Talk:Republic of Ireland

Language

It seems that this page sidesteps the language issue! I'm not too familiar with the specifics, what are the statuses of the Irish and English languages in Ireland? I think this would be a valuable section to add to the article.

Previous discussions: Talk:Ireland (archive), Talk:Republic of Ireland (archive1).

/temp - temporary article moved out of main namespace

Comment: the article also stipulates that the teaching of the irish language is "not" compulsory. IT IS (both at primary and secondary level)!!!!!!! English is also compulsory by the way.

Republic of Ireland is United Ireland

Being trying to get a proper discussion up and going on this subject for some time without any success, so I'm giving it a go here. My question is this: Since 1998 (as part of the Good Friday Aggreement) Ireland/the Republic of Ireland by referendum given up any and all claim to Northern Ireland as part of its national territory. So - does this mean that the Republic is in fact a United Ireland? All thoughts welcome. Fergananim

eh . . . no! A united Ireland would be . . . well, a united Ireland, made up of NI and the ROI. The ROI correctly removed its ludicrous Articles 2 & 3. It is however perfectly entitled to hope that one day there is a united Ireland. It just doesn't have to rely on loopy articles in the constitution that were more of a hindrance than a help. FearÉIREANN 18:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As much of a Republican hater as I am, FearÉIREANN has a point. It is just a united Republic of Ireland, not a United Ireland. RCD Espanyol

No because I don't believe most of us were voting for permanent partition. We were voting to leave it to the principle of consent North and South, such that a majority in both jurisdictions would be a prerequist to reunification of the island. I want reunification for example and never intended my vote to be interpreted as rejecting it. mango2005

United Ireland means just that, a unified political territory containing the entire island. --Kwekubo 03:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just the opposite, by removing the claims of articles 2 and 3, the ROI should no longer be even refered to as 'Ireland' as by the new articles 2 and 3 it no longer claims to extend across the whole Isle. SCVirus 00:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree because the Constitution still calls the state "Ireland" or "Eire". mango2005

Demographics

It would be nice to see some more up-to-date population information, I stay in Dublin and over the past 3 or 4 years there has been a MASIVE increase in imigrant workers (nigeria, poland, romania) the bus system is badly overrun and commuter chaos is a daily experiance. - Variant

Most Irish people are of Celtic ethnicity, though there is a sizable English minority.

Folks, the above is bollocks. We have a culture based on that of the Celts, but we are not genetic or ethnic Celts. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2000/03/23/state0101EST0331.DTL&type=science

and look for related articles to breck it down. It can be boiled down to this: Most Irish people have a descent seperate from those of the known Celtic nations. We have some related culture and a related language, but our descent is different. Think of it like this - just because someone in India or Kenya specks English it does not mean that he is of ethnic English background.

I also disagree with the wording in the second part of the sentence. Would'nt it be better to state something along the lines of along with a sizable section of the population descended from the various Viking, Norman, Welsh, Scots and English populations. ?

However, I would prefer to wait a few days to see if anyone has any comments contrary to this before I change the wording. Cheers. Fergananim 10th Feb 2005.

Although I would agree that there is not any genetic basis for saying that there is any signicent genetic deviation between the Irish and any other Western European people, I would disagree that the descent is "separate". As the article you referenced makes clear, the Irish share genetic ancestors with other Western European/Celtic nations - I say Celtic as the Celts originally occupied Ireland, France, Scotland, Wales, England (later completely Saxonised by the Viking ethnic cleansing), and Spain.

Our culture, our language and our descent are Celtic. Like all things Celtic, it has been enhanced by the interaction and assimilation of Viking, Norman, Roman, Greek and Arabic concepts, culture and genes.

Your comparison to language is also misleading. A majority of Irish speak English fluently yet the specified quote does not sugest that they are of English ethnicity.

As regards your suggestion of "from the various Viking, Norman, Welsh, Scots and English populations", I would point out that the English are a mix of Viking and Norman, that there is little evidence for Welsh-Irish interbreeding, and that the Scots are descendents of Irish colonists known as the Picts from before the submergence of the landbridge between Scotland and Ulster.--Paul 01:39, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

According to dictionary.com ethnic is defined as "Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage". Does that imply that the usage of the word ethnicity is valid?

Various topics

Well, I've edited the article to make it fit once more into the agreed upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries template. I know, JTDirl is not going to like it one bit (see Talk:Republic of Ireland/temp). Jeronimo was right though on the points he raised and I've edited the sections accordingly, though Politics and Counties still need to done. The excellent and detailed information that was here is not lost, but has been moved to more appropriate pages. Before we start Round Two of JTDirl vs. the Template, I'd like to point out that this is not the page for any in-depth information on Ireland, excellent though it is, but rather a summary of the more important facts and a repository of links to articles that go deeper into a particular matter. Now I'm off to bed. -Scipius 00:11 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oh great. Scipius is back. What is his pre-occupation with trying to force in here a version littered with inaccuracies and simplistic nonsense onto this page? He ignored everyone else the last time, now he wants to do it again. For the record, Scipius, the temp version here was worked on by people, was agreed with a consensus behind it and hence installed here. You tried to bulldoze your version through last time and failed. You tried to get this article put in under the wrong name and failed. This version has been agreed after a discussion. FearÉIREANN 02:48 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's a pity that it looks like we're not going to have a more constructive discussion. My "pre-occupation" is simply that we have agreed to apply a certain template to all the main country articles. This template is meant, as said, as a collection of the most vital information on a country, embellished by links to articles that delve deeper into a subject matter. Ireland is of course no exception and I think my version offers a reasonably good overview of the Republic, without being overly specific on certain subjects. Certainly, there's always room for corrections or improvement and feel free to edit the page further, though keep in mind that for this page, (relative) brevity is desired.

As for things being decided, that's not exactly true. The /temp talk page consists of Jeronimo pointing out what is needed for the template and your rebuttal, but no agreement on the part of Jeronimo at all. The template was agreed upon in July/August 2002 and has since been applied to a great many countries. The version that was on the temp page unfortunately does not comply with it, in particular the history section is far too long and I think we can all agree on that it had to shortened. -Scipius 21:13 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Just read the first part of this talk page that included arguments by Larry Sanger and also many mailing list posts made at about the same time. This horse has already been beaten to death. --mav 21:55 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The earlier discussion was about the name of the article, which is not now the issue. There was no objection then to the history section. The issue at stake here is the template itself. -Scipius 22:26 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No. The whole point was about which entity the article should be about (Ireland or the RoI). The name was just the most obvious issue. --mav

I do find Scipius' version odd; the text, esp in the history area, seems to be about Ireland and Irish culture instead about the far more recent political entity known as the "Republic of Ireland" (although that is not the official name). In this case we cannot associate Ireland with its thousands of years of history with the RoI in the same way as we cannot associate Korea and its thousands of years of history just with S. Korea. --mav

This is the way we've been doing it for all countries up till now, mav. We do indeed refer to the more extensive history of Korea in the article for South Korea, but when I added the two templates, I added the same text regarding the combined history to the article for North Korea. All country articles refer to events that were prior to the current incarnation of the country and I would say that a historic background is helpful to someone wanting to know more about a country.

