![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
This argument needs to be sorted. This page is unfair to the citizens of ireland But if we gave this title to the state of ireland it would be unfair on Northen Irish people
We could sort this method out in three simple ways
1. Rename this page "Ireland (Island)"
2. Rename the Republic of Ireland page "Ireland (State)"
3. Make a page called "Ireland" that will just contain links to the above two —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.167.201 ( talk) 18:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This should not be controversial, but the page is locked, so i have to ask someone to do it.
There should be a link \[\[Corrib_gas_controversy|controversial decision]] for the referenced words in the "Energy network" section. 140.203.154.11 ( talk) 17:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Should the Irish flag be shown at the top of the infobox for easy reference?
Currently, you would have to scroll half way down the page to find out what the Irish flag looks like.
FreeT ( talk) 02:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
No. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Ireland does have a flag - the Cross of St. Patrick. Whatever it's origin, it's the only flag that has ever been officially used to represent the whole of Ireland. ðarkun coll 10:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is highly misleading that when discussing Northern Ireland says 'which rejoined the United Kingdom'. Overall Northern Ireland stayed the United Kingdom and the south left.
An editor User:O_Fenian who has instantly and quite discourteously shouted 'vandalism' at me insists that because Northern Ireland was in the Irish Free State for 48 hours that must mean that it 'rejoined' the UK. The fact that NI was in this state was merely a technical legal sub-step - it was already pre-determined before this legal manoeuvre that NI would not leave, so overall NI remained in the UK. This is a summary that summarises hundreds of years of Irish history in a few sentences - overall the south left the UK and the north remained. Highlighting that NI 'rejoined' in a summary section due to a sub-step lasting a matter of hours is just highly misleading. 84.226.43.118 ( talk) 03:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
⬅ So are you agreeing to my suggestion? -- Snowded ( talk) 06:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The real opt-out occurred in 1912 with the formation and effective arming of the Ulster Volunteers? Except in a legalistic or technical sense, O Fenian is correct. -- Domer48 'fenian' 09:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
O Fenian's argument against 1921 as the date of partition seems to be that it was the creation of "administrative subdivisions", which is the sort of term normally used for local councils or government regions created for administrative purposes under one political authority. In fact the two entities created under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 had both their own judicial system and parliaments with legislative powers, neither of which are charcteristics of an administrative subdivision. If you want to claim that they were purely "administrative" (a term which normally implies that there is no elected political control), please provide references.
Meanwhile please note that 1921 is given as the date of partition in the article Northern Ireland. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a situation I have seen happen before on Irish articles. The underlying facts are agreed, and clear references are available for them. There is no dispute over the full explanation of them further down the article; all the argument is over a brief summary, which by the very nature of a summary cannot convey all the nuances.
There is plenty of scope for a compromise wording which may be slightly less brief, but which provides an indication to the reader that the underlying situation is more complicated than be conveyed in a short summary. I have no particular attachment to the form of words I proposed, just a desire to see some wording agreed which roughly accommodates the various perspectives at play here and indicates to the reader that they will need more detail to fully understand what happened.
Unfortunately, the two sides are deadlocked: both cling to their preferred wording and resist any possibility of a compromise wording. So I think the only solution is to open an RFC, which I will do below. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
:I have, however, no problem with the proposal from
User:Snowded
84.227.194.57 (
talk) 23:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
In the discussion above under the heading Misleading Description of Partition, editors are unable to agree on a form of summary wording to use in the lead section of this article to describe the fate of Northern Ireland under the Anglo-Irish Treaty.
One side insists that it is right to say that Northern Ireland "remained in the United Kingdom"; the other prefers to say that it "rejoined the United Kingdom". From what I can see, neither side is wrong, but it appears that the reality is more complex than is implied by either of those short phrases.
The underlying facts do not seem to be in dispute, and are set out in detail both later this article at Ireland#History and also in Northern Ireland#History. The treaty provided that Northern Ireland would become part of the Irish Free State, but would have the right to opt out and become part of the United Kingdom. There appears to be agreement that there was clear expectation on all sides that it would do so, and this was done immediately after the treaty came into effect. The whole process, which involved the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland travelling overland to London to personally present the documents, took 48 hours. I have seen no suggestion either in this discussion or in related articles that at any point in those 48 hours the Irish Free State had any practical control of affairs within Northern Ireland.
