Talk:Irish pound

2005 posts

Correct me if I'm wrong but punt isn't Irish language for pound. Its simply a nickname that the Irish pound was given by British economists to differenciate from sterling after the two broke parity in 1979 when Ireland joined ERM.

Considering that the 1-pound coin said punt, it appears that punt is, in fact, the Irish word for pound Nik42 05:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Mícheart

Is dóigh liom go bhfuil tú mícheart faoi sin, agus is punt an Ghaeilge ar pound.

I'm pretty certain you are wrong, certainly punt is what we use in Irish for "pound" - including, I believe, the pound sterling.

Now I will admit, that I'm not sure that Punt was ever an "official" title for the Irish Pound.

zoney ▓   ▒ talk 08:32, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The word "punt" did not come into existance in 1979, it can be traced to at least 1965 in legal terms [1], before this the "punt" was called the Saorstát pound during the Irish Free State (from 1927), in 1938 it became officially the Irish pound with the passing of the new constitution and this remains the strictly legal term.

Yes,Punt is the Erse word for 'Pound'.It is first recorded on the banknotes issued by the Currency Commission Irish Free State.Its plural changes depending on the number of Pounds.The Erse language is in the same family of languages as Scots-Gaelic & Manx.I have never referred to the Irish pre-Euro currency as the Punt.I just call it the Irish Pound, just for the sake of convenience,& besides,I am fiercely pro-English, even though I am of Scots descent. (Aidan Work 01:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC))

Erse? Tá úsáid an fhocail sin i dtaca leis an nGaeilge nó le Gaeilge na hAlban mícheart agus an-dímheasúil. Ó ham a bhí airgeadra na hÉireann scoilta amach, tá na daoine tar éis an focal "punt" a úsáid. Ar na notaí banic dhátheangacha is déanaí úsáideadh an focal "pound" ar taobh an Bhéarla agus "Punt" ar taobh na Gaeilge. Maidir leis an reachtaíocht, úsáideadh "Irish pound" ann sna leagain Bhéarla agus "Punt na hÉireann" i leagain na Gaeilge. Agus "fiercely pro-English"?! imigh sa diabhal! (Erse? The use of that word to refer to either Irish or Gaelic is highly disrespectful. Since the introduction of Irish currency the use of the word punt was always used. On the latest bilingual bank notes "Pound" was used on the English side, "Punt" on the Irish side. In terms of legislation, Irish Pound is used in the English versions, Punt na hÉireann in Irish versions. And "fiercely pro-English"?! Go to hell) Jamesnp 13:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Irish Coinage

It is my intention that any material not purely on the Irish Pound but rather general coinage material will be placed in the article Coinage of the Republic of Ireland. This article will be one, among many. Djegan 15:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I intend to create an article Irish pound coin for the coin, and move banknote material to Banknotes of the Republic of Ireland, and move this article in the direction of been an article on the Irish pound from a historic and economic aspect. Also material in Irish coinage or Irish banknotes that deals with the currency, as a currency, should be moved here. Any comments? Djegan 22:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The coin: A bad design?" Section

This section to the article seems very opinionated. I personally, never thought there was anything wrong with the pound coin and never heard anyone else complain about it. In latter years I didn't really notice that many vending machines or other coin operated devices not being able to handle pound coins (to try and avoid people using old pennies), though I can't remember the case of coin phones.

And pound coins "tarnish" easily? I think not. They did appear to dent easily around the edges and possibly get scrathed more easily than other coins, but they weren't really much worse than 50p coins in those aspects. They never went discoloured or anything like the gold and bronze coloured coins. If you want coins that tarnish easily, go to Kenya! I have some coins I got from there in 1992 - all of them have corroded significantly since then. I've never seen an Irish coin corrode like that unless in constant contact with water.

Also, does anyone know when exactly the ha'penny coins went out of circulation? --Zilog Jones 02:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Irish Pound coin from the point of view of vending machines it was one of the few national units of currency that was not used in machines. This was infamous at the time where intially machines were converted and in a very short time had to be reverted because of money that was lost because of users using old pennys.

Regarding tarnishing the coins size and composition meant that anything but uncirculated grade degraded quickly, particularily the deer design on the front - at a time when other countries were using smaller coins Ireland decided to go for a large coin. All coins tarnish but the pound had the particular characteristic of wearing and scratching easily.

See Irish coinage for dates. Djegan 17:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV and animal

This section is not neutrally titled. It is POV by definition. It is not encyclopedic no matter how much you hated the coin.

-- Sorry, completely wrong about the animal. It doesn't have palmate antlers.

I have no problem with someone making a npov of an article but this does not mean that an article must be entirely possitive. Futhermore using the title "a bad design?" leaves the user to decide (subsitute "good" if you want) - if i hated the coin why would of i provided the high quality scan that i produced myself at the top of the article? I am going to make additional attempts at making the article more balanced but if your overiding concern is that the article is pervertedly pov then please cite specific examples rather than wholesale removal of material - I have tried to the detail in the article specific and balanced. In particular this section which was wholesale removed please explain the pov (in fact its quite factual, i was their and remember this):

was quite similar to but thinner than the half-crown coin. During the early circulation of the coins payphones and vending machines were changed over as expected, however soon the old penny, in particular, became used as a substitute for the pound coin in these devices. This created losses for the operators as these old coins had little value, either face or marketwise, notwithstanding the fact that they were no longer legal tender. Soon the devices were changed so that pound coins were not accepted and this remained so until the coin was withdrawn with the advent of the euro

Dont jump on the pov bandwagon just because you want to reflect Irish culture in a positive manner and eliminate all decent. Additionally irrespective of your interpretation of the animal on the coin the legal definition, as defined by law, is "a red deer"[2] and if you disagree with this then i recommend that you write a few lines to that effect in the article as to why it does not look like a red deer. Djegan 17:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Red Deer

Djegan you are absolutely right, and I apologize for being so rude. Ben-w 09:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Coins of Ireland.

