Talk:Ireland/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Rephrasing the intro

Rather than going round in circles, can we try to suggest some acceptable NPOV wording? The current wording is

Ireland (Irish: Éire; Ulster Scots: Airlann) is the third largest island in Europe behind Great Britain and Iceland. It is also the twentieth largest in the world. It lies to the northwest of and is surrounded by hundreds of islands and islets. To the east of Ireland, separated by the Irish Sea, is the island of Great Britain.

Here's my suggested replacement:

Ireland (Irish: Éire; Ulster Scots: Airlann) is an island to the north-west of Continental Europe. It is the twentieth largest island in the world and the second largest island of the "British Isles" (a term which is controversial within Ireland). The larger island, Great Britain, lies east of Ireland across the Irish Sea. Many other small islands lie off the Irish coast.

Any constructive comments? jnestorius^(talk) 13:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that that integrates both ideas too well. I also honestly don't see the problem with not using the term, as evidence by published opinion on the matter. I'd be happier with smething like:

Ireland (Irish: Éire; Ulster Scots: Airlann) is the third largest island in Europe behind Great Britain and Iceland and the twentieth largest in the world. It lies to the northwest of Continental Europe and is surrounded by hundreds of islands and islets. To the east of Ireland, separated by the Irish Sea, is the island of Great Britain, with which it forms an archipelago.

I'd also suggest changing the info box to read "British Isles" as the archipelago name but with link to the dispute i.e. British Isles (naming dispute) The should be repeated across all info boxes for other islands in the group. For Ireland-related articles (and Ireland-related articles only), I would suggest avoiding the term where possible and use alternatives. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've quarantined this off from the pointless handbags in the other sections, just in case people want to have a discussion about improving the article. A few comments on sony's response:

• There is a guideline on the form wikilinks should take:

  It is possible to link words that are not exactly the same as the linked article title — for example, [[English language|English]]. However, make sure that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link.

  I think archipelago breaches this guideline. An ignorant user will wonder: "does this archipelago not have a name?"
• I'm not sure what you mean by two ideas that need integrating: is it "Ireland is in the British Isles" and "Irish people seldom call them the British Isles"? If so, see my previous point. Otherwise, please clarify.
• I hate the description of the Britain-Ireland group as an "archipelago". To me, an archipelago is a large number of islands scatted across a large expanse of water, as with the Aegean Sea, Micronesia, or metaphorically The Gulag Archipelago. As a technical geographic term, it's completely accurate, but for a general audience it doesn't quite hit the mark (See SARA corpus; Oxford; Cambridge; MerriamWebster; AmericanHeritage). Imagine someone who doesn't look at the maps in the article and reads the intro. I don't think the description will give an accurate mental picture of Ireland's environs. There's no need to resort to a generic term when a specific name is available. (The President of the United States is a homo sapien).
• Ireland is not "surrounded" by islands. There are lots off the west coast, but very few off the south, and very few off the east and north coasts unless you go as far as the islands off Great Britain, which I assume are not meant to be included.
• Saying "Ireland is surrounded by hundreds of islands" rather contradicts "Ireland forms an archipelago with Great Britain".
• I don't think being the third largest island in Europe is particularly noteworthy, and certainly not for the opening sentence. It's not the first thing anybody thinks of when they think of Ireland. Also, Iceland's Europeanness is pretty marginal.
• Going a couple of sentences further down, the etymology of Ireland is too obscure for such detail in the intro.

jnestorius^(talk) 22:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything you say, although Iceland certainly is in Europe and European, and if you go with Tharks "ancient term" argument, it's even in the British Isles. Your point about how well Britain-Ireland can be described as an "archipelago" is exactly the point at hand. Ireland is an island in north east Europe, Great Britain is to it's east. End of story. Pretending they form an archipelago in the usual sense of the word in non-sense. If it were not that we were dealing with islands (where boundaries are fixed by nature) the term would have been consigned to history with the Low Countries. To top it off, there is no need to go creating trouble by insisting that word "British" be must put in there. Many alternative phrasings exist, if people really want to make the point. These are more popular in Ireland and thus should be used in Ireland-related articles per guidance on naming conventions and national varieties of English. If people are still worried then the info box to the right should suffice. (Regarding "surrounded by islands", could we write "Ireland is surrounded by hundreds of islands and islets, among the most famous being Aran, the Blaskets and Great Britain."?) --sony-youth^pléigh 10:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Again the guidance fromthe manual of style is:

"An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. ... Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternate terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia."

