Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 7

Architecture
I added an architecture section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.73.141.166 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit
I've just updated the Head of state entry, considering that Bertie has officially resigned. 87.236.6.8 (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Electronic Music
As this is a resource on Ireland, I feel strongly that these musical styles should be noted on the main page.

This is what I said, for risk of disruptiveness and failure to resource properly, I'm handing it over to you;

In Electronic music, Donnacha Costello, Mark O'Sullivan of DK7 Fame, and Fish Go Deep have had continued success, alongside Glen Brady A.K.A. Dj. Wool with his band 'The Glass'(see Irish hip hop).

Just to note, when mentioning music under the electronic music banner, it is only respectable to include a top performer from a few different styles which I did. Also electronic music sales volume isn't counted unless it's been up for commercial release, in saying that, a song could sell an Phenomenal amount of records worldwide and still stay under the commercial radar.

Regarding references of notability, although great bands, I still can't find any evidence of the frames apparent rise worldwide, or Bell X1's, I personally don't consider supporting Damien Rice on a European Tour, a woldwide rise to fame.

Finland and some other countries are happy to mention their contribution to electronic music. In Northern Ireland, the big successes have been Phil Kieran, David Holmes (musician), The Japanese Popstars. --PJ 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Glen Brady A.K.A. Dj. Wool with his band 'The Glass'(see Irish hip hop)." One album release and then they broke up.  6 years ago.  Hardly a claim to notability - how many hundreds of Irish bands have done the same.  Why should this band be included rather than any of the others?
 * Fish Go Deep at least merit an existing article. I'm not convinced the article would survive a WP:AFD, though.  The notability guidelines for musicians are at WP:MUSIC.
 * Basically, though, these are musicians the vast majority of people have never heard of. The other musicians mentioned in the main article on the country are (in the main - I take your point on the Frames and Bell X1) at least internationally known award winning acts. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 11:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bastian the glass are still going strong, where are you coming up with they broke up 6 years ago???--PJ 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC) If you read the article, the band called 'the third eye surfers' called it a day in 2002 --PJ 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Striking first part of comment above - wrong band, my bad. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 11:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

One final thing I would like to say, As usual, like the cliche, no recognition for other musical styles besides the ones that get delivered to your door for free via the charts and the radio. You do know that there is a music scene in Ireland and worldwide, one that most people go out every weekend and contribute to. Theres more to this country than waiting 2 years for U2's next tour and importing America and the UK's top ten artists.--PJ 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. And where does the article list imported UK and American artists, and where have I said that my music listening is confined to daytime chart radio, which you seem to have assumed?  The point Guilopez, Alison and I have been making, more or less, is that this article is the main page for the country as a whole.  It cannot list everything, only the most notable in particular fields.  If people/bands you want to mention here don't even currently merit their own article, then you're putting the cart before the horse.  Fish Go Deep do have their own article - but as I said above, I'm not sure it'd survive an WP:AFD at the moment - at least in its current state, with apalling spelling/grammar and complete lack of references.  In the absence of actual high quality electronic / hip-hop articles to link to from here, you'd probably be better off working on starting/improving such articles, then introducing the topic again.  In my opinion, anyway.  Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 12:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Im not assuming anything Bastun, the article paints a picture of chart and daytime radio,(don't get me wrong its a good article) I accept what you say, I'd like the main page, to include a nod to the modern musical styles that most people listen to, and include bands as well as and besides the ones everyone in the world know are Irish. You see people expect to see whats there, and my suggestion would show and add more depth in the reference to our musical contributions and taste. It is a page set in the present tense, so with a few words changing, it may avoid the dreaded WP:AFD. I'll see what I can do regarding sites for these acts with appropriate resources. Thanks for your opinion.--PJ 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi PJ/guys. I agree with Bastun. Assuming notability is asserted under WP:MUSIC (charted single, album released by notable label, won award, etc) it's probably best to create the "subarticles" on the relevant artists. Once established/sources verified, it should then be OK to link as part of a "summary" in this article. (Where national relevance is asserted). Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Points taken, thanks --PJ 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Contested move request
''The following request to move a page has been added to Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM.'' —Dekimasu よ!  11:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Republic Of Ireland → Ireland and Ireland → Ireland (island) - The current title of 'Republic of Ireland is wrong. The state is called Ireland and the republic of Ireland is just a description similar to the republic of France. This change is necessary to keep facts right on wikipedia. The term Ireland is used more to refer to the state rather than the whole island so the current 'Ireland' aricle needs to be moved aswell. Any opposition to these changes are unfounded as the proposed moves are facts and not opinions. 78.16.57.194 (talk)
 * Comment. This is a very controversial topic. It has been discussed on Talk:Ireland and Talk:Republic of Ireland for several years. There has never been any concensus to change from the status quo. That the nominator states that "opposition to these changes are unfounded" is not representative of the history. Guliolopez (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. As Guliolopez says this has been well discussed several times before. Check out some of these previous discussions: here, here, here here, here, here, here and here. ww2censor (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, Concour with the above. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined - already a dead horse. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

-- The anon editor who made the request never completed the requirements needed for the move to be properly considered, so all templates placed by him have been removed. ww2censor (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Only spotted this now. Obviously I disagree in the strongest manner. RoI as title for this article is completely wrong and contrary to normal Wiki practice. I fully endorse the proposers comments. Sarah777 (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the lengthy discussion below, it is clear that there is no consensus for the move, just as there has not been on the umpteen previous occasions when this proposal has been made. Describing the name as "completely wrong" ignore Section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 (No. 22/1948), which says in full ''"It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."
 * The named used in the constitution, "Ireland", cannot be used for this article because that name is used for the article on the island, whose boundaries are not contiguous with those of the state.  The choice is therefore whether to name this article by the description which has been provided for by the law of Ireland for 60 years, or to use a contrived article title. Labelling a description approved in law as "completely wrong" is not a persuasive approach, unless we are to adopt the Republican legitimist approach that all Dala convened since the Second Dáil in 1921 are illegitimate. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So what if the discussion has happened before? Some of us are only happening upon it now. I agree the proposer and with Sarah777 that RoI is totally contradictory to Wiki practice. The official name of the State, and the name it is ordinarily referred to is Ireland. Of course there should be a disambiguation page offering a redirection to an article on the island. But the way it is now is plainly wrong, and attempts to close down the discussion because it's been had before are unacceptable. Pleidhce (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. What's there now is wrong. The constitution takes precedence of a single act. I support the move. Bardcom (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken Closure of the Discussion
Very flawed reasoning BHG.
 * You forget/ignore the option of a dab page.
 * Having done so you then provide a straw man: The choice is therefore whether to name this article by the description which has been provided for by the law of Ireland for 60 years, or to use a contrived article title.
 *  Labelling a description approved in law as "completely wrong" is not a persuasive approach. Is it not? Maybe if you can't distinguish between the concept of a "name" and a "description" it isn't. But for those of us who can see the difference in meaning it is a very persuasive approach.
 * This simple reasoning involves no particular view of the Dalla post the 2nd.
 * In the light of the manifest logical incoherence of you reasons for closure I ask you to open this discussion again. Sarah777 (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, what we have here is a clear case of a slim voting majority imposing a solution that is contrary to normal Wiki policy and practice. Sarah777 (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, what you have here is a clear case of no consensus. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 00:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I second Sarah777's suggestion that discussion be reopened. Some of us are only discovering this absurd situation now. 71.213.237.219 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Pleidhce (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I also support the reopening Sarah777's request that this discussion be reopened. Redking7 (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mise freisin.Wikipéire (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but this issue seems to have popped up every six months for ages, and always ends up as "no consensus". Consensus seems to apply here: repeatedly pushing the same case in the hope that some day there will be a narrow supermajority in favour of change. And we already have evidence in the discussion below that this sort of endless rehashing of the same arguments drives people away from wikipedia.

