Jump to content

Talk:Ireland/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Vandalism

/b/ "raided" the article (actually there was only one edit)

Pelican19 wrote "/b/ told me to do it" after "exerting much influence in Europe." in Pre-history and medieval period section.

I can't edit, so please someone else do it.

Danquebec (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Ireland

The local pronunciation is more widely used than the general one, and is also not exclusive to Ireland. Therefore, I do not think it should be listed as a local pronunciation, it should be listed as the correct one. The other pronunciation is only used by Americans and Canadians...

Signed Fiveby5 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Geography

NASA made a nice new cloud-free satellite view of Ireland available (uploaded to Commons as File:Ireland (MODIS).jpg). Could probably be incorporated into the Geography section, if someone's feeling up to it. -- Schneelocke (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple minor errors.

In the food and drink area of the culture section, there are two notable errors I have found. Coddle is listed along with drisheen as a type of sausage, when in fact it is a stew made from bacon, sausages, onions and potatoes. Also, this sentence is incorrect:

Cider, particularly Magners (marketed in the Republic of Ireland as Bulmers),

Bulmers Original Cider is the official brand sold by the company Bulmers Ltd. exported as Magners as stated in the "About us" section of their website. http://www.bulmers.ie/about-us/ I would greatly appreciate any thoughts how best to change these as I don't want to just jump in and edit without feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.81.66 (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

My advice is to read WP:Be bold and then just jump in and edit! Your suggestions are sensible and uncontroversial. If you make any mistakes (and I'm sure you won't) somebody will fix them for you. Scolaire (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Fatneymc, 21 June 2011

Hello in this text you mention that after the executions of the 1916 leaders Ireland wanted Home Rule,this is wrong. After the deaths of the leaders Ireland wanted Independence and nothing to do with Britain. Under Home Rule Ireland would rule themselves but still be a part of Britain while with independence they would have complete control of the country. Home Rule was put on the shelves due to the world war 1 and yes Home Rule was wanted by Ireland in 1913 but due to the mistreatment of Irish people from that time up to 1916/1917 the Irish attitudes changed to independence.

I hope you can change what you have said in this text. Fatneymc (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. There were a few inaccuracies in that one short sentence. Scolaire (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Renaming this to Hibernia

Why not? Generally, all the other countries use the name to indicate the country, not the island. Japan isn't the island, Madagascar isn't the island, and Cuba isn't the island. Furthermore, take an example from Hispaniola, which is the island divided in two parts, with Haiti on the west and Dominican Republic on the east. So this could be Hibernia, with Ireland and a little portion of West UK - Ulster. Negativecharge (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The island isn't known as Hibernia. The problem with your examples is that the island and a sovereign state on it don't share the same name. Mabuska (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Quite. See WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted citecheck banner

I've reverted the addition of the {{citecheck}} banner. It was added on the basis that, "Citations providing facts may refer mistakenly to Ireland the state, as opposed to Ireland the island in multiple instances." Specific examples would need to be given. A general "may" on the basis that there are two entities of the same name is insufficient reason. Particularly, when there is a large overlap between the two entities in any case. --RA (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your removal. The article was well scrutinised during the GA and there have not been many significant changes that would warrant a citecheck. Everything seems pretty clear and well explained. Examples of disputed statements can be individually tagged. ww2censor (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

O'Connell

"O'Connell spearheaded a vigorous campaign which was taken up by the Prime Minister, the Irish-born soldier and statesman, the Duke of Wellington."

What was this campaign?

"Steering the Act through the Westminster parliament, aided by future prime minister Robert Peel, Wellington prevailed upon a reluctant George IV to sign the bill and proclaim it into law."

Which bill?

Regards to all, Notreallydavid (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Emancipation in 1829. It's overrated, though, as O'Connell essentially sold out the poorer voters because Wellington and the British government refused to pass the bill until the franchise was removed from the Forty Shilling Freeholders, who were more radical. They had been allowed to vote since 1793. O'Connell duly agreed to take away the rights of these people and thereafter only a man renting or owning land worth over £10 per year had a right to vote. Upshot: Catholics could now sit in the British parliament but only the wealthiest in Irish society, who overwhelmingly were Protestant and pro-British, could vote in elections. O'Connell's sincerity in the Repeal campaigns in the 1830s and 1840s is even more suspect. The Young Irelanders in the late 1840s spoke a lot of truth about Daniel O'Connell. 109.77.133.139 (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Audio pronounciation

Any chance we could get someone that's actually from Ireland to record the pronunciation of the word in English instead of an american? I've never met any Irish person who says "eye-er-land". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.129.16 (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ireland name

In my opinion this Ireland "everybody knows it's an island" page gives a bad reputation to Wikipedia.

The word "Ireland", albeit technically ambiguous, in most common speech refers to the country, not the island. Obviously there has been a political dispute between the UK and Ireland, with Ireland insisting on their own ambiguous name "Ireland", and the UK using the unambiguous term "Republic of Ireland". Nonetheless, "Ireland" has also been accepted by the United Nations and ISO as the official name of the country. Therefore I find it unappropriate that the word "Ireland" links to the geographical entity as it does now.

For comparison please consider a similar case of "Samoa". Here actually the country names are honoured rather than disambiguation or even geographical features:

n.b. Indeed I see there has been a discussion and a vote in favour of the Ireland status quo almost two years ago. However, it has been without a consensus, and so the issue is rather "quiet" than resolved. One of the critiques against changes previously has been the lack of objections from general users. Now as a general user I feel compelled to express my discomfort about the current use of the name "Ireland" by Wikipedia. As such I hope this is the appropriate place to post this statement, alternatively please if you could point me to some more appropriate place. Nothingiswrong (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The decision two years ago was that there was an insufficient consensus to change the name of the article and that the subject should not be raised again until the expiry of two years. This does not mean that many users are content with the status quo, only that they agreed to park it to avoid a never-ending edit war. See the archives of this discussion page. In the meantime, see the 'hat note' on the article. --Red King (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This claim from Nothingiswrong is, well, wrong. What most people would think of as the 'country' of Ireland is what this article is about. It's also what plenty of people mean when they talk about Ireland, full stop. The state of Ireland is clearly an alternative meaning for 'Ireland' in relation to political and administrative matters, but Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a purely political one. In any case, Ireland, the country, has existed for centuries; the Irish state for less than a hundred years. 86.148.51.4 (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to add to the discussion as I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere, that in my experience in Ireland, the Republic of Ireland has more often referred to the football team. Cyanoir (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem of naming your state after an island. Mabuska (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Question about the lede...

The lede makes this statement:

A strong Irish culture exists, as expressed for example through Gaelic games, Irish music and the Irish language, alongside a common Western culture, such as contemporary music and drama, and sports such as soccer, rugby and golf, and the English language.

There are no references that exactly back up this possibly subjectively worded statement. Western culture is just as strong in Ireland as Irish culture itself is, if not more so in certain aspects, and trying to supplant one over the other like this with possible subjective wording is silly in my opinion. Could it not be reworded as such so none is placed above the other:

In Ireland, Irish culture, expressed for example through Gaelic games, Irish music and the Irish language, exists alongside Western culture, such as contemporary music and drama, and sports such as soccer, rugby and golf, and the English language.

Mabuska (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

In agreement with your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Is Irish Culture not part of Western Culture? Perhaps there should be a distinction between traditional and modern instead of Irish and western? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Same comment as Chipmunk. Also, can we try again to bring Great Britain into it?

A strong indigenous culture exists, as expressed for example through Gaelic games, Irish music and the Irish language, as well as mainstream Western culture, such as contemporary music and drama, and a culture shared in common with Great Britain, as expressed through sports such as soccer, rugby and golf, and the English language.

--RA (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Good point by Chipmunk. Bringing Great Britain into it also isn't a bad idea due to the cultural assimilation and migration between both islands over the millenia, though worded more expressively? Or would it be over complicating this part of the lede? Mabuska (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
That sentence is very long. It could be broken up into a few shorter and more expressive ones. --RA (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this needs to be changed. While there are undoubtedly certain cultural commonalities between Ireland and Britain (as between other component parts of former European empires, e.g. Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey, or Austria, Hungary and Croatia...), the list of examples is very bad - golf, soccer and rugby are all common in many European countries and even worldwide... if anything, soccer is less dominant in Ireland than in many other European countries that in other respects are culturally further from Britain than Ireland is! This should be reconsidered. For example, architecture and cuisine are aspects where there is probably more obvious cultural commonality between Britain and Ireland. Can't edit myself as the article is locked. 86.148.51.4 (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The list may not be perfect but Ireland has a far longer association with those sports than continental Europe has as far as i'm aware and all to do with the cultural assimilation and migration between it and Great Britain. Though yes some better examples could be provided. Mabuska (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiousity anymore on this? Mabuska (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Island of Ireland"

Why if it is internationally recognised that Ireland is a soveriegn state in legaslature and international organizations is it not on Wikipedia ? This should be referred to as the "Island of Ireland" and the article on the soveriegn state as "Ireland" . http://www.un.org/en/members/ http://publications.europa.eu/code/pdf/370000en.htm Mabuska as a citizen of a country that has adopted the EU constitution do you not follow it? Or do you pick and choose what articles of it to follow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.85.165 (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

As Mabuska said, it the problem that arises when you name yourself after a geographical entity that your borders aren't synonymous with. What if the United Kingdom renamed itself Sardinia? JonChappleTalk 09:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so to be consistent with that you will remove the "Ulster flag is the flag of Northern Ireland" claim from your page? It does after all claim an identity that includes three counties that are not a part of NI? --Snowded TALK 09:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It's called the Ulster Banner. It's not my terminology. Although you have neatly reminded me of the hypocrisy of your reprimanding of my using of Ulster, rather than NI, in the past, when you're campaigning so vociferously to have the RoI article moved to Ireland. JonChappleTalk 10:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Ireland is the proper name of the state and that is sourced and also confirmed as such since the Good Friday Agreement by the British Government. The same can not be said for your use of Ulster or the Ulster banner for six of the nine counties. I really think you need to be consistent here, you can't argue the "borders aren't synonymous" point in one case then blithely ignore it when it does not suit your somewhat eccentric (I think that is a fair description of Anglospherists but happy to strike it if you are upset) POV. --Snowded TALK 10:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
You know as well as I do that just because a government says something doesn't mean we have to abide by it here; there's plenty of states that aren't at their official names for a number of reasons. Like it or not, the use of Ireland for the 26-county country is illogical and confusing, regardless of official usage. And there's no need to strike, I'd normally use much stronger terms to describe Welsh nationalists, Europhiles and socialists! JonChappleTalk 10:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, as I just said, the Ulster Banner is the flag's name. I didn't name it. JonChappleTalk 11:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"it the problem that arises when you name yourself after a geographical entity that your borders aren't synonymous with." The citizenship borders are synonymous with that geographical one as the UK government agree . The UK adopted the Eu constitution but as they dont have a written one it could be agrued either way but as the European Courts are higher than any UK court -no matter which version of UK law is being used- it stands that Ireland is the soveriegn states legal name in the UK . The outcome on this debate could be a legal cursor on Wikipedia for "Failure of Human Rights" , as Wikipedia fail to uphold what is international law ( by being in international documents and treaties - yes this makes it legally the name of the state .

