]] for the referenced words in the "Energy network" section. 140.203.154.11 (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, even if the Corrib gas controversy is hardly the best article on Wikipedia. This article is protected due to persistent IP vandalism. IMHO the whole project should be. If you want to edit you can always register. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Flag?

Should the Irish flag be shown at the top of the infobox for easy reference?

Currently, you would have to scroll half way down the page to find out what the Irish flag looks like.

FreeT (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The island doesn't have a flag technically, although the Tricolour is the de facto flag. O Fenian (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No "technically" about it, there is no flag for the Island of Ireland and such things certainly do not need to be placed in the info box which would lead to a major dispute. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is in the eyes of the majority of the population, which is why I said de facto. O Fenian (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland does have a flag - the Cross of St. Patrick. Whatever it's origin, it's the only flag that has ever been officially used to represent the whole of Ireland. ðarkuncoll 10:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ, but that is just based on this discussion backed up by WP:RS and WP:V. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Geography doesn't have flags , if the cross was ever used for Ireland it was for the political entity on the Island at the time Gnevin (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the island has no single agreed upon flag by ROI or NI. Therefore suggesting that the island currently has one singular flag would be misleading. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The only whole island flag ever used was the Flag of Saint Patrick but that was for the state of Ireland which no longer exists. Currently no Flag of Ireland exists. The republic has the tricolour and Northern Ireland uses the Union Flag...

The tricolour certainly should be inserted into the infobox. When one thinks of Ireland, you think of the Tricolour. Besides, as the user above commented, it is the "de facto" flag of the island. Bonzostar (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The tricolour certainly is not the flag of Ireland, de facto or otherwise, just as La Bandera de España isn't the flag of the Iberian Peninsula. Until the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland governments agree otherwise, there is no flag of Ireland.  Roadnote  ♫  11:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no single flag that represents the entire island of Ireland. There is a Flag of Ireland however. Not the same thing at all, and is a good example of why some form of disambiguation is required between the island and the state. --HighKing (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Description of Partition

This article is highly misleading that when discussing Northern Ireland says 'which rejoined the United Kingdom'. Overall Northern Ireland stayed the United Kingdom and the south left.

An editor User:O_Fenian who has instantly and quite discourteously shouted 'vandalism' at me insists that because Northern Ireland was in the Irish Free State for 48 hours that must mean that it 'rejoined' the UK. The fact that NI was in this state was merely a technical legal sub-step - it was already pre-determined before this legal manoeuvre that NI would not leave, so overall NI remained in the UK. This is a summary that summarises hundreds of years of Irish history in a few sentences - overall the south left the UK and the north remained. Highlighting that NI 'rejoined' in a summary section due to a sub-step lasting a matter of hours is just highly misleading. 84.226.43.118 (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, it is a content. However, it is in danger of turning into an edit war, and both sides should discuss the issue here to seek consensus.

The anon IP does have a point in this edit. The 48-hour hiatus was a technical step which (so far as I am aware) had no practical consequence. Taxes were not remitted to Dublin, public servants didn't take their orders from Dublin, the tricolour did fly over govt premises in Belfast.

This sort of technical hiatus applies in all sorts of situations, and should of course be described where the issue is considered in detail … but in a one-sentence summary to describe the situation solely as a "rejoining" is misleading. The full situation is explained rather well in a succinct paragraph in the history section, but the "rejoined" summary in the intro could mislead the reader into believing that Northern Ireland tried out life in the Free State for a while before packing its bags and going back to London.

I can see two solutions:

1. Keep the anon's wording of "remained in the United Kingdom"
2. Use a slightly modified version of O Fenian's preferred version. Instead of "rejoined the United Kingdom", say "technically left and rejoined the United Kingdom"

Personally, I prefer my suggested "technically left and rejoined" wording, because with the addition of only 3 extra words it conveys a much richer picture of what happened than either of two disputed versions. Can anyone see a better way of succinctly accommodating both perspectives? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

We could add lots of little unimportant technical details such as that there was actually Southern Ireland etc., but for a brief introductory paragraph covering the history of Ireland over hundreds of years I don't think that your modification is logical. 84.226.43.118 (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You believe that you are right; O Fenian believes themself to be right. Both of your perspectives are based on a shared understanding of what happened, and the two of you differ only on the significance of the detail. For the sake of a mere three extra words (only 21 characters), why not accommodate both perspectives? My suggested wording may not be the best possible wording, but there must be some way to bridge the gap. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

How about something along the lines of "....Under the Act of XYZ Ireland became a free state and xix counties of the Province of Ulster exercised their right to opt our of that state to become Northern Ireland and thus remained within the United Kingdom" --Snowded (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My so-called misleading version was much less misleading than the version which replaced it, which read "Following the war of independence, Ireland was split into two parts in 1922: the newly independent Irish Free State which left the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland which remained in the United Kingdom". Now this IP editor (and similar ones) are clearly knowledgeable about Ireland and this article, and know that the sentence is not correct as it leaves out key facts, which are obviously inconvenient. At its time of creation, the Irish Free State covered the entire island, and it was the Unionists opting out which caused the "split into two parts". This subtle yet important difference should not be glossed over. The second option above is one which most closely resembles reality, unlike the spin of the first one. O Fenian (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha - You've let your raison d'etre slip - a line intentionally inserted to place the blame firmly on unionists for causing the split. The 'blame' can be equally (if not more so, but lets not go there) shared with nationalists for starting a civil war and demanding independence in the first place!!! 84.226.43.118 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, and btw O Fenian's 'raison d'etre' might more productively be continued at the Existentialism Talk Page. RashersTierney (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

⬅ So are you agreeing to my suggestion? --Snowded (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, BrownHairedGirl's. Your version has a problem or two, namely that it was the administrative sub-division called Northern Ireland that opted out, the extent of which was supposed to be determined by the ill-fated Boundary Commission. That Northern Ireland remained comprised of six of Ulster's counties (and not more or less of them) was due to the failure of the Boundary Commission, but your wording tends to present this as a fait accompli. O Fenian (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Except in a legalistic or technical sense, the real opt-out occurred in 1912 with the formation and effective arming of the Ulster Volunteers. You can throw into that mix the party political jockeying at Westminster (Bonar Law et al.), the Imperialist project (Walter Long et al.) and naked sectarianism (take your pick). If you're looking for a founding 'event' for partition, that's your starting point. RashersTierney (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The real opt-out occurred in 1912 with the formation and effective arming of the Ulster Volunteers? Except in a legalistic or technical sense, O Fenian is correct. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence currently reads "Following the war of independence, Ireland was split into two parts in 1922: the newly independent Irish Free State, and Northern Ireland (which rejoined the United Kingdom)."

That implies that Northern Ireland was created in 1922, when in fact partition occurred the previous year, in 1921. AS the article Northern Ireland says "The island of Ireland was partitioned in 1921 under the terms of the Government of Ireland Act 1920".