In response to Sarah's points:
 * the option of a bad dab page doesn't change anything: this article still won't be called Ireland, unless the existing article on the island is to be moved to Ireland (island)
 * There's no staw man when I point out that The choice is therefore whether to name this article by the description which has been provided for by the law of Ireland for 60 years, or to use a contrived article title. That is the choice which has been discussed
 * I can indeed distinguish between a name and a description. However, the name is not available to us as an article title, so the choice is between a contrived article title and a legal description. Neither is ideal, and since there is no consensus on which is better, we default to the status quo.

The discussion below had lasted for two weeks, without a consensus, and nothing new was being added. At some point, we have to draw a line under things, and two weeks is longer than allocated to other processes.

If people strongly feel that the closure was unjustified, you may of course use dispute resolution such as an RFC on my actions, or an RFC on the issues. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * BHG; I'm certainly not going to start an RFC on your actions! I was hoping for a change of heart but when I read that the option of a bad page doesn't change anything I knew there was no appealing to common sense! Sarah777 (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will, of course, be raising this issue again before the next blue moon. Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ooops! typo :)
 * Anyway, first thing on the morning of the day before the next blue moon sound good. I'll bring the popcorn :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of articles associated with this page

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It has been brought to my attention that I have to gain consensus for the changes I made. I apologise for not posting here first. Anyway I moved a few articles with the term 'Republic of Ireland' to 'Ireland (state). I have done this for good reasons. The term 'Republic Of Ireland' has no absolutely no official status in reference to the state of Ireland. The 'Republic of Ireland' is in the constitution as a description to define the fact that its not a constitutional monarch country not the name of the country in anyway. Using 'Republic of Ireland' would lead readers to incorrectly believe that that is the name of the country which its not. By removing this colloquial (it only appears wrongly in British media) and incorrect term from the articles and putting in Ireland (state) it makes the articles much more accurate and I feel that should be the goal of a site like wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipéire (talk • contribs) 22:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipéire, read sections 7, 9, 24, and 37 on this page to see some of the more recent history of this debate. It will familiarize you with the arguments that have already been made, on both sides of the issue. Dppowell (talk) 03:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On some topics this has merit e.g. the name of the page is President of Ireland not President of Republic of Ireland, on other's it is better to keep the distinction e.g. Health care in the Republic of Ireland is necessary to disambiguate between it and Health care in Northern Ireland (although [Health care in Ireland]] redirects to the Republic. This avoids leading to situations such as Roads in Ireland where both the Republic and the North are discussed at once (when reality is that they should be treated separately.) --sony-youth pléigh 08:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Wikipéire I think your reasoning is faulty. The description "Republic of Ireland" does have official status. It is enshrined in the constitution as a description while "Ireland (state)" certainly is not there in any form. If you want to infer meanings that are not in the constitution that is of course up to you, but we deal with encyclopaedic reality here and common usage. If your reason for not using Republic of Ireland in circumstance where using Ireland would cause any misconception, or be confused with the name of the island, is, as you state "the 'Republic of Ireland' is in the constitution as a description to define the fact that its not a constitutal monarch country not the name of the country in anyway", that is entirely your opinion which I am sure you cannot substantiate with a verifiable source and that can only be regarded as original research. Most articles where the constitutional description is used make it quite clear that it refers to the state of "Ireland" and not to the island. We have discussed this naming issue many times and there has never been any consensus to change the status quo. ww2censor (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the term "Republic of Ireland " is not in the Constitution of Ireland. It only occurs in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 and, since Ireland is a constitutional democracy, all law is subordinate to the constitution.  --Red King (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is also worth recording that the absense of consensus does not mean that the present situation is acceptable. A majority of editors want it moved but a substantial minority object to any such move and thus consensus has not been reached. --Red King (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More precisely, Article 4 of the Constitution says that "The name of the state is Éire or, in the English language, Ireland". So Ireland (state) is a perfectly reasonable name and in addition accords with Wikipedia norms for disambiguated articles. --Red King (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct Red King about the act/constitution legal description but consensus is still required to make a change and it is still legal. ww2censor (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the evidence, I'd agree that this should be at Ireland (state) instead. — Nightstallion 23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a growing awareness of the facts and agreement that the article title is wrong. Is now the time to start gathering consensus to change the title of this article?Wikipéire (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me give you a quote from last February 2007's discussion on the same topic of name change by Djegan that you should consider before pushing forward. BTW, so far five people have posted this time and there is NO consensus - that has been the previous result after much discussion, one each occasion.
 * We tend to have this discussion about once every year. As soon as the editors who wanted last years change move on then this years cohort finally pluck up the courage for a new vote. The result; a lot of discussion that changes nothing but wastage of talk archive and talk page inflation.