So I suggested a compromise wording: "technically left and rejoined the United Kingdom". That has been rejected by both sides, with demands for references for the use of the adjective "technically". I will in due course burrow in my box of history books, but I am not persuaded that a precise reference is really needed for an adjective such as this.
My suggested compromise may be a poor one, and I can see that for example "legally" might be an alternative adjective, or maybe some wholly different construct might be better. I hope that outside editors may be able to suggest some form of words which succinctly conveys enough of both perspectives on what happened for the reader to see that the underlying picture may be more complex than can be conveyed in a summary, and that they should read on for the full picture.
I will not be around much in the next week, but have launched this RFC in the hope that other editors can help build an agreement. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
⬅ Looks like a strong possibility -- Snowded ( talk) 05:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The article seems to be suffering from excessive IP vandalism, which is not part of the current content dispute. Should the page be semi-protected again? Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you should stop winning about it, theirs nothing you can do about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.204.1 ( talk) 17:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Did NI "rejoin" the UK or did it "remain with" the UK at the time of Irish independence? I thought it remained part of the UK, but if you can prove otherwise please fell free to revert my change. LevenBoy ( talk) 20:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is an underling point of view that needs airing.
The Irish Free State was a political compromise which was not much loved by anyone. The successor state claimed that it was the government of the whole of Ireland, a claim that was sort of fudged with the changes to the Irish constitution as part of the Good Friday Agreement.
It made sense for those who originally wrote a constitution that claimed sovereignty over the whole of Ireland to call it the Irish state as it summed up in one word the aspirations expressed in the constitution for a united Ireland -- Given those aspirations, it would have been daft to call it the Southern Irish state.
So the underlying bias in using the name "Ireland" for the state is that it implies a wish to see one unified country under an independent sovereign state (with a possible sub-plot that the British rule in Northern Ireland is illegitimate), while the use of the name "Republic of Ireland" is a statement that at the moment the government is the sovereign government over the 26 counties not the whole of Ireland, (with the possible sub-plot of "No surrender")
I think it is important that if some independent administrators are to be used to decide on the names that they are aware that there are strong political undercurrents over this dispute that are often hidden behind Google hits an other arguments. I say this because although anyone who has a preference for a specific outcome in this debate will already be aware of the underlying politics, this may not be apparent to the three administrators who may be appointed to decide the issue by the Arbcom. -- PBS ( talk) 10:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, this illustrates a complete ignorance to the subject under discussion. To suggest that the Irish Free State was a political compromise is to ignore Lloyd George giving the Irish side until 10 p.m. that night to accept or reject the terms of the treaty. Failure to do this would he said, result in "an immediate and terrible war." So much for “a political compromise.” The British Government then insisted that the Free State constitution conform to the terms of that treaty.
On the 1937 Constitution, while article 2 defined the national territory as “the whole island of Ireland, its islands and territorial seas” article 3 stated notwithstanding this the laws of the State should only apply to the 26 counties “pending the re-integration of the national territory.”
The 1948 Republic of Ireland Act withdrew Ireland from the Commonwealth marking the end of the policy of “external association” and was universally acknowledged including the United Kingdom government. The UK government however refused to use the term Ireland, using instead Éire. In addition, the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act used the descriptive term of the Republic of Ireland. This did not and dose not change the fact that the name of the Irish state is Ireland under the Irish Constitution. Articles 2 and 3 have been replaced and to describe it as a fudge exhibits the same ignorance as outlined above.
Since 2000 United Kingdom government has referred to the State as Ireland, and the credentials presented by the British ambassador, Stewart Eldon, in 2003, were addressed to the President of Ireland. That you see no point using this section to present any arguments in favor of one point of view or another as that has been done in other sections, is contradicted by your own contribution. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
In order to avoid any possible bias or POV in any renaming of the two Ireland articles, why not those with knowledge of foreign languages contact other sections of Wikipedia to find out other reasonings? It's interesting to look at the main European languages wikipedia sites: German, Danish, Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch, Swedish and Finnish. Of those eight, 6 give the title Ireland for the state, 1 for a disambiguation page and 1 for the island. For those who are interested and have the know how why not contact them and find out their reasoning for the title articles? It may be the case that they have thought of points that no editors here have thought of! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.154.247 ( talk) 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what is more comfortable to describe the 26 counties, statistics based on a division need to be described as such. The law says to describe it as the republic, although the state of the government should be described as Ireland or Eire, as would be the intention.
