Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 10

Ireland proposals - important update
There is currently a 'joint' Requested Move proposal, here at Ireland Talk, that proposes moving Ireland to Ireland (island), and removing the forked 'Irish state/country' material that has appeared over the years (including additional material on Northern Ireland). The Republic of Ireland would then be the principal article for the Irish state/country, as it was originally intended to be. Concurrently, Ireland (disambiguation) would be Moved to the vacated Ireland, so the many uses of 'Ireland' that refer to the country/state (along with those uses referring to the geographical/island use), would now offer the reader a choice of destination.

The Move was based on ongoing discussion at the Ireland disambiguation taskforce (see its Talk page specifically).

In addition to the above Requested Move proposal, there are alternative suggestions currently underway at the taskforce Talk, such as changing the direction of the two main Ireland articles simply by editing them, including most recently; 1) Promoting Ireland as the official country/state article (not Republic of Ireland), and building up Ireland (island) as a geographical/island article, and of 2) Ensuring Ireland is a geographical/island article only (and so removing much of the forked country/state-related material). Neither of those options would require Ireland (disambiguation) to be moved to Ireland.

If you support (or reject) the disambiguation page option for Ireland, please vote in the Requested Move poll, or perhaps consider commenting at the taskforce on one of the other options. As some options are 'edit-only' (and do not need to be polled), it is looking likely that something could be moved on.

In good faith, --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, want to make it any more complicated Matt? For what it is worth, and I am sure you can put it where it is correct, I think moving this page to Ireland (State) is just going to add an unnecessary disambiguation and also a great deal of consternation likely a good idea but creating local consensus elsewhere is a poor substitute for creating a consensus on the page you want to move and so must ask for it to be reverted and a proper process undertaken. One that isn't conducted behind layers of wiki bureaucracy. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 20:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I totaly agree with you Narson, and i'll go one further. I'll coe out and say that actions that Matt Lewis took were not in good faith, being that he used the guies of a taskforce, which should have been used for no more then to discuss a proporsal to put forth to the community at a whole via the RM process, to subvert the RM process. On top of that others involed in the discussion are using their adminstrator prividlges to force an enforcment of non-binding polls of which between the several that were being run concurent on several pages all outside of the RM process. i am sorry but if that is good faith it does not say much for wikipedia. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Zounds! Matt has done huge amounts of work trying to clarify this process. Accusations of "subversion" are really uncivil. -- Evertype·✆ 23:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I must say Boothy, that is not the experience I have had of Matt, GoodDay, Sarah or any of the names I see. Yes, I see wikipiere tried to stick his beak in again, but the others are genuinely, I believe, trying to make things better. It was just allowed to go too far down the path, and as we all know the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Yes, it should be put to a proper procedure, but that there was a screw up is easier to explain by human mistakes than human malice. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Narson, i can not speack for your experences with those involved, nor have i, at least to my knowledge i have had none to few experiences with any useres inolved, with some exceptions. And while you state that matt initial intentions were good, i would have to say his subquecent actions have been less so. I would have guess that a gropue of users, including some admins and others that have been here for along time, would have been more knowledgeable in how to do an RM, and why their was a obivious failure to do so.--Boothy443 | trácht ar 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote
Matt, I don't get what you are saying about "all-era Ireland"; you're using that term as though it were quite common. I think "country" is a problematic word and in making my suggestions here and on the dab page I'm really trhing to be sensitive to the views of those who didn't want these articles moved at all. That's one reason I think that Northern Ireland should be mentioned in this hatnote. -- Evertype·✆ 17:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that when you just say "state" people say that 19C British-rules Ireland (and other historical times) cannot be included in it. It is standard on Wikipedia to use "country". As it is a bit sensitive in Ireland, I would add "and sovereign state:


 * This article is about the country and sovereign state. For the article about the island of Ireland, see Ireland (island)


 * This easily allows for an 'all-era' Ireland - as in covering all of the Irish country's past. People can't fork culture/history into Ireland (island) then! --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Map and disam hatnote
Two points on these,

1) I understand the argument that Northern Ireland isn't really needed as a disambiguator in the hatnote, but at the moment we don't have a very goog map (you can't even see Ireland properly). Until the map is better, I'd certainly want to see NI here.

2) This Ireland (state) article covers all the eras of the Irish nation (and always did, ie as 'Republic of Ireland' too) - so we can't call it the 'current polical state'.