The simple reality is that on a cold sunday afternoon (or as per your locale) its easy to discuss what you might do, but when it actually comes to implementing the situation of a change of article name any serious wikipedian knows that "Republic of Ireland" is not the title of simply one article but rather of a rather greater quantity and that their are rather better things to do, even in wikipedia.
 * ww2censor (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How inciteful. Did you ever stop that if the proper title was implemented this would all stop? The other articles don't matter their titles can change too as long as the 'mother article' changes theres a natural progression that they'll change too. If you want to do something else on wikipedia, fine. Everyone's free to do what they want. We're not far from getting consensus this time around.Wikipéire (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose, one could argue that the article France be moved to The fifth French Republic. I think moving 'Republic of Ireland' (including the places, where the term is used) to 'Ireland (state)'? would be a huge undertaking & a huge headache. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that much of a problem, as most of the administrative tasks related to the move are quite automated already, and the rest can be done by a small number of dedicated editors -- even one, I suppose -- in a work of a day or two at most. The question we should be asking ourselves is not "is it worth it?" but "is it correct and encyclopedic?", and based on the last criterion I'd say we should move the article (of course only if others agree, but I think the evidence that "Republic of Ireland" is in fact not the actual official name seems to be pretty clear). — Nightstallion 22:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article France is a good example for moving this article to Ireland (state). Also (and more important to me), the Irish Constitution says the republic's name is Ireland. The possible moves 'major stumbling block'? common usage. Guess it won't hurt to try, though. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the argument about the logistics of this move is irrelevent. The name is wrong and should be put right. In fact, last year I offered to do all the work myself but that was ignored. Now this red herring is being raised again. Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally (again), I've no problem with 'moving' this article's title to Ireland (state), aswell as throughout Wikipedia; as long as Ireland isn't moved (the island has held the name, longer then the republic). GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the issue of "Ireland (state)" vs. "Republic of Ireland" is completely detached from the evergreen discussion about what the primary meaning of "Ireland" should be. — Nightstallion 08:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything that is being said here. There is a complete lack of opposition to the move this time around so I personally don't see any reason why this shouldn't be moved.Wikipéire (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the move is made, do we then have to make Northern Ireland into Northern Ireland (state)? After all, some people might think that "Northern Ireland" is simply the north of Ireland (state). --G2bambino (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah! We keep it at Northern Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Em. The statement that "there is a complete lack of opposition to the move this time" is NOT TRUE. I remain opposed to this. I remain unconvinced that "Ireland (state)" is an appropriate label for this article. I understand the argument that "Ireland" is officially correct, but I can't support it's use to apply to the state (precluding its use to the entire island). The term "Ireland (state)" is a compromise, but is unclear in it's meaning, and will actually be more confusing. I appreciate that it is offered as a DAB term to avoid confusion with the use of the term "Ireland" as applied to the entire island. However, as stated once a fortnight for the last 3 years, I think it is an awkwardly contrived construct, and another naturally formed DAB term already exists. My personal opinion is that "Republic of Ireland" is a naturally formed DAB term that meets WP:COMMONNAME. Guliolopez (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't support it's use to apply to the state? Read the constitution! Ireland is the official name and as an encyclopedia wikipedia should use it. The current DAB does not satisfy WP:COMMONNAME as it is/was solely a colloquial term (it appears NOWHERE in the constitution) used in the United Kingdom prior to the Belfast Agreement. It is not awkward, it is informative and besides, its 'awkwardness' is irrelevant as it is only used as a title to the article which already has completely removed all use of the term Republic Of Ireland. You can't argue the fact that a country's official constitution has more importance than your personal opinion because you think its awkward.Wikipéire (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipéire please stop trying to steamroll this renaming, but try to come to a consensus and if it does not go your way be gracious enough to accept the result. It really seems to be an obsession with you, and you even try to give an impression that there is NO opposition to further your cause. Well there is opposition as I previously stated above on this very page and in this very discussion. Fortunately Guliolopez gives a clear and well reasoned argument for retaining the status quo while, basically, all you keep repeating that it is in the constitution. Well it is not in the constitution to call the state "Ireland (state)". That article title is to dumb down a great nation which unfortunately for Wikipedia has the same official name as the island. Republic of Ireland is a fine naming convention usage that has dignity and is legal, Ireland (state) is not. However, as you well know, but choose to perhaps ignore, we have a legal solution right there in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 (as I was corrected earlier), which is Republic of Ireland. Oh, yeah, that's the name of the article already, what was I thinking? ww2censor (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would a move to Ireland (country) be acceptable? GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would that redirect to Ireland, Goodday? "Republic of Ireland" is just fine. Its a common term and clearly disambiguates between the island and the state. As I pointed out on the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) talk page, it's rare that articles on states are actually titled "correctly". --sony-youth pléigh 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't re-direct to Ireland. Anyways, seeing as the consensus is to keep Republic of Ireland? I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not. This is simply wrong and will remain wrong till it's fixed. Wikipéire is not the one doing the steamrolling. The bizarrely discordant reasons given by those opposed to the change speaks for itself. Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not either. Ireland (state) is more correct for encyclopedic use.Melvo (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is beyond any reasonable dispute. It is the "logistical" reasons and reasons related to other articles that really tick me off here. Sarah777 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever the consensus is, I'll abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm don't really edit anything on wikipedia but I'd just thought I'd say I'm for the move. What do you have to do to get consensus? I currently make it 6 approve of the move to Ireland (state) while 3 are against.78.16.22.164 (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the moving of this to Ireland (state), Ireland is the official name of the state.--Padraig (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

{Sigh). There is an interesting theological argument to be had about the relative status of the name set out in the constitution and in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, but in wikipedia articles are named by their most common name, and Republic of Ireland is the name by which state is known for most purposes, particularly when being distinguished from Northern Ireland.

Republic of Ireland is clear and unambiguous. The alternative isn't. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS Those pressing for the rigid use of the highest level of legal name, rather than the common name, might like to consider the consequences of applying that principle to Stroke City. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. The city is called London derry and is firmly located in the British Isles. To say this is merely correct and encyclopedic, and to say otherwise, or to try to mask these facts, is an aberration against the truth. Cake, anyone? --sony-youth pléigh 11:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously this article needs to stay here. The title is unambiguous, and I see that many of those arguing for a move to the official name have previously argued against moving Derry to that other name. Most readers would scratch their heads at what "Ireland (state)" refers to in addition. One Night In Hackney  303  15:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Most readers would scratch their heads at what "Ireland (state)" refers to.  Excuse me? I think they might just understand that it refers to the state called Ireland. Also what has the Derry/Londonderry article have to do with this? Nothing! And you accuse me of trying to streamroll a verdict. Republic of Ireland is not the most common name! It is used by FIFA and by some of the British government and media. However they have started to stop this since the Belfast Agreement of 1998 where the Irish government took issue with the British goverment refering to Ireland as the 'Republic of Ireland'! The article needs to move to the official name which is also used much more commonly. I have never heard a person say ' I am going to/I live in The Republic of Ireland'. Why? Because it's not the name of the country! Those opposing this move really need to stop looking to the past and look at the current and future use of the name of the country which is Ireland. That is why Ireland (state) should be used.Wikipéire (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You appear very confused yourself. First you're saying it's a state, then you're saying it's a country. The Derry situation is wholly relevant, given that those wishing to move this article based on an official name argument would attempt to block any move on that article. One Night In Hackney  303  17:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok very smart. I just used the terms country and state very loosely. You know what I mean. The Derry article is not relevant. Ireland was never called ROI. L'Derry's name history is complex. Let us not speak of it again when we are discussing this article's title. Instead of discussing this one issue at hand which we have here, you are sidetracking to unjustified personal attacks on individuals. I for one have never done anything with that article. Accept the facts for this article and any qualms you have about a different article should be mentioned on it's own talk page.Wikipéire (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. (London)Derry is completely unrelated to this issue, and the term "state" or "country" is quite clear as a disambiguation device. — Nightstallion 18:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. Both are common-name versus official name issues, and the principles should not be applied selectively. I'm also rather bemused by Wikipéire's claims about the "future use of the name of the country": WP:NOT. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You have completely stopped arguing the point at hand. Rename it Londonderry I honestly don't care. It has nothing to do with this article! Your obsession with the L'Derry naming issue has no place in this talk page. I am discussing proper facts about the name at hand not some random other article. I'm sure there are many articles which people have problems with. We are here to discuss this one. The 'claim' I used was just a correct suggestion that the term ROI is outdated and if we don't move the article is will become more and more obvious in the future that we have to move it. Really people you are picking every battle except on the issue that is being discussed! A sure sign that you realise your reasons really have no merit.Wikipéire (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is getting interesting. Wikipéire, you say that "a correct suggestion that the term ROI is outdated" ... so please tell us all which bit of legislation has repealed section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. You say that opponents the move are "picking every battle except on the issue that is being discussed", let's focus on the issue. In which section of which Act of the Oireachtas was section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 repealed? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And because other editors are obstructing the move of Derry to Londonderry, you prefer to oppose the sensible move of "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (state)"? Besides, the common AND official name of Ireland is Ireland, so the analogy is very erroneous. — Nightstallion 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "It is used by FIFA and by some of the British government and media." A |quick google search will reveal it being used by a couple of millions others as well. It is also the official description of the Irish state and a very common way of referring to the state, particularly if one wants to differentiate between the island and the 26 counties, or the Republic from the North.
 * "The article needs to move to the official name ..." Very few articles about countries on Wikipedia are located at that state's official name (some exceptions that comes to mind are People's Republic of China/Republic of China and the Czech Republic for fairly obvious reasons).
 * "I have never heard a person say ' I am going to/I live in The Republic of Ireland'." Really? Never?? Not even to make the distinction between the North and the Republic? Very strange. You must live quite a sheltered existence.
 * "The Derry article is not relevant." The Derry/Londonderry example demonstrates that there are more considerations than just what is the official name of any entity is. "L'Derry's name history is complex." As is the name history of the Irish state. That is why there is an article on it. "Let us not speak of it again." Let's not mute discussion that we find unsettling.
 * "The 'claim' I used was just a correct suggestion that the term ROI is outdated ..." Do you have a reference for this? The last time I looked it was still the official description of the Irish state. "... and if we don't move the article is will become more and more obvious in the future that we have to move it." I would ask for a citation for this but instead will direct you towards WP:NOT as did BrownHairedGirl. --sony-youth pléigh 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you check your link on the first page, 4 of the ten are talking about the football team while another 3 are from the British media. Granted others use it, but you yourself have proved it is not the COMMON NAME of the state we're talking about. The point of the article is not particulary differentiate it from Northern Ireland. It is a general description for which a disambigious 'descriptive' name isn't at all necessary. The official name is much more appropriate and much more common.


