Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 17

The Euro Currency
If Ireland is the only English-speaking country currently using the euro, this should be noted under the #Economy-Development section. Or maybe even at the introductory paragraph. I believe this is a notable characteristic of anglophone interest. This is, after all, the English-language Wikipedia. Ssredg (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Malta? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I meant that this is notable for a country within the Eurozone. That is, English is an official language in at least two sovereign nations in the zone, and only one, Ireland, uses that currency. Ssredg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgot that Malta considers English official. Then I guess it's not as notable. Unless we can say "one of only two" in each country's page? Ssredg (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see that the language is relevant. There is only one country speaking Portuguese as the official language using the Euro but we're not going to add that. Same with French, German, Italian etc. I'm not sure how it has encyclopaedic relevance what the language spoken has to do with the currency. Canterbury Tail   talk  21:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's only one finnish-speaking country using the Euro also. etc etc. I don't think this is worth noting. --KarlB (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I have to say that I agree completely. Yes, I do.Spirit of 1916 (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Introduction
A couple of edits were made in early June, which I left alone at the time because of the discussion on the opening sentence that began around then. I am partially reverting them now, for the following reasons: Scolaire (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Simplifying the hat to my mind only made it more complex. Not only is "in northern Europe" superfluous, it suggests that the Irish Republic was somewhere else: in south-east Asia, perhaps. Secondly, "unilaterally-declared state" is not a commonly-used expression, certainly not in reference to the Irish Republic. I am also editing the "Name" section on similar lines.
 * 2) Information in the infobox can and should be in the lead as well. It is in the United States article ("is a federal constitutional republic") and the United Kingdom article ("is a unitary state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London."). The lead is the first thing the reader reads, and tells the reader the most salient facts about the topic. The fact that "the modern Irish state was established in 1922 as the Irish Free State" is of secondary importance, and was, quite properly, in the second paragraph until the edit of 11 June.
 * Thanks. ANd while I'm at it I feel all the business about history is over the top in the lead, shouldn't there be just a little more about what are the main components of the economy or about the culture. The geography bit even is politics. The lead should summarize the article not be a polemic about history and politics. Dmcq (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead is definitely a bit unbalanced in my opinion too. We've got two whole paragraphs that deal with the Easter Rising/War of Independence/Partition/subsequent related things, but not much about Ireland itself in the remaining paragraphs. 2 lines of K  303  13:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead was been subjected to a relatively large number of additions, shifts and changes over the past 12 months. Consequently, it's not clear how some sentence wound up where they are (or why they were even there to begin with). Some sections have gotten too bulky and other sections have gotten too thin. In part, this was why I removed the sentences (because they looked so sparse and out of place) but, looking at the whole thing, I think a comprehensive revision is needed too. I've changed to title of this section to reflect that.
 * For reference, here are snapshots of the introduction as it changed over the year:
 * 3 months ago
 * 6 months ago
 * 9 months ago
 * 12 months ago
 * Edit #1 is far superior to mine, Scolaire. Thanks, -- RA (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when you say it, they're all pretty awful, aren't they? Well, maybe now that we've got the "description" issue out of the way we can look at the whole intro a bit more objectively. I've made an attempt at better balancing history and geography here. --Scolaire (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks much better. Is the whole UN/WTO/etc standard for country articles? "Ireland is a member of the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations" seems a bit pointless to me, well at least some of the entries but if you leave out some you may as well leave out the entire sentence. There aren't many countries that aren't members of the Council of Europe (obviously qualifying ones only), World Trade Organisation and United Nations - it's kind of like writing an article about a car and saying it has four wheels in my opinion. 2 lines of K  303  20:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also made big changes, stripping out a lot of the history, but also (hopefully) addressing some of the international organization points above. -- RA (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The sentence, "Since 1998, Ireland and Northern Ireland co-operate on a number of policy areas under the North-South Ministerial Council created under the Good Friday Agreement" looks a bit funny there on its own. What were relations between the two states like between 1922 and the 1960s, and during the peiod of the Troubles? I know the answer to that, but I'm not sure how to say it in a way that is neutral, unemotive and, above all, brief. However, I don't think the lead should have the end of the story without the beginning and middle. Scolaire (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's saying it in a "neutral, unemotive and, above all, brief" way that is the kicker. And particularly keeping the focus on the Republic of Ireland (and not Northern Ireland, the UK or Ireland as a whole). We don't want more than a half to one full sentence, do we? Something worth mulling and inspiration might come to someone? -- RA (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Adds: Something about Ireland–United Kingdom relations? -- RA (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A half to one full sentence on Ireland–United Kingdom relations would be a heck of a lot harder than a half to one full sentence on relations with the North! I think maybe we should learn to crawl before we try to walk. Scolaire (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking something along the lines of "Ireland had no formal relations with Northern Ireland before 1973. The Sunningdale Agreement of that year began a process of gradual rapprochement which culminated with the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. Since 1999..." Scolaire (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The gradual rapprochement was between Ireland and the United Kingdom, however, Northern Ireland (or half of it anyway) was very much maligned against it (e.g. resistance to Anglo-Irish Treaty, etc.). Also, I think saying Sunningdale "culminated" in the GFA is a narrative that isn't true. Anything could have happened in the 36 years in the mean time and those years were marked by anything but a "gradual rapprochement" between the participants most directly affected.
 * I think it would be an amazing feat to capture it all perfectly, however, while still keeping the word count down. Here would be my initial stab:
 * "The modern Irish state gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1922 following a war of independence resulting in the Anglo-Irish Treaty, with Northern Ireland exercising an option to remain in the United Kingdom. Initially a dominion within the British Empire, Ireland declared its sovereignty in 1937 and in 1949 the remaining duties of the British monarch were removed. These efforts and misgivings around partition strained relations between Ireland and the United Kingdom. However, the desire to resolve civil unrest in Northern Ireland spurred a gradual rapprochement. After having had no formal relations for most of the 20th century, Ireland and Northern Ireland today develop common policies through the North-South Ministerial Council created under the Good Friday Agreement.'"
 * -- RA (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ireland was a sovereign state before 1937. DrKiernan (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, could at least link to the Free State (rather than "dominion within the British Empire"). benzband  ( talk ) 13:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm puzzled by the determination not to say that it became the Irish Free State in 1922 and the Republic of Ireland in 1949. We had the whole "hand-wringing" argument when we were discussing the opening sentence before, but these are facts of history, and it is pointless and silly to say it became independent in 1922 and not that it became independent as the Irish Free State, or that it "removed the remaining duties of the British monarch" and not that it was declared a republic with the description Republic of Ireland. Do you still think it's going to upset people to see those words in print? Because it seems to me that those people have consented to having the words in the title and having the words in the lead, so why continue to keep them out when they're obviously and directly relevant?
 * The whole relations with the UK thing: there's nothing about all of that in the "History" section. We shouldn't be writing history in the lead instead of writing it in the History section. I think it would be better if the "Since 1999..." sentence were just taken out (it could be moved down to History), and then we concentrated on writing the History section properly. If we managed to do that well, we could see how best to summarise it in the lead.
 * Alternatively, we could take the absolute minimum from both yours and mine and say "Ireland had no formal relations with Northern Ireland for most of the 20th century, but since 1999 they co-operate on a number of policy areas under the North-South Ministerial Council created under the Good Friday Agreement."
 * @DrKiernan, until 1937 the British king was in principle the sovereign of Ireland. Ireland was declared a sovereign state (as opposed to free state) in 1937. Scolaire (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the meaning of sovereignty or sovereign state. Just because the UK and Canada have the same monarch doesn't mean that Canada is not a sovereign state. DrKiernan (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (although the role of the reigning sovereign is both legal and practical, but not political). benzband  ( talk ) 14:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If that comment is addressed to me, your meaning is lost to me. DrKiernan (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Look up Canada and look up Australia: neither is described as a sovereign state, because in law they're not. Scolaire (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They are both sovereign states. DrKiernan (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Forget Canada, then. Here are one, two (see footnote), three, four, five books saying Ireland became a sovereign state in 1937. Scolaire (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "I'm puzzled by the determination not to say..." If you start off from the position that their non-mention is down to a "determination not to say" then I'm not surprised you are puzzled. In fact, I removed them in order to keep the word count down.
 * In any case, I'm fine with the "minimum" you suggest:"'... Ireland had no formal relations with Northern Ireland for most of the 20th century, but since 1999 they co-operate on a number of policy areas under the North-South Ministerial Council created under the Good Friday Agreement.'"
 * @DrKiernan - The Irish Free State was a dominion of the British Empire (i.e. free in practice, but not sovereign). An example of what this meant is that up until 1931, Westminsiter reserved the right to legislate directly for the dominions. Also, yes, today Canada and Australia are sovereign states. -- RA (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. "Free State" and "proclaimed Ireland a republic" were removed in your edit yesterday. I replaced "Ireland was declared a republic" this morning, and I was struck by the fact that it had gone missing again in your proposal of this afternoon. I admit I jumped to conclusions. I'm striking the whole rant now. I'm also going to do the agreed edit in the intro. Scolaire (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No big deal, but thanks. -- RA (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I realise war would be a bit too much of an easter egg link, but "gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1922 following a war of independence" is a bit clunky but I'm bereft of ideas about what to change it to except Anglo-Irish War. Anyone got a better idea? 2 lines of K  303  19:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "...following the Anglo-Irish War" would be grand. Scolaire (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, sure, it'll be grand! xD benzband  ( talk ) 19:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I was about to do it, then realised "following the Anglo-Irish War resulting in the Anglo-Irish Treaty" was just as bad as what we're trying to avoid, and couldn't think of a convenient pipe for the treaty without it being an easter egg. 2 lines of K  303  19:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "Tan War"? benzband  ( talk ) 20:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems fine to me without any more messing around trying to do more on the history something for which there is already more than enough. I'm altogether thankful that a chunk has been removed.


