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.

The Republic lays no claim, explicit or implicit or otherwise, to the entire island. Is this a real concern for some editors today? -- HighKing ( talk) 09:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this, when rephrasing previous wording which simply claimd the name "Ireland" is Republican POV. I think the claim to the entire island is implicit in the name and this is at the root of this conflict. For comparison, see the real-life naming conflict about Macedonia, or how the Federal Republic of Germany became just Germany after reunification.

Disambiguation between the two (or even three) "Irelands" is something that is necessary in real life just as in Wikipedia. In real life this is usually done by saying "Republic of Ireland" or "the Republic" (if the Irish context is clear). The "description" nonsense was a political compromise between those who wanted an unambiguous name and those who wanted to make the claim to the entire island explicit in the Republic's name. The fact that the name has still not been changed, even though this might contribute to good neighbourly relations with the UK, clearly shows that this remains as a touchy issue. Hans Adler 09:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

So many misunderstandings in one short paragraph. No, the IRA didn't call the Dublin government "Ireland". That would be recognizing its legitimacy. The common name for the south has always been "Ireland", even when the official name was something else. The 1937 constitution gives the country's name as simply "Ireland". "Republic of Ireland" is from a law enacted in 1948. The reason it is only a description is because a law can't override the constitution. The word "republic" was intended to emphasize rejection of the monarchy. By the 1960s, the Irish government was having second thoughts about the phrase, or at least didn't appreciate the way the British used it. There is a practical need for a moniker that distinguishes the Republic from the North, so it still gets used. Kauffner ( talk) 12:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

the issue is not so much that it endorses the nations claim to the whole island, its the issue that it would treat the country like it does control the whole island. The island of Ireland has existed for 100s of years. The island has a larger population and consists of a larger area than the country called Ireland. It is not neutral and it is deeply offensive to suggest that the people of the Republic of Ireland should have primacy over the whole island trying to pretend that there are not over 1 million people living in another part of Ireland.

When someone says "I went to Ireland last year" or "I was born in Ireland" or "My ancestors were born in Ireland", they do not necessary mean the country Ireland that exists today and certainly in the case of ancestry most will not be referring to a state that has existed sine the 1920s. BritishWatcher ( talk) 11:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a negative. It has been a decade since the state retracted claim to the island. Speculative. ~ R. T. G 12:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly it is a fact that the internet, or something, is normalising the more international view that Northern Ireland is in Ireland. Culture in the north today includes standing popular slogans such as, apologies for the language but this is quite significant, "Who gives a fuck?" I'm sure a lot of you have been seeing this phrase on the internet. I remember ten years ago passing one of these crazy drug parties in a house in Belfast. The crazies chanting "Who gives a fuck!" were louder than the music. That's where the peace came out of ladies and gents. We've got to acknowledge the fallacy in this percieved cultural push. Bickering like this is becoming rather alien to those folk. That's great, and who proposes to misrepresent them? ~ R. T. G 12:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

TBH, a true Irish nationalist would prefer the status quo. Having the country article at 'Republic of Ireland', symbolizes that the island hasn't been re-united. GoodDay ( talk) 15:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And there's a number of those here and wanting the status quo for that very reason. And the irony is that a true "loyalist" also prefers the status quo to prevent the south making an extra-territorial claim on the northern 6 counties.  :-) What a funny world we live in sometimes...  :-) -- HighKing ( talk) 17:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Was about to comment on Ireland making no claim on Northern Ireland, as is claimed in the above table, but I see HighKing beat me to it. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all concerned that it might read as endorsing any residual implicit claim by the Republic to the North. I'm sure we're all clear that the Republic has fully abandoned any and all such claims (which were never taken very seriously by the government of the Republic in the first place). No, my concern is purely for how to convey information to the casual reader of the encyclopedia in the most clear (or maybe that should be least-confusing) manner. I happen to think "Republic of Ireland" is well-sourced as a name of the southern state: it doesn't require disambiguation or convoluted explanations. That said, I accept that "Ireland" is also well-sourced as a name for the southern state, and further that, post-the Good Friday Agreement, both sovereign governments are supposed to always refer to each other by their full, preferred names: "Ireland" and "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland". I'm just not convinced that Wikipedia need follow suit. I mean, wouldn't it be cumbersome, especially on articles related to the border between Ireland and the UK of GB and NI, to have to always use the full names for both states? Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 21:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of the confusion surrounding the issue. You are perhaps conflating two issues. The first is, where to locate the article dealing with the state (and perhaps this has a knock-on affect with other articles). The second issue - how to deal with disambiguating the republic from the island, or from Northern Ireland - is largely uncontested and accepted and involves using "Republic of Ireland" within article text.

A bit like using "Joe Smith the Butcher" to disambiguate in text - but that doesn't mean that "Joe Smith the Butcher" is the person's name. -- HighKing ( talk) 11:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact Republic of Ireland within articles is deemed an acceptable way to say Ireland when there is a need for disambiguation just shows why the current setup is valid.. ROI is acceptable for an article title and its acceptable within articles, as long as the introduction makes very clear Ireland is the official name and ROI is a description... the article does that. So no need to change. BritishWatcher ( talk) 14:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how you can conclude that using a description like Republic of Ireland to disambiguate in text makes it OK to use the same descriptor as the article title. People not familiar with the issue wouldn't (and don't) understand the difference, therefore using it as the title is misleading and confusing, not to mention NPOV given the history of usage. -- HighKing ( talk) 15:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

but by the logic that they dont understand the difference, surely using ROI in text would be even more problematic than using it as an article title which contains in the first paragraph an explanation that the country is officially called Ireland? The claim about it is NPOV to use the term Republic of Ireland was disproved the last time we debated this. It was the Irish Government that passsed the Republic of Ireland act and declared the ROI be the description of the state. Its not like it was something invented by the British and imposed on Ireland. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If we have a DAB article pointing to two articles (a) Ireland (island) and (b) Ireland (state), ok the hardliners on both sides lose out. It's called 'equality of misery'. History of Ireland doesn't need to chage. The pipe trick can be used where the context is unambiguous (i.e. [[Ireland (island)|]] in geography articles, [[Ireland (state)|]] in political and diplomatic articles – otherwise or if in doubt, the qualifier should be exposed.) If people follow a link back, its immediately obvious what it is that they are looking at. The table suggests that the con to this proposal is that the names are not succinct. Well they can't be if neutrality is to be preserved. By the way, the Irish goverment most often uses 'the state' as a disambiguator (prior to the Belfast Agreement, it used to say 'the jurisdiction'). It seems to me that this is the only way to square the circle. -- Red King ( talk) 14:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Ireland (state) is that there are two states on the island of Ireland. Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 06:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

But there is only one state called Ireland. -- Red King ( talk) 12:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not about editors winning or losing. Your criterion is not relevant. It is about writing an encyclopaedia that can be used easily. Please see WP:5P about the basic principles. This is not a forum. WP:TITLE gives the policy for titles. Dmcq ( talk) 09:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge that. But we need to square the circle. If I stand on cermony, I infer from WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA that the name of the 'state' article should be 'Ireland' since that is the meaning understood by almost everyone in every country except the UK. UK editors will not accept the change and for a blocking minority. -- Red King ( talk) 12:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Caret: nor will hardline Republicans, who deny the legitimacy of the state. -- Red King ( talk) 13:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

We currently do dab. We dab by WP:DABCONCEPT. Ireland is the broad concept. Beneath that concept are a number of subsidiary articles, such as History of Ireland, Geography of Ireland, Culture of Ireland, Music of Ireland and so on, including Republic of Ireland (and Northern Ireland).