I'm entirely open to suggestions that we limit country articles to only the current form of the state and create a general meta article for the greater entity (such as here) or for past forms. This should probably be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries though, where I raised the issue before, and until then I'd say the template as is stands. Consider this: the /temp article contained a wealth of excellent detailed information on the history of Ireland 1919-1949, but did not mention Saint Patrick, the arrival of English and Scottish settlers, the Famine, or the Easter Rising. Even if those issues can be seen as pre-Republic, there was also no mention of the Troubles or the Good Friday Agreement. The template version mentions all of these and more, at the expense of detail on a certain period, however crucial it was. Which would you rather have? -Scipius 21:13 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"All country articles refer to events that were prior to the current incarnation" Only when there is a one-to-one relationship between the current nation and its past history. The pre-history of the United States, for example, only starts with the colonial period - not with the Native Americans. Also the pre-history of Mexico starts with the Spanish conquest, not with the Aztec Empire. Lumping all that together is confusing and especially wrong in cases like Korea and Ireland. It is also bad database design to have the same information copied in two different places (the history of North Korea and the history of South Korea). It is best to simply start the split histories when the countries split and have everything prior to that at History of Korea. Then both the North and South articles would link to History of Korea. That way there is only one place for us to maintain text on the history before the split. This is good design and it makes things clear and easy to follow for our readers. --mav

And how do we deal with relationships that are supposedly not one-on-one, but still help to give the background to why a country is what it is? Both our articles on Mexico and the US do mention the situation prior to statehood. Do you suggest we do not mention any of the background history for any country article? -Scipius 22:26 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please read what I said again about "pre-history". What you propose would be the same as having the history of the Milky Way galaxy in an article about the earth. --mav

But you would still like to mention just who the Spanish conquered, right? It doesn't need to go into detail, but some links to a substantial part of a territory's history would seem useful. Your analogy is not entirely apt, I get the point, but that would be like describing the history of Asia in an article on Korea, which no-one is suggesting. Local territorial history does seem somewhat relevant to me.-Scipius 22:11 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

After reading it over, I have to concur with mav and JTD. The text in Scipius' version is a bit too focused on the culture and identity of Ireland as a whole, as opposed to the newer Republic of Ireland. And if according to a person formally educated in such matters there are many inaccuracies in Scipius' article, why is this even an issue? -- goatasaur

As said, we do not yet limit the history of a country to only the current state. For the RoI this necessarily means we then talk about Ireland in general in certain cases, but as the Republic came forth from and consists of most of the island of Ireland, some overlap is only natural. As for supposed inaccuracies, JTD is more than welcome to correct them (he is after all likely to be far more knowledgeable) and I've paid attention to correcting some myself. However, I would like everyone to compare the two versions to see which you would deem more informative in general. Wiki-articles are never quite finished, but I would suggest we use the template version as a basis for further improvements. -Scipius 21:13 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

An article titled "Republic of Ireland" should not try to discuss the history of Ireland from the early Middle Ages. It is, among other things, offensive to the people of Northern Ireland, and needless - the article History of Ireland can cover that easily enough. john 21:19 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree and so do several others so. Only one person disagrees so IMO the case is closed. --mav

Well, what I would like to know is how this effects other countries. I may have to make a lot of changes if we make this policy. As for the history I added, as I said, it is a basis. I personally think it could be shortened in itself, but I would say JTD is more suited for it. Given the desire for more on the creation of the Irish state, why not expand that and cut back on the first two paragraphs? I maintain that the history section as it is now is not suitable for the template. -Scipius 22:26 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It makes sense in a case as complex as Ireland, where an article is called Republic of Ireland to focus on the history of that republic. If instead it focuses on the history and culture of the entire island it risks not only offending people but also unnecessary replication in Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Éire, Irish Free State, and Ireland. I have also from time to time encountered a degree of ignorance and misunderstanding as to the status of Ireland with regard to Britain, and the current version makes it very clear how the current state evolved. In reference to the lack of mentioning Saint Patrick, the arrival of English and Scottish settlers, the Famine. Saint Patrick is the patron saint of Northern Ireland as well as the republic. The settlements mainly happened in the north, and all of these including the famine pre-date the republic. The Easter Rising was a failed declaration of independence, which affected the whole Ireland and pre-dates the republic. The troubles (of Northern Ireland) and the Good Friday agreement (for Northern Ireland) do require some mention perhaps in that particularly the latter has affected the constitution of the republic. Mintguy 22:07 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Northern Ireland could not also include parts of the shared history of Ireland? Why does linking some cultural and political history of the entire island to one of its resulting parts necessarily constitute an offence to the other, which after all shares it and should mention it as well? We certainly shouldn't claim the Republic is all of Ireland, but it does have a history that goes beyond 1919. -Scipius 22:26 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If you have to ask that question, Scipius, you are simply showing how little you understand the topic. The majority of people in Northern Ireland do not see themselves as Irish but as British, and believe their history should be on a page on the United Kingdom. The minority see themselves as Irish and would want their history put on an Irish page. Doing either on wiki would be taking sides, offensive to one side or the other, and so POV. That is why this page is on the Republic and why there is a separate page on Northern Ireland. It is to ensure that wiki is not perceived as talking sides in the debate over whether Northern Ireland is British or Irish. As a nationalist, I would perceive it as Irish, but wiki cannot make such a POV judgement. This point was explained to you in depth MONTHS ago when you last tried to do this. How many times does it have to be repeated before you get the message? You wouldn't listen to anyone last time. Please listen to people this time. FearÉIREANN 23:38 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Obviously it would be best to have a separate page like History of Northern Ireland, which mentions in more detail and correctness the past history of that territory. We do not yet categorise pages, so pages do not have nationality. My point is that it would not necessairly prohibit us from mentioning some relevant information from prior to the formation of the Irish state. Such as when English involvement in Ireland began, which is after all why an Irish state had to be created in the first place, just like the NI page mentions the arrival of the settlers. And again, the issue of having separate pages for Ireland and the Republic is long over, so there's no need to imply this is what this is about. The only relation is that the separation need not be this strict and in my view can overlap to a small extent, increasing the usefulness of an article, provided we avoid potential confusion and inaccuracy of course. Consider also the Culture section you apparently had no objection to, is it uncontroversial to mention pre-Republic Irish writers there?

As for there being a consensus, that's not entirely accurate. Certainly, it's always good to ask other people for their opinion, but obviously a consensus is not something where those holding the opposing view to your own (such as Jeronimo and myself) are mostly ignored. This is supposed to be a country template page and thus this view is entirely relevant no matter at what point it is brought up. Issues with the template can be discussed at any time as far as I'm concerned.

Let's explore two issues you mentioned elsewhere: the status of the languages and the name on the table. You accused me of ignorance and what not because I deleted your text that described English as a secondary language, thereby wanting to imply they are equal. That's not exactly the case. If brevity is desired in the article, it is absolutely essential in the table, so I limited it to a simple enumeration of both official languages. The primary reason I deleted the note however was because it unnecessarily lengthened the table and created ugly whitespace. Some preference was already given in that Irish was mentioned first and we usually can explain the linguistic situation more extensively in the Demographics section, but I've now edited that part to an extent that should be unambiguous, yet still neat and tidy. If you would still like a more explicit mention that we can add it as a note similar to that to the euro, but we shouldn't do it in that cell.