 * Another chunk that could be removed is I think in the first paragraph ", with an elected president serving as head of state. The head of government—called the Taoiseach—is nominated by the lower house of parliament (Dáil Éireann) and appointed by the president". I think that can all go as hardly the most earth shattering thing about Ireland. I was wondering a bit about including something from the culture section but really I don't see much that isn't better considered as under the island of Ireland except for the bits under Society. I suppose one could also say something from the demographics section. I gues that would be about abortion and religion, I wish I could think of something a bit more upbeat for the lead than that.. Dmcq (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Ireland" Profile at BBC
There's no need for editors to continually add external links to the Ireland page, especially if it merely replicates information already in the article. But if we are to add links, this BBC article is a poor example. It highlights the country from a British POV rather than our own POV, and uses the "wrong" name on the map - in fact it makes the map look like "Northern Ireland" is a separate country from the UK entirely. What to other editors think? Does the article need more external links? I'd also say that we could probably cut other links too - the "Key Development Forecasts", "UCB Libraries" and the "Open Directory" could all go. --HighKing (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be from a particular POV to me, considering it's quite short, although perhaps I'm mission something. The map is quite badly made, but the text states Northern Ireland was separated, the profile is called the Ireland profile, and in the facts tab it notes the official name is Ireland, so I suspect ROI is used for contrast with Northern Ireland. The overview tab isn't that useful on its own as a link, and it's all information you'd expect here anyway, but perhaps it's worth keeping for the other tabs, which are presented differently to our setup. I don't think Key Development Forecasts is a problem, but I question why there are 3 US government publications (one of which is waybacked). Agree UCB Libraries is quite redundant. Not sure what Open Directory is, but it seems to also be a list of more links. CMD (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 'Ireland at UCB' link includes the 'BBC - Ireland' link in it's text. If one goes, perhaps the other should too.  --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC Notice
There is a Request for comment about the need/redundancy of Largest cities/city population templates. This is an open invitation for participating in the request for comment on Requests for comment/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. Mrt 3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Second-most charitable country in the world
The last sentence of the article says that Ireland is the second-most charitable country in the world. It should be explained what "charitable country" means. I am guessing it might be the amount of charity given per capita and year, but I'm not sure. It's also quite strange to read the claim that the United States is the "most charitable country". I mean they may give a lot of charity, but their policy does not seem very "charitable" to me after all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.241.131 (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Official Name of Eire/Ireland
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the country was referred to by its proper name, Eire, or in the English language Ireland. There is no such place as the "Republic of Ireland" just as there is no Blighty or city called Big Apple.

Those familiar with the Irish Constitution will be aware of the official name of the country and legal/political observers will recall the decision that reference to the "Republic of Ireland" was cause for dismissal in an extradition case.

Nirv999 Nirv999 (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, I'm asking for move (below) -- Ата (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Discussion closed on procedural grounds. Per this 2009 ruling by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, all discussions related to the historically, heavily debated issue of the naming of Ireland articles must occur at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

– Official name of the state is given in its Constitution (p.6), and it is Ireland — Ата (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Republic of Ireland → Ireland
 * Ireland → Ireland (island)


 * Please see the header at the top of this talk page: "Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration by order of the Arbitration Committee." You're welcome to raise it there, but note that it has already been discussed to death, with a clear consensus to have the article names this way. An admin should close this requested move. Valenciano (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lists of names
Parts of this article have degenerated into big lists of names. This is an unreadable style. The lists do not need to be in this article as there are sub-articles about the topics. There should not be more than three names in a sentence. I propose that all such lists be cut down to the first two names currently there and a check made of the subsidiary topic that they have appropriate places with the names in. This would affect the sections on Literature, Music and dance, and Media. Amazingly the sports section has escaped this rot.

The article Music of Ireland has suffered very badly from this creeping gangrene as fans have scrawled the names of their heroes there, have a look at its lead.

I think also the inline list of degree awarding authorities underRepublic of Ireland be turned into a straightforward list as it is well defined and isn't liable to grow. Dmcq (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I mostly tend to notice the music additions which seem the most active, but some of these additions are not actually "Irish" bands, but Irish related based elsewhere or having one Irish member. I agree that a representative few examples, two or three but no more than four, is all that is necessary, especially where there are extensive main articles on the topics that usually mention these same additions. I'm with you on this one though deciding on the first two names may not actually be the the most notable or well known ones that should be kept. The Ireland article seems to have a similar though not as bad a problem. ww2censor (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at them again a major problem is that the articles they point to do not have a decent lead sections. The bit here should look mainly like the lead section which introduces the particular subarticles but for instance the Irish Literature one has a single sentence as its lead "For a comparatively small island, Ireland has made a disproportionately large contribution to world literature. Irish literature encompasses the Irish and English language". and Media of the Republic of Ireland says "The Media of the Republic of Ireland includes all the media and communications outlets of the Republic of Ireland.". The Music of Ireland starts okay but then has an abomination of a list of names. Only the Irish dance article has a good lead.
 * What I'm inclined to do for the moment is copy the sections complete with names from this article to the lead of the subarticles and then remove all lists of names from this article which say no more than than something like "Reputable Irish film makers include big long list of names". Dmcq (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this a real article on the country of Ireland or not?
It seems as if some want to limit what is included here by the term stateCaomhan27 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on that? Or maybe explain what you dont understand? Murry1975 (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes its about the state, as mention in the first line in the lead. Murry1975 (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Murry1975 I get that, I presume this has been discussed to death elsewhere but for example saying the state/country of Ireland shares many symbols with the island of Ireland really sounds bizarre to any rational citizen of Ireland.Caomhan27 (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They are not the same though, the island is, well the island which some regard as the country- and in some usages it is in some it is not. This article solely deals with what the state is, and part of that is dealing with the differences between the state and the island. If its any consilation to you I have met tourists who think Dublin is the nicest city in the UK. This article is here to try to show people of different levels of knowledge bout the state. Murry1975 (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Caomhan, the state and the island of Ireland are not co-terminus. Both are considered "countries" (one in the same way that the UK is a country, the other in the same way that Scotland is a country). This produces some seemingly bizarre and contradictory situations.
 * For example, one "Ireland" has lots of flags (St. Patrick's Saltire, the Green Flag, etc.). The other has only one flag (the tricolour). It's easy to confuse or conflate these two Ireland's and their symbols — but important not to. The symbols of one are not necessarily the symbols of the other. For example, under no circumstances would it be appropriate to say that St. Patrick's Saltire was a flag of (the Republic of) Ireland, but it is considered a flag of (the island of) Ireland. -- RA (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you guys are saying, Ya good point RA i guess it is a little murkier than I had previously thought. Ha well i hope you had your iphone handy murray to show them this Wikipedia article and set them straight. Caomhan27 (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry bud it was in the days before iphones :( Murry1975 (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed wikimeet in Northern Ireland
A Wikimeet is proposed for Northern Ireland in the next few months.