Republic of Ireland Act 1948. Also, if of any consequence, the British government backed that all the way with
Ireland Act 1949. Unionist, British and Irish politics agree, the government is ok to be of Ireland so without dispute there is no reason for any international body to refuse that name actually, the British and Northern Irish reps opposed use of "Ireland" for the state and I guess that includes the government , sorry. ~
R.
T.
G 16:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC) but there is grounds, regardless of government, if you are making statistics of the republic or its boundries (or the north make no mistake), describe it as that (exactly what the laws say, who disputes that? and it makes sense. If you leave the north out you ought to say so. The state does not, so it should not say so.) ~
R.
T.
G 11:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
"We made a promise we swore we'd always remember No retreat no surrender Like soldiers in the winter's night with a vow to defend No retreat no surrender ... Now on the street tonight the lights grow dim The walls of my room are closing in There's a war outside still raging you say it ain't ours anymore to win I want to sleep beneath peaceful skies in my lover's bed with a wide open country in my eyes and these romantic dreams in my head"
"The law says to describe it as the republic..." is complete nonsense. The constitution, the highest law in the land says Ireland is the name of the State. The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 was Ireland leaving the common wealth, and delaring a Republic. It clearly states it is a descriptive term. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi GoodDay FWIW, if we were to go down that road we would not be having this discussion. The most common term per number of sources is Ireland. Only on Wiki hey. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Nothing yet! -- Domer48 'fenian' 16:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that HighKing, regards -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
:::OK Highking, in your perfect world, the purpose and description of the laws are not those set out by the providers of them but the ones set out by you and Domer48 where "youre wrong" means "no way" and "not if theres two of us". If what I say is of more importance to anything else....? Please, I am a lowly nut. Once more, what puts the authority of the makers of those laws out of the picture and if the name of the island is out of the picture, what is its new one? Before you answer that, quote to me the constitution, run me off where the leaders of sixteen differed between islands and anything else. Of course you guys know and them guys didn't but if you don't have sixteen to go against them, why not back them up a bit in that document that they died to make important, passed by British and all after the deeds, in the way they saw it rather than your own speculation of it? Is that sort of off the wall? ~
R.
T.
G 23:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well in all honesty when I typed in "Ireland" I fully expected to be reading about the country commonly known as "Ireland" as I suspect a large number of people would do the same. I didn't even realise I was reading about the Island of Ireland, I just thought it was a badly written article about the country of "Ireland". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.223.74 ( talk) 09:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't remove this nonsense since this page is edit protected so can someone else remove that Irish/"new Gaelic" rubbish. "Eireann" is the genitive form of Eire (sorry no fadas on mobile device). There is no such thing as "New Gaelic". -- 89.101.220.70 ( talk) 19:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I've merged some of the content from the Republic of Ireland Article which was being used as a POV fork. The RoI Article now covers the RoI. With some of the content which was taken from this article being placed on the RoI, I've now replaced it. There is some duplication, which I will address and a number of Article names will have to be change from RoI to Ireland. Help with this would be welcome. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Military history of the peoples of the British Islands and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military history of the peoples of the British Islands, there seems to be a consensus that we need an article called Military history of Ireland could someone with a knowledge of the subject please knock up a sub? See Military history of Scotland and the Military history of France as guides on the sort of things to include. If on the other hand one thinks this is not a good idea then please voice those opinions on those discussion pages before it is created. -- PBS ( talk) 09:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
What is going on with this site. A perfectly fair compromise has being worked out but has not being carried out. Votes have been carried out ending in favour of the compromise. What is the point of all of these votes and all the argueing if nothing is being done. This is a disgrace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublin1994 ( talk • contribs) 14:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought the existing opening sentence was a bit long-winded, and based on the Korea article, I changed it to this:
Ireland (pronounced , locally [ˈaɾlənd] – Irish: Éire, Ulster Scots: Airlann, Latin: Hibernia) is an island and formerly a unified nation currently within the territories of two sovereign states: Ireland (described as the Republic of Ireland) [1] and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Redking7 ( talk) 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Per these motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:
Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.
Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)'
A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype· ✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have added the UK flag to the Northern Ireland section to NPOV the history section as the Republic of Ireland history section displays the Irish Tri-colour. Both flags are important symbols of both countries' histories and having one but not the other would not be NPOV. Aogouguo ( talk) 23:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Some points I'd like to make. User:MusicInTheHouse you stated the flag makes no benefit to the article. In what way does the Irish Tri-Colour make any benefit to the article any more than the UK flag would? Secondly, you stated the flag isn't mentioned in the section. Nor is the Irish Tri-Colour, at all. Thirdly, you say the flag represents something which has nothing to do with the island of Ireland. Last I looked the flag represents something which has something to do with the north east section of the island of Ireland. Fourthly, you make comparison between the UK and EU. The UK is a sovereign state, which governs part of the island of Ireland, the EU is not a sovereign state, nor does it govern part of the island of Ireland, that's why the UK's flag is important and the EU's flag is not. Lastly, Northern Ireland had a flag of its own but I don't see it shown here. That's why the current version of the article is not NPOV and the UK flag should be included because it represents just as much as the Irish Tri-colour does and is just as relevent. Aogouguo ( talk) 05:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Whats wrong now with the national flag? -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems like this article should probably mention whatever the best estimates are for how many of the residents speak English and how many speak Irish. All it says now is that Irish is the second most commonly spoken language. There should be some estimate of what portion of the population speaks Irish in their everyday lives or are fluent in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.227.173 ( talk) 04:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the title a bit long or something? (Independance from what, full stop, maybe?) Wether it is or not, I find the section to lead the reader into thinking that the names Éire and Ireland were created in 1937. Could someone put a small accurate description of where those names came from before it says "...renamed the state "Éire or in the English language, Ireland""? ~ R. T. G 20:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The name used by Scots: Airlann (in article, also Ayrrland ) or Eyrrland is derived from the norse eyrr (and land), eyrr meaning "sand spit". See: http://www.orkneyjar.com/placenames/pl-root.htm St.Trond ( talk) 19:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a question: is it true that Partholon/Parthalon, a mythological ancestor, was as is stated in some articles on the ancestors of the Irish, as being a Greek Scythian and his tribe as being Greeks of Scythia? The name IS very Greek as in Parthenon and Parthena. Would appreciate some information on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.38.37 ( talk) 09:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I was reading the Geography of Ireland article and found this little template which called itself "Life in Ireland" but turned out to be: Template:Life in the Republic of Ireland. This would be a nice little template. ~ R. T. G 20:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Life in Ireland |
---|
Culture |
Economy |
General |
Society |
Politics |
Policies |
Following this total re-write of the England article this morning (based on this: User:Yorkshirian/England), without even a hint of a Talk page discussion, I feel that it is only fair to give editors of the somewhat sensitive Ireland article prior notification of the existence of this page:
Do not say that you were not forewarned. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 11:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do not make such large scale changes to this article without discussing them here first. Some of your changes introduced errors, and some are not in line with WP:IMOS. There is also an Arbcom ruling in place and a resulting process which may well end up effecting this article. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain your random revert? Of this. Earlier Irish history such as its older kingdoms are directly pertinent to the subject. Also I cleaned up the format so its less of a mess. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 11:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent). Apologies for not being available 24/7. "I wrote the expansions in my note pad over a series of months during the ban" - then decided your version was better than what was already here? Sorry, WP is not a personal webhost. This is a collaborative project. In many cases, what you replaced in one edit had been arrived at after much discussion here. Look at the prior archive 11, for example, for a long discussion on the wording of the disambiguation hatnote. You replaced that agreed wording with "make disambig less of a mess." If you want to introduce changes - fine. I strongly suggest, then, that you post your proposed changes here first, allow some discussion, then introduce them, rather than just making a string of edits. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like it was only the intro and hat notes (in the main) that were re-written. One issue I would have with the rewrite is its stress it places on Norman and English conquests. The prescription for use of terms in the article also sound like they would cut across the ArbCom ruling. Like Bastun pointed out, the hat note had previous been the subject of much discussion - as had nearly every other part. Phrases like, "also known poetically as Hibernia" (bolded even in the text) are out of the norm and strange inclusions. Saying that, "[in] antiquity Prehistoric and Gaelic cultures were prominent" makes it sound like Brian Ború and neolithic farmers were running around the island hand-in-hand (and neither Gaels nor Prehistoric people belong to the era known as antiquity.)
These are the sort of things that can be pointed out easily if an editor leaves a note on a talk page saying that they are thinking about rewriting a section of the article - and saying why. Giving other the opportunity to remark on your sandbox is a good way to get feedback and iron-out issues. Pasting in a wholly new intro on a highly visited article is a guaranteed way to have your contributions reverted.
