Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 12

Discussion of the name of this (and other) articles
The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. That structure does not involve discussing it on the individual talk pages. If you want to discuss the subject further, follow the link above. I have archived all current discussion in an attempt to get people to comply with the ArbCom's directives. If you don't like it, take it to the Administrators' Incident noticeboard. I'm declaring this an administrative action to comply with an ArbCom directive, which is not reversible, until consensus there determines I'm mistaken.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur.  Sandstein   12:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You "have archived all current discussion in an attempt" to prevent discussion. That Sandstein you concur is not surprising, consulting you would be consulting a butcher about the keeping of Lent. SarekOfVulcan you have been activly involved in this discussion, were unable to support your opinions of defend your position, so you closed it down. You are both setting out to mislead our readers, and preventing them from informing themselves. The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed article namely Ireland. The arguement is based on nothing more than editors opinion, with not one reference to support their POV. The article text you removed illustrated this all to well. SarekOfVulcan I never violated any ArbCom's directives, you mate Sandstein said I did "what amounted to" a violation, and closed down the discussion where I set about defending myself. Why should I take it to Administrators' Incident noticeboard, and get more of the same. A joke! Only thing is, it's the readers who it's on. If you need me to provide Diff's you just have to ask. -- Domer48 'fenian'  13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I archived the discussion to prevent discussion IN THE WRONG PLACE. Subtle difference, but important.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Readers who read this article and question the misleading information, will not find any discussion here. When editors who have been involved in the discussion can still spout nonsense about this being about the State. You actions breed ignorance, with readers going away thinking RoI is the name of the State. You were activly involved in the discussion, and you closed it. At not time could you support your arguement. -- Domer48 'fenian'  13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about the state and always has been. Therefore it's not "nonsense" to say so. On the contrary, it's nonsense to claim that it is not. Mooretwin (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a really big box at the top of the page that talks about "Ireland article names". If you feel editors might miss that, perhaps we could add something below it explaining the situation? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They can only go away thinking this is the name of the state if they dont read the first paragraph of the introduction which clearly says.. "The name of the state is Ireland, while the description the Republic of Ireland is sometimes used when there is a need to differentiate the state from the island". Thats if they miss the banner which i pointed out in the dif you mentioned. I agree the box at the top of the Ireland talk pages needs changing, the statement process is over people just need to be told to go there to see about the naming dispute and not to seek change here. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I pinged the Wikiproject, and the box has been updated.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. Please provide a link? There is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion on article talk pages. If there is such a directive, provide a diff. -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The short bit - If the RoI article is not to be moved to "Ireland", I agree with the compromise proposal that:
 * the RoI article to "Ireland (state)";
 * the island article to "Ireland (island)"; and
 * "Ireland" be a DAB.

For those who wish to read on:

There are a bunch of states that have geographic names that do not fully correspond with their borders – Examples: ....The names of all of the above states have Wikipedia articles that follow their usual names.Why is Ireland being singled out? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Luxembourg – The state of that name does not include Luxembourg (Belgium);
 * Mongolia – The state of that name does not include Inner Mongolia;
 * Samoa – The state of that name does not include American Samoa;
 * Solomon Islands – The state of that name does not include the North Solomon Islands;
 * South Africa – The state of that name does not include lots of places in South Africa such as Swaziland;
 * Interesting question. You should raise it as WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you know the answer to that question RedKing, they don't have a vocal group of pro British editors enforcing a lie with the backing of admins to afraid to stick up for the policies they are meant to enforce. BigDunc  Talk 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re "Interesting question. You should raise it as WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration" - That process (of which I have actively participated in!) turned to farce. All of the Moderators even resigned! Note to those who desire a change: Its back to pushing this issue on every relevant article page. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not allowed to do that any longer as discussion has been archived and an editor blocked for asking why see here for more. BigDunc  Talk 20:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * @Redking7 - (reposting same reply as earlier today) ... And there are states where, like Ireland/Republic of Ireland, the opposite is the case. E.g.:
 * China/People's Republic of China/Taiwan/Republic of China
 * Congo/Democratic Republic of the Congo/Republic of Congo
 * Korea/North Korea/South Korea
 * Micronesia/Federated States of Micronesia
 * As we all know, too, hardly any articles on states on WP are located at their "official" names. This discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Nobody is "singling" Ireland out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Re "We are not allowed to do that any longer as discussion has been archived and an editor blocked for asking why" - This is Wikipedia - Of course we are allowed discuss matters pertaining to articles on their Talk pages!


 * Re the China "counter-example" referred to above, '''Below I recycle some China/Ireland type arguement


 * In case any genuine non-POV users might get confused and consider China some sort of acceptable example to follow:
 * PRC (Peoples Republic of China) is the official name of the most widely recognised China. The large majority of countries recognise the PRC as the only Chinese State;
 * ROC (Republic of China) is the official name of the much less recognised China - more commonly know as Taiwan (which is where the non-Communists established themselves after the Chinese Civil War and where the Communists have never ruled). A minority of countries, for example, the Vatican City recognise only the ROC (Taiwan) as the Chinese State;
 * That is broadly the reason for the way the China, the Peoples Republic of China and the Republic of China have the article names they do.


 * In contrast:
 * RoI (Republic of Ireland) is not the official name of the Irish State;
 * "Ireland" is the name by which the Irish State is recognised by every country in the world (including even UK of GB and NI!);
 * In short, there is no comparison between the Chinese and Irish article names! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Congo and Korea - Firstly, none of the 4 states concerned claim to be simply "Congo" or "Korea" as the case may be. More importantly, even if the Congos or Koreas did claim they should be known simply as "Congo" or "Korea" as the case may be - they would be claims of multiple states. In contrast Ireland is the only state in the world that asserts that its name is Ireland and that name is recognised by every state in the world without qualms.

Re Micronesia, that name is more comparable with the America (check where that link brings you - its a DAB, somethin I suppor Ireland becoming). No comparison with Ireland. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So what is your argument? Is it (a) that the state should be at Ireland because that is the official name? (Reply: Most articles on states are not at the official names of the sates.) Or is it (b) that 'states take precedence over identically named geographic regions'? (Reply: Above I have linked to examples where geographic regions take "precedence" over states.) Or is it (c) both? (Reply: So you think that Ireland is a special case?)
 * "In contrast Ireland is the only state in the world that asserts that its name is Ireland..." This is not an encyclopedia of states. It is a general encyclopedia. The state is not the only thing in the world named "Ireland".
 * Also, I think you need to look again at the Micronesia page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like those "counter-examples" did not amount to much. My argument is the same as it was above, namely:

There are a bunch of states that have geographic names that do not fully correspond with their borders – Examples: ....The names of all of the above states have Wikipedia articles that follow their usual names.Why is Ireland being singled out?
 * Luxembourg – The state of that name does not include Luxembourg (Belgium);
 * Mongolia – The state of that name does not include Inner Mongolia;
 * Samoa – The state of that name does not include American Samoa;
 * Solomon Islands – The state of that name does not include the North Solomon Islands;
 * South Africa – The state of that name does not include lots of places in South Africa such as Swaziland;

Re, Micronesia, you might need to clarify for me and the other reders. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So your argument is (b) that 'states take precedence over geographic areas'. I gave you counter counter examples.
 * (RE: "Micronesia". At Micronesia I see an article. At America I see a dab page. Did you say that you see differently or did you just mean that just America page was a dab? (I might have the wrong end of the stick.)) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving more misplaced discussion
It doesn't go here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
Why are we having these same article title discussions again and again and again? Redking7, I swear you have cut and pasted that same post numerous times on different pages, including twice on this page in the last few days. It is nothing more than forum shopping, and will have no more of a constructive effect than it did the last time you pasted it. We understand your argument. We don't necessarily agree with it, but simply repeating it will not change that.

Its patently clear that nothing practical can come from discussion on this page (with regards to the title). Nothing. ArbCom have made that so with their move sanction. The only way anything is going to change is through WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. So, I urge you all: if you genuinely have an interest in resolving this dispute, engage there. Ignore any further comments on this page about the article title, since it has turned into a talking shop. POV pushing does not need to be countered here, because any attempts to use the artificial "consensus" to justify a change in the title/content will result in a block (as Domer found out yesterday). Just ignore it, and instead focus on the forum where a practical solution can be found. 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about SarekOfVulcan removal of talk page content
SarekOfVulcan maintains that ArbCom has banned discussion of the naming of the RoI article on the RoI talk page. My question to SarekOfVulcan is this, "show differences and the relevant pages/paragraphs of the ArbCom decision?". Otherwise this will be seen as a unilateral action by an admin. Tfz    22:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 100% agree. BigDunc  Talk 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could some one please "report" SarekOfVulcan (I don't know how that process operates). The censorship he/she is tryin to impose is not the "Wikipedia way". Regards. Redking7 (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Title
Some one keeps "archiving" the discussion about the title of this article!

Discussion of the name of this (and other) articles
The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. That structure does not involve discussing it on the individual talk pages. If you want to discuss the subject further, follow the link above. I have archived all current discussion in an attempt to get people to comply with the ArbCom's directives. If you don't like it, take it to the Administrators' Incident noticeboard. I'm declaring this an administrative action to comply with an ArbCom directive, which is not reversible, until consensus there determines I'm mistaken.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur.  Sandstein   12:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You "have archived all current discussion in an attempt" to prevent discussion. That Sandstein you concur is not surprising, consulting you would be consulting a butcher about the keeping of Lent. SarekOfVulcan you have been activly involved in this discussion, were unable to support your opinions of defend your position, so you closed it down. You are both setting out to mislead our readers, and preventing them from informing themselves. The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed article namely Ireland. The arguement is based on nothing more than editors opinion, with not one reference to support their POV. The article text you removed illustrated this all to well. SarekOfVulcan I never violated any ArbCom's directives, you mate Sandstein said I did "what amounted to" a violation, and closed down the discussion where I set about defending myself. Why should I take it to Administrators' Incident noticeboard, and get more of the same. A joke! Only thing is, it's the readers who it's on. If you need me to provide Diff's you just have to ask. -- Domer48 'fenian'  13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I archived the discussion to prevent discussion IN THE WRONG PLACE. Subtle difference, but important.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Readers who read this article and question the misleading information, will not find any discussion here. When editors who have been involved in the discussion can still spout nonsense about this being about the State. You actions breed ignorance, with readers going away thinking RoI is the name of the State. You were activly involved in the discussion, and you closed it. At not time could you support your arguement. -- Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about the state and always has been. Therefore it's not "nonsense" to say so. On the contrary, it's nonsense to claim that it is not. Mooretwin (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a really big box at the top of the page that talks about "Ireland article names". If you feel editors might miss that, perhaps we could add something below it explaining the situation? Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 13:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They can only go away thinking this is the name of the state if they dont read the first paragraph of the introduction which clearly says.. "The name of the state is Ireland, while the description the Republic of Ireland is sometimes used when there is a need to differentiate the state from the island". Thats if they miss the banner which i pointed out in the dif you mentioned. I agree the box at the top of the Ireland talk pages needs changing, the statement process is over people just need to be told to go there to see about the naming dispute and not to seek change here. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I pinged the Wikiproject, and the box has been updated.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. Please provide a link? There is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion on article talk pages. If there is such a directive, provide a diff. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The short bit - If the RoI article is not to be moved to "Ireland", I agree with the compromise proposal that:
 * the RoI article to "Ireland (state)";
 * the island article to "Ireland (island)"; and
 * "Ireland" be a DAB.

For those who wish to read on:

There are a bunch of states that have geographic names that do not fully correspond with their borders – Examples: ....The names of all of the above states have Wikipedia articles that follow their usual names.Why is Ireland being singled out? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Luxembourg – The state of that name does not include Luxembourg (Belgium);
 * Mongolia – The state of that name does not include Inner Mongolia;
 * Samoa – The state of that name does not include American Samoa;
 * Solomon Islands – The state of that name does not include the North Solomon Islands;
 * South Africa – The state of that name does not include lots of places in South Africa such as Swaziland;
 * Interesting question. You should raise it as WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you know the answer to that question RedKing, they don't have a vocal group of pro British editors enforcing a lie with the backing of admins to afraid to stick up for the policies they are meant to enforce. BigDunc  Talk 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re "Interesting question. You should raise it as WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration" - That process (of which I have actively participated in!) turned to farce. All of the Moderators even resigned! Note to those who desire a change: Its back to pushing this issue on every relevant article page. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not allowed to do that any longer as discussion has been archived and an editor blocked for asking why see here for more. BigDunc  Talk 20:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * @Redking7 - (reposting same reply as earlier today) ... And there are states where, like Ireland/Republic of Ireland, the opposite is the case. E.g.:
 * China/People's Republic of China/Taiwan/Republic of China
 * Congo/Democratic Republic of the Congo/Republic of Congo
 * Korea/North Korea/South Korea
 * Micronesia/Federated States of Micronesia
 * As we all know, too, hardly any articles on states on WP are located at their "official" names. This discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Nobody is "singling" Ireland out. --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Re "We are not allowed to do that any longer as discussion has been archived and an editor blocked for asking why" - This is Wikipedia - Of course we are allowed discuss matters pertaining to articles on their Talk pages!


