Wikipedia

Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 16

< Talk:Republic of Ireland
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Armbrust in topic ROI/Ireland
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Name on map

Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

This had been for a while redirecting to the island then someone change it to redirect to the article itself, then back to the island today then to the article . I tried to sort it this afternoon with no luck. After follow RA's comment to here [1]. So I tried it again, also if you see other looking at other examples I changed it. Now it has been reverted by an editor who added an uncivil accusation in the process. I will revert it to the version that seems to have most support.Murry1975 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverted to longstanding version, since this is about the state and not the island, the use of Ireland on it's own is misleading, take it to WP:IECOLL if necessary. Mtking (edits) 01:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually not longstanding version, if you read the history until last August 20th [2] it linked incorrectly to the island. WP:IECOLL or WP:IMOS which one wold be better. Both deal with issues of an Irish nature, I have been on IMOS before so I probably will raise it there.Murry1975 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As the article is about the state, and Ireland (unqualified) is used throughout the article, I disagree. I also disagree that this is a matter for fresh discussion at WP:IECOLL. The matter was discussed at great depth at WP:IECOLL and resulted in a section being added to the manual of style:

... where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating states, politics or governance) where [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the island of Ireland, or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland").

--RA (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Brought it up on IMOS RA. Thanks. Will I move it to IECOLL? Murry1975 (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Is the name of the state as opposed to this article now in dispute? RashersTierney (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
It is misleading to those not from the British Isles Mtking (edits) 05:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
It is no more misleading that the term Republic of Ireland. Those from the region are accustomed to a distinction in language between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. For those not from the region, why would they imagine that the Republic of Ireland would not be coterminous with the island of Ireland?
That the island of Ireland is partitioned is explained every early on in the article. If further doubt remained there is a map accompanying the text under discussion clearly showing that the territory of the state is not congruent with the island. The kind of argument put forward by Mtking would mean that in no place, ever, could we use Ireland to refer to the state for fear of "confusion". That's obviously unreasonable. The common (as well as the official) name of the sate is Ireland. There is no way an reader of this article could come away with the impression that the territory of the state is coterminous with the island: it is stated in the first sentence and for further avoidance of doubt an map showing the extent of the territory of the state is also given.
I agree that it is confusing that the state and the island/country of Ireland are both called "Ireland". However, marking this article as containing "parts that are misleading" on account of that is unfair. The authors of this article have to deal with the fact that both the state and the island are called Ireland (both commonly and in law). If someone thinks that that is so confusing that action needs to be taken, the correct venue to air those concerns is with the members of the Oireachtas, not with editors here. --RA (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I was on the point of posting something similar, if a bit less restrained. The previous post is just plain condescending to other editors (and readers) where-ever they might be from. The new edit to the infobox more correctly reflects WP:IMOS on the use of Ireland/Republic of Ireland, as has been pointed out. RashersTierney (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for making things kick off in this issue but at least the current version is now correct. However is NI being shown in a different colour green a bit nationalistic/POV?85.179.140.190 (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea, and well done to DrK for thinking of it, but I don't think the best implementation. It may make the distinction between the state and the island less clear. The {{map caption}} template has a option location. That option replaced the next that appears in parenthesis in the map caption. Possibly return to this map and set the location option to "dark green, on the [[island of Ireland]]". That way the caption would read:

Location of Ireland (dark green, on the island of Ireland)

--RA (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Wording now as per WP:IRE-IRL example 3. Hopefully this can be the answer.Murry1975 (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Just read what it says on top of the info box in big bold letters, with note a beside it. However I do believe that having this open here and at IMOS might not be the best idea. Should we close here or direct the IMOS comment to here?Murry1975 (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Or how about leavingit blank [3] as I previously said the words are on the top of the info box any way, so is there a need to repeat, there may be to show its relation to the EU and Europe.Murry1975 (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect time zone

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to Irish law, we are not using GMT (UTC), we do infact use GMT+1 (UTC+1) http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1968/en/act/pub/0023/print.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.148.172 (talk)

Actually the 1968 legislation was reversed by the Standard Time (Amendment) Act, 1971 (here). The 1968 act was essentially to ensure there wasn't a time difference when the UK tried the "British Standard Time experiment" in '68 (More about that in the British Summer Time article), but that only lasted until 1971. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

History section shouldn't start in the 19th century

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I'm disappointed to see that the history section for the country starts only in the 19th century with the Home rule movement. This is quite ridiculous, every other nation has its entire history going back to prehistory on its main article page. And yes, I know what you're going to say "the article is about the Republic of Ireland, not Ireland itself", well frankly that's a load of bull and it's a distinction that is not applied to any other country. For instance, both the North Korea and South Korea articles have full history sections going back all the way (thousands of years before those states were created), the UK's article likewise has a history section going back a lot longer then just the creation of Great Britain, as do the articles about Armenia, or France, or any country you can think of. It's really a farce that people are coming to this page to look for basic information about Ireland and they are not being given it. I think the full history section should be reinstated immediately. --Hibernian (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If people want information about Ireland, wouldn't they go to the Ireland page? Mooretwin (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
No if people want information about Ireland on wiki they go to the Ireland article ;)Murry1975 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
This article would have the same pre-19th century history as Northern Ireland. So, whatever added or restored here, would likely have to be added/restored there. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree Mooretwin and with the general make up of these articles. After briefly giving an review of the Plantation of Ulster, the Northern Ireland articles begins in the 19th century also. In contrast, the articles on England, Scotland and Wales go back to the year dot.
The 19th century is included in this article in order to give background to the history of the state (the state didn't exist until 122 year later). The United Kingdom article similarly skips haughtily from 1066 to 1707 before begining for real in the 19th century.
The purpose of a Wikipedia article on the Republic of Ireland is not to recall the glory of the Irish nation. That can be found in the article on Ireland or History of Ireland. The History of the Republic of Ireland makes for an entirely different topic. --RA (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
And these can be found in the article itself following links under the heading of the section titled , er, "History".Murry1975 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I would accept those arguments, if they were applied to all country articles equally. They are not being, as I've explained, just because Ireland is divided into two countries does not mean that each country article shouldn't have a history section. Every other country (or even locality) article I can find on Wiki has an integrated history section, not just a "See history of...". "The purpose of a Wikipedia article on the Republic of Ireland is not to recall the glory of the Irish nation." and I suppose the USA article is there recall the glory of the American nation? or the France article is there to recall the glory of France? No, this article is being held to a different standard to almost any other article. It is not too much to ask the very basic thing of having a short explanation of the history leading up to the formation of the country. That's the very least a country article should have, it has nothing to do with vaingloriousness, it's to do with basic Wikipedia standards. --Hibernian (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Constitution Review Group and Name

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The article currently includes the following:

In 1996, a parliamentary body charged with reviewing the constitution, the Constitution Review Group, stated that the wording of the article was "unnecessarily complicated and that it should be simplified". An amendment was recommended to state that "The name of the state is Ireland", with an equivalent change in the Irish text. The Constitution Review Group also considered whether it should be amended to also give the name as Republic of Ireland. The review group deemed the legislative provision declaring the state's description in the Republic of Ireland Act sufficient.[1] Republic of Ireland is frequently used to distinguish the state from the island. Irish Republic, the name of the unilaterally declared republic at the time of independence, is also often used by the international, particularly British, press.

