Talk:Ireland/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

What it means to be a geographical term

Hi, there appears to be different ideas over what constitutes a "Geographical" term versus terminology for political and cultural areas.

A geographical term refers to a geographical area. Pretty simple.

User:TharkunColl correctly states above that a geographical area can acquire political and cultural activites. I agree - but these regions are not the same as geographical regions. Politics and culture easily bleed past geographical regions.

For example.

Geographical term = Great Britain.
Cultural Term = British. But British "culture" and thinking, while originating in Great Britain, extends across the world (mainly due to colonization - think empire).
Political Term = United Kingdom, which incorporates many cultures, including Irish culture from the North of Ireland. But there is not such thing as a UK culture. The political term naturally incorporates both land and sea.
Legal Term = British islands - effectively a legal jurisdiction which may be different than the cultural and geographical areas.

Other examples are easier - think Vatican city.

It gets more difficult when there is less "bleed"...

Geographical term = Ireland
Cultural Term = Irish. But Irish "culture" and thinking also extends across the world (mainly due to migration).
Political Term(s) = Northern Ireland and Ireland (Republic).
Legal Term = Ireland (in the English language) and Northern Ireland

So what is this article? Is it intended to be a geographical article? Cos it isn't - as has been correctly pointed out, there are sections on Culture, Politics, etc. (It's a mixed up article, but being edited by 150 people can do that)

An easy solution would be to separate the geographic section from the other sections....

--Bardcom (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more examples:

Geographical term = British Isles
Cultural term(s) = English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh (there is no such thing as "British" culture, though the 4 nations have much in common, notably language, and all 4 have also spread abroad because of the British Empire)
Political term(s) = UK, RoI (etc.)
Legal term(s) = Essentially the same as the political terms ("British Islands" is only used in very limited contexts, mainly concerned with passports)

TharkunColl (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You've oversimplified something very complex to the point where it isn't valid. For example, Cornish culture? Or what about the Isle of Man as a political area? Irish travellers? British Indians? Channel Islands culture and politics? But let's not distract this discussion into a British Isles discussion though, although I'm happy for it to be moved to the British Isles Talk page.. --Bardcom (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. It is probably valuable (amongst the editing community) to ensure clarity around some of these terms - in case anyone is unclear on how/when/where to use them (and what pitfalls to avoid). However, unless we are going to add this extensive definition in line with every usage of (say) a geographical term (that could also be interpreted as a geopolitical term) then I'm still reticent about using those terms here. Specifically, as noted, while categorised as a "geographical label", the term "British Isles" has it's basis in a historical and political reality. This historical/political reality has since changed, but the term has not. IE: The term "British" has very strong political connotations in modern usage, and so applying a label (which includes this term) to an entity (like Ireland) which has mixed connections to that political entity, may confuse the reader. Or, to put it in a simpler way: Readers are very unlikely to readily recognise that the term "British Isles" is intended to be purely geographical, and doesn't infer political connections. In particular because it USED TO. And so (in the absence of an alternative term which doesn't suffer these problems) it's probably best left out. And therefore, my view remains that (because using the term is likely to DETRACT from the users understanding than to add to it), we should leave it out. Guliolopez (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The term British Isles has existed since Ancient Greek times, so cannot possibly be derived from the politicial situation you describe. TharkunColl (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - apologies if I wasn't clear, but I wasn't stating that the term the "British Isles" had it's origins in the "United Kingdom or Great Britain and Ireland", and the various historical revisions of that political entity. I was simply pointing out that the term "British" TODAY is taken to relate to Great Britain or the UK - because (for a very long time) it has been a label describing nationality and sovereignty. EXCEPT in the term "the British Isles" - where it is ambiguous. Further, the whole point is that it's NOT the ancient Greeks who are going to be reading this. So, even if the ancient Greeks had a term which could be geographically applied to the entire island group (without political overtones), we don't have one today. Too many readers (without a 20 page explanation) will have difficulty recognising that the term "British" (in its use in that term) is not intended to imply political overtones. There is already too much difficulty in explaining the complexities of the relationship between Ireland (the island), Ireland (the state) and Northern Ireland (a UK constituent) without introducing ANOTHER confusing term. Guliolopez (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think people have a problem recognising that British Columbia isn't British (any more), despite its name. Nor, that an island group can be named after its largest island, e.g. Gran Canaria. Or, that Indian Subcontinent refers, by definition, to something more than India. TharkunColl (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Firstly, British Columbia may not be part of "Britain" per sé, but then it is still a subset of the British Commonwealth and was explicitly NAMED so by the then British head of state to EXPLICITLY reflect its "Britishness". (As opposed to Frenchness or American-ness). It is therefore a totally inappropriate example for your argument - supporting as it does the assertion that the term "British" has had colonial connotations for at least 150 years. Long since usurping its Greek origins in application to the region as a geographic term.

Secondly, with regard to the Indian Subcontinent "precedent" cited, again I think you are picking a particularly bad example that only supports the argument against using BI here. Specifically, the term "Indian subcontinent" is highly questionable to people from Pakistan. And for that reason, you will note that it is not used on the Pakistan article. For exactly the same reason that British Isles is questionable here. (And, in all honesty, if you tried to add it you would likely precipitate the same kind of editor conflict over there.)

The "Canary Islands" argument is mute because all constituents share the same sovereignty and therefore the same issues don't really apply.

(FYI - Just so I'm clear, I am not advocating that BI be avoided for reasons of "political correctness", or because it may be "offensive" (as others have argued), or because it's validity is challenged by people of a particular political bent. I am advocating that it be avoided PARTIALLY because of this, but MAINLY because it is ambiguous, confusing, potentially problematic under set theory, and WAY too open to mis-interpretation, and therefore generally detracts from the article. Rather than adding to it.)

I'm stepping out of this now. As noted, constantly arguing every minor point is not adding value. Longstanding consensus has been to avoid the term here because of all these issues. If someone can come up with an appropriate term which describes the shared geographical, historical and cultural overlaps of "these Islands", then I'd be OK with a discussion on a compromise. But categorising the island of Ireland under a super-set labelled as "British" is just not cricket. Guliolopez (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think precisely for the reasons you've outlined above, editing guidelines should be clear. I believe if there were clearer guidelines on the use of the term British Isles, there'd be less to argue about and less edit warring. And guidelines for British Isles may (or may not) be unique - they may not apply generically for all geographic terms. --Bardcom (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

British Columbia is also the Political name of a province in canada so its not a valid example. I notice that while I was off line an edit war has happened. At the moment there is not agreement here to insert the British Isles and it looks to me more and more like a covert political agenda (or anti-agenda namely assuming political intent of those who do not want it). If an agreement can't be reached here then I am happy to put to to mediation if other editors are, and if anyone is prepared to face this issue yet again in yet another venue. From my perspective I argued strongly that the British Isles article should remain so named for historical accuracy, here I think it is confusing and there is not the same historical issue so I recommend we do not include it. Now I may be wrong but there are not enough editors who want it to justify the recent edits. --Snowded (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To BI, or not to BI. Personally I prefer BI being included; but, oh the headaches we shall endure to settle the matter. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We largely fought together on the BI Page itself! Here I think we should avoid it. --Snowded (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"erosion of natural and cultural heritage"

In the 'Economy' section i think there is an inaccuracy which needs to be corrected. It states that there has been an "erosion of natural and cultural heritage" due to "unbalanced economic growth". The document it references to support this does not attribute any loss of heritage to economic factors. Ireland has always in my opinion (like most countries) given too little attention/funding/legislation to protecting our cultural heritage. It was the same in the recession of the 80's, the boom of the last 15 years and it probably will always be - it cannot be attributed to economic factors, at least not without referencing something that states this. Any proven failings in Ireland's cultural/heritage support should be addressed in a "Culture" section or similar.Fin123 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: comment from Fin1213, above: I notice that the statements re: erosion of heritage were removed by Sarah777, then reinstated recently by Mudpudlles1418 with improved citations, and removed again lately by Dppowell. I agree that the references on cultural heritage last given by Mudpuddles do not definitively show a link between recent economic growth and loss of heritage. These references clearly identify an accelerated rate of loss but the link to recent economic development is not clear. But, in the case of natural heritage, the link with economic development is very clear in the referenced web site, in which a Government press release states: "The bad and poor ratings for habitats reflect the impacts of 35 years of agricultural intensification and a period of unrivalled economic growth in Ireland". Clearly this references the recent Celtic Tiger era. The detail of the associated report ("The Status of EU Habitats and Species in Ireland") also clearly identifies increased infrastructure development and land use change as two of the main drivers of habitat destruction and subsequent biodiversity loss. While I agree with Fin123 that heritage loss is a chronic issue in Ireland and elsewhere, the accelerated loss of heritage is recognised as an important downside of rapid economic growth, in Ireland and in other countries (look to China for a typical example). Therefore I suggest that (1) a reference to the impact of Ireland's recent economic growth on cultural heritage should be reinstated somewhere but only if clearly supported by unambiguous references, and (2) the comments on natural heritage are reinstated as they were - the citation already given was valid and illustrates an important issue for the sustainability of Ireland's future economic growth.

On another note, the summary attached to Dppowell's recent edit, by my reading, suggests that Mudpuddles1418 made additions constituting new research ('synthesis') and vandalism (hence use of Twinkle), and unsubstantiated POV. Can I politely suggest that substantive edits (removing or including statements with important implications for a topic) and any suggestions of inappropriate editing should be discussed? Might Sarah777, Mudpuddles1418 and Dppowell care to comment? Theartsvault (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you want a comment on? In this diff, my only recent edit, I think I was just removing POV language and obvious weasels rather than any referenced facts. Sarah777 (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "heritage" in this context - it is being constantly lost everywhere and all the time surely? What was created 30 years ago is now part of our heritage? And some of that is already being lost and replaced by tomorrow's heritage. Sarah777 (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Celtic Tiger

I find the discussion of the 'Celtic Tiger' phenomenon could do with some expansion. For example, the EU policy of pumping money from the richer states like France, Germany, Britain, etc. into the poorer states (like Ireland) was possibly the major cause of Ireland's sudden new wealth, which took the form more of fiscal than economic prosperity for the first decade or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.23.13 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a common misconception that Ireland's economic growth was majorly due to EU funding. EU (or EEC at the time) funds were mainly spent on infrastructure which was badly needed at the time and of course was a factor. Ireland's unique policy of extremely low rates of corporate tax, tax-free areas and generous grants would have had more of an impact. Having good infrastructure is one thing but getting multi-national companies to invest in Ireland as opposed to other EU countries (of similar infrastructure levels) was surely the hardest and most relevant factor. This is proven by the fact that many countries have since copied Ireland's incentives packages to try and replicate the success. If anything Ireland's membership of the EU today is a blockage to further rapid economic growth as many of these incentives are now not allowed under EU anti-competition laws.Fin123 (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd go a bit further! Despite having a very sub-standard infrastructure the Yanks invested here because of a number of reasons including (primarily) the taxation situation (plus cheap educated young English-speaking pop, etc etc). Also the level of EU aid as a % of GNP was never more than 3% at its peak and couldn't possibly explain the growth - also the other EU countries were, believe it or not, in the EU as well and the FDI didn't go to them! I'm sure the effect of getting between a quarter and a third of all American FDI in Europe for two decades dwarfed the EU transfers. I am, of course, open to contradiction from those closer to Berlin than to Boston. But it does seem to me that 30% of US foreign investment showered on 4 million people while the other 400 million had to do with the remainder, must be rather significant. Sarah777 (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

From Anglo-American relations: "The United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. American investment in the United Kingdom reached $255.4 billion in 2002, while British direct investment in the United States totaled $283.3 billion." So, it would seem that the British Isles gobbled up almost all of America's FDI in Europe, leaving the rest of the EU with almost nothing at all. A question though - if the RoI was getting all that American cash, why was it still getting EU handouts, paid for by taxpayers in countries such as the UK? TharkunColl (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean to use the term "British Isles" in this context? I'm confused. The quote talks about USA and UK. --Bardcom (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because I was talking about the combined US FDI in both RoI and UK (see previous posts). TharkunColl (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Payment for the some of the richest fishing rights in the world, which we gave to the EU? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The UK also gave up vast and economically crucial fishing rights - but we have always been a net contributor to the EEC/EU. But do we ever get any thanks for it? Not bloody likely! TharkunColl (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bring on the violins..sob! Sarah777 (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Info Box map