We certainly need a better map..--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I acctually quite like the modern looking EU style map. The alternative is a bit....1970s textbook. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe but the colours on that map are really awful and hard to read. -- Evertype·✆ 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Isn't it kind of....the dark green thing is Ireland? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly, we need to see the country - can anyone find an alternative? The EU map was miniscule (on my resolution I had no hope). It is intended as a second map too - not a first one.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But the Ireland (state) article is about the modern state, not the preceeding ones (as was the Republic of Ireland article before it.) Yes it necessarily mentions others in its history, but this is an article about the 20th century formed state, not an all encompassing article on all Irish states. Northern Ireland really shouldn't be in the hat note, it's not needed there. Canterbury Tail   talk  22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WOW!?! This article (and the preceding ROI one) is/was about all of the Irish nation across history! It was the country article - simple as. The island article merely ended up forking it all! (and stealing some of it, too). --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Um no. This article is very much about the modern state of Ireland. It mentions the previous ones very briefly as part of developing context, but it is not a general article about all Irish states, but only the current one. The Politics are all about the modern state, the history is only contextual towards the formation of the modern state, the counties are only about the modern state (it's missing the other 6), education is about the modern state, economy is about the modern state. You catch my drift? This is not a general one about all Irish states, only the current one. Canterbury Tail   talk  13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I catch your drift. Stuff like Modern Architecture has been moved (not forked - moved) over to Ireland (island) over time - it is pathetic. Wikipedia has to have an article to represent the Irish nation - which is it? ROI. And why did I find that Ireland (island) had people from Northern Ireland (a modern country for Christ's sake) which did not feature in the Northern Ireland artcle? FFS? Just mixed into a unified "Ireland" section into an island of Ireland article. I have no good faith for people like you, so please keep out of my way. This is starting to turn my stomach. The ugliest thing for me is being talked like I'm fucking stupid. You can really go to hell you know - it must be politics - it simply can't be anything else.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Irish nation is anyone born on the island of Ireland. the Irish state - which I think you mean has existed for less than 100 years, and is (depending on your POV) the same age as Northern Ireland. That is why the historical and all-Island stuff (like architecture, science culture) is on the island article. However, as Canterbury said, to put the modern state into context there needs to be some overlap between this article, the island article and indeed the NI article. Ireland is complicated .   Roadnote   ♫  18:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Some comments from an outsider about italics and prose
I'm not wanting to get into any disputes about Eire/ROI, I'm just making some comments about the italics and the prose. However, directly editing would be controversial given recent edits, so I'm posting on the talk to gauge opinion:
 * There's too many italics (especially description and name) which I don't think would semantically need emphasising.
 * In the lead section, it says "ROI is the description, but Ireland is its name". Does the second clause contradict the first? If not, it should be replaced with "and".
 * On the subject of that, would it be better prose to say "Ireland is the legal name of the state and Republic of Ireland its official description"?
 * There are some smart quotes which should be replaced with the normal double quotes (")
 * Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: controversial multi-page move
An RfC on the recent multi-page move has been opened at Talk:Ireland. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This article, Ireland (state), is now back at Republic of Ireland
Just a chronological note, see this diff for the move. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Repbublic? -- Evertype·✆ 17:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A new 'compromise' perhaps? RashersTierney (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Very disappointed indeed to see this fundamentally erroneous leap backward. I did not involve myself in the discussion before, but I was convinced by the argument that the Republic only calls itself that in the most formal usage. Everyone, Republic, N. Ire., and the entire world can agree that Rep. is a state. The state of Ireland itself does not prefer Republic. A subjective value judgement is not required; it is little more than a simple mathematical equation that favors Ireland (state). I hope to see the swift return of that naming. Anarchangel (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anarchangel, I haven't involved myself in the endless discussions/debates/polls etc because its way too head wrecking. When I saw that Ireland (state) was the main article for the country I hoped that would settle the matter, but of course it didn't. My only comment on this matter is this: I have an Irish passport and nowhere in this document does the phrase - "Republic of Ireland" appear. Thanking you! Snappy (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer "country" instead of "state", cf Georgia (U.S. state) and Georgia (country). Sceptre (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Folks this is just one of the reasons why I vote oppose to any move from Republic of Ireland; because Ireland (country), Ireland (nation), Ireland (republic), Ireland (state) would be among the many proposals for a new article name. Even when moved there would be no end of problems, inconsistencies, etc, etc. Lets stick to what the Oireachtas gave us as the description - the Republic of Ireland is my Ireland. Djegan (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How illogical. You'll agree to a name that has absolutely no consensus - and is actually controversial - but you reject any change whatsoever on the basis that there would be (undefined) problems, inconsistencies, etc, etc.  Why should we agree to the official British name when there are alternatives that are less offensive.  --HighKing (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The word country is ambiguous in this context, as the entire island can also be considered a country, both politically (ie before partition) and socioculturally. The phrase "the State" is commonly employed in the Republic to distinguish the political state from the geographical island; see, , . But I would share Djegan's views, as "Republic of Ireland" is even more specific, and has some legal standing.--Kwekubo (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Republic of Ireland has no current legal standing (remember the GFA). That aside I love the spirit of compromise evidenced here.  This is a partisan debate acknowledge it please.  -- Snowded   TALK  12:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense: the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 is still in force. Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't "a partisan debate". There are plenty of partisans involved, but there are also plenty of editors who just want the damned thing settled. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lots if people including me what the damn thing settled, but that is going to involve admitting the reality that this is a partisan debate. Blue-hair is happily ignoring the Good Friday Agreement and other supporting material on the British Government's change from using ROI to Ireland because it doens' support his/her partisan position.  I sometimes think some editors want to stay in 1948, or at some point before 1995 at least.  -- Snowded   TALK  21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I said the following to Nuclare over on Talk:Ireland: I think that the word Ireland is irretrievably ambiguous and should be the dab page. That leaves Ireland (island) and Ireland (state). What exactly is unacceptable about that? (Be specific please.) Remember, my own preference would be for Ireland to be the state. So I'm compromising by saying Ireland (state) is OK. The corresponding compromise "our side" would ask is for "your side" to agree to give up something you feel strongly about, and accept Ireland (island). That puts the two uses of the word Ireland on the same level. Trying to argue that one is more important than the other is as we have seen fruitless. I agree that there are legitimate uses of the description Republic of Ireland in content, though I would expect them to be used sparingly and appropriately, not peppering every paragraph. I'd even accept Londonderry on clear principles (the charter status of its name). -- Evertype·✆ 13:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The charm about the Ireland article is that it covers the "nation of Ireland", and the "island of Ireland" at the same time, and I prefer that format, and there certainly is a nation of Ireland, but divided by events in history. As for "Ireland the state", I prefer a compromise solution of Ireland (state), and to leave Ireland as is. Sometimes the simple solution is best, and that's the simplest solution. That way "Ireland the state" gets its proper name.  PurpleA (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your probably never going to reach consensus on this issue. My vote would be to have Ireland (disambiguation) as the main Ireland page (example: Macedonia). The current Ireland article should be moved to Ireland (Island).