So the bigger problem here is that the date of partition is wrong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The date of the creation of the administrative subdivisions is not really that relevant. O Fenian (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

so why is a 48 hour period relevant if those dates don't matter!!! 84.226.43.118 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ive changed "rejoined" to "remained part of". Clearly the previous wording was totally incorrect so it had to go. There may be a better way of saying this which can be agreed on, but atleast its not wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was. Please do not make unilateral changes while discussion is taking place. O Fenian (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I support changing it to suggestion one then. Im sorry but the wording is currently VERY misleading and such inaccurate statements should not be allowed to remain for too long. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone here actually defending the grossly misleading statement that Northern Ireland "rejoined" the United Kingdom? when infact every history book clearly says the South left? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please learn history before making incorrect statements and edits. The Irish Free State covered the entire island, and Northern Ireland opted out. The current discussion is about how this fact can be covered without being misleading, rather than censored. O Fenian (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

For 48 hours!! 84.226.43.118 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not censorship its about accuracy and the current wording is grossly misleading and incorrect. Ofcourse debate about how to describe the whole situation and word it better is fine but something thats simply wrong should not be left in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically its right, but it could give the wrong impression hence the debate --Snowded (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Is BritishWatcher actually saying that Northern Ireland was not temporarily part of the Irish Free State and independent of the United Kingdom? It is essential to note this as part of the unionist perspective. They were not just idle pawns while all this was going on, their opt out was a conscious decision that allowed them to remain in control of their own destiny. It was not a case of the British Government saying "we're creating a Free state but you will remain part of the UK", the unionists remained in control of their own destiny. O Fenian (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Northern Ireland was never independent of the United Kingdom in any normal sense of that meaning. As mentioned before, it was a legal manoeuvre 84.226.43.118 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Im saying the current wording is very misleading which is why i changed it. Im sorry for jumping in but this looked like something that was going to take quite some time to reach agreement on to word the whole thing, so a change to something more clear whilst such a debate was going on seemed to be like a good idea. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian's argument against 1921 as the date of partition seems to be that it was the creation of "administrative subdivisions", which is the sort of term normally used for local councils or government regions created for administrative purposes under one political authority. In fact the two entities created under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 had both their own judicial system and parliaments with legislative powers, neither of which are charcteristics of an administrative subdivision. If you want to claim that they were purely "administrative" (a term which normally implies that there is no elected political control), please provide references.

Meanwhile please note that 1921 is given as the date of partition in the article Northern Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you have provided no references for your new wording. Swings, roundabouts, apples, oranges. O Fenian (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

From Dáil Éireann - Volume 3 - 22 December, 1921 DEBATE ON TREATY, a few quotes from Deputy Seán MacEntee (anti-Treaty), who said:

• "There you have, first of all, the real purpose of this clause, which is to ensure that Ulster— secessionist Ulster—should remain a separate unit;"
• "You cannot show me anything there, and I say as England has found it profitable to subsidise the Ameer of Afghanistan, she will find it much more profitable to subsidise Northern Ireland to remain out and weaken the Free State";
• "There you have the real purpose of that clause—not to bring the six counties into Ireland, but to enable them to remain out of Ireland."

Emphasis added by me, but the quotes are verbatim, as you can check from the link. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not answer the question I did ask, other than the one I did not? O Fenian (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I answered with whatever relevant I found in the Treaty debate. I'll have to check other sources to find a reference for the "technical" adjective, but don't have those to hand and will be busy next week. How are you getting on with finding references for the "administrative" adjective. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My point was that you claim administrative division is unsourced, yet changed it to just division which is equally unsourced and does not take into account the complexity of the situation. O Fenian (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no disagreement that there was a division of some sort under the 1920 act. However, the characterisation of it as adminstrative divison makes a judgement on the nature of that division, and that judgement needs a source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Deadlock

This is a situation I have seen happen before on Irish articles. The underlying facts are agreed, and clear references are available for them. There is no dispute over the full explanation of them further down the article; all the argument is over a brief summary, which by the very nature of a summary cannot convey all the nuances.

There is plenty of scope for a compromise wording which may be slightly less brief, but which provides an indication to the reader that the underlying situation is more complicated than be conveyed in a short summary. I have no particular attachment to the form of words I proposed, just a desire to see some wording agreed which roughly accommodates the various perspectives at play here and indicates to the reader that they will need more detail to fully understand what happened.

Unfortunately, the two sides are deadlocked: both cling to their preferred wording and resist any possibility of a compromise wording. So I think the only solution is to open an RFC, which I will do below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I was in favour of your proposed wording, I said so unambiguously! O Fenian (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl - I am against your 'compromise' proposal, because they are essentially no different than what "O' Fenian" initially has said, and still implies the same PoV that he wants. Adding the word 'technically' may be correct to an extent, but is still misleading in a summary for someone who knows nothing about Ireland. O'Fenian has made it clear that he wants the article to imply that partition was the fault of unionists, and for you to add one more word in detail does no more to remove that PoV. Why in a summary are there no details about many of the other events during the Viking and Norman ages, but for this particular event you feel compelled to add minute and misleading detail. The situation was straightforward and very simple:

• Before partition in 1921/22 : North in UK, South in UK
• After partition in 1921/22 : North in UK, South not in UK

Therefore, north stays and south leaves. In a summary (that is supposed to be simple) why confuse and mislead the reader with unimportant technicalities that are absolutely meaningless in the long run? For a summary, keep the key facts that allow a new reader to understand what happened. Who cares about the meaningless details in a transitional process when all that's important is the end result. The added benefit here is that you don't have any PoV implications.

Also, Brown Haired girl, I don't see on Wikipedia that it's necessary to always 'compromise' - sometimes certain people want to imply a position to push a zealous political agenda, and that is something that is very hard to compromise with (and should not be done) 84.227.194.57 (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

:I have, however, no problem with the proposal from User:Snowded 84.227.194.57 (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to explain this issue in an essay, but the point here is write a summary. Snowded's proposal is a lot more verbose than mine, but you criticise my suggestion for adding what you call "minute and misleading detail". I have no objection to Snowded's proposal if editors are happy to agree on adding that many words, but I do wish you would make up your mind whether you regard a fuller explanation as "minute and misleading detail" or as "no problem".

You object to compromise, but so far as I can see bot sides here are taking a position compatible with a political agenda. That's why the wikipedia way is to find a solution which reflects both POVs, rather than just one.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you Brown Haired girl. Said I shouldn't compromise, but sort of did because I was being too nice and polite. Snowded's proposal is definitely better than the ones from both you or O'Fenian in terms of NPoV, however, you are completely right in saying that it is too longwinded for a summary. Therefore, I would like to restate my original opinion that only the simple 'remained' is acceptable. 84.226.20.116 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Remained part of the UK seems to be more widely used. The compromise is ok too though...--IrishMonarchist (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Summarising what happened to Northern Ireland under the Anglo-Irish Treaty

In the discussion above under the heading Misleading Description of Partition, editors are unable to agree on a form of summary wording to use in the lead section of this article to describe the fate of Northern Ireland under the Anglo-Irish Treaty.