Disambiguating [[Ireland (island)|]] and [[Ireland (state)|]], as if there they have nothing in common or as if there is no natural relationship between the two articles, only makes sense from some very narrow perspective on the topic. Both articles relate to the broad concept of "Ireland": the Ireland article being that broad concept. -- RA ( talk) 09:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that the the Island article and the State article be merged? I can't see that getting over the first fence! -- Red King ( talk) 12:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Good man Mr. Staughton. It's fair to acknowledge, but it can be unfair to lack knowledge. ~ R. T. G 11:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

! -- Red King ( talk) 12:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If it really was needed and the will of the majority id be ok with a dab page, but changing to a dab page will make disputes about what should have the primary spot continue, it will also end 2 years of stability that the clear majority voted for in a widely advertised poll. We should stick with the status quo, otherwise we will go round and round in circles debating this matter for many months. BritishWatcher ( talk) 14:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Do us all a favour, and avoid repeating the exact same point over and over in multiple sections. Thanks. -- HighKing ( talk) 17:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This whole page has been flooded with certain people repeating the same points over and over again as they seek to demand changes opposed by the majority. Thats sadly what will happen now this issue has been restarted instead of the sensible idea to lock the article in place again for 2 years which would again ensure stability. Nothing has changed.. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt the whole project will collapse, whether the naming discussion continue or not. GoodDay ( talk) 17:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It wouldnt collapse but it will focus fully on an issue that was resolved over two years ago. If major new arguments had arrived to justify the need for change i could understand it, but there is no new reasons why a change is required. Its the same old arguments, yet Highking attacks me for repeating the same points. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It is your insistence on believing the issue "was resolved over two years ago" that is one of those same old arguments, BW. The entire chaotic situation surrounding that poll and the conclusion, and subsequent de facto protest statements and actions (losing trust in Wikipedia being one, outright leaving being another) by myself and several others, how do those results resolve the issue? Far from it. It is as if you have been sitting at a table, several people disliked the service and left their meals to go cold, and you are eating and saying to empty chairs "isn't this a lovely meal?" Please, today, understand that this is not resolved. Several very serious editors are objecting here on this page in September 2011 to the results and the status quo. Sswonk ( talk) 18:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Several are objecting.. Many more are supporting. Most of us simply think this is the best way of handling the situation. The island rightly has primacy over a state that has existed less than 80 years and does not consist of the population or territorial size of that island. People do not always mean the country when they talk about Ireland. Republic of Ireland is a valid term to use to assist in disambiguation, it is a term officially made by the Republic of Ireland, and the article itself explains very clearly in the introduction, ROI is only a description, the official country name is Ireland. Of course its not ideal, but its not our fault that the island is divided today and the state in the south chose to take the name of the island. BritishWatcher ( talk) 19:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You say that as if a "fault" exists. That the state has no "right" to be named "Ireland". That the island "rightly" has primacy. That there is more support for the status quo. Can you please stop repeating this mantra over and over. If you wish, make your points in the table above, like everyone else. You are only disrupting the discussion by popping up to repeat the same claims over and over. Please stop. I currently support the status quo, but for none of those reasons. We all have our own reasons, but we don't all have a need to repeat our personal reasons over and over. -- HighKing ( talk) 20:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think we are going to need admin support to (a) stop repetitious and disruptive endless restatement of the same position to no mutual benefit, (b) very long paragraphs, which render the page difficult to browse down and contain mostly (so far) meaningless nonsense and (c) anyone routinely attempting to disrupt a structured approach. We've had a good suggestion thus far of a table detailing each approach. There obviously is going to be some kind of effort to have another community vote, so the best thing for all concerned is to be constructive, if you have a fixed view on what should be done, work up proper points about it off the project page, or set up a project page for "your view", invite like-minded others there and refine your arguments. Then we can compare concise lists of arguments for each "view" on a final vote. This kind of ding-donging is utterly futile and disruptive. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 20:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Red King ( talk) 12:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The vote above shows that around 20 people support the status quo with about 10 supporting a change. There is no need at this stage for a massive new poll to be conducted when a clear majority is ok with the present format that has been in place for many years and won a very large vote 2 years ago. As for the table, it contains some misleading information with no checks and balances to ensure that someone who arrives on this page, is not grossly misled by information in a table they think has been drafted as an accurate summary of the situation. This was part of the problem the last time we debated this over 2 years ago, there were differing views on if the claimed pros or cons are actually accurate or not. Like i said before, if we do have to go down this path of a full new debate and even a poll, and this is going to be done based on a table.. that table has to be fairly drafted with no misleading content. is that really so unreasonable? BritishWatcher ( talk) 11:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The 'pedia isn't a democracy though. The current 20-10 in favour of status-quo, doesn't dictate future events concerning this topic. GoodDay ( talk) 13:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It is currently 23-20 against renewing the Arbcom ban. Once that's closed, I assume there will be a vote of some kind on the naming structure. As for the vote on the status quo, that is useful in the sense that the comments can tell us what kind of proposal might obtain editor support. This would allow the right questions to be asked in any future polling. But no matter how many people voted for the status quo, that would not prevent future votes on article titling. Kauffner ( talk) 13:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay ( talk) 14:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no clear majority support for having the ban extended for 2 years, 1 part of the reason for some people was because they wanted to know if consensus had changed since then. So yes the ban can not be extended, but if there is no clear majority support for making a change to the status quo (as the second poll shows), then why on earth is it going to trigger some form of new debate on the naming structure? BritishWatcher ( talk) 15:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And yes that poll does not stop another poll or debate taking place sometime in the future. But the idea when the status quo is shown to have support, we must go on to debate changing the entire setup makes very little sense. BritishWatcher ( talk) 16:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no ban to expand, it expired over a week ago. GoodDay ( talk) 16:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That's nice. But they are not allowing RMs until something is resolved here. Kauffner ( talk) 16:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no support for extending the ban on moves which expired, but there does not seem to be clear support for changing the status quo either. BritishWatcher ( talk) 16:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. GoodDay ( talk) 16:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Just run the damn poll again and see what happens. Do it quickly, get it over with. -- Evertype· ✆ 10:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