I will be creating an article called 'Coins of Ireland',which will deal with all Irish coinage from the issues of the Hiberno-Norse Kingdom of Dublin right through to the Euro coinage.I will provide explainations why I divide the modern Irish coinage into their periods. (Aidan Work 01:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC))

Sounds interesting. You are aware that we already have articles on each 20th century Irish coin denomination? It would be nice to have extra information on them. -- Arwel (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi,Arwel,I have written the article,which deals with all Irish coinage,not just those issued by the Republic.I have also done an article called 'Coins of Ulster',as Ulster did have a few coins,& besides, there is a lot of interest in the history of the troubled British nation of Ulster. (Aidan Work 04:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC))

I have no problem with a "Coins of Ireland", remembering as Arwel states that their is already a Coinage of the Republic of Ireland with subsiduary articles on each coin. In this case Republic of Ireland including the Irish Free State, Éire (Ireland) and the Republic of Ireland itself. How about renaming your article "Historical coinage of Ireland" and dealing with pre Irish Free State issues. Djegan 19:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Djegan,My article is dealing with all the coins of Ireland, as I am a strong believer in listing things in order on the basis of continuity.I have also differentiated between the different periods of Irish coinage.Did you know that modern Irish coinage (even those issued by the post-1949 Republic) are popular with collectors of British Commonwealth coins, given the fact that the ties between Ireland & the British Commonwealth are still very strong? - (Aidan Work 00:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC))

English vs. Irish

I have reverted the most recent edits to the article regarding terminology used. Throughout the development of Irish coinage since the 1920s English has been consistantly used to define the denominations of the currency. The Currency Act, 1927 (Section 4) created the Saorstát pound and this was modified by the Currency Act, 1927, Adaptation Order, 1938 to rename it as the "Irish pound".

Furthur acts reinforced this use of English to define the denomination of the currency[3], [4], [5]. Indeed a quick google of the Irish Statute Book does not definitively define the meaning of the term "punt" in any returned results. The use of Irish with the currency is largely just a presentation of designs which incorporate Irish inscriptions or words on them but the legal terminology is clearly in English terms when it becomes a matter of the law. In the English language the Irish words are not and were not widely used. This in mind the use of "punt" (or corressponding Irish words for subdenominations of the currency) as the English name is incorrect. Djegan 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of the name punt is due to the Wikipedia Numismatic style, where local names are used. Ireland may be de facto bilingual but it is de jure an Irish speaking state. Therefore, the local name (which is all that appears on the coins and appears alongside English on the notes) is the one to use here, with appropriate reference to "pound" as the English name. I won't revert back to what I just did straight away, so that this point can be discussed further, but my intention is to carry out that revert soon.
Dove1950 18:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A style guide is just a guideline, it is not a policy that must be adhered to, however an important guide in this case is WP:UE. As for language both English and Irish have constitutional recognition as official languages in the Republic of Ireland, and that state is far from a true bilingual state; the balance is in favour of English. If you chose to revert then please bear in mind that you should provide a citation to show that the Irish is more common, remember like it or not Irish pound is the location of the article and the terminology within should not be used in a way that is inconsistant with that article title {i.e. use "Irish pound" as article title, but "punt" as the more prominant term within the article narrative}. If you feel that the current article name is not refective of actual usage then you should consider WP:UE and WP:MOVE as the most appropriate route of rectification rather than a revert-war that will benifit no one. Djegan 19:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Futhermore it is simply incorrect to call the "Irish pound" or "punt" as the "pound" - disagreement notwithstanding - historical and statutory usage prefers the terms "Saorstát pound" and "Irish pound", per the appropriate period (citations provided above for those periods in my comments). Djegan 19:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

We've spent a long time thrashing out and defending Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style, so the only argument for me is whether the "local" style is pound or punt. According to Irish language, Irish is the "First Official Language" with English the "Second Official Language" (not quite what I put above but still pretty clear). I'd like to move this article to Irish punt but it has a separate existance so we'll need an expert (i.e., not me) to sort it out. I don't go in for revert wars at all so, again, lets sort it out here first, then implement.
Dove1950 21:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style is a guideline and a guideline does not change the fact of what the currency is actually called, viz the "Irish pound" (in English) or "punt" (in Irish); we are not in the business of making up names like "Irish punt" (WP:NOR applies here, a policy). Moreover my reading of the guideline you refer to suggests that ISO 4217 is the metric by which the article is named; and their are only two options "Irish pound" or "punt". Lets go for common sense, this is the English wikipedia, WP:UE.

You maybe under the false assumption that "Irish pound" is simply a translation, or common but incorrect name. Let me make it very clear "Irish pound" is not some ad-hoc translation or common but incorrect name of the currency; but it is the only name of the currency provided by in law. Fundamentally their is no question about what the correct name of the currency, it is simply known and referred to as "Irish pound", simple as that. Lets not procrastrinate about the obvious.

What the Irish language article says is quite irrelevant here; it would not be suitable for WP:VERIFY, a policy, and in any case it does not use capitals for "First Official Language" and "Second Official Language". Djegan 22:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can dismiss Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style so lightly, I suggest you go and do so in every other area this encyclopedia is working on and see how far you get.
I am under no illusions. The name in Irish is punt, the name in English is pound. Anyone looking at the banknotes can see that, hardly classifying as "original research". The reason for using punt rather than pound is that it is the name in the local language. Hence, what the Irish language article is completely relevant unless, of course, you think it's wrong. I'll admit to adding capitals for emphasis but having reread the article I needn't have bothered. It says "Irish is given recognition by the Constitution of Ireland as the first official language of the Republic of Ireland (with English being a second official language), despite the limited distribution of fluency among the population of that country." Note the use of "the" before "first official language" and "a" before "second official language" Let's go for accuracy, this is an encyclopedia.
Dove1950 23:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

***Sigh***. You still do not get my point, the ISO 4217 and legal names of the currency in English are "Irish pound", not "pound"[6], [7], [8]. Punt means pound, but the legal definition takes precidence here. By the way here is what the constitution actually says on language:

1. The Irish language as the national language is the first official language.

2. The English language is recognised as a second official language.

3. Provision may, however, be made by law for the exclusive use of either of the said languages for any one or more official purposes, either throughout the State or in any part thereof.