One side insists that it is right to say that Northern Ireland "remained in the United Kingdom"; the other prefers to say that it "rejoined the United Kingdom". From what I can see, neither side is wrong, but it appears that the reality is more complex than is implied by either of those short phrases.

The underlying facts do not seem to be in dispute, and are set out in detail both later this article at Ireland#History and also in Northern Ireland#History. The treaty provided that Northern Ireland would become part of the Irish Free State, but would have the right to opt out and become part of the United Kingdom. There appears to be agreement that there was clear expectation on all sides that it would do so, and this was done immediately after the treaty came into effect. The whole process, which involved the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland travelling overland to London to personally present the documents, took 48 hours. I have seen no suggestion either in this discussion or in related articles that at any point in those 48 hours the Irish Free State had any practical control of affairs within Northern Ireland.

So I suggested a compromise wording: "technically left and rejoined the United Kingdom". That has been rejected by both sides, with demands for references for the use of the adjective "technically". I will in due course burrow in my box of history books, but I am not persuaded that a precise reference is really needed for an adjective such as this.

My suggested compromise may be a poor one, and I can see that for example "legally" might be an alternative adjective, or maybe some wholly different construct might be better. I hope that outside editors may be able to suggest some form of words which succinctly conveys enough of both perspectives on what happened for the reader to see that the underlying picture may be more complex than can be conveyed in a summary, and that they should read on for the full picture.

I will not be around much in the next week, but have launched this RFC in the hope that other editors can help build an agreement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I never rejected your proposed wording, I said unambiguously that I was in favour of it. O Fenian (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry: that crucial point got lost in all the volumes of discussion.  :(

Hopefully the RFC will help to generate some wider consensus, so that it's not just me and thee agreeing. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I am also in favour of any proposed wording that makes it obvious that an opt out from the Irish Free State took place, rather than just the misleading version where "Northern Ireland remained part of the UK". O Fenian (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, my understanding of the situation. What is today Republic of Ireland, broke away from the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems accurate to me, but omits any mention of Northern Ireland. Is that acceptable? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Mention NI if ya's want, but NI remained a part of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source that says that NI "rejoined" the UK? The reality is that it remained in the UK, despite the technicalities desperately being emphasised here. Mooretwin (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No. That is technically inaccurate. The UK of GB and I ceased to exist; NI became part of a new entity called "The UK of GB and NI". It couldn't remain in something that ceased to exist! Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. By that logic, Ethiopia, say, ceased to exist when Eritrea gained independence. Or Pakistan ceased to exist when Bangladesh gained independence. Mooretwin (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The state remained the United Kingdom. The GB and I to GB and NI is merely a technicality. --IrishMonarchist (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland was in the UKGBI between 1922 til 1927 when UK was renamed as UKGBNI. So the question is, surely, whether NI remained in the UKGBI in 1922. Scroggie (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

True. It didn't because the UKGBI ceased to exist except in name. The Kingdom of Ireland most certainly wasn't the "United Kingdom" after partition! This was recognised by the British 1927 Act. Sarah777 (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To avoid your so-called "technical innacuracies" I suggest saying that Northern Ireland "remained in the union with Great Britain" 84.227.57.175 (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I happened by a statement that uses the phrase remained under British sovereignty in the context of NI. This is in the Judgment of the Court of Human Rights in the "Lawless v Ireland" case in 1961 which states on page 4 of the judgment in the "As to the Facts" section: "Under the Treaty establishing the Irish Free State, signed on 6th December 1921 between the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State, six counties in the North of the Island of Ireland remained under British sovereignty." Considering that the case was defended by the then Attorney General of Ireland Aindrias Ó Caoimh one could reasonably expect the facts to be as viewed by the state itself. Perhaps using that phrase would be preferable to any UK word use and you even have a decent reference to substantiate it and those are lawyers speaking. ww2censor (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

⬅ Looks like a strong possibility --Snowded (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There was a time when states didn't have official names but managed to exist nonetheless. The Statement: "Belfast is a city in the United Kingdom" was as true in 1920 as it was in 1923 and as it is now. As a matter of English there's no ambiguity in saying that Northern Ireland remained in the UK.

Legally speaking it's the rules of state succession that determine whether the 1923 UK was the same state as the 1920 UK. At the time there was no disagreement that Great Britain (with or without Northern Ireland) was to be the successor state of the UK of Great Britain and Ireland. Thus it is was the Free State that joined the League of Nations as an entirely new entity while the UK remained a member.

Interesting interpretations of the Anglo-Irish treaty aside, the Free State never had control over Northern Ireland. Southern Irish troops (we didn't have tanks) didn't march in one day and out the next. Northern Ireland never re-joined the UK, because for all practical purposes, they never left. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

The article seems to be suffering from excessive IP vandalism, which is not part of the current content dispute. Should the page be semi-protected again? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have semi-protected it for 3 months. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you should stop winning about it, theirs nothing you can do about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.204.1 (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejoined or Remained

Did NI "rejoin" the UK or did it "remain with" the UK at the time of Irish independence? I thought it remained part of the UK, but if you can prove otherwise please fell free to revert my change. LevenBoy (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

underlying bias

It seems to me that there is an underling point of view that needs airing.

The Irish Free State was a political compromise which was not much loved by anyone. The successor state claimed that it was the government of the whole of Ireland, a claim that was sort of fudged with the changes to the Irish constitution as part of the Good Friday Agreement.

It made sense for those who originally wrote a constitution that claimed sovereignty over the whole of Ireland to call it the Irish state as it summed up in one word the aspirations expressed in the constitution for a united Ireland -- Given those aspirations, it would have been daft to call it the Southern Irish state.

So the underlying bias in using the name "Ireland" for the state is that it implies a wish to see one unified country under an independent sovereign state (with a possible sub-plot that the British rule in Northern Ireland is illegitimate), while the use of the name "Republic of Ireland" is a statement that at the moment the government is the sovereign government over the 26 counties not the whole of Ireland, (with the possible sub-plot of "No surrender")

I think it is important that if some independent administrators are to be used to decide on the names that they are aware that there are strong political undercurrents over this dispute that are often hidden behind Google hits an other arguments. I say this because although anyone who has a preference for a specific outcome in this debate will already be aware of the underlying politics, this may not be apparent to the three administrators who may be appointed to decide the issue by the Arbcom. --PBS (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet, be that as it may, Ireland *is* the name of the state. The territorial claim was still there when the term 'Repubic of Ireland' was invented by Dail legislation. Nuclare (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no point using this section to present any arguments in favour of one point of view or another as that has been done in other sections. --PBS (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, this illustrates a complete ignorance to the subject under discussion. To suggest that the Irish Free State was a political compromise is to ignore Lloyd George giving the Irish side until 10 p.m. that night to accept or reject the terms of the treaty. Failure to do this would he said, result in "an immediate and terrible war." So much for “a political compromise.” The British Government then insisted that the Free State constitution conform to the terms of that treaty.

On the 1937 Constitution, while article 2 defined the national territory as “the whole island of Ireland, its islands and territorial seas” article 3 stated notwithstanding this the laws of the State should only apply to the 26 counties “pending the re-integration of the national territory.”