--sony-youth^pléigh 10:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you are saying that the British Isles are not a real geographical entity? I agree though that archipelago gives a wrong impression, because in Greek it means "chiefly sea", and refers to a group of small islands with larger areas of sea between them. The British Isles, conversely, are actually mostly land, as the area of the Irish Sea is smaller than that of the islands either side. So in the absense of a specific word to describe a group of islands that consist of two huge islands and lots of small ones, we can only use the term "island group". TharkunColl 10:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"a real geographical entity" - is Corsica-Sardinia are real geographic entity? They would appear so (and to be an actual archipelago). What is it called? People survived without a name for Britain-Ireland for thousands of years. Only in the past few centuries when they formed a geo-political entity was a name required (a name and entity that included islands outside of the "island group" i.e. Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, etc.). That geo-political entity is defunct. It has been replaced by another. That new entity eschews the older name. In any case the phrase is not used in Hiberno-English, nor does it follow local naming conventions. Per guidelines, alternatives should be used on Ireland-related articles, if any. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Tharkuncoll, as Sony quite rightly points out, if the "British Isles" includes the Channel Islands (which most definitions include) then "British Isles" is clearly NOT a coherent island group in physical geography, and although the remainder of the islands may well form a coherent island group in physical geography they're not the "British Isles". Similarly, "British Isles" may have been coherent in political geography for a while, but isn't any more. (and you've said elsewhere that "British" shouldn't be applied to England, which is even more interesting.)

Even looking at in the purely political arena, where there are various "special relationships" between the islands, the name "British Isles" is now specifically NOT used in those arenas.

Meantime, "British Isles" is widely used internationally, is widely rejected/disliked in Ireland, is widely used in confusing varied ways, etc. All demonstrable facts. Meantime, your apparent view that "British" should be applied to Ireland but should not be applied to England is highly interesting, but unconventional enough to be undocumented anywhere in literature, which means we should not take it into account. Hughsheehy 11:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this then:

Ireland (Irish: Éire; Ulster Scots: Airlann) is an island to the north-west of Continental Europe. It is the twentieth largest island in the world and the third largest in Europe. Many small islands lie off the Irish coast. To the westeast across the Irish Sea is the larger island of Great Britain. The two large islands and their smaller neighbours form an island group which has often been called the British Isles, though this term is controversial within Ireland.

jnestorius^(talk) 13:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

GB is to the east. And I suggest "The two large islands and their smaller neighbours form an island group which is often referred to as the British Isles." There is no concensus on any other name for the island group as a whole unit. The Irish preference for not including Ireland (island) in "British Isles" does not address this. So leave the naming dispute for its own page. Bazza 13:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, fixed east, thanks. I don't like linking the dispute under the word "often", which seems less obvious (see my earlier comment re the guideline on the form wikilinks should take). I agree that discussing the naming dispute should be left to its own page, as should the lack of consensus on an alternative name, and the alternative definition of "British Isles". However, I think this page needs to be explicit that a dispute exists. jnestorius^(talk) 14:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There is consensus within Ireland to avoid phrase. Per the manual of style and naming conventions, Ireland-related articles should reflect the use of English within Ireland, not the use of English without Ireland, and that is to use alternative phrasings. Having the infoxbox to the side should be enough. I don't mind "British Isles" appearing there for consistency across articles so long as a link to the dispute article also appears across all pages. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Jnestorius, this debate started off on other articles and spilled over here. What ever decision is reached at will be taken as the lead in all Ireland-related articles, not just here. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there are many articles specific to Ireland that use the phrase: a cursory Google didn't show me any, and I imagine most such could be rephrased to circumvent the issue. The position of the "Ireland" article is somewhat different from more speccialised Irish-related articles: although Irish people doubtless read it to "see what others are saying about us", as an encyclopedia article it is aimed at imparting knowledge to the uninformed, which I imagine primarily means foreigners. Many of those will have some familiarity with the phrase "British Isles": thus it will be a useful orientation point to mention the term, and doubly enlightening to mention the controversy surrounding it.

If there were a standard Irish term ("Anglo-Celtic Isles" or whatever) then I would be all for [[British Isles|Anglo-Celtic Isles]]; but I can't support [[British Isles|an island group]] or the like: it's just too pussy-footed. I think it's overstating the case to suggest the term is taboo in Ireland to the extent that it's not a feature of the native dialect; in the absence of a standard alternative, hedged forms like "what used to be called the British Isles" are quite common. A few other cases where outsider-terms are prominent in insider articles: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints akaMormon Church; Qatar is on the Persian Gulf; Australian electoral system : preferential voting aka instant runoff voting and "The form of preferential voting used in the Senate is technically known as the single transferable vote or STV. This term is not used in Australia.".

As regards info boxes: this is just a personal observation, I don't know if I'm exceptional in this regard, but by default when reading a Wikipedia article, I ignore the infobox, though I would look at the picture, if any. I regard an infobox as a summary of the article, so if I read the article I don't need to read the infobox. I would read it in two main cases:

• if my attention is drawn to it by the article text (for example, statistical data not repeated in the running text).
• if I'm scanning a number of articles of a fixed type, it's handy just to compare the infobox data.

If I see something in an infobox that's not mentioned in the article, I may become confused and/or suspicious. jnestorius^(talk) 15:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"outsider-terms are prominent in insider articles" - this argument is irrelevant in this case, the question is one of guidelines to use local naming conventions and national varieties of English for articles relating to specific English-speaking countries. This does not apply to any of the examples you gave as none were specific to any particular national variety of English or any specific place.

• "Single transferable vote" is not used in Australian English; the article states this but uses the term anyway.
• Ireland has at least 2 "national" varieties of English: Hiberno-English and Mid Ulster English. One million native speakers of the latter happily use the term "British Isles".