Subsection 3 means that the order placed on each languages status is largely aspirational. English and Irish are the local languages, but if you think that Irish is by far the more common, then you are greatly misinformed. Lets get back to reality. And we are not going to move it to a made-up name either. This article is about the currency, not the name that appears on bank notes. Read WP:IMOS, WP:NC(CN), WP:UE. If you are still unhappy then WP:MOVE, via a consensus vote, will be the only means of resolution. Djegan 08:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is one of the few places outside Ireland where the Irish pound gets the ISO4217 name—the normal name given to it by English speakers in Ireland, and also gets a proper Irish translation. Please don't war about it, or try to change it to a awkward hybrid like "Irish punt". There are far more interesting things to write about Irish economics. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• General policy in Hiberno-English on Irish words and phrases is to use the English translation when writing or speaking English (e.g.Ireland instead of Éire, Irish instead of Gaelic, pound instead of punt, President instead of Uachtarán). There are some exceptions though which are used even when writing or speaking in English — garda, Taoiseach, Gaeltacht. Punt is rarely seen in local usage. "Irish punt" is a neologism which I haven't seen used anywhere. Demiurge 09:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest that Djegan stops assuming that I don't know anything about Ireland? There are two words in Irish punt. The first is the adjective for the country, the second is the name of the currency in the local language. That is the principle upon which the proposal to call this article "Irish punt" and to use punt throughout the article is based. Nothing in this discussion has indicated an error in this analysis. I am not trying trying to invent a new name. To claim that "punt is rarely seen in local usage" begs the question as to whether Demiurge ever looked at a £1 coin while they were in circulation? The fact that English speakers called it the "pound" doesn't change anything, just as the fact that English speakers called the Dutch gulden the "guilder" merits a note at the top of this article but not a change to its title. As in several cases, ISO4217 demonstrates its anglo-centric origins and doesn't take into account local languages. As to WP:IMOS, WP:NC(CN) and WP:UE, they are a style and two conventions. Do they outrank Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style or, indeed, the truth? Finally, what is a currency if not its coins and banknotes?
Dove1950 10:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, they speak Dutch so we use the Dutch name; in Ireland, they speak English (constitutional aspirations notwithstanding) so we use the English name. In other words, the local language is, de facto, English. The £1 coin text is in Irish, not in English (as can be seen from the fact that it says "Éire" on the other side). Demiurge 10:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are inventing a new name. If you want to invent a new name, theory, etc write a paper on it and publish it in a reputable journal {i.e. not wikipedia} and get back to us, WP:NOR. Frankly I think you are genuine but misguided, please stop insisting that Irish is the local language {and implying as such that English is something external and forbidden by all but ignoring it}, because English is more widely used in Ireland. That is the reality, we do not need saving from "anglo-centrics". This is the English wikipedia, WP:UE. And in Irish law it can be shown that "Irish pound" is the explicit name of the currency, and it has not been shown to the contrary. If you want to insist that it is anything to the contray of what I claim then provide citations; because they override all guidelines. People who take part in wikipedia project crusades need to ensure that they are not misinformed or misguided. Djegan 22:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Im no Irish expert, although I do love to drink :), but being the fact that Ireland does have two official languages, it would seem reasonable to go for the local one. whether that is punt or not would be a tough call by what I know. But, naming in wikipedia shouldn't(if it is moved) be soley "punt" unless ofcourse more than one country or so uses it. See United States dollar, that is, it's the dollar of the US. "Irish punt" (or maybe even "Eire punt") or "Irish pound(which is what's in the Act)" should be used. I would have called it a punt, if I knew no better and saw one for the first time. I don't see how something can be exclusively labeled and then misnamed, unless it is something like the Nickel (United States coin). Maybe, it is Irish pound that should be the local term instead of punt, seeing as how English was the large majority of speakers. Either way...I don't really see why ya'll are arguing out of punt, that's kinda cool, like "Yeah, I got change for a punt, a boot in the boot!!!Haha"  :) Anyways, my two mils...  :) Joe I 17:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny thing is, my reading of the guide at WikiProject Numismatics/Style also comes up with "Irish pound":

• If the currency is listed at ISO 4217, use the name given there ("Irish pound")
• If the currency is not listed at the ISO 4217 page, use the standard name of <Adjectival country name> <denomination> ... Use English names for the country in the title ("Irish") ... Use the local name for the denomination even if there's an English translation ("pound"–since most locals speak English.)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats what concerns me most about the discussion here, because I came to the same conclusion last night. That "Irish pound" is the end result of the aforementioned style guide. Djegan 23:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick read of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Style reveals a fair number of people who view Dove1950's views on "local names" as extreme. See some fallout at Talk:Dutch gulden for example. I don't think a principal concocted by a small number of project-specific Wikipedians can be unleashed on the rest of us without a bit of inclusion in the debate. For that matter, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) has a fair amount of discussion of when to use English and when to use Irish. What happens when an article falls into the domain of two different groups, with incompatible style guides? This is why we have general, Wikipedia-wide guidelines; this is also where common sense can be useful.

As regards the particular "use local names" convention, I can't find a detailed description on of what that means. The policy currently states:

Use the local name for the denomination even if there's an English translation (e.g., Czech koruna, not Czech crown). If the currency name contains non-ASCII characters, use them (e.g., Polish złoty). Be sure to include a redirect from the ASCII version (e.g., Polish zloty)

• Use local grammar for plural form (i.e. 1000 yen, not 1000 yens)
• Known exception includes
  • All different rubles, even though it is spelled рубль, рубель, and рубл in Russian, Belarusian, and Tajik. And no transliteration standards will result in "ruble".
  • Finnish mark (spelled markka in Finnish)
  • Swiss franc (spelled Frank in German, spoken by 64% of Swiss)
  • Plural Yugoslavian dinar is spelled dinars for the duration when Yugoslavia was multi-lingual

I draw your attention to the exceptions.

• The Swiss franc is the exception that proves the rule that "most commonly spoken language" is implied by "local". Clearly, "pound" has always been far more widely used in Ireland than "punt".
• Since I've personally always said "Finnish markka" rather than mark (not that I've said either much), I think "Irish pound" has a much stronger case than markka for exception to Dove1950's interpretation of the rule.