The report of the Constitution Review Group (an unelected group with no powers - persons simply appointed to prepare a report which has since mostly gathered dust like most Government reports) is all very well.....But is it really so central to the story / explanation of the State's name that it should be included in the main Irish state article? I think it should be deleted....That level of detail is fine for the Names of the Irish state article but seems OTT here. 86.44.66.50 (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly right, but people are kind of obsessive about the name of it around here... ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the level of detail is excessive for this article, but, per TirNan-Og ... --RA (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the "excessive detail". 86.45.54.230 (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision?

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Ireland won the Eurovision 7 times (absolute record). I think that deserves to be mentioned.Srelu (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I disagre - I don't think its important enough to warrant inclusion. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I've added a mention with links. RashersTierney (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
And I've added appropriate inline citations. ww2censor (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Please form a consensus on this topic before indiscriminately bloating up an already bloated article with useless information. Is it not sufficient that this has already been listed on the page related to Ireland's pop music scene???? Sonarclawz (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I count 54 words on Eurovision, in an article of nearly 11,000 words. A sense of proportion (and fewer question marks) might help the discussion. Scolaire (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
So lets add 54 words each on a wide variety of subjects all over the article since we're keeping such a nice set of proportions here! Take a calculator and add 54 to itself several times over till you get to 11,000. Sonarclawz (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What is your point? Murry1975 (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"However, sometimes it is done for political reasons and is contentious."

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

This is a bit disingenuous. Yes, there was contention around terminology. However, the source of contention was the name "Ireland", which the UK objected to the Irish state using. Instead, the UK would use "Republic of Ireland" and the Irish state took umbrage with that. But it was not the being called "Republic of Ireland" exactly that the state objected to - but NOT being called "Ireland". The UK similarly called the state "Eire" and the "Irish Republic" and the Irish state similarly took unbrige with those also - because they were NOT "Ireland".

Thus, what was contentious was "Ireland" - the Irish state wanted to be called it, and the UK state would not do so. "Republic of Ireland", or "Eire", or "Irish Republic" were not contentious of themselves. The paragraph possibly needs another few sentences to explain the background to the "contention".

Similarly, here it is a bit disingenuous - but there we could possibly just cut out the commentary altogether. --RA (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What your proposing sounds just like simple clarification which doesn't appear to be controversial... I'd just add it, but you could of hardly fit the above in an edit summary :) --Τασουλα (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
RA, which bit do you feel is disingenious? Was the name "Republic of Ireland" used for political reasons? I'd say yes. Was such usage contentious? I'd also say yes. Your argument is really splitting hairs. You're saying that the term "Republic of Ireland" is *not* contentious - but the entire debate shows that it depends on context, which is what is highlighted in the sentence. Perhaps the sentence can be adjusted to better make the point - at the moment it could be read as two different statement. Something like "However, when it is done for political reasons it is contentious". --HighKing (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Just on another note. Interesting that the paragraph above shows you understand exactly the issue - that the name of the Irish state is Ireland and it is contentious to call it by a different name. Yet you see nothing wrong with the article title at "Republic of Ireland".... --HighKing (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not splitting hairs because the wrong thing is being identified as being the source of contention. "Republic of Ireland" was never a source of contention: "Ireland" was. The UK has since accepted that name for the Irish state and so the contention no longer exists (despite both states continuing to frequently use "Republic of Ireland").
Anyway, its now marked as 'citation needed'. Daly:2007 is probably the best reference for the issue, if the paragraph is re-written:
Something like your suggestion is closer, but it's hard to fit into one sentence. A slightly fuller explanation may be needed. --RA (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Despite both states continuing to frequently use "Republic of Ireland" - that statement is equally disingenuous. There's a very limited set of circumstances where both states use RoI. It isn't used interchangeably or willy-nilly, and never used is most circumstances.
I don't believe a longer explanation is required either, especially if it takes up too much space. I believe too many articles are "polluted" with this sort of exacting nonsense (that reads badly - I mean too many articles mention stuff that isn't quite on topic, but the wording can't be agreed on so we end up with a paragraph or two of pros and cons, essentially regurgitating the entire argument again). If we can't agree a short sentence, it's better for the sake of the article and readability to delete it entirely. --HighKing (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Not as clear as I thought. Replacing one disingenuous sentence with another is not the way to go. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Is the Economy section misleadingly rosy?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The first two paragraphs of the Economy section seem to paint a misleadingly rosy view of the country's economy that is sadly out-of-date. Surely the headline facts are the depression, housing bubble, unemployment rate and the EU bail-out, rather than foreign high-tech investors of yesteryear? The problems are mentioned in subsequent paragraphs but should surely be high up in the first paragraph? Also there needs to be a prominent link to 2008–2012 Irish financial crisis which AFAIKT is entirely missing (perhaps the financial crisis link should even share prominence as a joint Main Article along with "Economy of the RoI"?). Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Name of Page.

