Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Religion section

I think the religion section is too long, as it contains almost exactly the same information that is on the main article. Wouldn't it be better if the section was condensed, so that when people visit the main article they will get additional information, as opposed to reading word for word what they've already read? Tebibyte (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If most of the information is already in the main article of religion in the Republic, then yes it should be condensed down to enough to get the general point across. A "See Also" link would suffice in directing a reader to the article. If anyone wants to question what makes this different to my current stance in regards to townlands - this is one article and it is a main component of any country article and needs an appropriate abstract. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There's no point having a "Main" tag if you're just going to reproduce the main article. Scolaire (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Enough needs to remain so that the reader doesn't need to go to the other article on religion. Some readers might just want to stay on this article.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I agree. I assume that that is exactly what Tebibyte is proposing. Scolaire (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since everyone is in agreement, I will work on it at some stage. I will try to condense it as much as possible, while keeping most of the important information there. Tebibyte (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

British Isles template in Geographic Locale (redux)

A editor has raised the question of removing the ability to pipe link the title of the British Isles template. Currently, on this page, it pipe links as [[British Isles|Britain and Ireland]]. The editor would like this ability to be removed.

Discussion is taking place here. --RA (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Economy section

The Economy section in this article is well written, although a bit long. But the main article is an absolute joke and the "Recent developments" section there is completely out of date (e.g. it says that unemployment is 11.4%, when it is actually 13.8% etc...) So I propose transferring almost all of the "Economy" section in this article to the main article, then go for a more concise section for this article. Tebibyte (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

This is just silly:

pronounced /ˈaɪərlənd/, English pronunciation: /ˈɑrlənd/

In terms of lexical sets, the first syllable of "Ireland" has the PRICE vowel. In some accents, both rhotic and nonrhotic, the sequence PRICE + //r// is subject to smoothing and/or compression, which may result in a PALM or START quality. Some Irish accents are among those affected. Some Irish accents may (additionally or instead) merge the PRICE and CHOICE vowels. But is any of this relevant here, as opposed to at Hiberno-English or English phonology? Is anybody likely to be enlightened by the IPA information given? I submit it is more likely to confuse or mislead people. It's not as though the name has an irregular spelling; if the vowel were SQUARE or NEAR, say, then that would need to be explained. jnestorius^(talk) 16:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

People mentioned

Some people mentioned in the article are not from the 26 (traditional) counties, such as Seamus Heaney and Liam Neeson. Surely these don't have a place in this article, otherwise we leave the way open to include people from all 32 counties who could be mentioned in the all island article Ireland if appropriate but not if they don't originate from here. Are there more than these two? ww2censor (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Do they have to be from the 26 counties? Heaney moved to Dublin in 1972. That's more than half a lifetime ago. In which half of his life has he been better-known? Where did he write his most important works? The section is about the arts, not about birth certificates. I'm not advocating a "leaving the door open approach" here, I just think we should be sure what our criteria are. Scolaire (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The criteria seem to be "make sure my favourite is included". I know looking at other countries lists like these seem all the rage, but I generally find them quite uninformative. Sure include the most prominently known people, but lists of dozens of people just do nothing. Surely the information in this article should summarise the main articles, which is the best place if anywhere for the lists? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly we don't want any of there people mentions to turn into lists, so if a person/group is not mentioned in a linked main article, they are not notable enough to be mentioned here. What other ways can we produce a criteria that only links the most well known people in their field? ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Special Criminal Court?

In the Justice section, the different courts in the Irish justice system are listed. Should there be a mention of the Special Criminal Court here? It seems like it would be worth a mention, given how unusual it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.156.225 (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Flag

That's the EU flag. Someone screwed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.216.8 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Economy section.

To my knowledge, the "Economy" section of this article contains no reference to the IMF's dealings with Ireland. Does anybody else feel that this information, or at least a general description, should be added? In fact, I believe a complete update is required. I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 15:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

More surprisingly, there's no mention either at the main article Economy of the Republic of Ireland. RashersTierney (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Irish government been editing Wikipedia aye? --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Per alphabetical order, I put English ahead of Irish, in the official languages section. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But you didn't just change the order, you changed the link as well. You may be right to do so, but you need to justify it instead of (apparently) trying to hide it. Anyway, per Irish language, Irish is the first official language of Ireland, so alphabetical order doesn't apply. Scolaire (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't intially noticed the link. As a result, in order to help others avoid this mistake, I changed them to Irish (first) & Hiberno-English. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Irish Government define their official languages here thus: " “the official languages” means the Irish language (being the national language and the first official language) and the English language (being a second official language) as specified in Article 8 of the Constitution;" I am reverting to the position prior to the recent poorly researched edits. Daicaregos (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing it (now), but there should be something showing this at the infobox. The way it was, they looked like co-equal official languages. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Detailed information should be discussed in an article's main text. An infobox is there to provide a brief overview of the subject. Daicaregos (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The way it was previously, was misleading. It read as Irish & English, which on face value, isn't alphabetical order & appears as co-equals. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If my latest changes aren't accepted, I will revert. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for my earlier failure to AGF, GoodDay. There does seem to be a consensus, however, that there should not be a qualifier in the infobox, just a simple statement that Irish and English (in that order) are the official languages.

On reflection, however, I do think you were right to change the link to English, even though it was unintentional. Because, of course, Hiberno-English is not an official language. Taking away the pipelink shows up how inappropriate the link is. I would favour changing it to "[[Irish language|Irish]], [[English language|English]]". Scolaire (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No probs Scolaire. MF has changed it to [Irish language|Irish] & [Hiberno-English|English] with (first) & (second) to show non-equal status. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Still though, we should have something like (first), (second) to show that the government states one is before the other. Right now, it looks like they're equals & thus erroneously listed (not in alphabetical order). Remember folks, clarification is for outsiders benefit. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Article 8 of the Constitution states that the Irish language is the first and the English language is the second official language.--MFIreland • ^Talk 15:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

But we need something to point this out, like a note next to Irish, leading to the Constitution's statement. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

But why? The official languages are Irish and English, in that order. That's what it says in the infobox. No confusion. If you start adding "first" and "second" in the infobox, readers say "why is that there?" Confusion. It's not an article on the language, or on the constitution. If every item in every infobox had to be "explained", all infoboxes would become unreadable. Scolaire (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That was my reasoning when I removed the word '(first)'. It sounded kind of meaningless to me. Fred DeSoya (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not good enough, look how it mis-lead me. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding it a little difficult to understand why it would mislead you. Rather more misleading was dumping the word 'first' in which means nothing at all. Fred DeSoya (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The consensus here is to have Irish, English. If you wanted further information you, or any reader (misled or not), could have looked at the Demographics section, Languages subsection, where it should be explained in more detail. That it is not means the Languages subsection should be expanded, not the infobox. Detailed information should be discussed in an article's main text. An infobox is there to provide a brief overview of the subject. Daicaregos (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, clarification is required here. But I'm in the minorty here, so I shant press it further. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with re-adding (first) and (second)as its official. It may also help clear up the reason way Ireland uses a number of Irish language terms in English like Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Ceann Comhairle, Uachtarán, Dáil Éireann, Seanad Éireann, Oireachtas, Garda etc.--MFIreland • ^Talk 19:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It may, but would that be OR or have you a source that says so? Scolaire (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland Act, 1948

Under Etymology, there is this sentence regarding the passing of the RoI Act:

No change of name took place as a result of that act, nor could it, as the name of the state is enshrined in the Constitution, and would require a referendum to change.