"I don't believe there are many articles specific to Ireland that use the phrase ..." - this only demonstrates that current consensus is to avoid use of the term in Ireland-related articles, as I would suggest.

Your earlier point was that "What ever decision is reached at will be taken as the lead in all Ireland-related articles, not just here." I'm saying this article is a special case. There will be no need to add British Isles to any other article simply because it's in the intro para here. jnestorius^(talk) 19:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Would my suggestion below do anything for you? --sony-youth^pléigh 17:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I can't find it. jnestorius^(talk) 19:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mid-Ulster - yes, touché, got me :)) my suggestion is at the section immediately below: British-Irish Isles - a neologism, yes, I know, but I think it's acceptable under guidelines ( see below for why) and is used by a some Mid-Ulster English speakers, at least. It's purpose is to get beyond just the kind of impasse we are dealing with. I'd also suggest that this terminology be used for example on River Shannon which was warred over before. This is also why I don't think a "here only" solution will work, this is a long and ugly edit war spanning many articles, one, especially the 'main' Ireland article will set precedent for all others and Wikipedia does work on precendents.

(re: Australian English etc. yes there are guidelines on this in the Manual of Style, it differs if an article concerns a specific country or not. PRSTV or whatever the Ozzies call it is hardly specific to any particular place. An article on elections in Australia, however, would use the local terminology.) --sony-youth^pléigh 19:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

British-Irish Isles

For Ireland related articles, how about using British-Irish Isles. This is a neologism but, I think, fits as per guidelines for neologisms: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that Wiktionary is not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)"

This is a defined term, for example see British Civilization: A Student's Dictionary:

British-Irish Isles, the (geography) see BRITISH ISLES

British Isles, the (geography) A geographical (not political or CONSTITUTIONAL) term for ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, WALES, and IRELAND (including the REPUBLIC OF IRELAND), together with all offshore islands. A more accurate (and politically acceptable) term today is the British-Irish Isles.

For other secondary sources about the term, and that recommend it, see:

• British Civilization: An Introduction, page 10
• The British-Irish Council: the trans-islands symbolic and political possibilities
• Kearney, Richard (1997). Postnationalist Ireland: Politics, Culture, Philosophy. London: Routledge, p. 179

--sony-youth^pléigh 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The objections to British Isles is frustrating to me (I'm not a fan of political censurship). However, I will support British-Irish Isles. Perhaps this could start a good trend? British-leaning names on British related articles & Irish leaning names on Irish related articles and in this case (when British & Irish is involved), a combinaton name will do. GoodDay 14:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(As also seen in Northern Ireland.) --sony-youth^pléigh 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Support I can accept British-Irish Isles, sorta has a nice ring to it. GoodDay 14:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that it elevates Irish to an equivalent status to British. A name giving properly equal weight would be something like English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh Isles. TharkunColl 15:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, Thark, is is "trouble" to "elevate" Irish to an equivalent status to British? Furthermore, since neither England, Scotland or Wales are islands, your suggestion includes the Isle of Wight, but not Great Britain itself". In any case, since IIRC WP is not supposed to create neologisms, something you have often said yourself, there's no point in creating new names. Hughsheehy 15:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In this context however, British is a geographic term (meaning Great Britain). GoodDay 15:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember, Irish is an umbrella term too, Thark, encompassing Anglo-Irish, Northern Irish, Ulster-Scots and Irish Traveller, not just Gaels or citizens of the Irish republic, in exactly the same way as British is. In any case, WP:OR as you know. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There may also be objections from Manx nationalists, decrying the blatant imperialist agendas of the British and Irish. TharkunColl 15:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

They've (the Manx) lived this long with the British Isles term, I'm confident the British-Irish Isles term, will be alright too. Guranteed, the universe won't go into chaos. GoodDay 15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But just like IONA, Anglo-Celtic Isles, Islands of the Atlantic, it's just a neologism invented by one specific interest group. British Isles remains standard in the English language. TharkunColl 15:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Difference is that this one appears in a dictionary. You can ignore it if you like. I hear ignorance is bliss. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Irish Sea

We should consider re-naming the entry of Irish Sea at this article. Perhaps Irish-British Sea or Manx Sea would be more politically neutral. GoodDay 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Afterall, it is an 'international' body of water, isn't it? GoodDay 18:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How about UK Sea, as 86.207 percent of its coastline is UK territory? TharkunColl 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thark, you are struggling with the parity concept; my vote goes to the Manx Sea. (Sarah777) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Manx Sea, I agree. GoodDay 19:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppressors! It's the Welsh Sea.--feline1 19:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll settle for Welsh Sea or Irish-Welsh Sea or Welsh-Irish Sea. See folks, this my reasoning: If it's wrong to have British Isles, then it's wrong to have Irish Sea. GoodDay 19:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest "The Anglo-Celtic Sea Amongst the Islands of the North Atlantic - and Ireland" (ACSAIONAI), or "This sea" Wiki01916 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"This sea" - lol! --sony-youth^pléigh 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You see folks, as I've been relatively new to this British/Irish discussions, I naturally have an 'outsider' view of it. I've found that the Irish PoV has been pushed too much; imagine the reaction if it were the otherway?, the British PoV being pushed too much GoodDay 20:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Nobody here is worried about changing the name of the "Irish Sea" - so long as it ain't called the "British Sea". But the article about Ireland and the British Territories is called the "British Isles". THAT is what I'd call pushing British POV too much. Ergo, G'Day, it IS the other way around.(Sarah777 22:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