We should not have to run a massive poll again because a small minority (many of them the ones who opposed it previously) reject the status quo which still has majority support. BritishWatcher ( talk) 14:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So what are you proposing? If the ban is overturned, a poll is the next logical step. If no action is taken, that would allow unstructured RMs. Kauffner ( talk) 23:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that RMs haven't been opened at Ireland, Republic of Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation). What with the gag order having expired nearly a week. GoodDay ( talk) 15:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

With regard to that, I am not sure that RMs won't be quickly closed, as the question of extending the discussion gag is still pending here. In other words, RMs are in limbo until the end of the poll above asking to extend the gag. After that, I would favor no RMs and more simple general discussions at the pages. Perhaps Arbcom could sanction open and unrestricted discussion but temporarily bar formal RMs until a reasonable bipartisan group approaches them with a request for a single conclusive move. Votes are seen as far reaching and statutory when in fact they are really snapshots. Multiple repetitive voting on individual articles every few months has no chance to resolve this. Evertype, I don't think running that poll in the form that it took last time, an STV device with 6 choices, would be the right move. Wikipedia should discuss at length the meta-questions of the need to disambiguate and the correctness of the use of RoI as a title. So, this straw poll of A or B, versus the previous A through E or F, is harmless right now and more likely to clarify the issues I think. Sswonk ( talk) 15:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. DrKiernan ( talk) 17:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears your request for clarification has some, certainly me, a little confused by the responses. Why in the statement by Kirill does he say "Yes, both motions remain in effect"? You were asking about the single motion centralizing discussion at IECOLL ( here)? It appears Kirill reading John Vandenberg has taken his general plural "those motions" the wrong way. The decision banning all move discussion for two years ( here) has surely expired, so what does "both motions" refer to? Sswonk ( talk) 18:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The motion "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" is also still in effect. DrKiernan ( talk) 18:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It serves the purposes of the illuminati to give people the illusion of freedom let them come to come to the predetermined conclusion. ;-) We've got to go by the basic principles of Wikipedia and a major one there is consensus. The consensus might have changed, people are interested and so it should be properly discussed and decided again. That shouldn't be done too often and it shouldn't drag on too long but this has not been anywhere near disruptive yet so there's no need to try shutting it down. Dmcq ( talk) 15:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what the legalistic logic for it might be, they are not allowing RMs now. But we should develop model RMs here which can be proposed in the event that the ban is overturned, as seems likely based on the voting above. For the Republic of Ireland article, the RM can say something like, What title would you prefer for this article? You may give several preferences in order of preference, followed by a rationale. For example: Republic of Ireland, Ireland, Ireland (republic), Ireland (state), Ireland (country), etc. Kauffner ( talk) 02:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no ban to overturn, as it expired September 18, 2011. GoodDay ( talk) 13:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some people, by fillibustering, are hoping to get it reimposed. Because reimposed it will if we can't have a rational discussion. If it can be achieved for China, I can't for the life of me see what is so difficult about achieving it here. -- Red King ( talk) 12:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it already has been achieved. It may be that people are happy with the status quo. -- RA ( talk) 13:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't get the China analogy at all. I mean, is the Republic of Ireland supposed to be Taiwan? Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 02:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There's currently more then one 'China'. GoodDay ( talk) 03:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, but China regards Taiwan as a renegade province. The UK doesn't regard the RoI that way at all (and hasn't for 90-odd years). Both the U.K. and the R.O.I are universally recognised states and member nations of the UN. I just don't see the paralell. Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 03:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

True, but I think the analogy is 'same name' for different places or things. The Republic of China (commonly known as Taiwan) & the People's Republic of China, both claim the name China. Where's in the case of the name Ireland, that county & the island, claim that name. GoodDay ( talk) 04:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The analogy is that "China" is both the common and official name of a major state, which also true of "Ireland". But like "Ireland" the lemma was being used for something else, a subject that most readers may not have expected to find there. Kauffner ( talk) 04:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The "something else" being a conception of Ireland that is not about the southern state, that is in fact older than the state, and that is also in common use. As an example: I was back in the U.K. this summer. I had to stop in London for a few days, after which I was to travel to Northern Ireland to visit my old auntie in Portrush. On my second day in London I called my aunt and her first question on hearing my voice was "are you in Ireland yet?". She did't mean the southern state, clearly. Neither did she mean "on the island of Ireland", exactly. And, no, she has no problem uttering the name of Northern Ireland (she's a Paisleyite). She meant...something else. If she were to search on Wikipedia for "Ireland" she would certainly not expect to find an article on the Republic there. I think she would regard it as too narrow a definition of Ireland. Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 05:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This is why referring to the article at Ireland as being about an "island" are rather annoying and disingenuous. That article no more about an "island" than the article at Korea is about a peninsula. Like the Korea article, it's about a topic that regardless of partition is still the major concept of the topic that it embodies.

There is, for example, no such thing as an article on the Culture of the Republic of Ireland. That simply doesn't make sense. There is simply no such thing that is unique from the Culture of Ireland. (The same is not true for Culture of Northern Ireland, which ca be described uniquely.)

Taking "Ireland" as primarily meaning "Republic of Ireland" shuts the door to a far broader topic, which I would argue most people mean when talking about "Ireland" in the context of a general encyclopedia.