"Irish pound" should be added as an "exception" and this whole debate can go away. jnestorius^(talk) 02:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please add "Irish pound" as an "exception". A little like Switzerland, we can't resolve whether "local name" means the name in the "first official language" or in the "most widely spoken language". Certainly "Éire punt" is useful to numismatists, as that is engraved on the coins, while "Irish pound" is more meaningful to Irish residents and economists. Is that helpful, Dove1950? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not really matter that Irish is the first official language of the state because English is the second official language and the constitution also says in that Article 8.3 "Provision may, however, be made by law for the exclusive use of either of the said languages for any one or more official purposes, either throughout the State or in any part thereof." The law regarding the "Irish pound" as a currency has only given an English name, theirfore English takes precidence. Djegan 09:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term "punt" in English

Though related to the preceding section, this is really a distinct point. It is a fact, not mentioned in the current text, that at times "punt" was used colloquially in English, as when British tourists discussed "how many punts to the pound [sterling]", or when financial analysts (including Irish ones) said "the punt fell on Wall Street this evening". As mere shorthand for "Irish pound", this does not influence the choice of name for the article; but it does deserve a sentence or two, if someone has sources. Presumably, as suggested at the top of this Talk: page, this usage dates from the end of the currency union in 1979. jnestorius^(talk) 20:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see so much debate on this point. It's certsinly true that some over zealous English speakers tried to swith gulden to guilder and were rebuffed. I'm afraid that I can't agree with the ascertion that making something correct is "extreme", unless I'm mistaken in taking this to be a negative term. This article needs to have the Irish names prominently displayed, regardless of whether the article is called Irish pound or Irish punt. That I shall do now and you can all look at the result. I shall not go though and replace all occurances of Irish pound with punt for now. I do very much agree that, if this article is moved, it will have to be listed as an exception in the style guide as it will be another case of not using the ISO 4217 name.
Dove1950 16:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please listen to reason, it is not "Irish punt" and never has been. Frankly your misguided. See other peoples comments. If you do what you outline above then I will revert, its simply wrong to use punt exclusively and against the article title. If you are not happy summit a move request. Djegan 17:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits as you only changed one or two occurences of Irish pound and you are patently incorrect in any instance. If you want to show that the correct name of the currency, in English, is "pound" - and only "pound" - then show a citation please, because I can show its "Irish pound"[9]. Sources please, people. Djegan 17:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

• I am taking the given "use local names" convention as given, not because I agree with it, but because it's what's being presented as the standard. If the debate is over what "correct" is, I'm with "Irish pound" for the reasons given by Djegan.
• The Numismatics preference says "use local names", not "use ISO 4217 names", so that's not a criterion for exceptionality. But I interpret "exceptions" to mean "ignoring the standard" rather than "contrary to the standard".
• As an aside, "punt" as used in English is not Irish; it has the Irish spelling, but a different pronunciation ([pʌnt] instead of [punt̪]) and a different plural ("punts" not "puint").

jnestorius^(talk) 17:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We all too often in wikipedia slavishly let guidelines muddy the facts on the ground; their is an exception to every rule (mind you guidelines are not compulsory, they are convention by consenus that maybe dispensed when appropriate). Let me make it clear the official name of the currency in English is "Irish pound" and the name in Irish is "punt"; we are not discussing the variation on names on coins or banknotes because their are other articles for that. And we are not going to introduce made-up names in the article and thats the end of it, because if it does not reach WP:VERIFY then its getting removed. Djegan 17:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was left with no choice but to reinstate my edits. Before you slavishly revert, read what I have changed and ask yourself why it shouldn't be there. Pay particular attention to the part after the first line. I don't want to get into a revert war, which is why my second edit was different from my first. You claim that the currency was called the "Irish pound" in English but this name has never appeared on a coin or banknote. Nonetheless, as the article frequently discusses both the Irish and British currencies, if the name pound is used, it must be preceded by its nationality and I have left this intact. As I've streesed before, calling this article "Irish punt" (which I can't do because it has a separate editing history) would not be to create a new name for the currency but to give its nationality and its name. The name of the South African currency is simply the rand but the article is still called South African rand for clarity. Regarding the Irish Statute Book, perhaps you should look at what is written in the Irish version. I'll bet that says punt!
Dove1950 00:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Whilst wrting this, you've taken up my suggestion, Djegan. Thank you. We still disagree about what really amounts to style but we now have an article which includes the information it ought to. Any luck with the Irish version of the statute book?
Dove1950 00:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the currency, not banknote and coinage. Unless you have not noticed I have provided several links to Irish laws on the currency and they confirm the name is "Irish pound". And please stop getting hung up on your neo-Gaelic revival, because if you want to claim that the English name is "punt" or "Irish punt" and only such then the onus is on you to provide citations to that effect, see WP:VERIFY; but their is already an accepted English name that provides sufficent disambiguaion so why create a new one. By the way it does not matter what the Irish version of the Irish Statute Book contains because this is the English wikipedia unless you did not notice. You might as well replace instances of "Republic of Ireland" with "Poblacht na hÉireann" or "Japanese yen" with "Japanese 日本円", using your arguement by mixing and matching languages, its just spectacularily futile thing to to. By all means log on to http://ga.wikipedia.org because if you can write an article as good as this one, execlusively in Irish, then you will be a hero their. Djegan 00:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

An alternative to your arguement would be to use Anglo-Norman language in British articles on currency because of that languages special status in the parliament of the United Kingdom. But that would be daft. You just need to face the fact that English has been more widespread in Ireland than Irish for over the last century, rather than posturing and inventing new names and ignoring the conventional ones. If you want to do original research then write a paper and publish it in a journal; when it gains widespread acceptance get back to us, see WP:NOR. Djegan 00:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Djegan, what is your problem with the Irish language? The reason for including the Irish names is because they are prominentaly displayed on the currency. To a non-Irish speaker, the translations may not be immediately obvious and should therefore be included in an encyclopedia in any language, including English. No one is inventing any new names. The currency of Japan is the yen, not the Japanese yen, but that's what the Wikipedia article is called because it makes things clearer. Just out of interest, what is a currency if it is not the coins and banknotes?
Dove1950 19:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

By all means include the Irish names when appropriate but please do not remove or reduce the prominance of valid English names, including and specifically "Irish pound". I stand by my reverts. Djegan 20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Some points:

• The euro existed for its first 3 years without coins and banknotes.
• A redirect from Irish punt to Irish pound will facilitate any confused foreigners who key in the "wrong" name, and the article title will help to signal to them the actual legal and popular usage.
• Going back to the substantial issue, I surmise, based on existing locations and identification of "exceptions", that "use local names" unpacks to the following (applied in the order listed):

1. If a country has one official language, use the name in that language (presumably some further elaboration for transcribing non-Latin writing systems)
2. If a country has multiple official languages, but one is of greater legal status than the rest, use the name in that language (the only basis I can see for Dove1950's favouring of "punt")
3. If a country has multiple equal official languages, and one is English, use the English name (Singapore dollar)
4. If a country has multiple equal official languages, and none is English, use the name in the most widely spoken one (based on "exception" of Swiss Franc)