I think Republic of Ireland should be Ireland (country). The Irish government does not use the term republic and in comparison to other countries who do have "Republic" in their legal names (France,Haiti,Iraq,Iran.....) I find it weird that Ireland, who does not use the term republic, is the only one with Republic in the name of the article. My vote would be to name it Ireland (country). State means different things to people in different parts of the world and also Ireland (country) shows up beneath the search box after you enter Ireland whereas Ireland (state) the searcher would have to go down (ha, if that makes any difference)--T*85 (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree totally. This state, Ireland, is just that: a state. The island Ireland, on the other hand, is a country. What with the Brits telling me that I live in a state called the Republic of Ireland and the West Brit parititionist crowd telling me that the geographical extent of that republic constitutes a "country", I'm just pissed off with the lot of you. Ireland (state) is an accurate description. Ireland, the main article, should obviously concern itself with the whole country and not with the two states established by those self-serving divide and conquer colonial fuckers (sorry, lovely peacekeeping British who have heroically and selflessly civilised the world), the British, on 23 December 1920 when they overthrew democracy in Ireland and partitioned our country against the wishes of the majority of the island's population. They don't like being told that, though; sort of ruins the whole "where would Paddy be without us?" mentality. Good. Now, as for all you Free State shopkeepers: would you kindly stop reinventing the past with your partitionist mantra about this 83% of the country being a country in itself. Self-serving raiméis, so much so that I think I'll do my shopping in Enniskillen this weekend. Irish freedom from Britain is unfinished business. 17% of our country remains under foreign occupation. It used to be 100%, and the "I'm Alright Jack" brigade in south Dublin would like us all to believe that we are all free, that we now have our own "country". Pathetically patronising. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What's your definition of country? Mooretwin (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the population of N.I would describe themselves as free, but i guess that’s part of the problem. Be certainly interesting what the population of the `17%` (as you say) reaction to joining a full state of Ireland. No doubt bombs would be placed on both sides of the Irish Sea, 1. Against the British state for giving up the citizens of N.I who sacrificed themselves for the U.K over the last 100 years (which is why the U.K would never walk away from these people in 1920 or now because of their sacrifice)and 2. Against the new enlarge state of Ireland. --Rockybiggs (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but not so sure how heavily the 'sacrifice' of the southern unionists weighed on the authorities in U.K in 1920. They were pretty much left to their own devices to negotiate their interests in the new state. RashersTierney (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean unionists like Tom Barry, but seriously the numbers were never as great as in the north, by concentration and majority. However, you still make a very valid point --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I mean Unionists like John Philip Bagwell,John Henry Bernard and many others left in the lurch by their government and Northern brethren. Seriously. RashersTierney (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wandered here by accident. Could someone link me to where people have problems with using "Ireland (state)" for this article's title, instead of forcing a non-existant long form on the country? As a USAer, I can understand confusion over the word "state", but Wikipedia convention is to use the phrase "U.S. state" in such cases just to avoid the confusion. So, what's the objection to "Ireland (state)"? -BaronGrackle (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The "long form" is not non-existent: it's provided by Irish statute. The problem is ambiguity and the impression given by the name that the state jurisdiction extends to the whole of Ireland. The greater problem than the title of this article is the use of "Ireland" in the text of other articles and the unavoidable ambiguity in doing so. Mooretwin (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually its been a description rather than a name, and its use was a political hot potato between the two governments until ALL parties (bar some Wikipedians) agreed to stop using ROI as part of the Good Friday Agreement. The idea was to get away from sectarianism, not to perpetuate it. -- Snowded   TALK  08:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I'm offended by the title, Republic of Ireland, as it completely disregards the will of the people, who are sovereign, as expressed in the 1937 constitution referendum, the Good Friday Agreement, and their continued support for both of those things. Ireland is not a region or a breakaway state, we are a nation. We are not defined by our form of government, but by our identity as Ireland. I'm not a radical wikipedian, and I'm not pushing an agenda, I'm just saying I felt offended when I came onto the page just now and saw my nation's identity being substituted for what was, for years, a phrase used purposefully by the British administration to ignore the primacy of the independent Ireland.Grollum (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussions has been going on for too long now it needs a resolution. Groolum your offended by the term Republic of Ireland? come on! it does not completely disregards the will of the people how does it? Everyone knows Ireland (the name used by government its people and used here) is not a breakway region even people younger then me and you knows it. "a phrase used purposefully by the British administration".......ok if i rember it was Ireland that started using the tilte and still is using the title as a desrciption and as to stop making people get confused with the island of ireland and northern ireland. Now back to the article, the subject needs a closing, i think it should stay as it is for now. Pro66 (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is really tiresome. Please note the active discussion below attempting to move this forward which will not be achieved by keeping as it is.  Also the agreement of the UK Government to stop using the term ROI was a key part of the Good Friday Agreement.  It was the only official organisation doing so at the time, the UN, EU and others having changed.  Post 1998 it agreed to cease use and refer to Ireland.  -- Snowded   TALK  02:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are clearly people who are offended by "Republic of Ireland". Are there people offended by "Ireland (state)"? Does anyone feel that the latter is ambiguous, or that it implies that the Irish republic governs the whole island? What is the major objection to "Ireland (state)"? -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things: I don't think that "Ireland" is ambiguous (in that it implies that the state of Ireland comprises the entire island of Ireland) any more than Virginia and West Virginia in the US. Arguably they are both ambiguous, but it is not for Wikipedia to solve ambiguities in names when those names were not assigned by Wikipedia. The EU, UN, UK, and Ireland all refer to the state of Ireland as "Ireland" and I can see no argument for why Wikipedia should refer to a country by anything other than its internationally accepted name. However, I also do not think that it is helpful to describe the use of Republic as offensive in this context, because as I understand it that British use of ROI was so as to not cede any ground in relation to Northern Ireland's inclusion in the United Kingdom, and not as an attempt to subvert the independence of Ireland. In less rambling form: yes, "Ireland" is inconveniently ambiguous, but that is not a problem caused by Wikipedia, and so can't be solved by Wikipedia. It is not an encyclopedia's job to solve language ambiguities, and since no country (as far as I'm aware) now uses ROI in any official capacity it should not be used here. Mandrakeroot (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal on Ireland naming-dispute
A compromise proposal on the Ireland naming dispute is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
I am withdrawing/archiving the move request due to Mooretwin's comments. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland → Ireland (state) — I have initiated this requested move as the actionable part of the proposal initiated by Mooretwin above. The move is part of a wider proposal, that has consequences for the future content direction of Ireland (without moving it), and for the future use of the term Republic of Ireland as a disambiguation term in other related artciles. So before voting, read the proposal.