As for the name on top of the table, that is reserved for the local official long name of a country. The local official name, given the preference for Irish, would be Éire, as is explained in Republic of Ireland Act. Combined with its constitutional superiority, this is probably what should come first, being the most promiment >local< name (and there being no real "long" form AFAIK). Now, the above article also mentions that the constitution also gives "Ireland" as its name in English and that is where it gets messy of course. Normally we would use "Ireland" as the second name, being constitutionally the English and other local name, rather than the description of "Republic of Ireland", which is at any rate already used as the article title and is mentioned in the first paragraph, which is normally reserved for the official long English (local or not) name. But given that this too appears to be undesirable I've replaced it with "Republic of Ireland", cutting out "Ireland" all together, but I'm open to suggestions.

One other thing remains and that is the naming of the subarticles. I've restored the links to the normal subarticles "of Ireland" as this is where most of them remain at the moment. They usually contain only Factbook and State Dep. info on the Republic though and so most could be moved to "of the Republic of Ireland", but I thought I'd first ask if there are some that need to be kept at "of Ireland" (I'm mostly thinking of Counties of Ireland here).-Scipius 22:11 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The history of Ireland on this page needs to be shortened. It is the same as the page History of the Republic of Ireland. LittleDan 17:32 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree. This page should give a broad overview and the detail should be at the daughter article. If the ~230 history and ~150 year pre-history of the United States can be introduced a longish paragraph, then the history of this far younger republic can also be cut to the basics for this article. Think of the intro material in each section of this article as a hook to get people interested in reading the far more complete material presented in each daughter article. --mav 19:35 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I concur, as I had said before. Given his feelings on this subject, I'd say JTD is eminently the best man for the job. Would you please consider writing a, say, three paragraphs long appetiser on RoI's history? -Scipius 22:11 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. It will be difficult to do it in three paragraphs without producing paragraphs so dense and complex that people without the basic facts may not be able to follow them, given that it is highly complicated subject.(Even trying to explain the difference between Ireland, Éire and the Republic of Ireland is complex: one is an constitutionally inferior term often used but only by some, not all international states. Another is a constitutionally superior term whose usage in some cases offends Irish people, and the third name isn't a name but is used as a name to avoid using a name that in certain usage causes offence. Follow that? It is all thanks to the warped twisted mind of Eamon de Valera, a mathematician who thought he could apply mathematical formulæ to the creation of the names (I kid you not) and in one occasion so confused everyone that even his Attorney-General gave up in frustration and quit to become Chief Justice (he had been AG for only 1 month!), the Governor-General deV had 'sacked' wasn't sure if he had been sacked (deV's advice to him was in effect 'we think you are sacked, but just in case you haven't been sacked, act as though you have been sacked and hide from the public! The GG ended up sueing deV!), the state's main civil servants and law officers held meeting after meeting to try to make head or tail of it all, and fifty years later deV himself admitted that he himself couldn't work out what he had done! What I've been doing here is trying to get the facts right (which by the way is a first in any encyclopædia: everyone else gets them wrong, to the fury of Irish people, who know they are wrong but don't know do you actually get them right!!) while not making it too confusing to follow. I can understand that it looks too long and I will start chopping but it may require a number of daughter articles that could turn the page into a jigsaw. But just be thankful de Valera only worked on the Irish constitution. Image the chaos wiki could have if he had done the same to other world constitutions!!! :-) FearÉIREANN 01:54 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll work out. If you're worried about length, you could, if possible, try to keep the paragraphs in roughly the same order of length as those of the current politics section. The problem is that the History section is necessarily a little narrower due to the table next to it, so paragraphs will appear differently in the edit window than on the final page. I suspect we both work at fairly high resolutions, but a longish paragraph at 1280x1024 can become a dense slab of text at 800x600, so you may want to narrow your browser window to see the layout at lower resolutions. As for deV, it sounds like you could add yet more to either the article on the Constitution or on the man himself or perhaps a separate article of its own...;) -Scipius 19:10 18 Jun 2003 (UTC).

Added one wee little sentence in the intro so it now reads:

The country's official constitutional name is Éire or, in the English language, Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is the official description of the state.

Think it needs to be clear from the outset why "Republic of Ireland" (with a capital R) is the title and is being used throughout the article.

Broke it up so its clearer.

Will231 (4 Mar, 2004).

Association of Irish Humanists http://www.irish-humanists.org

Representing the interests of the largest ethical minority in the Irish Republic, 138,000 non-religious community. Distinguished Irish Humanists include Conor Cruise O'Brien and Owen Sheehy Skeffington.

Éire/Éireann

Excuse my ignorance, but is it not the word "Eireann" that translates to English as "Ireland"? What is the origin of the word "Eire"? (08/04/2005 Unkempt Hair)

"Éireann" means "of Ireland" that is "Irish". Irish grammar can get a bit confusing as we usually twist the rules if the word or phrase sounds awkward. For example the prefix for Irish naval vessels is L.E. or "Long Éireannach" which means "Irish Ship" while "the President of Ireland" is called "an t-Uachtarán na hÉireann".

Éire comes from Ériu, a mythical goddess of the Tuatha Dé Danann. She was one of the 3 patron gods of Ireland.

To be more precise, "Éireann" is just "Éire" in the Genitive case (the dreaded tuiseal ginideach). "Éire" is the nominative case, and thus the name of the country is Éire.

The example of "twisting the rules" given above is not actually very apt. "Long Éireannach" translates pretty directly as "Irish Ship", while "Uachtarán na hÉireann" translates directly as "President of Ireland" - you could say "Uachtarán Éireannach", but this would mean "Irish president", which is not necessarily the same thing as "President of Ireland". --Ryano 17:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the literal translation of Poblacht na hÉireann ("Republic of the Irish") as whilst it may be the literal translation it is of academic interest at best here. Secondly it may give more confusion than is warranted as Poblacht na hÉireann is itself a translation of Republic of Ireland and the Irish term has no official santion (certainly no more than that of the English) - the literal translation is a footnote at best. Discussion welcome. Djegan 17:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Names

The country box had been changed, and ended up a mixture of the state name and its description. Rather than merely revert I added both the name and the description. Cumbersome, but the italics make comparison between languages easier, and the naming problem is the first section of the main article.

I changed head of government back to Prime Minister because this is the English term and is used in other countries' pages, unless the English term is translated (as in Germany, which uses Chancellor). Bunreacht 28.5.1 also uses the term "Prime Minister", although only to say that the term "Taoiseach" will be used instead, and is not otherwise used in Ireland. --garryq 07:24, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I removed "Poblacht na hÉireann" from the table - I believe it is merely a translation of the official English description – i.e. it's not an official term itself. It's not common, and is at any rate, in the first sentence in the article as a translation of the Republic of Ireland. Zoney 11:35, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The national and first official language is not used to produce mere translations of the "official English description". Both terms are official, and if both official languages are too cumbersome to be used then neither should be, as the table is for official names and not descriptions. The first section of the main article adequately describes the reasons for the nomenclature. --garryq 18:17, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Three points. First, the Republic of Ireland is one name of the Irish state and is used as such by most Irish people as well as throughout wikipedia. The whole naming issue and the unusual status of the phrase "Republic of Ireland" is explained in the second paragraph of the intro as well as elsewhere in the article so a reader will understand that it is not the official constitutional name.

Second this is the English wikipedia so Irish (including the phrase "Poblacht na hEireann") should be translated. Words like Eire, Taoiseach and Oireachtas are exceptions to this because it is the intention of the constitution that they should be used even when we are speaking english. For example the preamble reads "we the people of Eire". No-one ever uses Poblacht na hEireann when speaking English.