If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Most take place on a Sunday afternoon in a suitable pub but other days and locations can also work.

Experienced and new contributors from both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Northern Ireland topics.

More info here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/Northern_Ireland/1

-- RA (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Realm of the Irish Free State
There is a discussion taking place at TALK:Commonwealth realm, where Ireland is listed as a "Former Commonwealth Realm." This strikes me as odd, because it is not a term ever associated with the Irish Free State at the time, nor with the Republic of Ireland now. Neither article in Wikipedia contains that word. The discussion could perhaps benefit from Irish eyes. --Pete (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's true. It wasn't until 1949 that Ireland terminated Commonwealth membership.  --HighKing (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in History of the Republic of Ireland article. See here --HighKing (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Again, that article does not contain the term "realm". I don't think there is any reliable source describing either the Irish Free State or the Republic of Ireland as a Commonwealth realm. A dominion, technically, but never a realm. It can hardly be listed as a "former realm" if it was never one to begin with. --Pete (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Commonwealth of Nations article says Ireland wa snever considered a member of the commonwealth because it never ratified the Statute of Westminster 1931. So either this article is wrong or that one is wrong or we have to acknowledge a fizzy status. Dmcq (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting point that is raised by Frenchmalawi. There was never a King of the Irish Free State for example. It was a dominion. And it was a member of the Commonwealth (how else could it be ejected in 1949, otherwise?). -- RA (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Commonwealth article is doubly wrong. Ireland was one of three dominions which didn't have to ratify the Statute for it to come into effect. And even if we had had to ratify the Statute, failure to do so would not have effected our Commonwealth membership.
 * The phrase "Commonwealth realm" only came into use after it became possible to be in the Commonwealth and not have the Monarch as head of state, which was after Ireland left. So Ireland was a Commonwealth realm but it would not have been described as such at the time. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion centres around whether to call the Irish Free State a "former realm" or a "former dominion". My understanding is that, however shakey and technical the term might have been when applied to Ireland, technically the Irish Free State was a dominion during its existence. We can say "former dominion" and not mislead anybody. But saying the IFS is a "former realm" is a bit like reconstructing the Empire after the fact. Is the USA a "former realm"? Depends on the definition, I guess. --Pete (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Bluehairedlawyer "So Ireland was a Commonwealth realm but it would not have been described as such at the time." I think (i) that a realm is not the same thing as a dominion and (ii) that Ireland was never a realm and (iii) Ireland was a dominion. What do you think? Probably more important, any sources to back up that Ireland was a "realm". Obviously, there are tonnes of sources around it having been a dominion - about which there is no dispute. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Description
The following has been added to the lead, removed by Canterbury Tail, and restored by Dmcq, and I am now removing it again because it is simply untrue and unverifiable: "Under the Irish Constitution, the name of the Republic is Éire (in Irish) and Ireland (in English), with the description Republic of Ireland being used as a means of distinguishing it from the island of Ireland." "Republic of Ireland" is used to refer to the state, purely and simply. It is not used to distinguish anything from anything (except, according to some, as a title on the Wikipedia article). Last summer I proposed adding "Ireland is the only official name of the state in English; Republic of Ireland is provided as a 'description' in statute law." This was universally opposed as going into too much detail in the lead. But at least it was factually correct, unlike the recent addition. Let's do it right or don't do it at all. Scolaire (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On point of this, its only a summary of the section "Name" from the article, as the lead is meant to do. So is this going to be removed from the artilce? Or is it just to pointy for the lead? Murry1975 (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "...with the description Republic of Ireland being used as a means of distinguishing it from the island of Ireland." This part is original thought, as far as I can tell. The legislation that laid out the description did not frame it in this way. And RoI is commonly used as a name by itself. -- RA (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the point I am making, but you phrase it better. In answer to Murry, the idea of "distinguishing" is not in the "Name" section, so there is no need to change that section. Scolaire (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see that okay but I think that section does need something better there than what's in it at the moment. What you are talking about is purpose of the people who put that in and saying we have no documentation about that. I don't think that is of especial relevance in the lead, only how it is used nowadays like in Wikipedia or in the Dáil when they talk about cross-border business and that has probably been documented as a usage somewhere. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Republic of Ireland is often used for the state, especially to distinguish it from the island or when discussing Northern Ireland. Without a reference is in the Name section. Should this not be removed too? (That was my point above). Murry1975 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No that is easily verifiable, what Scolaire was complaining about I believe was the implication in what was put into the lead that the purpose of setting of the description was to allow it to be used to distinguish the state and the island. Dmcq (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe "especially" is verifiable (or that clause as a whole). -- RA (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the usage is shown in for instance alt.usage.english: The Correct Name for Ireland 'The advice stands: in many contexts it is safe and uncontentious to refer to the Republic simply as "Ireland". Where the possibility of ambiguity exists, use "the Republic of Ireland".' It is pretty obvious that is exactly what the Dáil and government departments do. Dmcq (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But is there a source for it? alt.usage.english is a newsgroup (i.e. a self-published source). -- RA (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is part of the FAQ rather than just another contribution. It was set up with comments and revisions from a number of people and is under editorial control in a place specifically dealing with English usage. Dmcq (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The "advice" is the personal opinion of one member, and is not peer-reviewed even in the loose sense in which you use the term. More interestingly, he advises the reader to search irlgov.ie for usage of the term. Here are one, two, three, four, five results of such a search, all of which use ROI where there is no apparent risk of ambiguity. Scolaire (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read the acknowledgments? They are there because the entry in the FAQ followed the instructions 'The FAQ is not cast in stone. If you'd like to contribute a revision or an additional page, you're very welcome to do so. Usually it's best to post your text to the newsgroup in the first instance, so that others can offer comments and suggestions for improvement. Then please send your contribution to the webmaster.' I don't see what isn't peer reviewed about it and to a far greater extent than most things except scientific journals, certainly to agreater extent than anything in most newspapers and magazines.
 * As to your links the first one discusses the geography of Ireland the Island and talks about both Northern Ireland and the Republic, using Republic of Ireland to distinguish is perfectly okay in that case. In the second case it is just after a referral to a Citizens advice which talks about education in Northern Ireland too. In the third case it is perfectly possible for people to be resident in Northern Ireland and that says they don't qualify for that, the fourth talks about symbols of Ireland and says it specifically to say it only applies to the Republic whereas the other ones apply to the whole island, the fifth basically just says Republic of Ireland refers to the state Ireland or Éire. I'd have thought you could find some cases if you looked harder but we're talking about 'especially' not 'in every case'. Dmcq (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Especially" to my mind would mean that it would be easier to find examples where it is specifically used to disambiguate than where it is not. Even with the Irish government website, that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm not going to go back and forth with this. I've said my piece and you can take it or leave it. Scolaire (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite following you in "Even with the Irish government website, that doesn't seem to be the case". You seem to be saying that mentioning the Republic of Ireland in the context of symbols of Ireland is not a reasonable and sensible disambiguation to do when referring to the Irish flag? I have noticed Republic of Ireland used also where it doesn't seem necessary but the document is likely to be used in some cross-border cooperation with Northern Ireland so I'd guess that is because they want to not tread on toes. One place I saw where it really didn't need to be used like it was is in, perhaps someone should talk to whoever set that up! It does seem to be used a bit more than it used to be but it is a bit messy finding instances as Google seems to return many pages for just Ireland even when one puts "Republic of Ireland" in quotes.

Anyway have you any suggestion for a one-liner summary of what's in the name section to stick into the lead to cover this business about Ireland/Republic of Ireland? Dmcq (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits to lead
This stuff that's been added to the lead in the last day, is it all in the "History" section? Because if not (1) it needs to be added there before it's added to the lead, and (2) it needs to be properly sourced. I'll revert the whole lot in the next day or so if that doesn't happen. Scolaire (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've tidied it up for brevity and a few other minor changes, but otherwise it looks fine to me.
 * Mention of the Statue of Westminister is missing from the body - but it's a small thing (to mention). -- RA (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If it's too small to mention in the body, it's too small to mention in the lead. The lead is not meant to be where all the trivia goes. Scolaire (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * One should really refer to the guidelines in WP:LEDE for guidance. ww2censor (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. What do you think WP:LEAD tells us to do in this instance? Scolaire (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:1st-century Irish people
Category:1st-century Irish people, and other categories regarding 1st-century->4th-century Irish figures, are within the scope of this WikiProject, and have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the categories' entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 15:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported statment
The body currently contains the text:

"'Although Ireland has a number of foreign nationals resident in the country there is an increasingly hostile attitude towards minority groups.'"