 * Re the China "counter-example" referred to above, '''Below I recycle some China/Ireland type arguement


 * In case any genuine non-POV users might get confused and consider China some sort of acceptable example to follow:
 * PRC (Peoples Republic of China) is the official name of the most widely recognised China. The large majority of countries recognise the PRC as the only Chinese State;
 * ROC (Republic of China) is the official name of the much less recognised China - more commonly know as Taiwan (which is where the non-Communists established themselves after the Chinese Civil War and where the Communists have never ruled). A minority of countries, for example, the Vatican City recognise only the ROC (Taiwan) as the Chinese State;
 * That is broadly the reason for the way the China, the Peoples Republic of China and the Republic of China have the article names they do.


 * In contrast:
 * RoI (Republic of Ireland) is not the official name of the Irish State;
 * "Ireland" is the name by which the Irish State is recognised by every country in the world (including even UK of GB and NI!);
 * In short, there is no comparison between the Chinese and Irish article names! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Congo and Korea - Firstly, none of the 4 states concerned claim to be simply "Congo" or "Korea" as the case may be. More importantly, even if the Congos or Koreas did claim they should be known simply as "Congo" or "Korea" as the case may be - they would be claims of multiple states. In contrast Ireland is the only state in the world that asserts that its name is Ireland and that name is recognised by every state in the world without qualms.

Re Micronesia, that name is more comparable with the America (check where that link brings you - its a DAB, somethin I suppor Ireland becoming). No comparison with Ireland. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So what is your argument? Is it (a) that the state should be at Ireland because that is the official name? (Reply: Most articles on states are not at the official names of the sates.) Or is it (b) that 'states take precedence over identically named geographic regions'? (Reply: Above I have linked to examples where geographic regions take "precedence" over states.) Or is it (c) both? (Reply: So you think that Ireland is a special case?)
 * "In contrast Ireland is the only state in the world that asserts that its name is Ireland..." This is not an encyclopedia of states. It is a general encyclopedia. The state is not the only thing in the world named "Ireland".
 * Also, I think you need to look again at the Micronesia page. --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like those "counter-examples" did not amount to much. My argument is the same as it was above, namely:

There are a bunch of states that have geographic names that do not fully correspond with their borders – Examples: ....The names of all of the above states have Wikipedia articles that follow their usual names.Why is Ireland being singled out?
 * Luxembourg – The state of that name does not include Luxembourg (Belgium);
 * Mongolia – The state of that name does not include Inner Mongolia;
 * Samoa – The state of that name does not include American Samoa;
 * Solomon Islands – The state of that name does not include the North Solomon Islands;
 * South Africa – The state of that name does not include lots of places in South Africa such as Swaziland;

Re, Micronesia, you might need to clarify for me and the other reders. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So your argument is (b) that 'states take precedence over geographic areas'. I gave you counter counter examples.
 * (RE: "Micronesia". At Micronesia I see an article. At America I see a dab page. Did you say that you see differently or did you just mean that just America page was a dab? (I might have the wrong end of the stick.)) --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Micronesia" contains lots of different states. So does "America". If Ireland was called "Europe", the comparison might work. As its stands, it doesn't. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion 2
Why are we having these same article title discussions again and again and again? Redking7, I swear you have cut and pasted that same post numerous times on different pages, including twice on this page in the last few days. It is nothing more than forum shopping, and will have no more of a constructive effect than it did the last time you pasted it. We understand your argument. We don't necessarily agree with it, but simply repeating it will not change that.

Its patently clear that nothing practical can come from discussion on this page (with regards to the title). Nothing. ArbCom have made that so with their move sanction. The only way anything is going to change is through WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. So, I urge you all: if you genuinely have an interest in resolving this dispute, engage there. Ignore any further comments on this page about the article title, since it has turned into a talking shop. POV pushing does not need to be countered here, because any attempts to use the artificial "consensus" to justify a change in the title/content will result in a block (as Domer found out yesterday). Just ignore it, and instead focus on the forum where a practical solution can be found. 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockpocket (talk • contribs) 23:00, 2 June 2009


 * Anonymous poster. I do cut and paste arguments where appropriate. There is no compulsion on you to participate in the discussion if you think it will be fruitless. You do not have a right however, to impose censorship. This is wikipedia, a "democratic" type of webiste. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See the Good Practices section on the Talk page guidelines pertaining to centralised discussion: "Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums. ... Instead, solicit discussion in only one location, either an existing talk page or a new project page, and if needed advertise that in other locations using a link." (Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy.) --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only is it not a democracy it won't enforce it's own rules and Admins routinely abuse their power to silence people defending WP:NPOV. Good to see a "new" poster fearlessly on the side of the powerful though. Sarah777 (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean me, then I've been around for two years or so, and I'm "fearlessly" on the side of avoiding disruption. I paid attention to what was happing here after Domer tried to effect a page move by stealth, and then argue the toss. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 18:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which he was blocked and unblocked for, yet you still endorse the current bad block. BigDunc  Talk 18:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He was blocked and unblocked for the pagemove-by-stealth. It's the disruption that occurred here subsequent to the unblocking that makes me support the current block. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 18:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What disruption, he asked for a diff that Sarek said that arbs had prevented discussion on the talk page and this proves here that Sarek hadn't got it bad block I still maintain. BigDunc  Talk 19:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He asked for a diff - and only that - in all the posts he made here prior to the current block? You'll recall that my criticism of Sarek that the block was overdue; asking for a diff may have been the proverbial straw for Sarek, but for me the disruption was occurring long before that. Domer had been advised where to have the discussion he clearly wanted to have, but he persisted in posting here. I guess having to hold a discussion in a centralised, visible location is "censorship". Incidentally, I did reply to that point earlier - I guess you missed it. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The straw wasn't asking for a diff. As I said here, the straw was when he said :
 * "The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles."

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * According to MacNee they haven't. Maybe you'd like to supply the diffs to support your apparently false claim? Sarah777 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So Sarek you admt now that the arbs didn't have it in place that discussion should be centralised yet you arbitrarily archived alol discussion here and block an editor for asking for diff you knew wasn't there, a diff I might add that I also asked you for and you said you provided. BigDunc  Talk 19:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're misreading Sarek's comment: he was quoting Domer. Domer said ArbCom hadn't put anything in place, whereas ArbCom ruled that "The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles" and the community established WikiProject Ireland Collaboration as a venue per ArbCom. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 19:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They haven't and are attempting to do it now so Domer was correct. BigDunc  Talk 19:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't shoot the messenger! I was merely seeing you richt with respect to your "So Sarek you admt now that the arbs didn't have it in place that discussion should be centralised" statement, when in fact Sarek was quoting Domer. However, my reading of the ArbCom decision is that they asked the community to develop a forum, and that that forum has been opened. "attempting to do it now" - they've either done it or they haven't done it. What's your criteria for them not having done it? Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 19:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarek claimed that it was in place and was asked for the diff by Domer, I asked him/her too and they said it was there it appears now it wasn't as can be seen here. BigDunc  Talk 19:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an RFC to make it explicit, correct? Well, if it helps avoid incidents like this in the future, great, but it all seemed pretty obvious to me without an RFC. The giveaway was the big box at the top of this page, and the links in it. But I guess it helps to translate ArbCom-ese into English, and that's got to a good thing, even if it seems slightly unnecessary. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 19:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not an RFC it is an amendenment to the arb case and as such it wasn't in place when Sarek said it was while they went around archiving this page and blocking editors for something that wasn't in place. BigDunc  Talk 19:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake: RFC -> amendment. So... Sarek blocked Domer because Domer said "The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles". In fact, WikiProject Ireland Collaboration had been established. Now an ArbCom amendment is explicitly stating that dialogue should only occur there - am I correct so far? My problem is, I'm not really connecting the dots between the first two and the latter. Domer said no venue; venue did in fact exist; Sarek blocked Domer for bad faith. Now ArbCom amendment occurs. They seem only tangentially related. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Domer was blocked for bad faith". Wow! Is there no limit  on the arbitrariness of Wiki Admins? Sarah777 (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I recommend <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b> be blocked for trolling this page. All the other participants have an historic interest in the related subjects. Tfz     20:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with the remedy, I do take the point that this discussion shouldn't be happening here, and to that extent I apologise: it certainly hasn't been my intention to "troll" - my posts in this thread were in response to comments apparently made about me, which then continued in a discussion with BigDunc. I'm more than happy to take this conversation to a user talk page, if anyone has any further comments or questions involving me. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me tfz didn't just say "we need a involved admin because an uninvolved one can't be impartial".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan, I thought you had 'something' about talk-pages. Anyway when you go around calling people liars, other editors will question your ability, and indeed your integrity. I'd expect an admin to bring qualities to the table. If that does not happen, what's the the point? Editors who are non-admins would do far far better. There is nothing special about having an admin getting involved, as far as I can understand. Tfz     21:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tfz you have implied an editor was a liar and then block an editor you are in dispute with on spurious reasons which at least 2 possibly 3 admins have said is a bad block and then you bait Domer on his talk page very bad form indeed. BigDunc  Talk 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mind you, I'd still regard Vulcan as a paragon of virtue and judgment compared to those Admins who having made the correct call still sit on their hands. Execrable behaviour. IMHO. Sarah777 (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of Process
Some one keeps archiving the ongoing discussion re the title of this Article. The discussion page of an article is an appropriate forum for discussint the title of an article. "Archiving" (i.e. censorship) like this is, I think, a breach of Wikipedia Rules. Apparently one user - Domer - has already been "silenced". Is this sort of thing allowed? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Domer has been unblocked from his personal Userpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What happened Domer???Sarah777 (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I don't know who is doing the archiving but I must politely insist that they get consensus before doing so again. Sarah777 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Domer was blocked for one week for asking why they couldn't use the talk page here. It is Sarek that is archiving they maintain that we are not allowed to discuss the naming here per arb com rulling  BigDunc  Talk 17:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep. I see what happened; I've asked Rock to unblock Domer and block Sarek for gross and monstrous abuse of Admin privileges in a personal dispute. Sarah777 (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't hold my breath Sarah, Sandstein in an admin way admited that the block was bad yet it still stands, you and I both know that admins very rarely overturn blocks no matter how bad, but there are still a few who have the balls too, so lets see what happens. BigDunc  Talk 18:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, any Admin who regards a block as bad and lets it stand is not fit to be an Admin, IMHO. "Wheel wars" pleas are the Neville Chamberlain-in-Munich of Wiki. Those with some passion who are manifestly wrong are morally superior to those who know what is right but are too cowardly to act. (Except against members of the minority when it errs, then they sometimes find their courage!). Sarah777 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a request for amendment to the Ireland arbitration case. MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we please stop with the non-constructive comments again administrators. This doesn't help anything and just seems to be getting people's ire up. Canterbury Tail  talk  19:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good to see you reprimanding your fellow Admins CT. Now just lift the grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented block on Domer. Sarah777 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, because I'm not spending the time going through it to determine what was right and what was wrong. I render no judgement on whether it was correct or not, as I haven't looked into it. And just remember, admins are editors, they do make mistakes. I do believe some people are already looking into to who are even less involved. Canterbury Tail   talk  19:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * CT; some things are so obvious they don't need looking into. This is one such. Sarah777 (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Out of date
Much of the information has no date context and some of it is out of date. -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 9px; text-align: center;">(Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 12:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Any examples?  M I T H  13:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Change of Article Title
Lets have a vote on the title of the article. The Moderation process has not ended in a consensus so a poll seems to be needed

For Moving Article to "Ireland (state)":


 * 1) Redking7 (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) My last hurrah, on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) ClemMcGann (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC) .  I don't like votes, but it could be worse, I had a nightmare:
 * 4) This should have been done years ago. 'Ireland(state)' and 'Ireland(country)' or 'Ireland (island)' are the most reasonable to all concerned. Dunlavin Green (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For Keeping the Article at "Republic of Ireland":


 * 1) - Just to annoy people who hate this title. Everyone knows this is being handled at the wikiproject, get over it. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) For now, but without prejudice to other processes or later decisions. DrKiernan (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) --Rockybiggs (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Djegan (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For following the directives of the Arbitration Committee instead of Wikilawyering:


 * 1) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

For not wasting everyone's time in a pointless vote that will only escalate into drama


 * 1) <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Redking, whether you like it or not, the arbcom injunction against page moves is still in effect. If you want that changed, on the reasonable point that the discussion has crashed and burned, then you need to tell them that. I'm doing you a favour here, if you or anyone else attepmts to re-open the poll against the various people telling you what's what, the next step is the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. Please, no cries of censorship. I didn't make the rules, but that's what they are. They apply to you the same as everyone else MickMacNee (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some one keeps trying to "close" this poll - This is Wikipedia - Censorship is frowned upon. Please let Users express their views on the talk page. Be respectful. Even if you disagree with others. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re User MickMacNee - The link you give does not say anything about banning polls. It relates to moves. Not polls. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re BritishWatcher - Would you agree that at the wikiproject, all the moderators resigned! Any way, this poll concerns only one move - the wikiproject is concerned with broader issues. Other article titles etc. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and a vote holds no merit. Consensus and reliable sources is what matters, not voting. Canterbury Tail  talk  19:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a democracy, because everyone has a say in its' content. What else is it, a dictatorship?