So let's start afresh. Yorkshirian, you don't like the current intro? What would you change? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
~ R. T. G 17:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
This argument needs to be sorted. This page is unfair to the citizens of ireland But if we gave this title to the state of ireland it would be unfair on Northen Irish people
We could sort this method out in three simple ways
1. Rename this page "Ireland (Island)"
2. Rename the Republic of Ireland page "Ireland (State)"
3. Make a page called "Ireland" that will just contain links to the above two —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.167.201 ( talk) 18:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This should not be controversial, but the page is locked, so i have to ask someone to do it.
There should be a link \[\[Corrib_gas_controversy|controversial decision]] for the referenced words in the "Energy network" section. 140.203.154.11 ( talk) 17:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Should the Irish flag be shown at the top of the infobox for easy reference?
Currently, you would have to scroll half way down the page to find out what the Irish flag looks like.
FreeT ( talk) 02:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
No. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Ireland does have a flag - the Cross of St. Patrick. Whatever it's origin, it's the only flag that has ever been officially used to represent the whole of Ireland. ðarkun coll 10:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is highly misleading that when discussing Northern Ireland says 'which rejoined the United Kingdom'. Overall Northern Ireland stayed the United Kingdom and the south left.
An editor User:O_Fenian who has instantly and quite discourteously shouted 'vandalism' at me insists that because Northern Ireland was in the Irish Free State for 48 hours that must mean that it 'rejoined' the UK. The fact that NI was in this state was merely a technical legal sub-step - it was already pre-determined before this legal manoeuvre that NI would not leave, so overall NI remained in the UK. This is a summary that summarises hundreds of years of Irish history in a few sentences - overall the south left the UK and the north remained. Highlighting that NI 'rejoined' in a summary section due to a sub-step lasting a matter of hours is just highly misleading. 84.226.43.118 ( talk) 03:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
⬅ So are you agreeing to my suggestion? -- Snowded ( talk) 06:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The real opt-out occurred in 1912 with the formation and effective arming of the Ulster Volunteers? Except in a legalistic or technical sense, O Fenian is correct. -- Domer48 'fenian' 09:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
O Fenian's argument against 1921 as the date of partition seems to be that it was the creation of "administrative subdivisions", which is the sort of term normally used for local councils or government regions created for administrative purposes under one political authority. In fact the two entities created under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 had both their own judicial system and parliaments with legislative powers, neither of which are charcteristics of an administrative subdivision. If you want to claim that they were purely "administrative" (a term which normally implies that there is no elected political control), please provide references.
Meanwhile please note that 1921 is given as the date of partition in the article Northern Ireland. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a situation I have seen happen before on Irish articles. The underlying facts are agreed, and clear references are available for them. There is no dispute over the full explanation of them further down the article; all the argument is over a brief summary, which by the very nature of a summary cannot convey all the nuances.
There is plenty of scope for a compromise wording which may be slightly less brief, but which provides an indication to the reader that the underlying situation is more complicated than be conveyed in a short summary. I have no particular attachment to the form of words I proposed, just a desire to see some wording agreed which roughly accommodates the various perspectives at play here and indicates to the reader that they will need more detail to fully understand what happened.
Unfortunately, the two sides are deadlocked: both cling to their preferred wording and resist any possibility of a compromise wording. So I think the only solution is to open an RFC, which I will do below. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
:I have, however, no problem with the proposal from
User:Snowded
84.227.194.57 (
talk) 23:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
In the discussion above under the heading Misleading Description of Partition, editors are unable to agree on a form of summary wording to use in the lead section of this article to describe the fate of Northern Ireland under the Anglo-Irish Treaty.
One side insists that it is right to say that Northern Ireland "remained in the United Kingdom"; the other prefers to say that it "rejoined the United Kingdom". From what I can see, neither side is wrong, but it appears that the reality is more complex than is implied by either of those short phrases.
The underlying facts do not seem to be in dispute, and are set out in detail both later this article at Ireland#History and also in Northern Ireland#History. The treaty provided that Northern Ireland would become part of the Irish Free State, but would have the right to opt out and become part of the United Kingdom. There appears to be agreement that there was clear expectation on all sides that it would do so, and this was done immediately after the treaty came into effect. The whole process, which involved the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland travelling overland to London to personally present the documents, took 48 hours. I have seen no suggestion either in this discussion or in related articles that at any point in those 48 hours the Irish Free State had any practical control of affairs within Northern Ireland.