How about using this instead of the current squashed/distorted example. 80.41.236.95 (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tiscali user from London - which "squashed/distorted example"? They all look fairly unsquashed to me. Sarah777 (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia editor from Ireland - the "squashed/distorted example" to which I refer is that currently in the Info Box, which simply shows Ireland as a green blob off the coast of continental Europe. The map has little definition in terms of the physical geography of the island itself, and while appreciating that it falls to personal taste, I felt that the one I proposed gives the reader, (self included), a much greater appreciation of the shape, relative size and position of what the article actually concerns. Regards. 80.41.236.95 (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC) (PS Ain't "from London" - Alba gu bràth! :) )

That map would be acceptable, only if Great Britain is the same colour as France. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect France is a different shade to Great Britain as one is Continental Europe, while the other isn't. Perhaps the description beneath the map could cater for this by stating "Northwest of Continental Europe (light grey) with Great Britain (dark grey) to the east". 80.41.236.95 (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The current shading, gives the impression that Ireland & Great Britain are one country. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry -edit conflict 80.41.236.95 (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I see GoodDay that you've undone my change at Great Britain, therefore please forget I ever raised this issue. You have clearly demonstrated how easily some can become confused and think that Great Britain is the same as Ireland, and that each in turn are the same as Continental Europe, despite the shading attributed to each geographical entity being completely different in the maps which I suggested be adopted both here and at Great Britain. Best leave well alone so as not to confuse; I hereby withdraw my suggestion. 80.41.236.95 (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fear not, no harm done. Also, feel free to place your proposed map at talk:Great Britain#Info Box Map; who knows, others may view it differently. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP, having looked at the infobox I must say I find the blob a much better indication of the position of Ireland than your proposed box; how many semi-educated folk from Utah would recognise that shapeless bit of France as being continental Europe? And, remember, we are led to believe by our minders on Wiki that the average reader of en:Wiki is a borderline moron. Sarah777 (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Athletics

"Irish athletics has seen some development in recent times, with Sonia O'Sullivan..." Irish athletics didn't start with Sonia O'Sullivan. What about Eamonn Coughlan? World champion, indoor mile world record holder for many years. --Cavort (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation

the 'ire' of Ireland should rhyme with tyre, but on the first line it says its pronounced 'ar' which is wrong. i'd change it myself but the page is locked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.208.181 (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Others would pronoune the "ire" to rhyme with "oire". Still others would make two sounds to rhyme with "higher" without the leading "h". --HighKing (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Enyaclannad.jpg

The image Image:Enyaclannad.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force

An Ireland disambiguation task force (WP:IDTF) has been created. It will: free up various Talk pages for their respective articles, avoid inner and cross article repetition, avoid debate-postponing moratoriums from needing to be placed, and can accommodate all aspects of the issue of disambiguating the word "Ireland". --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Flora

In the section on flora the article states that until mediaeval times, Ireland was heavily forested with various genera of trees, but is now covered with only 9% of forest. The article fails to explain the causes of de-forestation, and precisely when it began. The Mediaeval period roughly spanned a thousand years from the fall of Rome to the 15th century.--jeanne (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The cause? They were chopped down for use.194.125.52.131 (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

More than likely they were cleared for agricultural reasons. The article still does not specify which part of the middle ages this occured.--jeanne (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Celtic nations template

Please stop edit warring over the Centic nations template. It was added recently without any discussion or agreement to add it or whether it was even appropriate to this article, so should be removed until agreement has been reached on its use or not. ww2censor (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland a Republic since 1937 or 1949?

I always thought 1949, but I've seen 1937 being mentioned on Wikipedia.Hohenloh (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

1949. See the Republic of Ireland Act. However, the 26 counties acted as a republic since before then e.g. De Valera saying that there was no need to declare Ireland as a republic in 1943 because "we already are a republic". 1937 is the constitution, and a watershed date, but de jure 1949 is the actual date. If you go for 1937 then you might as well go for 1916 while you're at it. --78.152.231.130 (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ireland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of October 13, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

There are at least five outstanding requests for citation, some dating back to April 2008.
Large sections of the article are completely uncited: Geology, Science, Air, Rail, and almost all of Economy, for instance.
Places of interest section is a list.
The gallery of images should be moved to Commons and a link provided.
The formatting of the sources given in References is inconsistent.
There are two dead links.[1]
There is an inline external link in the first paragraph of Sport. External links should only appear in the External links section.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland has no flag

I understand the Union flag beside "United Kingdom" but Northern Ireland has no flag; and people from Northern Ireland have the constitutional right to be "Irish, British or both". There shouldn't be any flag beside 'Northern Ireland', located on the sidebar, beside 'constituent country', under United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.61.70 (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, there is a flag of Northern Ireland with a red hand, crown and red cross on a white background. Of course, I agree that Northern Irish people have the right to decide whether they are Irish, British or both, but they do have their own flag to be proud of if, say, they were playing in a football match. Bonzostar (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the Ulster Banner, this is not the flag of NI. The only official flag it has is the Union Jack. BigDunc^Talk 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Airlann

Why was Airlann removed from the introduction and infobox? Under the Good Friday Agreement (approved by a majority of people on both sides of the border) Irish and Ulster Scots are granted 'parity of esteem'. Within an all-Ireland context neither should be given preference (as Irish is on this article). Roadnote (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I had put it back several times (based on previous - if not uncontroversial - consensus discussion), after a few other editors kept taking it out. After the last deletion in August, I just got fed up with the editwarring, and decided to focus on something more positive/valuable (instead of getting bogged down in yet another pseudo-political/linguistic debate). Possibly it should go back in the infobox - though I'm not sure where anymore. It had been included (without a specific explanatory label) beneath the English name in a HTML construct. Now that the infobox template has been updated however, the equivalent Irish term is placed under the "native name" label. With all due respect to 'parity of esteem', however, while its inclusion with an explanatory label seemed OK, I'm not sure Airlann would sit comfortably under the "native name" label. If that row was labelled "other names", or "names in other languages", I could see it. But "native name" is probably not entirely appropriate. And I'm not sure whereelse in the current infobox template it can sit. Guliolopez (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I put it into the introduction, we'll see what happens. Roadnote (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This was previously removed and there was this discussion, but why reinsert it if there will be any controversy. ww2censor (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will cause controversy. I had read the above discussion, it didn't seem to have any resolution of note. Roadnote ♫ 20:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sport

We have a rugby league team playing, or to play, don't know which, in Australia at the minute, playing in a World Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perry Groves (talk • contribs) 09:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If no-one else is going to write about it I will have to add my limited knowledge of the sport. Perry Groves (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I lack any sort of knowledge on Rugby League but I look forward to reading what Perry Groves puts up. Bonzostar (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

GA reassessment by community

Ireland has now been put up for a community reassessment here. Can you help with any of the issues mentioned? 6 & 7 have already been dealt with or don't exist.

Places of interest: I thought that using one of the popular travel guide, such as Fodor's would be a good source for a reasonable listing of places of interest. I could work on this in the next few days if others agree. ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ww2censor - I think that would be a good idea. I've made a stab at improving/adding references to a few sections (which was mentioned as a possible GA failure issue). I may also have a look at cleaning up the "further reading" section. Though I may simply delete.

The other key remaining "issue" relates to the length/uncited nature of the economy section. (Which as has been discussed before could do with review, summarisation and improved citations). If someone else can have a look at this, that would be great.

This would leave the "format and consistency of references" as the sole issue. Frankly this last one would take up a lot of valuable time, and - as has been noted - would not be a GA stumbling block on its own. It can therefore possibly be left for correction in a more organic fashion over time. (Or possibly to some future [not invented yet] robotic to sort out). Guliolopez (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a start on the "format and consistency of references", if you like. I've been doing a bit of that "tedious" work recently on other sites (yes, doing it properly is time-consuming!). I've been using the citation templates at WP:CITET--would that be OK? Hohenloh⁺23:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the article and tagged a few statements which need citations. I located and added one citation; time permitting, I may try to work on some others later this week. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hohenloh, I have deleted the Image Gallery and made a start on paragraphing the places of interest. Hope my work isn't too shabby.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides which there is already a Commons Ireland link at the bottom of the page so removal of the gallery is not a problem. ww2censor (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started going through the references. I'll go through them around 10 at a time, remove the bad ones first, then replace them with good ones or fix what needs to be fixed. If I can't find a good one I'll tag where it's needed. OK? Hohenloh⁺04:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Places of Interest

In relation to tidying up the places of interest. ZincBelief, I think your initial steps are fine. However, to stop it turning bac into an exhaustive list again, I think some "criteria for inclusion" are needed. I think a good start is: UNESCO sites (and "proposed sites") per ZincBelief. (Brú na Bóinne, Causeway, Skelligs, Burren, etc) The national monuments of major significance (Glendalough, Clonmacnoise, Cashel). I'm not sure what criteria to apply, but possibly Kilkenny (as uniquely ancient medieval city), Ring of Kerry/Dingle/Killarney (as major "attractions"), and Cliffs of Moher, Bunratty and Blarney as (as "quintessentially" unique). And leave it at that. If someone can find a source that might rank a "top ten" in terms of visitor numbers, that would be great. Possibly a Bord Fáilte report exists. Guliolopez (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK I just found a Bord Fáilte report from 2006 which lists the top free/fee charging "attractions" for that year. I'm going to have a look at it as the basis for finalising the "places of interest" section.

Unsurprisingly it lists Blarney, Bunratty, the Rock of Cashel, the Cliffs of Moher and Holy Cross Abbey, so I'll include these on that basis.

In Dublin it lists the Guinness Storehouse, Dublin Zoo, Book of Kells, St Patrick’s Cathedral, and several museums/etc. I'm not sure all these should be mentioned separately, so I'll see how they might be combined/summarised.

I'm a little surprised that Killarney/Dingle/Ring of Kerry aren't included - but then the nature of an "attraction" focused report is that a "general area" wouldn't have a man with a ticket booth counting passers by. Perhaps instead these could be covered under a "heavily touristed areas" sentence. That might include a summarised Dublin (as above), Kilkenny, Galway and the Aran islands. And I think that should be enough. Guliolopez (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I started working on a list from Fodor's which is rather long but with little if any apparent criteria. The new list with its criteria is much better though a little short. Perhaps we can find another list source to expand it a little. Well done and thanks folks incl. ZincBelief. ww2censor (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In a few days time I'll have access to the Encyclopedia of Ireland, so presumably that would be useful for some missing citations?Hohenloh⁺17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers

Newspapers are included under All-island institutions. Can this be improved? A newspaper is not an "institution" (I think).

The paragraph begins: "A significant number of newspapers on the island are circulated in both jurisdictions."

Is "jurisdiction" the correct term in this respect? ?Hohenloh⁺20:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Take it out, along with 50% of the economy sprawl--ZincBelief (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree...?Hohenloh⁺02:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Soccer player

Can that paragraph about the NI soccer player playing for Ireland be removed from "All-island institutions"? IMHO it's uncited and unencyclopedic and its removal would simplify an already contentious section.Hohenloh⁺23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support that, especially as the ROI team is not an all-Ireland institution! (Nor is it political). Mooretwin (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

It was suggested that this article should be moved to Ireland (island) or Island of Ireland. Please comment at Talk:Republic of Ireland#Proposed move. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Update - further discussion on the above (whether "Ireland" should be a disambig page or not) is now ongoing at a different location, at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Statement_and_.28semi-.29formal_proposal_by_DDstretch Regards, MartinRe (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

New Ireland project

Hi all,
I've started a new Ireland related project which I hope will bridge a gap I feel exists between the two Wiki community's with an interest in Ireland related matters. The project has just started but I hope it will allow us to work together at first on uncontroversial articles such as Sports in Ireland and if successful I hope will allow for a more constructive and friendly approach to the controversial issues Gnevin (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sport is uncontroversial? Ha! Just kidding. It's a great idea. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That looks interesting. Any chance of getting George Mitchell to lend a hand? Hohenloh⁺06:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Boxing

I think it should now be included in the sport section about the fantastic performance in the recent Olympic Games in Beijing by Irish boxers. Our silver medal and two bronze medals should defnitely be mentioned and I will do so if people are alright with that. Bonzostar (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Article layout

Anyone else thing the big plain green map under the infobox is ugly? (And a bit repetitive and too big). Also the pictures of Boyle and Joyce are way too big. The layout needs a bit of attention here; compare it with the United States of America article. Sarah777 (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I took out the "nickname" nonsense but I have left "Ireland" floating free above the infobox - anyone know how to fix that (without reintroducing the nickname and "native" name? Sarah777 (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. To your points.