Note:To avoid the previous situation, I have transcluded the voting section of that proposal here for inclusion in the move request (so there is no need to duplicate a vote already made there in here) Newcomers to this debate can either add a vote there which will show here, or register a new one here). — MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The very highest authority (bar the God King himself) is watching the behaviour surrounding these move proposals, so play nicely, or you might find very bad things start impeding your freedom of expression on the subject, now or in the future. MickMacNee (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Comment; this is a compromise between what I think Wiki policy demands and the current situation. After this move we will need a set of rules/guidelines within articles on dabbing, where dabbing is needed for clarity between Ireland (the state) and Ireland (the island) or Ireland (the state) and Northern Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Republic of Ireland appears to be an unambiguous title.  Ireland (state) is highly ambiguous.  I gather that Ireland (meaning the state also known as the Republic of Ireland) originated in 1937, so I might support moving Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state founded 1937).  However, Republic of Ireland already serves as an unambiguous title, so I don't see that much would be gained by that move. --Una Smith (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Una, although you are supporting based on it being an unambiguous title, it is propagating the incorrect belief that the term has legal standing as a name. It does not, anywhere on the planet except the UK.  So what you are supporting is acceptence of the legal British name for our state.  Also, you say that "Ireland (state)" is highly ambiguous - but you don't point out why.  There has only ever been one state named Ireland - a unique term, so what's ambiguous about it?  --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1919 a Republic was declared but basically failed (I think Soviet Union was the only one to recognize it. Failure of the Easter rising and execution of the people involved. This basically led to a guerrilla type war that led to negotiations, which led to independence (NI opted to stay in the union obviously) Ireland was then known as the Irish Free State until 1937 when the constitution was written and the country became Éire or in English Ireland. In 1948-9 with the Republic of Ireland act the country became a republic. In this act it said the description of the state was Republic of Ireland, but the constitution was never changed so officially the country was still Ireland. I don't think anybody cared about the name Republic of Ireland until they realized that the British were using it as an advantage. Within a few years the government was demanding that all countries refer to them as Ireland (except for Britain whom they asked but refused, but was too important of a country for them to stop doing business with)This changed after the Belfast agreement. --T*85 (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Irish state established in 1919 was the Irish Republic. T*85, do you mean to say Republic of Ireland is a title that also needs disambiguation?  --Una Smith (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that it would need a disambiguation page because the majority of people would not make that big of an issue about it. But it is my understanding that this declaration of a Republic of the entire island of Ireland is what groups like the IRA, INLA, hardcore republicans base their beliefs on (they basically don't acknowledge the Irish Free State, Eire, Ireland). So there is a group of people that firmly believe in this, but it is my opinion that most Irish people are rationale and understand that this is not true. The Republic that was declared in 1919 was ultimately a failure. It is what it symbolizes that is important, that is why 1919 is considered the beginning of the modern state. Again I am far from an expert in this and this is just my understanding.--T*85 (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I put a caveat in my vote above, obviously that is now fulfilled by the move coming here (As this is the page the proposal wants to move). Una above does make a good point, and some consideration should be given to Ireland (Modern State) or such, potentially. We are locked in this constant battle over the line between 'Common name' and 'unambiguous' here and I think we should accept we are working in one of the grey areas of policy. Being nice to each other wouldn't hurt either. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 01:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This may be a stupid question... :-) But...Was there ever previously an Irish state that was just called "Ireland"? There was the Kingdom of Ireland, the Lordship of Ireland, the U.K. of Great Britain and Ireland, the Irish Free State. What "Ireland" that can be called a 'state' existed before? I think previous to Perfidious Albion ;-) ;-), taking over in one Kingdom/Lordship form or another, Ireland could have been called a nation, a country--although maybe not in the modern 'unified, centralized state' sense--but would any simply "Ireland" but the present "Ireland" be reasonably called a state? Most people, I imagine, will be coming to this page through links, so is 'state,' even if imperfect, so bad? The hatnote on the Ireland page could say something like "For the modern sovereign state..." Or it could model on the Korea page and say something like "For the modern political entitites on the island, see Ireland (state) and Northern Ireland...or something like that. And the introduction and Political Geography section on the Ireland page could be made to emphasize the 'modern sovereign state' element. Those are where most will find it, and others would be clicking on links that either say Ireland (piped to Ireland (state)) or Republic of Ireland or some other similar types of disambiguation. I may be overlooking something, but where is the confusion going to be? Previously I had wished that this page could be *titled* ROI, but without too much use of it elsewhere to give the wrong impression that it was the state's name. But I don't see that happening, because the ROI location is used to justify calling the state ROI on maps, in the subarticle titles, etc. etc. To answer Una's comment about not seeing something gained by the move, it gains having the official and most common name of the state--even if with the Wiki diambig. '(state)' tagged on--used in the title and in many more places around Wiki; as long as people are reasonable about providing hatnotes and being careful in wording, I see that as a good thing. The 'as long as people are reasonable' is the unanswered question, however; but I don't see things being much better without *some* change. Nuclare (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The other states are likely ocmmonly called Ireland too though. Which I why I can see the confusion, though yes, hatnoting is annother acceptable way around that (Not sure how hatnotecrazy we want to be though) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 13:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good summary Nuclare, and @Narson and @Una, there was never another state called "Ireland". --HighKing (talk)