 * Roi is sometimes used in Northern Ireland alright, but we are talking about an article that is read on a global scale where sorry to tell you Ireland is much more common, so the new title conforms to WP:COMMONNAME. The name of the article is much more important than differenciating internal island differences which you seem to be hung up on.


 * Again L'Derry has nothing to do with this. The city was once officially called Derry and now is officially called Londonderry. This article title discussion doesn't have that problem. This state has never been called ROI. After Éire it was called Ireland. Why should a description come ahead a country's constitional name? No reason. Ireland (state) differenciates it from the island, it uses the state's official name, the state's most common name and is more accurate, which is important for wikipedia. Even the Irish government have complained about the term ROI being used to address the country - t should not be used for this article.Wikipéire (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh God, not this silly argument again. I was here for years (until it became impossible to put up with the rubbish any longer). I end up paying a 1 night visit back and find the same pain-in-the-ass argument about the name of this page is still going on, for the fourth or fifth year. *sigh*


 * sigh* For the umptheenth time: the name of the Irish state in the constitution is Eire, or in English, Ireland. It is nothing else. But as 'Ireland' means both the 26 county state, the 32 county island, a 'national territory' and has all sorts of complex meanings, using 'Ireland' here is not an option.


 * For over fifty years, when 'Ireland' is not an option to use, the Irish state uses the description 'The Republic of Ireland' given to the state in the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948. That term is used by millions of Irish people (of which I am one). It is used worldwide by states, by governments, by broadcasters, by newspapers, and by numerous others. So if 'Ireland' cannot be used, then the subsidiary title the 'Republic of Ireland' is the obvious secondary choice. Why propose NOT to use a legitimate legal title used by the Irish state when it cannot use 'Ireland', and instead use a makey-up wikied up phoney alternative? But then Irish people have been pointing this out over and over and over and over again in the the 40 or something endless debates about this non-issue. Invariably, after the decision has been taken (again) someone will come along and try to change it (again), and will fail (again), and will try to rename links and articles (again). And so it will continue as long as Wikipedia exists. (No wonder most of the people who were on Wikipedia when I was just got fed up and left. It is this sort of going around in circles with endless revotes of revotes of revotes that were wrecking people's heads.