Location map in Infobox - I think this looks fine. It is consistent with the infoboxes of other islands.
Names in Infobox - Can you explain precisely why you feel that "Éire" as the native translation for "Ireland" is nonsense? What's nonsense about it? Surely it's factual and verifiable? When I saw you remove this earlier I was more than a little perplexed. Compare to island infobox for Hispaniola (an island comprising the Dominican Republic and Haiti) this has a native translation for the island's name. La Española. Quite appropriately in my view. What precisely is the difference here?
Title of the Infobox - "Can anyone fix the title floating free above the box"? Again, what is there to fix exactly? It is consistent with the island infobox template in use all over the place.
Duplication in infobox - Again, this is perfectly consistent with island infoboxes elsewhere. Compare Great Britain or Borneo. What duplication is there? I can't see any.
Boyle and Joyce pics are too big - I have applied the "upright" standard to those two thumbs. That should address.
Compare to the United States article - What specifically are you comparing? The infobox is obviously different. As one deals with a nation and the other an island. So, I can only assume you mean the body text. Is there any "best practices" from the US article you think should be applied here?

Finally, I am actually tempted to reinstate the native and nicknames. As I don't see how "nonsense" applies - certainly when applied to a literal native translation that pre-dates the English term, and a commonly held "romantic sobriquet" that has been in use for several hundred years. (From the mid 1700s at least). Guliolopez (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gulio. Infobox looks fine now, IMHO--could we leave it at that? Smaller pics look better too. Maybe the green map might be a little smaller? Could someone finish off the remaining citations that need to be done? There's not many left. Still needs a little pruning--emigration and economy come to mind. Hohenloh⁺ 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Emerald Isle

Hi. Twice now a commonly held sobriquet for the island has been removed from the infobox. Stating that it is "ridiculous", "nonsensical" and "unencyclopedic". (In one edit the native name was also removed with the same rationale). I have restored it, again. There is nothing "nonsensical" about the term "the Emerald Isle" - which has been used as a sobriquet for the island for hundreds of years. (See: "The Emerald Isle : a poem" - Charles Phillips/1812. And other earlier examples.) Nor is the term "unencyclopedic". (Britannica includes it in the relevant article intro.) Unless the editor who has removed it can explain (beyond "I don't like it"), I can see no reason to remove it. Guliolopez (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Snowded's last edit - removal of Army pipelink

What other army would it be? It's unnecessary to specify "British Army". Mooretwin (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move to Ireland (island)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Ireland to Ireland (island), Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state), and Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland. This was a complex proposal encompassing three distinct discussions. The detailed reasoning can be read at User talk:Tariqabjotu#My response -- Rockpocket 22:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia naming policy and the disambiguation guideline, as well as following extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force, it is proposed that Ireland (disambiguation) be moved to Ireland. This will enable these pages to accord with Wikipedia-wide policy as well as the opinion of most of the task force editors. In order to make way for this move, it is proposed that this article is moved to Ireland (island). waggers (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The new Ireland article will have the contents of Ireland (disambiguation), and so will now correctly disambiguate, per the rules of Wikipedia. All the many incorrectly-linked "Ireland"s on Wikipedia that actually refer to Ireland-the-state (ie the Republic of Ireland article) will now link page that gives them a choice: Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Ireland (island).-Matt Lewis (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

-- As always with these Ireland related polls after it starts there are retro-fitted statements to clarify a bad start. Djegan (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Where you born rude?

MAIN ISSUE: Ireland is supposed to be the island article, and Republic of Ireland is supposed to be the state article. But Wikpedia mainly refers (and links) to 'Ireland' as the state - so this article consequently has masses of forked political and cultural information in it which shouldn't be there. The problem has ultimately lead to TWO Ireland state articles, with the Ireland article covering the British Northern Ireland as well.

SURROUNDING FACT: Ireland the island contains both the state 'Ireland' (also called Republic of Ireland), and the British constituent country called 'Northern Ireland'. It is not the case that the island and the state are one and the same 'Ireland'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

POLITE NOTE: If people actually want this Ireland article to be the state article (like many opposers here seem to be suggesting), can you add a note? (optional, but helpful) Many thanks. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Re. this 'polite note', you could just read everybody's oppose in detail and actually realise that not everybody who opposes wants Ireland to be the state article. MickMacNee (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Support waggers (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
'Strongly Support --Snowded TALK 11:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
{{Recentism}} is a fault for which we have a tag already made. No. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call 1921 recent, but hey... waggers (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
If that is what you believe, then that supports Angus McLellan's accusation of recentism. Mooretwin (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Strongly oppose - there is a disambiguation task force looking at the whole area of how to disambiguate Ireland, which is highly controversial and complicated. No moves such as this should take place until the task force has completed. It is against the ethos and spirit of the task force to hive off particular moves and deal with them separately. This arbitrary action by Waggers is out of order and reduces the likelihood of achieving compromise agreement on the whole issue. Mooretwin (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion has been extensive and prolonged, Waggers is not taking arbitrary action, Mooretwin is attempting a filibuster to preserve a minority position. --Snowded TALK 12:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He is taking arbitrary action. He has pushed for this over the last few days, and abitrarily decided himself to take this course of action. This is not a filibuster - I have regularly argued for compromise, but it seems that those determined to push a particular agenda are not interested in compromise, confident that they can force measures through by majority votes. This behaviour leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Mooretwin (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Moortwin, there is no evidence of you attempting to compromise in any meaningful sense of the word and you have this time (and historically) done your level best to prevent discussion moving forward so that you can retain the status quo. Your comments abound with accusations and conspiracy theories - enough, please. --Snowded TALK 13:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence. I have proposed a compromise on the name of the article in return for an agreement about usage within texts. I also proposed bringing Derry/Londonderry into it. Again, I make an appeal that you and others do not engage in misrepresentation of those with whom you disagree. Mooretwin (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, make a proposal to move Derry to Londonderry. Argue for it in light of the argument that its formal name should be primary. -- Evertype·✆ 19:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you just made my point for me, bringing a shopping basket of controversial requests is exactly not what a compromise is about, its a way of protracting the issue and obscuring it.--Snowded TALK 13:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the task force was to deal with the issue in the round, so suggesting that this is actually what should happen is not "bringing a shopping basket of controversial requests". It is better to deal with controversial requests in the round, rather than divide them up and force them through one by one, as appears to be happening now. Mooretwin (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a controversial request since it is simply a ratification of existing policy. As has been explained to you countless times, the purpose of the task force is not to solve all of the Ireland-related issues in one go. The notion that it should fulfil its entire remit on one go (and do nothing until it is at a point of being able to do so) is absolutely ludicrous. waggers (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"the purpose of the task force is not to solve all of the Ireland-related issues in one go" -- says who? I should have thought that very obviously the purpose was to deal with the issue in the round. Why else establish it? Mooretwin (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Support This RM has been made now, and it was unquestionably the most fully and cross-supported singlular approach (even if it does leave the name of the Irish state for another day). One of the best arguments for it is here. In no way will the outcome of this effect the taskforce - that will remain solid. A number of people felt confident about going this way (including admin) - and they are entitled to do it. It's a question of people's time as much as anything - people want to see something positive happen here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
comment Whatever may happen to the ROI state article, this current forked-info, state/island, 3-choice-link-inducing, eroniously-linked-to ambiguity-causing 'Ireland' article is supported by few people indeed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no confidence in the task force now. It seems clear that a group of editors with a particular agenda is determined to force its will by pushing majority votes on each individual issue. Mooretwin (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to blame the taskforce - it was only ever a place for discussion and straw polls. If people feel strong enough to move on it, then no one can stop them from doing it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Nuclare (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, won't work and needs more time, and the task force hasn't deliberated as yet. PurpleA (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Bazza (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support DDStretch (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose An entirely unnecessary move. Valenciano (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Care to give a reason why it's unnecessary to abide by the guidelines? waggers (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose (strongly) - what is this "Wikipedia-wide policy" - bogus? This is a nonsense move request. It should be withdrawn immediately. Djegan (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The answer to your question is in the links above. In a nutshell, there are (at least) two entities called Ireland, therefore Ireland should be a disambiguation page per WP:D. waggers (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah the Ireland (island) and Ireland (state) nonsense that would lead to nonsense like Counties of Ireland (island) and Education in Ireland (state). That is daft. No thanks. Djegan (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course it wouldn't. Have you not read this cogent argument, or do you not understand the nature of pipelinks. This bogus argument devalues your otherwise legitimate opinion. DDStretch (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So we are going to "keep" Education in the Republic of Ireland, rather than Education in Ireland (state). Because moving the Republic of Ireland article to Ireland (state) is the ultimate objective? Isn't it? Djegan (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This proposed move is purely about the Ireland article, to make way for Ireland (disambiguation) to move here. There are no hidden motives. waggers (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So its death by a thousand cuts? Oh bugger. Djegan (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? This ignorant paranoia has been devastating for Wikpedia - 'Ireland' being in such a mess is the clear the problem for most Wikipedia-concerned people - but we are not allowed to address it because of petty squabbling by the likes of you, over ROI. In the meantime (and over the years) the Irish articles flounder in a confused mess themselves. Some of them have cobwebs from not being touched. But do you care about that at all? In any case, even if ROI was changed, I've explained to you before that Education in Ireland (state) won't need to happen - Education in Ireland would be absolutely fine! At the moment we have countless 'Sport/Decycling/Abortion in Ireland' (etc) format articles anyway (some including Northern Ireland, some not)! It is all a mess. If you had the courage to support this disam-page Move, the chances are that ROI would never be changed. But I wonder if keeping ROI really is your wish - or if you are really fighting for a unified Ireland, via keeping hold of this mish-mash 'single-state-appearing' Ireland article that we currently have? -Matt Lewis (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"...ignorant paranoid...fighting for a unified Ireland...petty squabbling by the likes of you..."; Calm down Matt, but above all else don't loose it - you do more damage than good for your cause!. You say that Republic of Ireland is confusing, yet you want counties of Ireland for the island and education in Ireland for the state. That is confused? This is not though out. Djegan (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Will you stop this stupidity? I never once said Republic of Ireland is confusing in itself! It is the mixed 'Ireland' that confuses everything - and is being dealt with in this Move request. Counties of Ireland rubs against using ROI anyway, as it covers the periods of the state! You want every period in covered in ROI too. It is you who have not thought anything though - and you are simply reacting here with nonsense. Also, I simply corrected you saying that Education in Ireland (state) would need to be used if Wikipedia used Ireland (state) - that simply isn't true. I don't care what happens to ROI - neither does waggers, who started this Move. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You have dug yourself a hole, and are still digging; good luck. Djegan (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That is just a losing shot. Everything you said above was foolish. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ROI: Just read your own comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force. Enjoy. Djegan (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy reading my arguments? Another empty comment. I have said Ireland (state) could (in a pedantic sense) cover more history than ROI (which was an official name for only 50 years) - but that was only to state an order preference - as we all were doing! I have supported an ROI-based proposal, and I started the whole taskforce because I had problems with not being allowed to use ROI myself(!). I even got rid of the 20-plus sockmaster who endlessly removed it from Wikpedia (which took hour and hours of my time). You know the problems surrounding Ireland full well - but you resent anybody trying to deal with it. Why? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I must call this one. Matt - you are 100% correct in this instance; while I wouldn't call DJ stupid in the classical sense he is clearly pushing blatant POV in this case. I also find his taking refuge in abrasive comments when he finds himself losing the argument is contrary to the Wikipedian spirit. Sarah777 (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you're inadvertently paving the way here for more changes - firstly the change in the name of Republic of Ireland. Let's get wholesale agreement across all the issues before making individual changes such as this. Mooretwin (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't perform this Requested Move - but I understand why it was done, and I support it now it is done. Nobody backed the two 'hatnote' suggestions at all - and the extended version of this (which included the state) had less support. There is nothing actually illegal about this RM - and most of the arguements against it are on side matters. This RM can actually work whatever happens (or doesn't happen) to the Irish state article. I've never myself accused anyone of 'filibustering', but I'm certainly tired of the endless card playing - if you have your own proposal, put it down for gods sake. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If, for example, the "European Union" decided tomorrow that its new name is the "European United" would we have two articles which deal the terms separately (thats just dumb) or would we create a made-up title "European (politic)" (even dumber). No, we would just rename the original article (and have one article "European United") and carry on. Djegan (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What a truly iritating post. One cannot logically see what those examples refer to at all (nothing actually logical I am sure) - you really are being a wilful fool now. You shouldn't be taking this as a joke - unless unpsetting people really turns you on?--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC) by