As I advised you on the Republic of Ireland page, be very careful with the legal/illegal arguments as this can result in a block. Valenciano (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I never threaten litigation , I stated "could be" talk, If i was to be banned over freedom of sspeech issues that also could be a issue its self . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.85.165 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I know you didn't threaten litigation. For your own sake, I'm just advising you to be careful, that's all. Valenciano (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Valenciano , thank you .I have read what is defined as a leagl threat . The informing that legal action could result is the exact same as Wikipedias own legal section . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.85.165 (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The freeze on these 'page move' discussions are still in effect for 2 more weeks. In the meantime, best to take these concerns to the related WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

JonChapple there is no entity called RoI , the Republic of Ireland other than a footballing team . That name was forced on a team from the country of Ireland by the IFAB which advised FIFA what the team should be called , based that back then the IFAB was 8 british advisrs and 4 international is it any wonder why the british pushed thier view through , a bit like what yous do on here . I see you are a monarchist , when the queen was on state visit she referred to the state as Ireland , nothing else , seems that your head of state recognized what the country is called. Ulster is a geographical term , not a part of your state . As I said you ,you have adopted the EU constitution , please find where it states ANYTHING other than Ireland . After all it is now legal more powerful than you unwritten and dictates life in the UK . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.71.250 (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Anon IP, please see the second banner at the top of this page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: “Ireland” to “Island of Ireland”

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

For now, please forward all comments regarding such page move proposals to the already existing discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

ArbCom has been aware of these ongoing discussions for the past few weeks (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: WP:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names). And since ArbCom wants the community to come up with a resolution to this issue, it is in the best interests of everybody if all such discussions were in one, agreed upon central location. One cannot easily determine the full consensus of the entire community if a group of people say one thing on that page, and another group agrees to the opposite on this page. And yes, ArbCom would definitely admonish any admin who starts moving the Ireland pages without the proper consensus (so it is rather pointless to have this separate discussion on this page anyway, unless you know of any admin who wouldn't mind risking being both blocked and desysopped). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ireland → Island of Ireland – Googling Ireland -wikipedia suggests that the Republic of Ireland is prominent among the topics desired by those entering the search term "Ireland". Is it therefore appropriate to choose a title that makes it clear that this is not the Wiki article intended for those seeking to learn about the Republic. Readers are able to find the article they are seeking more easily when the article title matches the content of the article. The term "Ireland" would direct to "Island of Ireland" after this move, without prejudice to any future request regarding its status. The phrase “Island of Ireland" gets 10,900 post-1990 hits on Google Books. This shows that it is a common name, not a descriptive, and a worthy title of a major article. “Island of Ireland" is currently a redirect to this page, so there is no primary topic issue. Kauffner (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Boring procedural nonsense: By order of Arbcom, there must be no page move discussions concerning Ireland prior to September 18, 2011. As today is September 18, I submit my “modest proposal" at this time. Note that under this proposal “Ireland" would continue to direct to the island, while the “Republic of Ireland" would remain at that lemma. This conforms to the infamous “Option F", which was approved in a vote taken in 2009. Kauffner (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

  • More boring procedural nonsense: By strong recommendation of ArbCom, what happens after September 18 should be agreed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. This RM is emphatically not was has been agreed there. Please note that the nominator was aware of ongoing attempts to agree a procedure on IECOLL and declined to take part. One arbitrator has said he expects "the committee would take a very dim view if editors take the expiration of the remedy as a permission for the level of hostility that led to it being imposed in the first place." This opening of an RM at 4am on the 18th smacks of a deliberate attempt to whip up that level of hostility. I will not take part and I strongly urge others not to take part. Scolaire (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Belfast, County...

Minor Point, Re Samson and Goliath image caption: Since it appears that we can't seem to decide whether the H&W area of Belfast is on the County Antrim side or the County Down side, and considering a recent edit, I've just changed "Belfast, County Antrim" to "Belfast, Northern Ireland" until there is some sort of citation attached. ★KEYS★ (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a very reasonable solution. --RA (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Belfast, County Antrim since the administrative HQ and nearly all of the city is in that county; cf. Newry, County Down, even though the north-west of the city is in Co. Armagh. Brocach (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Roughly half of Belfast is in County Down and roughly half of Newry is in County Armagh. Take a look at the OSI maps. ~Asarlaí 23:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Open Ireland page move discussion

After a two-year ban imposed by Arbcom, a page move discussion for the Republic of Ireland can be entertained.

Vandalism I don't know how to fix.

When I read the introduction, I see this text:

"There are twenty-six extant mammal species native to Ireland irish people enjoy patatoes."

Somehow I cannot find the offending text in the edit page. Hopefully someone more skilled than me can remove it. Or at least spell potatoes correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.25.131 (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, just a note on Irelands pre-history. please check the dates for the migration from Britain to Ireland. This may help, check out the pre-history of Wales. Cheers x x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.109.148.82 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ireland National Anthem

I posted |national anthem =
"Amhrán na bhFiann onto the article.. but it's not showing up. Help?

Twillisjr (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

it is already where it should be, at the article about the state of the same name. RashersTierney (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ireland was patitioned in 1921 between Northern Ireland and (what is now) the Republic of Ireland. Amhrán na bhFiann was adopted as the national anthem of the second of these in 1926. It is not the national anthem in Northern Ireland or of the country as a whole. --RA (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the political issues surrounding the "Ireland National Anthem." Perhaps then, there should be at a minimum, a section of this article that explains Amhrán na bhFiann and God Save the Queen both being considered their national anthems (or not). A citizen's belief in sovereignty of many nations depend on a mention of such items and symbols. Please also review: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ei.html

"name: "Amhran na bhFiann" (The Soldier's Song) lyrics/music: Peadar KEARNEY [English], Liam O RINN [Irish]/Patrick HEENEY and Peadar KEARNEY note: adopted 1926; instead of "Amhran na bhFiann," the song "Ireland's Call" is often used in athletic events where citizens of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland compete as a unified team"

Twillisjr (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an article about the island of Ireland, a landmass not a country/state/nation, it doesn't have an anthem. Anthems are relevant to states and are treated as such in the appropriate pages on the states. Putting a national anthem in this page is like saying North America has a national anthem. Canterbury Tail talk 22:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks.

Twillisjr (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Picking up where the United States left off

So, it appears Ireland is attempting to push through with its own version of SOPA. Any comments concerning this? Should it be brought up in the article? Or perhaps a relating article? ...Should it be silenced down into oblivion? 83.189.184.232 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong page. See Talk:Republic of Ireland. Also note WP:NOTFORUM. RashersTierney (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ireland and the China precedent

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Ireland and the China precedent (per note at top of page). --RA (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

bit silly this.........

How ridiculous that this article is about the chunk of land in the sea and not the country known as Ireland. And I say that as a British person too. Coolug (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As a British person you should be aware that the island of Ireland is shared between a country called Ireland and a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Please explain why you think a country that has existed for less than 100 years should take prime position to the island that it copied its name from which has existed for a lot longer? And why that country should be able to claim ownership over the whole of the island and its history, which is what you will do if the country article is put here. Anyway we are not meant to discuss this here. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. Mabuska (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The broad concept of Ireland - it's history, culture, geography, people, politics, and so forth, including Northern Ireland - are described in this article. Another article, specifically on the Irish state, is at Republic of Ireland. --RA (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Languages in Ireland

"Irish is the only language to have originated from within the island. " This appears in the art section. There are two other languages I know of that are native to Ireland, Cant being one, Yola being another. Cant died out in the 1950's as far as I know, though many words still survive in Traveller's English dialect now. Yola a died out in the decades after the famine. The sentence I quoted is prefaced by the sentence - "There are a number of languages used in Ireland." I think it is misleading to say "Irish is the only language to have originated from within the island" as a standalone sentence. If it was changed to "Irish is the only one of those language to have originated from within the island" it would make more sense. Alternatively, mention could be made of Cant and Yola. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.223.193 (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Makes logical sense. Mabuska (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Anthems

I think that irelands call and amhrán na bhfiann shold be mentioned either on this or the republic of ireland page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.239.84 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Amhrán na bhFiann is mentioned on the Republic of Ireland page. I'm not sure if or how Ireland's Call could or should be included. Better to leave out IMO. --RA (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The island has no anthem. Mabuska (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

merge this page with republic of Ireland

to save confusion and frustration this page should be moved to republic of Ireland,and another page sould be created for the island — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philpm930 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where your confusion and/or frustration arises, Philipm930. Ireland is an island. There are two jurisdictions on the island. A large portion of the island of Ireland is not, at the time of writing, in the Republic of Ireland. This article is about the island; other articles deal with the political entities. Brocach (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

when i typ[e in ireland tthis page shows up not the republicc of irelandPhilpm930 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Philpm930, for better or worse the Irish state has the same name (Ireland) as the topic of this article. It is difficult to know which is more frequent or common use of the term. However, the topic of this article is a certainly the broader concept i.e. the History of Ireland, Culture of Ireland, Geography of Ireland, People of Ireland, Music of Ireland and so on relate directly to the topic of this article, not to the topic of the Irish state (involving, as they do, Northern Ireland).
Consequently, the broad concept of "Ireland" is at this article and the narrower topic of the "Republic of Ireland" is at the other article. --RA (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course, that's built on the decision that the Primary Topic is the island. There was a debate and vote,, and it was decided a while ago that this article should be about the island, not the state. Check out WP:IMOS. --HighKing (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Except that the real winners of that "vote" were those who have always wanted two political articles on the Irish state, as RA has basically demonstrated by his comment above. Of course the "vote" you allude to was taken when he was a human IP for a undisclosed period (while others who retired really did retire, ahem). People who voted against using the standard multi-meaning 'disambiguation page' for the multi-meaning 'Ireland' (the second time around - the first time around a large poll won of course, and was inexcusably "wheel-warred" back by a particularly flippant admin in the middle of people bussying away correcting the mess) - based their 'no change' position on anything different rocking the so-called 'stability'. Those 'status quo' votes were not by "British POV pushers" or any nonsense like that (most of them were Irish nationalists - and what a nightmare that simply-ridiculous and irrelevant-anyway 'British imperialists on Wikipedia are demanding the word "Republic"!' argument made of things), those voters were merely misguided people, and 'useful idiots' to the Irish nationalists who who've always demanded two 'state' articles - the romantic idyll of All 'Ireland', and the 'Republic of Ireland'.
Despite all the incessant Wikilawyering, real Wikipedia Policy is never, ever allowed to dictate Irish matters. Ireland (or more to the point its imperialist faction) is simply a law unto itself on this encyclopedia. Every time it gets it's non-policy way. Here at Ireland (rather more than geography isn't it?), Northern Ireland (a 'troubled area' that can't be called a "country", no matter who says it is), 'Derry' before the sovereign 'Londonderry', the so-called 'British Isles naming dispute' (and what exactly the definition of BI can be on Wikipedia), the Ireland 'project' (where NI is under Ireland and not a UK area - work that one out), every important page where NI is made to be synonymous with The Troubles (for God's sake), IMOS in parts, and what looks to me like a strong biography bias towards protestant terrorists (as if either is needed here): it's all beyond WP policy. I don't even look at most of the related articles (Ulster, the histories etc). It's only ever been an 'area' of mine because it came and stood in front of me one day and tried to bully me when I was writing about something else. Wikipedia is totally controlled by Irish nationalists in all the areas where they want to control it. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Total utter bollox Fmph (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. I think there's some valid (if uncomfortable) truths there. Matt has always lost support in the past when he starts ... ranting (sorry Matt), but he does make some points. I don't subscribe to all of what he says - or at least his reasoning. But you'd have to scratch your head to understand why exactly the "Derry" article isn't at "Londonderry". It's not obvious. And it really is shameful that every Northern Ireland article seems to be about the Troubles. etc. --HighKing (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes life is so absurd I expect it is impossible for most people to relate it dispassionately. I can simply-list issues and points for sure (I just did so at the Mohammad images RfC - ok, maybe after an initial rant in an area that's often as prejudiced as this one), but IRE combined with the UK on Wikipedia must make every onlooker's head spin. Unless they are vulnerable to the b/s POV I suppose - and those people are the ultimate target here let's be honest.
There's nothing we can do about the distant past, but we can at least try to ensure a decent future. In a sense Wikipedia is pretty-much designed to rake up the past, and that's why it needs policy to settle it again - in a position that makes sense to people. Nothing in the area makes sense to me - and I look at it all through the lens of policy (as I always do - even when there are whole areas I disagree with, core policy is designed to win over in theory, but of course can so-often be sidestepped too). Ultimately UK/IRE issues have always come down to small or large battles of consensus, like recently at Northern Ireland. Clearly RA and some others have won a battle recently to 'finally' remove the word "country" - despite it being decided and reasoned upon as it has over the years - all per policy (and a lot of paperwork too). No one could deny the huge energy that one or two of them have put into the task of removing it. There's only one question - why? Whatever they might pretend now (and knowing RA he'll protect this mighty 'consensus' like it's part of the dead sea scrolls), nothing was pushing them to do it (the odd IP?) - other than a pure desire to achieve the change. None of the arguments I've read have ever stacked up, and many comments have been outrageously misleading. It's always ultimately a battle of attrition, possibly this time with the article being fully protected on the new version - the ultimate gift for those trying to establish a 'consensus change'.
Wikipedia really needs to scrub the faux-ironic 'I'm protecting the Wrong Version' nonsense. In reality it's just an excuse for locking on a non-consensus position (it's not used on established consensuses is it?). Admin need to realise that locking an article away from an established consensus simply gives an unfair advantage to those who caused the need to protect the article in the first place. It's basically rewarding edit warriors, and I've seen it cause mayhem for months and months in the past. If admin only lock articles on the established consensus (and it should be policy to do so when it's clearly there), the onus is then on the naturally present-and-eager person(s) who want to change it - not the other way around. Wikipedia's established text cannot be defended by people who are not around when the article is locked. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:TLDR Fmph (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Too Lucid - Don't Respond!! Matt Lewis (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Hardly too lucid... do you have any actual proposal to discuss here? Brocach (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Tell me what you didn't understand and I'll be briefer next time. I'm proposing that people stop centring their Wikipedia life around political sea change. Wikipedia is clearly a propitious place for this, but it's also clearly not wanted here. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