Anyway it's looking like voting is the only way to resolve this ongoing dispute.--FF3000 (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ArbCom are currently well on their way to passing a motion that explicitly states that "Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration." I suggest you all do yourselves a big favor cast your votes at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration instead. Rockpock  e  t  21:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the article title. The article title "Republic of Ireland" is correct; it's the article content that is the problem. The problem on the current content is where to put it. I don't think there is any disagreement on that? The correct content would be along the lines of this here. As Canterbury Tail points out above, "consensus and reliable sources is what matters, not voting." If consensus fails, that leaves us with reliable sources. So the question is, do we leave the content on this article, knowing it is wrong, or do we address a clearly defined problem. Wikipedia is quite clear on this, and there is no ambiguity on verifiability and neutral point of view. Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. Wikipedia:Verifiability is also one of Wikipedia's core content policies. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  09:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about the 26-county state: always has been, and always will, regardless of the title. It is not correct that there is "no disagreement" with the assertion that the article content, and not the title, is the problem. On the contrary, I should think most editors disagree. Mooretwin (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and remember to comment on content, not on the contributor.. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  13:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The title should certainly be the Republic of Ireland or the Irish Republic and not Ireland. Ireland encompasses the separate province of Northern Ireland being an integral part of the United Kingdom so to use this term to signify the 26 Counties of the Republic of Ireland is incorrect.

The opening sentence of the article namely "Ireland (pronounced en-us-Ireland.ogg /ˈaɪɚlənd/ (help·info), locally [ˈaɾlənd] – Irish: Éire, pronounced Eire.ogg [ˈeːɾʲə] (help·info)) is an independent state in north-western Europe." is incorrect. Ireland is an island which contains two distinct territories namely Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. --De Unionist (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop. This is not helpful.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It may not be helpful but it is FACTUAL! --De Unionist (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sareks comments that its not helpful are because this isnt where the debate or vote on this matter is meant to be taking place. The dispute is meant to be resolved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration but sadly some people have tried to bypass that process which is backed by ARBCOM. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, De. Convince the UN that they don't have a member state named "Ireland", and I might grant your point. Until then... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the UN? ...aren't they that discredited bunch who sit around in New York and achieve zit-all?---De Unionist (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They're the group, which continues to warn North Korea to behave. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom says: ''Per these motions at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: "Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration."

"Moderators of WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process."

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this'' <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun nutsaB 16:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Title Discussion
Why has the Poll concerning the title of the "RoI" article been archived already? What was the rush in closing the poll? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You were already given the answer to that above. Also, please don't delete comments of people you disagree with. That tends to be blockable if it happens more than once...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The edits concerned were should have followed the normal order...i.e. after the edits of others...but they were put in as "headlines" which was not apt. I moved them. Then, they were moved back. Then I deleted them. I don't know if any of them were yours or not. The question remains Why has the Poll concerning the title of the "RoI" article been archived already? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the last paragraph in the archived discussion above, from Arbcom. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun nutsaB 00:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of ArbCom Rules
According to the above, the reason the "title" discusion was archived was because, apparantly Arbcom state:

"Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process."

The above has no baring on the discussion that was archived:
 * 1) it did not concern the naming of "Ireland articles" - it concerned the naming of one article, the "RoI article" - which discussion was raised in the appropriate place, the talk page of the RoI article; and
 * 2) the above discussion in no way "disrupted" any discussion taking place on at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Therefore, the above discussion should not have been archived. Can some one "de-archive" it? This appears to be an attempt to impose censorhip. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying that the Republic of Ireland isn't an Ireland article? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but could Redking7 be saying that the discussion was on article content and not the article title? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice try, Domer, though somewhat undermined by the title and opening sentence of the discussion... "Lets have a vote on the title of the article" Rockpock  e  t  00:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comments below that was in the archived discussion. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  08:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He seems to be saying that because it involved only one article the Arbcom resolution doesn't apply. I don't think that will wash with Arbcom... <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun nutsaB 22:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If thats really how you feel, Redking7, why don't you de-archive it yourself and we can see how the admins at ArbCom Enforcement feel about lawyering over plurals? Its my considered opinion that they will take an extremely dim view. Talk about beating a dead horse. Rockpock  e  t  00:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did but it has been repeatedly deleted....Check the history of this page....Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline of knowledge coverage
Anyone know what the deal is with the error in the Outline of knowledge coverage banner at the top of this page? I can't see any problems here, and am not familiar enough with code to determine if there is an issue on the template. Rockpock e  t  00:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorted. DrKiernan (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No confidence poll regarding 'Collaboration page'

 * This is a talk page for an article, not a venue for expressing displeasure over an ArbCom sanctioned process. Discussion here should be restricted to the contents of this article only. Rockpock  e  t  17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Under the ArbCom rules is it possible to have a "no confidence" poll regarding the Collaboration page, here on the talk page? Such a poll could not be held at the collaboration page because some editors may not have the confidence to vote on that page, and it is a very hostile place to be, therefore it should be held here. Tfz    03:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this for real? <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun nutsaB 10:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I have no confidence in the so called collaboration page. BigDunc  Talk 10:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no confidence in your good faith or willingness to compromise, then. Nach mór an trua é. -- Evertype·✆ 10:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * imo. You were one of the most uncompromising editors on that page. Unfortunately the moderator failed to moderate, and "the squeaky wheel got the grease", alas. Tfz     12:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly is a pity because I have no faith in your willingness to compromise either, also maybe it would be better if you spoke in English for other editors who might not understand. BigDunc  Talk 10:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not ask Arbcom, then: Arbitration/Requests/Clarification <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun nutsaB 10:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a rat's ass about who is compromising most in this process, I personally am arguing for what I believe is correct under Wikipedia policy, whatever my personal POV. If you whiners have such a problem with the process that has been months in the making, and has been specifically requested by arbcom, then tell it to arbcom. Give everyone a rest from your fucking tedious drama-whoring bullshit. MickMacNee (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Motion of 'no confidence' in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration page
Add your 'no confidence' vote regarding the above linked page. It is not necessary to state your reasons. Poll will stay open for four months. If were talking no confidence Tfz, why dont you explain to everyone why your account was registered in december 2004 and only made 3 edits, before reappearing in October 2008. MickMacNee (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)  Tfz     13:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What a bloody joke. TFZ you are trying to disrupt the process supported by Arbcom. Go away BritishWatcher (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Objections to the 'no confidence' poll
You'd be linking where you got Arbcom permission, then? You'd also be adding a 'confidence' section? And advertising it on all the appropriate pages and projects? Four months for a poll?! Get real. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun nutsaB 13:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's a non-confidence motion for the Collaboration Project? shouldn't it be held there? GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because if one had no confidence in that page, they would want to stay away from it. And they wouldn't have any confidence in any poll held there either. So it has to be held outside of that page. Tfz     14:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This non-confidence motion should be closed down. Let's get back to the Collaboration Project. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let it die its natural death. We don't need any more bullcrap about 'censorship'. MickMacNee (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I usually ignore rude people, so no no no! And to GoodDay, seems a bright idea, but the major work of the Collaboration page is just about finished. They have made their decision, and there is nothing much to add any more. It's just a 'process' from now on.  Tfz     17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)
A poll is up at WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland article names

 * I don't use wikipedia so I have no idea where this comment should go or even if it will be read or understood,

I see many people discussing this topic but I have to add my say on the matter. Ireland is the name of my country, my great grand parents and their brothers and sisters did not spill their blood fighting for the Republic of Ireland, They fought for Ireland, wikipedia disrepects their sacrifice by having our country filed under Republic of Ireland and also shows how incorrectly wikipedia displays information, if such a huge mistakes like this is exist, what may I ask is the status of the content of wikipedia, is it just a rubbish website containing huge amounts of rubbish information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.184.97 (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well actually the proclamation said "Irish Republic", but please ask questions about this topic at WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration instead. This is not the place. -- FF3000 ·   talk  12:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Usage of "Republic of Ireland"
Is "Republic of Ireland" really only "sometimes" used when there is a need to differentiate the state from the island? I know that Sinn Fein types prefer "the 26 counties" or "the free state," and that the British sometimes use "Eire" or "Irish Republic" or "Southern Ireland." But isn't "Republic of Ireland" really used by at least an order of magnitude more than any of these other names? Furthermore, those other names are generally considered offensive by most Irish people, while "Republic of Ireland" is the preferred means of disambiguation. The word "sometimes" gives the impression that this is just an occasional sort of thing, when in fact it is the normal way of differentiating the state from the island. To say that it is simply "used" in such circumstances" or "normally used" is not to imply that it is "Used" or "normally used" in other circumstances. I see two different valid sentences here, which have been combined into one that is not particularly valid:


 * 1) The name of the state is Ireland, but the description the Republic of Ireland is sometimes used.
 * 2) The name of the state is Ireland, while the description the Republic of Ireland is used when there is a need to differentiate the state from the island.