Surely, more to the point here would be, why would there be a change of name at the time - considering the Bunreacht took the whole island as the state? Not sure what to change, but it just seems strange as an explanation Dave (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Pronunciation of Ireland

Why is the North American pronunciation of Ireland listed as the correct pronunciation, with the general pronunciation used in Ireland, the UK and Australia listed as a "local pronunciation". If the North American pronunciation need be listed at all, it should be listed as an Americanism. Nobody in Ireland pronounces it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.13.194 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Soccer vs Association football

Given that the vast majority of people in Irelasnd do NOT use the term association football, instead preferring soccer, and that this article uses hiberno-english, shouldn't we use the commonly used term? Fmph (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of people who play or follow football (the most played sport in Ireland) call it "football". Its governing body calls it football. Its clubs call it football. The most popular sports show on Irish radio broadcasts "The Football Show". The term "soccer" is used largely by followers of gaelic games who have a deeply disturbing attitude towards other sports in Ireland. Onetonycousins (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Onetonycousins, though have no opinion on his last sentence. You would also need sources that clearly state that soccer is the most commonly used term for association football in Ireland. Also is soccer a Hiberno-English term? Soccer is meant to be an Oxford -er abbreviated form of "association" according to the Association football article.

I also agree with Fmph that people here don't use the term "association football", but they do use the term "football". Mabuska ^(talk) 14:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a report from The Economic and Social Research Institute regarding sport in Ireland. It used the term soccer when referring to AF and football for what the people in Ireland call football (i.e. Gaelic). The second paragraph in the WP article Sport in Ireland, which uses the report as a reference states Gaelic football is the most popular sport in Ireland in terms of match attendance and community involvement, and represents 34% of total sports attendances at events in Ireland and abroad, followed by hurling at 23%, soccer at 16% and rugby at 8%. Perhaps user:Onetonycousins can backup the claims made above with actual references? And perhaps someone could point out to user:Nem1yan that Ireland maybe in Europe but the article is not about Europeans and what they call anything. Bjmullan (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I could say with certainty that its called the Football Association of Ireland rather than Soccer Association of Ireland. However one report doesn't equate to common-use, and no doubt was used to differentiate from Gaelic football in the report. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bjmullan the League of Ireland is a "football" league correct? The statement in question links to the League of Ireland page so it should reflect the page. If the League was refered to as a "soccer league" then the term soccer would be correct. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course the the FAI and the LoI will call it football. That's their POV. It can't be called football, because in Ireland there are 2 entities commonly referred to as 'football' - the one that's also known as 'gaah' and the one that is known as 'soccer' No one, but no one, refers to it as 'association football'. Most people wouldn't even recognise the term. And given that we cannot use 'football' on its own, the alternate should be soccer. Can anyone find a reliable source which uses the term 'association football' in an Irish context? I thought not. Fmph (talk)

Sources for soccer

The four main media outlets

• www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/
• www.irishtimes.com/sports/soccer/
• www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/
• www.tv3.ie/sport_results.php?sport=soccer&section=fixtures&competitionId=100

Sources for association football

None other than FAI themselves, amazon.co.uk and British media outlets

• Google query

• Not quite that simple. http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/soccer/2011/0223/1224290665436.html contains the phrase "The medical people and ourselves on the football side are delighted with his progress."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/league-of-ireland/oneills-arrival-boosts-hoops-forward-riches-2551835.html contains the heading "Football stats" right under "Latest soccer video". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but, no but, neither mention 'association football'. You'll find loads of references for football. Thats a given. But asasociation football? I think not ... Fmph (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I also think its not that simple seeing as hardly anything describes it explicitly as "association football", but just football. Many sources would state "football", and that Google query has "association football" which would mean it would need to have that exact phrase. Rather this would be a better search query.

Why do we have to call it "association football", why not pipe it to "football" the most common name in the world for the sport. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The current text is not linked so a pipe is not needed. The commonly used hiberno-english term works just fine. Fmph (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

So even Mabuska agrees that we shouldn't use the term association football because no one uses it. So can we get on and choose a term which is not 'football' (given DAB requirements) and is not 'association football' (given no one uses it). I'd suggest soccer which everyone in Ireland recognises. Fmph (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I would go further and suggest that the world recognises the term soccer as an disambiguous term for association football (it's official term). You only have to look at the last world cup, the main centre was called Soccer City. Perhaps the people with a deeply disturbing attitude towards the name of the game are those that think associated football is the only ball game in the world. Bjmullan (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is not particularly written for people in Ireland, it's written for english-speaking people the world over, so please all consider that most important point when pushing your POV. LemonMonday Talk 17:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree with you LemonMonday, I would hate for the 308 million people in the largest English speaking country in the world to get confused between football and football. Bjmullan (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah just imagine all the other countries where English is spoken as a first or second language where they do call it football who might want to look at the English Wikipedia other than just Americans. I'd also like to think that its more likely India that is the largest English speaking country in the world especially as it has over 1.2 billion people and English is the secondary official language of it.

Just to calrify, South Africa is a dubious choice for an example. They called the stadium "Soccer City" just as they called their premier league Premier Soccer League, however their football association is called South African Football Association not Soccer Association (which was a former name). Mabuska ^(talk) 13:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Metric system comes to mind. Maybe we can follow {{Convert}} and write something like "football (soccer)" so everybody could understand. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That "football (soccer)" seems like a good idea, although the gaa footsoldiers on here will probably reject it. They want a propaganda piece. Onetonycousins (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why can't we just call all three sports; American football, association football, and Gaelic football? Its very clear and none of the three names are wrong. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed at Association football in the Republic of Ireland and soccer was rejected. football (soccer) was rejected when the article was moved from "football (soccer) to "Association football Gnevin (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• The article needs to be careful if it discusses "association football" when the sources for the statements use the "soccer" terminology, and vice versa. If you want to choose terminology that is different from what is used in the sources, you need to make sure that the change complies with MOS:FOLLOW and you need to clearly identify the switch in terminology, so if the source uses "soccer" and the Wikipedia article uses "association football" then the first usage should clarify this i.e. "association football (sometimes referred to as soccer)", so it's clear that the article and source aren't discussing different sports. It can't be assumed that everyone is familiar enough with the sport or the terminology to know the terms are analogous. Betty Logan (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Association football" is a good balance between the local flavour and the need to write formally for a global audience. Ktlynch (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It would hardly be controversial if someone used association football when it says soccer in a source or vis versa - its not untrue, or dubious, or controversial as they are both the same sport and just two different terms for it. For example we paraphrase sources for Wikipedia which means we don't always use the same words in a source. Using one term for a sport instead of another for the same sport would hardly need MOS:FOLLOW. Would MOS:FOLLOW not be more for more controversial word changes such as replacing "killed" with stronger terms such as "slaughtered" etc.? Mabuska ^(talk) 17:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as this has stalled i propose we use the term "association football". Mabuska ^(talk) 18:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"Association football" is fine as a compromise, if one is actually necessary. But "soccer" seems to be the most common usage in the country (that is, in the entire population, not just the segment that follows the sport.) It is also unlikely to confuse anyone; unlike the word "football", "soccer" never refers to any other sport. Just "football" is unacceptable, as that term has other meanings in Ireland.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hence why the other meaning is formerly known as "Gaelic football" :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 21:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