If you are irritated (because, fundamentally, you see my point) then imagine my surprise at this initial post by you. Don't get too upset, but my comments are robust and made in good faith - and no apologies. Djegan (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sound bites are everyting on Wikipedia, aren't they? Impressive looking 'diff' links that lead to the same discussion a few comments up. Clearly you think readers are as thick as planks. Not a single point you have made above has been "robust" - not one single point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - The article about Ireland is in the right place. Roadnote ♫ 14:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - In current form. Per MattLewis, if this move were arrived at as the result of a broader agreement on how to deal with the complex Ireland DAB issues, then I'd be happy to support. However, this singular move request has been carved out of the big ball of complex issues, and shouldn't really be completed until some of the other issues are resolved. (Namely: when to pipe, when not to pipe, when to say Ireland (when referring to the state), when to say Ireland (when referring to the island), when to say Republic of Ireland (when DAB absolutely required), etc, etc.) Moving this article, in the absence of some closure/guidelines around the other issues is premature and problematic. Guliolopez (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you lay out at the taskforce what you will accept yourself? This is the one thing nearly all of the 'No. No. No.' people just aren't doing - the more you all hold back, the more stressful it gets, and the greater chance something breaks out from the taskforce (like this Requested Move). --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly support per Una Smith: "An ambiguous title such as Ireland should be a disambiguation page, because it is Ireland that will accumulate incoming links needing disambiguation and the task of disambiguating them is made vastly more difficult if Ireland also has "correct" incoming links that refer to one topic by that name." Since the Ireland should point to the disambiguation page, the correct thing to do is to move that content to Ireland (island) as proposed here. -- Evertype·✆ 19:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Per the reasons above, particularly Mooretwins. I don't see a need to move this page give that people only wish to make a disambiguation page out of it! :) --Cameron * 20:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes we do - so all the thousand's of incorrect "Ireland"s - incorrect because people actually meant the Republic of Ireland - link to somewhere sensible, and not this geographical island article! --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}} I just checked the first twenty links to Ireland, which is closer to being a random sample than your carefully selected handful. Of those, only one appeared incorrect to me. Do you think Limerick or Wexford or Waterford would do as well? And if ambiguous Irish stuff offends, there are over a hundred links to Cork, as well as whatever's left for Clare, Kerry and Mayo, for Sligo, Galway, Kildare, Roscommon, Antrim, and Leitrim, for Cashel ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

But do they go to Ireland? Looking at them, they are mostly 'pipe-linked' Republic of Irelands! The first link in "What Links here" to Ireland is Algeria, and 'Ireland' sits amongst a list of 10 or so states! My examples in the taskforce were not "carefully selected" at all, they were all the uses in the Ireland info box! If you looked around all the Wikipedia articles you would realise how many link to Ireland meaning the state - in my opinion, the majority of over 10,000 links on Wikipedia clearly mean the state (states are always referenced more than landforms). Not 'pipe-linked' Republic of Ireland's (which appear as 'Ireland'), but straight-linked "Irelands"! --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

First 20 links to Ireland: Algeria - refers to Barbary Corsairs attacking the Republic of Ireland in the 17th century; List of characters in Atlas Shrugged - Riordan is a surname with Republic of Ireland origins; Algae - dulse can be bought in shops in the Republic of Ireland [only, never in Northern Ireland]; A Modest Proposal - Jonathan Swift's satirical look at poverty in the Republic of Ireland; Atlantic Ocean - borders the west coast of the Republic of Ireland [but not of the island]; Anglican Communion - the British Empire expanding beyond the limits of Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland; August 22 - French troops in the Republic of Ireland in 1798; Achill Island - largest island in the Republic of Ireland [but not largest of the island]; August 1 - some success at last! the Buttevant Rail Disaster really did take place in the Republic of Ireland [but also in the island, so not exactly wrong]; April 26 - Trudpert, a C7th monk from the Republic of Ireland; August 8 - forces of the Republic of Ireland defeated at Dungans Hill; ... Thousands of incorrect links? Really? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes - those are nearly all incorrect links! And do you have to play games? I can see your point now in inserting "Republic of Ireland"s in text that in reality say "Ireland" (you completely confused me to begin with - and others too no-doubt) - but they are supposed to pipe-link to Republic of Ireland!!!!! Disn't you know that? All but one of them refers to the state/country - actually proving my point on how comparatively little Wikipedia references the island. (So yes, thousands of the Ireland's on Wikipedia are wrongly linked here). Nearly all of those examples above wrongly link to this Ireland island article. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we ought to put Saint Trudpert in the Republic of Ireland? And read the Republic back into the 17th century? If "Republic of Ireland" sounds absurd, it's because it is absurd. No pipelinking rectifies it. Srnec (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You ought to be pipe-linking to History of Ireland for the historical stuff. So you too are dealing with your dislike of Wikipedia's official Republic of Ireland state article, by enforcing a state presence in this island article! And you don't care that we have two state articles covering the same stuff? If you allowed this disam page proposal, you could support a name change for 'ROI' to 'Ireland (state? country? period?)' (and there is a lot of support for it). But why bust up this poll? And I promise you anyway, most of the forked stuff in Ireland will soon be removed as being anti-policy. This is seriously on the cards - look at the taskforce for proof. You need to think of a better solution, as this hatchet job has gone on for too long. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland, the island, seems to me to be the intended target in these. I see no evidence elsewhere to support your assertion that links should go to History of Ireland. Let's try the East Asian equivalent to see how it's done there. Toyotomi Hideyoshi doesn't invade History of Korea, he invades Korea (and the Korean Peninsula too). Dangun, made up though he likely is, doesn't rule History of Korea, he rules Korea. Is there any reason why Ireland should be treated differently from Korea? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sad, answering my own question, but Waterford had at least three wrong in twenty. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely Ireland has existed far longer than ROI? ;) Say I want to write "Queen Victoria visited Ireland"...I don't want it to link to ROI! Either way there has to be some extent of pipelinking...I merely believe this way is the easier of the two. --Cameron * 16:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is simple proof of what happens here! Queen Victoria went to The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - Ireland was a British country during her entire reign. Cameron makes it clear she went to a visit a social structure, not a lump of rock, and says that this geographical article must stand in for ROI (which only lasted for 50 years as an official name) on certain occasions. But ROI is supposed to be Wikipedia's state article for the whole of Irish history. Don't you see that it is cheating to use a geographical one too, just when it suits some editors? It creates a seriously mess-making two-way approach, and often makes it look like Northern Ireland doesn't exist, too. The Irish state is the only country on Wikipedia with an effective choice of modern state articles like this - it is cheating, it is political at times, and it has got to stop. This Ireland article begins, "This is the article for the island, for the state..." for a reason, but it is consistently abused.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you know she didn't want to see the "Lump of Rock"? I've heard the scenery is supposed to be quite nice! :) --Cameron * 17:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Support move proposal. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, for reasons given in detail here. --Scolaire (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose While the state and the island have the same name, it makes more sense to have the island at the primary title/topic as per WP:D because, barring corner cases, things in the state, are also on the island. (but not vice versa) Thus, very few incoming links will be "incorrect" per say, - at worst they will be less precise than intended. However, to make this a disambiguation will only serve to make all links less precise and useful for *everyone* by creating unnecessary disambiguation. While he disambiguation guidelines describe many ways of handing potentially ambiguous topics/names, we should not forget that the fundamental point behind these guidelines is to get the reader to the article they want as quickly and as easily as possible. So, making things worse for one set while not making it any better for any other set makes no sense to me, and seems to run contrary to the basic idea behind the guidelines. Regards, MartinRe (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Refering to Northern Ireland as "corner cases" (I assume you mean the 6 counties of Ulster) - that's just a little bit rude isn't it? To say that a link that refers to the state - but instead goes to the island - is not wrong "per se", is a particular POV that I 100% disagree with. It is wrong for the links to mislead. The island of Ireland is shared between the Irish state, and the UK's Northern Ireland. The Irish state is NOT superior to Northern Ireland. The basic idea behind all guidelines is to be correct. All disam pages involve that extra click, it is hardly a chore, and most disam pages inform at the same time. Let's at least keep these politics hidden, eh?--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood my comment - by about 180 degrees - as what you are disputing is the exact opposite of what I said. In fact, what you have underlined above is the core of my arguments, that the island is shared between the state and NI, ergo, you can equally say that the state is a subset of the island (not in the mathematical sense but generally). As for links not being wrong, only less precise, take for example someone writes "Galway in Ireland", meaning to link the word Ireland to the state, but links it to the island instead. This is not "incorrect" - unless you are disputing that Galway is not on the island! The corner cases I was referring to are not items like NI, (so I wasn't being rude as you claimed), but items that are within the state, but not on the island, Irish embassies abroad was one such case pointed out to me. I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding. Regards, MartinRe (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: The Ireland article is and should remain an article about the whole island of Ireland, period. ww2censor (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not just an island article though is it? It forks political material from the main articles, and is essentially used as a second Irish state article - a place for those thousands of Ireland links. It is utterly and completely wrong. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that you, Matt Lewis, always have to make some comment when you disagree with editors views? Please don't reply to that question. What you say is just plain rubbish; it is not a second Irish state article. About 2 screenfuls is all the political information in the article, the rest is about the island as a whole. ww2censor (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You must be joking!!! Compare it to Great Britain! Where is the Sport section in that? Culture? Modern Architecture? Science? Economy? The History is way too long - we also have it in Republic of Ireland and History of Ireland (which is almost all forked over to the supposedly island Ireland article!!). It is all done to make Ireland a plausible cover for the Republic of Ireland state article. Unsurprisingly Northern Ireland is hardly covered. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE GEOGRAPHICAL ARTICLE FOR THE ISLAND!! It is totally bullshitting Wikipedia's readers - and it only hasn't been addressed because a group of around 10 people have never allowed it to be. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that Ireland is merely a geographical article. For example, Ireland exists currently as a cultural entity distinct from either of the two states (the obvious example of this is sport, but also religious organisations, trade unions, etc.). Material relating to this should feature in the Ireland article as well as geographical material. Also, Ireland existed as a single political entity for many centuries before the Irish Free State was created. Mooretwin (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he is joking Matt. As you say, he must be. Sarah777 (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, with no reasons to add. Srnec (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Support - as per policy; "Ireland" must be a dab page (if it isn't the page about the country). Sarah777 (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Must? Srnec (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  Must. waggers (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  - Use common sense Message from XENU^{u, t} 10:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    Exactly. And common sense accords with the policy: that there are two entities called Ireland, the island (this article) and the state (Republic of Ireland), therefore Ireland should be a disambiguation page since the same term could refer to either entity. waggers (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    It is sad to see that Waggers cannot distinguish a global policy from an essay giving advice and opinion. It is up to the Wikipedians involved in this discussion to determine what the best locations for the three articles under dispute are, not any supposed "rule". Srnec (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    It is even sadder to see someone making such a comment when this requested move is based entirely on global policy - WP:NAME, and yet they continue to oppose it without giving a reason why WP:IAR should apply in this case. waggers (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    You don't know what a global policy is. See WP:LOP. NAME is not one of them. Why should IAR apply? Just in case the current "conventions" actually agree with the move proposal, because the move proposal is a bad idea. The reasons this is so have been stated by others. See WP:RECENTISM. Srnec (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    It would be helpful if you could name a "reason"! The problem is that a VERY mixed bag of reasoning is here, from 1) wanting Ireland to be the state article (so being happy with the forked state information), to 2) wanting to go back to the taskforce (so not a straight objection), to 3) wanting an island ambiguity, as that is how Ireland feels to them in the heart, to 4) wanting the Republic of Ireland to represent modern Ireland - and Ireland representing historical Ireland (or post ROI 1948-98 Ireland, even), to 5) wanting an Ireland that appears to be an all-island (and non-British) country! You can't want them all, surely? I prefer a disam page, myself, as it is per Wikipedia policy, and will enlighten all the many messed-up Ireland articles.--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - I don't think I even need a reason. It's a country. There is no need for this ridiculous move. Message from XENU^{u, t} 10:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The country article is located at Republic of Ireland; this article is about the island and the island only. waggers (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I know that the issue regarding Ireland is a unique one. Most other island countries (e.g. Malta, Cyprus, Australia) have the one country, thus making the page about the country itself rather than the island. While if that was the only argument, then I would approve, since the official name of my country is Republic of Ireland, then it makes more sense to promote the topic about the island itself for the main name, and leaving the "This page is about the island. For the country" etc. there to redirect people looking for more specific information. Seriously, if someone comes to the page directly, they're likely looking for information on the country or the island. Since the country is at Republic of Ireland, then it makes sense for the article on the island to remain here. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 11:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
TheChrisD, the "official name" of your country is defined in Bunreacht na hÉireann and is "Ireland", not "Republic of Ireland". There is legislation which states that "Republic of Ireland" is the "official description" of the state. That is not the same thing. The problem is that "Ireland" is ambiguous in a way that Malta and Australia are not. The proposal here is for Ireland to be a disambiguation page, because there's no way of knowing what people are looking for when they look for "Ireland". -- Evertype·✆ 11:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Since the argument seems to to shifting slightly from the original point, I'm going to have to make my view clear (and also since some people can't blatantly see it).