This too is why proposed moves of the article at Republic of Ireland to Ireland are well-meaning but misplaced as well. There are two things commonly called "Ireland" - and both are called a "country". Like Korea, partition is a reality but it is also a distraction from the main topic. -- RA ( talk) 08:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You really hit the nail on the head here, RA. JonC ^Talk 08:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly did. Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 14:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, people are conflating two issues. Your reasoning is mostly for keeping the Ireland article where it is. You make good points about understanding the broader topic. But what was being discussed here is potential alternatives for the "Republic of Ireland" article, and none of your points really address that (except a reason why "country" isn't a good choice). I'll add that the discussions have given me a better appreciation this time around for the subtleties surrounding "country" and "broader topic" than 2 years ago, so points well made. -- HighKing ( talk) 14:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering changes to information on the island by respecting only the effect of information about the republic. The implication is obvious and negative and anything but subtle. ~ R. T. G 15:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I echo other people's thoughts with the comment .. Eh? -- HighKing ( talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What about "Ireland (Republic of)"? Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 17:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Better. -- HighKing ( talk) 17:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If a change were made - "Ireland (Republic)" would fit better. GoodDay ( talk) 18:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it would. So that would mean the Ireland article would remain as is, while Republic of Ireland would be moved to "Ireland (Republic)". What do people think? Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 18:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I oppose any change to the status quo. To rename one of the articles would break the long standing policy and then suddenly the arguments to put the country article Ireland will have an additional excuse (as there will not be a long standing position) approved by a clear majority in a poll. Also "Republic of Ireland" is used within articles as a disam term regularly, we could not say Ireland (Republic) in the text all the time. if "ROI" is good enough within articles, i fail to see why we need to change the article title from ROI to say soemthing else. As long as we make clear in the article intro that Ireland is the official name (as happens), where is the need for change? BritishWatcher ( talk) 18:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

But I favour the status quo (due the success of the pipelink method). I'm just suggesting Ireland (Republic) or Ireland (country), if the country article were moved. I can't prevent any page moves. GoodDay ( talk) 19:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I support moving the ROI article to "Ireland (republic)". The island article is obviously staying where it is, whatever I might think about it. So I hope we don't waste too much time on that issue. Kauffner ( talk) 02:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the voting results above -- a very slight majority for a new discussion rather than immediate reinstatement of the moratorium, but a clear majority for the status quo -- I think the only thing that makes sense is looking for a really popular alternative to the status quo, and then voting on that. It appears to me that any of "Ireland (Republic of)", "Ireland (Republic)" and "Ireland (republic)" may have a chance. I suggest a poll to find out which of the three is most popular, and then a formal vote to decide between that and the status quo. Hans Adler 08:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The vote supports discussion but by itself is not the only thing that counts. The quality, tone and volume of these discussions together also represent a significant move away from forced suppression of dialog. Of the three choices you are suggesting Hans, only Ireland (republic) is a real change, the other two would perpetuate the main problem of using an incorrect "name" for the article title, but in an altered and more awkward form. Ireland (state), Ireland (country) or Ireland (republic) focus the title of the article on the correct name for the state that is used by outside reference publication article titles, by diplomatic protocols and among international organizations. Sswonk ( talk) 13:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I dont see how that makes sense. With a small majority people voted against extending the ban for 2 years (some saying there should atleast be a discussion now to see if consensus has changed). Underneath is a poll which shows clear majority support for the status quo remaining. So surely if things dont radically change the two options are :

1) Leave things as they are for a period of time accepting that consensus has yet to change and there is no justification for an extensive additional debate.

2) Now it looks clear the status quo still has support, consider redoing the poll on if arbcom should extend the ban on page moves.

Where is the justification for holding a massive new poll, when most support the status quo? Whilst option 2 would resolve this situation quicker, option 1 seems reasonable for the time being, and if the whole issue was sparked again in a few weeks or few months time then debate in full again, see if there is still clear majority support for the status quo and if that is the case.. have another vote on if we should request arbcom extend the ban. BritishWatcher ( talk) 11:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Ireland (state)" and "Ireland (country)" are problematic as there are two states and two countries in Ireland, and further disambiguation would be required. The problem doesn't arise with "Ireland (republic)", which has the further advantage of more closely reflecting the preference of many editors about nomenclature for the southern state. The current Ireland article would remain as is, of course. Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 19:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Ireland (republic)" is best, but all look ugly. Why go for the unneccessary paranthesised route when we already have a natural, awkward bracket-free disambiguator used by the Irish state itself? JonC ^Talk 20:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

100%. Disambiguator has been decided for us and just as well, we might have got stuck in a hefty debate. ~ R. T. G 23:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well for me, it's *who* has decided for us, and it's the history of usage of Republic of Ireland as a name (and not as a dab) which has led to tons (yes, I weighed them) of people using the dab when they should use the name. And there's a couple of editors in this very debate who get it wrong and their edits need to be fixed afterwards. It's all very screwed up, confusion reigns, and I believe it would be better to have a different article title. In fact, just about any different title. It won't change how we dab, but with some luck and practice, editors will start getting it right. -- HighKing ( talk) 07:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Who? You mean the Irish Government when they made clear the official description of the state was to be Republic of Ireland? If this was simply a term used by the British media and created by the British then i could understand your hatred towards it. But i really dont get why there is such a problem (aslong as we continue to make clear what the official name is). BritishWatcher ( talk) 13:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nor me. It's used all the bloody time in Ireland, by the Irish. An ad by AIB in today's Irish Times, for example, or Revenue Commissioner envelopes, as illustrated by RA a couple of weeks ago. In fact, I'd much rather the British used "RoI" more often, instead of the incorrect "Eire" or "Southern Ireland". Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Irish Times since 2005 gives you 170,000 results for "Ireland", 28 for "Republic of Ireland", mostly false positives. "Republic of Ireland" is a fine name. It just doesn't happen to be the name of country we are referring to, at least according to the Irish press. Kauffner ( talk) 15:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Irish Times search engine is shite, though. Using Google's search of the IT site (and trying to exclude mentions of the soccer team), there are 37 results for this year alone. And neither search looks at adverts in the print edition, which is what I referred to above. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