These are both correct. But it's really understating the case to say that "Republic of Ireland" is only "sometimes" used when there is a need to differentiate the state from the island. john k (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * John, this is the page where the dispute originate. You are not likely to hear an opinion here that you have not heard already on the ballot page. See the archive, beginning with Archive 1 and ending with the section immediately above this one ;-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We should not make any change to the introduction (linked with the ROI issue) whilst the poll is ongoing. Lets keep the stable version please. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The poll is about titles, so far as I can gather. This is about how we characterize use of "Republic of Ireland" in article text, which is something that needs to be done whether the article ends up at Ireland (state) or stays here.  I don't see how the two are directly related. john k (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To keep Republic of Ireland as the title for the state, it 100% needs to be clear in the introduction about what the title of the state is and that ROI is only sometimes used because Ireland is ambiguous. Changing things about it makes it less stable because it may result in edit wars. Saying ROI is sometimes used, is far more acceptable than saying "ROI is used" as it may sound like this is always done and the only way of doing it, which isnt the case. ROI in my opinion is by far the best and main way for dealing with the ambiguity problem, used by the Irish government, its MPs, the Irish media and internationally known but some would disagree.  BritishWatcher (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have, BTW, read a fair amount of the archives. I suppose I could burrow through more of them to see if this specific issue was discussed, but I don't really feel like it. I'm not going to change it again without consensus, but the situation appears to be as follows: in late November of last year, the article got moved to Ireland (state). That led to a wild amount of moving back and forth over the name, and a giant mess. In the midst of that, on December 1, User:Sceptre wrote the current phraseology to which I object. There seems to have been no discussion of the issue at the time at all, or at least none is in evidence at /Archive 10. I'd like to hear an actual substantive argument against the change, rather than simply "Let's go back to the consensus version." ETA: after reading BritishWatcher's point - other terms are certainly used, but they are denigrated and are all more offensive than Republic of Ireland. At any rate, I already gave up on just "ROI is used."  What's wrong with "ROI is normally used"?  Again, nobody is saying that it is the only name used.  But it certainly is the normal way to disambiguate, and this should be noted.  As it stands now, we've got people going to the vote talk page and saying things like, "Well, the only thing the article currently says about 'Republic of Ireland' is that it's sometimes used to disambiguate.  That doesn't sound like a very commonly used term to me!"  But this is wrong, and changing the content of the article shouldn't have to wait until some vote on a tangentially-related matter is held.  john k (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be OR to say it is the normal way to disambiguate. I for one never use the term RoI, nor do I hear it used, but then again this is all OR. It's not a major issue except on Wikipedia talk pages, and hardly worth much effort. But if you insist on 'normally', many editors will revert that. Might be normal for you, or where you live, but not normal for me, or where I live. 'The South', is normally used in my circles, with 'The North' used for Northern Ireland. Tfz     22:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What about if you had to make clear you were talking about Ireland? How would you indicate, for example, that Cork is the second largest city in the Republic of Ireland if it weren't already clear you were talking about Ireland?  It's not about what's normal for me - I can't imagine that there are many situations where I need to make the distinction.  It's that Republic of Ireland is a term created by the government for that purpose, and that it is normally used in writing when such a distinction needs to be made.  What about "often" or "commonly"? john k (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with 'often or commonly', and think 'sometimes' is a non-pov term and just right. The largest city in Northern Ireland is Belfast, the largest city in Ireland is Dublin, and the second largest city in Ireland is Cork. Just about 100% of the time when we say the 'largest city', it is said in relation to a sovereign country, and as I stated before there is only one sovereign country named Ireland. We hear about the largest city in England, never heard anyone talking about the largest city in Great Britain, or the Iberian peninsula. The Republic of Ireland was not created for that disambiguation purposes as you maintain, as the RoI is not a creation, but an advance to a democratic republic from a monarchy and commonwealth situation. The intention was never to use the term in place of Ireland, and that's there to be read in Dail notes from that time. The Republic of Ireland act deals with Ireland ceasing to be a monarchy, and nothing to do with naming. There are many editors who have RoI on their watch list for any pov-based edits. Tfz     23:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So Belfast isn't in Ireland, then? I imagine Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness would disagree.  I find it rather astonishing that supposed Irish nationalists seem to be willing to agree to a definition of Ireland which excludes 17% of the island, but I guess that's really up to you.  At any rate, what you are saying seems to be that there is never any need to distinguish the island from the country, because the island is an obsolete term, or something.  At any rate the Republic of Ireland Act was certainly passed for reasons not particularly having to do with terminology, but the term "Republic of Ireland" was introduced in part for the purpose of allowing disambiguation in a way which was not offensive to people in the republic, and is used for this purpose by the Irish government by the EU.  They would have changed the name if not for the fact that this would have required a referendum.  And it was certainly "used in place of Ireland" by the Costello government, which you would know if you read the article which Hans linked at the other page, and even after that it has been accepted as a valid usage by Fianna Fail governments as well - as, for instance, when accepting British ambassadors prior to 1998.  Anyway, I give up.  If you're determined to be unreasonable about this, there's not much I can do.  So you win, for now.  I'll come back to this after the poll is over. john k (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) [So here is where the fighting continues during the break? I am glad I found it. ;-)]I think I must disagree with "nothing to do with naming". To quote Taoiseach Costello from the Dáil debate: "In documents of a legal character, such as, for instance, policies of insurance, there is always difficulty in putting in what word one wants to describe the State referred to. Section 2 provides a solution for these difficulties, and those malicious newspapers who want to refer in derogatory tones to this country as “Éire” and who have coined these contemptuous adjectives about it, such as “Eireannish” and “Eirish”, and all the rest of it, will have to conform to the legal direction here in this Bill." At least one later speaker protested against this, and the RoI Act was clearly primarily about doing the last little step and getting rid of the king in his role as a rubber stamp for diplomats. But this was a time when the UK used the English word for the entire island and the Gaelic word for the smaller independent territory. At least the Taoiseach actually planned to get this UK usage of Eire replaced by RoI, since Ireland/Island of Ireland was clearly too much to hope for at the time. And he was successful. Hans Adler 23:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Spot on, these are the articles where the 'fighting' lurks, and isn't it ironic that john k was looking for examples just a few days ago, we can now link to this. John calls me an 'Irish nationalist', well an Irish national might be more apt. This is part of the mud-slinging innuendo that goes about in these discussions, as I guess the inference is that nationalists are blind to normal reasoning. If he wants to carry on in that vein, it actually tells more about him than about me. Tfz     00:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tfz - If this is the sort of thing that constitutes "fighting," it hardly seems worthy of so much intense effort to avoid - there were, what, two reverts of the main article? There will always be disagreements about article content.  These are often going to be expressed sharply.  I don't think this is a big deal, as long as the content in the main name space isn't subject to too much disruption, which it certainly wasn't in this case.  As to calling you an Irish nationalist, I think you have misread me.  I wasn't accusing you of being an Irish nationalist, I was accusing you of not being a particularly good Irish nationalist.  I am actually pretty sympathetic to the idea that the division of the island is unnatural and hopefully not permanent, and I tend to find it puzzling that the apparent Republican position on Wikipedia seems to be to insist very strongly that Belfast and Derry are not part of Ireland.  Obviously I'm just a dumb American, though, so I'm probably missing something.  I will say that extreme nationalists of any variety, Irish or not, will in fact frequently be blind to normal reasoning, and that one can probably find examples of this in the discussions of this issue (on both sides), but I'm not going to accuse anyone specifically of this, and this certainly isn't what I was doing in my reference to nationalism above.  What I was actually saying may, of course, have been equally offensive.  Anyway, we should probably stop this, since this has become pretty meta-, and not closely connected to the content of this article.  Hans - indeed, I agree with you. john k (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A successor state?
Neither the Republic of Ireland, nor Èire, nor "Ireland" is the successor state to the Irish Free State. State succession happens when a state splits or two or more states merge. It does not happen when a state changes its constitution, regardless of how radical that change might be (think Poland). Anyway, the changes introduced in 1937 did not radically change our constitution [sic]. We remained a Commonwealth dominion, with the King as nominal head of state for external matters, just as we had been before the Constitution's [sic] adoption. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources for the above bald claim. Regards.
 * Yes. The current Irish state is not a successor to the Irish Free State. The Irish Free State merely enacted a new constitution in 1937 that (among other things) changed its name. The enactment of a new constitution does not create a successor state, it merely changes an already existing state's constitution.
 * The Irish state (whether called "Irish Free State" or "Ireland") is a successor state to the "United Kingdom" because it took over some of that state's territory (establishing a wholly new order). "Ireland" did not take over the territory of "Irish Free State":- "Irish Free State" merely changed its name to "Ireland". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources for the above bald claim. Regards.
 * Please see my post below regarding, " Asking for a reference that 'Ireland' is NOT a successor state to 'Irish Free State'falls into the 'proving a negative' trap." --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To some extent that depends on how you consider article 2 to have been mitigated by article 3 of the new constitution (and how seriously the extra territorial claim was taken to be). RashersTierney (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources for the above bald claim. Regards.
 * Article 2 was an aspirational claim to Northern Ireland. The Republic never actually had sovereignty over Northern Ireland. If this aspirational claim did affect state succession, the amendment of articles 2 and 3 would have done so as well.
 * But the core point to remember here is that Constitutions say lots of thing which aren't necessarily true. Sovereignty and state succession can only be judged objectively. Compare the government apparatus in 1919 and 1923 and you see a huge amount of change. But between 1936 and 1938, real change is lacking. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources for the above bald claim. Regards.
 * Moreover, citing the Constitution of Ireland and saying that state succession took place (the Constitution doesn't say this anyway) is a bit like citing the Libyan Constitution as proof that Libya is a democracy. Wanted: an authoritative secondary source! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [Staighre adds - it hardly would but it expressly proclaims it is the successor in Article 49 as regards property rights etc....]
 * Agreed. Sources. Not ideas are what are needed. Regards. Staighre (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Does anybody have some 3rd party citations saying one thing or the other? For example, the CIA world factbook doesn't mention any "succession", nor does this essay on this official website. --HighKing (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Diarmad Ferriter is a find historian HighKing...but even he would not pretent to appreciate the sort of legal subtleties we are so enlightedly discussing here....Regards. Staighre (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC) PS - HighKig - if you asked Diarmad, "Diarmad, Do you think you are living, legally, in the Irish Free State - What do you think he would answer?....Its all not really that complicated"
 * The CIA world fact book is a 3 or 4 page guide to a country and would hardly get into that. Regards. Staighre (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are references to say that the "Irish Free State" was a successor state to the "United Kingdom" (e.g. "The Succession of States in Respect to Treaties, State Property, Archives, and Debts" by P. K. Menon). Asking for a reference that "Ireland" is NOT a successor state to "Irish Free State" falls into the 'proving a negative' trap. If it WAS then, like "Irish Free State"/"United Kingdom", there will be a reference for it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting but I am not sure how that is relevant. Regards. Staighre (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that - it's something we've come across before that there's often no references for a "NOT" situation. But are there references that say that "Ireland" is a successor state to the "Irish Free State"?  If not, then it shouldn't be in the article.  --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As the article succession of states makes clear, it's a concept with different meanings in different disciplines, and it seems that even a legal approach to a question of succession might not always produce the same answer. So while I agree with HighKing (doesn't happen often, but nice when it does!) that we need refs, I'd go further and say that a complex concept like succession probably shouldn't be introduced into the article unless the refs also provide some clarity as what they mean by their use of the term. The ref cited by RA does just that, but it's referring to 1922 rather than 37. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try to find some sources. Thats as much as we can do. Regards. Staighre (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am weary of so many things being decided on "votes" rather than facts. But it may well be hard to find sources....One thing is fore sure is that to say the state was established in 1922 is clearly wrong.....But if the usual majority vote takes place and we go with that any way, the natural consequence is that we need to merge Irish Free State and Republic of Ireland articles.......Staighre (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is one source from the 1930s which suggests that Eire/Ireland was viewed as a successor state then. Have a read....Its a good fun commentary too. . Good source. But only one and not very elaborate. Regards. Staighre (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This might be a source...."Journal of Contemporary HistoryBy 1939 Eire was the only successor state created after the end of the first ... the Free State after 1923; the state remained dependent on the use of special ..... By 1937 the position of the Catholic Church was so strong, ...