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Why is this page, on the political entity of "Ireland", called the Republic of Ireland? Given that Ireland is the official name used in the Irish Constitution. (Article 4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann states: “The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.”) while the Republic of Ireland is an unofficial description of the State, shouldn't the article name be that of the State its meant to be about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whimsical Eloquence (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The intro gives good reasoning for why the page is titled as it is, including that "Republic of Ireland" is officially the description of the state. The alternative would be Ireland (country), since the island is the primary topic. —C.Fred (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
That isn't even an alternative, in fact, as for many people Ireland is what they think of as being a country. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
"...is an unofficial description of the State..." — See Article 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948.
Owing to a limitation of the Wikimedia software, no two articles can have exactly the same title. Since Ireland is the broad concept of Ireland, this article needs to be at another title. Republic of Ireland was chosen since it provides a natural way to disambiguate between the two. --RA (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Why not title the article for the country Ireland and the article for the island Ireland (island)? I think this would be a good solution to the problem, since the country itself is more often referred to by people in general than the entire island. Just a thought. —Hamza Dawud (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Initially, so you might think so. Particularly, from following politics and economics. Then consider Geography of Ireland, History of Ireland, Culture of Ireland, People of Ireland, Sport in Ireland, Music of Ireland, Flora of Ireland, Fauna of Ireland, and so on. Then you realise, oh, actually the topic of Ireland, from the perspective of a general and international encyclopedia, is bigger than the Republic of Ireland. --RA (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
But other encyclopedias haven't made this choice. For example: [4]; article is about the country. --KarlB (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The Britannica article seems to be about both the country and the island. We have two articles here. Valenciano (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

ROI/Ireland

Latest comment: 12 years ago79 comments12 people in discussion
Procedural close. Discussion superseded by Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Request_for_comment. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 11:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just plain "Ireland" is the formal name of this subject as it is given in the 1937 constitution, and also the name the country uses as a UN member.[5]. This was explained earlier in the fifth, not the second, sentence. Now it is not stated clearly anywhere, even if you read the entire article. The reason for addressing this issue prominently is because most readers will assume from the title that "Republic of Ireland" is something like "Kingdom of Spain" or "French Republic" -- the proper long-form name of the state -- and that "Ireland" is a mere common name. Kauffner (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The name of the state is addressed in the very first section of the article: Republic of Ireland#Name.
Really, the issue isn't that important that it needs to be addressed so predominately in the introduction. A rose by any other name, and all that. --RA (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The second paragraph states "A new constitution introduced in 1937 declared it a sovereign state named Ireland (Éire)." RashersTierney (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That really doesn't explain anything, unless you already understand the issue. It sounds like "Republic of Ireland" the more formal version of the name, when in fact it's the other way around. "Republic of" is disambiguation that should added only when using just plain "Ireland" would lead to confusion. For a guy who thinks that, "a rose is a rose", you are going to a lot of trouble to obscure the official name of this subject. But it's true enough that in the final analysis, nothing we do on Wikipedia is "that important." Kauffner (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what point you think the article is missing? --HighKing (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
"... going to a lot of trouble to obscure the official name of this subject"? RA is the one that moved the first mention of "Republic of Ireland" from the intro to buried underneath the contents table in the "Name" section. — JonCॐ 15:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Yip. I "buried" it. Right in a section first section of the article. Where no-one could ever find it! In a section dedicated solely to discussion of the issue. You'd have to read all the way through the introduction to get to it. Wh-hahaha! ;-P --RA (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Har har. :) I do think it's mildly absurd (and surely against Wiki guidelines somehow) to have the title of the article not even mentioned in the opening sentence or two, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to try and push for a change, and I daresay yours was a popular edit, anyway, RA! — JonCॐ 18:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to disagree with you. Here's the relevant part of the MOS:

When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms.

A specific (and pertinent) example is given with this: "For example, in the article "United Kingdom": The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain, is a sovereign island country located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe.
A problem in this case is the rí rá agus ruaile buaile that comes along with the having the term in the introduction. I'd have no problem with it appearing in parenthesis in the first sentence (like Britain does for the UK). The problem is the great ho-ha that follows.
We don't need to know about the difference between a "name" and a "description" in the introduction to the article. It's not that important to understanding the topic. The sole significant aspect of the the Republic of Ireland Act that deserves to be in the introduction is that it removed the last remaining functions of the king, declared the state a republic and consequently Ireland left the Commonwealth. --RA (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the intricacies of the name is far too much detail for the introduction. The last time I looked at this article a few months ago, the intro read "Ireland, described as the Republic of Ireland..." or similar, but it seems to have been changed with no discussion (or I can't find it if there was) and the article title quietly removed; first, to the end of the intro (where it was de-bolded), and now, by you, to the "Name" section. There would no doubt be a rírá from some quarters if it was re-added, I'm sure, but I think a great failing of Wikipedia is its readiness to sacrifice factual accuracy and readability for harmony amongst warring editors. Others may disagree. — JonCॐ 20:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. The *only* reason this article is at RoI is to disambiguate from the name of the island. Look at it another way. If this article was at some other title - doesn't matter which, but let's consider some form of "Ireland (state/country/whatever)", would there be any reason to mention the "official description" in the intro? --HighKing (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
If Ireland was united in the morning and the Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland articles merged and placed at Ireland then, unless there was a repeal of the Republic of Ireland Act, Republic of Ireland would still belong in the first line of the lead for reasons that "it may include variations, including synonyms" IMO. --RA (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't be silly. :-) But yeah, as a synonym sure (cos it is), but no reason to mention an "official description". --HighKing (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
... and whether or not accept this reasoning, the article is at Republic of Ireland anyway, so that synonym/description/article title should be mentioned earlier on. — JonCॐ 22:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Some possible variants:
--RA (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is actually asking for the intro to be changed....but of those I'd lean towards the first. --HighKing (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'd combine 1 and 3: "Ireland (/ˈaɪərlənd/ or /ˈɑːrlənd/; Irish: Éire, pronounced [ˈeːɾʲə] ⓘ; also described as the Republic of Ireland[1]), although all three are acceptable to me. — JonCॐ 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to that either. --HighKing (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you'll find a single reliable source that says Ireland "is described as the Republic of Ireland". The 1948 Act says that "the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland". I have seen an alternative version that says "this State shall be described as the Republic of Ireland", but there is a world of difference between "shall be described" in legislation and "is described" in ordinary language. I definitely believe and have stated before that the article title should be in the first sentence. I would favour "also referred to as" over any of the alternatives above. "Description: Republic of Ireland" on its own will not make sense to the average reader - even with a footnote explaining the 1948 Act - because there is no equivalent "description" for any other state, country, nation, region or area in the world. Scolaire (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Given where the article currently lives, it should actually be:

If the article moves, the sentence can be reworded later.--KarlB (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that, in theory, a Wikipedia article should begin in such a manner. I strongly disagree with making such statements in a provocative manner in an attempt to turn a civilised discussion into a battleground. And please don't quote AGF at me - you cannot pretend to be unaware of the history of this article and its title. However, this is a special case, given the history of this article and its title. Scolaire (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Why are you trying to create drama where none exists? I am not making any battleground statements; I simply made an additional suggestion. Go easy on the accusations. The article is where it is, so for users who aren't aware of all of the drama behind the naming, the least surprising solution is to start with RoI, and then use I for most of the rest of the article.--KarlB (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be unaware of WP:IRE-IRL. RashersTierney (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I've read that previously - but this is a special case. We're not talking about making a link and having a special pipe; we're talking about defining the term. I think it's totally reasonable to use Ireland throughout the RoI article, but the first sentence should have RoI in it, and preferably as the start; remember the vast majority of wikipedia users do not follow naming disputes or associated drama; they just google "Ireland" or "RoI" and end up at this page, so explaining what it means right away and why they are there is just logical. As I said before, if consensus shifts and the page moves again, then reword the first sentence. Until then, it should follow the standard used in almost every other wikipedia article. Also, what happened to the hatnote? There should be hatnote redirecting back to the island at least.--KarlB (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The MOS is that, "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence,..." However, "... it may appear in a slightly different form..." That's not unusual. For examples, the article that is at "United Kingdom" begins, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland..." The article that is at "United States" begins "The United States of America..." --RA (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any change to the current setup, which has been supported by a large poll of the community and has been accepted by Arbcom. Talk of these matters here is a direct violation of an Arbcom ruling so i suggest people stop. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling refers to the article's title. This discussion is about the article's text, specifically its opening sentence. Am I to understand that you oppose the inclusion of the term "Republic of Ireland" anywhere in the lead? Scolaire (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I was not aware before that the text has been changed, the last time i looked it said "described as the Republic of Ireland" in the first sentence. I believe it should go back to saying that, especially if there was no agreement to make that change on this talk page. However i would also be prepared to support the proposal above " Republic of Ireland, officially known as Ireland" which also explains the the situation well. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a view on my comment above that "described as the Republic of Ireland" fails WP:V, or my suggested alternative, "also referred to as the Republic of Ireland"? Scolaire (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I also don't like 'described as the republic of ireland'; if RoI is to be second, it should be simply "also known as the Republic of Ireland". --KarlB (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I unreservedly withdraw my earlier unwarranted accusation :-) Scolaire (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Formal proposal

I propose to change the first sentence of the lead to the following:

Scolaire (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Support fully (as long as we move the ref outside of those brackets; it looks ugly). :) — JonCॐ 09:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
support in the following form: Ireland (/ˈaɪərlənd/ or /ˈɑːrlənd/; Irish: Éire, pronounced [ˈeːɾʲə] ⓘ), also known as the Republic of Ireland[1], is a ... --KarlB (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose both the suggestion for "also known as" and the suggestion above to take it outside the brackets (why make it different to every other article with unofficial names like "United Kingdom", "Germany", or "United States", etc). --HighKing (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind it either way, but it's not different to Germany. — JonCॐ 12:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Support. The alternative name should be given immediately in the lead, given that it is the name of the article. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
What IP address did you say you edited under before? Seems odd you turning up here... --HighKing (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I didn't. And as for it being odd me turning up here, I could say the same about you and hundreds of other articles, it would appear. Stop smearing the reputation of new editors! BlackPrinceDave (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm asking, not smearing. What IP address(es) or other username did you use before this one? --HighKing (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
comment HighKing is using other countries as examples, but unfortunately they don't all follow the pattern. For example, Germany and China both have xxx, officially yyy.--KarlB (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Response Correct. In some cases like United Kingdom or United States, there exists unofficial terms that the state is referred to, such as Britain, UK, USA, etc. For other countries like Germany or China, the COMMONNAME is the short name and the article correctly also gives the longer official name. This article is neither at the COMMONNAME, nor giving the official longer name. It is closer to the examples of using unnofficial terms, which is what "Republic of Ireland" is. The state is only referred to as "Republic of Ireland" under certain conditions, and as such this must be made clear in the article at the first opportunity where ROI is used. --HighKing (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

SUPPORT proposal with no issues. --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - I support this proposal. Republic of Ireland clearly needs to be stated in the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Look OK. It may shift and change over time, but I don't want to see discussion over "name" vs. "description" in the lead. A note would suffice, if truly thought necessary, but otherwise the first section of the article deals deal the issue well enough. --RA (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm OK with a note - what would that look like? --HighKing (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I dunno. How about:

Ariticle 4 of the Constitution of Ireland provides that "[the] name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." The Supreme Court of Ireland has ruled that this means that Ireland is the only legal name for the state in English and this is also the diplomatically accepted name of the state in English. The Republic of Ireland is also informally used. This name arises from the "description of the State" under the Republic of Ireland Act, which declared the state to be a republic in 1949.

--RA (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
So it would still look like this:

Ireland (/ˈaɪərlənd/ or /ˈɑːrlənd/; Irish: Éire, pronounced [ˈeːɾʲə] ⓘ; also known as the Republic of Ireland1)

with your blockquote between the ref tags? I'd be happier to be slightly more pedantic with the statement "The Republic of Ireland is also informally used" in order to qualify what is meant by "informally", but I suppose that would only result in a mini-essay.... In summary, if I'm right with the above, then I'm fine with it in that form. --HighKing (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
That's what I mean anyway. --RA (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking back over this discussion, some people have supported something slightly different than what was proposed, mainly related to the parenthesis and the possible reference. Does it make sense to rerun this and have editors support what is actually proposed rather than giving "support" to a variant, which isn't what is being proposed? --HighKing (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to back right up here. RA's text, if it was correct, belongs in the "Name" section of the article, not in a footnote to the first sentence of the lead. "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" (WP:LEAD). It shouldn't have footnotes at all, never mind footnotes of that length and detail. That the state is "known as" the Republic of Ireland is a fact, pure and simple. It is a quite separate issue from the Constitution, the 1948 Act or any Supreme Court "ruling". If the fact needs to be sourced, then it should be sourced by citing a reputable guide book, a journal article and/or an official source that calls the state the Republic of Ireland. On reflection, I don't think it does need to be sourced, since it is discussed in the section below. If the "Name" section is to be summarised in the lead - and it probably should be - then it should be done in a separate sentence and it should accurately summarise that section.
As to the text itself, the Supreme Court has not "ruled that this means that Ireland is the only legal name for the state in English". The Supreme Court was not asked to rule on the question of the name of the state; it was asked to rule on the validity of an extradition warrant or warrants. That is correctly stated in the "Name" section and is too much detail for a single-sentence summary in the lead. All that is needed is to state, neutrally, that Republic of Ireland is the "description" of the state according to the 1948 Act, and that its use by British officials in preference to Ireland was a source of contention in the past. None of that needs citations, or rather, it needs to be properly sourced in the section but not in the lead. Scolaire (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Really, is disagreement over the text of a footnote (or whether to have one at all) reason to open further proposals when this one was nearing consensus?
I don't know of any reason to avoid a note in the first line, but neither am I that pushed. But I really don't want to see hand wringing discussion or a "name" vs. a "description" in the introduction. It's amply dealt with in the first section. --RA (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Yet another editor with a funny idea of consensus! You produced a draft footnote, HighKing said he could go with it, I said it was a disaster and nobody else said anything. There was agreement on the "[1]" but that is meaningless without agreement on what "[1]" is. Besides, we are nearing consensus anyway, so what is the point of posting half-way up the page to whine that we didn't accept your consensus without expressing our own views first? Scolaire (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The consensus I was referring to was with regard to your formal proposal above, which you too say we were "nearing consensus" on. --RA (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
We were nearing consensus on my proposal until you produced your draft footnote. That threw everything up in the air. We couldn't go on as if that wasn't on the table, and if it was on the table then it was something completely different from what I had in mind. Anyway, thorough discussion has led us to proposal 4, which is almost identical to my first proposal, so I still don't see the point of re-starting this discussion. Scolaire (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The only person who seemed to get up in the air about it was you. I think you over-reacted (not that I'm not given to doing so myself on occasion!). That's the only point I'm making. Look, it doesn't matter, we're back where we started. --RA (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Formal proposal 2