HighKing, I haven't just checked, but haven't you expressed agreement for some bracketed disambiguators? It is unjust in a way that our state hasn't had foresight to meet this matter properly before. In fairness, it doesn't ever seem to have been a major concern for us, outside of this screen, even when the state changed title to plain old Ireland. Wrapped in the imperialist worldview, the downtrodden Irish in the north were irrelevant at that time. Even Irish parliament wanted to define themselves as a monarchy of sorts. They, the Irish in the north, would never have an audience for their needs as Irish individuals. That would be treasonous. It was a rat race not a tea party. To be Irish with any meaning, they'd have to move across the border where things were not British. Multiculturalism was a sort of patheticism or handicap in the world. Imagine telling a Londoner in the thirties that multiculturalism would often dominate public policy. They'd start talking about ousting the the working class foreigners. If you said, "No, that will be a good thing," they'd have you down for a potential traitor or spy in two seconds. Britain ruling the north in those days meant that there was no Ireland, or any other non-British culture, above the level of the gutter and that was not some shocking racial fascist oppression that would surprise the world, it was the shocking racial fascist oppresion that glued certain parts the world together. You know all these scholars, social leaders and general upper class folk and whatever hailed today as the champions of social change and equality? Why were none of them prime ministers or anything like that? You've got to be joking, because they needed a certain sense of humour, and only today you can see politicans ripped apart for revealing their sly senses of humour. Twenty years ago you wouldn't bat an eyelid unless it was openly abusive. Physical injury was frowned upon but *blatant subjugation* was just run of the mill forty or so years ago (try phrases like, "What more do you want?" directed at people in the gutter) and, claiming to be from Ireland as a citizen of the north was meaningless unless you wanted to sing us all a song, just as claiming to be British was. It only mattered if you wanted to sing traditionally (bar like opera or something) or had to go to war. Today, because of knock on effects, these things have changed significantly. A happy society is a healthy and productive one and that doesn't just mean *high* society, hence, being Irish has meaning, even in the north. I don't know if this stuff has potential to make us less attractive economically or anything like that, but it seemed to have an unreasoned negative implication on what it means to identify as an Irish person (when I mean republic I will say it ha), and that's what I've been trying to look out for or at least, that's what I don't like to let go of once I spot it. Try looking up videos of The Kop on Youtube from the early eighties or before and you might pick up a keen sense of what your nationality meant as a nation forty years ago. Pack rats. Broken buldings. Ten to a room. If you want to do that to Britain or Ireland today you'd better be prepared to level cities because people will kill you to avoid it. So, it's very different today and if you think the time has passed when meaning was had by being Irish in the north, rubbish. That time only awakened yesterday. Give your Irishness to those people freely because they've endured for it any bit as much as you and they are, in fairness, what they claim to be in that respect. ~ R. T. G 14:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Titles are supposed to match the concept an article is about, but I think there's more than one way to slice the conceptspace of Ireland, and depending on which one is used, different title schemes will be more or less appropriate. If we divide the universe of stuff that can be said about Ireland into:

1. physical geography, natural history, prehistory, etc.;
2. pre-1922 history, politics, economics, demographics, culture, etc;
3. all-Ireland aspects of post-1922 history, politics, economics, demographics, culture, etc;
4. economics, demographics, culture, etc. of the RoI;
5. history and politics of the RoI;
6. economics, demographics, culture, etc. of NI;
7. history and politics of NI;

then I can envision at least three ways of splitting this stuff across articles (where discusses means ‘the most in-depth discussion of the matter, excluding sub-articles which no-one would link normally ever link to as Ireland’; brief mentions are possible in other articles too as needed for context; and I'm not assuming the ‘boundaries’ between a topic and another should be hard-and-fast):

• Article A discusses topics 1, 2, 3, and 4. Article B discusses topic 5. Article C discusses topic 6 and 7.
• Article A′ discusses topic 1. Article B′ discusses topics 2, 3, 4, and 5. Article C′ discusses topics 6 and 7.
• Article A″ discusses topic 1. Article B″ discusses topics 2, 3, 4, and 6. Article C″ discusses topic 5. Article D″ discusses topic 7.
• etc.

In each of these situations, I would prefer the titles:

• A = Ireland, B = Republic of Ireland, C = Northern Ireland;
• A′ = Ireland (island), B′ = Ireland, C′ = Northern Ireland;
• A″ = Ireland (island), B″ = Ireland, C″ = Republic of Ireland, D′ = Northern Ireland.

IOW, IMO, whichever article discusses topics 2 and 3 should be titled Ireland; the one which discusses topic 1, if not the same, should be titled Ireland (island); the one which discusses 5, if not the same, should be titled Republic of Ireland; and whichever one discusses 4 should bear the infobox-country for Ireland and be considered the ‘main’ one which should be linked ‘by default’ by {{ flagcountry|IRE}}, sentences like “Galway is a city in Ireland”, and so on. (Does all of this make sense?)
― A. di M.​ _plé​ ^dréachtaí 10:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• The above points are very well taken. One of the primary things I disliked about the final RfC from 2009 (the only one I saw in time to be involved in) was that it gave a variety of options for dividing up the topic but used the clunky, IMO, Ireland (state), rather than the more natural Republic of Ireland for all choices except the status quo. While no solution will satisfy everyone, I think that another round of discussion followed by a new binding consensus is the best way forward. We don't need to rehash the same issues constantly but we can't know if consensus has changed unless we periodically test it. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The table links, in each case, to the article that held the title listed on 30 September 2011 in that language. The links are all to articles about the sovereign state, not the island or any broader concept. Of the top 20 Wikipedias when ranked by article count, 13 use the name of the state, 5 use "Republic of Ireland" and 2 use Ireland (country). This information is provided in support of continued discussion about the current title of the en.wikipedia.org article, and whether the purported "need to disambiguate" is not really a more local concern of Britain and Northern Ireland that has until now strongly influenced this project but is not a globally supported argument. The fact that the English Wikipedia uses "Republic of Ireland" and only 4 others on this list follow suit is telling. Sswonk ( talk) 05:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Also telling is the fact that on the 30 September, the Irish wikipedia used ga:Poblacht na hÉireann, and has done so for the last seven years (except for 5 hours), which has generated about 5k of discussion compared to the megabytes of discussion it has here. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What name does those 19 non-english 'pedias call the island? GoodDay ( talk) 11:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Table updated to show titles of island articles. Sswonk ( talk) 13:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There will always be differences between how different language wikipedias handle something. I note the Irish language wikipedia handles it the way we do. With Ireland being the island and the state being at Republic of Ireland. The fact it has been the case there for a long time, just goes to show our method is reasonable. BritishWatcher ( talk) 13:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A rather strong case for country article to be at Ireland & island article to be at Ireland (island). GoodDay ( talk) 14:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay - odd, a major - major - point continuously made in 2008/2009 by the anti status quo lobby was that it was distinctly unfair that those "foreigners" (who outnumber us poor Irish) would be telling us what to call the article on our state.

Indeed, most foreigners are apparently with the 'pro-movement' side of 2008/09. GoodDay ( talk) 14:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sswonk - what's the point of posting this? Really? Disambiguation is needed on all of those wikis, so your section heading is misleading. Just that some of them disambiguate on the state, some on the island. If it's an attempt to argue the case for using some other title than Republic of Ireland, it's not helpful (and it's been used already in the 2008/2009 discussions and didn't sway anyone). We're talking above about how to move on (or to decide not to move on) - not throwing out our various pro- and con- status quo arguments. Save them for if and when there's a RM or some other process. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Disambiguation not necessary on several Wikis" - First off, all of the examples above disambiguate between the two "Irelands". Some of them disambiguate using different terms and in different ways, but they all disambiguate.

Second, and more important, this is the English-language Wikipedia. I don't know what the Irish state is called in Japanese. I don't speak Korean. I cannot read Ukrainian. But, more to the point, I don't know what policies or naming conventions the Japanese, Korean or Ukrainian Wikipedias have. Whatever they are, they don't matter here except in an academic sense.