So you are using the Ireland talk page to propose that "people" do (or stop doing) something for which WP is "a propitious place", but that is "clearly not wanted"...? Nope, still don't think that counts as lucid; I'm not sure how I would even go about "centring" my "Wikipedia life", if I had such a thing, around "sea change" or its un-named alternative. Have you any actual proposal to make concerning the content of this article? Brocach (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to learn how to read with you head. Repeating your same 'proposal?' question to me makes you look a fool: I've stated clearly above that this article is supposed to be geography/geology etc only. All the politics, art etc - it's all forked for political intent. Obviously it all has to go (and hasn't always been here either). There is no point trying it - you will revert it as quickly as you did my removal of the anti-UK phrasiology in IMOS. You are actually coming across here like you run this article too. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I repeated my question because you did not answer it. You have now sort-of answered it, by saying that you would like to see all of the "politics, art etc" deleted from the article, reducing it to "geography/geology etc", more or less treating the island as though it had no human inhabitants. That's a pretty radical change - personally I would oppose it, but let's wait and see whether it gathers a huge consensus in favour. Meanwhile, be nice. I do not edit (or revert) from an anti-UK or any other political agenda. Brocach (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing "radical" about it - this is supposed to be an article about the rock, not Irish history, culture and politics. All that stuff is forked material from Republic of Ireland and History of Ireland etc. Why do this? Why does Wikipedia need it all duplicated here? The truth is that Republic of Ireland is treated like a temporary article until all 'Ireland' is fully reclaimed by the Irish. This cultural and poplital 'island' article is like a holding page until that happens. To claim that this article isn't a second Irish national article (even the central one in fact) is such a bare faced lie it doesn't wash with anyone: the evidence is simply in front of us.
All this article really needs regarding politics and culture is a paragraph on what nations have occupied the land, and anything on top of that is political and out of the article's remit. People I've spoken to on Wikipedia in the past have claimed that Irish people ARE the Emerald Isle, and that they are indistinguishable from each other. All that is emotional and touristy stuff - it's an attitude that shouldn't be anywhere near Wikipedia. Matt Lewis (talk)
You may be a tad over-sensitive, Matt. Any island with lots of people on it needs some reference to non-rock matters, beyond who stuck what flag where. In this particular island there are historical, cultural and social phenomena that predated and/or survived Partition and that deserve mention in an article that tries very hard to present facts about the island in a way that does not endorse or oppose any political viewpoint on partition. There is, of course, some duplication with articles on part A and part B of the island, but that is inevitable and you should not see it as undermining any claim on behalf of A or B: it is only an objective account of what has happened or is happening on this bit of the Earth's surface. Please, if you find anything in this or any other article that imports a political viewpoint (yours or anyone else's), object strongly; but if everything here is factually accurate and politically neutral, let it be. Brocach (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Have just waste my time reading this I believe that the majority of the text written by Matt Lewis should be removed as per WP:SOAP. Bjmullan (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This debate has been raging ever since the COUNTRY Ireland gave itself the same name as the LANDMASS Ireland. The easiest method of arbitration is also the most morally justifiable and fair... be plain, straightforward and truthful. Ireland is called Ireland. People look up Ireland, they get Ireland, which also happens to contain Ireland and Northern Ireland. Matt Lewis is going on about ulterior political motives (without mentioning his own... biases) and his keen knowledge about Ireland (ah-hah, which one am I talking about?) obviously due to his being Irish. He, in fact, confused me for a while above going on about RA which I initially assumed to be the "Republican Army", but now I assume is an editor. Do you insist that people write "the island of Ireland" to get Ireland? I call political agenda on Matt! 137.43.194.64 (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

How long is Wikipedia going to remain hijacked by domestic British politics?

That and is what is going on here with regard to Wikipedia's "Ireland" page. Elsewhere in Wikipedia cooler heads seem to prevail in determining what should have precedence. That's what the issue is here. Precedence, not the changing or definitions.

The fact that "Ireland" does NOT land us on the page of the country that calls itself that and nothing more than that, and is officially and unofficially and colloquially and intellectually and in every other way is recognized as that (by almost everyone that speaks the language) implies nothing but irrational intransigence that should have no place in NPOV Wikipedia. Making this page refer to the republic does NOT disqualify or negate or invalidate any alleged "other primary" meaning that the word "Ireland" is supposed to have in the eyes of a handful of British nationalists or British flora and fauna enthusiasts or whoever we are supposed to believe still uses the term "Republic of Ireland", every-time they refer to the country. All the moving of the page does is recognize and give precedence to the facts. And the facts are supported by the totality of evidence in the form of reliable sources and every other measure for that matter.

Besides, even within that one "Wikipedia hijacking" country, the ground is shifting and nowadays the use of the word Ireland is aligning more and more with the usage elsewhere. In other words Wikipedia's agenda-driven refusal to do the right thing (do the same logical thing as what was done to the "China" page) only serves the purpose of badly reflecting on Wikipedia itself. To an onlooker it appears as if Wikipedia has some sort of (un)official or tacit loyalty to some British entity or interest, to not allow the logical change. Loginnigol (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"Ireland" does land us on the page of the country. This page is about the island country "that calls itself Ireland and nothing more than that".
The fact that you think having the island at "Ireland" is "British nationalist" shows how little you know of Irish politics. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it before making such posts. ~Asarlaí 15:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Goodness! And to think that only just above we were told (in similarly excited tones) that this article title was down to a handful of Irish nationalists pushing an Irish nationalist agenda. The Plague, eh?
I don't think, in terms of a general encyclopaedia (particularly one like Wikipedia), that "Ireland" referring primarily to the state is so straight forward. If we are talking global politics and economics, then yes, today it primarily means the state. But, in a general sense, if we are talking about the history, culture, geography, etc. of Ireland then, primarily, it means the whole of Ireland.
That's what it boils down to for me. There is a state called "Ireland", yes, but there is a topic of "Ireland" that is far broader than that state. This article is about that broad concept of "Ireland", it's history, culture, art, geography, people and so forth. The article at the Republic of Ireland deals with the narrower ("narrower", now, not "less important") topic of the Irish state. --RA (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
@The Plague, yes it would seem, and often does happen, that a view on some matters can come across as both British nationalist/Ulster unionist and Irish nationalist, both sides would argue the end point from different views and reasons. But as RA puts it the topic is considered the island for historic reasons. Which is perhaps a discussion best left for another review date and not continually brought up through out the encyclopedia. Consensus may change on it, but it had not on the last instance and re-accurance of these comments is a distraction rather than a help to the project. Murry1975 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Also bemused at the notion that the use of Ireland to mean the island is somehow indicative of a British nationalist POV. The primary meaning of Ireland has been the island, for centuries, not a republic that came into being in part of the island in 1937. Brocach (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
...and which claimed to occupy the entire island until 1999. --RA (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Aye, that's the one. (The actual occupying was done by others.) Brocach (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
By and large, most reader's interests are better served by the Ireland article dealing with matters concerning the entire island. It's a pity though that a better choice of article title couldn't be found for the article dealing with the state. It's a far more accurate argument to say that "British" politics have influenced that decision. Anyway .... it is what it is. --HighKing (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I for one disagree. To me, when someone says 'Ireland', they mean RoI. Thus, I would cast my vote to have Ireland be RoI, and have Ireland (island) as the island. Not that this is going to change anytime soon...--KarlB (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
It's practically impossible to discern the explicit meaning without full context in the accompanying sentence/paragraph. But putting the article on the state at "Republic of Ireland" is not the best solution, especially given the past politics of this term. Anyway...it's all in the archives... --HighKing (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
This whole discussion made me smile. As an editor who initially edited Irish-related articles as anon for years, I've seen my fair share of British-nationalist/unionist PoV pushers and to a lesser extent Irish republicans (or Sympathisers) doing the same thing; but this page is damn stellar and free of any bias as far as I can see, the mere existence of this article being questioned many times is depressing to say the least. I'd like to see the article up to FA sometime soon! --OfTheGreen (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is far too big