So I suggested a compromise wording: "technically left and rejoined the United Kingdom". That has been rejected by both sides, with demands for references for the use of the adjective "technically". I will in due course burrow in my box of history books, but I am not persuaded that a precise reference is really needed for an adjective such as this.
My suggested compromise may be a poor one, and I can see that for example "legally" might be an alternative adjective, or maybe some wholly different construct might be better. I hope that outside editors may be able to suggest some form of words which succinctly conveys enough of both perspectives on what happened for the reader to see that the underlying picture may be more complex than can be conveyed in a summary, and that they should read on for the full picture.
I will not be around much in the next week, but have launched this RFC in the hope that other editors can help build an agreement. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
⬅ Looks like a strong possibility -- Snowded ( talk) 05:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The article seems to be suffering from excessive IP vandalism, which is not part of the current content dispute. Should the page be semi-protected again? Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you should stop winning about it, theirs nothing you can do about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.204.1 ( talk) 17:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Did NI "rejoin" the UK or did it "remain with" the UK at the time of Irish independence? I thought it remained part of the UK, but if you can prove otherwise please fell free to revert my change. LevenBoy ( talk) 20:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is an underling point of view that needs airing.
The Irish Free State was a political compromise which was not much loved by anyone. The successor state claimed that it was the government of the whole of Ireland, a claim that was sort of fudged with the changes to the Irish constitution as part of the Good Friday Agreement.
It made sense for those who originally wrote a constitution that claimed sovereignty over the whole of Ireland to call it the Irish state as it summed up in one word the aspirations expressed in the constitution for a united Ireland -- Given those aspirations, it would have been daft to call it the Southern Irish state.
So the underlying bias in using the name "Ireland" for the state is that it implies a wish to see one unified country under an independent sovereign state (with a possible sub-plot that the British rule in Northern Ireland is illegitimate), while the use of the name "Republic of Ireland" is a statement that at the moment the government is the sovereign government over the 26 counties not the whole of Ireland, (with the possible sub-plot of "No surrender")
I think it is important that if some independent administrators are to be used to decide on the names that they are aware that there are strong political undercurrents over this dispute that are often hidden behind Google hits an other arguments. I say this because although anyone who has a preference for a specific outcome in this debate will already be aware of the underlying politics, this may not be apparent to the three administrators who may be appointed to decide the issue by the Arbcom. -- PBS ( talk) 10:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, this illustrates a complete ignorance to the subject under discussion. To suggest that the Irish Free State was a political compromise is to ignore Lloyd George giving the Irish side until 10 p.m. that night to accept or reject the terms of the treaty. Failure to do this would he said, result in "an immediate and terrible war." So much for “a political compromise.” The British Government then insisted that the Free State constitution conform to the terms of that treaty.
On the 1937 Constitution, while article 2 defined the national territory as “the whole island of Ireland, its islands and territorial seas” article 3 stated notwithstanding this the laws of the State should only apply to the 26 counties “pending the re-integration of the national territory.”
The 1948 Republic of Ireland Act withdrew Ireland from the Commonwealth marking the end of the policy of “external association” and was universally acknowledged including the United Kingdom government. The UK government however refused to use the term Ireland, using instead Éire. In addition, the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act used the descriptive term of the Republic of Ireland. This did not and dose not change the fact that the name of the Irish state is Ireland under the Irish Constitution. Articles 2 and 3 have been replaced and to describe it as a fudge exhibits the same ignorance as outlined above.
Since 2000 United Kingdom government has referred to the State as Ireland, and the credentials presented by the British ambassador, Stewart Eldon, in 2003, were addressed to the President of Ireland. That you see no point using this section to present any arguments in favor of one point of view or another as that has been done in other sections, is contradicted by your own contribution. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
In order to avoid any possible bias or POV in any renaming of the two Ireland articles, why not those with knowledge of foreign languages contact other sections of Wikipedia to find out other reasonings? It's interesting to look at the main European languages wikipedia sites: German, Danish, Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch, Swedish and Finnish. Of those eight, 6 give the title Ireland for the state, 1 for a disambiguation page and 1 for the island. For those who are interested and have the know how why not contact them and find out their reasoning for the title articles? It may be the case that they have thought of points that no editors here have thought of! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.154.247 ( talk) 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what is more comfortable to describe the 26 counties, statistics based on a division need to be described as such. The law says to describe it as the republic, although the state of the government should be described as Ireland or Eire, as would be the intention.