:::::::So we're in ageement, change the Irish Sea to Manx Sea? PS- you'd accept Irish Sea but not British Sea? GoodDay 22:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, GoodDay, you may call the Irish Sea whatever you like in personal conversation and writing. It's not relevant for WP. Hughsheehy 06:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

:I'm glad we agree, to call something what it is. No more political censures - Irish Sea is Irish Sea, English Channel is English Channel, British Isles is British Isles, Sea of Japan is Sea of Japan etc. GoodDay 12:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning British Isles, Sony has caught my attention with a compromise proposal (see above), British-Irish Isles. GoodDay 15:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparent from these two posts that AGF should go out the window for GoodDay too. GoodDay is trolling. Hughsheehy 15:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop labeling me (I haven't been labeling you). I'm not a troll - I'm fairly new to these topics (British/Irish), and I've nothing but 'good intentions'. PS- What's AGF? GoodDay 15:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You're trolling. AGF means "Assume Good Faith". I did exactly that for a couple of days. No more. You're trolling. Hughsheehy 17:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And you're stocking me with false accusations. GoodDay 17:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that they're false. Hughsheehy 18:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's end this he's a troll, he's a stalker mini-dispute. We're bigger then that. GoodDay 18:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ireland - a biased name

I suggest the rename the island formerly known as Ireland as Ireland-Northern Ireland, so as to incorporate the official names of both political entities that exist on the island. TharkunColl 18:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not, after all some unionist in Northern Ireland might be offended with Ireland. GoodDay 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it's a fact that Northern Ireland is no longer part of Ireland, because that term now only applies to the Republic. According to Irish law, that is, and as we all know legislators and politicians have the ability to change language. TharkunColl 18:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you had any heart at all, you'd call it "the 26 counties to the west of Britian wot have quite a load of Chinese and Polish people living in them"--feline1 19:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was shocked to discover that many (most?) Ulster-men do not consider themselves Irish. I'm not sure I understand their opposition, but it's clearly important to them, and calling them "Irish" actually causes them distress (far more seriously than, for instance, telling a regular Irishmen he lives on the British Isles). Under the circumstances, we should avoid using the confusing term "Ireland" to refer to the island as a whole, and keep it for the political entity to the South. Fortunately, the geographically correct and neutral expression "Lesser Britain" is available (and has almost certainly been in use since Celtic people started building sea-going boats around 50,000 years ago). I propose that the name of this article be changed to neatly and correctly reflect both the geographical and political realities. PR^talk 21:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Lesser Britain"? Brittany? (And more like under 1000 years ago.) But didn't know it was still in use. In any case, this is the Ireland article, Palestine, your discussion should be moved to Talk:Brittany. You are of course right, that many Ulstermen (and women, too!) don't consider themselves Irish. That's why Ulster-Scots is listed as one of the indigenous people of the island. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but UlsterScotch was just made up so they could have parity of sectarianism LOL --feline1 22:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. Much like the "British Isles or not" debate, it's reported, substantiated by literature, and therefore accepted to be real without question. That's why Ulster-Scots, ethnicity and language, both appear in the article - and why the phrase "British Isles" does not. You see, feline, it's all about keeping an NPOV. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah Thark; if we wanted to reflect the political division we'd have to call the island formerly known as Ireland as Ireland-Failed Entity; which sounds ambiguous as it could be read as a commentary on the 26. So maybe Ireland and the Failed Entity? Yep: The Island of Ireland and the Failed Entity has a nice ring to it. (Sarah777 22:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Actually, it may (or may not) surprise you to learn that I totally agree with you. The partition of Ireland was a crime, perpetrated by a bankrupt and morally disenfranchised government reeling from the effects of WWI. The creation of two gerry-mandered states on the island formerly known as Ireland has been an abject failure. TharkunColl 23:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this before, Thark. It was the 1914 Home Rule Act that partiton Ireland indefinately. That act predated the war (receiving Royal assent three months in). --sony-youth^pléigh 23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

But it was the war that caused the British government to lose its nerve, and allow a massive chunk of its own territory to fall under the sway of a bunch of (originally German paid for) terrorists and hooligans. TharkunColl 23:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Which bunch of German paid-for terrorits and hooligans were these: Door Number 1 or Door Number 2. In any case, partition happened before the war. (Though, as GoodDay points out, we are off-topic ... though what was the topic of this section again? - oh! yes! trolling ...) --sony-youth^pléigh 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, let's leave politics out of this and concentrate on geographics, shall we? GoodDay 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ireland - a biased name; Act II - The Vote