This is supported by a piece from the Irish Indepedent from 2001. The piece doesn't support the statement made. Unless the statement can be supported by reliable sources (preferable something more up-to-date) it needs to be removed. --Tóraí (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there and I agree, also such a bold statement would need more than just ONE source to back it up. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The newly added sources still do not support the statement ("there is an increasingly hostile attitude towards minority groups"). Either in the sense that the hostility is increasing or that it is prevalent enough to warrant special mention.

They introduce further problems for NPOV. Both are opinion pieces: one from foreign national who says she herself hasn't met with hostility and a second describing what appears to have been an isolated drunken incident "witnessed some time ago" by the author (now even further ago since the piece was written in 2008).

If mention of attitudes to migration are mentioned it should be done with a dispassionate and neutral view. I suggest material such as the ESRI report on Migrants' Experience of Racism and Discrimination in Ireland is a more suitable source for this kind of material.

On the question of an "increasingly hostile attitude" to migrants (as currently claimed in the article) that report says, "...levels of reported racism in Ireland tend to be lower than in the other countries ... It is an interesting question whether racism will increase or decrease as migrant communities become more established and increase as a proportion of the overall population."

We need to take a more NPOV attitude and better sourced approach if we are going to include statements like the one in the article currently. --Tóraí (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * While I updated the source with what I considered to be better than previously, though not much more current. The latest one is two years newer than the ESRI report. If you want to add some statement from the report that would be good but what we really need is something even newer, however, there may be no such thing especially with so many having left the country. an "increasingly hostile attitude" may no longer be as true though it surely was. ww2censor (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Newer would be better. But that source isn't much good. It's an opinion piece my a single Swede living in Ireland, describing "isolated incidents" that she say she didn't experience. It's scarcely hearsay. And nowhere does it say that there is an "increasingly hostile attitude towards minority groups" (which is the statement it purports to support). --Tóraí (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Fórsaí Cosanta
"Defence Forces" is indeed translated into Irish as Fórsaí Cosanta. See, for instance this 2012 bill at oireachtas.ie. I'm pretty sure it's used more often in everyday conversation/business than Óglaigh na hÉireann. There's no reason the translation should not appear in brackets after the English. Scolaire (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Irish for "defence forces" is "fórsaí cosanta". But the name of the organisation in Irish is "Óglaigh na hÉireann".
 * The reason we should in include "fórsaí cosanta" in parenthesis after the English is because we're giving the Irish-language version of the name of the organisation. We're not just translating the phrase "defence forces". --Tóraí (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Óglaigh na hÉireann" is the official name but it is not in daily use. It's another example of putting things in articles just because they're "official". Part of the reason it's there, of course, is to make the point that the IRA's use of the term is "anti-official". But the purpose of an encyclopaedia is not to rubber-stamp officialdom, or to make political points. I'd say 99% of people in Ireland, if you asked them what Ó na hÉ was, either wouldn't know or would say "the IRA". If you want to explain about official names in the section, then that's what you should do, but by putting it in brackets you're giving the impression that you're "just translating the phrase". Either "fórsaí cosanta" should be in brackets or there should be no brackets. Scolaire (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The name is more than an attempt to out-manoeuvre the IRA. The Defence Forces see themselves as an unbroken link with the Volunteers (see). The army badge is that of the Irish Volunteers, for example (see). Hence also the name.
 * The IRA probably to so also - but then we also have a diversity of political parties who would contend they are the original Sinn Fáin.
 * I'm happy to see the name removed from this article. There's little reason to include the Irish names here. --Tóraí (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to see Fórsaí Cosanta removed too. There is no reason for it to be included here. Citation needed for use of this in English. Dmcq (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Putting in a "disputed" tag is the worst of all possible solutions. It gives the reader the impression that the existence of the term Fórsaí Cosanta is disputed, which it clearly is not, only whether it should be included in the article. Now, Mownberry should have come to the talk page to discuss his/her edits, but on the other hand, it shouldn't have taken until today to post a message to his/her user talk page. So let's keep the "dispute" on the talk pages and not carry it over to the article. I am reverting to the last stable version, although if there was an RfC I would argue for retention of Fórsaí Cosanta. Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do people write Fórsaí Cosanta in English books when referring to them or is it just stuck in as a translation? It might be suitable for the article Irish Defence Forces but in this article it is just wrong. Sticking Poblacht na hÉireann in the lead is as far as we should go in that direction here. At least Óglaigh na hÉireann is actually used by itself even if people mean something quite different - so it would be unsuitable here either as it is not used in English to refer to the defence forces. Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest taking out the "Main" template since (a) the Defence Forces article is not split off from this one and (b) it is linked in the very first words. Since it is linked, I agree that no Irish version is necessary here, as it is given in the linked article. Scolaire (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Main does not mean the article was split off, it indicates the other article is the main article about the topic and this section should summarize that other article. Dmcq (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The (implicit) claim that that is a name for the Defence Forces in Irish is disputed. The name of the forces is Óglaigh na hÉireann or (in English) the Defence Forces. That is set out in the Defence Act, 1954. The Irish for "defence forces" is "fórsaí cosanta" and that is used in various acts, texts, etc. But the name of the Defence Forces is Óglaigh na hÉireann, not Fórsaí Cosanta. (And that it is not Fórsaí Cosanta is supported explicitly by reliable sources, if you want me to prove a negative.)
 * I go further into this, with more references, on the Defence Forces (Ireland) article. But, in any case, there's no need to provide the Irish-language name on this article. We don't provide the Irish-language name for other things mentioned here. --Tóraí (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A related RfC is open on Talk:Defence Forces (Ireland). --Tóraí (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Main" template in Military section
Taken from the section above:
 * I suggest taking out the "Main" template since (a) the Defence Forces article is not split off from this one and (b) it is linked in the very first words. Since it is linked, I agree that no Irish version is necessary here, as it is given in the linked article. Scolaire (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Main does not mean the article was split off, it indicates the other article is the main article about the topic and this section should summarize that other article. Dmcq (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Template:Main says, "When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often rewritten in summary style. This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised." The section is not a re-writing of the Defence Forces article, nor is it in any way a summary of that article. It is a section that was independently created that happens to be on the same subject. The link in the first three words of the section will take interested readers to the DF article. The usefulness of the hatnote is therefore nil. Scolaire (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the same silly practice is in use for all the other sections of the article, and for the corresponding sections of the France and Germany articles too, so I guess I should have left it alone. Seriously, though, just read the DF article and see how much of the information in this section is missing from that article. To call it a summary is a joke. Scolaire (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Split implies Main does not mean that not split implies not Main. It makes no difference how a section is created, the article specifically on the topic is the main article and should be summarized in the reference. History has nothing to do with it.
 * If the article is missing stuff it should be added to it. Removing main just makes the problem worse, it leads to things being out of sync with each other and undue development of what should be just a short section. This is a nasty problem in Wikipedia,, people making articles huge and unreadable by developing the sections in it and ignoring and not developing articles which specifically deal with parts of it. Dmcq (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am duly chastened. I guess you're never too old to learn. Scolaire (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Article Lead
I would like to put across the point that I think the lead of the article should at the very least convey that the use of the Republic of Ireland as a name is unofficial despite its use in the title of the article, for example France is also constitutionally described as a republic in its description of the state, but to subsequently say that France is also known as the republic of France would be wrong.Setanta Saki (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats becuase nobody does. Simples. Murry1975 (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's more important things about Ireland than going on and on about that in the lead. If you can do what you want with the addition of just one extra word perhaps I'd look at it favourably. Dmcq (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Simples, so whats going on Dmcq, where is the real action?. Ok with one word addition of "unofficially". Setanta Saki (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably not. It is officially sanctioned as a descriptive name for the state. Dmcq (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hate to poop on the parade Dmcq, but its not the "descriptive name" its just the description. There is no descritive name. Honestly look it up. Murry1975 (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A very good illustration of the trouble and hassle over things like this ;-) Dmcq (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As murry said its only the employed wording used to describe the constitution adopted by the state whose name is "Ireland", the same as it is in France etc, its a bit like saying someones name is "Caucasian male Mark Moore" because Caucasian and Male etc are included as description sections on a birth cert, plain wrong. Strange why it would cause any hassle, no other state today has any problem using the correct terminology in reference. Setanta Saki (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not remotely like saying someones name is "Caucasian male Mark Moore". The wording of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 is, "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." That means, the state shall be known as the Republic of Ireland. It cannot mean that the state shall be unofficially known as the Republic of Ireland, or that the state shall be described as the Republic of Ireland in the same way that a man may be described as caucasion, because such things do not need to be legislated for and therefore never are legislated for.