Assuming this synopsis is correct, my question for Dove1950 is this: if we remove guideline 2, then by guideline 3, Irish punt is wrong and Irish pound is right. Are there any other currencies whose article names would also change? If not, then I suggest removing guideline 2. jnestorius^(talk) 23:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an old topic. If we want to generalize, allow me to further complicate the situation. The currency of Lebanon is written in Arabic and French. Only Arabic is the official language. Now that the article name is livre based on the ground that livre is the only Latin script used on the physical currency, even though the central bank's web pages in English use "pound". The most commonly spoken language in Switzerland is German, and franc in German is Frank, always capitalized. What do you make of Belgian franc and Luxembourgish franc. What about a provisional currency Yugoslav krone, which was initially overprinted on Austro-Hungarian krone? Ireland is a unique case, as the first official language is not the most commonly spoken language. See also List of multilingual countries and regions. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, although I'm not sure what "this is an old topic" implies: do you mean "this is an old topic which has been resolved long ago" or "this is an old topic which can never be resolved definitively"? If the former, what resolution? If the latter, I think we (all except Dove1950) agree, and all that remains is to add sufficient weakenings and caveats to the current Numismatic project naming guidelines to allow for the complexities we have all enumerated. jnestorius^(talk) 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an old topic as in "members of the numismatic project have agreed upon, but have occasionally encounter resistance from time to time like this one". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, what has been agreed upon is just the minimal text "use the local name". I would not describe the debate here as "resistance" to that principle, but rather as a disagreement over how to interpret it in what you admit is a "unique case". jnestorius^(talk) 09:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Jnestorius, Although I think it would be 'instruction creep' to write your 4 surmised rules into the guideline, I have to agree that notionally setting aside rule number 2 (greater legal status for a language) would be wise. As far as I can tell, "local names" was not yet discussed to that level of detail at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Numismatics/Style. I have deep respect for Djegan's knowledge of things Irish, and his presentation of facts and conclusions above resonates with me as supporting the most accurate and natural way to inform encyclopedia readers.

I think the numismatics issues are resolved; what seems to remain now is explaining to Dove1950 and Chochopk the common speech in Ireland, as it was while Ireland had its own currency. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

nor would I advocate adding the 4 rules. I would prefer something like "Use the local name; where it is unclear which local name is best, consult local Wikipedians." jnestorius^(talk) 10:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that. —Nightstallion (?) 20:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

date of introduction

If I read this article correctly, this currency was introduced in 1928. I'm no expert of Irish currency. But if that info is true, shouldn't that be in the intro instead of being buried down somewhere?

What is this? It's listed under Republic of Ireland.

Can I say that there were no banknotes issued in what are now Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland before the independence of the Republic? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind my third question. I found Banknotes of Ireland. The reason why I asked these question was because there is an ongoing migration of coin and banknote article names. This is the general pattern

• Coins of somewhere -> Coins of some currency
• Banknotes of somewhere -> Banknote of some currency

It may be easy to move Canadian coinage to Coins of the Canadian dollar. But we have 5 articles for Ireland.

• Coinage of Ireland
• Coins of the Republic of Ireland
• Banknotes of Ireland
• Banknotes of Northern Ireland
• Banknotes of the Republic of Ireland

How do you think I should rename them? There is a precedence in Australia where coins of Australia contains info about pre-unified pound, and coins of the Australian pound and coins of the Australian dollar decribe the unified pound and dollar. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) No you certainly cannot say that no notes were issued were issued in what are now the Republic and Northern Ireland before the independence of the Republic - a considerable number of banks issued their own notes, including the Bank of Ireland who issued this, which is a Sterling banknote, and indeed three banks, including the Bank of Ireland, continue to issue Pound Sterling notes in Northern Ireland to this day. The Irish Pound, originally the Saorstát Pound, is what was issued in Dublin in 1928 by the Currency Commission which became the Central Bank of Ireland in 1943. Until 1979 it had the same value as the Pound Sterling but from then on it had a different value on the currency exchanges. -- Arwel (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So if I make these changes

• Coinage of Ireland → Coins of Ireland
• Coins of the Republic of Ireland → Coins of the Irish pound
• Banknotes of the Republic of Ireland → Banknotes of the Irish pound

They wouldn't be ambiguous or incorrect? I will leave Banknotes of Ireland alone. I'm not sure what to do with Banknotes of Northern Ireland. Banknotes of the Northern Irish pound sterling is a bit awkward. It might be too short to stand on its own. Banknotes of the pound sterling actually has more info. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no need to start renaming articles. How does the Saorstat pound fit into the "Coins of the Irish pound" or "Banknotes of the Irish pound"? Leave things as they are. Djegan 11:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly urge you to leave things as they are. Banknotes of the Northern Irish pound sterling is meaningless anyway, as there is no such thing as the "Northern Irish pound sterling" - there's just Pound sterling notes issued in Northern Ireland. -- Arwel (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But what about consistency? Right now, we have

• President of the United States
• President of South Korea
• President of India

which could have been

• U.S. President
• United States President
• South Korean president
• Presidents of India

Do you see what I'm getting at? This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics#Coin and banknote article naming scheme (long over due topic), and I'm just implementing it with extra caution. I can understand that Banknotes of the Northern Irish pound sterling is weird. But what about Coinage of Ireland? Other similar articles have been converted to Coins of someCurrency, or in some exceptional cases, Coins of Somewhere. Would you accept renaming this one?

To answer Djegan. If it were completely up to me, I would make a redirect from Coins of the Saorstat pound to Coins of the Irish pound because Saorstat pound redirects to Irish pound. That set up is parallel and symmetric. If one day, Saorstát pound and its coins have enough content, they will fork off. (That's how I envision it). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect have you a reason apart from forcing article titles to be consistant with a talk page somewhere else. We should not slavishly follow manuals of style in a misguided attempt to force consistancy with the end result that this is against consensus and resultant titles that make no sense. Obviously you seam to have missed the point that the Irish pound and Saorstát pound is one in the same thing and different articles pointless. Sorry people common sense firstly.Djegan 11:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW on reading over that discussion you cited above I cannot find any consensus to change the style, maybe you can enlighten me? This article is not a experiment in manual of style implementation. Djegan 11:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just leave it alone. You are getting into murky ground here that crosses both the political divide and the practical banking within the island of Ireland that is quite complex for many to understand. The main issue is that within the island of Ireland currency was not issued based on a currency but on a jurisdiction, hence the current article titles refer to the locations not the currency. Changing that to a currency-based title will only cause problems. As Djegan states there is no such thing as a Northern Irish pound sterling and there is really no necessity to change the title just for the sake of change. The titles are quite clear and most possible changes will only cause confusion. Irish banks, both in the north and south before and after independence, have issued their own notes and they were valid throughout the whole island while sterling was still a countrywide accepted currency. ww2censor 16:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As the saying has it, "consistency is the hobgoblin of foolish minds". The proposed changes would not improve the information content of Wikipedia's articles on the notes and coins used in Ireland, and indeed would seem to be likely to introduce unnecessary confusion. This appears to be an appropriate place to apply the rule "WP:IAR". -- Arwel (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And also WP:UCS ww2censor 21:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the political and monetary complexity of Ireland. If there is so much opposition against "of the Irish pound" format, I would leave it alone. I have no problem leaving 4 of the 5 articles. But changing "coinage" to "coins" seems to have little to do with the arguments you guys present here.