PS: If, as it appears, the proposer of this renaming unilaterally changed links all over, that will mean that other users will then have to go over all those links and move them back again (again). FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That work is not a problem. Now some posters above appear to be suggesting that "Republic of Ireland" is the common name for the 26 counties. It is not. "Ireland" is - pure and simple. RoI is used for disambiguation in certain limited contexts. It is neither the correct legal name nor the common name. A disambiguation page directing to Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) is the only acceptable solution to this article misnomer. (Unless we give primacy of use to Ireland (the state). My recent expierence with Emo has copperfastened my view on this. Sarah777 (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've stated above, I agree with this line of reasoning and have not yet read a conclusive counterargument... — Nightstallion 08:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Guidance for naming conventions is not just use the most common name, it is to, "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. " In this case, that would be Republic of Ireland, that being "the most common name of [the] thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things".
 * I also cannot understand how people can get upset by this. It is the official description of the state. Next year we'll celebrate it's half-centenary and 50 years of the 26 counties being a republic (or de jure and internationally recognised as such at least). How, Wikipéire et al. can believe that almost 5 million google hits does not demonstrate that it is a common name is beyond me. I sounds like deliberate obtuseness.
 * Again, the London/Derry example, demonstrates that there is more to the choice of a name on Wikipedia that just it's legal name; and guidance for naming conventions explicitly state that there is more to be considered that just the common name for a thing. --sony-youth pléigh 09:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional Fallout - Category: Shipping companies of Ireland was inexplicably deleted on March 5 by User:Betacommand, leaving Category:Shipping companies of the Republic of Ireland
 * Now a company such as City of Dublin Steam Packet Company which was very nationalist in its day (Nationalist MPs were given free passage to Westminister, Unionist were not) is now no longer listed as an 'Irish' company, but is part of Category:Shipping companies of the United Kingdom !! ClemMcGann (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated the category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it to be a subcat of "Shipping companies of the United Kingdom"? I see "Shipping companies of the Republic of Ireland" is a sub cat of it? What does it refer to? --sony-youth pléigh 12:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What! I'm keeping a cool head as per instructions above - for now! Sarah777 (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, thanks for keeping a cool head Sarah) Suggestion, rather than being negative ... could that cat be reorganised as such:
 * Shipping companies of Ireland
 * Shipping companies of the Republic of Ireland
 * Shipping companies of Northern Ireland (sub cat of Shipping companies of the United Kingdom)
 * Shipping companies of Ireland (1801-1922) (sub cat of Shipping companies of the United Kingdom)
 * (Wrong place for discussion but since it started here.) --sony-youth pléigh 12:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what's happening here? Of course neither nor  should be subcats of, but they are not, and so far as I can see they have not been.
 * Sony-Youth's suggestion seems fine, except for the 1801-1922 category, which seems unnecessary when at this point there seems to be only one article to fit in it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Of course neither ... should be subcats of " - except for the period 1801-1922. In order to clear up what exactly is meant by "Ireland", and it's relationship with the UK as brought up above by ClemMcGann, I propose that City of Dublin Steam Packet Company be put in the 1801-1922 category, that way we get around having to debate "how nationalist" each company way before we decide to put them in the UK and/or the Ireland category as ClemMcGann seems to suggest above. If there's only one member of the cat, who cares, the point is that that cat can be a sub cat of the UK and we can all get on with our lives without having to count the freckles on a steamboat captain's face to determine "how Irish" or otherwise he was. --sony-youth pléigh 13:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Who cares? Well, lots of folks at CFD will care. Why create an extra category for one article when the same effect can be achieved simply by dual-catting that article? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gosh, they really shouldn't. An underpopulated category is reason to add the cat to, but explicitly not a reason to delete it per Category deletion policy or Category deletion policy/Speedy criteria. --sony-youth pléigh 21:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Change the name of to  - problem solved ;)  One Night In Hackney  303  13:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Premium idea, old chap! --sony-youth pléigh 15:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that, that move is likely to cause even more offense.Wikipéire (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would be better?
 * Or perhaps ?
 * Probably best, though, to acknowledge that ONIH and S-Y were being very tongue-in-cheek and that irony doesn't always travel very well in online communications. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at sony youth's user page I wouldn't be surprised if he was serious.Wikipéire (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a multiple irony - The initials of Republic of Ireland, is ROI, which is French for King (sorry Irish republicans). GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. It also stands for why don't you stick to Canadian topics.Wikipéire (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I can't abide by your suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly does not stand for that. (And what is it about my user page that would attract the attention of a mid-Atlanticist like yourself, Wikipéire?) --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth pléigh 22:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to see the correct term used. Not the most popular term in a different country, or the prettiest, or the one with the most vowels, or the one that martians from outer space mars use. I'm Irish, and I'm from Ireland. Change the title! Bardcom (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think all articles should be located at the "correct" name? French Republic? United States of America? Russian Federation? Islamic Republic of Pakistan? Arab Republic of Egypt? Commonwealth of Australia? Federative Republic of Brazil? etc. etc. Where would you located the article on the island called Ireland? What is its "correct" name? I could understand your offense if this was a term one that was merely popular "in a different country, or the prettiest, or the one with the most vowels, or the one that martians" used, but it is in fact the official description of the state, the term defined by the Government of Ireland, and has been since 1949.
 * I'm Irish, and I'm from Ireland. Keep the title! --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth pléigh 21:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have horrible feeling that if this 27th round of the renaming debate continues, then we may have to adopt some bizarre solution like FYROM.
 * Any takers for The country constitutionally named Ireland, described in law as The Republic of Ireland, and whose territory consists of five-sixths of the Island of Ireland? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What I really don't understand is why we can't have it at "Ireland (country)" or "Ireland (state)" analogous to "Georgia (country)"... sighs But never mind. — Nightstallion 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's my logic, and of course it could be wrong because it's not based on anything except what makes sense to be me, but I do feel it's sound enough:
 * There are two Georgas:
 * A sovereign state in the Caucasus
 * A federal state in the USA
 * There are no other common terms for these entities and thus no other way of splitting these apart except to have Georga (country] and Georgia (U.S. state) (note not even Georgia (state)).
 * There are two Irelands:
 * An island verging on the North Atlantic
 * A state occupying part of that island
 * In this case, as well as being called Ireland, the state is also very commonly called Republic of Ireland. Indeed that is even a term that has official status in the state. (In fact, as demonstrated by talk on this page, many people believe that "Republic of Ireland" is the official name of the state, and "Ireland" merely a short-hand for it.) It seems pretty straight forward then to have to island at Ireland and the state at Republic of Ireland, both of these are "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth pléigh 09:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter what you say ROI is nowehere near the most common name. Also this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Irish_state#Name_dispute_with_the_UK should give you a better idea why people are anti the term Roi. The title of the article is adding to a problem the government wre and still are trying to avoid!Wikipéire (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Ireland" is the probably most common name, but is not the only concern when choosing the location of an article on Wikipedia. "America" is probably the most common name for the country discussed at United States, but that too was not the only concern when choosing the location for that article (as neither was the official name of that country i.e. United States of America).
 * I'm fully aware of the history of Anglo-Irish relations concerning the name of the Irish state, that too is irrelevant when choosing the location of the article on Wikipedia. It is a subject for the content of the article. On that topic, much has been done to remedy a lot of the errors that appeared before e.g. before the lead read something like "The Republic of Ireland is a country ..." and didn't highlight Ireland as the name in any way. Even after this error was corrected "Republic of Ireland" continued to be highlighted. Thankfully, that situation has been changed. Likewise, there was difficulties with the flag templates, where by the only way you could get a tricolour was to by Ireland (which links to the island) or  Republic of Ireland. This too is thankfully now changed, so that we have 🇮🇪 Ireland ( 🇮🇪 Ireland ). If you look through the archives, you'll see that I played a substantial role in instantiating the changes to this article and am wholly responsible for the changes on Country data Ireland. Across Wikipedia, there are many places where the state is named incorrectly (excepting those places where "Republic of Ireland" is useful to make clear the distiction between the state, the island, and Northern Ireland) and on occasion it's been a tooth-and-nail fight to have those changed. So, don't think that I'm not sympathetic. I am. But there are more reasons against making the change you want here than there are for. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth pléigh 13:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see the line of argumentation and acknowledge that its points are valid, but I still believe there are more reasons in favour of having the page at "Ireland (country)" than against -- doesn't seem like we'll arrive at consensus here any time soon, though, so I'll have to accept that it'll stay as it is for now. — Nightstallion 16:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding your final argument, though, I'd say that "Ireland (qualifier)" is still an article title which is rather more true to the most common name of the country ("Ireland") than the elongated and partially inofficial "Republic of Ireland", which is legally only a description and rather clumsy. — Nightstallion 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nightstallion is right: there is no prospect of a consensus on this one. So please can we agree to shut down this discussion? It has long since become repetitive, rehashing territory which has already been covered in the same thread, and which has also been discussed at great length on previous occasions without consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent): Hear hear from me, BHG. Let's stop wasting time and get some constructive editing done. ww2censor (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Some years ago there was a consensus on this page to ban constant re-opening of this issue for at least six months. Even while that was being discussed someone else tried to re-open the discussion on the name yet again, exactly 48 hours after the last discussion (which itself had started something like 3 days after the previous discussion). At this point it is becoming a farce. There is no consensus to move. There never has been. I doubt if there ever will be. The topic should be put to bed and banned from the page for at least six months. It is a complete waste of time allowing the exact same discussion, that will produce the exact same outcome, practically on a weekly basis. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint) 20:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, discussion closed;l I suggest that no further discussion of a proposed renaming be allowed for at least six months. I also suggest that any proposed renaming after that date be curtailed unless the proposer can make a clear case for circumstances having changed and/or having being some significant new arguments to put on the table. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an uncontested fact that the English language proper name of the nation-state in question is "Ireland." There is absolutely no valid argument to be made to countermand this fact. The fact that "Ireland" is also the name of the principal island of that state is a complicating factor, especially given the particular historical and political situation of Ireland the nation-state as well as Ireland the island. Nevertheless, given other alternatives like "Republic of Ireland", "Irish Republic", "Twenty-six Counties", "Eire" (without the fatha) et cetera, it is impossible to remain unbiased and neutral in naming conventions in a country where everything turns into a political shibboleth. (See Derry/Londonderry, Long Kesh/Maze, Northern Ireland/North of Ireland, et cetera.)