Alright folks, if you want to 'move' this article to Ireland (island), I'll support it. We can leave Ireland as ambigous. GoodDay 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OH GOD! Not this - AGAIN!! Please, GoodDay! Please! Look though archives before dragging more bitter arguments out into the open. The decision - from both north and south - was to keep the arrangement as it is. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't fear, the chances of this aritcle's name being changed is minimal. GoodDay 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Support - Inspired suggestion GoodDay; we need more outside perspective here. Thark, you are being offensive again. (Sarah777 23:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Support - I think Ireland (island) is more appropiate. GoodDay 23:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Support - Ireland (island). Ireland should be ambiguous. The reader should be given a choice before launching into the respective articles. It would help/force to educate new readers of the political makeup of the island. That's my 2 cents. Wiki01916 00:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Support - excellent idea. Per Wiki01916 PR^talk 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(This is a fake poll!) Wiki01916 21:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So, is this a *real* poll or just a continuation of your multi-page, faulty-analogy-based clown-show, GoodDay? Nuclare 03:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm also unclear on what exactly is going on here. I was going to respond with humour, but I'm not sure everyone here is joking. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Word, Kathryn. Currently this "debate" seems like a polemical waste of time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's apparent that GoodDay and Thark are again using their personal "knowledge" and their personal opinion as arguments. Their opinions/knowledge are irrelevant. Thus, however this is all intended, it does not need to be taken seriously. Hughsheehy 06:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Hughsheehy. --Domer48 07:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Domer; he is nodding again. (Sarah777 22:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)|)

Per Kathryn, Hugh, and others, this "rename" discussion seems to be motivated, not by any genuine or serious intent to name the article about the island "Ireland-Northern Ireland", rather as a disruptive exercise. As above, initial reading would suggest it's an attempt at humour. However, it doesn't seem to be carrying forward as such. I would therefore respectfully draw the proposers attention to the guidelines about NOT disrupting the project, just to make a point. Guliolopez 11:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's is "motivated", I dare say, by desire to satirize the incessant monopolization of wikipedia by POV-pushing loons who use wikilaywering to get articles edited to fit their own silly agendas. WP:POINT is a load of old fuss and nonsense anyways, and would be better renamed WP:LookTheCabalAreInCharge AndDespiteAllRationalPoliciesHavingFailedTo AcheieveSensibleResult, YouHadBetterJust ShutUpAndLikeIt--feline1 11:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

For those against moving the article - simply state Oppose. As I've said earlier, the chances of it being moved are minimal; and if the article was moved? guranteed the universe won't fall into chaos. Now, please stop questioning my motives; discussing things ain't gonna harm the article one bit. GoodDay 12:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes this poll is for real, no joking. GoodDay 17:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone for Planet Zog -:) We've been here before, it's like Groundhog Day it just keeps going on and on and on and on and on and on and on... Caveat lector 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Caveat; it is just taking a long time to get it right. I think GoodDay is the Messiah on this; the one foretold who will lead us unto disambiguation. Oppose "Planet Zog" and Support Ireland (dab). Those who don't see this as the way forward are on the wrong side of history, as Mr Rumsfeld said of the Iraqi resistance. (Sarah777 22:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Support "Planet Zog". It's the only way to be sure. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry. I'm getting punchy. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be renamed "Island to the west of Britain" as the name "Ireland" is offensive to NorthernIrishists and implies that the Republic of Ireland has control of the whole island.--feline1 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Arragh 'tis only offensive to some NorthernIrishists - who cares? Feline, you have some serious perspective issues. (Sarah777 23:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Actually, Sarah777, I like this idea of yours that a name only being offensive to *some* people means the issue is unimportant and that we should cry "who cares?" and get some perspective. I'm sure Sarah777 will agree with me in applying this ethos to the use of the term "British Isles", since that term is only "offensive" to a small fraction of the Islands' 80 million or so inhabitants. Perhaps we should therefore use it, and those offended could just get some perspective?--feline1 23:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

80 million? Wow! Obviously your perspective is dysfunctional; hence my advice. I didn't mean that you had no perspective! You miss the point that the 10% minority you refer to in your statistically challenged way is not a "minority" but a huge majority on the non-British Island. The UK is a tiny minority in Europe, so why should you be entitled to independence or consideration by your reasoning? The Brits are a "tiny minority" in Ireland; thus similar reasoning applies. These issues are easily resolve if you have proper perspective. (Sarah777 00:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

Sarah777, I think you need to stop oppressing the Cornish, Welsh, Scots, Manx and English by lumping them all together as "British". It's imperialism like this which caused the potato famine, you know.--feline1 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The POTATOES did not starve!(Sarah777 07:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

Guess this legitimate straw poll has ended. Regretfully, some may have not viewed it as serious. GoodDay 16:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cassiterides

Has anyone considered Cassiterides? In some contexts at least, it has been applied to the British Isles as a whole. Being a Classicist, I might even support that one, in certain contexts. It is also real, and not just made up for the sake of political correctness. TharkunColl 15:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thark, you are trolling. Please stop. Hughsheehy 15:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, enough is enough. Tharky, cool down. GoodDay 15:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It was actually a serious suggestion (though some of my others have been intended to be humurous). TharkunColl 15:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Trolling

My brother trolled this article on 3 Oct. Take this into account, please wikipedia. (Willieboyisaloser 15:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)WillieboyisaloseWillieboyisaloser 15:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Semi-Protection