So, after thinking through what I said there, I suggest:

Ireland (/ˈaɪərlənd/ or /ˈɑːrlənd/; Irish: Éire Irish: Éire, pronounced [ˈeːɾʲə] ⓘ; also known as the Republic of Ireland) is a sovereign state in Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland. Ireland is the only official name of the state in English; Republic of Ireland is provided as a "description" in statute law. The use of Republic of Ireland in preference to Ireland in official documents was a source of contention between the British and Irish governments in the latter part of the twentieth century. The modern Irish state was established in 1922...

Scolaire (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd prefer "Ireland is the only official name of the state in English..." as a footnote, a la RA's proposal. It's too much detail for the second sentence. Also, Eire shouldn't be bolded, only italicised, as it's not English. Cheers, — JonCॐ 09:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Jon, "Eire" is English: it's an anglicisation of "Éire". As to bolding "Éire", I haven't seen the rule that only English words should be bolded. Ireland is different to other countries because its constitution specifically states that its name is "Éire, or in the English language, Ireland". Having said that, bolding or not bolding isn't a deal-breaker for me. Since the whole thrust of my argument is that there should not be long and detailed footnotes in the lead, that would be a deal-breaker. In fact, it's deirectly contrary to WP:LEAD, which says that the lead should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Scolaire (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Since Eire is English, should it not then also go in the "also known as" part? Should we also add other terms such as Irish Republic, etc? --HighKing (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant Éire. As for Irish Republic and "Eire", the former is already there and a case could be made for adding the latter. You don't see it so much any more, but it's still widely used, mainly by older Brits. — JonCॐ 10:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
It depends whether you want to clutter up the opening sentence or not. The purpose of putting in "also known as the Republic of Ireland" is to have the article title in the opening sentence, not just for the sake of aka's. Aka's are in the "Name" section. Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
comment I disagree with the second two sentences. They aren't needed there; that dispute is in any case over. I guarantee you the majority of people coming to the wikipedia article aren't that interested in the naming dispute - they want to know about the country. Tell them about the naming dispute later.--KarlB (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I certainly feel very strongly that the "naming dispute" - if by that you mean the Great Wiki-War of 2008-2009 - should not influence the writing of the article at all. However, I cannot agree with you that the first of those sentences, at least, refers in any way to any "dispute". It is a straightforward explanation of the first, bolded, word of the article and the article title. "Ireland is the only official name of the state in English; Republic of Ireland is provided as a "description" in statute law." Fact. Indisputable fact. Interesting fact for those who read an article entitled "Republic of Ireland" and find that it begins "Ireland..." The second of the two sentences talks about the name as a (historical) "source of contention"; I think "dispute" is too strong a word. There never was a real-life war of words that paralled the Wiki-War, only a lot of diplomatic jousting. I've added the sentence because a good deal of the "Name" section deals with that jousting, therefore in my view it should be mentioned in the lead per WP:LEAD. I am open to editing it or leaving it out, if that's what the consensus is. Scolaire (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a furious debate around this, so I'm being bold and implementing the minimalist version of this. As I see it, there are three issues here: (1) the inclusion of the article title in the first sentence; (2) the inclusion of an explanation of the difference between the two "names"; and (3) the use of the lead to summarise the article, and this edit addresses all three issues with a minimum of frills. All I ask is that editors not do a knee-jerk revert. Further discussion may well bring about a better result. Scolaire (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose inclusion of that text in the introduction, its giving to much prominence to something that is more of a wikipedia battlefield than any major issues in the real world that would be of significance to the reader. I support the new wording with the proposed footnote but i cannot support it all being in the introduction like that. It should be also known as ROI (note) or officially described as ROI (note). But this wikipedia naming dispute is not worthy enough for the second sentence of a country article. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I can only answer you as I answered Karl B above: there is no trace of any dispute in the second sentence. It is a straightforward statement of an uncontroversial fact. It additionally provides, for the reader, an explanation of why an article entitled "Republic of Ireland" begins with "Ireland..." I can see how somone who has become accustomed to a battlefield will detect echoes of that battlefield in the sentence but, honestly, it's not there! Scolaire (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We all know that there's a divide between the positions of various editors as to how big the issue is. Fair enough. But extreme positions such as totally dismissing the issue as solely being a dispute on wikipedia (or the other extreme of trying to get rid of the term everywhere) undermines your position and credibility, and especially an ability to write/agree NPOV text. I believe Scolaire has cut to the chase and implemented a version that is factually correct and NPOV. --HighKing (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've now corrected the 1st sentence to read as per my understanding of current consensus, which is as follows:

Ireland (/ˈaɪərlənd/ or /ˈɑːrlənd/; Irish: Éire, pronounced [ˈeːɾʲə] ⓘ; also known as the Republic of Ireland) is a sovereign state in Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland. The modern Irish state was established in 1922...