I oppose the moving of the article to Ireland (island) to make way for the disambig page. But I support the moving of the article to make way for the moving of Republic of Ireland to here. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 10:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This is not an either or case. Naming policy is in this case calls for reference to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), which in the case of the use of the name Ireland is in disute, and so cannot be cited as supporting anything regarding this specific move. The disambiguation guideline is just that, a guideline, a thing that can be ignored when following it produces an undesired worse position. The undesired worse position in this case is this: requiring all articles with Ireland in their name to be listed at Ireland, when there are are only two possible contenders for the primary topic of Ireland that people typing in Ireland could possibly be looking for. (Nobody looking specifically for Northern Ireland the state is going to type in Ireland). None of the other entries on Ireland (disambiguation) merit a liting anywhere other than on Ireland (disambiguation), with that linked to in the usual way from a hatnote at the top of Ireland. And since the two meanings of Ireland (ROI/island) have a linked common history and deduced meaning, they do not merit a plain disambiguation as per to two unrelated topics, as can be seen in Georgia. As the disambiguation guideline is thus irrelevant as it cannot handle two inter-related primary topics for a title, we turn to the only possible solution, a common sense compromise of acceptance of the (in the grand scheme of history), recent dual use of the term, and writing an article covering that term, along the lines of China and Korea (and in this case there is even more justification for doing this, as Ireland is not just the common name of both, but the official English language name of the state and the de facto official name of the island in the English speaking world). This article would not cover either the geography or the ROI state in undue detail compared to other aspects such as history and culture, per the summary style, with both of those topics dealt with in detail in differently named 'home' articles, (which would also settle the pipe wars where the specific target is one or the other) for example Ireland (island) and Ireland (state), or Island of Ireland and Eire, or Bill and Ben, (and settlement of the wording of those exact names is irrelevant to this move). Or we can just keep arguing over whether Ireland is a state or an Island, y'know, whatever. MickMacNee (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:D is indeed a guideline, but WP:NAME isn't, it's a policy. And what does WP:NAME say about disambiguation? It says follow the guideline. Therefore it is policy that we follow the disambiguation guideline. And that guideline is clear: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"." I think that's clearly the case here. waggers (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

All guidelines are derived from policies, that does not make them equal to policies. The guideline is clearly not helpful in this case, where two so similar and related terms are acting effectively as a dual primary topic. You can either take the advice which is given at the top of every guideline, best treated with common sense and the occasional exception., or you can try and hammer your head against a brick wall all day long and try and convince people that there honeslty is a level of sufficient ambiguity between the dual term Ireland, and people/villages named Ireland, justifying this move. Joe China must be a very happy man, 'clearly' his time has nearly come. MickMacNee (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I may be wrong, but I cannot help feeling that the proposed move has less to do with disambiguity or usability issues and more to do with political manoeuvering. Also see Guliolopez's points above. Hohenloh⁺20:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly believe that you are wrong. I am not engaging in political manoeuvering. -- Evertype·✆ 22:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons of this Move is to remove unwanted 'politics '(ie using this article to make Ireland appear to be a single unified island)!! If that is "political manoeuvering", then it is only for the good of Wikipdedia! ie to tell the truth!--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you never have ventured to answer the question of why Wiki's NI Unionist editors have tended to support the location of this article if what you keep claiming again and again and again is true: That the location of this article and its content is a United Ireland ploy aimed at denying NI's existence. And basically accusing almost anyone who defends this article of being a Nationalist POV pusher. I find that rather bizarre myself, especially since you are the one who keeps contending that it is the current Nationalist state alone that deserves to be treated as the heir of all of Ireland's pre-partition history; the state alone, it appears, you believe is the 'real' Ireland. Nuclare (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Woah! I've said many times that people have mixed ideas on this - to yourself as well. I have not called everyone a "nationalist POV pusher" here at all (not my language at all). Don't be so OTT. I'm arguing this on the merit of a fullpoof argument - as I have always done. You say I believe the state alone is the 'real' Ireland - of course I do! Can't you see you are being romantic? People always come before the name of the rock they live on - and you could never prove to me the rock was named before the people, either. There has to be a distinction between island and state - you always try and blur it. That just isn't encyclopedic, and part of that 'mythical' island happens to be British. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

So, out of curiousity, if Wales was partitioned--part becoming independent and part remaining in the Union, which part would be the 'real' Wales? Or suppose the Irish constitution hadn't named the state "Ireland" but had instead retained the name "Irish Free State," would that state still be the 'real Ireland' or is its status as heir to all of Ireland's history solely based on the name chosen? And what is romantic about saying that someone who lives on the island of Ireland is part of Ireland? Seems perfectly logical to me. So the NI Unionists who support this article, are they as romantic as you say I am? And what do you have against islands anyways? Nuclare (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The question isn't which part would become the "real" Wales. On Wiki such musings are irrelevent. The article called Wales would be whichever became the dominant usage in the English language. In the event of a lack of total dominance of the term to refer to one part, "Wales" would become a dab page. As "Ireland" must. Sarah777 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the name of the article right at the moment, thank you very much. Regardless of what the article is named, Matt is trying to define this article, its content and all links that would be made to it or to the state article in a very specific way. His intentions towards this article and its links are totally relevant. Although I've a feeling your views concur with Matt's on this matter, although probably for very different reasons. Nuclare (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am - my "specific way" is to be unambiguous - 1 Irish state article, and 1 island article - which you simply don't like, that is all. You talk to me as if I am caning creative children with a stick, sometimes. Wikipedia is not place to cater for fond emotions, or be 'poetic' with the truth in any way - it is a serious encyclopedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about half the time, Matt. Fond emotions? Poetic? Wha? I know poetry has and is a huge part of all of the island of Ireland's culture, so in that sense poetry does belong on this page. Beyond that, your just projecting sentiments on people sans evidence. Above you've now suggested the 'Ireland's of history should be linked to 'History of Ireland'. Is that now your position? Because yesterday you seemed to imply that all of Ireland's history belonged to the state alone and should link there. So which is it? I don't much care about the history section on this page; it could stay or go or be amended, but as of yesterday you seemed to be implying that the state is where all history links should go. Nuclare (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

@Hohenloh: Ever heard of WP:AGF? If you're going to make such an accusation, please provide (a) some evidence and (b) a bit more clarity - what kind of political manoeuvre do you think I'm trying to pull off by making it easier for WP users to find the articles they're looking for? waggers (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. "Ireland" is an ambiguous term, hence Ireland should be the disambiguation page, with "Ireland (state)" and "Ireland (island)" articles linked therefrom. 81.174.147.155 (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

An arbitrary section break

Oppose per Djegan, Mooretwin and others. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I accept that there is force in arguments on both sides but I think we have got it more or less right at the moment. There should be a substantive article at Ireland, something for people to read, and an article on the geography and general history of the whole island seems the most appropriate article to have there. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What you think appropriate is hardly the issue? What is consistent with WP:COMMONAME is the only issue. And RoI is not. Sarah777 (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So you think Ireland should have two state articles? People are clearly voting for Ireland to be the state article here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The logic of his argument would suggest he wants one article to cover the whole island and merge the other two as WP:FORKS. I would support that solution, being an Irish nationalist. But I'd be prepared (reluctantly) to go with the dab page as a compromise. Sarah777 (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I am a bit perplexed by the proposal. Despite the current assertion at the top that the article is about the island, the article clearly encompasses both geography as well as political and national histories with breakout articles for additional details on many aspects of both. It seems well situated as is. It actually seems more confusing to me to put the disambig page here. Look at England or Great Britain for similar geographical/political situations. Neither goes directly to their disambig pages although I think they clearly could. Pigman☿ 23:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The Great Britain article is about the island only. And there is no ambiguity. Ireland is ambiguous in a way that causes problems. -- Evertype·✆ 00:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Pigman - the article currently has forked political information in it - it is supposed to just be about the geographical island. Republic of Ireland is the state article. What you are saying seems to be that you want Ireland to be the state article?--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If the concept of WP:!vote has any legitimate meaning in Wiki, it is here. Clearly Ireland must be a dab page. All this argument about history, precedence, emotion is totally and utterly irrelevant - there are two "Irelands" - the island and the state and research shows that most searches using the term are actually referring to the state. If "Ireland" isn't to be a dab the only alternative consistent with WP:COMMONNAME is to use it for the country/state. End of. So dab it must be, regardless of the !votes. The filibustering/blocking group must be ignored here. Sarah777 (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the complete opposite of what you said here when you argued that a majority vote would be enough.So on the one hand a majority vote is sufficient when it agrees with your views and on the other it isn't sufficient when it doesn't agree with your views? I think you need to make your mind up.Valenciano (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I said that a majority vote would be enough, not that it was necessary. In this case as this is about supporting Wiki policy as per WP:COMMONNAME. You'll find my mind is indeed made. Sarah777 (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Commonname - that's the place where it says: "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things " isn't it?Valenciano (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And in that case you use a dab page - which is what is being proposed here. Sarah777 (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong support per the proposal. Ireland is clearly ambiguous, so what's the fuss? This is a positive step for Wikipedia and its editors (and most importantly readers!). --Jza84 | Talk 02:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to be helpfull in this respect, you might as well dump List of Ireland-related topics at Ireland and be done with it. That would certainly be more helpfull than being presented with a list of entires, half of which are people named Ireland. When you look at the likes of China, or Georgia, the current Ireland db page is a total pig's ear of a 'solution' if helping a reader is the goal. MickMacNee (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  - I'm an editor who would like to help sort out Ireland (the disambiguation page) as well as Ireland (island) and Ireland (state) but editing is effectively pointless until we get a compromise. The status quo is not acceptable. It's a mess. -- Evertype·✆ 12:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    - I suggested, Ireland stay as it is, ROI -> Ireland(state). That's the only acceptable compromise that will work. At present Ireland(state) maintains 85% of the territory, and that must be of significance when considering any changes. Also, the seas around the whole island legally belong to Ireland(state), which is another point of significance. PurpleA (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
      - Er, no they aren't. The seas around NI legally belong to the UK. Mooretwin (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
        Er, yes, they do belong to Ireland(state). That's according to the "Government of Ireland Act, 1920", an internationally binding treaty. Only the boroughs are in the UK, the seas belong to Ireland. See here [2]- PurpleA (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
        Highly dubious, to say the least. Only the first page of the source you link to is visible and it makes no such conclusion. It refers only to a (hopeful) interpretation of the 1920 Act on the part of Southern nationalists seeking to claim the waters. In real life, of course, the waters are within the jurisdiction of the UK, with, for example, HM Coastguard and the Royal Navy operating within them. Mooretwin (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
        The Irish government allow passage on the principle of "friendly cooperation". Why would they do anything else? It's not an issue. My point was that the island belongs to Ireland, less the land counties that are under UK administration. PurpleA (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
        Utter nonsense. Mooretwin (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
        