This page needs to be semi-protected. During these last few days, it's been (and still being) bombarded with anon vandalism. GoodDay 18:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC) :I noticed the 'top infobox' of this article British Islands and Ireland?, not this article too? GoodDay 19:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Talk:Irish language#Order of the First Paragraph

Edit: Wrong talk page. But if anyone's interested. Wiki01916 04:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

== Irish Sea (part II) == I've noticed Irish Sea is still mentioned in this article (concerning geographics); isn't Southwestern UK bording the eastside of this sea? Wouldn't Irish-British Sea be more neutral (since British Isles is barred from this article)? GoodDay 21:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Science section - summarise

As with some of the other sections (since largely cleaned-up) the Science section is fast becoming a "list of Irish scientists". While it is likely worthwhile exploring individual contributions from Ireland to "the sciences", this article is not the place for potted biographies of "selected" Irish scientists. As with the "music" and "culture" sections, I'm going to try summarising. Any thoughts on how to approach it are welcomed before-hand. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better and concise. Perhaps we now need a Science in Ireland main article giving much more details. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed content

A number of editors keep adding this All of the above-mentioned individuals except Cosgrave were Irish Protestants. Irish Catholics have been notably very few and far between in the chronicles of innovation in science, engineering and mathematics, until very recent times. Irish Protestants, in sharp contrast, have been at least as numerous in the worldwide chronicles as people from other parts of the British Isles, when weighted in proportion to the overall numbers of Protestants living in the island of Ireland. This sharp contrast is part of the historically non-trivial cultural differences between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants. The referenced source used dosen't mention or support anything in the above text, if anything it shows that Catholics where deliberately excluded from science positions in Ireland by a small group of protestants based purely on religious reasons or sectarian reasons, and where forced to leave Ireland to find work.--Padraig (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it is just ONE editor and I've dropped a few comments on his talkpage User talk:Caoimhin MacAbhoidin (one I had to create!) Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The text was added first by User:Seanwal111111 which was removed, then by User talk:Caoimhin MacAbhoidin, then another anon IP added it again, they may or may not be the same person, that would require a checkuser, in either case the source dosen't support the text.--Padraig (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my mind Padraig - you are edit-warring while discussion is ongoing and I call on you to stop it now. Sarah777 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That (rather bizarre) paragraph is completely POV - and the "reference" doesn't support it in any way. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bastun can you remove it as I can't as I have already done so twice.--Padraig (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, done. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I first saw this edit by Seanwal111111 and was very surprised by it. Earlier today I saw it had been added again by Caoimhin MacAbhoidin and was doing a revert when Sarah reverted it with the edit summery: I'm not looking for any reference; I think the addition is pointless, sectarian and provocative - hence unsuitable. So I am surprised to see that Sarah now wants the edit to remain. I don't understand her position. However, when it was re-added again later I reverted it because I actually looked at the given reference and that does not support the edit as made, even in part, besides which it is definitely POV and as Sarah stated sectarian and provocative too. If the edit was supported completely by verifiable sources in might be considered but not as it stands. ww2censor (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"... that would require a checkuser ..." - somebody call? Per checkuser policy, due to the level of disruption that has gone on here today, I have checked the three editors here and indeed, they are  Confirmed to being one and the same. Blocked now for a period of time. Please view the edit history accordingly - Alison ^❤ 02:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protected for 96 hours. Sarah, everyone else, discuss here. If you come to an agreement early, I'll unprotect it before it expires. SirFozzie (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:IMOS

Hi. I've seen a couple of reverts here quoting WP:IMOS saying that we should be using British English on the page. I can see no such injunction on the WP:IMOS page itself. Am I missing it? Hughsheehy (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's actually in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). My bad - Alison ^❤ 22:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh Gawd! Another Wiki-error to be put right. Sarah777 (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Irish English (i.e. English as spoken and written in Ireland) has more in common with British English than with American English, but it´s not black and white. We definitely talk of boots and not trunks, bonnets and not hoods, no mention of sidewalks, etc., etc.,etc. but AFAIK the -ize spelling is pretty common in Ireland....I know I've seen it a lot. Hard to be dogmatic about it. For instance, a search on the archives of the Examiner shows 500 mentions of emphasise and 85 with emphasize. In any case, I have the impression there's increasing use of American variants over time.. Let's not get our knickers in a twist about something trivial. On Irish articles I'd suggest that we tolerate either spelling and that we resist the temptation to go spellchecking all over the place. Hughsheehy (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In any case, Oxford (as in the OED) seems to regard -ise spelling as incorrect! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Spelling. Hughsheehy (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Could be down to MS spellchecker. Despite setting mine to British English it still tries to change ise to ize; which of course is phonetically correct. It also tries to change spellchecker to spell-checker though in Eire we hate gaps and dashes! (Sarah777 (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

It's got nothing to do with MS. Oxford (i.e. the Oxford ENGLISH Dictionary) regards -ise spelling as incorrect, and -ize spelling as correct. That would mean that emphasise/emphasize has nothing to do with American/British English differences. Read the material on the subject. One WP article states that -ise/-ize spelling differences are often INCORRECTLY seen as an American/British English difference, but that it isn't. Alison's change and injunction to use -ise & British spelling on the page is just not pointing anyone in the right direction. In any case, Irish English is still more like British English (often fairly antique or regional British English) than like American English. Hughsheehy (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We live and learn. I'd have bet my house that "ize" was American and ise was British. Obviously a fairly common misconception. Maybe because English newspapers use "ise"?? (Sarah777 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

<reduce indent> I would have made the same bet. I'm still a little surprised. Hughsheehy (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Single red link / Ballaghbeena?