The 1948 Republic of Ireland Act withdrew Ireland from the Commonwealth marking the end of the policy of “external association” and was universally acknowledged including the United Kingdom government. The UK government however refused to use the term Ireland, using instead Éire. In addition, the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act used the descriptive term of the Republic of Ireland. This did not and dose not change the fact that the name of the Irish state is Ireland under the Irish Constitution. Articles 2 and 3 have been replaced and to describe it as a fudge exhibits the same ignorance as outlined above.

Since 2000 United Kingdom government has referred to the State as Ireland, and the credentials presented by the British ambassador, Stewart Eldon, in 2003, were addressed to the President of Ireland. That you see no point using this section to present any arguments in favor of one point of view or another as that has been done in other sections, is contradicted by your own contribution. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This came up before but, User:RashersTierney pointed out that there is an official British committee that decides what the UK 'official' name for the State is. From the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use

… the spellings of country names, as recommended by PCGN. This list reflects current British usage. Countries are arranged alphabetically under their common names. The official state title, (ie. the form used in formal, legal or diplomatic contexts), where different, is shown underneath and reflects the name used by the State itself. It is translated into English where necessary.

As Rashers says, seems to me as unambiguous as official texts ever get. The PCGN appears to be the body responsible for advising re. names at policy level. --HighKing (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In order to avoid any possible bias or POV in any renaming of the two Ireland articles, why not those with knowledge of foreign languages contact other sections of Wikipedia to find out other reasonings? It's interesting to look at the main European languages wikipedia sites: German, Danish, Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch, Swedish and Finnish. Of those eight, 6 give the title Ireland for the state, 1 for a disambiguation page and 1 for the island. For those who are interested and have the know how why not contact them and find out their reasoning for the title articles? It may be the case that they have thought of points that no editors here have thought of! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.154.247 (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The rationale is obvious. Ireland primarily refers to the state, worldwide in most languages. -- Evertype·✆ 15:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you know? Did you ever wonder where the state got the name from? (The island, maybe?) Mooretwin (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats really helpful, Evertype *rolls eyes*. Rockpocket 18:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So... you think that all those languages have Ireland referring to the state for some other reason? -- Evertype·✆ 02:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think if you want to find out someone's rationale you should ask them. You shouldn't impose your own opinion on them. Rockpocket 05:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Really! You know, I can read all of those languages on that list, except Finnish. Whom shall I ask? There is no one person to ask. And what good would it do? What kind of answer could they give? "We don't consider the state to be 'primary' but we put it under this article name because...?" Or maybe "Oops! We've been wrong all these years! Let's move the article!" Do you imagine they will give another answer? And what effect will that have over here (given the fact that Remedy 2 is in preparation)? It's possible to go to every link for Ireland in the other Wikis and report back, and maybe I'll do that in due course if the ArbCom thinks it would make a difference. -- Evertype·✆ 09:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that questioning people at those pages isn't a good idea (certainly not at this stage), but I think their rationale *could* be subtly different than what you claim it must be: It could, for example, be based on an assessment that states are primary over other units, rather than a specific analysis that judged "Ireland" meaning the state to be primary. Nuclare (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly what the problem here is. There's no bias this is all merely about opinions (pov). It almost goes back to the Irish civil war. The main question here is what exactly is the state called Ireland? Is it a continuation of the Ireland that existed for millenia (minus Northern Ireland of course) or is it a modern construct that has nothing to do with the previous centuries of Irish history? It's whether editors are agreeing to either the latter or the former that is causing editors to give different opinions on any titles.78.16.48.254 (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it could be neither of those two. The present state can (and does) have plenty to do with the previous centuries of Irish history, but that doesn't follow that the state must be deemed the 'owner' and sole 'owner' of all of that history. Nuclare (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Soon folks, the 3 Administrators will make their choices & finally our long wiki nightmare, will be over. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Amen. --HighKing (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Amen. (the IP formerly known as 89.101.221.3) --89.19.65.226 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I took this to ArbCom. -- Evertype·✆ 02:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what is more comfortable to describe the 26 counties, statistics based on a division need to be described as such. The law says to describe it as the republic, although the state of the government should be described as Ireland or Eire, as would be the intention. Republic of Ireland Act 1948. Also, if of any consequence, the British government backed that all the way with Ireland Act 1949. Unionist, British and Irish politics agree, the government is ok to be of Ireland so without dispute there is no reason for any international body to refuse that name actually, the British and Northern Irish reps opposed use of "Ireland" for the state and I guess that includes the government , sorry. ~ R.T.G 16:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC) but there is grounds, regardless of government, if you are making statistics of the republic or its boundries (or the north make no mistake), describe it as that (exactly what the laws say, who disputes that? and it makes sense. If you leave the north out you ought to say so. The state does not, so it should not say so.) ~ R.T.G 11:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Frederick Joseph Springsteen, "No Surrender", 1983:

"We made a promise we swore we'd always remember No retreat no surrender Like soldiers in the winter's night with a vow to defend No retreat no surrender ... Now on the street tonight the lights grow dim The walls of my room are closing in There's a war outside still raging you say it ain't ours anymore to win I want to sleep beneath peaceful skies in my lover's bed with a wide open country in my eyes and these romantic dreams in my head"

Springsteens father, Douglas Frederick Springsteen, was a bus driver of Dutch and Irish ancestry. Being that Bruce played lots of Northern Ireland nights, and has both orange and green backgrounds, is this a song inspired by the "No Surrender" slogan of the time? It's sort of vague. ~ R.T.G 16:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A guy could trip over his pen and break his neck but does he want dismissed from his own house? No. ~ R.T.G 16:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"The law says to describe it as the republic..." is complete nonsense. The constitution, the highest law in the land says Ireland is the name of the State. The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 was Ireland leaving the common wealth, and delaring a Republic. It clearly states it is a descriptive term. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, my Funk & Wagnall encyclopedia calls the country, Republic of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay FWIW, if we were to go down that road we would not be having this discussion. The most common term per number of sources is Ireland. Only on Wiki hey. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the most common term for the island? LOL! Mooretwin (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. Has a third Administrator been designated yet? GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I WANT TO ESTABLISH THE INVALIDITY OF THE NAME IRELAND ON THE ISLAND but so far I come up plum and I WANT TO ESTABLISH THE IRISH GOVERNMENT AS MORE SIGNIFIGANT THAN THE ISLAND but I don't believe it is.