'Formerly'? When? It has always been just football. The adjective 'Gaelic' is applied by people who follow the other codes. --Red King (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops bad spelling. I meant formally. The adjective Gaelic should be included before football for that sport in Wikipedia regardless seeing as this site has a global audience and as you said below football is football. Though where are Fmph and Onetonycousins at? They too where involved at the start of this discussion and have gone quiet. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Soccer" would seem to be the better choice to me as a general term within this article. "Association football" isn't normally used and I suspect many people would scratch their heads on seeing it. But it doesn't really merit as much discussion as has been given to it here.

"Football" alone is a non-runner since it can refer to a number of different codes of football. Leaving Gaelic football aside, remember that rugby is "football" too — as evidenced by the oldest football club in the world, the Dublin University Football Club, the IRFU, etc.. — even though it would not commonly be called "football". --RA (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What ever happened to WP:COMMONNAME? In Ireland, 'Association Football' is most commonly known as soccer. Football is, well, football. --Red King (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Says who? And, in any case, this isn't an Irish encyclopaedia: it's a global one. Mooretwin (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:MOS#Strong national ties to a topic. Irish usage is followed unless there's a reason not to (ie, it would confuse non-Irish). Also "football" is not the global name for the sport; the term refers to different games in different places, including Ireland.--139.62.115.42 (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So no source to support your statement that Association football is most commonly known as soccer in Ireland? And the Republic of Ireland has no "strong national ties" to football - it is only one of hundreds of coutries where football is played. And football is the "global name" of the sport - see FIFA, for example, and the vast, vast majority of governing bodies around the globe. Mooretwin (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. The Republic of Ireland obviously has strong national ties to the topic of this article, Republic of Ireland. So we go with Irish usage in the article. In Irish usage "football" is ambiguous, as it could refer to either Gaelic football or association football.--139.62.115.42 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Strong national ties to a topic is more about spelling, and you have to provide a source that soccer is the national term for the sport in Hiberno-English. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your wish, Mabuska ... ;-) —

• football: Gaelic (Irish) football. 'He was always very football, and they say he played a bit of soccer too.' (NL, Mayo) See: Gaelic, Soccer. [page 95]
• soccer: (colloq.) a popular name for association football (from the second syllable of which (-soc ) the word 'soccer' is derived). 'We'd always play soccer in the field below the house after school' (Mayo). See Football. [page 221]

Source: Terence Patrick Dolan (ed.), 2006, A Dictionary of Hiberno-English:the Irish use of English, Gill and Macmillan: Dublin

Doesn't say that "soccer" is the national term for the sport but irons out that it is a valid term in Hiberno-Enlgish and - shock! horror! - says "football" refers to the GAA form. Still, I think for clairty we would need to avoid "football" alone for any code. --RA (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say all dictionaries; Hiberno-Irish, British-English, and American-English etc. have an entry for soccer as its an English word lol. My personal preference was and is for "association football" not "football" on its own due to the ambuguity of the term especially in regards to Ireland. I haven't advocated using "football" on its own as far as i'm aware, though don't know why it keeps coming up when the original contributors to this discussion were argueing over "soccer" and "association football" not "soccer" and "football". Mabuska ^(talk) 21:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It was initially unclear to me, and I'm not an expert in Hiberno-English, but I spend some time reviewing the provided sources. It appears that on the Emerald Isle, Gaelic football and association football are played and quite popular. Generally which naming do we use is a relatively minor issue, since we provide disambiguation wiki-links, as long as names do not cause confusion or mis-presentation. I suggested using football (soccer) initially, since there is a genuine concern about readability. However, after reviewing the sources and considering both MOS:FOLLOW and MOS:TIES it appears to me that

1. It would be appropriate in my opinion, to disambiguate and wikilink soccer, provided sources and Wiki guidelines and policies are clearly consistent on this point. I see no problem with misunderstanding even though I, personally, call this sport football, name soccer is clear and could only mean one kind of sport.
2. While sources often call the most popular sport in Ireland as just football, sources also disambiguate and so should we, by number of reasons and use Gaelic football, since football could mean anything even rugby, it appears.

Cheers, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the obsessive need to pipe rather than allow the systems redirect functions to work as intended - soccer doesn't need a pipe because it already has a redirect! Fmph (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Obsessive need to pipe? I'll make sure i remember that statement from you lol ;-) Though i agree soccer is a redirect so doesn't need piped. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Visit by Queen Elizabeth

I have reinserted this item relating to the proposes State Visit of Queen Elizabeth II to Ireland. I don't know why it was reversed as the visit has been recognised as one of the most important events to take place in Ireland. The last vist to Ireland was by King George V when Ireland was still part of the UK. This 2011 visit is being seen as the final normalisation of relations between the UK & Ireland post the Good Friday Agreement. Perhaps other editors can expand? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not true that the last visit to Ireland was by King George V. Elizabeth II has been to Northern Ireland many times during her reign. Mooretwin (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There has never been a visit to what is now known as the Republic of Ireland by a UK reigning monarch. This is why it is important to include this in the article.Gavin Lisburn (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Many heads of states have visited Ireland, no need for a entire section for a person who may or may not visit.--MFIreland • ^Talk 11:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering the significance of the whole thing MFIreland, it is very notable and there should be no attempts to cover it up. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a History of the Republic of Ireland article? It should certainly be included there, if not also in this article. Mooretwin (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Its not significant even if it happens. Major visits to Ireland by John F. Kennedy in 1963 and Pope John Paul II in 1979 are not mentioned in the article. Its also been proposed that Barack Obama and Pope Benedict XVI visit Ireland but again its not mentioned. Cover up? Its no secret, the proposed visits by Obama, Pope Benedict and the queen have all been reported in the media.--MFIreland • ^Talk 12:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that you're feigning ignorance of the significance of this particular visit. Mooretwin (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

MFIreland the visit by the British monarch to the Republic is of more notability than a visit by Barack Obama or a Pope. If you know anything about Irish history you will know that this is hugely significant considering everything thats happened. There is never any surprise if a Pope or US President decides to visit the Republic. It won't ever cause any controversy. But the British monarch is an entirely different issue and will spark a lot of controversy and protests no doubt from hardline republicans when she visits. It is hugely significant on several levels.