The only reasonable solution is to call the nation-state exactly what it calls itself, as made perfectly clear in its Constitution: "Ireland". I support renaming the article "Ireland (state)". Windyjarhead (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Education system
The article currently states:

"The education systems in Ireland are complex due to a confusion of ownership, control and curricular assessment. This has arisen because the systems developed over long periods of time with variable influence by several key players, including the Irish state. Unlike in countries such as France, Ireland's state education system is largely limited to the content of the curriculum, although this too is mediated by voluntary interests."

The English in the above is pretty poor. What precisely is the "confusion" referred to? As for "Ireland's state education system is largely limited to the content of the curriculum" - I think this serioiusly understates the State's role, for example, the state funds education. Some one, preferably with an understanding of how to briefly summarise the education system, may wish to amend the above paragraph. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mary Hannafin has been demoted (wahoo) She moves to Social and Family Affairs Batt O'Keefe becomes Minister for Education cant edit thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.44.173 (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Anoter proposed guideline for "the British Isles"
I have numerous concerns about the current proposal for a guideline for the use of the term British Isles and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth pléigh 20:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Border
Hello Ireland! Contributer Wikid77 has been assisting us in Wales create a unique boder around our info box, and I wish to share this with the wider wiki world! Prehaps you may wish to adopt this as well? It is an easly template to follow, and this is the result: ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to Talk:Republic of Ireland/Infobox Border. Crispness (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like it. Adds even more clutter to a page that is already too busy.  --Red King (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I don't like it either it is too, like, red and thick and unnecessary - also overpowering, tasteless, pointless. In essence it is dire and distracting; visually challenged. Utterly horrible, perhaps. And those are the positive features........Sarah777 (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah go on Sarah, stop pussyfootying around, and tell what you really think ;) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mickey Dazzler, as my ex-father-in-law would say. For me, it's way too gaudy, fussy, overbearing and full, but if that is what the Welsh like, then so be it. I think we Irish prefer something more refined and classy looking. Sorry but no. ww2censor (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Me no like neither. If the Welsh folk like it, that's great, but I'd prefer not to have it on Irish articles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of/Founding of the State
I added to the info box the date and link to the page concerning the declaration of the Republic of Ireland. This was done by act of parliament and made the 'Republic of Ireland' the official description of the state, also removing the state from the Commonwealth. It seems very odd that this date was left out. There is considerable debate on the issue, but from a strictly legal point of view, it is the point at which Ireland relinquished a king and semi autonomous, monarchic system. 104066481 (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've undone this edit. Controversial changes need to have a consensus first. Without background knowledge, I can see why omitting the RoI date from the info box might seem "very odd". However, it is omitted for good reasons: The dates in that part of the info box are the dates on which the state was declared, ratified and became independent. The Irish state today is the exact same legally entity established under the constitution in 1937. It is the successor state to the "Irish Free State". The RoI Act was not in any way an amendment of the constitution nor the creation of a new state. In fact, some might not realise it, but with a simple majority in the Oireachtas politicians could tomorrow morning give the state an entirely new "description". Repealing the External Relations Act which was also done under the RoI Act was similarly in now way a new constitutional or state departure. In short the RoI date was not a date that relates to the "Declaration of" or "Founding of" of the "State". The state was almost twelve years old when the RoI Act came in. Thats why it would be inaccurate (and misleading) to add the RoI date. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Shannon and the Soviet Union
I have changed the section relating to military use of Shannon airport to reflect what the linked article actually says - which is not that the Soviet Union used Shannon during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but rather the exact opposite. Ireland was always biased towards NATO during the Cold War - in fact, it was only allowed in in 1955 because the Soviets and Americans agreed that equal numbers of aligned nations could joined, as far as I can recall. If anyone has any conflicting evidence, please feel free to correct me, however. Supersheep (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Giuliolopez (sp?), re: the bias towards NATO, see footnote 29 Supersheep (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your note. A couple of quick things.
 * First a question: When you say "it was only allowed in in 1955 because the Soviets and Americans agreed that equal numbers of aligned nations could joined", what is the "it" refer to here? And what was "it" allowed into? Ireland into the Cold War? The USSR into Shannon? :)
 * Secondly a comment: My main issue with the initial sentence change was that the article in the sentence was "Shannon" or "the use of Shannon", and so the "bias" was associated to an entity or concept that couldn't show bias. (An airport can't be biased. The legislators or legislation relating to the airport might be biased, but the airport itself is inanimate/impartial.) The updated reword is better.
 * Thirdly a quick response: I did read the reference in question. Unfortunately however it's just an abstract rather than an actual paper. And so it says things like: "The central argument of this paper is how .... Ireland has by default become involved in the defence of the North Atlantic area through its civilian foreign aviation policy." But, because it's just an abstract, there is actually no argument made. So, the citation provided is actually quite "weak". If you (or someone else) can find a better one (one which actually sets out the argument rather than just referring to it) it might actually be better.
 * Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. In response:
 * 1. I left out a word, the sentence should read "it (Ireland) was only allowed into the UN in 1955 because the Soviets and Americans agreed that equal numbers of aligned nations could join." This is just something I remember reading, a bit of background if you will.
 * 2. Fair point, that's why I reworded it.
 * 3. I'll try have a look - there is a book on Ireland, NATO, and the Cold War I have seen in the college library which argues along similar lines. I will try and track it down if I can. I agree with you that it's a weak citation, but I hope it will do for the moment. 89.100.185.190 (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Things to do next time when replying: log in... (That's me above.) Supersheep (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection
IP vandalism is on the rise, and following on from a protection request at WP:RPP I have semi-protected this article for two weeks so the IPs loose interest. I hope this is acceptable. SGGH speak! 11:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Peaceful?
"Ireland is one of the (...) most (...) peaceful countries on earth"