By the way, languages like "hobgoblin of foolish minds" has little convincing power. But as I said before, I can understand you all. The only outstanding issue is just coinage vs coins. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Coins of Ireland already is a redirect to Coinage of Ireland. So are you just going to transpose them? There is little point but I won't object to that small change. ww2censor 22:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I'm proposing now. Please understand that it is important to me. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that wikipedia is not about whats important to one single individual person. If you want to set up your own personal website your welcome. Djegan 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding recent reversions

I have reverted this article twice recently because the edits are not acceptable. They are not acceptable because terminology used constitutes original research, which is not permitted per WP:NOR. Also the issue was discussed at lenght on this talk page, which is so documented, theirfore editors cannot make the claim that they are not aware of the situation as they were party to it and theirfore are not entitled to any period to backup their claims. If they want to add disputted claims then citations should be added at the same time (and not the claim that it is not the original research to coin - no pun intented - new terms).

First of all the term "Irish pound" by which the currency is universally known is been gradually written out of the article without even the pretense of a move request. Secondly the susbstantial issue of original research, which is not permissable, includes the terms "pound Irish" (which I have not heard before and I assume is simply a grammatical error) and "punt na hÉireann" (which can only be found twice by google and both time on wikipedias non-english content, and this would not be an acceptable citation per any fair implementation of WP:VERIFY).

And wildly altering the content of this article under these terms is not acceptable. Other material might be better in an article on history of Irish currencies or such as the Irish pound is not the same thing as historical Irish currencies. This article is an article about the Irish pound, it is not an article on the history of banknotes and coinage for which we have some other very informative articles that people (in the right mindset, i.e. no original research please) are welcome to contribute to. People, sources please. Djegan 23:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What about WP:AGF? If the term "pound Irish" is unheard of in Ireland, delete the term. If it needs citation, add {{fact}} or {{Unreferenced}}. There may be a reason behind WP:VERIFY, but ultimately, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, its purpose is to spread knowledge. If adhering to these two rules strictly, there will be little if any content left on Wikipedia. Let's take a look at the revision before Dove1950's edit (i.e. the version Djegan reverted to). The first sentence reads: "The Irish pound (Irish: punt) was the currency of the Republic of Ireland until 2002. The Irish pound's ISO 4217 code was IEP, and the usual notation was the prefix £, or IR£ where confusion might have arisen with the pound sterling.". I see no links to an Irish dictionary (to verify punt), nor do I see a link to support the use or IR£. It could have been IE£, or I£. The first section of history, "Origins of the Irish pound" is not sourced. Why not remove them all together? Let's talk about some of Dove's edit. "New coins were issued in denominations of ½, 1, 2, 5, 10 and 50 pence with the same dimensions and materials as the corresponding new British coins. In 1986, 20 pence coins were introduced, followed in 1990 by 1 pound coins." Isn't this much more easily verify than medieval history? Source?

• Chester L. Krause, Cliffor Mischler, Colin R. Bruce II, et al. (editors), ed. (2003). 2004 Standard Catalog of World Coins: 1901-present (31st ed. ed.). Krause Publications. ISBN 0-87349-593-4. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• Albert Pick (1996). Neil Shafer, George S. Cuhaj, Colin R. Bruce II (editors) (ed.). Standard Catalog of World Paper Money: General Issues to 1960 (8th ed. ed.). Krause Publications. ISBN 0-87341-469-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• George S. Cuhaj, ed. (2006). Standard Catalog of World Paper Money, Modern Issues, 1961-present (12th ed. ed.). KP Books. ISBN 0-89689-356-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• http://www.banknoteworld.com/countries/ireland_republic.html
• http://worldcoingallery.com/countries/Ireland.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chochopk (talk • contribs)

Sorry this issue was discussed at lenght quite recently.

If you are concerned about the content of the article then you can request a citation at any time for any section or sentence (or part theirof), and in this instance, I will be happy to search for relevant citations (ultimately if I cannot find them then said disputed topics may very well need to be removed). This is because we have a set of policies, WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY, which require citations when requested if material is to be retained. But adding a request is not a frivolous matter, nor are reversions in lieu of no citation. If you want to remove sections en-masse because your recent comments seam to have flustered a few people thats your choice. So is the responsibility. Policies are not the same as a style guide, the latter which is negotiable. Djegan 00:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way before I start teaching people about how to suck eggs (i.e. the painfully obvious) this article is about the Irish pound (as a currency), it is not about the detail of banknotes of the Republic of Ireland or coinage of the Republic of Ireland or indeed a history of Irish currencies for which Dove1950 edits are more appropriate to (notwithstanding his attempt to write out "Irish pound" and write in original research in this article).