Unless you want to get involved in yet ANOTHER edit war going by your ever increasing history of 3RR warnings, i suggest you discuss things. I don't think it merits its own sub-heading though as the section is quite small. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The event should be mention as it currently is with a sentence in the Foreign relations sub-heading but don't believe that it justifies it's own heading or sub-heading. Bjmullan (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the first visit by a British (for that matter Canadian, Australian etc) monarch to the Republic. Giving the Troubles history, it's significant & should be included in some form. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

We should also make it clear, that it's the Republic she's visiting. As Mooretwin mentioned, she's visited Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have edited MFIrelands last changes to insert the proposed dates of the visits. Neither the Pope's or the US President's are confirmed. I would agree that the Queen's visit will lead to a new section probably being added to deal with issues, controversies and the like.Gavin Lisburn (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to note for the point of this discussion, MFIreland has just been blocked for a year. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska, whether an editor is blocked or not does not mean that the arguments they present are less valid so therefore your note here is not required. Bjmullan (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Never said his arguements are any less valid. The reason for the note is in case anyone here wonders why MFIreland who had a problem with the addition in the first place has suddenly disappeared and gone quiet. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Mabuska. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This whole discussion is a prime example of recentism. As MFIreland (blocked or not) pointed out, the visits of JFK and JP2 are not referred to in this article. The good and simple reason is that visits by heads of state have little or nothing to do with foreign relations! Therefore "balancing" the report of the Queen's visit with a report of visits by the Pope and the US President does not improve the article, it only clutters it further. The visit is being seen as the final normalisation of relations between Ireland and the UK? Then there ought to be a paragraph (NOT a separate section) on relations between Ireland and the UK: In the de Valera years relations were blah, when the Troubles began blah, after the Anglo-Irish Agreement blah, after the GFA blah, and finally, in 2011, the Queen was invited to visit Ireland. Is anybody up to writing an encyclopaedic paragraph instead of a news item? Scolaire (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The comparison between a US President visit or Papal visit and the visit by the UK Monarch isn't a good one Scolaire. JFK, Reegan, JP2 have all come and gone. Benedict is coming too. However none of them are as significant and possibly controversial as Queen E II due to the reasons i would like to think all of us know well. Whether there is enough stuff in the end for a whole sub-section of its own who knows. All i know is that as i made sure in the article - it only comprises of a paragraph in the main section as it doesn't need its own sub-section at this present time if it ever does need one. The future visits by Obama and Benedict i think are worthy enough mentions in the article. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You haven't answered any of my points, Mabuska. One, if past visits by Kennedy, Reagan and John Paul are not significant, why are future visits by Obama and Benedict "worthy enough mentions"? Two, if the Queen's visit is significant "due to the reasons all of us know well" why can nobody write, in black and white, in the article, what those reasons are? In other words, do you take issue with my statement that we need a paragraph about relations between Ireland and the UK instead of a news item about an upcoming visit, and if so, why? Scolaire (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not a news website... I think listing upcoming visits, which don't even have an exact date yet, is unnecessary and should be removed. Tebibyte (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree Lugnad (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska above has explained why the Queen's visit is of extreme importance to Ireland and the item should be expanded to explain why Ireland, Britain & NI have been eagerly awaiting such a visit. The Queen's will go ahead and is awaiting the itinery to be published. The Papal and US visit are probably not yet planned and could be removed at this stage. Gavin Lisburn 17:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, then. I'll remove the paragraph and when somebody writes up the foreign relations angle in an encyclopaedic way it can be added. Scolaire (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm also shortening the heading of this section as it is unnecessarily long. Scolaire (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This subject is being dealt with in a more mature way on Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom relations. Gavin Lisburn 20:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin Lisburn (talk • contribs)

where it is relevant, it is less relevant here Lugnad (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

True. Shssh don't mention the war ..err... Queen. If Scolaire thinks that its not written in an appropriate encyclopedic way then maybe they can set us all an example and show us how rather than imply someone else do it. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska, I'm not entirely happy with your tone there. It is ad hominem and suggests that politics is the issue here rather than article improvement. I did show you how to write an encyclopaedic paragraph in my very first post (just scroll up to the last de-indent but one). If you are confused by the word "blah", just sustitute "[insert text here]". I'm not implying someone else do it, I'm saying that I won't do it because I don't have the time to source it properly but if somebody else has the time and the inclination they can. Scolaire (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Country vs state

Why I think the infobox should read state instead of country: First, "country" means a region which is associated with the actual entity, the state. Also, the source uses the (capitalized) word State. The original reason for changing state to country was incorrect - state can be used and is used to refer to sovereign states as well as states under a unified federal government like the one in USA. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. RashersTierney (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Earliest use of "Republic of Ireland"

What is the earliest use of the term "Republic of Ireland"? I came across a "Report from the Committee of Secrecy of the House of Lords of Ireland" in 1798 which uses the term in a title of "Minister of the Executive Directory of the Republic of Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Linked here to The Scots magazine, Vol 60, 1798. RashersTierney (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently this refers to the Republic of Connaught. Hans Adler 14:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing 1949, when the republic came into being. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, do you sometimes read the threads to which you respond? Hans Adler 17:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Another reference, but also referring to the same period of history. Volume 2 of Life of Theobald Wolfe Tone, printed in 1826. http://books.google.com/books?id=aKdnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA203#v=onepage&q&f=false - although the text also makes reference to "Irish Republic" and other terms. The context of usage refers to the entire island. In these passages, it appears Wolfe Tone was constructing an argument to be put to the French to lend assistance in the form of men, guns, ammo, money, a general, etc in order to ultimately set up a republic. --HighKing (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Would all of this not be more relevant to the Irish Republic article / talk page? The Republic of the 1798 period, whether it be called the Irish Republic, Republic of Ireland or Republic of Connaught, was the forerunner of the Irish Republic that was proclaimed in 1916 and declared independent in 1919. Therefore, it seems to me, it should be in a "Background" section of that article, along with the "Irish Republic, now virtually established" of the IRB oath. This article, as GoodDay so tactfully pointed out, is about the partitionist 26-county state that was named "The Republic of Ireland" in the 1948 Act (which did not, of course, use the word "name" when naming it). Scolaire (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Name

For the second day running we have the claim that the conventional long name is Republic of Ireland. The state has only one English name, Ireland. O Fenian (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"described incorrectly and illegally as the Republic of Ireland" - ILLEGALLY? How can it be "illegal" to describe a country name incorrectly? If I live in the UK, or France, or Russia, or the USA for example, and I am a Wikipedia reader, it is most certainly NOT "illegal" for me to describe the name of Ireland incorrectly!--621PWC (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record the edit in question immediately above was made by an IP one month after the initial post. RashersTierney (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it refers to the fact that "The Republic of Ireland" isn't one of the legal names of the state which are "Éire" in Irish and "Ireland" in English, if I'm not mistaken. I think it should be reworded to something like "the state is often referred to as the Republic of Ireland, a name which is not recognised as a legal name for the state" which I think is what is trying to be said here. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