Compare this article with Great Britain and you'll see that there is far too much material in this article, much of which is duplicated at Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland. I suggest the article is trimmed down to just relevant geographical facts and maybe even renamed to Ireland (island). As it stands, for a purely geographical entity, this article carries far too much weight. Van Speijk (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that's why Ireland is listed as one of the Geography and places good articles, while Great Britain isn't. This is an excellent article, getting better all the time, and a Contents box is provided for those who find reading hard. Brocach (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Like Brocach, I'd remind Van that this is a good article. It has been through reviews by neutral editors who concluded that it is an example of an article that is of good quality. It is also about a topic that is treated by reliable sources as both broad and deep. Rather than being about simply "a place", "Ireland" is a topics that is treated in reliable sources as being a topic relating to history, culture, people, and so on, and not just geography.
Apart from the Governance and Economy sections, there is nothing that immediately leaps out at me as being better dealt with elsewhere. Aside from those, I only see sections on the History, Geography, Flora and Fauna, Demography and Culture of Ireland — all of which are perfectly relevant to the subject of the article.
Much of the first section of "governance" rightly belongs in the demography section. Apart from that there is a relatively small section dealing with all-island institutions, which obviously belong here. The first section of the Economy section should be removed (or stripped down greatly), as suggested in the TODOs above, IMO. It deals with things that are more pertinent to the two jurisdictions separately. However, the section section dealing with the all-island energy networks are obviously pertinent to this article. They should possibly be moved up into the Governance section. --RA (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
A good article? It gets that acolade as a result of a review by one person, apparently. Maybe is now time to look at a delisting. Does anyone know how "much material duplicated in other more relevant articles" stacks up in a review? Van Speijk (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to contest Ireland's good article listing, or to propose articles that you approve of. I have little doubt that this one will keep the kitemark. Brocach (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
One criteria for good article status is that the article is "broad in its coverage" (while also considering summary style). This article does a good job of summarising History of Ireland, Geography of Ireland (including Geology of Ireland and Climate of Ireland), Flora of Ireland, Fauna of Ireland, the politics of Ireland (with parts of Politics of the Republic of Ireland, Politics of Northern Ireland and Good Friday Agreement), Culture of Ireland (including Music of Ireland, Irish dance, Languages of Ireland, Irish literature, Irish art, and Irish theatre), Sport in Ireland, Tourist destinations in Ireland, etc., etc. ...
As you can see, this is a very broad topic ... and there's a lot of Ireland to be summarised! Consequently, it is a long article. The topic necessitates it.
The article is about the limit of a long article. It is the 891th longest article on Wikipedia. Similarly sized articles include Frankfurt, New Zealand, Firefox, Portugal, Winston Churchill, List of The Sopranos characters, ‎List of Dexter characters, British Israelism, Madonna (entertainer), United Kingdom labour law, Wikipedia ... and of course List of townlands in County Kilkenny. --RA (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest the Governance section goes; it's pure duplication. See Hispaniola and Borneo for examples. Also the politics stuff could be severely reduced. Ireland, as an island, does not have politics and governance. This concept is only relevant to the states that occupy it. Van Speijk (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, in my experience GA status has nothing at all to do with actual textual content (in terms of what is verified, chosen, written etc). It's nothing to wave at people imo, and protects nothing at all. All those "of Ireland" articles are equally awkward as I pointed out in a long table years ago. Some of them clearly meant of ROI, others are periods in history and should not be contemporary at all in any combined way.
RA, why do you say that all-island institutions "obviously" belong here when you are fully aware of the argument that this specific article should be geographical-only? Perhaps the also politically-made British Isles article should talk about the 6/7 billion GBP a struggling UK loaned to the ROI to help it from going bust? Or maybe sense can prevail and BI can just be a geographical article, along with this one too? (after all, there is plenty of space on Wikipedia to get this forked-anyway information into articles with different titles).
Here's another comparable suggestion: maybe this article, Ireland, should mention the bail-out help? It's not a wild idea given everything else that appears in this "two jurisdictions" article (such an awkward-sounding word throughout). "Strong economic and political ties" as they said and say. Ultimately the article we have here is essentially about the shared resources between two nation-states: Ireland and the UK. I know a number of people here very-specifically see it as the republic and the island-area of Northern Ireland, but of course Northern Ireland is actually 'just' "part of the UK" - and, as a 'part', is subsidised by the other 'parts', like (to reduce it further) myself. It's the UK, which doesn't exist without its parts.
The main thing this article does when I read it is pose questions: How can an island have a "union" (like a section suggests)? What is Irish culture? Ireland the island, or Ireland the nationally-Irish people? Can it contain British culture? Does Irish art and music cancel out the British-influenced counterpart? Many historians (like Simon Schama) see British culture as central to recent Irish history and cultural development - can this article cover that? Or is it really Irish-Irish? But how does that equate with this "article of the island"? The Schama approach would be needed to balance it surely?
The article says;
"As the term British Isles is controversial (linking to Wikipedia's very-own "naming dispute" article) in relation to Ireland, the alternate term "Ireland and Britain" (or "Britain and Ireland") is often used as a neutral term for the islands." (no citation)
The article is essentially claiming that 'British Isles' isn't a neutral term, but does not mention that "Ireland" would be equally problematic to people if it was used to suggest that the whole island is Republic of Irish. The British Isles controversy line isn't even cited here, and seems a little wedged-in. I've still not seen sufficient evidence of widespread "offence", just other-usages which are nearly-always debatable in terms of reasoning, and rarely direct in their intent - all of them next to widespread and uncontested, uncontroversial use.
This article may contain a little more on Northern Island than it once did when I table-mapped the main "x of Ireland" sub-articles (NI was nearly-always a footnote to a full-island ROI, if mentioned at all) - but this "island" article is still too-much like a vision of a single country for me. It is 'forked' this and that, and is currently (with this name) WP:Original Research in terms of a Wikipedia article imo.
Why not re-name this article Shared Resources of Ireland? Or even - and perhaps more honestly - Shared Irish Resources (or Irish Resources Shared with Northern Ireland)? The biggest in terms of content would of course be Shared Resources of Ireland (or Resources shared between Ireland and Northern Ireland) - giving equal weight to both the Irish and the British. Any of them would free the rock from political lichen. Ireland really can be just geography then. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
What, pray tell, is "Republic of Irish"? 2 lines of K303 21:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Language. It's a struggle I know. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Van Speijk, I'm not sure what political relationships exist between the Dominican Republic and Haiti but the island of Ireland has certain political institutions and bodies (beyond simply relations between the UK/NI and ROI) that deserve mention.
For example, several mainstream political parties, such as Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil and the Green Party, are organized on an all-Ireland basis; as are trade unions (see Irish Congress of Trade Unions) and all religions. By international agreement with the United Kingdom, Irish citizenship is on an all-island basis. An all-island political institution exists in the North/South Ministerial Council, including several all-island policy implementation bodies (for inland navigation, language, food safety, and other things). There is also a single energy market, for example, which is managed jointly. These don't need to be laboured, and they aren't at present, but they deserve mention.
A more comparable example than Hispaniola and Borneo, would probably be British_Isles#Government. --RA (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Government stuff doesn't really have a place at British Isles either (in my opinion). Van Speijk (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
At Van Speijk, on your first comment "I suggest the article is trimmed down to just relevant geographical facts and maybe even renamed to Ireland (island)." I would draw your attention to WP:RM, "Note to closers: according to an ArbCom ruling of June 2009, confirmed in September 2011, discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles (Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation)) must occur at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, unless it is agreed there to hold the discussion elsewhere. Any requested move affecting these articles that is opened on the article talk pages or any other venue should be speedily closed, with a pointer to the ArbCom ruling.'" Murry1975 (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Murry, not sure what point is being made. I'm not discussing it, just making an incidental suggestion. There's nothing wrong with that. Van Speijk (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Just letting you know Van Speijk, where ArbCom would like you to make that incidental suggestion, even as an aside it would need t discussed at WP:IECOLL. Murry1975 (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Van Speijk and Matt Lewis, please don't clutter up the Talk:Ireland page by floating ideas about bizarre alternative names for the article Ireland. This is an article about Ireland, which is why it's called Ireland. Brocach (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've moved most of the Governance section to Demography and copy-edited the remainder. I've (boldly) removed most of the Economy section (I expect some of this may go back in) and moved the single-energy market stuff to the all-island instutions part. --RA (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Something, obvious, that the former Governance section needs is some sort of summary of ROI and NI. --RA (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure of the logic of comparing a GA article (Ireland) with one that is not (Great Britain) and saying we should make the GA smaller to match the other article. What I suggest Van Speijk do is go to the GB article and ask why it's not at GA standard or better still contribute to the article to raise it's standards. Having been responsible for getting a small article to GA standard it's not an easy task. Bjmullan (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Generally happy with RA's edit but I smuggled some of the economics back in, and rehoused bits of Transport in Transport in Ireland. Brocach (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
In reference to the first comment about the article being "too big", maybe people should expand the Great Britain article as well? Removing information to coincide with the lack of completion in another topic does not seem reasonable. Riverdancing (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Soccer or Football?

Which is the most commonly used term for the sport in Ireland? I would say judging by this and this it would seem Football is --OfTheGreen (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't resurrect this old chestnut - it has been done to death. Hohenloh + 16:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of any previous discussions. There was no warning at the top of the page. Edit: Been trawling through the archives; can't find any serious discussions on it for many years but then, it's not really important. Not trying to push some sort of Anglo-Centric PoV, I was just curious. --OfTheGreen (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
If you want to read a discussion, try Talk:Association football in the Republic of Ireland/Archive 1. It will give a flavour of the sort of passions that can be aroused. Scolaire (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
"Football" is all things to all nations. I don't know which is more common but, in any case, "soccer" is far from uncommon and does make it clear which code is being referred to. --RA (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Scolaire. I was having trouble navigating the archives! I also see the debate has died away long ago - the talk page for that article hasn't had a comment on it in nearly two years. RA - I agree, you know where you stand with Soccer; it's not confusing. --OfTheGreen (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 June 2012

Hellow, I'm Yasmine and I would like to edit and/or Put in some more interesting facts about Ireland! Hope you let me:).

Thank you..;)

Yasminek123 (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: What facts? Please contact me at My talk Page, then I will add them. Unless you are logged in to Wikipedia, you need to get someone else to do edits for you on this page, or request for it to be unblocked Here
Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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

Pronunciation

O'k, Scolaire, I can not see why lacking the British pronunciation only out of absence of a pertinent ogg? Can't you see it is silly to have every other one but not the British — as if the larger island has been bombarded by nuclear weapon to ultimate oblivion, eh? Lincoln Josh (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the mark "local" from the "us" template. It was inconsistent. Lincoln Josh (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
HighKing, you should post here really, as you've reverted LJ. — Jon C.ॐ 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Undid revision 516634827 by HighKing. HighKing, welcome here! Lincoln Josh (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Why "OK, Scolaire"? I don't remember editing anything to do with pronunciation. If I did, it was months ago. And what on earth does "just remove "the ogg file" while you're reluctant to admit A STUB!" mean??? Scolaire (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sobriquet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was Remove sobriquet field

Is the sobriquet 'the Ould Sod', appropriate at the infobox. One editor at least, appears to think so 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. RashersTierney (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No its not appropriate. Its merely a Hollywood coined phrase, probably never used by any Irish emigrant so no definitely not! Finnegas (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

While I don't agree that it is a "Hollywood coined phrase" (see [2]), it is not the name of a country. It refers to a homeplace, which could be simply a patch of land or a cottage. Hohenloh + 20:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It definitely does not belong. Look up "the ould sod" on Google and it will come up with almost nothing but American "Irish pubs". In the few sites where the the term is explained, it refers to things like "homeland" etc, without specifically referring to Ireland. I've heard it used to refer to England also. Even the word "ould" is not common in Ireland, with "The Ould Triangle" being a notable exception. Other than this user engaging in an edit war, no-one else seems to want to include the term. (User Eve Flynn is obviously a sockpuppet of the original editor, or someone working on their behalf. Same few edits to the same few articles). --Dmol (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Completely inappropriate, keep it out. The mere fact that this is an edit by a sockpuppet justifies reversion. Brocach (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
No, its not appropriate. The Banner talk 00:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The question is, do we need nicknames at all? "Emerald Isle" I can just about live with, but "Island of Saints and Scholars"? Come on guys, seriously! Scolaire (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think nicknames should be used very sparingly. Definitely keep Emerald Isle, but "Island (or Land) of saints and scholars" I could live without. Even though it is well known, and was quoted by de Valera in his famous speech, it is already in the text in a historical context. No vote either way, but I won't lose sleep if it goes.--Dmol (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I've zapped "Island of Saints and Scholars". Scolaire (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I've unzapped it. In the context of an encyclopaedia, "Island of Saints and Scholars" (Insula sanctorum et doctorum) is the more significant. It is the more ancient and has a history and relevance to the topic. Like Will Ferrell said about "Emerald Isle": "'cos Ireland is known for it's abundant emerald mines." :-) --RA (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Can we agree to have it at just these two then. It may appear to some editor in the future as an invitation to add any and every 'poetic' allusion, eg "the (au)ld sow that eats her farrow" etc. etc. RashersTierney (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
That it can be rendered in Latin is irrelevant. Is it more ancient? It harks back to the Dark Ages but when was it coined? Seems to me it was a 20th century invention, to make us feel important after independence. The mention of it in the article is unreferenced. It could be zapped too. If it's a choice between both or none I vote none. It's pure silliness. Scolaire (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Since at least the 12th century, with earlier variants:
Healy, John (1912), Insula Sanctorum et Doctorum, or, Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (6 ed.), Dublin: Sealy, Bryers & Walker, In these pages, however, we have said enough to vindicate the right of ancient Erin to that glorious title, by which since the twelfth century she has been known to the scholars of all Europe — INSULA SANCTORUM ET DOCTORUM* — The Island of Saints and Scholars. * The earliest authority we know for the first part of this title is the ancient author of St. Alban's Life:—"In hac insula tot viri eximiae sanctitatis fuerunt quod Insula Sanctorum nomine appropriato dicebatur." The corresponding Irish form was Inis na Naomh. Marianus Scotus, in his Chronicle, also calls it by the same title—Insula Sanctorum—under date of the year 696, but which is really a.d. 589. See Reeves' notes in the Ulster Journal of Archæology, vol. vii., p. 228.
--RA (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
While actually the inhabitants of the country at this time were were engaged in internecine warfare and plundering the nearest churches (according to the Annals of the Four Masters)? Hohenloh + 15:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Plundering the nearest churches ... for books! Oh doz crazy scholars! Always fighting among themselves :-) Adds: was much like Wikipedia in a way --RA (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
So, we have a 6th/7th century source for "Insula Sanctorum" and a 20th century source for "Insula sanctorum et doctorum". But where's the 12th century source for the latter? And what difference does it make? The sobriquet field is for current nicknames, surely, not 5th, 6th or 12th century ones. Scolaire (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It's a term that strikes me as unambiguously a peacock phrase that doesn't belong in the main Wikipedia article about Ireland (island or state). It is not a term used by any serious comentatator. Put it back in the pulpit where it belongs. --Red King (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I've heard it used in BBC documentaries on the history of Ireland and its referenced. Hardly a peacock phrase ----Snowded TALK 08:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Recalling where this section began, I just ran a Google search (yes, I know, not definitive but interesting); ["ould sod" ireland] 17,300, ["saints and scholars" ireland] 2,120,000. No-one seems to be contesting Emerald Isle; ["emerald isle" ireland] 2,030,000. Personally I could do without any of them - they could perhaps be referenced in the text, the Saints & Scholars one maybe pinned down to when we had a few of the former - but if EI stays, so should S&S. Brocach (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Then they should both go. They are unnecessary and irritating. Scolaire (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
+1 with Scolaire. Silly stuff. --HighKing (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
We are an encyclopaedia. The official name and description are all we need, so get rid of them all. ww2censor (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You really want to apply that as a universal rule? ----Snowded TALK 19:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It would be my preference though unlikely to be implemented universally. ww2censor (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Going back briefly to Brocach's Google searches: when doing a Google search, it is very important to eliminate as far as possible all content taken from Wikipedia. I searched for ["island of saints and scholars" ireland -"vast majority of these saints lived during the 4th" -"earning Ireland the sobriquet"], which contains snippets of text from this article and List of saints of Ireland. It got 27,900 hits, more than "The ould sod", but of the same order of magnitude. A search for ["emerald isle" ireland -"emerald isle classic" -"earning Ireland the sobriquet" -"is the poetic name for Ireland due to its green countryside", which contains snippets of text from this article and Emerald Isle, got 134,000,000 hits – an order of magnitude higher, though far less than the 2,000,000 hits that a simple search gives. I still vote to remove them all, but I reject the "if we keep one, we must keep both" argument. Scolaire (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Good point, but as "land of" is used as well as "island of", I tried ["saints and scholars" ireland -"vast majority of these saints lived during the 4th" -"earning Ireland the sobriquet"], turning up 580,000 hits. Your [["emerald isle" ireland -"emerald isle classic" -"earning Ireland the sobriquet" -"is the poetic name for Ireland due to its green countryside"] gives me 21,300,000. Curious, but a distraction. More to the point, do any other articles on islands include a "nickname" field in the infobox? Brocach (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
From a quick glance, yes, others do (e.g. Hashima Island, Isla Margarita). Like Ireland, Hawaii as more than one.
I don't see the purpose of ghits. Both are sobriquets are common and verifiable.
My 2¢ = verifiable, part of the infobox, do no harm. --RA (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Brocach, I originally did the "saints and scholars" search, but even on the first page i.e. the most relevant results, several of them had "saints and scholars" on its own, without either "island of" or "land of". I repeated the search using "land of saints and scholars" and got about 23,000 hits. So together they add up to 50,000, still far less than "Emerald Isle" (which indeed now gives me 21,200,000 hits – weird!). And if "land of" and "island of" are equally common, should they both therefore be in the infobox? Or what is the rationale for choosing one over the other?
RA, thanks for your 2c worth, but other editors have also offered their 2c worth, that the things are silly and annoying. And maybe you don't see the use of ghits, but some of us do. Scolaire (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
And your ha'penny's worth is valued as well. --RA (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Poll