 * The current wording of the first sentence was the outcome of months of discussion, which in turn followed ten years of discussion over the article title. The arguments that you make here were made many times by several people in the course of those discussions, but the consensus – and consensus is what matters – was and remains that the current wording is the best wording. Scolaire (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally disagree with you scolaire,"this State shall be described as the Republic of Ireland." Its name in Irish is Éire and in the English language Ireland. the fact is it is a descriptive term only, the courts of Ireland would not extradite if an incorrect term such as the "Republic of Ireland" was used, its only purpose is to describe the constitutional status of the state as a republic the same as france its name still remains Ireland or France. You are entitled to your opinion but the courts of Ireland, the  Irish government and every other state in the world disagree's with you and that's irrefutable, as for my analogy it is quite similar as you dont describe someone by their name (Ireland) but you would say male/caucasian (Republic).Setanta Saki (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. But it's only your opinion that the courts of Ireland, the Irish government and every other state in the world disagree with me. It's not indisputable; it has been disputed many times in many discussions over many years. At the end of the day, the fact remains that, taking everything into account, the consensus (since you like bolding words) is to keep the wording of the opening sentence exactly as it is. Continuing to re-hash the well-known arguments is just a waste of everybody's time.  Scolaire (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that this discussion is a waste of time (probably not for the same reasons as other editors) but that doesn't mean Setanta Saki is wrong... he's essentially making the same point as as the Taoiseach at the time, John A. Costello when he said If I say that my name is Costello and that my description is that of senior counsel, I think that will be clear to anybody who wants to know...[Similarly, the state's] name in Irish is Éire and in the English language, Ireland. Its description in the English language is "the Republic of Ireland.".  --HighKing (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * HighKing and the Taoiseach of the time put it very well, although he may have overestimated the cognitive reasoning powers of "anybody" :).Setanta Saki (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * George Bush said, "Read my lips: no new taxes." We shouldn't always take the sayings of political leaders as gospel. But enough of all that. I regret raising that particular hare. It hasn't helped the discussion, only allowed it to go off on a tangent. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that 'Republic of Ireland' should stay in the lead and 'unofficial' is not a good or acceptable adjective to apply. I think the problem might be that 'unofficial' is not the opposite of 'official', there is a spectrum in between. Like Anthony John Mulcahy might be the full official name of someone, Anthony Mulcahy is not unofficial even if it is not official and Tony is unofficial. Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree Dmcq, unoffical is probably not the best way to phrase it as it is the official description of the state, but it is also not its name so saying also known as is incorrect. The term "Republic of" is descriptive terminology that is required to establish the type of state that Ireland is, if i was to ask you to name of state, the answer is Ireland, if i was to ask you to describe the state you would say its a Republic, that's very different to comparing it to a persons second name (Anthony/john/Mulcahy) or whatever variation you choose, it is still the persons name, but if i asked you for a description of the person saying john/Anthony/Mulcahy or again whatever variation tells me nothing, you would say for example, john is a male solicitor ,subsequent to that you would then not proceed to say that johns name is now "john the male solicitor" that is the big difference. Perhaps a lead of Ireland is a sovereign constitutional republic would work and be legally correct.Setanta Saki (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Except - and where the analogy above breaks down - the state *is* "also known as" the Republic of Ireland. There's no getting away from that, regardless of the terminology and semantics. --HighKing (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * John Aloysius Costello, also unofficially known as John Aloysius Costello Senior Counsel, a successful barrister, was one of the main legal advisors to the government of the Irish Free State after independence, Attorney General of Ireland from 1926–1932 and Taoiseach from 1948–1951 and 1954–1957. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ireland is the only official english "name" as according to article 4 of constitution of Ireland as everyone here knows well, I would agree with HighKing that the states official "description" has been requisitioned in certain instances and used unofficially (according to the constitution of Ireland) as an alternate "name" most likely in order to avoid possible confusion etc. In saying that therefore "also known as" although not perfect can be justified in a manner. Although i can see the benefits to clarity etc in the use of ROI it in still incorrect to title it or imply in any way that it is an official "name" of the state. Setanta Saki (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So we get back to the original business, think of a better way of putting it and propose that. Dmcq (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If anything the phrase "also known as" is normally taken to imply an unofficial name rather than an official one. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is what 'Republic of Ireland' is though not quite so unofficial as to be directly called unofficial I think. Described as might be another way of putting it. Dmcq (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland is the official description of the state that officially calls itself Ireland. Though it's quite useful when being used to distinguish between the state and the island. Maybe instead of proposing "unofficially known as", you could propose "officially described as"? That way it states explicitly that it is a description, but as Blue-Haired Lawyer put it, what is there implies it's an unofficial name anyways. Mabuska (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * +1. I'd favour "described" or "officially described" per the Republic of Ireland Act. If that sounds fudgey it's because it is. "Officially" (if we are to use that term) Republic of Ireland is a description not a name so "officially" we should call it so if anything. --Tóraí (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely oppose "described as" – with or without the addition of "oficially" or "unofficially". I defy anybody to come up with a single reliable source that says the state is "described as" the ROI. That's because it's not. It's known as the ROI, and there are a myriad sources for that. And before somebody starts citing the 1948 Act, that Act says "the description of the State shall be", not "the state is described as". Any attempt to assert that the one means the other is synthesis. Now, as I've already pointed out, the current wording of the first sentence was the outcome of months of discussion and a very involved RfC. It is the wording that best suited every participant on each side of each argument. It should be left strictly alone. Scolaire (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Defy? Ahhh .. that just too tempting not to answer :o)
 * "'Under the terms of this treaty [the Anglo-Irish Treaty], six of the northern counties of Ireland became politically part of the United Kingdom, whereas the other 26 counties constitued what came to be legally described as the Republic of Ireland .'"
 * That said, I'm not opposed to the current wording as it is also "known as the Republic of Ireland" (and that can be sourced too, if necessary). --Tóraí (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hehe. I should have said "a single reliable source that says the state is simply "described as" the ROI, as opposed to "legally described" or similar. But well done on finding that :-) Scolaire (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I note that the Wikipedia Australia article is about the nation, not the continent. That article states "This article is about the country. For the continent, see Australia (continent)."  The same would be appropriate for Ireland.  The reason that the description "Republic of Ireland" appears in treaties with the UK is for UK political reasons.  Since the UK has managed to hold onto part of the island, their political position is not to call the nation by the name "Ireland".  It seems to be the same political position that strongly objects to the use of the name of the country to be used for the name of the article about the country.  This naming irritates Irish nationals; a number of whom i have spoken to believe this to be intentional.
 * As Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial, we should not have political positions dictate the naming of our articles.
 * I note that official descriptions and multi-word names of countries are not normally used in Wikipedia when a shorter form is available. Despite there being a United States of Mexico, the title of the Wikipedia page for the United States of America is simply "United States".  Similarly, the title of the Wikipedia page for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is "United Kingdom" although there were historically the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Lybia, and United Kingdom of Israel as well as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and other united kingdoms such as between Sweden and Norway; Denmark and Norway; and Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
 * So long as Wikipedia titles its article on the United States of America "United States", and that on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland "United Kingdom", it should title its article on the country of Ireland "Ireland".
 * I understand that the UKGBNI political lobby is very strong in Wikipedia, so this is very unlikely to happen. I just find it unfortunate that politics trumps impartiality in this case.  Dfoxvog (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Try checking out the political affiliations of those that have stated them in the last poll on this business. Dmcq (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Article lead (again)
A new IP editor has changed the lead but I dont see any agreement here to change it so I have reverted to the status quo, I dont have a view but understand any changes in this area really need agreement, as a challenged edit the IP should really be along in a minute to gain consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep lead as is. It already says "also known as the Republic of Ireland" in the first sentence, and there is an entire section on the name, so this edit does not add anything to it. I'm less sure about the infobox. I think there may actually be a risk of ambiguity when the map purports to show "the location of Ireland in Europe". Scolaire (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. As per WP:LEDE, the lead should be a quick summary of the main points of the article subject- not every point. Murry1975 (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ireland which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we keep long TD quote?
Speaking in the Dáil, Sinn Féin's Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin explained: "'In the republican political tradition, to which I belong, the State is often referred to as the 26-County State. This is a conscious response to the partitionist view [...] that Ireland stops at the Border. The Constitution says that the name of the State is Ireland, and Éire in the Irish language. Quite against the intentions of the framers of the Constitution, this has led to an identification of Ireland with only 26 of our 32 counties in the minds of many people'."