But it is, of course, the legal description of the state. So I think it's fine as is. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it's OK as it is now. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The introduction mentions both the official constitutional name of the state, and the widely used unofficial/colloquial term "Republic of Ireland". Both have long been highlighted in bold in this article. The reason is that under the Manual of Style widely used alternative terms for the topic of an article go in bold, even if they are unofficial or 'incorrect'. There is nothing in IMOS that exempts this article from that general principle. An editor has recently removed the longstanding bold highlighting; for the reason given I'm putting it back. Iota (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies - I did an undo and it undid your two previous edits. I only intended to undo the most recent edit, which was where you changed the links of articles with the reason "Until such time as these articles are renamed, these are the links". I've no problem with bolding "Republic of Ireland" in the lede such as it is, but changing the links are unnecessary. --HighKing (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. But personally I think that when a link is of the form "Main article: X" it should point directly to the relevant article title, rather than a redirect page. This is just a quibble though. Iota (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I am not sure as why there is even a discussion around the name if the country. Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland states "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."

As such no state exists called the "Republic of Ireland".

The term Republic before the country name is a descriptive name. It would be the same as saying the country name of the United States of America is the "Federal Republic of the United States of America" or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the “Constitutional Monocracy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. This would be incorrect.

The official name used by the Government of Ireland is "Ireland" in the English language. On Embassies around the world it is "Embassy of Ireland". In the United Nations and the European Union the name used and accepted is "Ireland".

Arguably one of the most important agreements between the government of Ireland and the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (i.e. The Belfast/Good Friday Agreement) is entitled "Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland"

The British media coverage of the recent official state visit to Ireland by the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland used the name "Ireland" i.e. 1. The Guardian 2. Sky News 3. The Telegraph

The official Buckingham Palace reports on the visit also used "Ireland" as the official name.

As such it is pretty strange the Wikipedia has not caught up with the world in the correct naming of this country. As the second pillar of Wikipedia states “Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view” then the entry on the country should use the official and internationally recognised name of the country.Bear32ie (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not the only criteria which governs an article name. Fmph (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don’t think that is exactly correct. This site defines itself as an "encyclopedia" on the Wikipedia:About page. When I would search a reference book or especially an encyclopaedia I would expect that the correct name would be used for what I would search.

I think using the correct name is actually one of, if not the most important criteria surrounding the readability, search ability and factuality of any article. The correct naming convention would be expected of any quality reference work or information source.

The article itself, can of course go into all the variety of name that surround this country, which is the point of the body content on an article.

When I go to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (a very reputable encyclopaedia) and search “Ireland” you are given the correct name for the country on the article and if you want to read more you can explore that in the body of the article. The same also applies to the CIA World Factbook or any amount of creditable reference sources I could point to.

However, if you have any other criteria that are logically more important than using the correct name of something to find it in a reference source I am happy to listen.Bear32ie (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So what's the correct name of the island, then? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that is one of the criteria. There is one in their about WP:NPOV titles, but all the criteria are pretty equal to each other. You may think there is nothing more important than your pet criteria, but actually the truth is that there are many equally important criteria, all of which need to be balanced against each other. The wikipedia solution is not perfect, but it is acceptable to the majority of editors. Fmph (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The fallacy that gets every pro-RoI titling argument going is the assumption that a "solution" is needed. That petitio principii has been since day one of this sorry "debate" the stance taken in arguments supporting use of the unofficial, awkward, incorrect title. No "solution" is needed. Ireland is the name of the country. That is the verifiable, fundamental truth that is the stupefyingly simple "solution" to the imaginary problem. The three article titles should be: Ireland, Ireland (island) and Northern Ireland. This proposition that some ambiguity question needs some "solution" and therefor this article needs to be called "Republic of Ireland" is beyond laughable. It is called "Republic of Ireland" because of the wrongheaded defense of that false assumption. It is classic with a capital B Bullshit. To promote and defend this title, apparently one must be convinced the awkwardness and wrongness of the title are of no consequence, that the fact all of the other institutions mentioned above have seen no need for such a "solution" is of no consequence. The false premise promotes the view that there are poor, confused, put upon "readers" who can't talk about Ireland as a country, only as an island, because, you know, there is Northern Ireland, and there was Ireland part of the kingdom, so this recently founded (democratically declared independent 1919/recognized 1922/constitutionally named 1937) place needs this "Republic of" tag added... absurd excuse making and an impediment to providing readers with the truth. In English, Ireland is the name of the country. This article is falsely titled. The rest of you waste your own time "debating" this, those of you with common sense, look here. Goodbye. Sswonk (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but suggesting it is fact when others clearly - and with sound arguments -dispute this does not move us any closer to a solution. "My way or No way" often ends up at "No way" Fmph (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is what happened last time, IIRC. Sswonk, I look forward to your WP:RM of Libya to Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya... Alternatively, we could all stop rehearsing our arguments, wait till September 18, and do something more productive in the meantime. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the island is called Ireland. There is the country called Ireland on the island and a constituent part of the United Kingdom on the island called Northern Ireland.

These are the only official names. Anything else is people with political opinions. If this is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia claims it "is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory." then it should use the correct official names for all articles on the site and leave personal and political opinions to the blogs and forum pages.

If the Irish government changes the name of the country to the Republic of Ireland then the article should be called that. However, until that happens respect should be paid to the independent democratic country and the correct, official and world wide recognised name should be used.Bear32ie (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Many are in favour of the island being called by its proper name, too. As regards countries - take a look. The vast majority, I believe, are not actually at their official name on WP. But really - we've been through all of this before, including an Arbcom-sanctioned mediation followed by a democratic vote. The result of which was to maintain the status quo and have a moratorium on discussing page moves of Republic of Ireland and Ireland for two years - which runs out on September 18th. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. These discussions should wait. But the Arbcom mediation was actually non-existant - they didn't mediate in the slightest. And the rules and procedures they set down weren't followed....as I pointed out at the time. Still, we're here now, and the pipelinking helped in many situations, so it wasn't terrible either. --HighKing (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

True there may be a number of countries on wikipedia which are not called by their official state name. This can be due to the country been known as a specific name world wide and which the government of the country uses itself i.e. France (officially called the French Republic) or a country which is controlled by a semi official government i.e. Burma (officially called the Republic of the Union of Myanmar).

Ireland as a country does not fall into either of these categories. In all respects the people and the government of Ireland refer to the country as Ireland and people and governments of other countries refer to the country as Ireland. Ireland itself is also a fully recognised parliamentary democracy.

Just because other pages are incorrect does not mean that is a reason to keep this page incorrect.