Can we conclude this with a poll?

A Emerald Isle + Island/Land of Saints & Scholars
B Emerald Isle only
C Neither
  • A or C Both are verifiable. We shouldn't cherry pick. But there's no great harm done in removing them both, if they are such an irritation. (And I'd also wonder about the suitability of such a field in the infobox generally.) --RA (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • C, then B. I consider IOSAS as nothing more than an irritant (and I too would wonder about the suitability of such a field in the infobox generally). Scolaire (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • C - whilst the terms are used for the island I wouldn't say they are colloquial enough to be called everyday nicknames. Like who uses either term in everyday speech as a nickname for the island other than tourists, tourist boards and various literary works? Mabuska (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • C' - I strongly agree with Mabuska and other C preferences. ww2censor (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • A,B or C. Just don't want D, E and F. RashersTierney (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • C. I started out with thinking I would vote B, but I just checked half a dozen other sites and none of them list nicknames, even where I know a country does have one. (Which of the country articles do use one).--Dmol (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • A As of now the nickname is a legitimate field/section, the fact that many other country sites do not have or include a name is irrelevant the option is there to do so if it can be backed up as a well known/used nickname, the Land of saints and scholars and the emerald isle are two very well known and used nicknames the other is not its fairly straight forward.Caomhan27 (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • C. Rubbish fields such as this are what gives infoboxes a bad name. It's unlikely that it makes sense to use even one of these two characterisations in this article, even in the proper context. Drawing extra attention to them by putting them in the infobox is out of the question. Hans Adler 12:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • C - KISS! Hohenloh + 13:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • C including these terms in the infobox is silly and unnecessary. --HighKing (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • C Such details belong in the body as a BTW side note, in my opinion Gabhala (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • C' per ww2censor and Hans. Inclusions like this are chocolate box. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Can I be a pretend admin, announce that that's a C, and invite one of yez to do the necessary? Brocach (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that most seem to be basing their response of the opinion that they do not think the nickname field is a good idea however that is another question apart, i would also agree that it should possibly be removed however again thats a different question and therefore i think the above poll is invalidCaomhan27 (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Cs seem to have it. RashersTierney (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
It appears that you just don't like how Wikipedia's consensus building works. You can't force ridiculous content into hundreds of articles by sneaking a ridiculous field in an infobox. This article alone has 910 watchers; {{Infobox islands}} has less than 30, so the number is not public. Consensus to remove such centralised rubbish first forms on the ground where it has an impact. Hans Adler 06:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
PS: The field was added to the infobox in this edit in 2007. The only discussion on that little watched page happened in 2010 at Template talk:Infobox islands#Sobriquet / nickname, when one person objected to a removal of the field and another didn't object to its restoration. Hans Adler 06:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally I dont mind, the valid "nicknames" can be included in the body text, i had assumed that the country field boxes were generic ascross the board but clearly not so in that case i would agree that its not the best place for the information to be placed Caomhan27 (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This poll can be concluded as a resounding oppose to the addition of nicknames in the infobox. Mabuska (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ugly or wha?

Ugh!

There are some seriously ukky pics in this article. Have none of you got a single taste bud? Look at the articles of other European countries! Sarah777 (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Republic of Ireland which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Emergence of Celtic Ireland

This section is a mixture of history and mythology, without distinguishing one from the other, and contains repetition and unsubstantiated claims. It needs a thorough edit with references. Comments? Hohenloh + 10:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, most all of it is quoted from the well referenced book "Celtic Ireland West of the River Shannon A Look Back at the Rich Heritage And Dynastic Structure of the Gaelic Clans by Patrick Lavin" as the source shows and is repeated in other texts also Caomhan27 (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't mean that it can't be improved - we're not living in the 19th century. A synopsis of Lavin's book contains the following: The earliest noted Celtic inhabitants of Connacht, collectively called Firbolg, were believed to have ruled much of the province until well into the third century, when they were toppled and driven into tributary status by the expansion and dominance of the Gaels from northern Spain. How scientific is that? Hohenloh + 13:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Im sure it can be improved I was just pointing out the referenced quoted 2003 sourced material status from a respected author,if you wish to add other material from other reputable sources then that's fine. Its not a scientific book its derived and interpreted from best historical information available which can be limited obviously considering the timeframe. Your being slightly unrealistic if you think one can solely write from a scientific evidentiary standpoint considering the era in question Caomhan27 (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The Patrick Lavin book is published by iUniverse, and so is a self-published source. Sorry. --RA (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ha that's ok RA you might make me paranoid soon, I was unaware of the publisher status or that particular issue, but do I own it a copy and the author has to the extent possible given numerous historical and other non self published texts references, but as I said I would agree with any other sourced additions or agreed clean ups.Caomhan27 (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed wikimeet in Northern Ireland

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

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

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

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

--RA (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Page improvement: needs map

I'll leave it to the regulars here to figure out which one they like best, but – while the Emerald Isle satphoto is lovely and all – the page really needs a modern political map with major settlements (and, ideally, transport lines) somewhere on this main page. Thanks. 101.87.187.234 (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Why? Atlas-maker (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
It's an article about the island, so why do we need these sort of details? They are mostly available in the country articles. ww2censor (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Five sixths

There seems to be an argument about the proportion o Ireland split between the Republic and NI. I think the problem is that the various sources give different amounts. I had a look at the OSi: Area and Land Mass page on this and it even had a mistake in its sum for the total area! 

	          Land	                         Water (Fresh & Tidal)	         Total
26 Counties	  	  	  
Statute Acres	 16,893,559  (6,841,891.4 H)	  473,688  (191,843.64 H)	 17,367,247 (7,033,735.04 H)
Square Miles	 26,401	                          735.9	                         27,136.90
6 Counties	  	  	  
Statute Acres	  3,336,498  (1,351,281.69 H)	  155,350   (62,916.75 H)	  3,491,848 (1,414,198.44 H)
Square Miles	  5,156.40	                  299.6	                          5,456
Ireland	  	  	  
Statute Acres	 20,230,057  (8,193,173.09 H)	  629,038  (254,760.39 H)	 20,859,095 (8,447,933.48 H)
Square Miles	 31,557.40	                 1035.5	                         32,529.90

If you add up 27,136.90 and 5,456 one should get 32,592.90 not 32,529.90 - they swapped two digits. Dmcq (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The books say "five-sixths" (or in one case "some five-sixths"), not "under five-sixths" or "over five-sixths", so there's no need for original research. We just say "five-sixths". Scolaire (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree we don't need more accuracy and it is cited, we should probably check up on the areas in the various articles. Dmcq (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Disagree. Saying Ireland occupies five sixths and NI one sixth is plainly wrong. We all know this is not accurate. we ought to get to the bottom of what the correct numbers are, with proper sources. My understanding is that the numbers are as follows: Ireland makes up over five-sixths of the island. 13,843 (NI square kilometres) expressed as a percentage of 84,421 (island square kilometres) is 0.16397578801. One sixth is 0.16666666666666. Therefore, Ireland comprises just over five sixths and NI just under one sixth. I pulled those numbers off google. I don't know if they are correct. We should explore this and bottom it out. Any one got good sources? Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree. And the Ordnance Survey seems to be a good source, more reliable than almost any other source I'd have thought. Canterbury Tail talk 14:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Glad some one agrees. What percentages did those OSI number reveal then? Is NI more or less than one sixth? What is the percentage breakdown? Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Similarly, if the OSI page has a mistake in it, are there better sources? Does any one know where the "Google" numbers I quoted come from? Maybe they are from Wikipedia as Google seems to quote Wikipedia. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I was agreeing with Dmcq & Scolaire. Canterbury Tail talk 00:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Not sure I followed all of tht but I think discussion has dried up. Sounds like no one is bothered finding sources around these numbers. The only source being given is an OSI source that editors point out has a mistake in it....Alas, I think I will leave it here. Maybe some one will come back to it. More than 1 sixth? Less than 1 sixth? Google (probably recycling Wiki number) says the latter; an inaccurate OSI webpage says the former. Hmmm. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The OSI figure said nothing about five sixths, it just gave numbers. The actual reference said about five sixths. Dmcq (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You might be misunderstanding what I have raised for discussion. I would like to identify sources (i.e. numbers) confirming the position. They don't have to refer to fractions. We can calculate from numbers. The OSI source had a typo in the middle of it so I've asked for interested editors if there are other numbers out there. Google results don't match OSI numbers. I don't know where their numbers come from either. I am discussing the substantive point; not merely presentation in the article. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if we do get better figures I do not believe there should be a change from the cited five sixths. You're most definitely welcome to try and get better sources for the figures though! Dmcq (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding you as well, Frenchmalawi, but it looks to me as though you are saying that it is the actual figures that matter to you, not what it says in the article. Perhaps you didn't see the notice at the top of this page that says, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ireland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Scolaire (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It would improve this article if a better figure for area or a better citation were put in. Dmcq (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Wait. If it were put in where? This thread is about the "five-sixths" sentence. That sentence couldn't possibly be improved by citing figures for area! In the infobox, do you mean? But the infobox has a figure of 32,595.1 sq mi, as near as makes no difference to the 32,592.9 sq mi that you calculated from the OSI figures, and cites an article by Professor William Nolan, Emeritus Professor of Geography, University College Dublin, for the Government of Ireland website. If you think we need a better figure for area or a better citation there, then that is a different discussion entirely. Scolaire (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I wrote off to that OSI site I mentioned above and they've corrected that table. Dmcq (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Northwestern Europe?

Playing round on Google Maps, I noticed most of Ireland's actually south of centre latitude of Europe (Illustration). Rob (talk | contribs) 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

On page two, here is a list of states that the UN designates as being in Northern Europe. The concept of north/south/east/west Europe isn't a strict mathematical calculation.
Interestingly, you can also Google Northern Europe map and you get the same countries highlighted on Google maps. Unfortunately, Google maps itself doesn't do the same. --Tóraí (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
If anything Ireland and the UK are in western Europe never mind northern or north-western. Mabuska (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

Move discussion in progress

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

Emergence of Celtic Ireland

The section "Emergence of Celtic Ireland" urgently needs to be trimmed and re-written.