The other thing is that "prime minister" is being used in the table as a generic term so should not be capitalised. There's also the fact that many people think "Irish Prime Minister" is an official term and we dont want to perpetuate this. -Iota 00:02, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

New Europe footer

Hi there,

Due to the duplication of countries in both EU and Europe footers, I created a new Template:European_countries_not_in_EU for those European countries not in the EU. This need only be put on pages which have the EU footer - other european countries should probably stick with Europe footer.

Before I change all other EU country pages (I've only changed UK and Ireland), I'm just looking to see if there's any major objections?

Zoney 21:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:EU countries Zoney 23:35, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added a bit about the Civil War since it was quite a glaring absence from bit about the history of the Republic. Kinda like doing France without mentioning the Revolution.

GDP?

Why does it say '3rd place' for GDP. Even if this is correct in some context, both lists of GDP maintained on wiki, the list of countries by GDP (nominal) and the list of countries by GDP (PPP) place it at 32 and 47 respectively. --Paraphelion 10:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to "GDP per capita."

Infobox

Apparently their has been a number of inbox changes on the page, i believe that we should keep it as the template, it will free up some room for more info, and keep the page code looking a bit cleaner. Nay comments? --Boothy443 04:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One of the problems with the "one-size-fits-all" infoboxes of the type that seems to have proliferated in Wikipedia of late is that they are impossible to edit to allow for the correction of particular infelicities. For example, the standard "Infobox country" template produces for many countries (and particularly so for Ireland) a small national flag outsized by a huge coat of arms. This is because nearly all flags are oblong (Ireland's is especially long) while coats of arms tend to be squarish: so giving the two equal widths is going to lead to large discrepancies of area.

Now if I were to go changing the "Infobox country" template this would, of course, affect all countries using that template, and I should be inviting possibly outraged reaction from all around. So I have created a modified template "Infobox country I" to demonstrate what I think is much better appearance for the flag and c.o.a. in Ireland's case.

What I should like the techies to tell me, though, is: Is this the only way round the problem - or do you know how some more flexibility can be put into the standard template (in respect to the dimesnsions problem: it is fine in most other regards). -- Picapica 4 July 2005 10:03 (UTC)

Opening sentence

From LaurelBush 16:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC):

I suggest the article's opening sentence should read:

"The Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann) is a state and sovereign power centred on Dublin in the island of Ireland, off the coast of northwest Europe. It covers about five sixths of the island, and it is the western-most state of the European Union."

The expression "sovereign power" places the state on a map of sovereign powers, including the UK (centred on London or Westminster), France (Paris) and the US (Washington DC).

The phrase "Sovereign power" is not used in the articles United Kingdom, France, and United States, and is, so far as I am aware, not in common use in English generally. If you want to change "state" to "sovereign state", I wouldn't object. I don't understand "centred on Dublin" either. john k 05:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ireland (republic)

I've moved this page to Ireland (republic) because this independent state's official name is not Republic of Ireland but simply Ireland. I'm aware that this has been discussed before, but unfortunately a wrong decision was made when this page was renamed Republic of Ireland. When you name this page Republic of Ireland, start the intro with Republic of Ireland, and name every subpage as ... of the Republic of... you're sending the wrong message that the country's name is Republic of Ireland which is not. I believe naming this article Ireland (republic) is the most NPOV, clear and correct way of handling this particular naming "issue". If this change is accepted by the community, I will begin renaming the subpages to ... of Ireland (republic). —Cantus…☎ 07:14, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I for one would prefer Ireland (state). Yes we are a Republic, but the more basic description is country (ambiguous) or state (unambiguous).

This is a whopping HUGE change. I am moving back until we get discussion.

zoney ♣ talk 09:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland actually saves a lot of hassle and argument - but I'm willing to see out a discussion and move it elsewhere if people are happy with that. zoney ♣ talk 10:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The state has officially resolved this matter with the Republic of Ireland Act, intended to clarify the sometimes ambiguous use of "Ireland". That's been around since 1948 so it seems very well established at this point. The naming section adds further detail to clarify the difference between the current official description and the name used at founding. Jamesday 10:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cantus is wrong. The country's name, both official and commonly used, is Republic of Ireland Seabhcán 17:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually he is right. "Republic of Ireland" is an "official description" as per the Republic of Ireland act. The state's official name remains Éire (in Irish) or "Ireland" in the English language.

But I don't agree with the move, and this is the sort of situation that the official description was created for. zoney ♣ talk 19:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Ireland" is the official name, in English of the state; please consult and endless list of treaties, documents (eg passports) and such. "Republic of Ireland" is an official discription. I believe however, and it is a pov, that "Republic of Ireland" is a better alternative to weasel titles like "Ireland (republic)", "Ireland (state)" and such other terms as we could endlessly propose to condem to the brackets, not to mention the mother of weasel words recently introduced to articles titles "southern Irish state". I propose leave it as it is their is enough difficulty with various names past used, viz Irish Republic. Is anyone proposing that the official title is policy and a must? Should "United Kindom" be moved to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", "France" to "French Republic" - shall i continue... Keep it simple and explain it properly. Djegan 20:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Boroughs

Under a reform of local government initiated by Noel Dempsey the only name for city or incorporated towns' governments, Corporations was replaced. Many Irish incoporated towns now describe themselves as boroughs. Personally I think Dempsey's renaming was a bit of pointless historical vandalism - the needless wiping out of ancient city government names. But then the Fianna Fáil-PD government's contempt for Irish heritage is no secret, as evidenced by the decision to run a motorway through the unique and internationally renouned Tara-Skyrne valley when the road could have been built around it. (Curious how some FF-leaning property developers just happen to own property on the chosen route. 5000 years of history can be sacrified to make money from developers who are household names in the tribunals and are big money doners to Fianna Fáil!)

As evidence of the change in name from Corporation to Borough Council, see

Under the Local Government Act, 2001

Section: Establishment, titles and administrative areas of local authorities and consequential provisions.

11.—(1) On and from the establishment day and for the purposes of local government, the areas referred to in section 10 shall each have a local authority as provided for in this section.

 (b) The local authority for each of the towns set out in Schedule 6 shall be known by the name of the town followed by the words—

(i) in the case of a town set out in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of that Schedule, "Borough Council" and

(ii) in any other case, "Town Council",

    and references in this Act to "town council" shall be construed accordingly.

QED. FearÉIREANN 19:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Demographics - constitutional amendment re Catholicism

i've changed back the change by Cantus where he replaced the word 'deleted' by 'eliminated'. Articles removed from constitutions are described as deleted not eliminated. I also reworded the lines on the absence of abortion in Ireland to give it the accurate context. The previous wording was inaccurate and not exactly NPOV. I've used exact terms and also qualified the quote of a line from the relevant article to make it clear that the paragraph takes neither a pro-choice or pro-life stance but just explains what happened - ie, a constitutional amendment, judicial interpretation of the constitutional amendment, failure of the Oireachtas to legislate for that judicial ruling, and subsequent amendments. FearÉIREANN 23:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of writers in culture section

I removed Herminie T. Kavanagh and Lord Dunsany from the list of writers in the culture section. No offence to these writers, but if we're to add names to this summary list of Irish writers there are at least a dozen others that would have a stronger claim, e.g. Bram Stoker, Flann O'Brien, William Trevor, John Banville, Colm Tóibín, Louis McNeice to name just a few off the top of my head. It's only a summary list, and seems to cover what most people would consider the "giants", so I don't think any additions are necessary. --Ryano 14:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

irish gdp

i looked at the world gdp/cap list and the irish are right behind the yanks in gdp/cap. i never knew the irish were so rich. does anyone know what method irish use to make so much money? i always thought the japanese were richer than irish.