As a person who loves factual information I am heavily in favour of anything being called by its correct name. I am also not very clear as to why there is even a discussion on the correct name of the country. Who exactly feels the Ireland is the incorrect name for Ireland? (Please only factual answers to this question)

You say there was a democratic vote. I would be very interested to see who was included, numbers, location of people etc. If that is how a site which purport to deliver factual information works then a vote can be taken by a small linited group to change any factual information the small limited group does not like and then say it was a "democratic vote". Again I point to Wikipedia claiming it "is not ... an experiment in anarchy or democracy ...". It is a "... free-content encyclopaedia project ...".

A fact is a fact. If this type of "democratic vote" can attempt to change a fact into an incorrect statement then what is to stop a small group of people from having a discussion on any subject, lets say they claims the moon landings were fake. They then have a vote in the small group and thus through an alleged "democratic consensus" change the wikipedia page to reflect the moon landings were a fake. I don’t think that really stands up now.Bear32ie (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

How many of those countries detail their name in English in their written constitution and are yet inaccurately 'described' in their Wiki article? A triumph of consensus over accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.20.191 (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This issue should be put to rest once and for all... the name of the country is Ireland, and is internationally recognised as such. A small number of random editors should not be able to determine the correct name. I'm pretty sure that 99% of people who type 'Ireland' into the Wikipedia search box are expecting to be directed to the country with the tricolour flag. Tebibyte (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't set your expectation too high. For all the claims made, wikipedia is not completely accurate or free of pov distortions. Perhaps it is getting there. But not yet. Enough good editors have foundered on this point - and on others such as "British Isles". I would regret seeing you going also. Those insisting on RoI are doing no service to themselves or wikipedia. One hopes that in time they will recognise their error. My advice is to ignore these issues until that day dawns. Focus on areas where you have an expertise or an interest. Leave RoI to those who prefer a squabble rather than construct. - Lugnad (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see the problem, several other online encyclopedias, such as Britannica, use Ireland instead of Republic of Ireland. I can't understand why Wikipedia has to be different, and completely ignorant on this particular issue. Tebibyte (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The "problem" is that there is an island called Ireland and a state called Ireland. Due to limitations in the Mediawiki software/the nature of the web, you can't have two articles of the same name, so one of them (the island) is at Ireland and the other (the state) is at Republic of Ireland, which also happens to be the legal description of the state. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well then the obvious solution would be to name one article Ireland and the other Ireland (the island). Tebibyte (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please - do not get sucked in - being logical and sensible won't work - if you push hard enough there will be long repitive pointless "debates" - a variety of proposals - followed by a vote - endorsing what will probably be an unsatisfactory comprimise between truth and fiction - then the arbcom group will enfore the nonsense - great effort will have been expended - I trust you get the picture. On the other hand - if there is no fight, no victory for their pov, reason might pervail. - Lugnad (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Silliness

It is plainly silly to say that there are no highly developed countries and that countries are only "developed or developing". It is obvious that they are different gradations, that some countries are more developed that others and that some countries are static or even going backward—neither developed nor developing. The Republic of Ireland is still one of the wealthiest countries in the world and justifies the adjective highly. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Tebibyte (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an index of development, which is all readers need to assess how developed a place is. Subjective words like 'highly' are unhelpful and confusing. --Red King (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the index being cited, Ireland is neither "developed" nor "highly developed". It is in fact "very highly developed". The index is here. --RA (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sports

The Sports section of this article is very extensive. It should be more general and concise considering that it has a main article. Looking at the Germany article for example, only six sports people are mentioned in comparison to what seems like several hundreds in the Republic of Ireland article. Tebibyte (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"Ireland"

Why if it is internationally recognised that Ireland is a soveriegn state in legaslature and international organizations is it not on Wikipedia ? The articleon the island should be referred to as the "Island of Ireland" and the article on the soveriegn state as "Ireland" . http://www.un.org/en/members/ http://publications.europa.eu/code/pdf/370000en.htm http://www.imf.org/external/country/index.htm These list prove that Ireland is the state . "described incorrectly and illegally as the Republic of Ireland" - ILLEGALLY? How can it be "illegal" to describe a country name incorrectly? If I live in the UK, or France, or Russia, or the USA for example, and I am a Wikipedia reader, it is most certainly NOT "illegal" for me to describe the name of Ireland incorrectly!--621PWC (talk) " it would be against UN mandates and technically not a punishable offence still yes illegal , in an EU country that has adopted the EU constitution -like the France- yes it breaks that and would again be illegal . The UK adopted the Eu constitution but as they dont have a written one it could be agrued either way but as the European Courts are higher than any UK court -no matter which version of UK law is being used- it stands that Ireland is the soveriegn states legal name in the UK . The outcome on this debate could be a legal cursor on Wikipedia for "Failure of Human Rights" , as Wikipedia fail to uphold what is international law ( by being in international documents and treaties - yes this makes it legally the name of the state.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.85.165 (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Numerous countries on Wikipedia aren't called by their official name however the correct place to discuss this is here. Also if I were you I'd tread carefully with the legal/illegal arguments as this can result in a block. Valenciano (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Numerous countries on Wikipedia aren't called by their official name " why not . I think the understanding of Wikipedia was an open base Encyclopedia with references , I have referenced the largest european institution (EU) the largest world organization (UN) and the worlds largest monetary organization (IMF) and they all state that Ireland is a sovereign state . Yet a POV , definitly not Npov , of some users is refusing to acknowledge the "world" view . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.85.165 (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if people can't wait until September to have an intense naming discussion, there is a somewhat related discussion going on now at Talk:China (including an open RfC). At the moment there are two articles: China and People's Republic of China. The main "country" article (i.e. the one with the flag at the top) is currently located at the "People's Republic of China". Its outcome may, or may not be related to the Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland articles.. but the arguments certainly seem analogous. Mlm42 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

We've still got 2 weeks to go, before the freeze on these discussions have expired. In the meantime, best to have these debates at related WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Display title

Should the title of the article "Republic of Ireland" be displayed as "Ireland" using the DISPLAYTITLE tool? DrKay (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

By adding the code {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style = "display:none">Republic of </span>Ireland}} to the top of the article, the page name will display as "Ireland" even though the page remains at "Republic of Ireland". This would go someway to address concerns about the name of the page without actually moving it. DrKay (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's probably the best we can ever hope for... so I agree. Tebibyte (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed two years ago during the last debate. I forget the exact reasons but it was generally agreed that this would not be a good thing. At any rate, second-guessing the outcome of a current debate is not altogether kosher, and deliberately fixing it so that if the majority want the title to be one thing, the title will display as another thing, is even less so. I haven't even seen DrKay's contribution to the discussion on IECOLL yet! The reason I missed the original post here - and I presume the reasons others did - is that I was focussing on that discussion. Scolaire (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It was discussed here. I think very wide community participation would be necessary before proceeding along that line.