There is already a whole article on Names of the Irish state, and a whole section of this article Republic_of_ireland#Name. Thus, it is not necessary to once again inform the reader of these complex details as the very second sentence; the reader wants to know about Ireland. Many readers who arrive here will likely have come via a pipelink saying Ireland in any case, and since we now give both names in the lead, I'm happy with it.--KarlB (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but where did you get your understanding of current consensus? What you have posted above has never been proposed - there were proposals with footnotes and a proposal with an added sentence, but not what you have there - so how could it possibly have consensus? What you are doing is edit-warring, pure and simple. You haven't allowed any time for discussion. Scolaire (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind, but the strike-through in the above shows that you copied the text from my proposal and then edited it, in order to mis-represent it as a consensus. Scolaire (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I said, it was *my read* of consensus. The first sentence is more or less agreed, per the above. The second sentence, which you added, is not. Please take a look at this: [6]. As you can see, the difference is simply adding RoI. If you want to argue to add that second sentence, let's do so here, but neither myself nor BritishWatcher agree - thus nowhere near consensus. Don't be so surprised when someone is boldly editing when you start boldly editing. and please don't throw around petty accusations of edit warring. Haven't allowed any time for discussion give me a break - you were the first to boldly implement your changes, which were not agreed... --KarlB (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I would be happy with a footnote, if others like that idea (e.g. also known as the Republic of Ireland1) - feel free to add whatever you like to a footnote.--KarlB (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I responded to your concerns at 13.18 yesterday. You were on Wikipedia until after 4a.m. today without another dicky-bird on this page. I came along at 8.30 and found that there had been no further discussion overnight. Thus I allowed nearly 20 hours, while other editors were active, for discussion, then I made a bold edit. I asked for no knee-jerk reverts. You did a knee-jerk revert. There is nothing bold about that, it is purely disruptive. You got all hot and bothered the other day when I accused you of battleground behaviour. "Oh, no. I only make constructive contibutions." Well, we see your true colours now. Scolaire (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Fine. I've reverted both BOLD edits. Let's keep talking until consensus is established, then make the appropriate edits. --HighKing (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose The reader is provided with an explanation in the first section. Keep it simple. There is no need to overwhelm the introduction with hand wringing over the legal differences between a "name" and a "description". Whether it is "also know as", "also called" or "or". It really doesn't make that big of a difference. --RA (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Support something

I support the principle that the lead para should at least mention the phrase "Republic of Ireland". I would prefer that it was a brief mention, since the issue is expanded elsewhere ... but beyond that, I'm really not too concerned about the precise wording. There are several very similar proposals above, and I would be happy with any of them. Maybe the closing admin could toss a coin? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you've posted above the template, it's quite likely the closing admin won't even see it! Maybe you should !vote "support" for all the ones you can support, like other participants did. Scolaire (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment

Latest comment: 12 years ago111 comments20 people in discussion
A Request for comment was closed by the nominator. The result was: include the words "Republic of Ireland", do not include any explanatory text. Formal proposal 4 had a clear consensus. Scolaire (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two questions are under discussion: (1) should the words "Republic of Ireland" appear in the opening sentence of the Republic of Ireland article; and (2) should there be a second sentence briefly explaining the difference between the terms "Ireland", used as the first word of the article, and "Republic of Ireland", the article title? "Formal proposal 3" is for the inclusion of both; "Formal proposal 4" is for the inclusion of (1) only. Scolaire (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Formal proposal 3

Let's keep talking. Scolaire (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • oppose Again, for the average user, explaining the details of irish statue law and official names/etc is not necessary as the second sentence of the main article about a nation state. I agree with the proposal above, just without the second sentence, which could be turned into a footnote.--KarlB (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - There is simply no need or justification for the second sentence of an article on a country to go into such detail. That should be handled in a footnote and in the body of the article. There is no need to give it such a prominent position in the introduction. If mentioning the official status is so important how about something like... "Republic of Ireland.... officially Ireland...... is a sovereign state..." BritishWatcher (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with that formulation as well; it has the advantage of listing the article title as the first part of the sentence, and it swiftly establishes that Ireland is the official name.--KarlB (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
You've got to be joking. And can we drop the "Strong" Oppose/Support nonsense - it doesn't count for anything extra and is akin to SHOUTING BY USING CAPS. --HighKing (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
i put strong oppose because i feel strongly that this proposal would be bad for the article and should not be implemented. There are different levels of view in particular when it comes to opposing things. It is not shouting. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per the above. No other country article goes into so much detail about the nuances of its name in the second sentence. It's just too much for the introduction. — JonCॐ 17:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
So express your self in the explanation of your !vote, not the silliness of quantifying the emotional response. --HighKing (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Formal proposal 4