jch.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/42/2/213.pdf - Similar" but I can only read the little snippet you see there as it is a "pay-article". Regards. Staighre (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This might be a relevant source but unfortunately is not free.... regards. Staighre (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt that reviewing the constitution on an Internet talk page will do much good....but look at the language used here....You don't need to be a legal eagle to form a view.....thought it helps!
 * Article 48
 * The Constitution of Saorstát Éireann in force immediately prior to the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution and the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Éireann) Act, 1922, in so far as that Act or any provision thereof is then in force shall be and are hereby repealed as on and from that date.
 * Article 49 of the Constitution
 * All powers, functions, rights and prerogatives whatsoever exercisable in or in respect of Saorstát Éireann immediately before the 11th day of December, 1936, whether in virtue of the Constitution then in force or otherwise, by the authority in which the executive power of Saorstát Éireann was then vested are hereby declared to belong to the people.
 * It is hereby enacted that, save to the extent to which provision is made by this Constitution or may hereafter be made by law for the exercise of any such power, function, right or prerogative by any of the organs established by this Constitution, the said powers, functions, rights and prerogatives shall not be exercised or be capable of being exercised in or in respect of the State save only by or on the authority of the Government.
 * The Government shall be the successors [emphasis added] of the Government of Saorstát Éireann as regards all property, assets, rights and liabilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staighre (talk • contribs) 19:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If no succession was going on, why did the authors feel the need to include this? Regards. Staighre (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It means that the first government of "Ireland" was the successor government to the last government of "Saorstát Éireann" in the same way that one government succeeded the other under "Saorstát Éireann" and in the same way that one government succeeds the other under "Ireland". It emphasises the continuation succession of government under "Saorstát Éireann" and "Ireland" rather than, as you seem to think, a break between two different different states. More specifically, the section refers to the succession of governments, not succession of states.
 * With regard to the quote you cite above, it really helps if you can quote entire sentences. For example, the one you cite fully reads: "By 1939 Eire was the only successor state created after the end of the first world war to have retained a democratic form of government. Born into civil war in 1922, it saw repeated bouts of crisis and instability; the emergence of radical groups on the left and right in the 1930s; and the subsidence of political unrest late in that decade. In 1937 a new constitution was introduced, which retained a parliamentary form of government, and represented a unique amalgam of Catholic, liberal, and republican principles of government." (My emphasis.) When quoted in its entirety the reference can be seen to refer to 1922 as the year of succession and to emphasise a continuation of that state under the 1937 constitution. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See below for sources stating that "Ireland" is a successor state to "Irish Free State". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Counties
The "Counties" section tells us that 26 counties are used to define something in sporting terms. Could someone give us a suitable example of a sporting event defined in boundaries by 26 counties? If not, that is a misleading statement. I don't know what is important about it but if it is misleading we will delete it. ~ R.T.G 18:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * County Tipperary comprises two administrative divisions. Not sure if similar applies elsewhere. Nothing whatever to do with the late OC. Gaelic games (ie teams) are organised on a county basis. RashersTierney (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any sporting event that is uses "26 counties" to define anything, aside from the soccer (but even that drifts over the border for Derry FC). What the sections say is that, "The state of Ireland consists of twenty-six traditional counties... " True. "... which are still used in cultural and sporting contexts, and for postal purposes." Also true.
 * Examples of sporting events that are organized on a country basis include:
 * Association football - e.g. Mayo Youth Soccer League
 * Gaelic football - e.g. County Carlow Camogie Team
 * Athletics - e.g. Cork County Athletics Board
 * Cricket - e.g. County Galway Cricket Club).
 * --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * An Post's post office locator confirms its use of only the 26 traditional counties. ww2censor (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes An Poist is as easy as Garda Siochana to peg as 26 county rather than 27 or 32. ~ R.T.G 21:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out, regarding recent changes, that while Tipperary and Dublin have been divided, in the others the administrative divisions almost always follow traditional divisions. The former are not "loosely based" upon the latter. The divergences are slight. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They are based mainly on county boundaries with some extra divisions thrown in along other boundaries such as city limits. That is a method of division loosely based on county boundaries. Change the word if you can, if you do not appreciate the casual tone, but the fact is sound and focused elsewhere so I returned the edit. ~ R.T.G 01:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And to humour you I hope, I have removed the word "loosely" ~ R.T.G 01:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I disagree with your edits for several reasons:
 * 1. Counties started off as administrative divisions which were then adopted by the GAA and other organisations. A few diverge but in around 20 out of 26 the GAA and the county council follow the same boundary. There is no element of administrative divisions being based on traditional counties. In fact it's almost the other way around.


 * Let's see some of this in the article then. Makes me mad to read this now. ~ R.T.G 13:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is written in summary style. That would be too much detail. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a real rubbish statement for me. There is more picture than words in the section now. ~ R.T.G 18:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 2. A "council jurisdiction" is a highly technical term which hardly anyone uses. City and county councils are not "known locally" as council jurisdictions.


 * 3. There is only one Irish state. It's not necessary to say that it's independent.


 * Our Wiktionary link is quite good for the word state. You will find there have been two for some time. ~ R.T.G 13:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Northern Ireland is part of a state. It is not a state in its own right. That's why we always say that there are two jurisdictions on the island. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You obviously didn't go to Wiktionary to check what I was talking about. Sometimes when you stick your head in a hole you forget was it muck or sand you were dealing with. I assure you there are two clear states within the boundaries of Ireland. I dare you go and look it up and come back to say you know what Northern Ireland is and also what a state is. ~ R.T.G 18:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, now I've looked at Wiktionary. Northern Ireland is neither a sovereign entity nor a state of a federation. The UK is not a federal state. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 4. County Cork (excluding the city) is bigger in terms of both population and area than County Tipperary, so it's not accurate to say that divisions were created as a result of "high-demand".


 * 5. Why say "sporting regions and governmental districts"? Why not sporting districts and governmental regions"? Counties used to be divided into districts (urban and rural) and are still grouped into regions. I think the terminology here is a bit confused.


 * It is fair to say that county borders are use to define sporting areas but it is not fair to say that the 26 counties are because they are not. Your hole is more than the sum of your parts don't ignore that. ~ R.T.G 13:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are 32 GAA county sides in Ireland. 26 of which are in the Republic. My point was mainly abut technical writing. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And my point was? Well I think I better explain it. Technically, to inform us that 26 counties, specifying the number, are used for any reason is fine in case that that number is accurate. In case that that number differs, such as GAA using the 26 counties but only as part of the 32, it is best for dissemination, because it is F simply easy accurate and extra, to stipulate that difference. Now that is technical but it is accurate. Correcting it was my purpose for altering the section at all. ~ R.T.G 18:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 6. The counties themselves are used by the GAA and the state. The border are just lines on a map.


 * A meaningless statement? Are you a lawyer, a beauraucrat or a politician holding back bad news? ~ R.T.G 13:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry about that but you just don't seem to be collaborating. There is definite room for tweaks to say the very least. I have no acknowledgment of that from you and yet I have these type of statements. Should you redact? You are human performing an amatuer pursuit, no? ~ R.T.G 18:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 7. Counties are used for postal purposes. I think we should say this.


 * Mailing addresses. I think we should not say this. What world do they speak English and not use counties in their mailing addresses? ~ R.T.G 13:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "County Dublin" and "County Tipperary" still appear in postal addresses although they otherwise been abolished. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. It was sarcasm. And I should concede it. I am trying to say that all the major English speaking countries seem to use counties as well meaning this is not surprising info but it is correct and I see no real faut in telling people. In fact I see fault in not telling them because there is only one way to know some things. ~ R.T.G 18:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 8. We have to use the term "traditional" in saying that there are 26 counties, as administratively there are 29 counties and 5 cities.


 * Look dear, there is not a County North Tipperary and also there is not a County Finglas even if they have a football team. You are down into policing areas, divisions in political representation, and so on and so forth. We shall consider a county to be a county. We shall not consider a county to be anything else and more, we shall not consider anything else to be a county. We do not "have" to use the word "traditionally" in the same manner that we do not "have" to use the word "administratively" for the same reasons outlined by yoiu relating to the term "council jurisdiction" above. ~ R.T.G 13:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to say here. Legally County Dublin no longer exists and County Finglas Fingal does exist. We're just trying to be accurate. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fingal, not Finglas Fmph (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Bah, you intrepet that. If you want to get into "have" to use the word "traditional" you better make explicable not preferential! Let's be clear, county council is the term used here in the republic to describe a council with responsibilites over rural and smaller urban areas. Your statement that there is no County Dublin is just dumm. We all know that there is a County Dublin and even if you work for the council you need told the difference between Coounty Dublin and Dublin County Council! Don't get me wrong, Fingal is a growing concern with its own council authority. If any county appears in the next hundred years it will probably be Fingal and why not before that? Jumping the gun is OR. We must define the word county seperate to the word administration unless the word county = administration area or do we lend weight to speculation and define the county by the recent activity of the council? We do not, sorry. ~ R.T.G 18:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rant if you like but tradiional is there for a rational reason. Dublin is one of the traditional counties of Ireland but has been officially abolished by statute. We should explain this. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ~ R.T.G 13:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait a moment; let's refer to the Act itself for an answer. The Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1993 states in Section 9 that:

<Blockquote> "(1) On the establishment day— . . . (a) the county shall cease to exist,"</Blockquote> But, the interpretation section, Section 2 states:

<Blockquote>"the county", in relation to any time before the establishment day, means the administrative county of Dublin;</Blockquote>

It seems plain that only an "administrative county" has gone. That county was created by a British Act of Parliament only in 1898. The Local Government Act 2001 renamed the administrative counties as "counties", but does not seem to abolish the pre-existing counties. Howard Alexander (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All we do at the moment is refer to "administrative counties" and to "traditional counties". This avoids any potential ambiguity or inaccuracy that could arise. I fail to see why this is controversial. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugly. A summary of brief review.
The naming debate has etched a horrible scar upon this article.


 * There is not even a picture of a shamrock or a leprechaun.
 * The first section is "Name" and it reads like a proclaimation of state. Unnatural feeling legalities is the broad composition.
 * The only decent pictures are the first and last, Eamonn Devalera and some nameless American fire-fighter in the references section.
 * The sport and culture sections read like a dulled down portion of the begat, begat sections of the Old Testament.
 * There is a section titled "Social issues" which is predominated by homosexuality and abortion with breif gimplses of contraception and divorce, encapsulation of negative stereotypicals related to Ireland in its purest form.
 * The section titled "Recent population growth" is as large as the section titled "Religion".
 * The section titled "Military" is even smaller and its past tense measures exactly one decade (1999).
 * A section titled "Education" is even smaller, 3 sentences to be exact with a link to a block of difficult text containing not even one picture.
 * Another similar sized section, Recent History, starts in the "1980s" moves to "1989" and ends on the seventh line with "Between 1985 and 2002, private sector jobs increased 59%."

There is a story from when I was a child about the sisters who ate burnt toast, burnt this, burnt that all the time and eventually they were very ill and the only thing that could save them was a slice of cake baked using colours of the rainbow as an ingredient. The Irish Republic that I know and have lived in most of my life is a colourful and pleasant place. Famous for being commonly described by words such as, and in particular, "Quaint" and "Freindly". For many decades the national slogan was "Cead mile failte" (One hundred thousand welcomes to you) of which we do not see mentioned on this article here today. This article is a part of History of Politics in Ireland, not even nearly an article on the Republic of Ireland. ~ R.T.G 11:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What don't you do a rewrite in a sandbox, and offer it up for discussion? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Because, for instance, this article experiences restriction and there is no point doing large work on a restricted article unless you are a restricter. Beside that, I don't have sufficiently detailed reference and more importantly, the article has clearly been ravaged over time in the wrath of the naming debate. There is no love in it, that is all I am saying. ~ R.T.G 18:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * RTG, What does "love" have to do with an encyclopaedic article? -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want love, see Ireland. This article is about politics and government so can only ever be boring. --Red King (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Name
There is no "Republic of Ireland," not even in its long form. Most everyone who searches Ireland wants to read about the country, not the ISLAND it's located on!!!!!! Should we have Australia (continent) be merged into Australia and change the country article (Australia) into "Commonwealth of Australia?" Not the maximum (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see this and this... it's been discussed.  7  06:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with you (that the name of the article is ridiculous but there are a lot of political-editors here). Regards. Staighre (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and every few months they try getting the article name changed. Thankfully, due to an Arbcom-sanctioned poll open to all editors, the article will be staying at this title for at least two years.  And we won't be moving Libya to Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, eiter. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Confusion or misinformation?
This sort of thing has been inserted again:

The state was established in 1922 as the Irish Free State, a dominion within the British Commonwealth, and gained increasing sovereignty though the Statute of Westminster and the abdication crisis of 1936''. A new constitution in 1937 renamed the state simply as Ireland and in 1949, the last formal link with the UK was severed when Ireland became a republic and left the British Commonwealth, having already ceased to participate in that organisation for several years.''

I have replaced it with what was there previously:

''On 29 December 1937 Ireland became the successor-state to the Irish Free State, itself established on 6 December 1922. In 1949, Ireland became a republic and left the British Commonwealth. It had already ceased to participate in that organisation.''