While stereotypically seen as slightly backward and rural, the truth is that the Irish economy has grown enormously in the last 10-15 years. Net emigration has been replaced by net immigration. Richness is relative though, as the cost of living, the cost of land/houses, commuting times, etc have all soared too. Due to the recent and rapid growth, the national communications and transport infrastructure are not as developed as the position in richness league tables would lead one to expect. There are arguments over whether GDP or GNP is a better way of measuring this, and one (can never remember which) is skewed by the amount of US corporations that have invested here and report their profits here before repatriating the actual profit. I suppose you could see Economy of the Republic of Ireland for more info. jlang 23:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We learnt from our neighbours to a degree i.e. Thatcherism. We didn't copy everything she did, but we did start standing up to the more extreme demands of the unions in the 80's e.g. give us 20% pay rises etc. Also, we cut Corporation-Tax to 12%, and loosened up the rules on hiring and firing. We also privatised parts of the public-sector, and introduced lots of tax-breaks to encourage the building-industry etc. for example. In 20 years the taxation revenue of the Irish governments has increased 7 fold and exports 10-fold. We also cut taxes from 54% top rate to 42% and the bottom rate from 28% to 20%. Also, our social-welfare system isn't anywhere near as generous of France, Germany and Italy. Welfare isn't linked to previous income during employment - unlike those countries. This kind of link in these countries whereby unemployed people are paid 75% of their previous earnings is a serious disincentive to Germans and French people to work. mango2005

Éire

Is this the official name in Irish Galic? 23:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Zntrip

Yes. Article 4 of the Constitution states: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." --Ryano 09:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes but there is no need to use Éire when speaking english. People tend to make that mistake. Dmitry 12:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph/names

Can I propose the following revision?

The Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann) is the officially-designated "description" of Ireland (Irish: Éire), an independent state which covers approximately five-sixths of the island of Ireland, off the coast of north-west Europe. ~ Dpr 4 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)

I would support that, as including the official name as well as the description in the first sentence of the article. I do, though, dislike the use both here and in what we have at present of quotation marks around the word description, as if there is something so called or faintly not-quite-true about the term. The Republic of Ireland Act does not use any quotation marks:

2.—Dearbhaítear leis seo gur Poblacht na hÉireann is gnéthuairisc ar an Stát.

2.—It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.

Part of the problem, perhaps, is the rather wishy-washy nature of the word description. The Irish word used in the Act, gnéthuairisc, is more precise, literally meaning "form-account". In other words, Poblacht na hÉireann / Republic of Ireland are the terms to be used to indicate the form and nature of the state named Éire / Ireland by the Constitution.

My slightly amended proposal is therefore:

The Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann) is the legally designated description of Ireland (Irish: Éire), an independent state which covers approximately five-sixths of the island of Ireland, off the coast of north-west Europe. -- Picapica 10:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opening

Why is this sentence For an explanation of often confusing terms like Ulster, (Republic of) Ireland, (Great) Britain and United Kingdom see British Isles (terminology) on the page.Should it not be left on the Ireland page?--Play Brian Moore 15:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To me it makes sense to have it on both pages - a reader might have come to the Republic of Ireland article looking for just such an explanation. --Ryano 21:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, this is an encyclopaedia. Should be kept on both pages. --81.79.128.56 07:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think this clarification should be kept on both pages. This helps the casual reader who may be entering imprecise terms or just performing casual research. --195.251.204.42 10:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that someone would specifically search for Republic of Ireland means they clearly understand the difference between 'Ireland' and the 'Republic'.So I think it should be left on the Ireland page only.--Play Brian Moore 16:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching for only Republic Ireland - this clarification is needed on both pages. Strengthens the encyclopedia. --Me or a Robin 16:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But I specifically said Republic of Ireland.It is pointless having it there.I can understand having it on the Ireland page but not on this page.Republic of Ireland is too specific a search for links like this.Anyone agree?--Play Brian Moore 17:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may understand the difference, but other readers may need some clarification. That is the point of an encyclopedia. Readers are here to be informed, they want information not someone elses POV. It might be pointless having the sentence there in your opinion, but uninformed readers will benefit from it. I think the sentence must stay. --Me or a Robin 19:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with leaving it on the Ireland page.That makes sense but if someone specifically writes Republic of Ireland then they are clearly not looking for anything else.So if any one else has an opinion could we hear it please.--Play Brian Moore 22:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not everybody who arrives at this page will have specifically searched for "Republic of Ireland". Many will come to the page by following a series of links. This information is important for readers and should be left in place. As you say, let's hear from others on this issue. --Me or a Robin 17:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other

I didn't understand much out of this phrase:

However, through the lack of an effective command structure by its opponents, the anti-treaty IRA, and IRA units' defensive stand through out the war, Collins and his commanders were able to build up an army which was able to overwhelm them on the battlefield.

--Zimbricchio 21:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with that Zimbricchio, but feel free to edit it to make more sense. Regards. --Meiers Twins 17:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea of what it means. I don't know Irish history. I can't do anything. --Zimbricchio 21:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at re-writing the paragraph. I am no history expert and I didn't write the original. So I invite everyone to read it to check for accuracy. Robertbyrne 06:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much more readable now, thanks Robert. --Meiers Twins 07:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Population

where does the popultion figure of 4,130,000 come from, it's 4,015,676 (July 2005 est.) according to the cia factbook did it realy jump 100,000 in a month? Fabhcún 17:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be using estimates from external sources, it is perhaps more appropriate to cite official censuses and reports of national agencies? We should not quote external sources merely because they are larger (and often not authoritive). Djegan 19:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a space for estimates in the table so I think that we should provide one I went back and checked who made the increase in population and it was an anon with no reason. I am going to change back to the old figure as it has a source (and it's the source most of the estimates are from). Fabhcún 12:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Around 8.5% of the population are now expected to be non-Irish. Around 3.779 million are Irish and the next largest group are Poles (120,000 have come since EU Enlargement) followed by British and nationals of other Eastern European countries followed by Americans. Eastern European immigration from the new EU states has brought most of these new EU migrants here in the past year and a half alone. I think around 33,000 went home so there may actually have been even more here until recently. To work in Ireland you need a PPS no. and the CSO is estimating that 137,000 non-Irish citizens are working in Ireland, though it's hard to be sure given the black market. Census 2006 will give us a better picture though. mango2005

Rewording first two paragraphs of "Economy"

Seeing as how they were lifted almost word for word from the CIA website [1] I thought it would be a good idea to reword Wiki's paragraphs.