This encyclopedia is aimed at English-language speakers, through the medium of the English language. Not speakers of Czech or Hungarian. Not in Dutch or Portuguese. I have no idea what is appropriate for the naming of articles on those projects. They only Wikipedia projects I can contribute to are the English-language Wikipedia and the Irish-language Wikipedia. Both disambiguate between the two "Ireland" by placing the broad concept at Ireland (or Éire) and the state at Republic of Ireland (or Poblacht na hÉireann). I humbly suggest that that may be because that is what is appropriate for those languages. What is appropriate for other languages, I don't know. Possibly it may be whatever is in the table above. -- RA ( talk) 15:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What I do see is that not one of the articles in the table use the constitutional name of the state, which is "Éire" in every language except English. Scolaire ( talk) 17:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It really doesn't seem necessary to repeat myself, yet the entire scene here does contain its share of circular self-referencing arguments. Brought to mind are (paraphrasing) "I choose the status quo because nothing has changed" and "we need to disambiguate the state because the state's name is ambiguous". See the article I have pointed out many times, begging the question, for a similar example which goes: "Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific quality". If it seems it is needed, here is something I wrote above, repeated: This information is provided in support of continued discussion about the current title of the en.wikipedia.org article, and whether the purported "need to disambiguate" is not really a more local concern of Britain and Northern Ireland that has until now strongly influenced this project but is not a globally supported argument. If that is not clear, it may be because the original table only included the various titles of the state article, until a question about the island was asked and I added two columns. "Disambiguation (of the single name Ireland as title of the state article) not necessary on several Wikis" was implied, so that is the meaning. I did not mean nor write that disambiguation itself is not necessary.

My statements are in support of further discussion and in opposition to the "status quo", the use of an incorrect title that confuses a description with an actual name. It is fact that the current title was until 1998 promoted outside of Ireland as an official name exclusively by the U.K., a rival government, making it less than ideal for use as a title in a neutral setting. It is also fact that the Government of Ireland itself on its UN mission website publishes the following sentence: "The Irish constitution provides that the name of the state is Éire or in the english language, Ireland." Several others have remarked here in the past week as we have discussed various remedies to the titling situation, and the table is offered as another perspective. My statement suggests that outside of the islands of the North Atlantic a different view of the "Republic of Ireland" title dominates.

Members of the Arbitration Committee are apparently reading these threads, and they may entertain the possibility of adding more time to the suppression of discussion. Arguments are being made that there is not a need for debate or discussion, everything is fine as it is and discussion is disruptive. Obviously or not, many serious editors have disagreed with that and are offering, especially in the past week, alternate visions to the "status quo" article names which have also been included in the summary tables further above this one. What happens outside of IECOLL and in the larger world should be welcomed as instructive. If the need for discussion is not made clear and "status quo" arguments are not continually rebutted here, then the possibility of even having an RM in which to offer points of debate is endangered. The table I added substantiates the argument I have made for several months that the "status quo" is myopic, and that a broader perspective should be taken, and that can only occur when discussions are held. Sswonk ( talk) 04:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussions have been held on this page over the last few weeks, excessive debate covering the exact same points we went over for months 2 years ago and dozens of times previously. The poll above which is now meant to have closed clearly shows a majority support the status quo, there for no action is needed for the time being. We can come back and look at this in a few months time, but if it continues to come up and endless debate causes clear disruption, we should move for an extension of the ban. And lets not forget the poll organised 2 years ago gathered a huge number of views and opinions, not just advertising that poll on Ireland articles but it was posted on multiple other pages to get neutral, and uninvolved editors to contribute. No case has been made to justify a page move. We should all move on and focus on other things. BritishWatcher ( talk) 20:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "endless debate" is not disruptive. Last time, the endless repetitive debate, and the opening of consecutive move request with no time between, was the source of disruption. The tables above are one possible solution to the repetition. No move requests have been made. In fact, the only disruptive repetition I can see is your contributions which can all be summarized as a plea to ban this topic for another two years. Your position is clear. We get it. If you've nothing useful to say other than yet another repeat, keep it to yourself. Perhaps the Arbs watching this could (re)clarify the types of behaviour that constitute disruption so that we can keep a lid on any potential non-constructive behaviour? -- HighKing ( talk) 00:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The table of pros / cons would be a possible solution if there was checks and balances on what went into that table, sadly there are some highly questionable and sometimes inaccurate points made in that table. Also of course if there was an actual need for a table and RM which it appears there is not. I have not just been insisting on a 2 year additional ban although yes that is my favoured option. I have commented on the table, making specific points. Ive challenged some of the questionable claims. Ive stated we should respect the second poll that there is no demand for a change and leave it for a few months, accepting there is no consensus at present for an additional 2 months ban. Your unfair attack on me simply for me stating my opinions and contributions like many others have done in this recent debate is very unreasonable. When it comes to repetition, in my view those arguing for a change are repeating the same old points over and over again despite no change in the situation so nothing new being provided to justify change. Everyone else is entitled to give their opinion but im not? that is very fair. BritishWatcher ( talk) 08:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to the people who worked on that table, the other wikis obviously do disambiguate in the title of the pages by using additional words, parenthetical or not. The only real question is whether calque should apply. I caution against assuming that whatever is valid in another language is immediately valid in English by direct analogy. I had some grief with this myself on the topic of gunpowder. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 01:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your due respect is appreciated. I titled the section with some words left out. The meaning was: "Disambiguation of the state name is not necessary...", to show that the majority of the largest wikis use the single proper name Ireland as the state article title. Others have missed that was my meaning, so I hope you understand that, as you write, obviously they do disambiguate, just not the state name. Many here have long argued that disambiguation is forced on the state article title due to various reasons. Most other wikis in the list disambiguate the island article. That was my meaning, and I thank you for your comments which introduce an angle that was not discussed. This table is simply an effort to show there is a wider world outside of IECOLL and en.wikipedia.org that mostly disagrees with the current article titles here; it is not meant as a method of enforcement. Sswonk ( talk) 02:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The situation on those other wikipedia pages is very different though. This has been considered far more on the English wikipedia where as on those pages there has been no real proper debate or consideration of the facts. Also if we look at page views on the German wikipedia, about 200 view the island article a day compared to about 2000 viewing the country article. On the English wikipedia, the island page gets 8000 views and the republic of Ireland gets around 4000 views. BritishWatcher ( talk) 08:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What would be a better statistic is how many people visited the "Ireland" page and then visited the Republic of Ireland page having typed in "Ireland" into the search box (what I mean is, didn't arrive at an article by clicking on a wikilink in a different article). Or for those countries that have dab pages, which page was next clicked on. I've updated the table for those languages where the "primary" topic of "Ireland" was a dab page or if a redirect page, where it redirected to. But I don't know if it's possible to see how many people clicked on a link from a dab page. -- HighKing ( talk) 12:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't know what readers are searching for. However, we can look at visiting and linking patterns to see what "Ireland" is more linked to and more visited.