Remember - Basic fact - Ireland was the successor to the Irish Free State...The Irish Free State did not merely change its constitution, a new state was established under a new consitution. There is a dedicated Irish Free State article for those who want to write more about that state....and indeed, that article is a little underloved. Regards. Staighre (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a certain sympathy towards your Point Of View but am not convinced. Lets see the refs. RashersTierney (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not have strong feelings on this matter, but the first wording you said which you seek to remove sounded better and more informative to me IF its accurate and backed up by sources BritishWatcher (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Although to have the best of both worlds, you could simply put "successor-state" rather than "state" in that first sentence, and it would be in line with your proposed wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is being discussed above. In 1922 the Irish Free State succeeded from the United Kingdom (lots of refs available). In 1937 the Irish Free State enacted a new constitution (lots of refs available). Please provide references to support the view that "Ireland" is a succeeded to "Irish Free State". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I found the following:
 * "The Irish Free State retained English common law as did its successor state, the Republic of Ireland." - Erin's blood royal: the Gaelic noble dynasties of Ireland, Peter Berresford Ellis, 1999
 * "...the Irish Free State and its successor as the Republic of Ireland can be said to have enjoyed a fairly peaceful existence since 1923." - Northern Ireland: faith and faction, Maurice Irvine
 * "Although the Republic of Ireland, the successor to the Irish Free State, ceased to be a member of the Commonwealth in 1949..." - The constitutional structure of the Commonwealth‎, Kenneth Clinton Wheare
 * However, there are also a mass of references that treat the two as a continuation. Not least the state itself, e.g. Oireachtas debates are considered a continuation from 1922 in the case of the Seanad and 1919 in the case of the Dáil.
 * --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Aye. We're at the 30th Dáil, which traces a direct line of succession from the 1st Dáil. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If the 1st Dáil is to be considered then it means that the state predates the 1922 Irish Free State.Wgh001 (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and that was the view of some of those that established the Irish Free State. Unfortunately, people rarely tend to bear Wikipedia in mind when forming history. If they did then things would fit much more neatly in to boxes.
 * "Succession" refers to the inheritance of property, debts, obligations, etc.. For example, the Irish Free State claimed - unsuccessfully - to be the successor to the Irish Republic in "Irish Free State v. Guarantee Safe Deposit" with regard to to funds raised by the Irish Republic in New York (it failed because the Irish Republic was an unrecognised state).
 * When the Irish state was founded in a more general historical sense is a different affair:
 * "Eire, as Southern Ireland has been called since 1937, was founded, under the name of the Irish Free State..." - Modern political constitutions, Charles Frederick Strong
 * "The present state of the Republic of Ireland was established in 1922." Encyclopedia Americana
 * "The Free State, renamed Eire/Ireland in 1937, eventually left the Commonwealth as the Republic of Ireland in 1949." - 1922: the birth of Irish democracy, Tom Garvin
 * "The Irish Republic is a sovereign state comprising about three-quaters of the island of Ireland, with a population of about 3,500,000. The state was established in 1922 and has a written constitution ...." - World class schools: international perspectives on school effectiveness, David Reynolds
 * That's what inappropriate about referring to the 1937 constitution as marking the succession of a state. It makes it sound like a new state was founded in 1937 whereas 1922 is the consensus date for the establishment of the Irish state among published sources. Treating the Irish Free State period and the period of the current constitution as separate is misleading. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 05:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have restored the more detailed version of the paragraph with refs for the 1922 establishment and a rewording around the 1937 constitution: "A new constitution in 1937 re-established the state as a entirely sovereign state..." I hope this is acceptable to all. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * STAIGHRE LONG WINDED RESPONSE STARTS:rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid and others. I don't know if any of you have legal expertise or feel you are legal experts. If this is just going to be about "I'm right" and "You're wrong", then I will give up and leave it in. You will win. I won't argue and argue. The text will be inaccurate (as many other texts are...and you will win the day). There are those who will listen etc....If I sound somehow angry etc, I don't mean to, but I am not that patient (a flaw). If we are here to genuinely interact and learn from each other, I think we can make progress and reach consensus. But here goes:


 * This is the current text with my comments/questions added in in [boxed text] like that:

a dominion within the British Commonwealth, and gained increasing sovereignty th[r?]ough the Statute of Westminster and the abdication crisis of 1936. A new constitution in 1937 re-established the state [how does one re-establish a state? Hmmm, does that mean you are saying it was dis-established at some point? This does not make any sense at all....If you think it was disestablished, then Ireland is the successor to the IFS. If you don't (as per your first sentence - you are contradicting yourself)] as a[n?] entirely sovereign state, renaming [so the Irish Free State was renamed....Hmmm, what legal act says "The Irish Free State is hereby renamed Ireland etc". Of course there isn't one!] it simply as Ireland. In 1949 the last formal link with the UK [no thats not really right, the link was not with the UK, it was with the Commonwealth - a much larger Group than just the UK...] was severed when Ireland became a republic and left the British Commonwealth, having already ceased to participate in that organisation for several years.
 * The state [which state - is that a reference to the IFS or Ireland?] was established in 1922 [the IFS was established in 1922] as the Irish Free State? [so what this actually says is that Ireland was established in 1922 but at that time it had another name],[Lots of sources are cited....Hardly decent ones though....I have pasted below remarks about each of those sources]


 * Here are my notes on the "sources" cited (remember one can find any old rubbish on the Internet...):


 * "Eire [hold on, isn't Ireland and Eire the same state...funny], as Southern Ireland [wasn't Southern Ireland a UK Home Rule region] has been called since 1937, was founded, under the name of the Irish Free State [Oh, amazing, so we ignore that the IFS was established as the IFS - andn Ireland was established as Ireland etc...." - CF Strong, Modern political constitutions, Sidgwick and Jackson: London, 1972 [Wowsers - This is a book concerned with politics dealing loads of different constitutions, the authors probably had never seen the Irish constition....i.e a useless source]
 * "The present state of the Republic of Ireland was established in 1922." - Encyclopedia Americana, Vol 15, New York: Americana Corporation, 1965 [We are dealing with a legal question....a short article in an American encyclopedia is not a useful source...]
 * "The Free State, renamed [wow! so all that was done in 1937 is that the Irish Free State was renamed....Remarkable...so I guess we still have the same constitution...? - i.e. more inaccuracy] Eire/Ireland in 1937, eventually left the Commonwealth as the Republic of Ireland in 1949." - T Garvin, 1922: the birth of Irish democracy [a book about politics, not law], Gill & Macmillan: Dublin, 2005
 * "The Irish Republic [no such state exists so this could harldy be a good source!] is a sovereign state comprising about three-quaters [try five sixths! - they are compounding their inaccuracies!] of the island of Ireland, with a population of about 3,500,000. The state was established in 1922 and has a written constitution ...." - D Reynolds, World class schools: international perspectives on school effectiveness, Roudledge: London, 2003 [harldy a law book]


 * I feel, the above is more than sufficient to show the real problems with this denial that Ireland is the successor state to the Irish Free State.....A basic principle is this....Many of you may think that the "Irish Free State" adopted a new constitution and changed its name etc. If you think that, that is the root of the problem. Because, that is not what happened. The new state - Ireland - was established by a popular plebescite (basically a referrendum) of the People. It was not established by the IFS or by organs of the IFS. It was not established in accordance with the laws of the IFS either. It was an entirely new state. A legal revolution! Do you see the difference? Hope so. I don't think I can make it much clearer. I suggest we go back to the text I proposed the other day...Any support now?


 * STAIGHRE LONG WINDED RESPONSE ENDS. All the best. Regards. Staighre (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "so what this actually says is that Ireland was established in 1922 but at that time it had another name" Yes. That's what published sources and the Irish state itself (example) say. Verifiability, not truth. (WRT your statement that, "It was not established by the IFS or by organs of the IFS. It was not established in accordance with the laws of the IFS either." There is an article relating to the Legality of the enactment of the Constitution of Ireland.)
 * "...how does one re-establish a state?..." That was a sop to satisfy (what I assumed to be) your perspective. The correct description is that a new constitution was enacted in 1937 (regardless of whether the IFS or "the people" enacted it).
 * "...what legal act says 'The Irish Free State is hereby renamed Ireland etc'." The name of the state is laid out in Bunreacht na hÉireann ... but you knew that already.
 * "...the link was not with the UK, it was with the Commonwealth..." The Irish state was in personal union with the United Kingdom until that point. The process of severing links with the UK that began in 1922 ended in 1949 when the final link, the monarch, was removed from Irish politics. Example sources:
 * "...in 1948 the Republic of Ireland Act removed the last constitutional link with the UK." - A dictionary of politics, F Elliott
 * "The constitutional links between Eire and the UK are severed when the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 comes into effect on Easter Sunday [1949]." - A world record of major conflict areas, Munro et al
 * "...the authors probably had never seen the Irish constition..." I'm not going to remark on your comments regarding the sources provided save to say that I think that this best captures their worthiness. Here's a source from the "legal" perspective:
 * "Since independence, Ireland has had two written constitutions, the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) of 1922 and the current constitution, the Constitution of Ireland, 1937 (Bunreach na hEireann)." Public law, JAG Griffith
 * --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Here, I've added more responses:

Staighre (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "so what this actually says is that Ireland was established in 1922 but at that time it had another name" Yes. That's what published sources and the Irish state itself (example) say. Verifiability, not truth. VERIFIABILITY - You need to use decent sources...like lawbooks and Acts or Constitutions....not simple one-pagers on Government of any other websites.... (WRT your statement that, "It was not established by the IFS or by organs of the IFS. It was not established in accordance with the laws of the IFS either." There is an article relating to the Legality of the enactment of the Constitution of Ireland.) AND, what is your point....there is indeed another Wiki (poorly referenced) article on the point....Are you disagreeing with the simple point: I repeat it: It was not established by the IFS or by organs of the IFS. It was not established in accordance with the laws of the IFS either." What in that do you not agree with? Please point me to the provision under the consitiution of the IFS that the new Constitution" was enacted under? You won't be able to find one because it was not adopted under a law of the IFS...It was adopted by the people....
 * "...how does one re-establish a state?..." That was a sop [What on earth does "That was a sop" mean - is that in a law book or is that just your opinion.....] to satisfy (what I assumed [Note, a good one on assumptions....making an assumption makes an ass of u and me!] to be) your perspective [now what on earth is that?! and what relevance is my perspective on anything...this is about accuracy....sounds like you are trying to make a personal attack on my motives or something rather than answer the questions I have asked]. The correct description is that a new constitution [BY WHO? BY THE IFS?....NO of course not!] was enacted in 1937 (regardless of whether the IFS or "the people" enacted it).[No one is diputing that a new Constitution was enacted in 37. I certainly didn't. Sounds like a red herring to me....The point is the IFS did not change Constitution, a new State was established under a new Constitution....]
 * "...what legal act says 'The Irish Free State is hereby renamed Ireland etc'." The name of the state is laid out in Bunreacht na hÉireann ... but you knew that already. [ABSOLUTELY - I fully and entirely agree....But you entirely miss the point....The Constitution did not "change the name of the IFS"...It established a new State whose name is Ireland....Can you see the BIG difference]?
 * "...the link was not with the UK, it was with the Commonwealth..." The Irish state was in personal union with the United Kingdom until that point. The process of severing links with the UK that began in 1922 ended in 1949 when the final link, the monarch, was removed from Irish politics. [This is a bit of a side point...But you seem to be denying that Ireland severed its link with not just the UK (lots of countries have done that over the years but kept a link with the Commonwealth....)...it severed its link with the entire Commonwealth....But this is a side point....Better to focus on the above re "state succession"...Its pretty silly to argue that Ireland did not sever its links with the Commonwealth at that time...of course that meant it also severed its links with the UK.....so I could hardly disagree with the sources that say something pretty obvious...]
 * Are you still insisting that "Ireland" is just a continuation of the Irish Free State? If so, on what grounds? Please set out your reasons. Regards. Staighre (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "You need to use decent sources...like lawbooks and Acts or Constitutions....not simple one-pagers on Government of any other websites...." Check. Done that. I've even cited some in support of your argument. How many have you cited? Zip. Zero. None. (Apart from one half-garbled quote pulled from Google that I ended up having to quote in full for you and which turned out to say the opposite of what you thought it did.)
 * "...what is your point...." Nothing more than a friendly FYI.
 * "What on earth does 'That was a sop' mean..." sop: a thing given or done as a concession of no great value to appease someone whose main concerns or demands are not being met (OED).
 * "...sounds like you are trying to make a personal attack on my motives..." Does it? What was that you said about assume making an ass out of you and me?
 * "But you seem to be denying that Ireland severed its link with not just the UK [but] with the entire Commonwealth..." Eh ... I was replying to your assertion that Ireland did not break its link to with UK. To quote you: "no thats not really right, the link was not with the UK, it was with the Commonwealth". The severing of links with the Commonwealth are mentioned in the text. The severing of links with the UK is supported by a reference, which I supplied, fully quoted, in contrast to your own unsupported claims.
 * "Are you still insisting that 'Ireland' is just a continuation of the Irish Free State? If so, on what grounds?" Published sources. You see, that is the consensus view among published sources. Reminder: I have cited many, you have cited none. I have even cited some in support of your argument. Meanwhile, you still have cited none. Out of charity here's another in your favour:
 * "The 1937 constitution: 1. created a new state: Eire, or Ireland..." - Northern Ireland: conflict and change‎, Jonathan Tonge
 * But - oh no! - here's come three more that say the opposite:
 * "The introduction of a new constitution (Bunreach na hÉireann) in 1937 followed the abdication crisis. The constitution omitted reference to the king or the commonwealth but did not describe the state as a republic. The name was changed from Irish Free State to Éire, that is, Ireland..." - The history of Ireland, DW Hollis
 * "A new constitution adopted in 1937 changed the name of the country to Éire ... and asserted it's autonomy from the United Kingdom." Celtic culture: a historical encyclopedia, John T. Koch
 * And here's a contemporary newspaper article discussing the new constitution (but no mention of a "new state"). Note how even De Valera himself say nothing of any supposed a new state, but rather simply (and repeatedly) says that it is was new constitution.
 * Now what can this mean? Well, it means that it is not quite as simple as what you may think. Here's some more in-depth treatment of the subject:
 * "Ireland's constitution (Bunreacht na hÉireann) dates from 1937 and, despite significant innovations, marked a development of previous constitutional experience rather than a decisive break with it. ... In any case, for Fianna Fáil the Irish Free State constitution was inherently illegitimate no matter how it read. Eamon de Valera in particular felt the need for the state to have an entirely new constitution, and to this end he initiated the process of drafting one in 1935. ... Although legally and constitutionally this new constitution could have been enacted by the Oireachtas as one long amendment to the existing constitution, that would have defeated the whole point of the exercise; it was vital symbolically to seem to make a new beginning, and to have the Irish people confer the new constitution on themselves." - Politics in the Republic of Ireland, J Coakley et al
 * "The Irish government today is carried on with the framework laid down in the Constitution, Bunreach na hÉireann, that dates from 1937. That Constitution is the successor of two previous constitutions, the Constitution of the Irish Free State (1922) and the Constitution of Dáil Éireann (1919) which was created by Sinn Féinn as part of the political struggle for independence. All three are best view as the products of a process of emancipation from British domination and the emergence from the British political system. They were milestones in the evolution of the country's relationship with the United Kingdom and marked stages in the transition from a province of an essentially English state to a sovereign republic." - Ireland and Britain since 1922, PJ Drudy (ed)
 * Do you see how Coakley says that "the state" got a "new constitution" in 1937 - not that a new state was created? Do you see Chubb (Durdy) making all of those references to that constitution being a part of a "process", one of several "milestones" in an "evolution", one of several "stages" in a "transition", how Coakley describes it as a "development" and not a "decisive break", but how "symbolically" it was intended as a "new beginning"? That's why slicing everything off before 1937, and construing the Bunreacht as marking the start of something new, is ahistorical. Symbolically, that was the intention. Historically, it is way off the mark. It was part of a transition. That transition was/is described in the paragraph you keep removing and it not described in the paragraph you keep reinserting. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I like Wgh001 improvement as they are simple and factual and leave it up to the reader to decide. I have removed "new" since the constitution (or anyone else) doesn't explicitly declare a new state. It is something that can be left to the reader again to reach a decision on. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a bit tired tonight and feel a bit worne out by having to try to rebut some of the nonsense that has been trooped out above.....No one ever told me under what provision the "name of the IFS" was "changed" to Ireland; No one ever told me how "Ireland" was in existence back in 1922 etc; I still see a "source" actually cited in the wording that says the "Irish Republic" was est'd in 1922 etc....OR would be better than sources like that!...Remember Rannpharti - you have to exercise judgment when assessing sources....and remember, there lots and lots of rubbish on the Internet. Any way, a few red herrings emerged but no one gave answers.....Any one want to give me the answers?