 * Oppose' I'd favor keeping it at Republic of Ireland and making Ireland a disambiguation page. I appreciate that this proposal is made in a conciliatory manner, but it seems to me it'll just confuse a lot of readers, many of whom will not be fully aware of the ins and outs of the Irish question as some editors.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "Ireland (state)" is a dreadful made up name, whilst "Republic of Ireland" has legal standing. There is no need for a move to an inferior title. Moreover we might end up with article titles like Education in Ireland (state) and Economy of Ireland (state). Djegan (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we would end up with titles like that. What we'd probably end up with is "Education in Ireland", where there would, imo, need to be a good hatnote explaining the Ireland this is for and pointing to the comparable Northern Ireland page (where there is one). That's what I would certainly *hope* would happen, at least. Nuclare (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * REPUBLIC OF IRELAND HAS NO LEGAL STANDING EXCEPT IN THE UK. Clear?  --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * *WRONG* - obviously you are in extreme denial about the Republic of Ireland Act, an act of the Irish parliament. Djegan (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? So tell me then, what legal standing does it have?  Can it be used on legal documents? No.  Can it be used in extradition orders? No.  Can it be used on passports or travel documents?  No.  Go on then - you tell me.  What legal standing does it have?  --HighKing (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your whole opposition to "Republic of Ireland" is based on "legal standing", we all know the states name is "Ireland", but we also know it is the "Republic of Ireland" per the law (it may not be the states name, but it is what the state is). Don't try to be deliberately dumb. Your whole opposition is one of I DON'T LIKE IT. Djegan (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, just so that everyone is clear. You start by saying that RoI has legal standing, but you can't give one example of that legal standing?  And you are still incorrect to state that "it is the "Republic of Ireland" per the law".  It isn't.  You are wrong.  A description has no legal standing as a substitute for the name, which is the mistake editors here continue to make and propagate.  Think about it.  When would you normally use a description and when would you use a name?  Use some common sense and put the words "John Smith" and "Dentist" in several sentences - the difference becomes clear immediately. --HighKing (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So is it also ok to say that the official name of Ukraine is the Republic of Ukraine? It says in their constitution that they are a republic, the Republic of Ireland act simply said that the description of the state was the Republic of Ireland. The official name of Ireland was never changed in the constitution --T*85 (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're asking me, the constitution of Ukraine does not explicitly mention any term to be taken as the official name. That said, it only refers to itself throughout the document as "Ukraine", so it's inarguable that the name is "Ukraine".  Article 5 states "Ukraine is a republic". So for me, Ukraine should never be referred to as anything other that "Ukraine".  --HighKing (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The legal standing is in the Republic of Ireland Act as stated by the Oireachtas, and its used in many places as continously pointed out by editors here. There are a myrad of examples on Irish government/parliament/state websites. Don't pretend the term does not exist. Quit living in the past. Djegan (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Djegan and - polling is not a substitute for discussion notwithstanding - my own comments every time this has come up and been rejected since 2005. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 13:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the exact same proposal you have seen every time since 2005? I find that hard to believe. MickMacNee (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per the legally correct title and common name, and because the arguments to keep are invariably wrong as they continue to incorrectly state that RoI has legal standing (it doesn't) or that it's not controversial (it is), or are entrenched in their views (since 2005) and won't compromise in the slightest. --HighKing (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * *WRONG AGAIN* no one in the world would be dumb enough to call the Republic of Ireland as "Ireland (state)" - there is more to any country than mere statehood alone. This title is a narrow-minded view of the world. Djegan (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Calling other editors dumb is a bigger reflection on you than on others. And your response shouts wrong again, but then wanders off on some other point, utterly failing to point out what is wrong.  Your own response above agrees that Ireland is the correct name.  You also agree that RoI is not a name.  So can you not grasp the simple fact that since it *is* a *name* in the UK, using it as a dab term here will incorrectly attribute a British name to the state, and propagate the idea that it actually has (as you call it) a "legal standing"?  --HighKing (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The parentheses after the name format is STANDARD Wiki practice. Thousands of Wiki articles have it. Nobody is going to think that someone who at Wiki is titled, let's say, "John Smith (actor)" should be called John Smith (actor) in text or that John Smith (actor) is how this individual refers to himself in real life. Of course, 'state' is imperfect, but it's simple a title for the page. Even John Smith (actor) can be more than an actor. Nuclare (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but there are literally *thousands* of related articles, categories and templates. Any solution that does not explicitly include them is a disaster. Djegan (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And now we drag out the old "Too much work to fix" argument. I'll personally write a bot and the links will be fixed in 48 hours.  Any other non-relevant arguments?  --HighKing (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: per Djegan. Iota (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, The Arbitration Comittee is watching for behaviour just like this (or rather, watching for admin inaction against behaviour like this), to justify drawing the ban hammer on people/discussion. So, even after pointing this out, maybe arbcom is the solution after all. MickMacNee (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Having read all the support and oppose arguments. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
The following was moved from the move proposal section MickMacNee (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC) :