We know is that there are 78,096 links to Ireland in the article name space and 37,615 links to Republic of Ireland in the article namespace. That's over twice as many links to the article at Ireland compared to Republic of Ireland.

The number of hits on the two articles is of roughly the same ratio. Last month, there were 217,475 hits on the article at Ireland and 108,087 hits on the article at Republic of Ireland. Like above, that's roughly 2:1.

Tools:

• http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/backlinkscount.py
• http://stats.grok.se/

For any readers who do land at Ireland expecting it to be about the subject described at Republic of Ireland, there is italicised text at the top of the article pointing to Republic of Ireland and the second paragraph of the article explains partition and points to the article at Republic of Ireland also. -- RA ( talk) 13:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

None of the info you've given answers the question I asked. Also, counting links is a poor way of attributing "primacy". For example, looking at the first 5 articles from "What links here" gives me Algae, A Modest Proposal, Atlantic Ocean, August 22, Achill Island. Looking at the instances of where the article has linked "Ireland" in each article - arguably those links could equally link to other articles. The Algae article says that "Algae are national foods of many nations" and then lists "Ireland". The next instance provides a list of countries "Scotland, Ireland, Greenland and Iceland". The "A Modest Proposal" article wikilinks "Irish" to "Ireland" instead of to Irish people. The Atlantic Ocean article says the first nonstop flight from "Newfoundland to Ireland" - no probs there. The August 22 article lists "Kilcummin harbour, County Mayo, Ireland" which should pipelink to "Republic of Ireland", and the "Achill Island" article should also. I'm not suggesting anybody runs around correcting (so-called) these links, just trying to highlight the fact that is could be argued that a lot of usage of [[Ireland]] isn't linking to the state article where arguably it should. -- HighKing ( talk) 17:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that as long as we have separate articles on Ireland, the country/island and Ireland, the state, it will be impossible to predict which article is of greater interest to anybody who wants to 'know about Ireland' and looks it up on Wikipedia. It seems to me very likely that many people will want information from both articles and may well read them both. I am confounded by the argument that the title 'Republic of Ireland', which is stated by a law adopted by a sovereign Irish parliament, to be the 'description of the state', is prejudicial to that state. Surely any Irish citizen who really feels that way would be better employed campaigning to have the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 repealed rather than campaigning to have the title of a Wikipedia article changed? Irish recorded history goes back well over 1000 years, and there are numerous other aspects of Irish life such as culture, sport, literature which are not solely related to the Republic. To make the article about 'Ireland' exclusive to an article that only covers ninety years of the history of part of the country is, in my view, very difficult to justify. There has been some talk about China - I would recommend also looking at the articles on Italy and Germany, both of which cover history, culture, literature and so forth from long before the foundation of the modern Italian and German states.

The obvious fact of the matter, as I remarked above, is that 'Ireland' is the obvious and correct title for both articles. Since Wikipedia's technical structure means that this cannot be adopted as a solution, there are two alternative courses of action - have one article that covers both, or rename one or both articles. I see nothing wrong with the first option, which could point to more detailed articles on both states (and to a very limited extent that is what we already have in the 'Ireland' article). But the second option means we need to have an alternative title for at least one of the articles. Well, the Irish parliament has provided us with one - the 'Republic of Ireland'. What could be a more obvious choice? And to my mind, what could be harder than finding an appropriate title for the article that's currently at Ireland? It's very clear on reading that article that 'Ireland (island)' would be wrong - as well as, to my mind, extremely POV - because it's not just talking about an island but about somewhere with a lengthy history as a discrete political and cultural space, about a culture, a literary tradition (or two, to follow Kinsella) - in other words, what could best be described as a 'country' (what other term would really suit?), because it is clearly not primarily about physical geography. Since it's clear that to call this article Ireland (country) would be confusing to many readers who equate 'country' with state and would probably be seen as representing a nationalist POV, that option can be ruled out. But any title other than Ireland for this article would be quite inappropriate. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg ( talk) 18:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC) 197.194.118.28 ( talk) 18:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, it's hard for me to keep up with this fast moving discussion, but the argument that Sswonk is making is that the Republic is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on many wikis. My caution about linguistic analogies is that while most Poles hearing Irlandia may well think of the Republic instead of the island, it's not clear that that implies the same about English speakers when they say Ireland. Although I haven't formed an opinion of my own on this issue, the discussion here should probably seek to determine, if possible, what is the primary meaning of Ireland in English, although I have a feeling that this may be a difficult and complex analysis because English is natively spoken on several continents. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 01:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt if there's one answer to that question (in any language, in fact) that is valid regardless of context. In the contemporary political context, someone looking up Ireland could be interested in just the Republic - or they could be interested in all of Ireland, e.g. to find out background to the Northern Ireland conflict. In the literary or cultural context, it would probably mean all of Ireland. In the historical context, it can only mean all of Ireland for most periods - but it could mean just the Republic for contemporary history. However, one thing that is clear is that Ireland referring to all of Ireland is the broader sense, while the Irish state and topics relating to it are logically a subset of the former and the topics relating to it. That is, as several people have stated above, one of the criteria to be adopted in 'disambiguating', and it points to it being, logically, the primary topic, whether or not it is the primary topic in terms of inward links, hits etc. As the page at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC itself points out, there is no agreed definition of what will constitute a primary topic as a general rule, so I don't think that stating that to be the issue at stake will necessarily bring us any closer to a conclusion. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg ( talk) 01:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right about the Ireland case, but from what I have seen in the archives of the former China page, now located at Talk:Chinese civilization, the issue there was decided on the basis of PRIMARYTOPIC in secondary sources, such as the Associated Press style guide and so forth. In the debate above, I have seen little recourse to sources (except some primary sources like the Irish constitution and a law). I image you'd argue that the Ireland case is closer to the Korea case rather than China/Taiwan from a strict geographical perspective, but naming conventions in secondary sources should still be considered if they exist. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 01:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is what the Associated Press says: "Ireland Acceptable in most references to the independent nation known formally as the Irish Republic. Use Irish Republic when a distinction must be made between this nation and Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kauffner ( talk • contribs) 03:53, October 4, 2011