 * Rannparty - "...sounds like you are trying to make a personal attack on my motives..." Does it? What was that you said about assume making an ass out of you and me?- On this one, you got me! I like it!


 * The new wording contains fewer outright inaccuracies so its an improvement from the nonsense of before....I don't like the wording or its flow. I think its pretty sloppy...I can suggest another wording over the weekend or next week....but I'd point out the following:


 * The Irish Free State
 * [thats fine....but isn't this an article about Ireland...sounds a bit awkward....]
 * state was established in 1922,
 * [Please exercise some judgment re the sources yuo then cite....nonsense about an "Irish Republic" is even mentioned....delete the nonsense sources please - use decent law sources] For example:

For a more detailed discussion of the constitutional transition see J Coakley et al, 2005, Politics in the Republic of Ireland, Routledge: London: "Ireland's constitution (Bunreacht na hÉireann) dates from 1937 and, despite significant innovations, marked a development of previous constitutional experience rather than a decisive break with it. ... In any case, for Fianna Fáil the Irish Free State constitution was inherently illegitimate no matter how it read. Eamon de Valera in particular felt the need for the state to have an entirely new constitution, and to this end he initiated the process of drafting one in 1935. ... Although legally and constitutionally this new constitution could have been enacted by the Oireachtas as one long amendment to the existing constitution, that would have defeated the whole point of the exercise; it was vital symbolically to seem to make a new beginning, and to have the Irish people confer the new constitution on themselves."
 * "Eire, as Southern Ireland has been called since 1937, was founded, under the name of the Irish Free State..." - CF Strong, Modern political constitutions, Sidgwick and Jackson: London, 1972
 * "The present state of the Republic of Ireland was established in 1922." - Encyclopedia Americana, Vol 15, New York: Americana Corporation, 1965
 * "The Irish Republic is a sovereign state comprising about three-quaters of the island of Ireland, with a population of about 3,500,000. The state was established in 1922 and has a written constitution ...." - D Reynolds, World class schools: international perspectives on school effectiveness, Roudledge: London, 2003

Or Chubb in PJ Drudy (ed), 1986, Ireland and Britain since 1922, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge "The Irish government today is carried on with the framework laid down in the Constitution, Bunreach na hÉireann, that dates from 1937. That Constitution is the successor of two previous constitutions, the Constitution of the Irish Free State (1922) and the Constitution of Dáil Éireann (1919) which was created by Sinn Féinn as part of the political struggle for independence. All three are best view as the products of a process of emancipation from British domination and the emergence from the British political system. They were milestones in the evolution of the country's relationship with the United Kingdom and marked stages in the transition from a province of an essentially English state to a sovereign republic." as a dominion within the British Commonwealth,
 * and gained increasing sovereignty through the Statute of Westminster and the abdication crisis of 1936.[Suggest you delete all wording in italics - the Statute of Westminster is to some extent a fair enough comment, it did confer greater sovereignty [although the wording is sloppy and unnecessary - the reference to the "abdication crisis" having conferred sovereignty is plain wrong - you are confusing politics with legal sovereignty - all that happened was the Government of the day exercised a power conferred on it, ultimately, in part under the SofW - the abdication crisis had nothing to do with the exercise of that power etc...that was just the circumstances in which the power was exercised....abdication crisi did not confer sovereignty on the IFS etc....some new laws adopted at that time arguably did....Keep it simple....take out the wording in italics.] A new constitution
 * was introduced [poor choice of word - "enacted by the people" - is preferable - thats how the Constitution itself descibes what happened...the wording]
 * in 1937 that declared ["proclaimed" might be a preferable word - I'll have to think about that - ...declared is watery....this is the constitution....etc] an entirely [delete entirely - certainly is not used in Constitution] sovereign state and named it simply as [delete - use "under the name"] Ireland.


 * In 1949 the last formal link with the UK [at least add and the rest of the Commonwealth here!] was severed when Ireland became a republic and left the British Commonwealth, having already ceased to participate in that organisation for several years.
 * The text in your sources is so long that its hard to format my comments....because there so much guff in the sources.
 * Regards. Staighre (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like we are closer to agreement. There's nothing in the above that I really object to. Just some minor points:
 * Your right that the abdication crisis didn't "confer" any greater sovereignty ... but then that is not what the text says. The text says that the state "gain[ed] further sovereignty through" the adbication crisis. It was an opportunity that was used. And because of that opportunity, it was at that point that we effectively became a republic (internally at least). You talked about a "legal revolution" before. The response to the opportunity that the abdication crisis presented really was a legal revolution. (And yes, technically they could have done it before then, but politically it could not have been done.)
 * "introduced" - "enacted" is fine, but "enacted by the people" is a bit too dramatic. "enacted by plebicite" or "a plebicite enacted" or "enacted by popular vote" would be OK by me.
 * WRT to severing links of with the Commonwealth - how genuinely significant do you think that was? Of course leaving the Commonwealth was significant, but with regards specifically to the "severing of links" what was that the significant link that was severed? The link with the UK, no? It was the final piece in the complete indepenedence from the UK.
 * "decared" - "proclaimed" is a bit OTT again. There were no trumpet blasts or men walking the streets shouting, "Hear ye! Hear ye!"
 * To be honest, I'm fine with the above so just start editing the article in situ. 9 times out of 10 there's no point in discussing word-by-word changes on a talk page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Re"Your right that the abdication crisis didn't "confer" any greater sovereignty ... but then that is not what the text says. The text says that the state "gain[ed] further sovereignty through" the adbication crisis. It was an opportunity that was used. And because of that opportunity, it was at that point that we effectively became a republic (internally at least). You talked about a "legal revolution" before. The response to the opportunity that the abdication crisis presented really was a legal revolution. (And yes, technically they could have done it before then, but politically it could not have been done.) " - things like "politically it could not have been done" etc are simply speculative. How do you know these things? I prefer to stick to facts.
 * WRT Commonwealth etc., I do not understand your problem with stating an obvious point - that Commonwealth ties were being cut..I haven't a clue why you do not want to state that fact and I can't add more on the point. Pity.
 * "enacted by the people" is what the Constitution itself says (read it) ...but that primary source is somehow OTT for you I think...I have no idea why and can't add more on the point.


 * Like i said, I don't like the new wording at all...its very sloppy, even dressing theories up as fact. As this discussion draws to a close (I give up - unless others pipe up and join me - fat chance!), for the "web-record", here is the wording I think so sloppy (albeit slightly less sloppy and inaccurate than before) - (never mind the silly sources you can read if you dig into the text):

AND here was my wording - neat, factual and to the point:


 * But this is wiki, where ignorance has a "licence to kill!". Still it is a fun hobby. Regards. Staighre (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A state is an administrative apparatus which governs a territory with a permanent population. Same apparatus, same territory, same people, same state. The only thing that happened in 1937 was someone had to change the plaques outside and headed paper of government departments. This is the reality, Staighre, as much as you might like to deny it! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well if you say so BH "Lawyer!". Your use of personal theory over legal or any other sources is impressive and has persuaded me. I love the personal theory approach...Why bother getting sources or looking into details (as I did above) etc. Just come out with bald statements as you do - its much more efficient. Regards. Staighre (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "How do you know these things? ..." Because they are stated in history books published by trustworthy authorities. For example:
 * "In April 1936 de Valera had announced that he was preparing to draft a new constitution to replace that of 1922. Drafting was in progress when the abdication of King Edward VIII in December 1936 gave de Valera the opportunity to make further constitutional changes and introduce the External Relations Bill. In London, the cabinet's Irish Situation Committee had been told by [Malcolm] MacDonald in November 1936 to expect such legislation in the near future, so its introduction was not a shock to the British. Even so, de Valera was worried about the possible British reaction, and he was able to use the abdication crisis to implement a further revision of the Treaty, safe in the knowledge that British politicians had more important things on their minds." - (my emphasis) Michael J. Kennedy, 2000, Division and consensus: the politics of cross-border relations in Ireland, 1925-1969, Institute of Public Administration: Dublin
 * "... I prefer to stick to facts." Verifiability, not truth. The current statement has one reference, I'll add the one above also if it will help.
 * "I do not understand your problem with stating an obvious point" I have no problem with the point, it's stated in the text. it was you that to saying objected to stating the ROI Act severed the last link with the UK (despite that point being the substantive issue and being referenced). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Came across this, should this get picked up again: International Law Reports By E. Lauterpacht, C. J. Greenwood which High Court judgment refers to "the sovereign independent State constituted in 1937"....Regards. Staighre (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit explan. re use of RoI
This sentence was near the top of the article: "The name of the state is Ireland, while the description the Republic of Ireland is sometimes used when there is a need to differentiate the state from the island."