Another similar solution that was proposed was that for all articles that are disambiguated using parenthesis that the parenthesis text would be hidden, made smaller or put onto the next line e.g.: see example. In that case, this page would be moved to Ireland (state). I'm not sure if the fix in that circumstance would be applied at a site-wide basis in the MediaWiki software or on a case-by-case basis. --RA (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the result of this idea of DrKay's is, i have to admit it is an interesting and ingenious idea regardless if i agree with it or not. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree as having a different title and name as it could cause confusion among user. Perhaps they would find the Republic of Ireland link that just says Ireland and then read the page. Later they could search for it and find the island page and think that is has been dramatically changed. I have to argue against having a different name and title. If the page should be called Ireland, it should be moved there (and the island page moved elsewhere). I tried looking a bit for them, but couldn't really find anything: what are the arguments against the page just being called Republic of Ireland? Eomund (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the title of this page and whether to move it have re-opened following a two-year moratorium overseen by the ArbCom. That discussion is taking place here. --RA (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI - I've opened a thread inviting comment on my suggestion above at the Village Pump. --RA (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the current title is that it no doubt misleads many readers into thinking that "Republic of Ireland" is the country's long-form official name. So any of the above proposals is obviously an improvement. My preference is that the article title should be Ireland (republic) with the word "(republic)" displayed in reduced size. Kauffner (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats why the lede states that thats its description, though several editors teamed up to prevent the inclusion of the word "official" prior to "description". If reduced sizes are going to be thrown out as an idea, then why not display the "Republic of" bit in reduced size? Mabuska ^(talk) 09:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've no probs with RA's proposal. GoodDay (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• This proposal goes against Wikipedia's guidelines against giving two articles the same name and for using the displaytitle magic word. I'd go as far to say that that fact that it can be implemented counts as a bug in the software. Another side effect is that someone who has css turned off will see a different title to someone with it turned on. But frankly the article title should be the article and not something else. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• the article title should be the article and not something else - that's why we're in this mess. --HighKing (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• The articles wouldn't have the same name. Where is the guideline saying not to use DISPLAYTITLE? DrKay (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Help:DISPLAYTITLE#Changing the displayed title - "Under the present software configuration, only limited modifications can be made: the displayed title must still resolve to the true name of the page (i.e. if the displayed title is copied and pasted into a wikilink, the link should point to the original page)". — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 08:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not how I interpreted that page. It isn't a guideline, and I didn't think it was prescribing an action. I thought it was describing the fact that the software cannot change the name of the page. I thought the wording you've highlighted meant "Software limitations restrict the changes that can be made" not "You must not mask or hide portions of the article title". DrKay (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose anything that tries to adjust name of this to push a POV. It is the Republic of Ireland, and you know how I know that, simple, the government says so right here . Mtking ^(edits) 23:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• But this says the opposite. Which do you prefer, a passport or an envelope? ww2censor (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• To say the opposite, it would have to say "Ireland, NOT the Republic of Ireland". It doesn't. Scolaire (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Or, "No Postage Stamp necessary if posted in Ireland, excluding the Republic of Ireland." Where would that be?

• I think you have missed the point by being too literal; the envelope uses the term "Republic of Irlenad" but the passport uses "Ireland". The passport is an offical document while the envelope certainly is not, so which term should prevail? But are getting too far away from the topic? ww2censor (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, we are getting too far away from the topic. It's not a question of what prevails. It's not even a question of what is official. ROI is used by officials so it's not illegal or illegitimate or offensive and there's no earthly reason to hide it by having it as a title but displaying a different one. Simple as that. Scolaire (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose playing with the display of the title while the title itself is under discussion. Scolaire (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion ban

• Comment It says at the top of this page, 'Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration by order of the Arbitration Committee.' Am I missing something? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, this was confirmed to still hold by Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. DrKay (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom kicked the issue over to WP:IECOLL, which voted 28 to 22 against the ban. That is a thumping majority. You are obstructing a clear consensus.Kauffner (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no ban on discussions. There is an edict saying that discussions should be centralised at WP:IECOLL. Which makes sense, as any rename of one article will have serious knock-on effects on at least one other article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I find this story hard to believe. But I'll make up an RM, try it from IECOLL, and then will see if you are serious. Kauffner (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please strike your accusation of obstruction. As pointed out, the remedy "no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years" has expired, but the motion "Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration" is still in effect. The section immediately above this one should show that I am in no way obstructing discussion of the article title, when it is blatantly obvious that I initiated one. DrKay (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So what's the bottom line? To do the RM from IECOLL would be irregular, but certainly fine by me. The people who voted for the RfC presumably thought they were voting for an actual page move discussion. To wikilawyer it so that an RM can't be held would make the RfC meaningless. It is obvious from the IECOLL discussion that the Ireland article is staying where it is. So I hope any RM can be limited to this article. Kauffner (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is nothing to prevent initiating an RM discussion, but that yes, it should be held on IECOLL. The wisdom of intiating such an RM just 8 days after a poll there voted 24-10 to retain the status quo is an entirely different matter... ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

An RM is allowable here, as you could merely have it mirrored at IECOLL. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, see this, please. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not surprising that someone might obstruct a clear consensus when confronted by others who are ignoring one vis a vis no move need apply. Lifting the ban on discussio does not mean endlessly discussing. It means you are now trusted to go on WITHOUT endlessly discussing. What do you think they ban stuff so they've something interesting to chat about at the water cooler or because they want you to stop doing something? Bit of both? ~ R.T.G 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

President-elect

I have inserted a field to show Michael D. Higgins as the President-elect in the infobox as he has been incorrectly put in as President a number of times since the result was announced earlier today. I have noticed in the past that Presidents-elect of other countries have been noted in infoboxes so this should be nothing out of the ordinary. Hopefully, this will avoid further confusion until he is inaugurated on 11 November. Number10a (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to show the 'President-elect' in the infobox. That section is for Government offices 'only'. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, GoodDay. It's certainly notable that he is the President-elect of Ireland!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

But we don't place the President-elect in the infobox of the country. We never have. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Who's "we"? The last president-elect of Ireland who was not the incumbent was in 1997, before Wikipedia was born. I think Number10a's reasoning is fine. As for "government offices only", the infobox is for info; it has no legal function. Scolaire (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The President-elect doesn't belong in the infobox. Higgins doesn't have any duties to perform, until he assumes office. At the moment, he's still a private citizen. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We've handle it this way, with other republics. Ireland isn't a special case, here. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus to include Higgins in the government section of the country's infobox. Why is he there? GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Number10a, "in the past Presidents-elect of other countries have been noted in infoboxes so this should be nothing out of the ordinary." So again, who is this "we" you keep talking about? And what harm is being done by providing information in the infobox? What does it matter whether he has duties to perform or not? He's still the President-elect. Scolaire (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you being illogical about this? There's no Goverment office called President-elect, therefore leave Higgins out. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you being hysterical about this? It is a fact about the country. It is notable. It is worthy of inclusion.