        Okay, lets get back to the real world and not some semi-United Ireland cross-dimensional sillyness. There are two jurisdictions in Ireland - the Republic of Ireland and (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and) Northern Ireland. Get real. Djegan (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
        I couldn't agree more with you. That's exactly how I understand it. PurpleA (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
        The names of the two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland are "Ireland" and "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Whatever. I still can't see a better compromise than Ireland (dab), Ireland (state) and Ireland (island). And I still have yet to hear a counter-proposal that makes sense. -- Evertype·✆ 17:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
        
        It gets more sureal. Djegan (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The only surreal thing here is the apparent inability of some to see that "Ireland" must be a dab page as per Wiki policy. Sarah777 (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Which policy and were is "must"? Djegan (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - The word Ireland is ambiguous. It would be sensible to have Ireland as a disambiguation page. Daicaregos (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- The words China and Korea are 'ambiguous' by this definition, yet they do not have dab pages. An example of true ambiguity, where a word has two completely different and unrelated meanings, is Georgia, which has a dab page. Ireland is not ambiguous in any sense of basic topic navigation on wikipedia. I believe this idea that some hold that readers typing in just Ireland only wish to navigate to a state article or a geographic island article is a complete fiction. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  - So speaks the contentious editor who argued to an article-lock that Wales isn't a "country" (and Scotland etc, despite countless public and authoritative use). Nothing like actually helping Wikipedia, is there? China and Korea have their own structures - China is "the article about the Chinese civilisation" and it is - it doesn't start by bullshitting people like this one. How an you suggest that Ireland is as complex as China! Please. Ireland is simple to disambiguate for the benefit of Wikipedia, but certain culprits always oppose change. If anyone is listening - THE ROT HAS GOT TO STOP!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No Matt, I doubt anyone is listening to your increasingly personal and off-topic rants, but I have to correct you here in case anyone believed your recollection of history. I argued for the current version of Wales [3], being that "Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom", having failed to persuade you and others in a polarised debate not too dissimilar to this one, that the official Number 10 version represented a decent compromise, that "Wales is a country within a country", between you, and those who would have country removed completely. I then defended that version agreed upon by lengthy consensus building which you then attempted to some time later change on a personal whim, it being your right as it was somehow 'your' article because you are Welsh, and also because some time had passed and you had whacked the latest wikipeire mole and nobody else had opposed your view in the original debate, in much the same way you try and paint all opposers in here as being the same person/cabal member/Ireland as the state article supporter, whose views are irrelevant because the issue is so 'clear'. But to move to addressing the only part of your reply that was remotely relevant to this debate, the paralells between the ambiguity of terms like China and Ireland are quite obvious to me, and I'm sure it is to others. MickMacNee (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You utter, utter! I can remember a locked Wales article, having to get in mediation, and the mediating admin simply having enough of your verbose rants over Wales not being a real "country". You were forced to compromise in the end, but you and the infernal Wikipeire puppetmaster wore everyone down so deeply and so painfully, that when I tried to make an edit to my own country about a month later (having worked all night creating Countries of the United Kingdom to link it too - and stop your anti-Wales/England/Scotland/Nothern Ireland madness to boot) - you popped up to revert me, and one or two people at Wales cried "Please - No changes!!" to more painful disruption. So I stopped after one go. All for you (after the socks had gone) - one single man stops play. 6 months ago now? Have I been back? No. Because you are there to stir up shit, and provoke conflict between Welsh editors. What the hell gives the right? Your crusades are the very politics we are being told do not exist here, and unfortunately this Ireland article has always attracted people like you. It's one of the reasons why there is never, quite, any change to things.-Matt Lewis (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Save it for the arbitration case, clearly your memory is faulty. Maybe one day you will be able to edit without such obvious grudges/stereotypes/personal attacks/assumptions of bad faith. However, if anything, this latest catalogue of inflectives and assumptions of bad faith should be enough to persuade any arbitrator that you should not be here at all. Maybe an arbitration case is what is needed to for you to wind your neck in. MickMacNee (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

With your rep? I'm quaking in my boots. A number of options can happen before arbcom need be involved, and despite the likes of you, one of them will work. And the animosity will stop. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree Matt. Maybe it is time for someone to be WP:BOLD and slay this dragon? We have a simple policy and one side and a certain group of editors saying "no" - why? - because WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the other. Time to enforce policy. Time to end this charade. Sarah777 (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Acting when consensus is against you wouldn't be wise. PS: Let's all remember to concentrate on content...this discussion seems to becoming personal. At the end of the day we all want what is best for Wikipedia. :) Best, --Cameron * 20:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(Sarah) Oh there a big, nasty conspiracy on wikipedia! Oh gosh! Oh the dread! Oh get real, this move is not wanted. That simple. Djegan (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Could I politely suggest DJ that you heed the advice Cameron has just given you? Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And I was expecting something ground breaking...not this time... Djegan (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you were being asked to be polite; not just polite to Cameron. You might perhaps observe the way I conduct myself here and model your approach on that? Sarah777 (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And Cameron, there is a consensus of those actually giving reasons and citing policy. Consensus isn't totting up !votes, as I am being constantly told. There is no counter argument being offered to the dab page except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sarah777 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you so sure people aren't seeing your provocations for what they are, Djegan?

All the various reasons given for opposing this Move (and there is a long-standing 'cabal' here too, everyone knows that, and runs a mile when they see it too) - cannot together be called a 'consensus' in the sense of a combined view. They cover too many different approaches (including the mistaken idea that Ireland is the only "country" article, the desire to keep this now-fully-schizophrenic Ireland - and some cases of plain disruption too). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt you keep referring to it as a "Move" -- its not a move until someone actually "moves" it -- currently its just a "move request". And looking increasingly unlikely at that. Djegan (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh god not the cabal/conspiracy nonsense again? Just sore that you cannot muster enough votes. Djegan (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire - there is enough consensus for this move. The !votes don't need to be taken into consideration. Sarah777 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't count your... Djegan (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Never do DJ. I always have one eye on the next round. You can bet your bippy on that:) Sarah777 (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This move most certainly is wanted. Come on, this argument has gone on since 2004! That's a clear sign that there is no consensus for the status quo. I agree with Sarah. Gainsaying is no good. We should implement simple policy. -- Evertype·✆ 21:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In 2004 the Ireland article was simply for the island - it was a lot simpler then (although people where not too happy then either). All the extra mixed-up articles that have multiplied in their thousands since didn't then exist - but it's just got to breaking point now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"no consensus" -- no consensus for a move you mean, and I suppose your going to invent policy whilst your at it. Djegan (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Policy clearly indicates this must be a dab page. Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly - which policy, which paragraph, which sentence? WP:IAR WP:EXCEPTIONS WP:UCS Djegan (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The policy has been pointed out repeatedly over a prolonged period. This filibustering must stop now. Sarah777 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As I expected this "policy" is so vague it doesn't exist or is not worth repeating - or a combination of both. Yet this "policy" is "cited" again and again. Makebelieve. Djegan (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You've still offered nothing but gainsaying. You're arguing that "there isn't a problem" which is absurd, and you're arguing nothing more than that You Don't Like the solution offered. And whee, now you're trying to Wikilawyer. Bah. Such bad faith. -- Evertype·✆ 23:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

DJ, the policy is crystal clear. We are simply not going to (further) indulge your endless demands that it be explained to you. I suggest you read it. If you cannot understand it there is nothing further to be said to you. Sarah777 (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

My original comments stand, you folks have nothing to offer. Djegan (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Your only actual argument (with which you hijacked this poll) has been against changing the Republic of Ireland article to Ireland (state), which is NOT proposed here. (You say that it forces Education in Ireland (state) etc - but that is not true at all, anyway).

We are offering freedom to all the countless confused and floundering Irish articles (and potentially some new Northern Ireland ones), struck by a dual-state, mixed-link, non-uniform (regarding titles and content), identity crisis that suits only the highly-vocal few, and shunned by a notoriously apprehensive wider community. Is that really nothing to offer? --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Please do not misrepresent my comments. And don't bring Northern Ireland into it in another vane attempt to confuse the issue. Your comments at times have been inflammatory and misleading. Stop! Halt! Djegan (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Djegan - you will conceal this matter no longer. These usage tables are just the tip of the iceberg. The current situation with this forked-info 'state subsitute' Ireland article has simply made a progressive mess over time. We have 'of Ireland' articles that have a section on Northern Ireland (ie they refer to the island) and 'of Ireland' articles that are just Irish (ie they refer to the state). Now we have breaking point. And the official 'of Republic of Ireland' articles just confuse things too (and some are 'piped-linked' to Ireland, some are not). Northern Ireland is a part of a much wider mess that has simply now grown into an untenable positon, and it covers every single Ireland-related subject. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Any truly differentiated incoming links can still be sent to two specific pages detailing specific geography of Ireland or details of the ROI, without vandalising this Ireland page to enforce the quite false presumption you have that 'Ireland' means only one or the other, and that is all any reader could possibly want to find at Ireland. I see no breaking point here or attempts to cover anything up, or even anything particularly confusing to the normal reader, only a slow and steady descent by yourself into drama mongering for not being able to convince others that your way is the only way. MickMacNee (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Another arbitrary section break

Comment: This is a continuing poll... (#Proposed move to Ireland (island)). Please vote! --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Djegan wishes to cite WP:IAR Ignore All Rules. That's no argument against the fact that the Ireland articles are a mess and that there is consensus that something needs to be done to sort it out. It's no argument that we should do nothing. Djegan wishes to cite WP:EXCEPTIONS Exceptions to the Rule Should Leave the Rule Intact. This is no argument that this applies here. This is no argument that the status quo serves the needs of the encyclopaedia. The status quo may serveDjegan's POV, but that's no reason the normal rule for complex disambiguation should not be applied so that Ireland = the disambiguation page. Djegan wishes to cite WP:UCS Use Common Sense. I daresay we are doing so. -- Evertype·✆ 23:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Four times you refer to "JDegan" - who is that? me? Djegan (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. My analysis remains unchanged. -- Evertype·✆ 08:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the objection to keeping this page where it is and moving Republic of Ireland to Ireland (State) or Ireland (Republic)? --Cameron * 17:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You would still have the issue of two Irish state articles, though (if this Ireland article remains the same)! There was support for 'Ireland (state)' in this straw poll. If it was taken up, this 'Ireland' article would have to be geographical/island only, and have a VERY good hatnote linking to 'Ireland (state)' - as so many links are out there link to 'Ireland' when refering to the state. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that if the island article were Ireland only it would quickly accrete non-island material. -- Evertype·✆ 18:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And eventually we'd end up back where we are now - with two state articles, and a point where it can't hold up any longer. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Support- It seems a reasonable and sensible suggestion to me if i understand it right. "Ireland" takes you to the disam page where you can choose between the Island, ROI and Northern Ireland rather than being sent to the island page by mistake which happens at the moment. I cant understand the objections :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Support I consider the importance of the articles Ireland (the state) and Ireland (the island) of a similar level. Both will receive a high number of visitors. The state might receive more interest but, taking in orders of magnitude, I guess they are comparable. Therefore, I do not support the current implementation that gives preference to the island over the state. A direct disamb page would receive many clicks, which is of course not so nice. However, I think it is justified, and the readers would understand this when they see that the options they have to choose from are of a similar caliber. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- So if you wanted to know who was the ruler of Ireland in 1575, or how cross border rail links are operated, or the history of the Troubles from a neutral perspective, then typing in Ireland and being presented with a 2 option choice of a geography article or an article about a modern state, what happens then? Which option do you click? It's a fiction that there are only two desired destinations of Ireland, this a manufactured solution to stop edit warring, not to help the readers. MickMacNee (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) To History of Ireland.

(2) Crossing which border? The one between the UK and Ireland? Well than I would do a similar thing as to finding cross-border travels between other states. Perhaps I misunderstood you though...

(3) Neutral perspective is Wikipedia policy for every article!! "the Troubles"?? I do not know what you mean.