 * Well, let's not pretend that this partial solution is the end of the discussion. We have already seen this:

That's a reasonable approach. -- Evertype·✆ 00:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Objection I absolutely object to the transclusion of straw-poll votes as though they were votes here. This is procedurally incorrect and is unacceptable. I will raise this issue with Arbcom if the transclusion is not rescinded. -- Evertype·✆ 00:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The move that was recently reversed was initiated based on a poll at the same location this poll is transcluded from. MickMacNee (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Evertype that that the previous poll should not be transcluded here. --Una Smith (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely concur. This is exactly what got us into trouble the last time. The discussion for a proposed move must occur here. All persons who participated in the taskforce discussions/strawpolling can be notified of this request quite easily. Srnec (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Equally everyone here can be notified of the task force discussion and participate there. This constant creation of new polls on different pages  is a way to maintain the status quo (and this instantiate continued edit wars etc.)  -- Snowded   TALK  07:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the mistake with the transclusion was that it isn't standard and so people will see it as outside the process. Perhaps we should all agree to keep the transclusion for the moving admin to see where the proposal came from (As rationale) but agree for people to duplicate their opinion or form a new one in the survey section in the interest of transparancy and, most importantly, moving forward? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should anybody be expected to repeat their vote for pure beaurocratic reasons? If I am not mistaken, repeated polling was one of the main complaints before. So unless you can show conclusively that the proposal over there was not proposing the move described here, then what exactly is the objection here? Past moves have been done based on opinion polling held there, so why not now? MickMacNee (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't what happened last time. It is the exact opposite, last time the closer did not look at the RM on this page. Now the closer cannot claim to have been unaware of polling in different venues. And this is not a new poll, this is just a formalisation of a move proposal that was gaining consensus in a different venue. People cannot in all good conscience claim that a 'support' for a move on a task force page doesn't count as a 'support' for this RM. And if anyone objects to their vote being transcluded, they are surely aware of this RM, and are free to strike/modify it accordingly. These objections look like beaurocracy, which Wikipedia is not. MickMacNee (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Its premature Mick and open to interpretation as game playing to support the status quo. There is a new possible consensus emerging but its not formulated.  The proper process would be to work to get that to the point where there is broad agreement while (i) notifying all pages that the discussion is going on and (ii) notifying those pages that a decision is about to emerge and will be implemented.  It was the failure to do the latter that created so much ill will last time.  Creating parallel votes and discussion is not only not helpful it is likely to prevent a new consensus emerging.  -- Snowded   TALK  11:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Snowded. This certainly does seem to be game-playing to support the status quo. -- Evertype·✆ 11:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see WP:AGF is crying itself to sleep in the corner today. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) WP:AGF doesn't mean being naive or accepting whatever happens Narson. I was careful to say that it could be interpreted as such.  Creating multiple discussions on different pages at the same time is not helpful and its reasonable to say so -- Snowded   TALK  11:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If I had wanted multiple discussions on multiple pages, I would not have transcluded the votes. This is not a parallel discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is Mick, there are two discussions going on, on two pages in parallel! Also you don't have my agreement to translude my vote into a different context.  Look it was the wrong thing to do, may have been well intentioned (given the last aborted move) but it was wrong.  -- Snowded   TALK  15:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then strike your vote. The requested move was a clear part of this proposal, if you voted for it and now decline, that is up to you. MickMacNee (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And I was careful to say what it seemed to be. I note that I have on numerous occasions pointed out that this move is not "all-encompassing" and that the inherent ambiguity of Ireland has not been addressed, but the status-quo'ers seem happy to ignore that. This has been noticed. -- Evertype·✆ 12:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No 2. 'Ireland' for the whole country, and 'Ireland (state)' for this part of the country that is free from British rule. That's the best one. 'The name of the state is Ireland' (Bunreacht na hÉireann, 1937), not 'Republic of Ireland'. That should be respected. Ireland for the country does not need to be qualified by 'island'. It wont change, whereas the states on this island without question will change, judging by the pace of change in the past century alone (never mind the centuries before). The Milesians, the Vikings, the Normans and very many English became Irish. It's only a matter of time before that geographical pull has the Unionists defining themselves solely as Irish as well. Only a complete space cadet would think that the states on this island at the moment are a permanent fixture. Dunlavin Green (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about Ireland (founded 1937)? --Una Smith (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it implies that there was another Ireland founded at another time. There wasn't.  If people are so confused, why not "United Kingdom (founded 1927)" as well to disambiguate from all the other "United Kingdoms"?  --HighKing (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All of these titles with disambiguations in brackets are a bad idea, prone to change and misunderstanding. Lets stick with the one the Oireachtas provided. Djegan (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I object to this RM being made before agreement on the detail of the compromise proposal at the IDTF page is reached. Mooretwin (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * concur, first time I have agreed with you in a long time as well! -- Snowded   TALK  17:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. The task force is located at WP:IDTF and the proposal is being discussed on the Talk page.  --HighKing (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we are discussing the title of a Wikipedia article; a description of the topic can (and often does) serve as the article title. --Una Smith (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Except when the description is misleading in it's own right and results in unnecessary confusion - such as what the name of the state is.... --HighKing (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now your just been misleading. You say "Republic of Ireland" is misleading, I say "Ireland" is misleading. Djegan (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe both can be misleading all depending on context. That's why on WP:IDTF there are discussions trying to establish when "Ireland" can be used and when "Republic of Ireland" should be used instead.   --HighKing (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Either way, that is something to address in the lead paragraphs of the article, not in the article title. --Una Smith (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment about the closed RM request