Agree with your changes, good work. --Me or a Robin 10:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

"The erroneous egoistical policy of large landowners caused famine in 1845-1847 in which 1.5 million Irish died, followed by enormous emigration. "

This sounds terribly POV to me, as well as being a huge simplification and incorrect. To that end, I'm amending the wording. Fergananim 02:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good god! Who wrote such rubbish??? Well spotted. Delete it. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 02:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the landlords can be partly blamed for the scale of the starvation given their stubborn enforcement of rack-rents and mass evictions of around 500,000 people. The British Government also shares the blame for refusing to halt agricultural-exports from Ireland and for refusing to import food unlike the French government and some German governments in similar crises in the 19th century. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury Charles Trevelyan stated that the main problem wasn't the Famine, but the laziness of the Irish and that giving them food paid for by the State would exacerbate this problem. It illustrates the kind of racist and cruel mindset of those in power, and helped destroy Irish faith in the Union. Even the mainly Loyalist Irish Parliament (from which Catholics were excluded) reacted to the earlier 1740-1 famine more humanely, halting agricultural exports for example. I disagree with you Fearganim and FearEIREANN.mango2005

Education in Irish language

Their has being some recent changes in the article regarding just how compulsory or not its (Irish language) teaching is in schools. My understanding has that the compulsory teaching of the language is only in schools that recieve public money (with a few exemptions for returning expats/learning disabilities). In particular the State cannot set compulsory minimum standards in education that would be enforcable in a court of law because of the wording of the Irish constitution, and that this would extend to Irish. Any takers. Djegan 19:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, its compulsory everwhere, i am in a school which recieves no state money, and everyone has to do irish. (except those from other countries and with learning dificulties.) Raemie 00:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your school really receives no state money (most private schools have their teachers paid for by the state), then it is almost certainly a "grind school" whose purpose is to prepare students for the Leaving Cert, a state run examination. One of the requirements for obtaining the Leaving Cert is a pass grade in Irish (except in the case of exemption), which is probably why you are being "compelled" to take the course. --Ryano 11:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their is no requirement to obtain a pass grade in Irish in the leaving certificate, in order to recieve the certificate itself, and certainly this has being the case since 1973. The dark days of an automatic fail in the leaving certificate because one failed Irish are long gone. Studying it, bar exemption, is still a requirement however; this, like all things, may change. Djegan 21:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above (those recieving public money) Irish is compulsory in schools recognised by the Minister for Education (with regard for exemptions), but beyond these two cases their is no such thing as "compulsory" Irish. The state can insist on what it wants in schools it pays for or decides to recognise but beyond this compulsion is certainly by consensus and not the law. Djegan 01:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Reply to Paul (see above)

Paul, the Celts never occupied Ireland! You are confuseing a culture with a people and/or ethnic group.

The peoples (notice the plural) who called themselves Celts as we know them principly lived in what is now central, southern and eastern France, parts of western Germany, Switzerland, the far north of Italy, and one or two other places such as Spain and Galatia. In what's now France, they were bounded in the north and east by the Belgae and Germanic peoples, and in the south by the Vascones.

There are the names of maybe half-a-dozen peoples or nations, known to inhabit Britain and Ireland either side of the first century A.D. (Menapii, Atrebates, Belgae/Fir Bolg) who did come from the Celtic/Belgae/Germanic borders, but only in very small numbers. Certainly there is no trace whatsoever in the archaeological record that such an occupation of Ireland by anyone took place at that time, let alone the Celts.

" England (later completely Saxonised by the Viking ethnic cleansing)." That's one humdinger you are going to have to explain! How could the British be Saxonised by Vikings???

"Our culture, our language and our descent are Celtic. Like all things Celtic, it has been enhanced by the interaction and assimilation of Viking, Norman, Roman, Greek and Arabic concepts, culture and genes." Paul, frankly this sounds disturbingly racist.

"Your comparison to language is also misleading. A majority of Irish speak English fluently yet the specified quote does not sugest that they are of English ethnicity." Exactly.

"I would point out that the English are a mix of Viking and Norman" - actually the English were, up to c.1066, mainly of British and Anglo-Saxon descent, with the culture and language of the latter being dominant.

"there is little evidence for Welsh-Irish interbreeding" Actually there is. Check out the Attacotti, the Desi, Irish kingdoms in Dark Age Wales, not to mention them returning the favor from 1169 onwards - hence surnames like Bhreanach, Brannagh, Walsh and Welsh.

All the best in 2006! Fergananim 21:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"the Scots are descendents of Irish colonists known as the Picts from before the submergence of the landbridge between Scotland and Ulster" Sorry, no cigar. The Picts were in what we now call Scotland long before the Scotti turned up in force from c.498 onwards.

Origin of Eireann, Eire, Ireland (see above)

"Excuse my ignorance, but is it not the word "Eireann" that translates to English as "Ireland"? What is the origin of the word "Eire"? (08/04/2005 Unkempt Hair"

Apparently the name is derived from a people known to the Greeks as the Iverni and to themselves as Érainn. They took their name from their ancestor Goddess or tribal deity, Ériu. They were spread all over the coastal regions of what is now Munster, and further inland. Regional nations (i.e., the Kingdom of Osraige, dynastys (i.e., Éoganacht and lower-class groups or peoples (Attacotti, the Dessi) were either known to be or most probably of Érainn descent.

As these were the peoples Greek and later Roman merchants came in contact with in the centuries B.C., their name came to be applied to the whole island. Fergananim 21:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Éireann is the genitive case of Éire. So Éireann means of Ireland and Éire means Ireland. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The name (again)

About the title of this page: I understand that this has been up for several motions and votes and debates and what not. But if the article itself states that the name of this sovereign state is usually just Ireland in the English language, then why does the island of the same name monopolize on that entry on WP? Is it really unequivocally the predominant usage in English? Similar cases elsewhere will usually lead to a disambiguation page if several uses of a geographical name are equally common. Like this:

Ireland may refer to either:

Ireland (state), a country in Northern Europe
Ireland (island), one of the British Isles

See also New Ireland and Northern Ireland

Compare where the reader is (re)directed if he/she types in other ambiguous terms with multiple meanings, such as "Georgia", "Samoa", "China", "Micronesia" or "Macedonia". //Big Adamsky 03:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When this question came up last I was solidly against any change in the status quo but now I am not so sure because Republic of Ireland is fundementally incorrect as many people assume, incorrectly, this is its name. The above proposal does have its merits. What do other (Irish) wikipedians think? Djegan 18:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases RoI is either wrong (when covering pre-1949) or unnecessary as a disambigulation. However given that we have articles on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Irish Republic, the Irish Free State and Éire, all of which in whole or in part were also referred to as Ireland, it makes sense to refer to the state post 1949 by the standard disambigulation description, which is Republic of Ireland. The problem isn't that WP uses RoI, but that it overuses it in irrelevant contents when it should be using Ireland or one of the other state names. It is OK here, and likely to cause far less POV issues and edit wars than using the less specific Ireland which could mean the 26 counties, the 32 counties, the historic entity, the modern entity, etc. This article is about the 26 county state and so should use a disambigulation reference that is instantly recognisable and which exists in legislation, not as above, make up a new one. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it is a difficult and complex issue. One of the issues with a new article name is that a endless links would require correction not to mention article and category titles. This could be a nightmare and also "Ireland (state)" is a bit ulgy, to say the least and could get out of hand; say someone insistent (consistency fundementalists) on President of Ireland (state)!!!. Their was an attempt at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) to approach this issue but their has being very little consensus on the matter.