The principal of subsidiarity. The whole reason for balanced sub-articles. Djegan 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect to Dove1950 most recent edit[10] it is clear their a fundemental misunderstanding between "Irish pound" and currencies used in Ireland historically. Take for instance the sections "First Irish pound" and "Second Irish pound" - its simply never referred to as this, for all intents and purposes the Irish pound fell into obeyance during these eras but "Irish pound" was never used with any "first" or "second" qualifier to distingish its history. Secondly the inclusion of a major section "Pound sterling" section only backs up the claim that we are moving off topic (Irish pound) into new ground of an article on currencies historically used in Ireland. Stick to the topic, if people want to create a new article they are welcome but this article should not be a one-stop, blow-by-blow article for banknotes, coinage and history generally. Djegan 01:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Djegan that when an article gets too large, it should be forked off. However, a quick summary would be nice, like the history section of most country articles, and "History of xyz" articles. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I have no problem with an appropriate summary, i.e. an edit that does not write out the term "Irish pound", that does not write in original research by peppering the article with previously unheard of terms ("pound Irish", "punt na hEireann"). Additionally a summary should be a summary and not a long and detailed discussion on banknote and coinage issue that is more appropriate to subsidurity articles. Djegan 14:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that what I put in with regards the coins and banknotes was somewhat wordy and needs editing down a bit, something I'll gladly do as Djegan only seems to know how to revert. Something else Djegan seems incapable of is distinguishing between a descriptive term and a proper noun. When I write "First Irish pound" this is not to be construed as a name in its entirety, rather a description, i.e., the first currency to be called "Irish pound". Sadly, English lacks a clear way of distinguishing between the two and so it is left to context and the reader's intelligence. I am reintroducing the bulk of my earlier edits and would ask Djegan to stop using WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY as a reason for removing something only he doesn't like. I've already included a reference for "pound Irish" (which was presumably ignored by Djegan is his haste to revert) and I will reinstate "punt na hÉireann" once I've got evidence even Djegan can't complain about. I stand by my inclusion of the sterling issues as this was as much an "Irish pound" as the earlier and later issues.
Dove1950 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Dove the consensus previously existing has not changed, by the way what page (and paragraph) is that reference in? Sorry WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY are not dispensable. Djegan 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

May I ask Djegan what the previous conseusus is? When you raise the issue of "pound Irish", Dove responded with a reference link, and it is still shot down. What other instances of "original research" do you speak of? Dove, just give all the links and book references that you use so that we can move forward on this issue. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly guys I am not going to keep repeating myself, you can see my previous comments and they refer to previous discussion about this issue. If you want to screw up the article then thats your choice. Djegan 22:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Djegan's reversions. This article is supposed to be about the Irish Pound (relatively briefly called the Saorstat Pound), the currency of the Irish Free State/Republic of Ireland between 1928 and 1999/2002 and nothing earlier'. -- Arwel (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to escalate the hostility here. Nobody wants to screw up the article. While I agree that pre-1928 history, details on coins and banknotes should be written elsewhere, I don't think reversion is the solution. If there is a better place, such as coins of Ireland, then move the content there, or wherever you deem necessary. I read through this talk section again. Djegan gave two examples of "original research": "pound Irish" and "punt na hÉireann". Two examples doesn't justify a bulk sale revert. If the addition is "full of original research", I'm sure Djegan won't have any trouble giving more examples. Instead of avoiding the problem, help us fixing the problem. Help us by identifying where specifically where the problem is. I believe that all Djegan is asking is the sources and references. Tell us where please. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

With repect I have written in depth on this issue, however in the face the absolute determination that we must implement something that is counter to common sense, consensus, logic, and wikipedias policies their is not much more that I feel I can do. I have attempted in good faith to explain the issue. Djegan 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I too have much respect for Djegan for upholding the policies. You kept saying "previous discussion" and "have written in depth". How previous? This talk section? This entire talk page? Some other talk page? This is a long talk page here. It would be nice if you pinpoint it. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems Djegan is trying to claim that "pound Irish" is original research and on this basis is reverting the entire article. I've expanded the reference but I doubt this will satisfy Djegan. While I'm here, I'm going to ask that Djegan (or someone else who is interested) provides a reference for the use of "Irish pound" pre 1826, as I can only find Irish coming after the amount, as it does on the Bank of Ireland's tokens. I reject absolutely the assertion that this article should be limited to 1928 onwards. I hope Djegan and I can at least agree on this point.
Dove1950 12:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dove I have intensively discussed this issue with you. The consensus, see above, is clearly against what you are doing. Theirfore I will revert, without furthur comment. Djegan 23:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is the consensus? I am not against Dove's edit. And Djegan has not answered my previous question: Where is the previous discussion? Are you talking about this section? Other sections in this talk page? It seems that Djegan is the only one doing the reverts. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well see here for the consensus against original research manufactured names. By the way your wrong, read Arwels comments above, he very explicitly against the recent changed and clearly in favour of my reverts. If people want to screw up the article then I am prepaired to take them on. Djegan 01:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's original terms you're against, delete the original terms, not the whole edit. In this section, Arwel and you support the revert, Dove and I support the edit. How is a 2-2 situation a "consensus"? If by consensus you mean the earlier punt discussion, and it goes back to my first point, just delete the original terms, not the whole edit. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Chochopk, I am disappointed, "First Irish pound" and "Second Irish pound" -- you clearly dont understand what your talking about. The Saorstat pound and Irish pound are one in the same thing, just a rename of the currency in accordance with the law. Thats all. Lets not be amaturish about this. Djegan 01:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As we can see in this edit, when Djegan sees one thing he/she disagrees, he/she reverts the whole thing, rejecting other parts of the edit. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on people facts first and if you cannot get it right then leave it out. Because making things up as you go along doesnt cut it here. I am been hash here but its so sureal and misinformed that theirs no otherway, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR instantaneously. If you think their was a "First Irish pound" and "Second Irish pound" then you are living in a world of your own. I am very disappointed that its become this amaturish. LOL if it was not so disappointing. Djegan 01:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Djegan, you are avoiding my question. Why are you rejecting other parts of my edit, such as moving the succession box down?

And since we're on the subject of "First Irish pound" and "Second Irish pound", I'd like to ask, wasn't there a discontinuation of an independent Irish pound between 1826 to 1928, which the article states. I'm not making things up. These are merely descriptive title. Imagine if someone is running for president. What's wrong with section titles like "First attempt" and "Second attempt"? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Chochopk, with respect to that edit because its so fundementally flawed I reverted it. You have made other good edits and I have not reverted them. If you can stand over it with an authoritive citation then I will consider it on its merits. But I am so confident that its plainly wrong that I am reverting it in its entirity, under no circumstances am I obliged to edit out the plainly wrong from the right. Read WP:VERIFY then onus is clearly on the editor who wants to keep new matter to cite it. As I have said before I will do my best to cite any disputed text I seek to maintain. Djegan 01:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way your edit[11] gave the clearly misinformed status that the "Saorstat pound" of 1928 to 1938 was the "First Irish pound" whilst the "Irish pound" of 1938 to 2002 was the "Second Irish pound". Misinformed, and grossly at error. Thats why I reverted, whatever you comment above says what you implemented in the article is fundementally different. Please, sources people. Djegan 01:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to ask, what is it that I need to prove with source? Do you want me to prove that there are only but 2 distinct pounds? One before 1826, and the other after 1928? Or do you want me to prove the meaning of the word "first" and "second"? If it's the first thing, then it's already written in the article, a revision which you revert to (and implies that you endorse). If it's the second thing, should I reference a dictionary? What about the running-for-president example I just gave?