It's based on a theory that has long been rejected: the theory that Iron Age Ireland was 'colonized' by waves of invaders from mainland Europe. This theory was popular for quite a while, but was based mainly on books such as the Lebor Gabála (a medieval Christian pseudo-history), rather than archeology.

The section presents that theory, and a lot of wild speculation, as if it's truth. Most of the section is taken up by details of each supposed 'colonization'. Here's one paragraph as an example: "The Priteni were the first to colonize the island, followed by the Belgae who invaded Ireland from northern Gaul and Britain. Later, Laighin tribes from Armorica (present-day Brittany) are believed to have invaded Ireland and Britain more or less simultaneously. Lastly, the Milesians (Gaels) reached Ireland…"

As anyone familiar with the topic will know, there is simply no evidence for these mass invasions or migrations. Today, the mainstream view among archeologists and historians is that Ireland's population stayed largely the same amid gradual cultural change. This mainstream view only gets one line, which is followed by this biased and mistaken claim: "However they have no explanation as to routes by which Celtic cultures and languages came to Ireland".

Myself and Fergananim hav tried to change it to reflect the mainstream view, but our changes hav been undone by Setanta Saki.
I suggest we go back to this version for the time being. ~Asarlaí 00:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it may not be the current favorite mainstream theory does not mean it is defunct. Both are theories neither has been proven or disproved as yet. Nobody is preventing you from adding however much you wish to the section about the your preferred alternate "mainstream" theory, but it is not for you to claim that all previous historical authors claims prior are incorrect. The other author you mention was actually destructive and was making wild unfounded point of view deletions here and elsewhere such as Gaelic Ireland. Once again by all means add to the section and state previous assertions are disputed but do not simply delete information of a long time established theory that may have simply fallen out of favour with some but not all. Although i am not opposed to a tidy up of the section if required just not a mass deletion. Setanta Saki (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
My version doesn't call one theory 'right' and the other 'wrong'. It explains both theories and tells how the older one has fallen out of favor. The current version has six paragraphs about a minority theory and treats it as if it's 'right', while the mainstream theory has only one line. This section of the article is only meant to be an overview of Ireland's history; the detailed information belongs on articles such as History of Ireland, Prehistoric Ireland, O'Rahilly's historical model, and so forth. The section could be summarized in a paragraph or two. I suggest something like this:

During the Iron Age, a Celtic language and culture emerged in Ireland. The traditional view, once widely accepted, is that Celtic language and culture were brought to Ireland by waves of invading or migrating Celts from mainland Europe – specifically Gaul and Iberia. According to some proponents of the theory, such as T. F. O'Rahilly, these waves were: the Priteni (who arrived in the 7th century BC), the Iverni (a branch of the Belgae who arrived in the 5th century BC), the Laigin (who arrived in the 3rd century BC), and the Gaels (who arrived in the 2nd century BC). However, this view has fallen out of favour, as there is no archeological evidence for any large-scale immigration into Ireland in this period. Today, the mainstream view among archeologists and historians is that Ireland's population remained largely the same amid changes of culture, brought about by cultural diffusion. The traditional view is that Celtic languages emerged in the central European Halstatt culture, but recently it has been suggested that they originated in the Atlantic Bronze Age cultural zone that included Ireland.

In the meantime, I've re-worded the section to make it more neutral, while leaving most of the content. ~Asarlaí 03:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I have altered the section to include your proposed cut down of the traditional theory and have extended the section on the alternate diffusion theory and added some journal references to support. Setanta Saki (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
While I am sorry to hear that any edits I have made have been seen as "destructive and was making wild unfounded point of view deletions", they were all based on sound archaeology from the past thirty or foury years. So, to quote from the experts:
  • "It seems almost heretical to conclude that a Celtic invasion of Ireland never happened. … Perhaps there was, indeed, a migration of 'Celts' to Ireland. The only problem is, that archaeology cannot prove it." Professor Barry Raftery, "Pagan Celtic Ireland", 1994, p. 228.
  • "The archaeological data needs to be studied in its own right, free of ethnic 'Celtic' labels and preconceptions. Presumptions about a modern common Celticity have tended to impose a similar and equally questionable construction on the ancient 'Celtic World'." Professor John Waddell, "Celts, Celticisation, and the Irish Bronze Age, 1995, p. 158. He also states that "For the island of Ireland … Celtization, as an instance of language shift, was not an event but a process." p. 167. The sheer lack of finds in Ireland that can be associated with the Celts of Gaul has troubled archaeologists as far back as the 1920's, something Waddell recognises: “Here we have an early recognition that the archaeological record in this island [Ireland] did not offer convincing evidence for intrusive Celts on any scale.” (p. 159). Read the full article here - http://www.nuigalway.ie/archaeology/oldsite/documents/jw_celts.pdf
  • "But it is essential that we do not transfer the definition in the modern world, where the modern Celts are defined by their language, to the ancient world as it causes considerable confusion in our attempts to interpret what was going on – in the Classical world Celtic was an ethnic concept, and possibly in some cases geographical or administrative (e.g., the Roman name of the province). When ancient authors use the term celtice, they are referring to the language spoken by ethnic Celts, not a language belonging to the Celtic language group as we do today.” "Re-defining the Celts", John Collis, 2010, p. 35.
  • "Are .. the Irish, Celts? The answer is no in term of our remote origins as we cannot establish any significant racial, ethnic or cultural connection to those Iron Age groups on the Continent called 'Keltoi' by the Classical writers. The Celticity of the Irish lies in later cultural associations connected to the perceived origins of the Irish language and the mythologising of national identity in the modern era. Our direct ancestry lies not in the 'Celtic' Iron Age, but in the history of an indigenous population who origins extended back to the earliest post-Glacial settlement of the island." Professor William O'Brien,"Iverni:A Prehistory of Cork", 2012, p. 249

I likewise point out that genetic genealogy finds no intrusive DNA - either Y-DNA, or mtDNA - from the homeland of the Celts during the Irish Iron Age (nor after or before). However I cannot recall the link. Have to leave some work for you young ones! Fergananim (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)This

The section currently neutrally deals with the theory of cultural diffusion as it does with the long standing invasions theory. You personally may be convinced one way via your interpretation of the data/evidence and thats fine, but "you" can not claim that another longer standing proposed theory is now void because "you" are convinced, many others crucially academics are not. For example with regards to the Celtic immigration/invasion theory "At the same time, many archaeologists and a seeming majority of historians retain the traditional view with some vigor (Megaw and Megaw 1996, 1998)" [1]. As stated in the section (from valid journal sources I added) large migrations are notoriously difficult to prove archeologically and nearly all proponents of the diffusion theory accept that a steady "migration stream" was very likely, also historical linguists who are just as important from a historical evidence aspect, find it very difficult to give credence to the diffusion theory with respect to the absorption of a language, so it has its flaws as does the traditional theory. As for the genetic investigation element that may require a separate paragraph, I am versed in the genetic profiling area and you are incorrect in your claims regarding "No" DNA from the "homeland of the celts" which is in itself incorrect language. The data is still emerging and is not in any way as black/white as you suggest, sample numbers are low in my opinion but with regards to Ireland evidence can be conflicting. One study [2] showed no large significant differences in mtDNA between Ireland and large areas of continental Europe in contrast to parts of the Y-chromosome pattern. When taking both into account it in effect states that the evidence suggests modern Celtic speakers Ireland etc could be thought of "rather as European “Atlantic Celts” or just not "substantially" "central" European. That conclusion is a million miles away from the claims which you are trying to impose.

Also my phrasing about some of your previous edits only in this area of course was slightly harsh. There is no harm in you promoting an established theory that you believe, but I think it becomes destructive when in the doing so you concurrently erase others of equal legitimacy. A crude example would in the theory of light as a wave or a particle, you wouldn't start deleting information on the wave theory as you were adding information on the particle theory, neither is perfect. The same approach should be used in this area, neither academic theory is definitive and each has flaws. Setanta Saki (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182057/
  2. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182057/
  • Fair enough. I understand your point of view much better now. Can we not then agree to give equal space to both? All I can add to this is - having read a large amount of the Irish source material in the original and in translation, the one word you never encounter in it is "Celt". We may describe them so, but our ancestors had no awareness of the term. Its application is entirely modern, and its obvious that in popular terms most people have no understanding of the linguistic defintions in which it is meant. Because of this disconnect, I have moved away from using the term with enthusiasm to avoiding it. It brings too much baggage. Fergananim (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • P.S: Much if not all of what the Megaws have written has (from my point of view) being convincingly rebutted by the likes of John Collis. It concerns me deeply that neither they, John Koch, or Barry Cunliffe, have even bothered to address those concerns. This seriously undermines their credibility, and makes their published work seem more faith-based that objective. Fergananim (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you information on both should be equally included because as you rightly point out there is an ongoing academic debate that some would say is overly vigorous between "Celtophiles" "Celtosceptics", that is why i attempted to create a tempered neutral section addressing both theories equally detailing some strengths and weaknesses, I hope it appears that way. Again on the different point of the term Celt and its creation and application, another interesting string (for me it makes sense why it wouldn't appear) but it is almost universally accepted nomenclature even by many detractors (rightly or wrongly) today despite having baggage for some.Setanta Saki (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2014

Source #23 is now considered quite out of date. The population of the British Isles and Ireland is now well established through genetic testing to be of northern Iberian origin with the strongest genetic ties to the Basqes. Even the NIH document cited in the Ireland article says, "The affinities of the areas where Celtic languages are spoken, or were formerly spoken, are generally with other regions in the Atlantic zone, from northern Spain to northern Britain." This article is reaching for a reason to tie Ireland to a Celtic genetic heritage rather than a generally agreed cultural conquest such as that which occurred in Mexico.

Your own Wikipage on "Irish People" says "That there exists an especially strong genetic association between the Irish and the Basques, one even closer than the relationship between other west Europeans, was first challenged in 2005,[27] and in 2007 scientists began looking at the possibility of a more recent Mesolithic- or even Neolithic-era entrance of R1b into Europe.[28] A new study published in 2010 by Balaresque et al. implies either a Mesolithic- or Neolithic- (not Paleolithic) era entrance of R1b into Europe.[29] However, all these genetic studies are in agreement that the Irish and Basque (along with the Welsh) share the highest percentage of R1b populations."

Please be consistent. 24.55.0.106 (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor Sing 17:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • A problem I have with the above, and the previous issue of Celticity, is that we give away all the credits in Irish history to people who are not Irish. The Basques, the Celts, the Christians, the Vikings, the Normans, the Scots, the English ... It creates this sense that Irish people never had any role in their own history. Fergananim (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Life sciences and pharmaceutical industry

For the editors of this article - here is an article that discusses the international life sciences and pharmaceutical industry within Ireland, and has some really good coverage.

It is a 2008 article so, hopefully, it is not outdated. Here it is : Pharmaceutical and Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing Advances in Ireland. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an all-island article and your source refer to the Irish state, so might be more appropriate to the Republic of Ireland article. ww2censor (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2014

Please change: A period of rapid economic expansion from 1995 onwards became known as the Celtic Tiger period, was brought to an end in 2008 with an unprecedented financial crisis and and economic depression in 2009. To: A period of rapid economic expansion from 1995 onwards became known as the Celtic Tiger period, was brought to an end in 2008 with an unprecedented financial crisis and an economic depression in 2009. Because: 'and and' is incorrect and should be 'and an'. Mrmmaclean (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Already done I'm guessing this is already done because I just searched the whole page for " and and " and got no hits. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 23:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"Republic of Ireland" de-capitalisation in running text

Editors are invited to participate in a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#.22Republic of Ireland.22 de-capitalisation in running text. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 16:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2014

Ireland is it's own free state and is not just an island near Britain therefore it is not in the British Isles it is recognised as a country and not a colonised area of Britain

46.7.201.82 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the island not the state. Mabuska (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The British Isles as a geographical term derives from an ancient Greek term for the islands centuries before any political union. The terms "Britain" and "British" were origionally purely geographical and included both large islands and all the smaller islands in the archipelago. The term should not be changed just because the larger island uses it to refer to itself politically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwynJPie (talk • contribs) 20:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Propose Name Change of Article Title to Island of Ireland

I propose that the title of this article should be changed to the Island of Ireland to make it clear that this article relates and encompasses the independent sovereign state of Ireland or Republic of Ireland and the constituant territory of the United Kingdom of Northern Ireland. I would not usually make this request, only there has been some argument by a certain user on the Republic of Ireland talk page that Ireland should be titled as Southern Ireland, despite many attempts by various users that the Republic of Ireland is reffering to the state and officially it called Ireland through the European Union, United Nations, and even the British Foreign Office. I would invite all those concerned that they read up on the talk pages for the Republic of Ireland and Southern Ireland before commeting here, thereby getting an understanding at what and why I am requesting the name change to the Island of Ireland here and so to uncomplicate things for any user and others that seems not to understand the difference between the two articles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.226.161 (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Should this not be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration in accordance with the big editing notice from the arbcom decision that is displayed when you edit? MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"Languages" listed in box

The box lists "English, Irish, Ulster Scots", all linked to related articles. The "Ulster Scots" wikilink takes the reader to " "Ulster Scots dialects", which ledes with: "Ulster Scots or Ulster-Scots (Ulstèr-Scotch)[6][7] generally refers to the dialects of Scots spoken in parts of Ulster in Ireland.[5][8][9] Some definitions of Ulster Scots may also include Standard English spoken with an Ulster Scots accent.[10][11]".