I am not interested in your Ireland, Norther Ireland, UK politics. So far, to me it is not even clear which option (oppose or support) would compare to which POV. So believe me, I am only thinking of helping the reader and certainly have no agenda. Tomeasy_{T C} 20:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Research the proposal then, because History of Ireland is not part of it. 2) Maybe your ignorance of cross border issues is relevant, maybe it isn't. I tend to think the fact the links exist negates your ideals. 3)Good luck in finding a neutral account of the Troubles if you think that the only place that that account resides on Wikipedia is the ROI article. Naivety doesn't even cover that tbh.MickMacNee (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous vote deleted Daicaregos (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Also a duplicate. Angus Mcellan (Talk) 20:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Weren't we being asked to vote again? It said please vote. Daicaregos (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that was the intention. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Sam Blacketer summed it up very well. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose MickMacNee put it well and per the examples of China and Korea. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I just don't get this China thing. It is China for Pete's sake! And were is Northern Ireland on Taiwan? People are linking to Ireland when it is clearly defined as a state, and they are getting cultural info on Northern Ireland. So do they mean Ireland with NI or not?? What do they mean? The mish-mash situation might be 'uber' clever in some people's minds (not mine) - but it's just left an almighty mess where linking, people's sanity, and article quality is concerned. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - reasons already given by Snowded, Ddstretch and others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
VERY VERY strong oppose - (Leaving aside other arguments that I have made on countless occasions and are recorded in the archives of this page and of the Republic of Ireland page.) This controversy has existed since the very beginning, 9 years ago, and indeed the current set-up came about as a means to disambiguate Ireland-the-state from Ireland-the-island (see the original discussion in full). The solution arrived at then, while imperfect, has lasted for 8 years. Naming policy states: "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. ... debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." The decision arrived at from that first discussion has lasted countless and increasingly more frequent attempts to reverse it, yet is has lasted 8 years. That fact alone demonstrates that the right decision was made then. If we go tampering with it now, we have no guarantee that we will arrive at such a stable solution. In sum (leaving all other arguments against the move aside): if it ain't broke, don't fix it. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It has lasted 8 years because of the weight of !voting to maintain an anti-Ireland stance by dint of superior numbers. The fact that it is has been constantly and increasingly frequently challenged by countless editors down the years is proof that the current situation certainly has not "been stable for a long time". No naming convention which so flies in the face of normal Wiki policy and standards of WP:NPOV can possibly be "stable". It is the very definition of "unstable". Sarah777 (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sock? -- Evertype·✆ 14:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
These kinds of comments are unproductive. If you have a genuine concern about sockpuppetry, please open a case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Thanks. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not retracting it. You're an IP who has edited only since yesterday, yet you talk as though you have been well-used to this argument. If you're not a sock puppet, you look like one. No offence intended, but you do. -- Evertype·✆ 17:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely an IP who admits it is involved in this dispute is de facto a Sock if it is voting also under another name?? Can someone tell me the rule on this? Can I just not log in and vote over and over - under a range of IPs? Sarah777 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

We've been though this before, Evertype and Sarah777 - last August while discussing this exact topic. The ANI archive of the incident is here. On that occasion the editor that accused me of being a sock puppet (and said that my contributions should be ignored) - solely on the basis of my being a IP-based user - himself turned out to be a sock (User:Pureditor). Be clear about this, accusations of sock puppetry are serious. Assume good faith and conduct yourselves in a civil manner.

Now, please retract the accusation. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Very Very Strong !vote 83.70.232.72 (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

All the same, why not sign your comment properly? Scolaire (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this IP isn't signing "properly" in order to illustrate the problem of another IP who is actually voting and yet not signing their name properly. The reaction of the Sock-IP indicates that this point has been better made by this method than mere words alone could do. Sarah777 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough :-) Scolaire (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose: Ireland is primarily the name of the island, and always will be, no matter the political situation. The ambiguity problem here is exasperated by nutters like Sarah777 going around on politically fuelled campaigns to replace all Republic of Ireland links on Wikipedia to simply Ireland. A better rule should be to enforce the much less ambiguous 'Republic of Ireland' throughout Wikipedia. This ongoing attempt to blur the political lines is deeply offensive to many in Northern Ireland (from both sides of the divide). If only many southern Irish would realise the large number of wounds that they would heal (particularly in Northern Ireland) if they didn't have the arrogance to name their state simply 'Ireland', without any linguistic distinction from the island and the 6 Ulster counties. 84.227.12.116 (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Post Another !vote - from the nutter. Note the IP above cites no reason other than 24 carat POV to oppose this obviously necessary move. 83.70.232.72 (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You are simply confused here: Ireland is now universally used as the state article, and this Move is for having Ireland as a disam page. As I've said in the taskforce: There are incidences where 'Ireland' is used for a contemporary setting, and it is unlcear whether the text means to include Northern Ireland or not - but Northern Ireland materal is presented, which suggests it does. On both a political and accuracy level, that is intolerable. How can we enforce "Republic of Ireland" when "Ireland" has been used so many thousands of times now across Wikipedia? This Move proposal is about 'Ireland' being a disam page (which would sort out all the mixed Ireland links) - you can always vote to rename ROI at another point if you insist on it. Arguing in this Move proposal that 'Ireland' shouldn't be the state name makes no sense at all!! This proposal is to make 'Ireland' a disam page. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note Matt that this regular user, posting as an IP, has now twice deleted edits by another regular user posting as an IP. Next time - chop! OK? Sarah777 (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - "Ireland" should be a dab page (if it is not the page about the State). Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

strong oppose, agree with points made by Djegan, Mooretwin, and Guliolopezm though this is a moot pooint as the changes have been made w/o a clear consensus or the discussion being closed. These changes resolve nothing. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment on the above proposal

The above proposal is a perennial one and the outcome is always to keep the status quo - if for no better reason on each (increasingly more common) occasion than a lack of consensus. Not only is the discussion perennial, but now it is continued. The latest outbreak has been carried from Talk:Republic of Ireland, to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force and now to Talk:Ireland without cessation since August. The perennial (and now unceasing) proposal is disruptive and unproductive and I propose that discussion be wrapped up forthwith.

Furthermore, I feel that many of us that are opposed to the move, myself included, have lost the will to continue repeating the discussion over-and-over again. I will not be participating in the discussion or making direct contribution on it. The archives of this page, the Talk:Republic of Ireland page and its archives, and the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force page (among others) already contain my opposition the move. I suspect that I am not alone.

However, I fear my silence and the silence of others will be construed to be consensus. It is disappointing that "discussion" might be reduced to a war of attrition. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Fear not, the majority of the votes are oppose votes! ;)

Or rather oppose !votes ;) Sarah777 (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not directly addressing this particular IP (who would no-doubt love all the Ireland-related problems to carry on), only two points:

1) The outcome in previous polls was always to keep the 'status quo', mainly because so many different ideas for change have been supported. No one solution ever got past 2/3, but there has long been a desire to resolve the issues, which have only got progressively worse..

2) The pressures brought about by having two increasingly supported Ireland state articles have reached boiling and breaking point, which can partly be seen in the appearences of IP's and socks so intent on hindering progress. This time around there has been a taskforce created for the job (at WP:IDTF), and serious efforts from people of all colours of the 'POV' spectrum to resolve the issues.

I'm not having this IP dismiss the huge efforts of decent people to such a truly cynical degree. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt, please just stop this absolute nonsense that just because your vision of wikipedia is not shared by everybody that some how the "breaking point" has been reached. Just stop being such a drama whore, and then maybe just maybe you might be taken seriously by neutrals. MickMacNee (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You happen to be an editor who is happy to go to 3RR, and fight people over nationality issues - but others simply are not. I got into this because I couldn't create a separate guideline, due to ambiguities in the Irish naming issue. Piping/no-piping wars were everywhere. I have found building tables that a great many Irish articles with mixed-up identities are seriously neglected, while people shout at each other in the main talk pages. I've never seen you in any of the debates. People are actually talking to each other in a recently created taskforce now (though again, not you I notice). Before the taskforce, you couldn't discuss the main Ireland/ROI/IMOS articles on their Talk pages, for the life of you - it was all heated naming debates. Much of it may well have passed you by, though I know you also know the score. I'm not exaggerating anything, and if this RM fails, there are the other alternatives. But something has to give. 'Ireland' in general is known on Wikipedia for having a bad atmosphere (and people see it in talks and leave) - it shouldn't be like that at all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I contributed a proposal to the task force, but miraculously because it didn't fit your pre-conceived idea of the two article solution, it was rapidly swamped by the usual BS bickering over partisan naming issues (the worse thing being, even though you had at the time supposedly gone on wiki-break, the pointless bi-partisan ethos remained). Whatever its merits, you will never succeed in your goal because you treat everybody who doesn't agree with you like idiots, and have a totally narrow minded view of the 'final solution'. I for one could care less if people are lame enough to spend their time here edit warring over piped links, let them get on with it, it doesn't harm the fundemental knowledge being given one iota, it matters not one bit in the grand scheme of things. You continually assume readers are stupid, as if there were not 101 different places on WP where the Ireland issue is explained to death. You have lost all connection with reality, you are on some wierd personal mission, and anybody who disagrees with it be dammed. You certainly are not acting for the humble reader at all. MickMacNee (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

My pre-conceived idea? What are you talking about? I never noticed you there - if you were properly there you would know that I support most options: a disam page (like in this RM), the Ireland/(state)/(island) option, Ireland hatnote solutions, with or without the Republic of Ireland (probably favouring 'Ireland' as the state/country article, with Ireland (island) for the limited island stuff). Around 5 differing solutions. In the Irish Talk pages, on my own archived talk, and in the taskforce, I have done nothing but work towards a solution. When we get one, I will have played a big part. It is unfortunate that the likes of you pour scorn of things in such a way, that it is impossible to carry on with a big smile on my face, but carry on I do - and keep things on track from the many who try to de-rail the whole process. Unlike yours, my editing record is always productive (ie creating or working towards something) and NEVER negative (ie trying to stop or prevent something, unless policy dictates it). Only two people above I have treated like "idiots" - and the pair of you deserved it for coming up with any old nonsense just to scupper the poll. I would never do that, no matter how much I disagreed with it. Just say 'oppose' and sign - and let others make up their own minds, free from your impenetrable (and fully impossible I'm sure) stonewalling comparisions. And when you do things like you did (are doing) at Wales, you can't possibly expect people to be unsuspicious of you when they see you again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Your so called 5 options you want to claim to have magnanimoulsy have come up with all by yourself (and quite unashamedly want to actually be creditted for) are merely 5 variations on the same theme of a 2 article solution. Rocket science it is not. And as always, anybody who disagrees with this is attacked, either subtley, or as in this most recent post, flagrantly. I frankly have no idea what you must think of me, because on the one hand based on actions that are clearly at the forefront of your mind, at Wales, in your automatic bad faith mode, I must be an ardent unionist, yet given your rants in the above move request, I must also be an Irish nationalist. I frankly don't particularly care, your rants and accusations of bad faith always reflect worse on you than on anybody else. And don't even pretend you are an influence for harmony and co-operation, you are a ranting bully when things start diverging from your desired outcome, which is most likely why the majority steer clear from these incessant intiatives/proposals of yours. Nobody asked you to do any of this, so don't act the martyr when it all goes tits up and you resort to drama mongering. MickMacNee (talk)

If I may briefly interject here Mick; "incessant intiatives/proposals" would not be necessary if the name "Ireland" was was treated in accordance with Wiki policy. What we have here is a supercooled liquid situation. It is so unstable that every minor perturbation leads to drama. Only one solution really. Dab. Sarah777 (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand why Ireland = dab should be problematic to anyone. The word is ambiguous. Status quo won't alter this. Why not Ireland = dab? All they say is I Don't Like It. -- Evertype·✆ 09:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh ... OK, I'm going to !vote on the same issue AGAIN. No doubt I'll have to do it again in two weeks time, and two week again after that. And again and again until Matt and Sarah wear us all down and finally get their way against the will of the community. This is cracked! --89.101.221.42 (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The honest face of the blocking minority. Time to give policy precedence over Sockery and !voting Matt. Sarah777 (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by the above, "Sarah777" ... although I worry about your stoop to inferences of sockery, "Sarah777" - or whoever you are. See my !vote in the section above and particularly my reference to policy - which always takes precedence over "voting", that is why it is called "!voting", you know? (Seems like you could do with a refresher on policy yourself.) --89.101.221.42 (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that in order to vote you must have a registered user account? Djegan (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Not if you write VERY VERY Strong Oppose in front of it. Sarah777 (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. -- Evertype·✆ 18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a common misconception. It was brought up last August when this topic was !voted on Talk:Republic of Ireland. See the ANI incident. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Who types "Ireland" and wants to read about the island and not the country? The other political entity on the island is not even its own state. Bogus. 72.241.119.101 (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Ireland (disambiguation)

I see some edit warring going on at the Ireland (disambiguation) article, and from some of the editors who have voted on this page. My good and proper edit was reverted. Really, I cannot see this particular poll taking us anywhere 'good'. Only a unbiased committee made up of un-involved editors should propose any changes. PurpleA (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree it is actual "edit-warring" (yet anyway). There are infinite variations being explored. But I certainly agree all progress on Ireland-related articles cannot be frozen while the filibustering continues for another year on this poll. Sarah777 (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Jza84, who was edit warring has now protected the page, and his version. This is pretty ridiculous. PurpleA (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh Dear - that is a bit iffy if it's true; better not even look....Sarah777 (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day, it's an ROI-based page (which is how things officially stand), so eventually it will have to change (unless Ireland becomes geographical/island only like it was originally meant to be). I'm not accepting two Irish states much longer - it's just arrogant and greedy, quite frankly. We could go and fork-fill America, with a extra bit on the countries attached to it (and go around Wikipedia doing the same). I mean - what is America doing as a disam page, when it could be another forked state article? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the policy at Wikipedia is to call a state by its proper name, and in this case Ireland for the state. And for the Island, Ireland (island). That is Wikipedia policy. As you say, Ireland the island is a rock, in your words, and does not warrant a page to itself. But the name Ireland means so much more. PurpleA (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is true!