And by the way, I did not label Saorstát pound as the first pound. I labeled the pre-1826 as the first pound. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong! You clearly labelled Saorstat pound as part of the First Irish pound (misinformed edit) and the post-1938 pound as the Second Irish pound. Please have a closer look at your edits. At least be able to stand over your own edits and take responsibilty. Djegan 01:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the edit we seam to have a situation whereby their is three stages to the Irish pound, the "First Irish pound", the "Saorstat pound" and the "Second Irish pound". Whilst I conceed that Irish pound prior to 1928 was distinct to the 1928 one fundementally their was only two stages to the pound, viz prior to 1928 and the 1928 to 2002. All that happened in 1938 is that the Saorstat pound recieved the new name of Irish pound, its not a new currency and not a new distinct phase of the currency. Djegan 02:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, it seems that we may achive some agreement. How about

• First pound (pre-1826)
• Second point (1928-1999/2002)

• Saorstát pound (28-38)
• Irish pound, non-decimal (1938-71)
• decimal (71-99/02)
• withdrwal (2002)

• hidden inflation

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats is an improvement, though I would not edit in that manner myself, I would not revert the basic idea of two major stages. Some points I would like to make: the pound was decimalised, i.e. the subunits changed values but the value of the pound itself was not changed so one pound before 1971 is exactly the same face value as one pound after that time (so "decimalistion of the pound" [a stage in development] is not the same as the "decimal pound" [a particular thing] - their is a suttle difference). Secondly lets try to avoid using any years in the sections, if that is your intention - discription by words alone is best. Djegan 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. I knew that the value of 1 pound did not change in 1971. I am a currency collector, you know.. although not specialized in Irish. But I see a problem in this article that I seek to address in the beginning. The section titles like "From Saorstát to Irish pound", "Decimalisation", and "Breaking the link to the pound sterling" all describe changes, actions. Normally, when something about history is written, it is partitioned by periods, phases. Examples include History of Ireland and History of France. These two examples also put years in the section, which is a quick guide for someone who is unfamiliar with the subject. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Irish pound (reverse).png

Image:Irish pound (reverse).png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vague claims of equivalent acceptance for UK and Irish pounds conflict

Two quotations from the article, separated by a section break and one paragraph, read respectively:

Right up until complete withdrawal of the Irish pound on February 9, 2002, those UK coins which were the same sizes and compositions as the corresponding Irish coins were accepted virtually everywhere in Ireland.

Until this exchange rate was necessary, UK currency was accepted in the Republic on a one-for-one basis by many institutions.

The exchange rate in question was introduced in 1979. 23 years intervene between the dates that it's claimed that UK currency was accepted as 1:1 until.

Both claims are sufficiently vague that they don't really contradict one another. The first claim doesn't say the coins were accepted at 1:1, but by saying it applies to coins with the same sizes and compositions, it does rather imply that.

And the second claim only refers to "many institutions" -- not whether the institutions were governmental or commercial, or whether they were large or small, nor what percentage of them "many" is. It also doesn't refer to only specific coins of the same sizes and compositions.

Nevertheless, this issue could use some elucidation. By whom, and for how long was UK currency accepted in Ireland, at 1:1 or otherwise? And which currency denominations were accepted? --Armchairlinguist (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

By the end of the use of the pound, the only coins which were the same size in the two countries were the 1p and 2p. The 5p and 10p coins of the two countries were shrunk by different degrees in the early 1990s, and the UK 50p was made considerably smaller in 1997. The 20p and £1 coins were different sizes and compositions right from their introduction. -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 20:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The breaking of parity between IR£P and STG£ meant that STG£ in circulation (mainly coin) had a greater value. many people set aside STG£ coin for using in the UK. The amount of coin that could be set aside this way declined over time and as different coin configurations were introduced in the respective countries. In 2002 most IR£ coin collected by the Central Bank was exported to the UK Royal Mint where it was reminted/ pressed (or what ever) where compatible with existing STG£ coin. As I write I have no source but recall it being reported on RTE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobalt69 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Date Check

The first article after the introduction states "The first Irish coinage was introduced in 1897..."

It then goes on to discuss related events occurring in the 1180s, 1460, etc. Is that first date intended to be 1097? or just 897? Any ideas? Any references? I'm confused. --Pigsmoke (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hidden inflation

The suggestion that prices "rarely had been" improperly inflated at the euro changeover is complete nonsense. Everyone and his dog knows the prices were rounded up; £1 became €1.50, £10 became €13, and even penny sweets went up to 2c. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Latest Rumor

Local reports are suggesting that the Irish government has started to print the Punt again in preparation for leaving the Euro.

Looks like the entire Eurozone is going to collapse soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.93.191 (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Irish Punt in Irish Gaelic was Punt Éireannach. Also the punt was the official currency of Ireland until 31/12/2008. It was replaced by the Euro on 1/1/2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdocar (talk • contribs) 05:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

First pound / preindependence

Would this be better as a separate article? For a long time the Irish pound was 12/13 of the English and it would do better as a separate page where the various coins, notes, banks, mintings etc. could be covered separte to the 1922-2002 pound. Like Pound Scots. Sheila1988 (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Lang module errors

There are a few "Lang module errors" in this article. I don't have the knowledge to fix them. Please help to fix them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llf (talk • contribs) 01:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Currency Board

Can someone with more relevant experience write a paragraph about the Currency Board that was used to maintain IR£ /STG£ parity from 1927 to 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobalt69 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Question of the Name

Someone should put in the article a description of how happened that the currency was given the name Pound/Punt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5991:2D00:7CB6:7C96:E402:7F3B (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Evidence for IR£ being used?

Does anyone have any evidence to support the assertion that IR£ was used anywhere as an abbreviation for the IEP? (before the ISO 4217 made IEP a thing, of course.) On cheques, for example? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I have added a {{citation needed}} tag in the article. If evidence of status (not random examples of it being used somewhere sometime), it will have to be deleted. Deadline end July? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)