Does any one else agree that the above is too long to be included here in the general Ireland article? Can't it be added into Names of the Irish state. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree too long, but if moved, retain source here. 15:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC) + Qexigator (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine; I've made that change. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the republican outlook explained in one quote, so it serves a purpose. However, if we're going to remove it then we need to replace it with our own explanation.
 * I suggest we remove the Brian Walsh quote, as it merely repeats what was said in the line before:"In a 1989 case, a majority of the Irish Supreme Court expressed the view that Irish authorities should not enforce extradition warrants where they referred to the state by a name other than 'Ireland'. Judge Brian Walsh said that, 'if the courts of other countries seeking the assistance of this country are unwilling to give this State its constitutionally correct and internationally recognised name, then in my view, the warrants should be returned to such countries until they have been rectified.'"
 * ~Asarlaí 20:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree let Walsh quote go, retaining source.(+revise my last edit summary) Qexigator (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 20:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree too. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article is much better without the quotes, and with an explanation instead. I agree too. -- HighKing ++ 15:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"Republic of Ireland" de-capitalisation in running text
Editors are invited to participate in a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falktalk 16:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Local government map - out of date
Since the Local Government Reform Act 2014, the Local government map is out of date. Does anyone know how to get it updated? Snappy (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Make a request at the appropriate section of the Graphics Lab. ww2censor (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Snappy (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland real name
The official long name of "Ireland" as it is called on the page is "Republic of Ireland so why is "Ireland" the name and am I granted permission to change it? WikiImprovment78 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC) WikiImprovment78 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You've got it wrong. The official name is 'Ireland'. There is no long form. 'Republic of Ireland' is not the official name. It is an officially sanctioned description used for purposes like disambiguation when there might be confusion with the island or when also talking about Northern Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nicely put. I might use it sometime in the future. -- HighKing ++ 21:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nicely explained Dmcq but I prefer the term Southern Ireland when refering to the 26 counties as the Republic has only existed since 1948 and the constitution of the Republic often made claim to the whole island. AlwynJPie (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * However, the use of the term Southern Ireland for the modern state is entirely incorrect because it refers to that autonomous region of the United Kingdom which existed from 1921-1922. Any such modern use is confusing and out-dated, so for accuracy sake I suggest you just use what Dmcq suggests. ww2censor (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah so you support the IRA in not recognizing the state and calling it the South or the twenty six counties. ;-) Well we don't censor on Wikipedia but we have to go by the preponderance of reliable sources - so that's fine by us if you do it with consenting adults but not in public. Dmcq (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * English and American users often use Southern Ireland, "ROI" and Eire for the state known officially as "Ireland". Think of it this way, most people say "Britain" or "England" when they mean "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? Just as the USA is referred to as "The States". An encyclopedia should list the more common uses, even if they are technically wrong.PatrickGuinness (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Read the thread. Murry1975 (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This thread or 17 archives' worth of threads? Let's apply common sense.PatrickGuinness (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The common sense is the long form of the states name is Ireland, this thread is simply about that, not other names. Murry1975 (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Irish indigenous demographics
My 2014 link to the 2014 "3 tribes" paper has been reversed. The problem with the Basque origin (see here) is that it was reversed by Balaresque et al 2010, and now by the 2014 higher resolution whole-genome paper. Tóraí, you asked: "within Europe, where did migration to Ireland come from?" and the fact is we are a mix of the 3 tribes, who came from the east and south-east after the Ice Age, and not from Iberia.PatrickGuinness (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The BBC article doesn't mention anything about the Republic of Ireland "indigenous population [fitting] within European parameters". In fact, it doesn't mention, Ireland, the Republic of Ireland or the Irish at all. I've taken it out here.
 * On the three tribes vs. migration from Iberia, the two papers are talking about different things. They don't contradict each other or "reverse" anything about each other. One (Balaresque) deals with migration to Europe 40 thousand years ago. The other (Oppenheimer), deals with migration within Europe 15,000 years ago. --Tóraí (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Just as a small note about RS in general, the BBC article shouldn't be used, but the underlying source, Second Quantization (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

IRL "left" Commonwealth in 1949?
The Republic of Ireland Act does not mention the Commonwealth. Not once. It did declare a republic. It also, by revoking the External Relations Act, ended the role of the King. People always say, including on Wikipedia, that Ireland "left" the Commonwealth in 1949. As I see it, from 1949 the other Commonwealth countries chose to view Ireland as no longer a member; just as they had chosen to view Ireland as a member until then. No positive step as regards membership was taken by Ireland. I just don't see how, therefore, we can say Ireland "left". Ireland's membership "ended". Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I explained that to you on my talk page and yet you go on here. It was no longer a dominion. Until the London Declaration a country had to be a dominion to be in the commonwealth. Read the lead paragraph of that article. Even noew a country becoming a republic has to make the declaration if it ants to stay in the commonwealth. What you wre doing was OR. Everyone says Ireland left the commonwealth. It would have had to make a positive statement that it wanted to stay within the commonwealth. Dmcq (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It is common to say that Ireland "left" the Commonwealth (examples) but I agree that it does give a misleading impression by itself. Other wordings exist in sources (e.g. "ceased to be a member") and we don't have to stick verbatim to what sources say. Better to communicate effectively than recycle words that could be picked up wrong.
 * The current wording in the body is good IMO. I've removed it from the infobox as it doesn't related to independence. --Tóraí (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Ceased to be a member' sounds good and probably describes it better. That it was no longer a member was automatic though and not something the other members then decided by not viewing it as such. Dmcq (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with both Torai and Dmcq that "ceased to be a member" is better. It reflects the nuance I drew in the beginning. Ireland did not "leave" the Commonwealth. Dmcq explained that the Commonwealth had unwritten rules at the time. Rules I was aware of naturally. The important rule being that a member had to be a Dominion. By declaring itself a republic, Ireland broke those rules. That I don't disagree with. I also agree that Ireland would have appreciated that by breaking those rules it would cease to be regarded as a member by the other members. That it took any step to "leave" is a different matter. It didn't. It broke rules and for doing so, the other members chose to regard it as no longer a member. Interestingly the Irish Government at the time said Ireland hadn't been a member for years and its exit from the Commonwealth had been a gradual process or words to that effect. In contrast, when The Gambia left the Commonwealth, it took a positive step referencing its Commonwealth membership and declaring it at an end. Gambia "left" the Commonwealth; Ireland in 1949 didn't. Indeed Ireland "ceasing to be a member of the Commonwealth" is an expression with good historical pedigree. The British Cabinet report "C P . (49) 4 COPY NO, 7TH JANUARY. 1949 - CABINET IRELAND: REPORT OF WORKING PARTY Memorandum by the Prime Minister" begins with the words "I attach herewith the report ... considering what consequential action may have to be taken by the United Kingdom Government as a result of Eire's ceasing to be a member of the Commonwealth". Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If Commonwealth membership "ceased" (terminated) may be factually correct, it is irrelevant to the box's title "Independence from the United Kingdom" and its attribution  of full independence from UK to SoW 1931. Qexigator (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think any one disagrees with you there Qexigator; I don't any way. Frenchmalawi (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Southern Ireland
The bulk of this article (Republic of Ireland) should be transfered to Southern Ireland as the term is less political.

The partition of Ireland first occurred under The Government of Ireland Act 1920.