Keep it simple... --KarlB (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose: the reader is entitled to an explanation - in the text of the introduction - as to (a) why it is "also known as..." and (b) what this aka is if it's not the name of the state. Support: any change from the current state is better than no change for want of consensus. Scolaire (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - per reasoning above and this proposal did have support the other day, yet today a completely different wording was put in instead. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The reader is provided with an explanation in the first section. Keep it simple. There is no need to overwhelm the introduction with hand wringing over the legal differences between a "name" and a "description". Whether it is "also know as", "also called" or "or". It really doesn't make that big of a difference. --RA (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Hand-wringing? It's a simple factual statement. We've already dropped the "described as" terminology as probably being too hairsplitting legalistic, but calling a mention "hand-wringing" is inappropriate. --HighKing (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
By "hand-wringing" I mean long, convoluted commentaries on ins-and-outs of the difference between a "name" and a "description" in the introduction. --RA (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
But again, why "hand-wringing"? I can't understand why I have to read five paragraphs of the Cyprus article to be told that "The Republic of Cyprus is de facto partitioned into two main parts...". To me, this is just factual information that should be given up front. I'm neither pro-Greek nor pro-Turkish so I don't see that anybody needs to wring their hands to provide a simple explanation - at the start - of why there is a Cyprus article and a Northern Cyprus article. Same with Ireland and Republic of Ireland. I understand the people who say it's not necessary to explain the distinction, but I cannot understand someone calling it "hand-wringing". And I think it's pushing it big time to describe a 22-word, factual explanation as a "long, convoluted commentary on ins-and-outs of the difference between a name and a description". Scolaire (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
"Formal proposal 2" above gives 55 words to the ins-and-outs of the name vs. the description of the state. That over 10% of what is already an overly long the introduction. Though you're right, it's not just the length that makes it hand-wringing (and calling it a "convoluted" is an exaggeration). I suppose by "handing wringing", I'm referring to what I perceive to be the pains taken to make what is really an artificial difference in the introduction (definition is here).
WTR Cyprus, I agree with you. I've moved the paragraph up. --RA (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
But "Formal proposal 2" hasn't been under discussion for over a week! Why on earth are you wringing your hands over it? And one more time, why is a short, factual explanation of an obvious difference in text - "Ireland" v "Republic of Ireland" - "taking pains to make an artificial difference?" Scolaire (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
My comment above (where I made the "hand-wringing" remark) is from a week ago. --RA (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
...at the time we moved on from Proposal 2 to Proposal 3. Never mind! Scolaire (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per the reasoning given above for the Support. It *is* an issue that this article is at "Republic of Ireland" - God knows we had the Wiki-War of 2009 which went to Arbcom. A single mention in the lede is hardly making things complicated as opposed to sweeping it under the wiki-carpet. --HighKing (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • This is not sweeping it under the carpet. As has been pointed out, the very first section of this article is (ridiculously IMHO) about the name of the state, and there is a whole other article devoted to this issue. The RoI article is full of lots of other info though, like where it is, how it came to be, what kind of culture they have, etc - all sorts of things that I'd prefer to see in the 2nd sentence rather than some pedantic/legalistic cruft about the official name and official description and the fact that ROI and UK used to fight about it. The average reader, IMHO, doesn't care.--KarlB (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The very fact that there's a whole other article devoted to the issue only adds weight that it should be mentioned in the lede. As it the fact you've mentioned above "ROI and UK used to fight about it". But equally, it doesn't have to be in the 2nd sentence either. --HighKing (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support (Changed !vote) Proposal6 below is actually against policy, since only abbreviations need be in parenthesis. The main concern I'm left with is that "Republic or Ireland" is given equivalence with the official name in the opening statement (but parenthesis wouldn't have addressed that in any case). Adding a note draws attention to this point, but the absence of a note isn't a showstopper. This is my 2nd favorite option. --HighKing (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Trivial issue that shouldn't given undue prominence just because us Wiki-nerds had a scrap about it. — JonCॐ 21:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Calling it a "trivial issue" just shows how little you actually understand about the issue. --HighKing (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment I'm also opposed to moving "Republic of Ireland" outside of the parenthesis, as that is not standard when including an "also known as" section. --HighKing (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I like to think I'm fairly well versed on the ins and outs of it, but thanks anyway. — JonCॐ 19:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I apologise for the sarky comment - but it's untrue to say it's a trivial matter dredged up by wiki-nerds when there's a lot of sources that show otherwise. --HighKing (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Support Can't say I'm really ecstatic about any option but this seems the best to me and definitely better than not mentioning it. It clearly shows Republic of Ireland is the less preferred name and I don't think we really need to stick stuff about description and name up front. Dmcq (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Please read what you point at. It says 'Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead."
Firstly this is an alternative to doing it the way here. Secondly there is only the one English alternative. And thirdly it is an official description. Dmcq (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Formal proposal 5

Notes
  1. ^ Ireland is the official name of the state in English; Republic of Ireland is provided as a "description" in statute law.

Using a footnote. benzband (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've asked for this discussion to be closed out by a non-involved admin. --KarlB (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Formal proposal 6

Similar to Proposal 4, but with the parenthesis in the more normal place for synonyms as per other articles such as United Kingdom, United States of America, etc. --HighKing (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It's the same number of brackets as the other proposals. --HighKing (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The *other* articles usually have their titles at a short COMMONNAME version, and list the official names in bold in the first line, and not in parenthesis. For example, France, Germany, etc. By *not* putting "Republic of Ireland" in parenthesis as synonyms should be, we're saying that the short version is "Ireland" and the official long version is "Republic of Ireland". That's wrong. --HighKing (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Formal proposal 7

That would be in case anyone wishes for the article to remain in it's current state. benzband (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose leaving the article without the article title in the first sentence. Scolaire (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Okey-dokey too. Republic of Ireland is highlighted in discussion of name vs. a description is in the first section so it's no biggie not to have it in the lead. --RA (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose per Scolaire. When the user arrives, through whatever route, we need to assure them that Ireland and RoI mean the same thing in the context of this particular article - in other words, that RoI is just another name for Ireland (esp since many links on wikipedia are styled as Ireland --KarlB (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Not the best option, but acceptable. As per RA. --HighKing (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - the article should clearly state Republic of Ireland in the first sentence either before or after Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article's title should be in the lead somewhere. — JonCॐ 20:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per RA ----Snowded TALK 07:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Now I guess I better put a support beside one of the options. I'm not terribly happy with any but I'm pretty certain the business of 'Republic of Ireland' should be dealt with up front. It is just referred to so often that way and it is the title of the article. The real question is how much should be put in - I was tending towards saying adecsription but now I'm more for just a minimum 'also known as' Dmcq (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - the title forced upon the nation of Ireland by the English language Wikipedia should NOT appear in the intro but as a footnote. Snappy (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Question and comment

I found this guideline:

"It is Wikipedia convention to emphasize alternate names at first use, normally in the first line. It is customary to repeat and bold the article title (unless it is a descriptive title, rarely the case with geographical articles), and its frequently used English-language synonyms, and to italicize foreign or historic names represented in Roman script"