And what do you mean by "no consensus"? It's 3 to 1 in favour! Scolaire (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just forget it. Everytime I've tried to impliment into or remove things from this article, which were accepted actions in other republic articles, I get misery. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Consider it forgotten. Scolaire (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course who is the president elect is noteworthy following an election. It should appear in the body of the article. However, the info box are for basic facts about the state. There is no such office of state as president elect. There is only one President and all others who are "not president". RIght now, until the 11th of November, Michael D. is "not president".

This is an encyclopedia, not a giddy parlour. Please, have patience and wait until the 11th of November. --RA (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If we were to go by what was acceptable in other republics' articles in the past, then we should include the President-elect. Take for example the following archived articles for Poland (1), Germany (2), Estonia (3), Malta (4) and Hungary (5) from the period between their presidential elections and presidential inauguration. The president-elect was always included in their respective info-boxes. Since the info-box began to include leaders' names around 2006, the only republic that I came across in my search that didn't include their president-elect was the United States. Granted, I didn't check every republic on Earth, but I checked enough and could only find one. Regardless of past consensus anyway, it is important that someone can quickly see in the info-box that the president's term is coming to and end and who her replacement is. Number10a (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to look to other articles. Compare with the general election from earlier this year. Despite not even being returned to the Dáil on February 25, Brian Cowen was given — without comment — as Taoiseach until Enda Kenny became Taoiseach on March 9. Kenny was not listed in the infobox as taoiseach-presumtive, the equivalent of president-elect.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. For all we know, Michael D. could be run over by a bus in the morning and the Council of State will succeed McAleese on November 11th. Have patience and wait. --RA (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Taoiseach-presumptive and President-elect are not comparable. The people have chosen the president by direct vote. Short of him dying, nothing can change that. On the other hand, between the date of a general election and the first meeting of a new Dáil, the Taoiseach-presumptive could die (like the President-elect) or parties and TDs can potentially re-align to appoint a different Taoiseach to the person originally expected as he/she is not directly elected to that position by the people. As the election of the Taoiseach would not have taken place, it would certainly be "crystal-balling". However, inserting President-elect is not because he has been chosen already by the people and this cannot (resonably) change between now and 11 November. While we are speculating, this is verifiable speculation - not a problem going by the crystal-ball guidelines. Number10a (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Higgins is still a private citizen, he doesn't belong in the infobox until he becomes President. GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The amount of crystal-ball gazing involved is not the exactly same. The point is both relate to the future. There is no such office as "taoiseach-presumptive" or "president-elect". The info box lists the current leaders of state. Not past or future leaders. Simply, have patience. --RA (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael D. could be run over by a bus and it still wouldn't change the fact that he was President-elect. President-elect is a verifiable fact, not crystal ball. Nobody is Taoiseach or Taoiseach-elect until he or she is elected by the Dáil. If somebody was determined enough, they could put in Taoiseach-elect in the hour or so after the Taoiseach was elected and before he or she was appointed by An tUachtarán. Maybe they have, and you or I weren't logged on then. Have you checked the revision history for those critical hours in 2002, 2007 and 2011? Waht it comes down to is, a verifiable fact is a fact, it is information, and infoboxes give information. Plus, as Number10a says, it is convention on Republic articles. Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And please stop with the patronising tone: "not a giddy parlour", "have patience and wait". Scolaire (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Scolaire, nobody is being patronizing. Neither is anybody suggesting that Michael D. is not president-elect (note the correct capitalisation).

The issue is that the info box lists (or should list) current office holders. It does not (or should not) list past office holders or people that we presume will hold some office of state in future (no matter how safe that presumption is). It certainly does not list holders of offices that do not exist.

There is no such office as President-elect of Ireland. Currently, Michael D. does not hold any office of state. It is noteworthy that he is president-elect. That can be mentioned in the body of the article. In fact, I added it to the article body.

On Novemeber 11th, we can remove Mary McAleese and, if Michael D. has not been run over by a bus and decides that he will after all take the job, we can insert his name. Otherwise, I expect we will be debating how to describe the Council of State as fulfilling the role of president in the infoxbox in place. --RA (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Like RA said, the infobox is for the office holders, the leaders of the country. It's not for 'past' or 'future' office holders/leaders. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The infobox is not for office-holders, it is for info. The population of the state is not an office-holder; neither is the international dial code. If we wanted, we could add the actor with the most Oscars or the current Person of the Year. There is no policy, guideline or essay that says we can't. There is, however, a convention that the president-elect is included in the infobox on a republic article. Convention trumps made-up-on the-spot rules every time.

RA, your tone may not be intended to be patronising, but that is how it comes across. That includes "note the correct capitalisation". We're all responsible editors here, we don't need that attitude. Scolaire (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Higgins shouldn't be included in the infobox before his inauguration, just like McAleese shouldn't be included after Higgins' inauguration. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you said. Can you lift the needle off the record now? Scolaire (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. We could include the number of Oscar winners from the Republic of Ireland, if we wanted. But then again we could include any number of random facts, in terms of which who the next president is likely to be is as relevant as who the last president was. If we include Michael D. (the likely next president), why would we exclude Mary Robinson (the definite last president)? Why limit ourselves to current population figures? The CSO have historical and predicted future figures.

My point is, let's keep the info box in the now. The body of the article can say who the next likely president will be. But let's only list the current president in the info box - just as we gave Brian Cowen as Taoiseach, without comment, even when he was no longer a member of the Dáil and every newspaper in the country could be cited as a source for Enda Kenny being taoisheach-presumtive.

(About "note the correct capitalisation", my point was that the term is not a title or an office. Mary McAleese is President of Ireland, capitalised. Michael D. is president-elect, not capitalised. If the term was a title or an office then I would have no problem with it being included in the info box. The issue is that Michael D. has no special role in the Republic of Ireland at this time.) --RA (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I take your point. I think it silly and narrow-minded, and excludes information of genuine current interest purely for the sake of being bureacratic, but it's not worth another week of my time, still less an edit-war. Scolaire (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And I accept my point is a narrow and bureaucratic one. I don't push it everywhere; but for the sake of a week, let's just keep to the (narrow and bureaucratic) facts here? --RA (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Footnote weirdness

The footnotes in this article begin with footnote 7. This looks very strange. I assume it is because there are footnotes in the infobox text which comes before the article text in the raw version of the page. Any idea how to fix this? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Experimentation shows that if the infobox is moved down to start level with the table of contents, it fixes this problem. Any views on whether this is a good or bad idea? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Self-governing dominion within the British Commonwealth"

This is how the second paragraph describes the Irish Free State. However, I wonder is it not anachronistic - did the 'British Commonwealth' have any official existence in 1922 when the Free State was established? I suspect that 'British Empire' would be more correct. Anyone know for sure? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Both terms were used in the treaty, 'British Commonwealth of Nations' specifically in the Oath provision. For contemporary use of term generally see The Commonwealth of Nations: Origins and Impact, 1869-1971. RashersTierney (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No prob. RashersTierney (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Yeats1923.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Yeats1923.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)