The Act divided Ireland into two territories, Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, each intended to be self-governing, except in areas specifically reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom: chief amongst these were matters relating to the Crown, to defence, foreign affairs, international trade, and currency.

Many people from the Republic of Ireland refer to themselves as being from "Southern Ireland". AlwynJPie (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I dont know how to reply, really. Just, how encyclopedic is that suggestion? Coming after your removing the actual name of the state from the lead. I really dont understand what you mean "less political", less political in what way? Less encyclopdic to be sure, why not call it the ol' sod? Murry1975 (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Murry1975. What concerns me is that the article is entitled "Republic of Ireland" yet it starts with "Ireland... commonly known as the Republic of Ireland...” The content of the article is chiefly about the 26 counties. For example the description of the territory, e.g. that it's only land border is with Northern Ireland. And the demographics and population statistics are shown only for the 26 counties. Why is the term "Ireland" used when referring to just the 26 counties?

I feel the term "Ireland" was retained for political reasons to appease those who see themselves as "Irish" and want to be known as "Irish" not "Republic of Ireland'ish" or "Southern Irish" or "Northern Irish"; and those who see the whole island as just one nation and those that would like a political unification of the island. Even the Constitution implies this: The Constitution declares that "[the] name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland" (Article 4). Under the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 the term "Republic of Ireland" is the official "description" of the state; the Oireachtas, however, has left unaltered "Ireland" as the formal name of the state as defined by the Constitution.

United Ireland: Article 2, as substituted after the Good Friday Agreement, asserts that "every person born in the island of Ireland" has the right "to be part of the Irish Nation"; however, Article 9.2 now limits this to persons having at least one parent as an Irish citizen. Article 3 declares that it is the "firm will of the Irish Nation" to bring about a united Ireland, provided that this occurs "only by peaceful means", and only with the express consent of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland.

As many people born in the 26 counties refer to themselves as "coming from Southern Ireland" as opposed to Northern Ireland, perhaps the article would best be entitled "Southern Ireland", this being the original name for the area when partition first happened, to make it purely geographical. AlwynJPie (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No offence to newbies, but we've has this discussion many times over the years (see the archives) and its been settled. For the record, I oppose your suggestion. Snappy (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It concerns me as well that the article is entitled "Republic of Ireland" when the official name of the state is simply "Ireland". But we've lots of compromises here - for example the official name of the city of Derry is Londonderry, but the article is at Derry. But your suggestion to name the article "Southern Ireland" has no basis in fact, and only a fleeting nod in the direction of your opinion that some people say they're from "Southern Ireland". As Murray says above, and based on your logic, we could just as easily end up with an article entitled "the ould sod". Personally, I don't know a single soul that says they're from Southern Ireland. I'm not biting the newbie, but this is a ridiculous suggestion.  -- HighKing ++ 15:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Snappy and HighKing. The difference between calling the article Southern Ireland and "the ould sod" (or anything else) is that Southern Ireland was the origional name of the state when the island was first divided. The term "Republic of Ireland" says it is a republic and Irish Free State says it is a free state. Southern Ireland does not contain a political word and it is specific in that it refers only to the 26 counties. The term Ireland is important to a lot of people, I know. Eamon deValera was opposed when he attempted to drop Ireland from the official name in the constitution. To me Ireland is the whole island not just the 26 counties. But the article deals with the 26 counties not the whole island.

I know many people who have said they are from Southern Ireland when explaining that they are born south of the border. AlwynJPie (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Southern Ireland" does not satisfy either Wikipedia's WP:Common name requirement for articles nor is it any sort of officially recognized name or description. There really is nothing more to it. As to anything you feel political about it that is an invalid objection on Wikipedia, see the policy WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not in the business of making life easy for people by bowdlerizing things. Dmcq (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

While I have heard the term Southern Ireland by people mainly from the UK, I don´t know anyone from the Republic of Ireland that says they are from Southern Ireland but rather they are from Ireland. As far as I am aware in the EU at delegate meetings Ireland is known to as Eire/Ireland which assisted the Irish language to become an official working language in the EU. As for the UN (as far as I am aware) Ireland is known and listed as Ireland, primarily because it is a sovereign independent country. Northern Ireland is not a sovereign independent country but part of the UK. No offence intended but that´s the way things are, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.42.50 (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What bothers me is why the lead begins with Ireland when the article is entitled Republic of Ireland. To me the term Ireland refers to the whole Ireland. And particular when, as I have already stated, the article deals with the demographics of the 26 counties (origional called Southern Ireland) not the whole island of Ireland. Surely this is not good practice.AlwynJPie (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The wording in the lead has been subject to many years of heated discussion but it is clear by the context and the title of the article that "Ireland" in this case is correctly refering to the country. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi AlwynJPie Don´t get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from, but you have to accept that despite of the title "Republic of Ireland" the article is correct in stating Ireland and not Southern Ireland. As stated above, Ireland is the legal short official name of the independent sovereign state of the Republic of Ireland as recognized by both the EU and UN UN. Even the British Government accept that the name Ireland refers to the 26 counties of Ireland as listed here Foreign Office. If you observe the EU´s Europa website on how to write and reference EU countries here Europa, there is a special note at the bottom which states Do not use ‘Republic of Ireland’ nor ‘Irish Republic’. Looking at the list of the EU countries you can see that the short version of the official name of the Republic of Ireland is in fact Ireland. If we were to abide by your logic and concede that the term Ireland is misleading to individuals in that everyone thinks of the entire island of Ireland, then we would have to think this is the case for the Republic of Cyprus which has the short version of the official name as Cyprus, despite it is only referring to the Greek part of Cyprus and not the Turkish part, which is not part of the EU but rather a territory of Turkey. Secondly, we would have to change the names of all the Wiki articles for all the sovereign independent countries that officially have the term republic in their titles, i.e. Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Finland. Additionally, you might note that the official name of Greece is the Hellenic Republic but yet the wiki article titles it the short official name of Greece and yet people can still easily find information about the independent sovereign country from this name rather than the long version. I would also refer you to the current name dispute with Greece and the FYR Macedonia, which is unable to join the EU at the moment.

Since Northern Ireland is a constituent territory within the United Kingdom and the UK government did not have any difficulties with the Republic of Ireland applying the official name of Ireland, therefore it was accepted legally by the EU and UN that the term Ireland should refer to the 26 counties of Ireland (you may find a similar argument with the US State of Georgia and the independent sovereign state of Georgia). From what I understand the only reference to Ireland applying its official long name of the Republic of Ireland is in soccer, otherwise it is referred to as Ireland, such as in the Olympics. I would argue that if the term Southern Ireland was applied to this article, then this would confuse people in thinking that the article was referring to the Munster counties in the South of Ireland and not the Sovereign independent Republic of Ireland. Secondly, the term Ireland enables individuals of the EU who are looking of information on Ireland as they know it, while if the term Southern Ireland was applied, then not only would they not get any information, but if they did find it then they would be confused. As the wiki article of Southern Ireland correctly states the term Southern Ireland implies that it is a constituent territory of the United Kingdom and not an independent sovereign state, which it clearly is, and therefore the term Southern Ireland would be misleading. You may have a valid claim for a name change for the wiki article of Ireland to that of the Island of Ireland since this article title refers to both sides of the island. However, your argument for a name change is not valid because there is no such place as Southern Ireland, yet officially there is a such place as the Republic of Ireland, which is recognized as Ireland. Of course this may change in the future if Northern Ireland becomes an independent sovereign country or if it reunites with Ireland but at the moment Northern Ireland is as it is and that is a constituent territory of the United Kingdom and Ireland refers to the Republic of Ireland. Once again, I don´t want to cause offence but this is as things stand officially.