A dialect, according to the Wiki article, "refers to a variety of a language that is a characteristic of a particular group of the language's speakers." "Ulster Scots" is *not* itself a language, it is a *dialect* of a language. As noted in the "Ulster Scots dialects" article, it is a dialect of Scots, and therefore "Scots" is the language that can comparably be listed with "English" and "Irish", and it can be qualified with a parenthetical reference to "Ulster Scots dialects." Shoreranger (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a recognised minority language in Northern Ireland so whatever about one's beliefs about what constitutes a language there are citations saying it is a language of Northern Ireland, so what's there is right per WP:V. Dmcq (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Traslade

I think the article should be moved to Ireland (Island) since the reader commonly associated "Ireland" to "Republic of Ireland" and enter the article is remarkable that the island has to Ireland (Republic) and Northern Ireland. It would be correct, because in effect it is an island, the problem is that the article is semi-protected. They think?. Jaam0121 (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Given the hatnote, the redirect and the disambig., there can hardly be a problem. Qexigator (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I*'m sure many readers are concerned about political matters but the consensus from a lot of previous discussion is the current arrangement is more in line with usage. Except for things concerned with the troubles or business statistics like GNP people are more usually interested in the island as a whole. Dmcq (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

the tyndall effect is not the explanation for blue sky

The article states (under section Science) "discovered the Tyndall effect, which explains why the sky is blue" but according to the linked article, this is Raleigh Scattering, *not* the Tyndall effect. Cranium (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the statement. ww2censor (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Irish flag in article question

ShockD (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC) The Irish flag is not shown once in this article. Why?

Geographical landmasses tend not to have flags that's why. Geopolitical structures do and as such you will find the Irish flag at Republic of Ireland. And even if you argued that to some the flag represents the whole island, it still only represents a geopolitical structure and not a geographical landmass which this article is on about, though it obvious goes into the geopolitical history of what happened on it. Mabuska (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2015

Currently it states that "Politically, Ireland is divided between the Republic of Ireland, which covers five-sixths of the island,..." This should not just state that politically it`s divided because it is obviously geographically, physically if you like, split too. I suggest something akin to simply dropping the introductory sentence & begin with: "Ireland is divided: "Ireland is divided between the Republic of Ireland, which covers five-sixths of the island..." " As to sources well I could list references forever as this is a core fact & accepted so & to drop the "politically" keeps it clear. Thank you.

Never2 (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Kharkiv07Talk 15:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Undone: This request has been undone. I've reverted this. I'm no expert in matters of Ireland, but this would be the first time I hear of a geographical divide between the two polities. Alakzi (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kharkiv07Talk 15:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Not the largest, but the second largest

Ireland is, of course, not the largest (in terms of area) island of the British Isles archipelago, but only the second largest one, whereas Great Britain is the largest island there !! Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow) 93.197.46.203 (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Read closer, that's just what the article says. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
But, the sentence is quite poorly worded. The words "... after which it is the largest island of the British Isles archipelago" could easily be omitted, especially as the British Isles are, in geographical terms, not really an archipelago at all (why include both Shetland and Jersey, but not, say, the Faroes?). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please revise the awkward first sentence "from which it is separated..." , "after which it is the largest". DGerman (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Would this be acceptable:
Ireland.... is an island in the North Atlantic separated from the west coast of Great Britain by the North Channel, the Irish Sea, and St George's Channel. It is the second-largest island of the British Isles after Great Britain, the third-largest in Europe and the twentieth-largest on Earth.
Qexigator (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Norsemen

In Bósa saga ok Herrauðs is to read:

  • Herraud's best friend was Bósi, the younger son of a former viking named Thvari or Bryn-Thvari by Brynhild, a former shieldmaiden and a daughter of King Agnar of Nóatún.
  • Bósi was a rough boy who was eventually outlawed for maiming some other folk in a ball-game. Herraud, discontented, gained permission from his father, over Sjód's objections, be allowed to set off on a Viking expedition with five ships

There is, however, no such thing as a former Norseman, mentioned in the sources. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Egil Skallagrimsson saga: Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum; Björn var hinn gervilegasti maður. (english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman.

So, a Norseman could be a viking for some time, and he could be a tradesman (or a baker, or a shepherd) for some time. But not all tradesmen, bakers, shepherds and vikings were Norseman.

Norseman spoke norse, but norse vikings did not speak vikingish, and norse shepherds did not speak shepherdish or bakerish.

Norsemen had norse culture, but there was no norse viking, baker or shepherd culture.

I think its important to remind people today about the term Norsemen, an accepted term by historians and archelogists, referring to people from the north, present Scandinavia. This term does not have any certain time limit, the Norsemen were norse in years, 400, 500, 657, 749, 803, 950, 1066 and 1100. Norsemen is a true ethnical group, for some reason neglected on Wikipedia. Whenever the word viking is mentioned, it can correctly be replaced by the term Norsemen in 95% of the cases. Norsemen are described in other Wikipedia languages, and since the english Wikipedia should be written from a global point of view, the term Norse and Norsemen should not be treated different.

The first documented use of the word viking is made by Orosius, written in latin, and translated into old english. There is to read about Alexander the Great´s father, Philip II of Macedonia: Philippus vero post longam obsidionem, ut pecuniam quam obsidendo exhauserat, praedando repararet, piraticam adgressus est. translated into: ac he scipa gegaderade, and i vicingas wurdon. In this time the word pirat was not used in the english language, the latin piraticam was directly translated to vicingus.

Interestingly enough, theres stories in the sagas, describing arabic piates, and they were in the sagas referred to, as vikings. = Vikings could be arabs practising piracy, and vikings could be macedonian kings practising piracy, but peaceful norse farmers, and their wifes, were never, ever, described as vikings before 1900.

For over 1 000 years, viking was nothing else than an old-english translation of the latin word pirate.

A macedonian king will never, ever, become scandinavian. An arabic pirat will never become scandinavian.

But a norseman was scandinavian, and the present scandinavians are descendants of Norsemen, according to historians and archelogists.

The sentence The linguistic contact of the Viking settlers of the Danelaw with the Anglo-Saxons left traces in the English language reflects a very poor knowledge in what viking actually means. As well as poor knowledge in the term Norsemen.

'Viking is a controversial term, Norsemen is not. For some reason, some people absolutely wants to call my ancestors vikings, which is historically incorrect and besides, unpolite. The Scandinavians as a an ethnic group, is more or less the same as Norsemen, Theres no problem whatsoever to use the correct term. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" Hohenloh + 13:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

add the yola language name for ireland

hi i would like to add the yola name for ireland to the page. yola is a language from wexford. thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yola12345 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"Yola" is extinct, according to the wikipedia article on it: Forth and Bargy dialect. --Julius R.S (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox re sovereign states

As we all know, Ireland is the name of the sovereign state with jurisdiction over 5/6ths of the island. Could we fix the info box accordingly? At the moment it says "Republic of Ireland" which isn't the name of any state and doesn't appear on any passport! My edit around this was reverted in 22 seconds (a record I think for me). Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You will be aware that this has been much discussed on Talk pages. Please, if you can, elaborate the point about passports, with as much factual detail as is available. Qexigator (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
And if you're doing that why did you not also try turning 'United Kingdom' into 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. ;-) What you were trying to do would just confuse the readers too much. I think a case could be made for giving their official names somewhere near the beginning of the article though if you can think of some phrasing. What you've got there is the state of Ireland described there as the Republic of Ireland to avoid confusion and the United Kingdom' into 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which is commonly known as the United Kingdom. Dmcq (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, Northern Ireland should be removed. GoodDay (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I thought you where supposed to be removed from discussions to do with such matters? ;-)
The way the infobox is at present fits accordingly with IMOS seeing as the infobox is about Ireland the island but makes mention of the state which means we must use Republic of Ireland to distinguish them. Mabuska (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Obviously I disagree with all this. Supposed consfusion about whether or not we are referring to an island under an infobox called "Sovereign State". The only confusion this is going to cause is about the name of the Irish state which as we all know is Ireland. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

...how come no one struggles with the same approach at Solomon Islands archipelago? Why that approach there and this approach here? Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

To my mind, that is a good question, and it should now be given serious consideation. If the the Ireland (state of) infobox were adapted to the article on the model of Solomon Islands archipelago, what would it look like? Qexigator (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Disagree all you want. Dmcq and myself are correct and it follows WP:IMOS which is a community agreed consensus in regards to such matters. Don't like it, then get consensus for a change to it, though as I object to such an idea now, your not going to get a technical consensus. The status of Ireland's real name is not being denied, anyone clicking the wikilink to the article will clearly see that it's official name is Ireland. However the state's official description "Republic of Ireland" is useful to distinguish it from an island that has had the name for over a millenia longer than the present-day state that doesn't even span the entire island. Should we go around using Hellenic Republic in articles instead of Greece because the former is its official name? Look at the article for the Greek city of Thessaloniki. What does its infobox state? Hellenic Republic (the official state name) or Greece (the unofficial state name)? It says Greece. Even the Greeks don't call their state Greece but we use it anyways. Mabuska (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we should change the second paragraph of the lead to say what the true name sof the states are.

Politically, Ireland is divided between the Republic of Ireland, which covers five-sixths of the island, and Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, which covers the remaining area and is located in the north-east of the island. The description Republic of Ireland is used in this article instead of the state's official name 'Ireland' to avoid confusion with the name of the island. The United Kingdom's full official name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The population of Ireland is about 6.4 million. Just under 4.6 million live in the Republic of Ireland and just over 1.8 million live in Northern Ireland.[7]

hHow about that? Dmcq (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Too long. If it even needs to be changed it would be simpler to simple state: "Politically, Ireland is divided between the Republic of Ireland (officially named Ireland), which covers five-sixths of the island, and Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, which covers the remaining area and is located in the north-east of the island." Mabuska (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
That reads better okay but that paragraph is about political divisions and we have enough people around who go on about officialese and I think we should get that business out in the open and over and done with somewhere, if not there then later in the article - after all the lead is supposed to be a summary. How about we put that summary in the lead and a longer version at the start of the Politics section? Dmcq (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm surprised the Republic of Ireland section doesn't make a brief mention of the official name, though a slightly expanded upon instance of it is all that is needed as the main article deals with the intricacies of it. Mabuska (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Ireland"

The naming of the article at Ireland and the usage and topic of the pagename "Ireland" are up for discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Move "Ireland" to "Ireland (island)" or similar (June 2015) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Demonym: Northern Irish

I wish to add "Northern Irish" to the Demonym element of the infobox. Demonym: Northern Irish is already recognized on wikipedia here and from the most recent census in 2011, over half a million people in Northern Ireland are Northern Irish. Dubs boy (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Northern Irish does not represent a demonym for the island. Irish does as someone from the island of Ireland is Irish. There is no logical or rationale reason to stick Northern Irish in here. At Northern Ireland yes but not here. Seriously engage that brain before typing Dubs boy. Mabuska (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
[3] Normally best practice is to go back and delete an uncivil comment (that you added in haste), not to go back and add one (that you didn't add in the first place). IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Republic of Ireland which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Irish doctors