• 10 years of ceasefire may make peace, girls, but unless there are some signifigant declarations, Ireland is an island and the state that named itself Ireland named itself after every part of that island.
• When Northern Irish boxers, footballers and runners are Irish, nobody bats an eyelid so what's that about then?
• Leave that poor judge alone! If he is the only quote in nerly 100 years, leave him alone. And if the Good Friday Agreement changed the bounds of the state, youd better had my passport back because I claimed on it that I am(was?) Irish.
• The current president is one of the most respected lawyers either side of the border. Not only is she from Belfast Falls, she ran the Housing Executive. I guess Mary is less Irish than the rest of us these days but let her finish out her term anyways because you are so nice and maybe if she applys quick enough we let her keep the passport. Oh shit! That was ten years ago. Tough tit Mary you are going home (what a load of balls).
• The government saying that it makes no further claim to Northern Irish ground, to promote peace, does not mention "Ireland is now flown south for the winter".
• It is only ten years since the government down here declared they would not support an all out armed struggle for the north, hardly some strong ground to say "Its not the place we thought it was".
• When you kids grow up to about thirty, you will know that ten years ago you were some sort of adult not "Wow thats years ago. In the old days!". If you are looking for a social network try MySpace ~ R.T.G 15:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

@Domer48, sorry mate, actually Cosgrave explain it at the time that the law was intended to give the state the description of the Republic of Ireland in the English language. Cosgrave wrote the Republic Act and based upon his wishes it became law[1] (they call that explicit). Minor points of law always boil down to the most important opinions such as the person writing the law making it absolutely specific his intentions. The state was named Ireland with no thought to the 26 counties. The government swears it will not fight and die for the rest of it now. If there is any more to that, such as an island that is no longer an Ireland, let's see it. How dare you be a small dependant country, taking with one hand but using the other to cut the neck of your smallest most dependent relative? Oh well, thanks for all the fish. Something unclear about that? ~ R.T.G 15:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Domer48 removed some of my comments. In reverting that action his own comments have been removed. If he wish to add anything more, I suggest he do so without editing what I have to say. I see nothing contrary to Wikipedia in what he removed. ~ R.T.G 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you go to the Department of an Taoiseach and read the Constitution of Ireland - Bunreacht na hÉireann, note, not the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland. the Constitution of Ireland it says in Article 4 “The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.”

The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 repealed the EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY (EXTERNAL RELATIONS) ACT, 1936, which withdrew Ireland from the British Common Wealth, and declared Ireland to be a Republic. This was made evident in the 1948 Act by section 2 which stated “It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.” It is also clearly stated that this is a “description of the State” and not the name of the State. As I have already pointed to above, “The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.” Now unless or until there is a Constitutional Referendum that is the only official name for the State.

I would also like to draw your attention to WP:TPG and have edited your comments accordingly. You may also wish to read WP:SOAP, thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Any word on the third Administrator, yet? GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing yet! --Domer48_'fenian' 16:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Domer48, your interpretation is not incorrect but I see more value in the interpretation by the persons who introduced the bill and made it law. If everybody votes for murder to be illegal and then some Wikipedians are claiming "That wording says murder is legal!!", what is the conclusion? The wiki records murder to be legal with no contrary suggestion? I think it should record that murder is illegal with contrary suggestion in the wording (or else it's misleading the "underlying bias" here is one contrary and argumentative to the authorities and sentiments of the Irish government). It may be a good idea to write some articles about the gap in interpretation (and very good idea? for me, laws that are open to speculation are very interesting.) ~ R.T.G 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's two people who have said the exact same thing to you, and you've responded with an argument that when boiled down, amounts to "you're wrong". Nobody else here appears to support your imaginative interpretation of the bill or of Collins' statement. Can you try to refute arguments (as is normal) rather than meander on about murder being legal (?). Otherwise can we close this and move on? --HighKing (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that HighKing, regards --Domer48_'fenian' 21:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

:::OK Highking, in your perfect world, the purpose and description of the laws are not those set out by the providers of them but the ones set out by you and Domer48 where "youre wrong" means "no way" and "not if theres two of us". If what I say is of more importance to anything else....? Please, I am a lowly nut. Once more, what puts the authority of the makers of those laws out of the picture and if the name of the island is out of the picture, what is its new one? Before you answer that, quote to me the constitution, run me off where the leaders of sixteen differed between islands and anything else. Of course you guys know and them guys didn't but if you don't have sixteen to go against them, why not back them up a bit in that document that they died to make important, passed by British and all after the deeds, in the way they saw it rather than your own speculation of it? Is that sort of off the wall? ~ R.T.G 23:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I must be having a 'thick head' day. RTG, I've no clue, what you're posting about. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

People keep quoting the laws and constitution as a guide to what Ireland is. That is misleading. After that some are saying how the constitution was changed for the Good Friday agreement and that altered the sentiment towards the island, also misleading (read it).

• • Although Republic of Ireland is more comfortable and familiar for me, it makes no odds what they name it - the importance of the island is part of the basis of the state in law and constitution. Claiming the state is more important than the island goes against something the state always stood for. Nobody will cite proper difference to that. Any suggestion of the states importance should not dispute this article being about Ireland as would suit the states veiw of importance, right? If not, what is the underlying bias here? ~ R.T.G 07:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland is more comfortable and familiar for me - at least now I understand why most of your arguments are meandering and unclear. It's basically an argument for your own POV. Most editors here haven't a clue what you're trying to say. All the words are English, but most of the time we're all guessing as to the meaning. Sorry - I've no more time to spend on this, although there have been one or two genuinely funny thoughts put in my head by your prose. --HighKing (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well in all honesty when I typed in "Ireland" I fully expected to be reading about the country commonly known as "Ireland" as I suspect a large number of people would do the same. I didn't even realise I was reading about the Island of Ireland, I just thought it was a badly written article about the country of "Ireland". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.223.74 (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm perhaps you should of read the banner at the top of the article "This article is about the island. For the sovereign country, see Republic of Ireland. For the constituent country of the United Kingdom, see Northern Ireland. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation)." BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Silver lock? (formerly "New Gaelic")

I can't remove this nonsense since this page is edit protected so can someone else remove that Irish/"new Gaelic" rubbish. "Eireann" is the genitive form of Eire (sorry no fadas on mobile device). There is no such thing as "New Gaelic". --89.101.220.70 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Already done, but I'm going to take the role of GoodDay here and say get an account! Other editors can't always do stuff for you.MITH 19:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Silver lock. Even if I signed up I couldn't have made the change.

What is the reason of the silver lock? They make sense on pages like Halloween around the end of October each year. However, I've seen more signed-in users valdalise and war over this page - and add uncited nonsense, albeit in good faith (as in this case) - than IPs.

Keeping a silver lock on a page indefinitely for flimsy reasons run contrary to the goals of this encyclopedia (the whole "encyclopedia that any can edit" thing). Unless there is a good reason for it, it should be removed. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You can. You just have to register, make 10 edits and wait 4 days from the registering date and then you are a confirmed user meaning you can then edit as you please. It is protected to stop vandalism from ips such as this. It happened all the time before it was protected.MITH 11:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Translation: most people viewing the 467th most visited article on "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" cannot edit it.

Every page experiences test edits from new users, that is no reason to indefinitely block edit access to any page. Can you show that this page experienced more sustained vandalism that other pages? --Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I dunno I'm hardly an admin who has to think about these whether a page should be protected or not. Are you the above IP editor or someone else?MITH 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this the way of wikipedia? Treat ip's as second class citizens until they either leave or create an account? IP's are no different from yourself. For the most part they (meaning me, until today) come here to help create an encyclopedia. Surtese (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mirror image, added content from previous fork.