Anybody familiar with "Ballaghbeena" and/or the "Ballaghbeena gap"? There's a reference on this page that notes "Greatest annual rainfall of 3964.9mm at Ballaghbeena Gap in 1960". With a valid ref to MetEireann. To give this sentence some more context, I had thought of qualifying where on the island this place is. But I can't find it on any maps. Given other rainfall metrics, it's probably in Kerry, Galway, or Donegal, but does anyone know for sure? Where is "Ballaghbeena"? In this context? Guliolopez (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't find any reference to it anywhere except in relation to the rainfall record. Obviously its had its 15 minutes! Sarah777 (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Places of Interest (again)

Reopening this again, as we've yet to have any kind of consensus on what the "notability criteria" are for inclusion here.

I personally am unsure about the value in having both a "gallery" and a "places of interest" section. Not least becase, as has been noted by others before, addition seems to be based on POV.

However, I expect the list exists as some kind of "most list of important/notable touristic spots". Personally I’ve mentally compared it to those “6 places you must see if you’ve only got 2 days”, “can’t be missed highlights” type lists one sees in the opening pages of The Lonely Planet or Rough Guide or equivalent.

If that is the case, then, it’s WAY too long. At the very least, I’d seriously like to see the existing list summarised a bit. Or, more properly, we'd probably benefit from some kind of (lightweight) "inclusion criteria".

I suggest this because, with all due respect to those who visit Ballyteige on their holliers, natives of Drogheda, and frequent hill walkers on Slieve Gullion, there are some very non-notable "places of interest" on this list. (Certainly if one compares the relative importance of Brú na Bóinne, the Giant's Causeway, Trinity/BookOfKells, the Burren, etc.)

What do we think? Delete the list because of POV issues? Decide a max length? Reduce size based on accepted criteria? Or just leave it grow incrementally until (every so often) someone crys "enough!" and tidies based on their own idea of notability?

Thoughts? Guliolopez (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The National Roads Authority has the same problem. They are rolling out a policy of tourist signage that will eliminate 90% of the roadside clutter and have made a list of about 10 major attractions that merit signage from Primary Routes. (I think they have a second tier as well). Might help as some sort of guide. If we don't use some neutral agency there will be parish v parish wars flaring up everywhere. I've even heard it suggest that Sandyford should not be on the list - which is patently ridiculous. Sarah777 (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Of critical importance would seem to be reference to this guideline which basically says don't use too many images and only use them to illustrate text not just adding them because you can. If possible don't use a gallery but put the images into the commons and link to that instead. Personally I am against the overuse of images in this article and many other Irish articles too. It is really a case of editors keep adding images of favourite places because they can but they have no text to add that makes the image use significant in any way. If in doubt leave it out. Remember that Wikipedia is not a tourist guidebook. ww2censor (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Since I opened this issue, a further 2 places (Lahinch and Leap Castle) have found their way on to this list. Evidence of a sort that the "problem" remains. Namely that (in the absence of any guidelines) people will add in their favourite beach/castle/whatever as nationally notable. Frankly I can't blame them, as the island abounds with "places of interest" every 10 miles or so. However, this list continues to expand, and continues to interrupt the flow of the article. (Constituting a 40 line page break between "Sport" and "Culture").

I think Sarah's idea on following the NRA model is great, but I couldn't convert their policy document into something we could use here. As a result, I'm going to go back to to the "Guide Book" proposal, and cull anything that is unlikely to appear in the "highlights" section of a guidebook that deals with the island/country as a whole. (In the "if you only have a fortnight in Ireland go to these places" section.)

To that end (unless any objections) I'm going to remove 10 items or so: Achill (in favour of Aran), Ballyteigue (in favour of Cliffs of Moher), Céide Fields (in favour of Newgrange), Drogheda (in favour of Galway), Jerpoint (in favour of Kylemore) Navan Fort (in favour of Carrickfergus), Lahinch (in favour of the Burren), Leap Castle (in favour of Tara), Slieve Gullion and Slieve League (in favour of Mourne Mts), The Spire (in favour of Trinity), and Tory (in favour of the Skelligs).