I have deleted the text in bold. Clearly RoI is used for lots of reasons, not just to differentiate Ireland from the island....Very obviously, it was used for decades by the UK government (until 1999) for political reasons etc. (As we are all very very well aware!). Regards. Staighre (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a body of editors here that object to the term "Republic of Ireland" being used in relation to the Irish state. They believe that it is a British concoction. I suspect that that sentence is a means to appease them by denying that ROI is used as a name. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference between "Name" and "Legal Description" is what?
An honest question ...


 * "The difference between "Name" and "Legal Description" is what?"

(i.e., How are they not the same thing?)

No one has ever addressed this issue head-on (bull-by-the-horns).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Read Names of the Irish state - or the many accessible sources linked to that page. Regards. Staighre (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Staighre.

I am not attempting to disrupt this page. I am honestly asking.

Do you have any feed-back on this issue Staighre? If so, I would honestly like to hear it.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am honestly giving you an answer - see my response above - Have you read that page? In my opinion, it answers the question. Regards. Staighre (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Staighre.

I am not baiting you. I am not trying to prevoke, or trick you.

In a nutshell ... could you please re-state your opinion here?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "How are they not the same thing?" In many respects they are effectively the same thing, but the common name for the country is simply "Ireland" and the only legal name for the country is "Ireland". As well as Staighre's link see Republic of Ireland Act. This source is also very useful reader as a background.
 * If these links make any sense to you, could I ask that you comment back here on how to improve the current text of this article. There is a very long-running conflict between editors on Ireland-related articles concerning the "descriptor" and it has probably affected our ability to clearly express what's-what about the term. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That was rude.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We have been through this saga too many times before. You have been asked repeatedly (and it was one of the reasons for your last ban) to format your edits properly, not to use colours etc. etc and to pay attention to the responses of other editors rather than simply keep repeating the point.   Please review the previous comments on your talk page in this respect. -- Snowded  TALK  20:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded.

You are not going to successfully prevoke me. "Play-nice", please. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What was rude? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't feed them Rannpháirtí -- Snowded  TALK  20:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rannpháirtí anaithnid.

Poblacht na hÉireann seems like a fine Name for the independent Irish country. Using just one word Éire in the Irish Constitution 1937 as the Name of a State breaks with the standard conventions of the time. Why did they choose this?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * standard conventions eh there are no standard conventions for the naming of a country.-- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  20:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Before 1937, all independent country Names were State of Blah, or Blahian State. None of them were just designated Blah.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This whole things is a pathetic attempt to blur the distinction between the Republic of Ireland and the island as part as an Irish nationalist agenda. As someone from Northern Ireland, I find it highly offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.50.49 (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Architecture - 20th century or no?
An edit was made last night rewriting the Architecture section so as to deal (virtually) entirely with pre-independence architecure. The article has previously only discussed architecture from the post-independece era. I edited the page, restoring the 20th century material but keeping the new content (relating to pre-20th architecture). That has since been reverted again.

As it stands there is now one line dealing with the 20th century in the article:

"Since the mid-20th century various modernist forms, such as Busáras and the Spire of Dublin have been constructed in Ireland, sometimes proving controversial in public reception."

Can I ask for input over whether there should be less or more treatment of 20th century architecture in the article? Should there be any treatment of 20th century at all? Should the article focus only on the 20th century (and leave pre-independence architecture for the "main" Ireland article)? Or should there be equal treatment of both?

This question, I guess, touches on the relationship between this article and the ("main") Ireland article. How much over-lap should there be between the two articles? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In every other language version of this article; Italian, Spanish, French, German the article is set out with a full presentation, like any other state. Including the history section. I am guessing at Irish schools, they don't start teaching their history and culture from just 1922 onwards exclusively. The architecture section and all other sections should be a complete overview of what is in this country and how it developed, in a WP:Summary style avoiding WP:Recentism. For instance a World Heritage Site in Ireland, built during the preshistoric period, is obviously relevent here. The article currently at "Ireland", is about the geographical sense the Island of Ireland. Another example, Gaelic Athletic Association was founded in 1884, should we not metion that since people initiated it pre-1922? - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove the pre-independence content, I just restored the post-independence content (that you removed). One thing that is certainly not taught in Irish schools is that our history/culture came to an end when we left the Union. Is it different in British schools? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The section should be in a summary style, while avoiding recentism (according to Wikipedia policy and WP:MOS layout). What rationale do you present on the contrary? Recent works have two sentences describing in the section the most noted modern examples in Ireland and descriping what its town centres look like also, which is weighted with the same length as other centuries. Poulnabrone dolmen, Cistercian Abbey ruins, Bunratty Castle and the General Post Office wasn't paved over after Ireland left the union. These entities pre-1922ness don't make them marginal in relevence to Ireland. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The vast bulk of the 20th century is not a recentism! Would you remove references the Emergency or as a "recentism"? Is discussion of the Republic of Ireland Act a bit re-emptive in your mind? I suppose the Tan War was a "recentism" too?
 * A reminder again: no-one removed your contributions regarding pre-idependence architecture, I only restored the content you removed regarding post-independence architecture. Why don't you want to give any more treatment to post-independence architecutre beyond a passing remark? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh? The exact same post-indepedence buildings mentioned before are mentioned in this one, only in a copyedited summary style to bring it in line with the WP:MOS and other policies. How is this so painstaking to comprehend? What centuries were Busáras and the Spire of Dublin (the most notable recent examples) created in? If each century has three paragraphs to describe its architecture in minute detail, how long do you think the article would be? I'm intending to improve this article to bring it up from C to GA status, you're not going to be doing this all the way through the process are you? please assure me. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A single sentece is not IMHO sufficient. This article specifically deals with the Republic of Ireland. That is an entity that is, by definition, post-1922. There is a broader Ireland article that can give pre-independence architecture greater treatment vis-a-vis the architecture of post-independence Ireland. That of course is not to say that I don't see why it should be mentioned here. I am speaking purely in terms of the relative weight given to both. In this article, for example, post-independence history is given greater treatment vis-a-vis pre-independence history.
 * In the same way, I belive, post-independence architecture should be given a more substantial mention that it would in the broader Ireland article.
 * In any event, it doesn't look like we are going to agree. I'd suggest WP:BRD but I think you would see that as a sign of ill-faith so let's wait and see what other have to say. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The article currently at "Ireland" is about a geographical island. This is about the country. I don't see how the geographical island is relevent to this discussion, or stops us from creating a thorough/complete article here, since this is the one we're working on. The country is currently located at the title Republic of Ireland, but on all other language articles, like any other state (such as on the Spanish, Italian, French, German language Wikipedias) it has its full presentation, culturally and historically. Who do you suggest owns the history and culture of this area? If not the people who live there today represented politically by the state government of Ireland. This doesn't seem to suggest we throw WP:Recentism policies out the window.


 * If we're being pedantic, we'd have to go from the 1937 date. But WP:MOS suggests otherwise, take a look at any other state Germany, Italy, Turkey, Greece formed since the 1800s. They don't just start historically and culturally from an aribatry modern foundation date, but give a full correctly weighted overview. You haven't actually suggested policy or guideline rationale for your opinion, just that newer bits should be five times longer, "because". WP:Recentism and WP:Summary are pretty solid, as well as the WP:MOS for countries. Lets go by that. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In the case of German, Italy] etc., inter-related article of the kind of [[Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland do not exist. Comparisons with articles such as China/People's Republic of China/Republic of China or Korea/South Korea/North Korea are more appropriate in the case of Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland. In the case of such sets of articles, one article deals with the topic in its broad historical and cultural sense (in the same way as Ireland does) while other articles go into more depth with regard to respective states since the political partition of the broader topic (in the same way as Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland).
 * With regard to WP:Recentism - as I answered above - the architecture of the Republic of Ireland in the 20th century is not a recentism. WRT WP:Summary - as I answered above - a single sentence is insufficient in the context of this article to summarise the architecture of Republic of Ireland in the 20th century. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean apart from Ireland isn't under a communist dictatorship and unlike those states, both governments on the geographical island recognise constitutionally that each other exists legally. In actuality Germany is comparable to Ireland, see Austria ("Northern Ireland") and the Holy Roman Empire. Turkey is also comparable, see Ottoman Empire. Thus this is why the Ireland country article has a full presentation on every other language Wikipedia. You keep mentioning the island article, but its this one we're trying to improve to build up to GA status and for that it must be inline with WP:MOS, WP:Recentism and WP:Summary. The government of this state for instance, sits at Leinster House, the other buildings it uses are also pre-1922 originated. I haven't seen any evidence provided that somehow a change in administrative control, means magically everything after that arbitary date is five times as relevent as its entire history before that. Its a logical fallacy IMO. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean re: dictatorship and the Ottoman Empire but, for what it's worth, South Korea and the Republic of China are democracies, the People's Republic of China is not a dictatorship.
 * I'll try one more time: no-one is removing pre-1922 content, it is you that is "summarising" post-1922 content. It might help if you could explain why you think that 20th century architecture in the Republic of Ireland is a recentism. You could also explain why you think that content dealing with 20th century architecture needs "summarising" to such a great extent with specific regard to the subject of this article and bearing in mind that another article exists dealing with Ireland in broader terms. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As I agree with Rannpháirtí that is it ridiculous to have one sentence for the last hundred years of Irish Architecture, I've restored his paragraphs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How on earth does introducing Wikipedia mirrors as sources bring an article closer to GA or FA status? Just sayin'... 2 lines of K  303  14:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To prevent that everybody must check separately: Rannpháirtí anaithnid fixed this problem. Hans Adler 07:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC: calling Northern Ireland a "country"
An RFC has been opened inviting comment on how to describe Northern Ireland in that article. All comments are welcome. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Citizenship law
It's been snuffed off this article. It will be added shortly. That is enough talk. ~ R.T.G 22:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Republic minus Ulster
Could somebody not make a map in which Ulster or Northern Ireland is removed altogether? That would be more lovely wouldn't it? I think I saw it on a Unblack Metal band one time.. ? ~ R.T.G 20:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Before making any changes (Again)
'''Try and discuss them here. Really I can’t contribute because I know nothing about it, but it seems to be regarding ROI citizenship laws.'''--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * '''IP was blocked. Nothing more than a POV pushing troll and his edits were nothing more than vandalism. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are your posts written in 'loud' form? GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * NO THIS IS SPARTA LOUD! --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The citizenship laws information don't need to be mentioned in the introduction. It is interesting (as a general section about the relationship between ROI and NI would be) but It's more appropriate to dealt with further down the article. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Citizenship laws in the ROI are certainly notable (And unique)
 * Does WP:LEAD have any suggestions for this?
 * Is the lead overlong with it?
 * Would its summarization be too short if it didn’t?
 * Well that’s my input and no doubt it’s crap.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes.
 * Yes: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article ... in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text."
 * No.
 * No.
 * --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The original insertion in the lede (even if it was first reverted by a banned editor) should be reverted and discussed here. -- Snowded  TALK  23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No need. Let's just cut straight to the discussion without fretting over which versions (or any) we should revert to. Less drama = happier 'pedia. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved the text intact to the main body. The lede should not have anything which is not there anyway.  -- Snowded  TALK  23:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox - Heading
Not sure if this article is under any restrictions, so rather than revert I thought I'd come here first. Is there any reason why the Infobox has to be headed Republic of Ireland rather than Ireland? Daicaregos (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm slightly confused as to why it says - Republic of Ireland and then beneath it says Eire. That makes no sense. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Éire is the Irish for Ireland (or vice versa). It is not, however, Irish for Republic of Ireland. Daicaregos (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tis'what I was pointing out.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess the user who did it simply didn't have the full information. It appears we shouldn't set the parameter conventional_long_name to the country's "description", since it appears as the title of the infobox. Based on what I learned in the big Ireland naming dispute I think the best thing to do is to revert. (Added after ec: Someone else was faster.) Hans Adler 21:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then for the Eire part could we add “The republic of Ireland in” in the same language? --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed the infobox to comply with the country's legal nameCathar11 (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As its not for navigation, I cannot see any real objection ClemMcGann (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So, is this article is under any restrictions - 1RR for example? Daicaregos (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything broadly interpreted is the phrase, so it is I think. -- Snowded  TALK  07:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So, whoever reverted gets a block? Nice. I've seen better decisions. Daicaregos (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there is meant to be a warning, but I think most editors would be deemed to be aware.  I think enforcing WP:BRD is a lot better than 1RR but it just has to be lived with.  You also have a few admins determined to deal any article in this space at the moment (treating BNP as a troubles related article is one example) so caution is advised.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)