I've merged some of the content from the Republic of Ireland Article which was being used as a POV fork. The RoI Article now covers the RoI. With some of the content which was taken from this article being placed on the RoI, I've now replaced it. There is some duplication, which I will address and a number of Article names will have to be change from RoI to Ireland. Help with this would be welcome. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Ireland

Please see Talk:Military history of the peoples of the British Islands and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military history of the peoples of the British Islands, there seems to be a consensus that we need an article called Military history of Ireland could someone with a knowledge of the subject please knock up a sub? See Military history of Scotland and the Military history of France as guides on the sort of things to include. If on the other hand one thinks this is not a good idea then please voice those opinions on those discussion pages before it is created. --PBS (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What Is Going On

What is going on with this site. A perfectly fair compromise has being worked out but has not being carried out. Votes have been carried out ending in favour of the compromise. What is the point of all of these votes and all the argueing if nothing is being done. This is a disgrace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublin1994 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. ArbCom have acted in bad faith...Even the Moderators resigned. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

new opening sentence

I thought the existing opening sentence was a bit long-winded, and based on the Korea article, I changed it to this:

Ireland (pronounced , locally [ˈaɾlənd] – Irish: Éire, Ulster Scots: Airlann, Latin: Hibernia) is an island and formerly a unified nation currently within the territories of two sovereign states: Ireland (described as the Republic of Ireland) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Redking7 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Unified? With Great Britain? Don't you mean that the British Isles were a formerly unified nation?

... but seriously, have you read this project page? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No. It was unified in the past but most recently in 1922, as the Irish Free State. I am inspired by the Korean example too. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is. ~Asarlaí 21:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No? You really should read it.

You mean the month 6 December 1922-6 January 1923? While we're at it we should highlight that the island was then a dominion of the British Empire. Definately, we have to mention that Ireland is one of the British Isles. And how is had been a feudal possession of the English monarch from 1169 (granted by no less authority than the Pope). And that the English monarch continued to be head of state in both parts of the island until 18 April 1949. We have to mention how 1 in 3 new recruits to the British army come from the island - and that despite partition from the rest of the United Kingdom that the Republic of Ireland accounts for half of those ...

... but seriously, you should read that project page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's meant to be a geography article. Politics on the first line? No thanks.MITH 21:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

At least my point re it being formerly a unified nation is accepted! If we can bring Empire into a short sentence, lets go for it. I'd settle for a shorter opening sentence whatever it says. A sentence should never be more than 25 words long. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely with your thinking for this page. This page is not about the politics. It is a geography article. I think History of Ireland is what you're looking for.MITH 22:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it was based on what they did on the korea page - but I didn't really think it would be accpeted here. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

RedKing7, seriously, a summary of the political history is given in the second paragraph. It's perfectly adequate and NPOV. Leave it as it is. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

Per these motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Union Flag in the Northern Ireland history section

I have added the UK flag to the Northern Ireland section to NPOV the history section as the Republic of Ireland history section displays the Irish Tri-colour. Both flags are important symbols of both countries' histories and having one but not the other would not be NPOV. Aogouguo (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit of adding the image of the Union Flag to the page. It isn't mentioned in the piece at all, seems a strange inclusion. If the flag represented just Northern Ireland fair enough, but the flag represents something that for a large proportion has nothing to do with the geographical island of Ireland; that is the island of Great Britain. You'll notice the EU flag doesn't appear for the same reasons. When Northern Ireland gets its own flag it can be put it in along with the flag of the Republic.MITH 23:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit of having political history sections at all, if this article is supposed to be about 'the island'. 'Political geography' belongs in other articles. RashersTierney (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a conversation for after WP:IECOLL!MITH 23:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RashersTierney as this article about the island not the state and should be geographical not political. Political issues should be for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland articles. Aogouguo (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Aogouguo (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree this should be a geography article, I'm not sure if a history section is particularly political however. Africa has a history section and that is also a geographical article. Anyway this is a discussion for another day (namely after WP:IECOLL) and has little to do with the intial issue which now appears to be resolved.MITH 00:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Some points I'd like to make. User:MusicInTheHouse you stated the flag makes no benefit to the article. In what way does the Irish Tri-Colour make any benefit to the article any more than the UK flag would? Secondly, you stated the flag isn't mentioned in the section. Nor is the Irish Tri-Colour, at all. Thirdly, you say the flag represents something which has nothing to do with the island of Ireland. Last I looked the flag represents something which has something to do with the north east section of the island of Ireland. Fourthly, you make comparison between the UK and EU. The UK is a sovereign state, which governs part of the island of Ireland, the EU is not a sovereign state, nor does it govern part of the island of Ireland, that's why the UK's flag is important and the EU's flag is not. Lastly, Northern Ireland had a flag of its own but I don't see it shown here. That's why the current version of the article is not NPOV and the UK flag should be included because it represents just as much as the Irish Tri-colour does and is just as relevent. Aogouguo (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I disambiguated the image of the Irish flag in the hsitory section to state is it the flag of the country of Ireland, so there's no mistakes about it being the flag of the island of Ireland, which there isn't one. Aogouguo (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask other editors whether they would find it acceptable to add a flag in the Northern Ireland history section or not, and if so which? Aogouguo (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to see all flags decommissioned from this article. RashersTierney (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If the flag is there it should go by its proper name (remember those disputes). I don;t think its particularly out of place in that section of the history but have no strong objections to its replacement with another image. --Snowded ^TALK 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Whats wrong now with the national flag? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Who said there was anything wrong with it? RashersTierney (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't suggest removing the Ireland flag. I suggested putting a flag in the Northern Ireland section to enhance NPOV in the section. Aogouguo (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a Northern Ireland flag and how is this a NPOV issue? --Snowded ^TALK 18:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is represented by the UK's union flag, as is all the UK. Aogouguo (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I do know that, but the statement stands. Wales and Scotland have flags, Northern Ireland does not. You have not explained why you think this is a POC issue, there is no requirement for flags in both sections, they are pictures to add context to the section no more. --Snowded ^TALK 19:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Compromise - Why not the Red Hand of Ulster? It is the flag of this part of Ireland.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You know that is not the case, its the flag of Ulster not Northern Ireland --Snowded ^TALK 20:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet NI is mostly Ulster, except Donegal. Just a thought.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is six of the original nine counties of Ulster and therein lies the political controversy. --Snowded ^TALK 04:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

More appropriately the previous official flag for Northern Ireland could be included in the section as after all the section is about the history of Northern Ireland, and the flag is a part of that history. A note can be made that the flag is no longer official and include dates like the Ireland flag does. Aogouguo (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Its in the Northern Ireland article where the context can be explained. Here we have a short summary --Snowded ^TALK 04:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No need whatsoever for the flag to be placed in this section if anywhere place it in the History of Northern Ireland article. --BigDunc^Talk 08:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you see any need whatsoever for the Southern flag to be placed in the section on the Free State/Republic? Mooretwin (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of the tricolour in that section seems fairly gratuitous to me. If its purpose is to symbolise the spirit of the independence era then the one of the images of the Anglo-Irish treaty or the proclaimation of independence could used. A similar sentiment could be expressed though an image of the signing of the Ulster Covenant by our unionist brethren. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you be bold and make the suggested edits? Mooretwin (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

New image far more satisfactory and informative. Just one question, by 'our' 32 counties, who exactly is meant? RashersTierney (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Genuinely misread:-) Typo now fixed. RashersTierney (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry folks, the flags in pictures are a bit of this or that but one thing is clear for some of your opinions here:- This is not the Geography of Ireland article and it is actually far far away from being that geography article. :D ~ R.T.G 20:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

numbers of language speakers?