Its really a simple issue (the correct use of "Ireland" as against "Republic of Ireland" for the state) but when people try to over complex it, or are simply quite ignorant, or are consistency fundementalists, then it all goes down the drain. Djegan 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I rather doubt that President of Ireland would require any disambiguation. Also, I don't share the view that there is anything esthetically objectionable to having (state)) or (country) at the end of a dabbed geo-entry. See for example Georgia (country). The problem with using country in a British isles context arises from the fact that there are also subnational units there also referred to as "(home) countries" even though these are not sovereign, much like some other federal states will call their administrative units "republics" or "states". See also Use of the word "American", "Latino" and "British". These have all been the subjects of hefty feisty debates on which usage/meaning is more common and/or correct and should therefore be given the first-choice entry here in WP, i.e. without any parenthecized qualifier such as ____(state) or ____(island).

PS: My applauds for being such good sports, you guys! My proposition to merge Aotearoa with New Zealand produced a rather less fruitful/civil talk... ;) //Big Adamsky 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is, when I typed Ireland into the search box I got a very confusing article. It was some time before I found this page (the one I wanted). Gerard Foley 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using "Republic of Ireland" as the name of this article is that it is not the correct name of the thing being described, i.e. Ireland. If you compare with articles such as United Kingdom or France, you notice that the names being used, while not the official "long form" names, are still official names. The CIA factbook backs this up.

conventional long form: French Republic
conventional short form: France
local long form: Republique Francaise
local short form: France

conventional long form: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; note - Great Britain includes England, Scotland, and Wales
conventional short form: United Kingdom
abbreviation: UK

conventional long form: none
conventional short form: Ireland
local long form: none
local short form: Eire

"Republic of Ireland" should either redirect to "Ireland", or be a disambiguation page with a link to "Ireland" and possibly anything else actually called "Republic of Ireland", such as the national soccer team. Either option would solve the problem of all of the links to "Republic of Ireland" currently on Wikipedia. The current "Ireland" article, which is about the history of the island of Ireland, should be renamed to "Ireland (island)" or similar. The misnaming of this article is one of the major failings of Wikipedia's coverage of Ireland. Robertbyrne 05:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. But still, in order to preempt any future naming controversies, it might be better not to let either article occupy the "plain" Ireland page, and instead make that into a dab-page, that leads to two pages that are both disambiguated by a explanatory word in parentheses. The article about the island should read Ireland (island), right? But what should the article about the state be called? I propose simply Ireland (state), ugly or not. Cf. Tierra del Fuego and Hawaii. =J //Big Adamsky 05:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Ireland should be a disambiguation linking to the state and to Ireland (island). However, I'm unsure about whether to move the state from Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state). It may not be the official name but it's the official description which might be enough (more so than South Korea, East Timor). I think there are likely to be more [[Ireland (state)|Republic of Ireland]] links with the move than [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] links without it; but then I don't favour editor-convenience over accuracy. Joestynes 11:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The examples of Tierra del Fuego, Hawaii, South Korea and East Timor all demonstrate that the article currently called Republic of Ireland should be renamed Ireland. In the case of the first, they are used as examples of why "Ireland (state)" should be used, yet both Tierra del Fuego and Hawaii enjoy a main entry with no bracketed words. This model implies we should have an article called Ireland with a short disambiguation at the top, but not have it as a disambiguation page (which already exists, see Ireland (disambiguation).)

In the case of East Timor and South Korea, they are both used as examples of where something worse than an official description is used. This is incorrect. Something *better* than an official description is being used in both cases. An offical *name* is being used. Please see the CIA World Factbook, which indicates

conventional short form: South Korea

and

conventional short form: East Timor

As I posted above, "Republic of Ireland" doesn't appear as a long or short form name for Ireland because it is merely a description. Wikipedia articles, wherever possible, should be titled with the name of something, not a description, official or otherwise. (Would you be happy with an article about Chilli Peppers called "Red Spicy Peppers"? Even if someone said that that's an official description?) Robertbyrne 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Ireland is a description that is used internationally as a disambigulation name for one of the two legal entities on the island. Ireland is used in diplomacy simply because Northern Ireland is not a diplomatic entity. But in the vast majority of occasions where both Irelands exist (business, sports, post 1949 history, etc) the south is invariably called the Republic of Ireland. That is the only NPOV option we can use. Ireland (state) is an absolute non-starter. It would just ignite edit wars. The whole issue of the nomenclature to be used when referring to the island and the two states was debated at length and a consensus agreed and followed universally since. That consensus is simple: the island is at Ireland. The southern state is at Republic of Ireland. The northern state is at Northern Ireland. That is the form Wikipedia has been using for a number of years, and is used in thousands of articles. Changing it at this stage would be both crazy and unworkable and is not an option. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 05:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following statements you made are nonsense. The reasons are left as an exercise to the reader.

"Republic of Ireland is a description that is used internationally as a disambigulation name for one of the two legal entities on the island."

"Ireland is used in diplomacy simply because Northern Ireland is not a diplomatic entity."

"in the vast majority of occasions where both Irelands exist (business, sports, post 1949 history, etc) the south is invariably called the Republic of Ireland." (So only "one Ireland" existed before 1949? "Both Irelands" exist in "business"? Which "Ireland" was introduced in 1949? Hint: a republic replaced a commonwealth state, but we were not left with any extra Irelands after that process.)

"That is the only NPOV option we can use." (NPOV only applies to opinions, such as value judgments, or choice of content, such as balance. If you wish to put a line into the article claiming that "the use of 'Republic of Ireland' is the only NPOV name possible in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia" you are welcome to attempt to make it stick, but please do not claim that the "only NPOV" name for an article is the factually incorrect one. That reflects rather badly on the mechanism by which Wikipedia articles are written.) You are implying that any other option will create an argument, but who agrees with the current choice of name apart from you?

"Changing it at this stage would be both crazy and unworkable and is not an option."

By the way, Northern Ireland isn't a state. Perhaps a vote would be relevant at this point. If only two or three people are involved I am willing to ignore the result, but if a number of people are following this thread, perhaps they would like to vote? Robertbyrne 05:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously know as little about how states are represented internationally and what nomenclature is used in different contexts as you do about the constitutional, political, legal and diplomatic formulæ used on the island for the last eighty years. In any case the decision has already been taken on Wikipedia, a clear format agreed and implemented by all users for two and a half years. The issue is closed. Period. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 06:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filling me in. Robertbyrne 06:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diference between Ireland and France for instance is that there is no country called Northern France, If it were not for Northern Ireland then i would have no issue with the name being changed to Ireland. The problem with the name 'Ireland' being in such general use has led to the horrible horrible name that is becomming more and more an acceptable term = Southern Ireland. When you say Republic of Ireland everyone knows what country you are talking about, when you say Ireland the first question asked is Southern or Northern?. At which point i always scream "REPUBLIC!!!"--Murphyweb 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a Southern Ireland did briefly exist on paper in 1921, but was stillborn alongside the near ubiquitous support within the South for the Irish Republic. --Kwekubo 01:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support BA's proposal. Note, though, that (for consistency) it might be better to render the Republic of Ireland to Ireland (country) (q.v Georgia). While use of the word "country" is imperfect, so are the many (mis)interpretations of "state" (e.g., Irish Free State). Moreover (mindful of the above), usage of Republic of Ireland is common in dictionaries and is arguably correct (OED, Webster's). Hell: even the OED indicates Irish Republic as an alternate form. So, how about:

Ireland may refer to either:

Ireland (island), one of the British Isles in northwestern Europe
Ireland (country), a state on the island of the same name

See also: New Ireland and Northern Ireland

OR

Ireland may refer to either:

Ireland (island), one of the British Isles in northwestern Europe
Ireland (republic), a state on the island of the same name

See also: New Ireland and Northern Ireland

OR

Ireland may refer to either:

Ireland (island), one of the British Isles in northwestern Europe
The Republic of Ireland, a country on the titular island

See also: New Ireland and Northern Ireland

...or similar. I've swapped the order (larger > 'smaller') and – though hugely supportive of the UN subregional classification scheme for countries – dewikified Northern Europe, replacing it with a geographically 'fuller' term for the position of the island in Europe, not the country per se. This is a dab, after all, and other wikilinks should be minimised.