Thank you. Before the Partition of Ireland and the formation of the territories of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, the term Southern Ireland could have been used to refer to the province of Munster, just as Northern Ireland could have meant the province of Ulster. Since then, to avoid ambiguity, the terms are generally just used to refer to the countries formed from the Partition. Many institutions do refer to the two counties as being "the North" and "the South" such as the North/South Ministerial Council, a body established under the Good Friday Agreement to co-ordinate activity and exercise certain governmental powers across the whole island of Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The official name of the country is 'Ireland'. That is not the short form of the official name. 'Republic of Ireland' is not thee official name, it an officially sanctioned description and is used for instance in the Dáil when they are talking about all Ireland matters. Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Ireland meant and still means the island of Ireland. So why was Ireland chosen for the name of the new nation when it doesn't cover the whole island? Why wasn't the origional name Southern Ireland retained? Was it because most people in Ireland were against partition? Why does the government of the Republic of Ireland give those born in Northern Ireland the right to an Irish passport? Does the government of the Republic of Ireland consider Northern Ireland to be a part of it's territory but occupied by the United Kingdom?AlwynJPie (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference desk/Humanities is probably best for questions like that. This talk page is just about improving the article. Dmcq (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Alwyn a few answers for you, as a history student you should have known.
 * The original constitution of the state claimed ALL of the island, up until the implementation of the Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. And still sees NI as future part of it, but by re-unification through by peaceful means.
 * It also gave right for those born on the island to be Irish citizens, this bit was only recognised by the UK after the above amendment.
 * The name SI only existed from the signing of the AI treaty to the founding of the IFS, that was in the treaty itself, SI was never a state.
 * The terms Southern Ireland, Irish Republic are used mainly by Unionist and Nationalist, the latter even Free State or the 26, as opposed to the states recognised name, even ROI finds favor in these quarters instead.
 * Why was it chosen? It was chosen as the states name, probably to do with those who wished to call the state Ireland, the UK didnt intially have a problem with this, but one developed until the GFA, when the issue was resolved.
 * And to add the term means the island, historically and geographically to a point, but when I read the NY times talk about the financial recovery in Ireland, it aint the island, when I read about the station of troops in the Golan Heights from Ireland, it aint the island, when I read the conditions on the South African government website, Ireland isnt the island. In most usages Ireland is the state, we as a global society think in these terms. America owes China trillions, it aint Taiwan. The IMF support the continued economic growth in Ireland, it aint the island.
 * Hope this helps you. Murry1975 (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Murry1975. That's been very helpful. You have given me a lot of food for thought. Regarding another country partitioned by the UK, India: I noticed the Wikipedia article for the country officially known as the Republic of India is simply called India. Some may argue that the article India should also include Pakistan and Bangladesh. Others may argue that India should also extend to include Nepal and Burma and Sri Lanka and some even see India as all the Indies.

You point out Taiwan who are officially the Republic of China. Constitutionally, the ROC government has claimed sovereignty over all of "China," in a definition that includes mainland China and Outer Mongolia, but has not made retaking mainland China a political goal since 1992.

Should Denmark include Greenland? And what constitutes France? It's borders, and those of many other countries, have changed several times. AlwynJPie (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You forgot the Netherlands, or Kingdom of the Netherlands. Australia, island, country or continient, none are the same. Murry1975 (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The UN and the EU both recognise the name of the country as "Ireland". Republic of Ireland is good for disambiguation between the island and the country, but "Southern Ireland" could refer to a geographic area or the Munster region of Ireland. It is not a helpful term at all. Ireland is the recognised name for the country by the UN. It should not be a contentious issue to any academic person. 95.44.235.14 (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The term Northern Ireland usually means the territory in Ireland that is a part of the United Kingdom; NOT the province of Ulster. Northern Ireland is a formal name. Similarly Southern Ireland is a formal name just like South Africa or West Virginia are. The origional constitution of the Republic of Ireland declared it's national territory as being the whole island of Ireland not just the 26 counties. When someone says they are from Southern Ireland they usually mean the are from the 26 counties. This article is about the territory of Southern Ireland not the whole island of Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Southern Ireland is not a formal name if by that you mean official. You seem to be having problems with the idea that 'Ireland' on its own can refer to more than one thing. One Ireland is the name for a geographical region, an island, and the other for a political region. There has been enough explanation here for you and the article is not going to be changed to reflect your point of view because the consensus is very strongly against you. Wikipedia is not a forum for people to go on banging on about their own ideas or a social medium for use to discuss things that have no chance of contributing to improving the article.. Dmcq (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It is really quite simple, Southern Ireland only has a formal meaning for the 1921-1922 period. Any other meaning or interpreatation is purely personal or casual and has no merit or standing here. ww2censor (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't bite the newbies, but also, don't feed the trolls. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that Southern Ireland was ever abolished. The Irish Free State covered the whole of Ireland when it was established but was reduced to cover just Southern Ireland when Northern Ireland opted out on 7 December 1922.

A treaty between the British government and representatives of the Dáil was agreed in 1922, which resulted in the partition of the island of Ireland on 3 May 1921 under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 into two distinct autonomous United Kingdom regions, Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. Although the new Dominion status granted Irish nationalists far more autonomy than had been sought by the IPP, it was unacceptable to hard-liners who opposed the treaty (Fianna Fáil). A civil war was fought, which the pro-treaty (Fine Gael) forces finally won in 1923. Michael Collins was assassinated on 22 August 1922 in his native County Cork.

On 6 December 1922, exactly a year after the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed, the entire island of Ireland effectively seceded from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, forming a new dominion of the British Empire, the Irish Free State. As expected Northern Ireland immediately exercised its right under the Anglo-Irish Treaty to opt-out of the new state. On 7 December 1922, the day after the establishment of the Irish Free State, the Parliament of Northern Ireland made an address to King George V to opt out of the Irish Free State, which the King accepted. The surviving Union of Great Britain with part of Ireland continued to be called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" until 1927, when it was renamed United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, and is known by this name to the present time. AlwynJPie (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Fascinating though this aspect of the topic can be, that line of reasoning does not justify the encyclopedic use of "Southern Ireland" beyond the specific and ephemeral time span when the provision was enacted and soon after lapsed or was superseded de facto and de jure, from the point of view of practical politics, constitutional and international law and practice, and the course of history. That is not to say that it could not be unconvincingly argued to the contrary, perhaps to promote some cause or other. Qexigator (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The partition of Ireland was the division of the island of Ireland into two distinct territories. Partition occurred when the Government of Ireland Act 1920 created Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. Currently Northern Ireland is part of the UK and Southern Ireland is an independant state. Whether you refer to Southern Ireland as the Republic of Ireland, the Free State, the South, Eire or just Ireland the fact is the territory still remains Southern Ireland. And I would prefer the term Southern Ireland for this article title because it is non-political and, unlike the Irish Republic, the Irish Free State or the Republic of Ireland, which at times has claimed sovereignty over the whole island, Southern Ireland is always, like the article itself, confined to just the 26 counties. The article Ireland deals with the whole island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwynJPie (talk • contribs) 10:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Alwyn there is little support for your idea. ArbCom outcome on this and it should only be discussed on the project page, anymore here and we are pushing close to seeing if ArbCom want sanctions. Murry1975 (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It is surely time to let this discussion close:

The claim at the top of this section was Many people from the Republic of Ireland refer to themselves as being from "Southern Ireland". Anyone may speak or write of "southern (Anywhere)"- southern Europe/ England/ Wales/ France/ Normandy... In the particular case of Ireland, we must look to context: does a person using  "southern" mean someplace south but not west of the territory forming part of the UK known as Northern Ireland? Or somewhere south of a line bisecting the island approxmately north and south, say below or above Dublin in the east and Galway Bay in the west? Or the parts of the island called Leinster and Munster? Whatever may be the context, it has no bearing on the article if there is no source showing the results of a reliable survey about the manner in which the term is actually used by the population, among themselves and when outside Ireland.
 * Qexigator (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Murry1975 and Qexigator. There is a big difference Southern Ireland is a proper name. The Southern in the name Southern Ireland has nothing to do with the compass. It has a capital S. Southern Ireland was the name given to the 26 counties when the partition happened. I gave examples earlier. If somebody says they are from West Virginia they mean the state of West Virginia, not the the west part of the state of Virginia. If somebody is from County Donegal they will not say they are from Northern Ireland with a capital N, even though the most northerly part of Ireland is in the county of Donegal which is in Southern Ireland.

Unfortunately even with proper names things can become confusing. For example South in respect to Ireland can mean the European Parliament constituency not just the Republic of Ireland. I feel the name Ireland should be reserved for the whole island. AlwynJPie (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No. No. I think these talks should continue until they are resolved. There are still many things that need to be ironed out. AlwynJPie (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Alwyn, this is not the place for it, as I said above. Murry1975 (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. What better place to discuss issues in respect of this article than here? What is the problem? AlwynJPie (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)