It seems like this article should probably mention whatever the best estimates are for how many of the residents speak English and how many speak Irish. All it says now is that Irish is the second most commonly spoken language. There should be some estimate of what portion of the population speaks Irish in their everyday lives or are fluent in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.227.173 (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland#Irish Independence: The Irish Free State, Éire, Ireland

Is the title a bit long or something? (Independance from what, full stop, maybe?) Wether it is or not, I find the section to lead the reader into thinking that the names Éire and Ireland were created in 1937. Could someone put a small accurate description of where those names came from before it says "...renamed the state "Éire or in the English language, Ireland""? ~ R.T.G 20:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland, the name

The name used by Scots: Airlann (in article, also Ayrrland ) or Eyrrland is derived from the norse eyrr (and land), eyrr meaning "sand spit". See: http://www.orkneyjar.com/placenames/pl-root.htmSt.Trond (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Eyrr" in norse is "ayre" in English. "The ayre" in English would then be "eyrra" in norse, the pronunciation of which can be compared with the pronunciation of "Eire". Being a native speaker of Norwegian, I would accept the pronounced "eyrra" and "Eire" as the same word, or at least two words of the same origin.St.Trond (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's folk etymology. -- Evertype·✆ 09:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks. St.Trond (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW: "Iraland" (pronounced "eeraland") was used first time by Ottar. St.Trond (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a question: is it true that Partholon/Parthalon, a mythological ancestor, was as is stated in some articles on the ancestors of the Irish, as being a Greek Scythian and his tribe as being Greeks of Scythia? The name IS very Greek as in Parthenon and Parthena. Would appreciate some information on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.38.37 (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Life in Ireland

I was reading the Geography of Ireland article and found this little template which called itself "Life in Ireland" but turned out to be: Template:Life in the Republic of Ireland. This would be a nice little template. ~ R.T.G 20:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, what is the purpose of a Template? I also see that any addition to the Templates must be sovereign states. Coll Mac (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A template is like a little infobox. This one looks like this:- It is mainly all-Ireland topics but some republic only and it is called "..in Republic.." on its page (making it no good for this article being an all-Ireland article) ~ R.T.G 10:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I wonder, is there a possibility of creating a similar template for islands only? Coll Mac (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Making templates is similar to editing articles. The little buttons marked v.d.e are for View, Discuss and Edit. Maybe this template could be adapted to include the rest of Ireland, I don't know. At present it lists stuff like Prostitution in the Republic of Ireland which is probably not a big part of life in Ireland (is it?) ~ R.T.G 19:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope not, my image of Ireland would be tainted forever. Do you need inside information to write an article like that ;) Coll Mac (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Some guys have all the luck! I removed it anyway =D ~ R.T.G 11:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Advance warning

Following this total re-write of the England article this morning (based on this: User:Yorkshirian/England), without even a hint of a Talk page discussion, I feel that it is only fair to give editors of the somewhat sensitive Ireland article prior notification of the existence of this page:

• User:Yorkshirian/Ireland

Do not say that you were not forewarned. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian

Please do not make such large scale changes to this article without discussing them here first. Some of your changes introduced errors, and some are not in line with WP:IMOS. There is also an Arbcom ruling in place and a resulting process which may well end up effecting this article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bastun's revert

Can you explain your random revert? Of this. Earlier Irish history such as its older kingdoms are directly pertinent to the subject. Also I cleaned up the format so its less of a mess. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See above. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What parts would you like to discuss and which parts introduced are "errors"? Can you show me a link to the ArbCom thing, what is it about. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A) All of them. B) Offhand, Ireland isn't the 9th largest island in the world. There were others, but I don't have time to go over them now. C) The format is fine by most editors here. D) The Arbcom links are in the first infobox above. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A) really? you'll have to be more specific. Certainly the info on early Irish history which I put in was not an "error". B) OK thats one, easily corrected. If you have time to revert, then you have to explain what your issues with the edit are specifically on the talk, so we can fix it and get it sorted. C) Simple tidying of refs and tightening up of box; pointless to revert. D) OK, I'll read it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, but - you've just returned from a long ban? You've done exactly the same (largescale removal/replacement of text, formatting and templates) at England, Great Britain and now Ireland? In each case, different editors have reverted you and asked you to discuss first? You don't see a pattern here? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote the expansions in my note pad over a series of months during the ban. The problem is though, I'm here discussing, but certain peoples seem to claim to want to discuss (even requesting it) ... then have nothing specific to say? Take this conversation for example, OK you've corrected me on the island size, but flat out negated dicussing the rest. Here is the clean up, you reverted and said you want to discuss on the talk, cool... lets discuss to come to a consensus. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent). Apologies for not being available 24/7. "I wrote the expansions in my note pad over a series of months during the ban" - then decided your version was better than what was already here? Sorry, WP is not a personal webhost. This is a collaborative project. In many cases, what you replaced in one edit had been arrived at after much discussion here. Look at the prior archive 11, for example, for a long discussion on the wording of the disambiguation hatnote. You replaced that agreed wording with "make disambig less of a mess." If you want to introduce changes - fine. I strongly suggest, then, that you post your proposed changes here first, allow some discussion, then introduce them, rather than just making a string of edits. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it was only the intro and hat notes (in the main) that were re-written. One issue I would have with the rewrite is its stress it places on Norman and English conquests. The prescription for use of terms in the article also sound like they would cut across the ArbCom ruling. Like Bastun pointed out, the hat note had previous been the subject of much discussion - as had nearly every other part. Phrases like, "also known poetically as Hibernia" (bolded even in the text) are out of the norm and strange inclusions. Saying that, "[in] antiquity Prehistoric and Gaelic cultures were prominent" makes it sound like Brian Ború and neolithic farmers were running around the island hand-in-hand (and neither Gaels nor Prehistoric people belong to the era known as antiquity.)

These are the sort of things that can be pointed out easily if an editor leaves a note on a talk page saying that they are thinking about rewriting a section of the article - and saying why. Giving other the opportunity to remark on your sandbox is a good way to get feedback and iron-out issues. Pasting in a wholly new intro on a highly visited article is a guaranteed way to have your contributions reverted.

So let's start afresh. Yorkshirian, you don't like the current intro? What would you change? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok well atleast someone has put forward some actual points, thank you.