Republic of Ireland Act 1948. Also, if of any consequence, the British government backed that all the way with
Ireland Act 1949. Unionist, British and Irish politics agree, the government is ok to be of Ireland so without dispute there is no reason for any international body to refuse that name actually, the British and Northern Irish reps opposed use of "Ireland" for the state and I guess that includes the government , sorry. ~
R.
T.
G 16:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC) but there is grounds, regardless of government, if you are making statistics of the republic or its boundries (or the north make no mistake), describe it as that (exactly what the laws say, who disputes that? and it makes sense. If you leave the north out you ought to say so. The state does not, so it should not say so.) ~
R.
T.
G 11:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
"We made a promise we swore we'd always remember No retreat no surrender Like soldiers in the winter's night with a vow to defend No retreat no surrender ... Now on the street tonight the lights grow dim The walls of my room are closing in There's a war outside still raging you say it ain't ours anymore to win I want to sleep beneath peaceful skies in my lover's bed with a wide open country in my eyes and these romantic dreams in my head"
"The law says to describe it as the republic..." is complete nonsense. The constitution, the highest law in the land says Ireland is the name of the State. The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 was Ireland leaving the common wealth, and delaring a Republic. It clearly states it is a descriptive term. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi GoodDay FWIW, if we were to go down that road we would not be having this discussion. The most common term per number of sources is Ireland. Only on Wiki hey. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Nothing yet! -- Domer48 'fenian' 16:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that HighKing, regards -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
:::OK Highking, in your perfect world, the purpose and description of the laws are not those set out by the providers of them but the ones set out by you and Domer48 where "youre wrong" means "no way" and "not if theres two of us". If what I say is of more importance to anything else....? Please, I am a lowly nut. Once more, what puts the authority of the makers of those laws out of the picture and if the name of the island is out of the picture, what is its new one? Before you answer that, quote to me the constitution, run me off where the leaders of sixteen differed between islands and anything else. Of course you guys know and them guys didn't but if you don't have sixteen to go against them, why not back them up a bit in that document that they died to make important, passed by British and all after the deeds, in the way they saw it rather than your own speculation of it? Is that sort of off the wall? ~
R.
T.
G 23:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well in all honesty when I typed in "Ireland" I fully expected to be reading about the country commonly known as "Ireland" as I suspect a large number of people would do the same. I didn't even realise I was reading about the Island of Ireland, I just thought it was a badly written article about the country of "Ireland". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.223.74 ( talk) 09:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't remove this nonsense since this page is edit protected so can someone else remove that Irish/"new Gaelic" rubbish. "Eireann" is the genitive form of Eire (sorry no fadas on mobile device). There is no such thing as "New Gaelic". -- 89.101.220.70 ( talk) 19:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I've merged some of the content from the Republic of Ireland Article which was being used as a POV fork. The RoI Article now covers the RoI. With some of the content which was taken from this article being placed on the RoI, I've now replaced it. There is some duplication, which I will address and a number of Article names will have to be change from RoI to Ireland. Help with this would be welcome. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Military history of the peoples of the British Islands and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military history of the peoples of the British Islands, there seems to be a consensus that we need an article called Military history of Ireland could someone with a knowledge of the subject please knock up a sub? See Military history of Scotland and the Military history of France as guides on the sort of things to include. If on the other hand one thinks this is not a good idea then please voice those opinions on those discussion pages before it is created. -- PBS ( talk) 09:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
What is going on with this site. A perfectly fair compromise has being worked out but has not being carried out. Votes have been carried out ending in favour of the compromise. What is the point of all of these votes and all the argueing if nothing is being done. This is a disgrace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublin1994 ( talk • contribs) 14:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought the existing opening sentence was a bit long-winded, and based on the Korea article, I changed it to this:
Ireland (pronounced , locally [ˈaɾlənd] – Irish: Éire, Ulster Scots: Airlann, Latin: Hibernia) is an island and formerly a unified nation currently within the territories of two sovereign states: Ireland (described as the Republic of Ireland) [1] and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Redking7 ( talk) 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Per these motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:
Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.
Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)'
A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype· ✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have added the UK flag to the Northern Ireland section to NPOV the history section as the Republic of Ireland history section displays the Irish Tri-colour. Both flags are important symbols of both countries' histories and having one but not the other would not be NPOV. Aogouguo ( talk) 23:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Some points I'd like to make. User:MusicInTheHouse you stated the flag makes no benefit to the article. In what way does the Irish Tri-Colour make any benefit to the article any more than the UK flag would? Secondly, you stated the flag isn't mentioned in the section. Nor is the Irish Tri-Colour, at all. Thirdly, you say the flag represents something which has nothing to do with the island of Ireland. Last I looked the flag represents something which has something to do with the north east section of the island of Ireland. Fourthly, you make comparison between the UK and EU. The UK is a sovereign state, which governs part of the island of Ireland, the EU is not a sovereign state, nor does it govern part of the island of Ireland, that's why the UK's flag is important and the EU's flag is not. Lastly, Northern Ireland had a flag of its own but I don't see it shown here. That's why the current version of the article is not NPOV and the UK flag should be included because it represents just as much as the Irish Tri-colour does and is just as relevent. Aogouguo ( talk) 05:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Whats wrong now with the national flag? -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems like this article should probably mention whatever the best estimates are for how many of the residents speak English and how many speak Irish. All it says now is that Irish is the second most commonly spoken language. There should be some estimate of what portion of the population speaks Irish in their everyday lives or are fluent in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.227.173 ( talk) 04:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the title a bit long or something? (Independance from what, full stop, maybe?) Wether it is or not, I find the section to lead the reader into thinking that the names Éire and Ireland were created in 1937. Could someone put a small accurate description of where those names came from before it says "...renamed the state "Éire or in the English language, Ireland""? ~ R. T. G 20:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The name used by Scots: Airlann (in article, also Ayrrland ) or Eyrrland is derived from the norse eyrr (and land), eyrr meaning "sand spit". See: http://www.orkneyjar.com/placenames/pl-root.htm St.Trond ( talk) 19:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a question: is it true that Partholon/Parthalon, a mythological ancestor, was as is stated in some articles on the ancestors of the Irish, as being a Greek Scythian and his tribe as being Greeks of Scythia? The name IS very Greek as in Parthenon and Parthena. Would appreciate some information on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.38.37 ( talk) 09:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I was reading the Geography of Ireland article and found this little template which called itself "Life in Ireland" but turned out to be: Template:Life in the Republic of Ireland. This would be a nice little template. ~ R. T. G 20:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Life in Ireland |
---|
Culture |
Economy |
General |
Society |
Politics |
Policies |
Following this total re-write of the England article this morning (based on this: User:Yorkshirian/England), without even a hint of a Talk page discussion, I feel that it is only fair to give editors of the somewhat sensitive Ireland article prior notification of the existence of this page:
Do not say that you were not forewarned. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 11:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do not make such large scale changes to this article without discussing them here first. Some of your changes introduced errors, and some are not in line with WP:IMOS. There is also an Arbcom ruling in place and a resulting process which may well end up effecting this article. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain your random revert? Of this. Earlier Irish history such as its older kingdoms are directly pertinent to the subject. Also I cleaned up the format so its less of a mess. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 11:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent). Apologies for not being available 24/7. "I wrote the expansions in my note pad over a series of months during the ban" - then decided your version was better than what was already here? Sorry, WP is not a personal webhost. This is a collaborative project. In many cases, what you replaced in one edit had been arrived at after much discussion here. Look at the prior archive 11, for example, for a long discussion on the wording of the disambiguation hatnote. You replaced that agreed wording with "make disambig less of a mess." If you want to introduce changes - fine. I strongly suggest, then, that you post your proposed changes here first, allow some discussion, then introduce them, rather than just making a string of edits. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like it was only the intro and hat notes (in the main) that were re-written. One issue I would have with the rewrite is its stress it places on Norman and English conquests. The prescription for use of terms in the article also sound like they would cut across the ArbCom ruling. Like Bastun pointed out, the hat note had previous been the subject of much discussion - as had nearly every other part. Phrases like, "also known poetically as Hibernia" (bolded even in the text) are out of the norm and strange inclusions. Saying that, "[in] antiquity Prehistoric and Gaelic cultures were prominent" makes it sound like Brian Ború and neolithic farmers were running around the island hand-in-hand (and neither Gaels nor Prehistoric people belong to the era known as antiquity.)
These are the sort of things that can be pointed out easily if an editor leaves a note on a talk page saying that they are thinking about rewriting a section of the article - and saying why. Giving other the opportunity to remark on your sandbox is a good way to get feedback and iron-out issues. Pasting in a wholly new intro on a highly visited article is a guaranteed way to have your contributions reverted.
So let's start afresh. Yorkshirian, you don't like the current intro? What would you change? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
~ R. T. G 17:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)