Well, two obvious points: first of all, the AP stylebook has clearly got it wrong, since 'Irish Republic' is not a correct term for the Irish state. But more broadly, stylebooks which agree to calling the Republic 'Ireland' in all or some cases don't really help, because no-one (as far as I can see) is objecting to the Republic being called Ireland - the problem is that since 'Ireland' is also the obvious term to be used for the whole country/island, and Wikipedia does not permit two topics to have the same title, then assuming we need to treat these as two separate topics, we need an alternative title for one or both of them. A stylebook may provide evidence that the Republic is referred to as 'Ireland' in reliable secondary sources, but it is unlikely to clarify whether Ireland itself cannot also be referred to as Ireland by such sources. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg ( talk) 07:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The aspect of AP policy that is relevant to our debate is the they do not use "Republic of Ireland" in any context. They tell their writers the fiction that "Irish Republic" is a formal name to make sure they are never tempted to use ROI, not even when the context is appropriate. Kauffner ( talk) 05:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

They tell their writers that "Irish Republic" is a formal name. I see no basis for your claim that they do this in order "to make sure they are never tempted to use ROI". It seems much more likely that it is a mistake, and quite possibly a mistake influenced by the British tendency to use terms such as "Irish Republic" instead of the state's own officially adopted description "Republic of Ireland". ComhairleContaeThirnanOg ( talk) 11:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

With respect, Herr Have mörser, you say I am making a "primary topic" argument. I am not. Also, you'll find I very rarely will link to wiki policy in my statements. I tend to debate by pointing toward common sense rather than with the "gimlet eye of a wiki lawyer." Common sense and a preponderance of secondary sources, those being other reference works to which we can compare as having the naming issues faced by this one, point to Ireland as the title. And as for the Tir Na n'Og council, I will say Hilarious! Or more to the point, the primary group that has held sway here has written all that before; it always goes: "we must disambiguate, therefor... and then conclude: the Oireachtas has given us the answer." There is not a "question", and even if there was a question the Oireachtas did no such thing, they declared a republic and left the Commonwealth. Ireland has a history much older than the legal existence of the state; its flag is over one hundred sixty years old, and the impetus for independence and self-determination is much older than that. In spite of another popular argument regarding two states, there is only one state on the island, the other jurisdiction is not a state at all but instead a province of the former occupying power. With respect, the days of "Republic of Ireland" being used for the title are numbered; the arguments for it crumble under scrutiny and hence many supporters of it also supported a ban on discussion. Since most of this has been spelled out before, I will not go further into detail. In summary, the particular legal entity is not the only topic that would be covered at the article if the current title were not incorrect. Since it is incorrect, however, all argument that concludes "a history of only ninety years is insufficient to own the title Ireland" is not an argument against the title, it is an argument against the name itself. Wikipedia can't argue against the nation's name, unless that is what is in fact happening here. If the article were titled properly, then all of the other historical periods would be handled with sub-sections and "main article" branching section hatnote links within it, and at that point an article merely about the physical geography would indeed be appropriately titled "Ireland (island)" since that would be all it need discuss. The problems argued as arising from changing the "status quo" have always relied on the beholder first believing the falsehood that disambiguation of the name of the state is a necessity. They'll say disambiguation is required since the content of the article about the state is limited to what is under the current title, which they then won't allow can include the topics that Ireland should cover because the state started in the nineteen twenties, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. That is the strange loop that the "status quo" supporters suppose everyone should be limited by. Sswonk ( talk) 03:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, before someone reading that kindly notes to me that strict Irish republicans and Sinn Féin adherents might fall into the "status quo" camp due to their conviction that Ireland as a national name has not been properly achieved due to partition, no need. I've read it. But even if they want to change the ga.wikipedia.org title to na Sé Chontae Fichead or prefer to use Poblacht na hÉireann, they're presenting essentially the same limitations, and I would still hold to fundamentally the same argument about the proper title, which should be Éire there or Ireland here as a matter of common sense titling not relying on short-sighted rectitude. Sswonk ( talk) 04:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So, Sswonk, what you're really calling for could equally be described as extending the Ireland article to be extended to cover the Republic of Ireland - because the Ireland article is, rightly, where all the other information you talk about (broader Irish history etc) is now. That's fine by me, but that's not what any of proposals above are for and nor is it what any of the proposals advanced last time round were for. None of these proposals suggest that renaming the article about the Republic Ireland would also open it to covering the full extent of Irish history, geography, culture etc. And I suspect that many of those in favour of the change of title would oppose what actually would amount to an effective merger of the two articles. In any case, mergers are meant to be dealt with in a different way. Finally, I don't see any sign that the arguments for using Republic of Ireland are 'crumbling'. On the contrary, no serious objections to it have been put forward apart from a kind of personal objection to it shared, for unclear reasons, by a considerable number of editors, and the bizarre and unsubstantiated claim that it was 'promoted abroad' by the British government. The latter strikes me as unlikely, since I can clearly remember the British official media consistently using the term 'the Irish Republic' - if at some point in recent years, they changed to using 'Republic of Ireland', the description of the state adopted by Irish legislation, we should be grateful to them for that sign of respect surely. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg ( talk) 06:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope pointing to Republic of Ireland (term) will help you see that the term, along with Eire (the Irish name of the state without an accent over the E) and Southern Ireland to name three were names used by the U.K. governments as part of a very serious effort to dissuade other governments from officially calling the state Ireland. You may have to dig deeper, that is a starting point. Not bizarre and unsubstantiated. If you feel no objections here are serious, then I see no reason to go any further. What can I say as long as you buy the line that "It's all prattle", another argument that is truly unsubstantiated and prime for crumbling? Sswonk ( talk) 14:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that the page you link to supports the point you are trying to make, and unfortunately I cannot access the Daly paper via Jstor. Certainly it provides evidence that the British government used the term 'Republic of Ireland' instead of 'Ireland', but it is not clear that it promoted the use of the term abroad, it remains a fact that in doing so it was using a term adopted as 'the description of the state' by Irish legislation, as opposed to its practice in other cases of using the terms 'Eire' or 'Irish Republic' (which I remember regularly hearing on the BBC not that long ago) and it is still, in my view, an unconscionable leap from that observation to a claim that that practice by the British government renders a term stated by Irish legislation to be "the description of the state" somehow non-kosher. Furthermore, none of this gets around the other problems, notably the glaring issue that on the basis of your most recent statements you clearly want, not simply to rename the two articles, but to rename the 'Republic of Ireland' article 'Ireland' and include in it much of the sort of general information about Ireland that is currently in (logically enough) the article now entitled 'Ireland'. Apart from the technical issue that this probably turns the question into one of merging and not just renaming, I would be surprised if there were not considerable objections to such an approach from many of the participants in this discussion (not from me, by the way). ComhairleContaeThirnanOg ( talk) 14:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)