 * Once the article title is correct to begin with. It is more misleading to have an incorrect title that requires addressing in the lead paragraph.  Far simpler and more encyclopedic to ensure that the article title is correct and to address everything else in the article.  --HighKing (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see The Blockers are out straight away! Everytype et al - we need to go through this vote and a RM in order to let Arbcom see clearly what is frustrating Wiki policy and practice in the namimg of the state. I think you are missing the main play here - the key to everything is moving RoI off the title of the Irish State. Focus. Think. Why are some editors so absolutely desperate to retain it against all policy and common sense? Remember the trump card (maybe the only card) the blockers have is the fact that the majority who want change can't agree to forgo their own pet solution rather than compromise and start the move. Sarah777 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Sarah, I'm not "missing the main play here". I filed a request for Arbitration. That is under consideration, to be extended it seems because there's going to be a handover to some new Arbitrators. That is the higher hand to play here. It is clear that "Ireland" is ambiguous; half the people here think it should mean one thing and the other half think it should mean the other. There's no reconciling that. We need Arbitration. It is the status quo of all three article titles that causes the problem. I note (and should point out to Arbcom) that MickMacNee closed the RM because his comrade Mooretwin objected to it, though he did not remove the transclusion or close the RM because I objected to it. I think that shows extraordinary Bad Faith, and the cynicism in this whole argument nauseates me. What an effing time-suck. Instead of working on improving the articles, we all of us roll around in this muck. -- Evertype·✆ 19:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comrade? Where do you get off with this shit? I closed it because it was based on his proposal, and he later objected to it. I ignored you because you gave no answer as to how this was supposedly procedurally different to the earlier move you wholeheartedly supported - which was a move request closed based on an idtf proposal, simple as that. You need to wake up and realise that the arbitrators are not going to rule on who is right, but will merely rule on the sort of behaviour you have displayed in spades in this section alone and elsewhere. MickMacNee (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What an interesting response. The arbitrators could not rule on who is "right" because both sides are "right" which is why Ireland is irretrievably ambiguous and should be the disambiguation page. That's the only Wiki-relevant fact here. The rest is tribalism. And not usually very civilized. If any group needs arbitration, it is certainly this one. -- Evertype·✆ 21:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I just cannot believe that you don't realise that trying to force arbcom to rule that your opinion is right, is ruling that someone is right. MickMacNee (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys back off. Arbcom will not rule on content, the most they will do is assist with a process.  In the meantime we might be getting somewhere so we should all keep the temperature down.  -- Snowded   TALK  15:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone address this for me: "It is clear that "Ireland" is ambiguous" Could someone please explain how it is ambiguous? You have Ireland and then you have Northern Ireland. Big difference in the name. Could I not also say Northern Ireland is ambiguous, since the most northern part of Ireland is Donegal? Now I would much prefare if editors please cite examples of how "Ireland" is ambiguous." If we remember, opinions don't count on Articles only referenced sources. So please cite sources which mention or discuss how "Ireland" is ambiguous." If its just base on opinions of editors it a none arguement, because Ireland can be sourced accross the board, thanks, -- Domer48 'fenian'  21:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ireland is ambiguous in that it is both the name of an island (entity A), and the name of a state (entity B). A ≠ B, therefore there is ambiguity in the meaning of Ireland. Rockpock  e  t  22:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland = Northern Ireland there is no ambiguity. Northern Ireland ≠ northern Ireland there is ambiguity. The most northern part of Ireland is Donegal. Now I did ask for sources which say "Ireland" is ambiguous." So who is saying it ambiguous? If it is simply an Editor (no offernce Rock) well that would normally be called WP:OR. Were is the academic discussions or authors who raise this issue? So please, could the next editor to respond please provide a source that would at the very least form the basis of a discussion? -- Domer48 'fenian'  22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow, Domer. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't use a proper noun, Northern Ireland because its it's title doesn't accurately describe what it purports to? Should we rename Great Britain because it ain't all the great or Greenland because it isn't very green?
 * There may well be an ambiguity between Northern Ireland and northern Ireland. If so, we can deal with it with a hatnote, or a diambiguation page. How exactly does that address whether Ireland is ambiguous?
 * We don't requires sources describing the ambiguity directly (though I'm sure some could be found), we simply need sources describing two distinct, notable entities with the same name. The ambiguity is then self-evident. All we have to do is work out to deal with that ambiguity. Would you like me to provide a source describing the both island and the state, as Ireland?