• 1) I'd argue the opposite, currently in the intro, there is one long paragraph which is filled of Ireland-vs-Britain mope; wars, famines, "domination" so on. But apart from a brief mention of a so-called "Celtic migration" in 200BC, it doesn't really mention much of the native goings on. It jumps from 200BC to suddenly being about Catholics being opressed by the state in the 1600s.

IMO we need to fill in the gap between in a way which is accessable and easily understandable to the reader. Mention the various Irish kingdoms which existed before and after the Norman conquest - these are obviously still relevent to the present day since the kingdoms of Munster, Ulster, Connacht and Leinster still form a basis of regional identity as so called "provinces". Mention the High King system, I gave Boru as an example because he is the best known (though I realise he did not actually unify Ireland, rather made an agreement with the O'Neill's.)

2) It makes no mention of the fact that the Norse-Gaels founded Ireland's largest city Dublin and as Kings of Dublin established themselves as a regional power for a while. The Kings of Dublin expanded their sovereignty to include the Isle of Mann and the Western Isles (obviously significant in cultural sphere since Gaelic culture continued on in the area), as well as southern Northumbria for a while.

3) It needs to mention the fact that it was the Tudors who first created a centralised all-Island state as the Kingdom of Ireland. Obviously for political reasons there will likely be howls of dejection but regardless its still significant.

4) It doesn't mention that Ireland was a vassal of the Angevin Empire.

5) It mentions the Plantation of Ulster, but doesn't mention Ulster Scots by name or summarise how it links to modern day identity. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

True enough. The current sentence, "Relatively small scale settlements of both the Vikings and Normans in the Middle Ages gave way to complete English domination by the 1600s", sounds hyperbolic. Why don't you start of with a rewrite of that paragraph (post your rewrite here first).

On sepcific points: 1) In fairness, the relationship with England/Britain has been a big part of Irish history for the last millennium and has not generally been good; 2) I don't think there is a single "native" Irish city, telling the story of the "Gall" would be a good thing, but is the intro the best place to do it?; 3) the story of the centralisation of Ireland is not so clean-cut; Gaelic Ireland wasn't a feudal so comparisons with nearby states doesn't really capture it; consider that despite having no central government, Gaelic Ireland had a single legal system and you will see how short the comparisons go; 4) the Angevin Empire doesn't figure very greatly in Irish history; it fell asunder 50 years after the Norman invasion, and technically Ireland was possession of the Papacy; England/Britain is the important player, not Angevin; 5) Scots were not the only people to be planted in Ulster and Ulster was not the only place to be planted; the Scottish (Presbyterian) planters of Ulster were dissenters (and so without equal political rights) like the Catholic Irish; the development of that identity is not simple, or even complete/certain today, never mind in the 17th century. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

1. That is the only "mope" there is unless you count fairy rings and forensic archaeology. If you can add something more relevant...
2. The City of Waterford was the main stay of Vikings in Ireland. That and conquering all from Scandanavia to Greenland and Spain (is that the right areas?) is probably more notable than Dublin and Isle of Man.
3. The Tudors were not the first all-Ireland royalty by a long shot. You Angles are blow-ins around these islands. Try List of High Kings of Ireland or you could start with Sláine mac Dela and work your way through to Galahad (Gíallchad) and the rest...
4. The article England mentions neither Anjou or Angevin either. I understand you were recently instrumental in an attempted update of the whole article?
5. The areas where plantations are mentioned, in both the lead and history sections, are a bit of poor maybe.

~ R.T.G 17:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Not really. The effeminate mope revision of its earlier history stems from the late 1700s, after rebels in the north were influenced by the naturalistic ideology of the Jacobin Club (see also Gand Orient of France); like the Rousseauian concept of the "noble savage" for instance, which is a prominent feature. The communist view of history is like "Whig history" - a review of history from a political perspective - in this case anti-monarchal, anti-aristocratic and athiestic. Lets call it "Republican history".

There are a coherent set of annals which document the history of Ireland before the Normans arrived quite clearly. This isn't all fairies and gobblins; actual real people, real kingdoms. Its not even that mysterious I promise - even Irish monasticism, extremely influential high culture created from the island is not given a full and thorough presentation in this article. Obviously organised naturalism has its reasons for wanting this clouded, negated or derailed, including in official educational strutures in Ireland;

• First of all the fact that the island was a patchwork of kingdoms with their own monarchs, up until much of them were subsumed into the Lordship of Ireland, then the remaining few into the Tudor's centralised Kingdom of Ireland is incredibly inconvinent for a political movement which has irridentism as a central part of its ideology. Best to keep the past cloudy, lets call internal parts "provinces" even though this was a Tudor term from the Kingdom of Ireland period and in history they were actually independent kingdoms.

• Many of these túath and their native monarchies still have traceable descendants to this day, who if they wanted, could in theory press a claim to their land currently occupied by a republican state. Or even worse for the authoritarian naturalistic movement's revision of history; what if Irish people were able to view their real history in a coherently organised way such as that of the O'Neills and a native monarchist movement grew? Best to keep this masculine, traditional "western civilisation" stuff hidden away, quick wave a bit of green and lets pretend that monarchy is only a Brit thing; communism will never be achieved under a monarchy.

• Another very naughty thing to talk about is how those invading Norman aristocratic dynasties, which held feudal fiefs of the Lordship of Ireland, headed by the King of England in a loosely confederated way, not only had a significant amount of autonomy but fully assimilated into the local populance and ways. Far from "800 years!", "opressive!" these Normans became Irish. IMO republicanism should try to manipulate history between the period of the Norman invasion and the Tudor Protestant revolt to create a highly ambigious but vague conception that the Irish were all enslaved or something during this period, rather than reality. Oh wait?

2. Both can and should be included.

3. Please, I'm aware of the fundamental basics of Irish history. The High Kingship of Ireland was purely ceremonial - in actual fact there were many warring independent Irish kingdoms with their own kings - its a bit like the title Bretwalda, the Mercians in reality didn't control that island either. Even Brian Boru didn't have complete authority when he was High King, the O'Neills still controlled the north (look up Leth Cuinn and Leth Mogha). Completely different to an early modern centralised state like the Tudor's Kingdom of Ireland. PS - I'm half "blow out", not "blow in".

4. Haven't got around to sorting out the history yet. Work in progress.

5. Yes, unfortuently just about all of the article needs improving. However it seems most would rather debate titles than help improve these articles and if anyone tries they get reverted. I'm currently working on something for the Irish state which will take a few months, but by the end it should be approaching GA status. Feel free to assist. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your views are actually quite interesting. Why don't you go ahead and give the article a quick rewrite noting your views on communism, republicanism, organised naturalism, the benefits of Tudor dictatorship, Norman integration under the loose control of the English, ideological theories, savages, cultural development based around the merits of the fief/serf-dom aristocrat, western masculinity, effeminate mope and, of course, the origins of the Freemasons. It is about time this article made GA status after all. (?) ~ R.T.G 16:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)