Unless it is a descriptive title, the Republic of Ireland is the deseciption of the state, and following the guideline in a logical fashion it should not be bolded. So is there an proposal that follows these guidelines? Murry1975 (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I would read that as saying "It is customary to begin the article with the article title, repeated, in bold, unless it is a descriptive title (which is rarely the case with geographical articles)". In this case, the article title is a "descriptive" title, so the article begins with "Ireland", in bold. I would not see the convention as a prohibition on bolding the article title if it appears later in the sentence. A prohibition would contain the words "should not", as in "Descriptive titles should not be bolded." Scolaire (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
That is not what is meant by a "descriptive title". An example of a "descriptive title" is Demographics of the Republic of Ireland.
Regardless of the designation of the term Republic of Ireland under Irish statue law, it is a (common) name for the state (maybe not the most common name, maybe not the legal name, but a common name). --RA (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually RA, I don't agree that it is a common name for the state within the usual definition in that it is used interchangeably in everyday use, but perhaps reverts to an official term for official purposes. For sure, "UK" or "USA" or "Britain" etc are common names. And while Republic of Ireland is used, etc, etc, it's really limited to being used only in specific circumstances (e.g. disambiguation purposes outside of UK). It may seem like splitting hairs, but there's a difference. --HighKing (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Republic of Ireland is used quite a lot in British news, and ROI is used on a lot of product information. It's common enough that many people will have run into it. CMD (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Maybe not as much within the Republic itself but outside it is used more frequently and as this is Wikipedia we should treat the issue with an extrovert world viewpoint rather than an insular one. Mabuska (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Not so. The term "Republic of Ireland" has *legal* standing in the UK - there, it is the official name for the state. So of course you'll find it everywhere if you have a UK-centric point of view, or for goods produced in the UK, TV programs, etc. So it's a laugh to call that an extroverted world viewpoint :-) - nice one Mabuska. And it *is* OK to use RoI when differentiating between the state and Northern Ireland - hence my comment to RA that it isn't a "Common Name" for *all* circumstances, only in very specific circumstances. --HighKing (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
According to the Ireland Act 1949 article, the Act "established that the country up to then known in British law as 'Eire' could be referred to instead by subsequent British legislation as the 'Republic of Ireland'" (my emphasis). That is not the same thing as "there, it is the official name for the state." No country has an official name for any other independent country. And ROI has *legal* standing in Ireland, too. The state can be referred to as the 'Republic of Ireland', by the 1948 Act. Scolaire (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Scolaire, not sure how you missed the *actual* text of the act available here. It states in subsection 1.3:
  • The part of Ireland referred to in subsection (1) of this section is hereafter in this Act referred to, and may in any Act, enactment or instrument passed or made after the passing of this Act be referred to, by the name attributed thereto by the law thereof, that is to say, as the Republic of Ireland.
(My emphasis). So I'd say that's pretty clear - that's their official name for the state - or as you also put it, the UK has an official name for another independent country. --HighKing (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The outcome of O'Hare versus The State has shown that the *legal* use of ROI in the state is nil, and that the only recognised legal name of the state is Ireland, no if buts or maybes. The act states it is the description of the State, and common usage shows it as a disambiguator, but the act no-where states the State can be reffered to as such, if it does I must have missed that one. Murry1975 (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
HighKing, the part you bolded sure is interesting! What does "thereto" and "thereof" refer to? Well, first of all they must refer to the same thing – "thereto" can't refer to one place and "thereof" to a different place – and second, the only place referred to in this (sub)section is "The part of Ireland referred to in subsection (1) of this section", i.e. the Republic of Ireland. So, although it's not "pretty clear" on first reading, subsequent reading makes it clear that what it means is "the name attributed to the state by the law of the state", that is to say, the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. The Act said that the state could be referred to by the name the state itself chose in 1948. It didn't arse around with distinctions between "name" and "description", but neither did it pretend to have an official name for another independent country.
Murry, the outcome of the O'Hare case shows nothing except that that a judge ruled an extradition warrant invalid because it used the name "Éire" (not Republic of Ireland). It had zero effect on the legal name of the state, and you won't find any law book, article or subsequent judgement that says otherwise. ROI is "legal" by definition, because it is allowed as a description in statute law. "Description" means that "the State can be reffered to as such"; if it doesn't mean that I can't imagine what it could mean. Scolaire (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Scolaire, again, read the text of the act. The first sentence of the opening paragraph of the act states An Act to recognise and declare the constitutional position as to the part of Ireland heretofore known as Eire, and to make provision as to the name by which it may be known and the manner in which the law is to apply in relation to it;. Again, my emphasis. And as I've said below, the meaning of the word "may" doesn't imply there was a choice. For example, the same act says "This Act may be cited as the Ireland Act 1949", within the meaning that permission is granted to refer to the act by this name. It's a common phrasing in law. Just looking for another example - in The Scotland Act 2012 in paragraph 12A it says "The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision-" and the meaning of this is that the only way the provisions can be made is by regulations. --HighKing (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice, HighKing, it says "and may in any Act, enactment or instrument passed..." (emphasis mine). The act provided that the state could be referred to as the Republic of Ireland in British legislation, not must be. — JonCॐ 19:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Eh, yeah. That's what I said. Scolaire (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I'd had this page open for a while. Missed that. Carry on. — JonCॐ 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Notice JonC, the full sentence says and may in any Act, enactment or instrument passed or made after the passing of this Act be referred to.... - so it was saying that future acts *may* refer to the state as "Republic of Ireland" in British legislation - and the meaning of the word "may" in that context is closer to "grants permission" (I'm sure someone else will have a better phrase). But it's not the meaning you've implied which is close to "may, or may not" as if there's a choice and this term is just one of the choices. --HighKing (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, no – the way you worded your original comment suggested that RoI is the UK's "official name" for the Irish state, which isn't true. As you just said, it's closer to "grants permission" than compelling future governments to only use that wording. — JonCॐ 19:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, no. It actually *does* compel future governments to use that wording, as that is the only term that has been defined and the only term by which future acts and governments have been "granted permission" to use. At least that's my understanding. Any legal experts on here? I'm sure we're both wrong and both right, but we don't know on which bits :-) --HighKing (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think, now that we've all given our interpretation, we should all stop forthwith. Whether or not ROI is an "official name" in Britain is not related to Murry's original question, still less to the question asked in the RfC. Remember "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Scolaire (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation Scolaire, and feel free at any time to leave a discussion, but it's rather disingenuous to attempt to close a discussion that doesn't go your way by "scolding" the other participants. This part of the discussion was started by me in response to RA stating that RoI was COMMONNAME, and I pointed out how un-straight-forward that line of reasoning was, and why COMMONNAME is different between the UK and Ireland due to the legal standing of RoI as a *name* in the UK. You were the one who challenged that view. At no time was it a "general discussion", but a response to your challenge of the facts. Hopefully you're clearer on the point I made about COMMONNAME now though. --HighKing (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Ireland a republic anyway? {{citation needed}} i'm afraid, per List of republics#20th Century and Later. ;-) benzband (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Scolaire (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  benzband (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand Ireland is the official name and the common name for the state. But on the other hand, it's also confusing and raises issues with what to call the current Ireland article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If it weren't for the <insert epithet here> partition, they would be one and the same. benzband (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Close this ourselves?

With myself, Dmcq and HighKing all changing our !votes, proposal 4 now has unanimity, with eleven "supports". The RfC has been open for seventeen days now. The chances of any new neutral input are slim, and the chances of somebody from outside closing it are not that high. I suggest we remove the template and do the edit. Scolaire (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
uh oh. Are we taking another poll? In any case, that's fine with me. Make the edit, and close the thread with resolution clearly noted. --KarlB (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd say you are on firm ground, Scolaire. I think you should make the change. --RA (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have closed it as nominator, per WP:RFC. If anybody wants to add the colouredy box thing, they may. I don't know how. Scolaire (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ The Constitution Review Group (1996). "Report of the Constitution Review Group" (Document). Dublin: Stationery Office. {{cite document}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Ireland/Archive_16&oldid=1255569946"