Ireland (as befits the Irish nation, whatever stage or era it has been in) clearly hatnoting Ireland (island) was always the simplest option. Having Republic of Ireland is an unecessary complication. Ireland as a disambiguation page is simply the next best alternative to it (and possibly more per policy - I'm not sure).

Despite the often convoluted protestations, it is various claims to the island that has always been the problem. And yes, some British/NI unionist want to force the importance of 'Ireland' being an island first (mainly so Northern Ireland doesn't appear consumed). And yes, some Irish nationalist unionists want to force Ireland as the whole island (ultimately to consume Northern Ireland). They are both minorities, but both have made these polls first necessary, and second a bloody nightmare. What is worse, the two opposite positions are fighting both for and against each others general wishes (as, because of the messiness and confusion, there are benefits to both sides in the reverse scenario too) - it is THE classic NO-WIN situation. On top of that you have those who want Ireland as a state, simply because it is the official and commonly-used name of the nation/country/state, and those like me who cannot edit while there is disruption, and so simply cannot support the 'two-state' status quo. Logically, only Wikipedia Policy can win. Whatever is per policy MUST take precedence.

If both Ireland-as-state/country, and Ireland-as-disambiguation-page are BOTH per policy - Arbcom must simply poll them together and say that one MUST prevail. They won't of course (they need prompting, and are reticent over Ireland), so if this per-policy disambiguation move doesn't work, we can go for the 'Ireland'-as-state/country solution via the edit table, and create an Ireland (island), while demoting ROI from its official state/country status. IMO, it is as simple as that. If 'revert wars' then force taking it to Arbcom, and they choose to back the non-policy status quo, then Arbcom themselves need looking at. Without rules, it is anarchy. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Matt; this debate is showing great hope for the future of NI as a country! Nationalists and Unionists appear united in their distain for "the Free State" now that they have stopped shooting each other. And be under no illusions Matt - they ain't too fond of Britain either :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My good and proper edits to PurpleA's edits were also summarily reverted, and the page is now locked. Who did this? -- Evertype·✆ 10:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jza84, apparently. On the grounds that if this debate results in "Ireland" becoming the dab page then all squabbles at the current dab will be futile - one hopes! Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

Matt, I wonder if we should use this space here to talk about paring this article down to islandness. That might stave off some dispute. What do you think? -- Evertype·✆ 17:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I suggest making edits (but when we disagree - ie 1RR - we take it to talk). Clearly, though some edits have to be made soon (ie the very obvious non-island stuff needs to be de-forked). --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you define what you mean by "islandness"? Does "islandness" need to be physical geography alone? I have no objection to getting rid of the economics and some of the transport issues, perhaps, which are more defined by jurisdictional policy, but I hope we aren't saying that islands can't have culture or history, for example. Or is that what you are saying? I have a feeling physical geography alone might be what Matt is arguing, but how are you viewing this issue? Nuclare (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely we can learn from Canada/US and other places with a similar culture and interlocking history? Or Germany/Poland/Czech/Austria. Are there no geographical articles for these places to act as a template (not that we must slavishly copy). A "History of Ireland" pre-1916 can still cover the whole island I assume? There are solutions to all these objections is we follow policy and precedent. Sarah777 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What!?!

I believe the admin who moved all the pages (no doubt a good faith act) only read this (which indeed would indicate consensus for the move) and missed out the other two talk pages where !votes and discussions were taking place. Besides this the main discussion/poll only started on the 25th with discussion notices being placed on Talk:Republic of Ireland (now Talk:Ireland (state)) and Talk:Northern Ireland only on the 28th (two days ago!). Further I am not convinced that the discussions on Talk:Ireland now Talk:Ireland (island) (this talk page) have even finished yet. Best, --Cameron * 17:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this was a bad close and should be reverted until the individual discussion have been exhausted, whether you agree or disagree with the move requests. ww2censor (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The individual discussion has been going on for four years! When would you consider it to be "exhausted"? -- Evertype·✆ 18:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How about when a consensus developes for a change? This move was entirely inappropriate. Where was the move proposal/discussion at Talk:Ireland (state)? The "taskforce" is no excuse, since it was not at all apparent that a taskforce could make a binding decision outside of normal Wikipedia procedures. And all while a discussion is ongoing here, and appears to be going the other way! This was terribly mishandled and should be reverted immediately. I may just do it myself. Srnec (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The poll above has not been closed off and that was the move request. Djegan (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And Evertype seems to have already forgotten that this specific move request for Ireland -> Ireland (state) started HERE on Novemeber 25 this year, i.e., 5 days ago, not 4 years ago! ww2censor (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the move of Republic of Ireland. I see no evidence that there was binding proposal at the taskforce page. This should be taken to WP:RM. Srnec (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It remains my view that the admin took a sensible decision in good faith based on a package of changes and a review of all the argument. Most of the "oppose" votes were WP:IDONTLIKEIT and were not exemplary of attempts to compromise and move forward. I have no objection to continued discussion of the Ireland (state) move if you believe it to be important to continue that discussion. -- Evertype·✆ 18:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The result may be sensible; he undoubtedly moved in good faith. That said, the decision was still wrong: procedure had not been followed in that (i) there was no move proposal at Talk:Republic of Ireland and (ii) the (long and ongoing) discussion here does not appear to have been taken into account, since it suggests that the close should have favoured consensus. It remains that this discussion was not closed and not cited by the moving admin. Srnec (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That is what happens when proponents for a move run three simultaneous move request. One on (the old) Talk:Ireland, a second at (the old) Talk:Ireland (disambiguation) and a third at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force.

Participation in the poll used as justification for the move ran to a maximum of about 20 contributors. Participation in the (old) Ireland (disambiguation) page was even less. Participation on this page (which was against the move) ran to about 40 and had far greater discussion. Traffic for the (old) Ireland (disambiguation) page is less than 5% of the traffic on the (old) Ireland page. Traffic at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force is even less again (use this tool).

I sense vote stacking at play and left a message to that effect last night on User:Waggers (the initial proposer) talk page. Given that only last night, the proponents for the move were discussing wrapping up the request having accepted that consensus was not on their side, I presume Waggers will have the good sense to use his administrator tools to reverse this faulty decision quickly - particular given that two of the pages affected are among the most visted pages on Wikipedia (467th and 1877th most visited). --89.101.221.42 (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This was clearly a good faith move interpretation of consensus by an uninvolved admin. I expect everyone can agree on that. The question, then, is whether the admin was aware of all the discussion on the subject. I expect not, since he closed only one of three ongoing discussions on request. I have therefore asked the closing admin to review the other discussions and reconsider his decision. I strongly suggest everyone wait until the closing admin does that before taking further action. Lets not escalate this with more drama than need be. Rockpocket 19:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wise words. Thank you Rockpock. ;) Best, --Cameron * 19:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Good faith, certainly. The choice to run simultaneous polls was greatly faulty, however, and I have a sinking feeling of vote stacking and - certainly - forum shopping. I have left a message to his effect on Waggers page, since he was the initial proposer of all three simultaneous polls. I am of the opinion that that choice (to run simultaneously polls) was greatly faulty and raises questions about Waggers suitability for adminship. I may be wrong - or angry - but I have very serious misgivings and not without just cause. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The closing admin has now given a detailed rationale, having reviewed the other two discussions. For those of you unaware, that can be read here. I'm not sure I completely agree with the reasoning, personally, but I do follow Tariqabjotu's logic. There is no real consensus for the moves, but equally no consensus as for the status quo, therefore whatever decision was made would be controversial. Should there be any review or appeal, the discussion should viewed as it was when the decision was made. I am now going to close the discussion on this page, and direct the decision to Tariqabjotu's talk page, since there is nothing to be gained from further contributions to that particular !vote. Further discussion can be had below. Rockpocket 22:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

RE Smrnec's recent change: I've put the state material back into Ireland (state), and Redirected Republic of Ireland to it (which will sort all the links to ROI). The Ireland disambiguation page is protected while pointing to Ireland (state) - only an admin can change it. Clearly, we cannot have the disam page as it is and not go by it. I fully support the recent changes to Ireland, per policy (so we don't need to vote). --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple section deletions

Matt, while you are likely thrilled with the page move, deleting major sections of the article without any discussion or agreement is not appropriate and is controversial. All these sections are appropriate to the island. The Island is not an unpopulated bare rock with a few birds and no population. Please discuss and agree before decimating the whole article. ww2censor (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Nothing wrong with coming here and saying "I'm deleting XYZ" or "I'm merging XYZ into the Northern Ireland or Ireland (state) articles" first. -- Evertype·✆ 19:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've not done anything that people could disagree with. It's only fair to be realistic, we are all adults and stay up late, after all. Anything contentious or debatable will come here, I promise. If you have an issue, question or change my edit. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

But he objected and reverted. So do talk about major deletions or merges here, please. More haste less speed! :-) -- Evertype·✆ 20:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Now he has, yes. All I've done are a few of the most obvious edits (someone had to) - no way am I going to put every obvious edit to potential pre-edit opposition! After what we've been though? You must be joking. He just put back in Architecture, Science and Music and Dance and hasn't explained here why here at all, has he? It seems I must explain everything, yet he can simply revert. Hardly fair.

Ww2censor - can you promise that you are not intending to keep the page a state fork, by reverting, filibustering and general stonewalling? If you revert then you must yourself EXPLAIN WHY HERE. You are (as usual) making me do all the work! What is wrong with removing those sections? I said if there is anything you want to keep we can do it after. What would you want to keep? --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Matt. So, Ww2censor: discussion goes both ways. All those things are on the table. Please explain for each one why Matt's proposals are inappropriate, if they are. Thanks! -- Evertype·✆ 21:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No reply here, only this later on, which I take that as closing of the above dialogue. So lets move on!! I don't wish for everything cultural to be removed at all - we don’t have to make this starkly geographical, only clearly geogrpahical. I am going through the main stuff that was either forked or (believe it or not) entirely moved over from NI and ROI at some point. I've moved back Science to Ireland (state) - it only had one NI scientist I could find. Same with Modern Architecture - which NI did not feature in at all! It's now properly in Ireland (state). As Modern Architecture was clearly modern, and featured nothing from NI, it never had an even remotely justifiable place in here. It merely proves how the old Ireland was usurping the ROI article. Some of the limited NI stuff in this article actually isn't in NI at all, which is shocking really, given how the NI article could use development. How could people seriously defend all this? --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Why not just delete this page? We already have a great featured article Geography of Ireland which is all you need to tell people about the rock! named Ireland that has no human influence on anything. More than 2/3 of the removed science section has nothing to do with the post-1922 period of the island. ww2censor (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always said that Britannica doesn't have one, haven't I? There is room for cross-cultural/political information, and flora and fauna too - just not enough to encourage the flagrant abuse. Wikipedia is inclusive, so there would always be something here - but there is no rule saying it should any different in format to Europe or Great Britain etc. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)