 * Ireland is the name of an island in the North Atlantic. Ireland is also the name of a state, comprising roughly three-quarters of that island, which secured independence from Britain in 1922.


 * - Mary E. Daly. The Irish Free State/Eire/Republic of Ireland/Ireland: “A Country by Any Other Name”? Journal of British Studies 46 (January 2007): 72–90. (Mary E. Daly is professor of Irish history and principal of the College of Arts and Celtic Studies at University College Dublin.)
 * Rockpock e  t  00:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the source Rock, at least we have something to talk about. First of, were is the most northern part of Ireland, and would that county be in northern Ireland? On Mary Daly (revisionist), how dose that make Ireland ambiguous? It clearly sets out what the situation is, and is not at all ambiguous? The Ireland Article can address any and all such details. There is a major difference between Ireland and Northern Ireland, can you see anything ambiguous in those two names? -- Domer48 'fenian'  08:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because there are seperate articles for the state Ireland and the island Ireland. Ireland and Ireland. As Ireland and Ireland are not the same Ireland but different Ireland, though one Ireland is on the other Ireland and is a constintuent part of that island of Ireland. The idea that Ireland isn't ambiguous is specious, at best. It refers to two things. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, it's much clearer now...(thinks: I must keep taking those tablets!) Hohenloh +22:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it, therefore, be sensible to have the disambiguation page at Ireland? -- Evertype·✆ 23:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because your recent edits to Ireland (disambiguation) (from here backwards) suggest your idea of an Ireland dab page is actually an article, albeit a very brief one, but an article nonetheless. MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What's been going on over there is probably the best reason why it Ireland shouldn't be a disambiguation page. The disambig top on the island article is more than adequate. The island represents the oldest and widest meaning of the term Ireland and deserves to occupy the Ireland spot. Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Entertainment
I'd like to suggest merging the Entertainment section into the Culture section - there's already a lot of overlapping - and in doing so add some information and remove some of those names (Wikipedia doesn't approve of lists like this). Also add sub-headings under Culture and add Theatre and Media (to include TV and Press). Hohenloh +18:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You want to work on the article itself not argue about the name!  Go for it (seriously, do it makes sense) -- Snowded   TALK  18:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Who wants to work on an article about some place that doesn't exist? Sarah777 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's Tlön. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 22:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk of whether the article exists or not won't hold me up - these are mere details. Using methods designed to work in parallel universes I've started including the main articles under Culture and will try to make sure anyone/thing missing from this article is included in one of those. The criteria for inclusion is people born/grew up/lived/worked/etc. in the "Republic of Ireland" (or whatever it will be called). I've already moved 19th century and earlier cultural stuff to "Ireland". If anyone disagrees please let me know. I know this isn't nearly as interesting as discussing the name of the article, but I guess someone has to do it - even if the article doesn't exist! Ya know, sometimes I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here... Hohenloh + 03:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive older sections?
The wait time to load this page is getting annoyingly long. Could we archive the sections that have not changed in ... several months? --Una Smith (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah. I like it the way it is. Maybe you'd get bored waiting and go away:) Sarah777 (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Best to wait and see what happens with the Request for Arbitration. -- Evertype·✆ 19:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I see no reason to give the bad guys a single target to aim at! Surely we can walk and chew gum at the same time? Sarah777 (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarah, you didn't even bother to make a statement to the Request for Arbitration. A formal, polite, measured, intelligent statement. I invited (and still invite) you to make such a statement, because you have made some very good points. Will you, in the name of all the gods feathered and featherless, please knock off the shrillness and mud-slinging and take this seriously? Go prepare a 500-word statement for the RfA. ("The bad guys" me arse. That's not in any way a positive contribution. -- Evertype·✆ 19:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think your faith in the Arbcom process was well grounded - but my experience tells me otherwise. We shall see. Or more likely you will! (Sadly) Sarah777 (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Invoking the process is a way to try to get some help. Clearly this community cannot manage on its own. -- Evertype·✆ 21:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thinking about the statement thingy, btw. But "formal, polite, measured" - I'd have style issues to overcome. Sarah777 (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You could ask someone to have a look at it. I'm not suggesting me. -- Evertype·✆ 21:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

-> Archiving the page has nothing whatsoever to do with the request for arbitration, but is somewhat like doing surgery without anaesthetic. Cuting and pasting is one of the recognised ways of doing this and is useful for pages where discussion never dies down. The arbitrators can see all of the previous discussions at Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 9. Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Archiving the page AT THIS TIME while there is a Request for Arbitration could be seen as an attempt to hide the dispute. In all Good Faith, I find it very hard to see this move that you made as a Good Faith move. And I don't even remember which "side" you are on. I ask you to undo this Archiving for one month, until 7 January 2009. Please take the Request for Arbitration seriously, and do not make the task more difficult for the prospective Arbitrators. -- Evertype·✆ 23:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, that's just absurd! Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but so is the title of the article about Ireland and for now we're stuck with it. Sarah777 (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland page name dispute
Concerning the Ireland page names dispute, ArbCom has issued a final decision. It has four remedies. Per Remedy #1, please see Talk:Ireland --Una Smith (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion requested
Could a knowledgeable person help out at Talk:English language? There is an impasse on how that article should refer to the Irish state. One editor says it should be called “Ireland” (with a link to this article) because that is the official name, and the meaning is unambiguous in a list of countries. The other editor says it should be called the “Republic of Ireland” because “Ireland” invariably refers to the whole island. —teb728 t c 07:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)