Oh, come on... just pathetic! This is an encyclopedia, not propaganda. There are probably another hundred countries that would fit this writer's definition of "peaceful" if he/she actually knew them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.215.11 (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't heard of any problems there, lately. Other then their previous Prime Minister having been in a scandal & forced to resign. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh..wasn't "forced" to resign. More like got out before the posse arrived! Sarah777 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Poor choice of words (on my part). A'hern decided to resign. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ireland is like second on the Peaceful countries index.Thank you. End of discussion. Wik<font color="#C0C0C0">ip<font color="#FF823D">Éire   <font color="#009A63">♣ 21:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So where is this Peachful countries index? And, is it verifiable? ww2censor (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought all the Troubles occured in Northern Ireland; I always assumed Ireland (state) was peaceful. PS- forgive me folks, I'm a little over my head. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Global Peace Index. Ireland is 4th sorry. The ip above has been removing peaceful nearly every other day. It got blocked to ips so now the person is moaning that they can't vandalise. Wik<font color="#C0C0C0">ip<font color="#FF823D">Éire   <font color="#009A63">♣ 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And also here's the original documentation of it: http://www.visionofhumanity.com/artman/uploads/1/GPI_Launched_Press_Release.pdf Wik<font color="#C0C0C0">ip<font color="#FF823D">Éire    <font color="#009A63">♣ 22:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how serious that website can be taken. I don't suggest Ireland is'nt peaceful, but if you look at the quote from the guy who started it "We believe there is a link between the peacefulness and the wealth of nations therefore business has a key role to play in peace", USA anyone? I also think you have to define what is a peaceful nation. Does it mean Irish people are less likely to be victims of crime, or does it mean the Irish government are less likely to be involved in an overseas war. I think you have to separate the two! --Jack forbes (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jack. Did you read through the Global Peace Index article. It actually does define the factors included in the "peaceful" definition. (Estimated deaths due to external/internal wars, Level of organized internal conflict, Number of homicides, Ease of access to small arms and light weapons, etc). Frankly I think that, if the sentence "Ireland is one of the most peaceful countries on earth" is to remain, that assertion should be supported in the sentence. Not unlike how the "developed" and "richest" assertions are supported with "fifth highest GDP, fifth highest Human Development Index rank" etc. Something like: "Ireland is one of the richest, most developed and peaceful countries on earth, having the fifth highest gross domestic product per capita, second highest gross domestic product (purchasing power parity) per capita, the fourth highest Global Peace Index ranking, and having the fifth highest Human Development Index rank." If we don't trust the GPI ranking, then we take "peaceful" out entirely. In short:
 * If peaceful stays in, support it with the GPI ranking. If we don't trust the GPI ranking, take it out completely.
 * Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not the individual statistics I question, it's the combining of the statistics that I question. It may give a false impression that Ireland is peaceful in every way. For example, Ireland would obviously be high up the list as far as external wars are concerned and if you combined that with the rest it is going push them up the table of most peaceful countries. --Jack forbes (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed that article (GPI). It wiki-linked to Ireland, instead of the Republic of Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary
The current summary mainly just cites rankings. How about a few words about the history? Especially the extraordinary economic reforms, which make Ireland so significant in Europe? I can't believe Ireland could be summarized without explaining them.

This was proposed, but removed:
 * In the early 20th century, Ireland became the successor-state to the Dominion called the Irish Free State. Ireland used to be the poorest country in Western Europe and hundreds of thousands residents fled the stagnant economy to overseas. Economic reforms were started in the late 1950s and Ireland joined the European Community (now the European Union) in 1973. As a response to economic failures, massive reforms were started in 1985. Taxation and regulation have been reduced dramatically compared to other EU countries. Index of Economic Freedom ranks Ireland the world's 3rd most free country.
 * In a barely half generation, the economic freedom has made Ireland one of the richest, most developed and peaceful countries on earth, having the fifth highest gross domestic product per capita, second highest gross domestic product (purchasing power parity) per capita and having the fifth highest Human Development Index rank. The country also boasts the highest quality of life in the world, ranking first in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality-of-life index. Ireland was ranked fourth on the Global Peace Index. Ireland also has high rankings for its education system, political freedom and civil rights, press freedom and economic freedom; it was also ranked fourth from the bottom on the Failed States Index, being one of the few "sustainable" states in the world. Ireland has emerged from an origin of immigrants to a world's top immigant destination. Ireland's population is the fastest growing in Europe, with an annual growth rate of 2.5%.
 * Ireland is a member of the EU, the OECD and the UN. Ireland's policy of neutrality means it is not a member of NATO although it does contribute in peacekeeping missions sanctioned by the UN. The official languages are Irish and English. Approximately 86.8% of the population are Roman Catholic, and the country has one of the highest rates of regular and weekly church attendance in the Western World. Foreign citizens make around 10% of residents. Ireland tops globalisation rankings.

Any opinions? Turkuun (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine. But it could do with some summarisation. Maybe:


 * Shorten this: Ireland became the successor-state to the Dominion called the Irish Free State.
 * To this: Ireland became the successor-state to the Irish Free State.


 * Shorten this: Ireland used to be the poorest country in Western Europe and hundreds of thousands residents fled the stagnant economy to overseas.
 * To this: Ireland was one of the poorest countries in Western Europe and had high emigration.


 * Shorten this: As a response to economic failures, massive reforms were started in 1985. Taxation and regulation have been reduced ....
 * To this: Large-scale economic reforms were started in 1985, and taxation and regulation have been reduced...


 * There's probably other summarisation options too, but otherwise I think it's an OK addition. Guliolopez (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with both Turkuun and Guliolopez but it needs a few inline citations references, not just links to other wiki articles. Remember WP:V and I believe we are good to replace. ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Name Mediation
After another debate on this issue (different talk page) the suggestion of mediation was made to finally end it. The request is at the top of the page. People who have discussed this issue before are included. Wik<font color="#C0C0C0">ip<font color="#FF823D">Éire   <font color="#009A63">♣ 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the other debate, on a different talk page, that decided mediation should take place and that you refer to? ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk: United Kingdom is the place you seek. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what's going on here now? Wikipéire starts a holy war on another article, and then opens a request for mediation with editors who were not involved in that debate, and on a topic ('move "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland"') which has had no overt discussion here for 4 or 5 weeks? Am I getting this right? Guliolopez (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. Should be interesting to watch at least. Narson (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yawn, yawn. This topic has been discussed about every 6 months and no consensus has ever been reached to change the status quo, so User:Wikipéire keeps flogging the same dead horse until he drives away enough decent editors and gets his way. Drop it for once and for all. It's old hat and boring. Let me repeat that, it's boring. Mediation is unneeded and unwarranted, User talk:Wikipéire likely wants to  just bring in more people who have little knowledge of the topic and can be convinced by his constant pushing. ww2censor (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally perfer Ireland (state) or Ireland (country). But, whatever's decided at Mediation? IMHO, should be respected for at least 12-months. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ww2c is right. This is just flogging a dead horse, and there is no need for mediation. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as long as no-one takes pictures of it, otherwise I think we fall afoul of the new British extreme porn laws. Narson (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your reaction is just what I expected. You've always been against the move. Just because something has been there for a long time don't mean its right. I would have thought for WikiProject members getting the main country's name right would be important for an encyclopedia! Anyway we'll see what the mediation brings. Wik<font color="#C0C0C0">ip<font color="#FF823D">Éire   <font color="#009A63">♣ 19:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Me or BHG? I only just got brought into this...and there is no moral imperative in the wikipedia naming of the article and what is correct is a matter of perspective. Narson (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry not you. I was talking plurally to most of the other editors who have commented so far. Should have placed my comment better. Wik<font color="#C0C0C0">ip<font color="#FF823D">Éire   <font color="#009A63">♣ 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipéire, it's absolutely fine to believe that you are right, but what's not fine is that you don't seem to accept that other editors can legitimately disagree with you, and that repeatedly raising the same issue is disruptive. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've volunteered to mediate this issue within the Mediation Cabal; however only if people from both camps want to go through with it - see my comments on the case page for a possible goal. I just mention it in case some of the involved editors don't watch the case page - I'll just keep it open for a while. Averell (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we need to try mediation here. Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Closed the case. Only the "pro-move" camp supported the mediation, plus the original requester was banned permanently. Averell (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gay rights
Why has Ireland got a section on gay rights? I don't want to start an argument over gay rights but I don't see this on any other country article. Is this just a backlash of some sorts against the catholic church! Joe Deagan (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be because (as you note) historically Ireland was "culturally conservative" in that area, and it may be that some editors believe that including it highlights a cultural change in the outlook on some issues. Possibly. Personally I'm not sure it's an appropriate yardstick/measure for social trends or the change to a more "liberal" or open society. But then maybe it's as good as any other. With regard to "why Ireland and not elsewhere". I suppose - possibly - it's because some editors believe the polls show Irish society to be more tolerant/accepting/aware/balanced/whatever than others. Again, I couldn't say one way or the other whether it's any more appropriate to include in the Ireland article than elsewhere. Certainly the main UK article doesn't mention it. Even though LGBT partnerships do have full legal equality there - way more demonstrative of a "progressive" outlook than a simple poll. Anyway. I don't see any reason to take it out. Unless it grows into something more extensive. At which point it should be moved to LGBT rights in the Republic of Ireland. Guliolopez (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