From there, we can discuss, but should probably be even more ruthless. For a few reasons. Firstly, as noted, this list is ever expanding and is impacting the readability of the article. Secondly, the lists appears to remain only because "it was always there". And finally, it exists as some kind of tourism summary, going against the fact that Wikipedia is not a guidebook. (Personally I think there is SOME value in it, but not as a 50 point list). Guliolopez (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag on Places of Interest section

Per notes above, the "Places of Interest" section (and the "Gallery" section before that) has drawn several discussions on what verification/criteria are applied to its members. To the extent that an {{unreferenced}} tag has recently been applied to it. I'm presuming that the required references don't relate to the "these are in Ireland" assertion (given that that's not in dispute), rather to the "and they are of interest" portion. It seems therefore that we are back to the "what criteria do we apply to 'this is a place of interest' assertion" discussion again. To help move this forward, can the editor who added the tag clarify the reasons for the tag addition? So we can figure out how to address and see it removed? Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the unreferenced tag has to do with the "what is of interest" part of it. It may help to find tourist and travel guides to determine which places are visited by tourists. It should not be too difficult to get citations from travel guides to back up the statement that X site is a tourist destination. Plus, it *may* help to turn the section into prose and maybe explain how the sites are significant in terms of the tourist trade. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral move

Hi. Someone unlilaterally moved "Ireland" to "Ireland (island)" and made "Ireland" a redirect to "Republic of Ireland". This TOTALLY flies in the face of previous discussions in which there was no consensus agreed for such a move.

Can someone with Admin rights consider undoing this move until this move is discussed (yet again)? (Can't move "Ireland (island)" back to "Ireland" because page name already exists) Guliolopez (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree this has been proposed many times but never achieved consensus, also at the moment it effects numberous links on wikipedia.--Padraig (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked a admin to undo this move, which they have now done.--Padraig (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Demographics error

I believe there's a mistake under the Demographics section.

It says: "Ireland's largest religious group is the Catholic Church (about 50% for the entire island, and about 60%[64] for the Republic). "

This statement's quoted source is www.cso.ie. I took the liberty of consulting this site and found that over 87% of people in the Republic classed themselves as Roman Catholic in 2006.

This would give an island wide Catholic population of 74% based on 2006 Republic figures and 2004 Northern Ireland figures.

The paragraph finishes with this sentence: "Over 10% of the republic's population describe themselves as atheist [65]."

Again this quotes the website www.cso.ie. And again, it is incorrect (not just grammatically). The total describing themselves as having No Religion is only 4.2% in the Republic in 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.19.65 (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ulster-Scots"/Ireland name

Since Ulster Scots is listed in the first line, should Chinese, Polish and various African language be listed also i.e. the other languages which arrived in Ireland and have no relation to the meaning or the origin of the name "Ireland"? Ulster Scots was created in 1990 after all..

Either that, or we list Eire, from the native language of the island and the origin of the Anglican name Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.215.236 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason Ulster Scots, Irish and English are listed is because each of these have official/legal status in the jurisdictions of Ireland. (Irish and English in Ireland. Irish, Ullans and English in NI.) The others you mention have no status. Simple as that. Guliolopez (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Scots has no official status. It's recognised as part of "the cultural wealth of the island" but it has no official status.

The languages that do throughout the island is Irish and English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.2.203 (talk • contribs)

Ulster Scots is an official languae of the UK specific to Northern Ireland. WHich means Ulster Scots has official status on the island of Ireland.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It has no official status. North or South of the Irish border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.145.147 (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Economy section - summarise, combine, move?

(Me again) For a while now, I've been considering a summarisation/rewrite of the Economy section. I think it needs a review for a couple of reasons:

1. Length - Seems unnecessarily long - Compare ~1200 words in Economy section to ~900 words in Sports section
2. Balance - Focused on single jurisdiction - Most of the content is focused on the Republic of Ireland, and little on NI. Despite the fact that (in context) it should probably cover the economic position of the entire island.
3. Focus - Most of the text is on "Economic history" rather than "Economy" per sé - The section primarily deals with the Economic History of the country (in 1932 X happened, in the 1960s protectionist policies were implemented, in the 1980s there was high unemployment... etc) rather than on the *current* Economic position (In total, Agriculture represents approx 4% of GDP, Industry 46%, services X% etc. In NI Heavy industry is more prominent than ROI... etc).

Before I go about reorganising to address these, I wanted to ensure that (a) it was generally accepted that this was a problem that needed solving, (b) captured any thoughts/opinions on how to go about it, and (c) there were no objections to merging the current "economic history" stuff where I think it actually belongs. (Namely, in this article). Guliolopez (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No thoughts/comments? If not, I'll just go ahead and make the changes. Namely, as noted, I plan on reworking to focus more on Economic position, and less on Economic History, and with more of an "all island" focus that the current single jurisdiction outlook. Guliolopez (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems sensible enough to me. Work away. Dppowell (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

school

i want to learn about scools like how old they are when they start and end school or the types of classes they have or how many grades do they have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.130.75 (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider reading Education in Ireland. Guliolopez (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of formation of the United Kingdom?

(please note that I am notifying Irish Wikipedians as Ireland was in the UK: 1 January 1801 until 6 December 1922)

After much debate, the editors of the United Kingdom article seem to have settled on 1707 as being the foundation of the state (I note with concern though that this date lacks any external referencing, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY).

But this article - List of countries by formation dates - claims that the UK was actually founded in 1603 (again, completely unreferenced). Both articles cannot be correct, so which is it? Please come to the party armed with some proper external refs, because I am not sure if we can stomach yet another verbally diarrhetic Talk page splurge with largely consists of ad hominem attacks and statements of totally unsourced opinion. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)