In both instances, however, Ireland should be the disambig. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW: one of the benefits of having an eclectic pedigree – comprised of Irish, French, Greek, and Lebanese genes of varying Darwinian fitness – is that I can hopefully objectify these matters while being sensitive to them. :)) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use 'British Isles', why not = Ireland (Republic) ? --Murphyweb 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realise there are sensitivities regarding usage of 'British Isles' and perhaps saying merely "an (or 'the') island in northwestern Europe" will do. However, beyond this and a viable neutral alternative, I see little other reason to forego this common designation for the island group.

I think the proposed format ("Republic") would be inconsistent with other title renditions cited, not to mention the tendency in Wp to capitalise only proper nouns and not other when the lower case variant will do. Otherwise, see above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had all but forgotten about this here motion until Pluribus à proposed me. I still think that my original suggestion is the better option to go with, specifically for the reasons given further up about the use of the word "country" within the British Isles (as in the geographical entity; not as in "islands belonging to the British State"). So… will a voting session on the three or four models proposed be in order? Of course, retaining the current version is also a legitimate option. Perhaps the perfect example to follow for such a voting procedure would be the one set at Talk:Georgia, qv.. //Big Adamsky 13:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TY. As above, the arguments for "country" are just as well those for "state" elsewhere! :) And you've already noted country in your proposal above. ;) Perhaps Ireland (republic) might be the least ambiguous/contentious of any? In any event, I think a vote is in order with numerous unambiguous proposals (above, etc.). I can devise this in a few days, but I would applaud someone else if they took the initative. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure of the nationality of people editing this entry, and excuse me as i am new to Wiki and this is my first real input, but i would guess that most people here (if not everyone) are Irish in one way or another. The title of this entry is very important and am glad it is being discussed with the seriousness it warrants, this entry may form the basis for many peoples understanding of Ireland and her history. Wars were fought and many Irish people died to claim independance from British rule and acheive the Republic, both against the British and Irish during a civil war that was fought exactly over the difference between being a Republic state or a dominion state of Britain. There has to be a clear difference between the Island of Ireland and the Country of Ireland and this difference must at least pay lip service to the acheivments of the Irish people in the 1920's. Now times are different now, and in a much better way, but i would not like to see Ireland being classed as part of the British Isles. (By the way i was born in England and live here so i am not anti-british at all, my parents are Irish and i consider myself to be Irish, and am an Irish Citizen) My vote would be for - Ireland (republic of) --Murphyweb 13:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A hearty Welcome, Murphy! Well, I for one have no obvious Irish connection whatsoever (never visited the island, never had an Irish girlfriend, no Irish relatives, etc). I cannot think of any other way to refer to the group of islands of which both Ireland and Great Britain are physically a part, except "the British Isles". (Past achievements, developments, sacrifices and injustices are an altogether separate matter.) Also, please refer to the discussions at Talk:British Isles and Talk:British Isles (terminology) =J //Big Adamsky 14:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Adamsky, I am aware that we could go round in circles forever on this and has been been debated long before me with no resolution (the 'Irish Problem' eh?) but i can never keep my mouth shut whenever i see a discussion that i have a passion for. Thanks for the heads up on the British Isles, i may stick my oar in there also! ;-) Please, just remember though this is more than just geography, you may say that history is a seperate matter but i would certainly say that this is not the case, you must take a countries history into consideration when deciding what to call it. many countries around the world are now called by different names usually after a revolution or a civil war, we never seem to have a problem calling them by their 'new' names (USA for instance) and yet removing Ireland from the British Isles still seems to be a problem for many people. --Murphyweb 07:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

special position

In 1972 the "special position" of the Catholic Church in Ireland was deleted from the Irish constitution.

Is there any more information about this anywhere? Thanks, Gerard Foley 00:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal originated in the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution in 1966-68 and was passed overwhelmingly with the support of all organisations and political parties including the Catholic Church. The so-called "special position" had no legal meaning, as it was not defined in law. The article was however praised by some Protestant groups because while not granting them a "special position" (whatever that meant) it acknowledged their existence also. It was also praised in 1937 by Jewish groups because, in an era of institutional and constitutional anti-semitism, the article explictly recognised the existence (and by implication of rights) of the Jewish community in Ireland. The article was also widely condemned by right-wing Catholics because

they didn't want a meaningless "special position" but the recognition of Catholicism as a state church, and
it based that special position not on being the so-called "true church" but merely the fact that there were more Catholics than adherents to any other faith in Ireland. That they found deeply offensive. Maria Duce, a far right wing anti-semitic Catholic lay group, reacted with fury to the article and campaigned right down to the 1950s to have it replaced by a "true church" article.

So the article, ironically, was praised by the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, while the Archbishop of Armagh, William Cardinal Conway in 1972 said that he would not shed a tear if it was deleted. The actual referendum proved a complete damp squib and the deletion went through on a landslide. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all at Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. wikified. Joestynes 08:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Ireland article titles

Hello! As a result of prior and ongoing discussions, this poll is to identify a course of action regarding the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp.

At least five options are below. Wikipedians can only choose one option and should indicate their preference by signing in the appropriate section with four tildes (~~~~) followed by an optional, one-sentence reasoning.

Voting will continue to 28 February 2006 23:59 UTC, but may be extended beyond that if any option does not garner a clear plurality of support.

Thanks for your co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of the options below, which one do you prefer?

Option 1: Ireland — Ireland (country), Ireland (island)

move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (country), move the current Ireland to Ireland (island), retrofit Ireland (disambiguation)

Support this way causes least confusion - people who turn up at the disambiguation page can chose the option the want, hopefully most links will be to the correct 'Ireland' Robdurbar 09:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this will be not so confusing for readers. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2: Ireland — Ireland (republic), Ireland (island)

move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (republic), move the current Ireland to Ireland (island), retrofit Ireland (disambiguation)

Option 3: Ireland — Ireland (state), Ireland (island)

move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state), move the current Ireland to Ireland (island), retrofit Ireland (disambiguation)

Option 4: Ireland — Republic of Ireland, Ireland (island)

retain Republic of Ireland, move the current Ireland to Ireland (island), retrofit Ireland (disambiguation)

~~#Let's keep the official name of the country. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)~~ I've changed my vote. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option 5: Ireland - Republic of Ireland (country), Eire (island)

retain Republic of Ireland, move the current Ireland to Eire, retrofit Ireland (disambiguation), retrofit Eire (disambiguation)

Support Waggers 11:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option 6: status quo

everything stays where it is: the nation-state at Republic of Ireland, the island at Ireland, and a (rarely used) disambiguation page at Ireland (disambiguation)

Option 7: other

please indicate and categorise below; render in a fashion similar to options 1-5:
- Option #: [[proposed disambiguation]] — [[proposed title for nation-state article]], [[proposed title for island article]]

Comments

Ireland (country) / Republic of Ireland / Eire : How would Irish people prefer their country to be identified? David Kernow 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]