New City And Towns Template
I see a new template has been added to the article listing Ireland's towns and cities by population by user:Drog lad. This brings the little known and slow moving Drogheda/Dundalk population dispute to the the main Ireland article. I didn't bother much when it was confined to Dundalk and Drogheda (see also asociated talk pages), but now that it's spilled over I'd like people to take a look at this alarming grave  minor dispute. Fribbler (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do we even need this templatecruft when there ia a perfectly good list List of towns in the Republic of Ireland/2006 Census Records available instead of taking up so much space and adding more code to an already large page which is 92kb long? We should actually be reducing the page size not increasing it. ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey relax i was just fowolling the list of 100 Largest Towns in Ireland <font style="color:#7F0;background:#0000">Drog <font style="color:#0000;background:#0000"> <font style="color:#00FFFF;background:#00">Lad 16:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this?
The table below I have removed from the article as it is hopelessly confused; some of the stats refer to counties, some to towns and the Dublin figure is was the figure for the GDA which actually includes many of the others on the list (eg Tallaght). And Dundalk seems to have gone missing. Sarah777 (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Drogheda was given Dundalk's population figure? <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 23:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like it. Surely we need to keep the Dundalk v. Drogheda issue out of here? Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed on several counts. The table is vague in it's definitions of town/city boundaries - In some cases it includes the exact town or city boundaries. And in other cases takes "urban area" or "town + environs" numbers. As a result, its accuracy is a little uncertain, and it therefore has very limited value. Similarly, because of this "vagueness" it brings the (sometimes troublesome) question of "which town is bigger" into a new and unnecessary forum. And finally, there is no need for this type of table in this article. We already have lists such as List of towns in the Republic of Ireland/2006 Census Records. The main country article doesn't benefit from having this data hashed up and dumped here. (No matter how prettily packaged). Guliolopez (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of Border article
At Talk:Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border, I have proposed that the name be changed to comply with diplomatic protocol. Please comment. --Red King (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC) 24.20.169.126 (talk) what with the polls mentioned, where most north protestants feel British, and only a very small minority (3%) actually considering themselves Irish, I would have to agree, this seems the most appropriate. if you think about it, arguments about calling it "Republic of Ireland" vs. "Ireland" are simply mimicking the great argument between north and south. Calling it "Ireland" would be speaking to the geography of the land, while "Republic of Ireland" would be speaking to the political boundaries of Southern Ireland.

I agree with Red King regarding this, because it discusses the politics of the Island & the politics of Britain. What better title than one that defines the politics?

-Crystal Sage 24.20.169.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Title of Wiki page incorrect
The title of the Wiki page should be "Ireland" - as explained in the main article. The title "Republic of Ireland" is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmacmanus (talk • contribs) 10:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Garda
There should be a section on the above topic. ZoofanNZ (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote
A hatnote has been added to List of basic Republic of Ireland topics, the work on just one editor: The Transhumanist. I don't think the new hatnote to a list deserves any greater prominence than any other list already in the current "See also" section. Is this an attempts to replace the much older and much more comprehensive List of Ireland-related topics that has been around since early 2004 and if anything that should be the hatnote? Besides which, we certainly don't need both, essentially duplicate, lists. Any other opinions? ww2censor (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You summarized the List of Ireland-related topics well: it is more comprehensive. The List of basic Ireland topics on the other hand is intended to be a general overview of the subject, much like the main article Republic of Ireland, but focused on links instead of prose. Unlike the more comprehensive list, it is intended to be an outline and is less index-like because of its scope (its scope is limited, whereas the related-topics list is not and has the potential to grow much much larger - see the Japan example below). Another difference is that the basic list is a member of a set of such lists (one for every country of the world) currently under construction.  They are coming along nicely, and share a common format.   See the rest at WikiProject Lists of basic topics).


 * The two lists in the set that are the most complete are List of basic France topics and List of basic Japan topics (notice the format of the more comprehensive List of Japan-related topics). Please help to complete the List of basic Republic of Ireland topics to this high standard.  Thank you. The Transhumanist  04:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Transhumanist. You appear to have added this "hatnote" convention to several country articles, and in doing so have created a kind of new "standard" for country related lists, and a new standard for header formats for country articles. Did you discuss this anywhere before going ahead and making changes accross so many articles? Personally I'm with Ww2censor. I don't really see what value is added by these lists. Many articles already have navboxes, "main" style nav templates and other devices to link users to the relevant "sub-articles". I don't see the value in superceding all of those with your new format. Any nods to WP:CON before you did all this? Guliolopez (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no new standard. Yet.  It's just a test run.  Of the 200+ county articles, I only changed the hatnote on about 20.  We should see if the links actually get used - if you don't object, that is.  I plan to use the hit counter to check those list articles over the next few weeks, to see if their traffic goes up.  For curiosity's sake, if nothing else.  If the traffic doesn't go up, then the links are useless and should be removed.  I haven't sought consensus yet, because there's no data yet to bring to a discussion.  If you'd like to reduce the number of test links to 10, that would be fine with me, but I figured since there are 20 completed lists, we might as well run the test on all of those (more data that way, and a test group of only 10 seems kind of scant - 20 seems about right).  I look foward to your thoughts and ideas.  The Transhumanist  22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, I don't see that there should be any preference to a list as a hatnote over and above the prominence given to any other link in the "see also" section, so I suggest moving it there, as there is no agreement to having a hatnote on the page. You can still observe its popularity from there. ww2censor (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)