Hi I think it would be good to add information about Irish doctors in the culture section. Graves's disease, McBurney's point, the defibrillator are all part of Ireland's cultural contribution to the world. http://irishamerica.com/2013/08/the-irish-of-medical-history/ Vinnypatel (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2015

Please change Ireland is part of the British Isles as this name is disputed, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute. Also your ref 6 is a link to UN page and not specific to ireland being officially part of the British Isles. Kindly present an official reference. News Insight (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as stated in British Isles naming dispute "the British Isles" refers to a European archipelago consisting of Great Britain, Ireland and adjacent islands. AFAIK there is no other WP:Common name for this group of islands - if there is please provide it, with a reliable source. - Arjayay (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Please find a link to an alternative name - IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic) https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Islands_of_the_North_Atlantic "It has been used particularly in the context of the Northern Irish peace process during the negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement, as a neutral name for the proposed council.[4]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by News Insight (talk • contribs) 15:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ref 6 is not accurate. Change the line 'Ireland is part of the British Isles ' or show an unbiased (non british) source thats internationally recognised. The term is offensive to Irish people "Many political bodies, including the Irish government, avoid describing Ireland as being part of the British Isles; Eamon de Valera, for example, corrected John Gunther when the journalist used the term during a private meeting in the mid-1930s.[39]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by News Insight (talk • contribs) 16:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please change Ireland is part of the British Isles as this name is disputed please see, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute. Also The reference 6 after this sentence is a link to UN page and not accurate in showing any evidence to suggest Ireland being part of the British Isles. Kindly present an official reference. News Insight (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC) I can suggest an alternative name - IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic) https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Islands_of_the_North_Atlantic "It has been used particularly in the context of the Northern Irish peace process during the negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement" Here is quote from https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute. about the term 'British Isles' "The term is offensive to Irish people "Many political bodies, including the Irish government, avoid describing Ireland as being part of the British Isles; Eamon de Valera, for example, corrected John Gunther when the journalist used the term during a private meeting in the mid-1930s.[39]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by News Insight (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The origin of the term British Isles for the group of islands that contain Great Britain and Ireland stems from Ancient Greece and pre-dates the Kingdom of Great Britain by more than 2000 years. Claudius Ptolemy was a celebrated geographer who flourished in the second century AD; A greek by descent, he was a native of Alexandria in Egypt, and a learned man of his time. His most remarkable publication was perhaps his Geography, a work of seven volumes, which became the standard textbook on the subject until the 15th century. In the opening chapters of the second book of the Geography, we find reference to the British Isles: Chapter 1 is entitled Hibernia island of Britannia, and deals primarily with Ireland, Chapter 2 is entitled Albion island of Britannia, and deals with mainland Great Britain. AlwynJPie (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirecting

When people from the world search for "Ireland", they search for "that Catholic country", not "the island that British occupied for centuries". It is really bizzare that english wikipedia is redirecting me to an irrelevant article for the sake of political (in)correctness. That is my honest opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.228.55 (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see "Ireland" is not a a redirect to anything but we have a simple explanation at the top for users who want to know about the two political parts of the Ireland rather than the island so they should not be confused. Strange statement about british occupation, if you read the article it has a lot more than the brief period it was part of the United Kingdom. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
They only do that here, originally Taiwan redirected to the island of Taiwan, and the political entity was correctly called the Republic of China, but now the article "Taiwan" is purely the political state which isn't even officially called Taiwan while the island's article is called "Geography of Taiwan", so I would suggest a move where "Ireland" will redirect to the Republic of Ireland as opposed to the island and for this article to renamed "Geography of Ireland". I really hate it when Wikipedia uses 2 standards to measure the same things.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps if you have a read of the page archives you will understand the consensus that has been reached and discussed loads of times in the past. Not sure the relevance of Taiwan/ROC as far as I know Taiwan and ROC are interchangable which is not always true of Ireland island and Ireland political division hence the current position. Also note that discussions about article naming should be raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"Republic of Ireland" or "Ireland"?

As mentioned above - the country of Ireland is not known by the name "Republic of Ireland", it is know as and referred to as simply "Ireland" in its own constitution and in all Governmental documentation.

Ironically, there is actually a wikipedia article on the subject called Names of the Irish state.

The only instance of when "The Republic of Ireland" is ever used over "Ireland" in a proper manner, is in a legal context when it is required to distinguish between the geographical island of Ireland and the Nation of Ireland. (where the two terms in this instance used are Republic of Ireland and the Island of Ireland, neither are referred to as "Ireland" in this one an only instance).

I am aware that a page already exists called "Ireland" that refers to the geographic island of Ireland, and my suggestion is to amend the name of the article currently named "Ireland" to the new name of "Island of Ireland" or perhaps "Ireland (Island)". Then this will facilitate the movement of the "The Republic of Ireland" page to it's official name of "Ireland".

I note nations such as Chile or Turkey for example, take precedence over any material aspect that is not a nation, and a simple not at the beginning of the article could clear any confusion:

This article is about the country. For the island, see Island of Ireland. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation)

The last paragraph of the wiki page I linked gives as clear cut an indication on the correct naming (or incorrect naming) of the Irish state in the current page arrangement.

It states (in the official conduct of international relations of the European Union); "The Inter Institutional Style Guide of The Office for Official Publications of the European Communities sets out how the names of the Member states of the European Union must always be written and abbreviated in EU publications. Concerning Ireland, it states that its official names are Éire and Ireland; its official name in English is Ireland; its country code is IE; and its former abbreviation was IRL. It also adds the following guidance: "NB: Do not use 'Republic of Ireland' nor 'Irish Republic'."[1]"

I trust this clears up the issue and the necessary amendments can be made in the near future.

Thank you for your time and all the work you do with Wikipedia.

Kind regards

LeinsterLad

  1. ^ Clause 7.1.1 of the Inter Institutional Style Guide [1].
See the top of this page
Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration by order of the Arbitration Committee.
The talk page at WT:IECOLL is where discussion is done. There have been numerous discussions on changing the name of this article there over I've lost count how many years, you can search the archive there. Basically the result has always been that the island takes precedence in this case. Dmcq (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Previously on Wikipedia if one were to type in Taiwan they also got redirected to the island, and the name of the political entity was listed as the Republic of China, this makes sense but the Taiwan article was moved to Geography of Taiwan in favour of WP:COMMONNAME, what is odd is that that same logic doesn't seem to apply here, I know most "fanatical editors" will point out that they don't care about WP:OTHERSTUFF but this certain lack of consistency which may be loved by "Wikipedians" can be confusing to WP:READERS and I'd argue that we should either follow the same suit as Taiwan -> Geography of Taiwan & Republic of China -> Taiwan with Ireland -> (WP:MERGE) Geography of Ireland & Republic of Ireland -> Ireland, these inconsistencies are really annoying and would almost point out to a political agenda in one case (thus going against WP:NPOV) and being more neutral here.
Ahoy, --58.187.167.178 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Did you read the hatnote about naming this article? You must take the matter there, where is has been discussed in detail. ww2censor (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Etymology?

It would be good to have one for the name, "Ireland". The history listed does show some of the earlier versions of this name as it appeared in the Irish language, but if it can be traced back to deeper origins, that would be interesting.

Jack Waugh (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary is the place for that sort of stuff unless it has some strong interest for the subject itself. See wikt:Éire#Irish. The origin is pretty much lost in the mists of pre-history. Dmcq (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Languages

What's the objection to including Polish? Gob Lofa (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

English and Irish are official languages in the Irish state. English is the official language of the United Kingdom, and Irish and Ulster Scots are recognised regional languages. Polish is a minority language with no official status, of which there are many. Rob984 (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
It's the most widely spoken, after English. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
It still has no official status. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Neither does Ireland. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
So why would you look to include non-natively spoken languages in a geographic article? The island of Ireland comprises two states, neither of which recognise Polish, Catalan or Wajarri as official. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Because it also discusses the people who live on the island, many of whom speak Polish. The polities have their own articles. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The infobox is for official or native languages, Polish is not one of them. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
What do you base that on? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's silly to add Polish as it has no official or traditional connection to the country. A lot of Polish workers moved to Ireland over the last decade or so, but there's also Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, etc. You could just as easily insist that Russian is also listed, as many of those people also speak it as their shared language. Polish could certainly be mentioned in the text, but has no place in the info box or the lede. --Dmol (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

None of those languages are spoken at the level of Ireland's second language. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Concur with MilborneOne, Bastun & Rob984 ----Snowded TALK 23:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Infobox is for official languages only. Snappy (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
That's fair enough for states, but Ireland's not a state; it doesn't have any official languages. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Snappy, Polish is in the infobox at Languages of Ireland. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I know. Anyway, the clear consensus here is not to include Polish in the infobox or lede, but no restrictions against being mentioned in the text.
If you knew, why did you say "Infobox is for official languages only"? That gives a strong impression you didn't know. No-one's addressed my point that Ireland's not a state. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Look again. And step away from the horse. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
As soon as I meet decent arguments, I'll let the horse get up under its own steam. You're right, I shouldn't have said "no-one", because you addressed the point. But the others haven't, and you haven't addressed my retort to yours. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
We'll need a reliabe source that prooves Polish is an official language of the island. Until then, it shouldn't be included. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The island doesn't have official languages. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, ya got me there. But, do you have a reliable source that backs inclusion of Polish? GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what kind of source you mean, but if the editors at Languages of Ireland are happy to have it in their infobox, I can't see why we shouldn't. Do you mean a source for the amount of speakers? Gob Lofa (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
A source that would justify having Polish included here, might help you. TBH though, you'll need a consensus aswell, to add the language here. From what I've read so far, there's an overwhelming majority saying to 'exclude' Polish. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm still unclear as to what kind of source you mean. I don't understand why people want to include Polish on the LoI infobox but not this one. Gob Lofa (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's a source, which does not show 'Polish' among the languages of the island. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Here are some that show it's the second most common language in both Irish polities: [4], [5], [6] Gob Lofa (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
If you can convince the others to accept inclusion? then by all means, add Polish :) GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Noone is disputing that it is not common, but it is neither official or traditional, which is why I will continue to oppose it. Can we close this push now as there's clearly not going to be any consensus for inclusion. --Dmol (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
What I fail to understand is how the disparity between the infobox here and that on Languages of Ireland is acceptable to you. Can you explain that for me? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
There's a group of articles such as Languages of Ireland, Languages of Germany, etc., that deal with the minority languages within each country - check them out. I think the distinction is fine, and since this thread by now is a getting to be a waste of time and bandwidth, discussion thereon should be ended forthwith. Hohenloh + 18:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm no wiser as to why an article about a geographical entity is portrayed as a political one, as if it had official languages. If this is based on a policy, I'd appreciate having a look at it, it may save me time in the future. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Is there any such policy? Gob Lofa (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

History

I felt the lead was unnecessarily large and noticed that the 4th paragraph would be better suited as a prelude to the history section so I transferred it. AlwynJPie (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Murry1975, this "4th paragraph" serves much better as an overview of the History section. Having an overview of a section before its subsections is not uncommon; indeed in this very article there is an overview in the Culture section. AlwynJPie (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ulster Scots

Why is this listed as an official language? It does not have language status Jackeen17 (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Its listed in the "Language" section of the infobox, and mentioned in the body, because it is a recognised language of the United Kingdom. Rob984 (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
And people started edit warring over it years ago. They wanted the same status for Ulster Scots as for Gaelic... The Banner talk 18:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected Edit Requests

Spting days (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC) The description of a sod or turf is not quite, a sod is a piece of turf.

That is true, sod is sometimes applied to a whole area as in the old sod but I don't think it should be in as a synonym for turf, it would be some sods rather than sod. I'll remove that bit. Dmcq (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

bdrbogart April 18th, 2016 PDT In section "Northern Ireland" there is a grammatical error: "Along with England and Wales and Scotland..." should be changed to "Along with England, Wales and Scotland...".

Not done for now: The line says "Along with England and Wales and Scotland, Northern Ireland forms..." So it refers to England and Wales as a jurisdiction, and I'm not sure if a comma is needed in this case. I'm sure somebody else are sure. Sam Sailor Talk! 20:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 Done – To editors Bdrbogart and Sam Sailor: I went ahead and piped that to punctuate it as requested.  Stick to sources! Paine  02:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

TLD

The TLD field in the infobox currently just shows ".ie". Should ".uk" be added (possibly with a footnote) or should the field just be removed? It seems a bit strange to have, why not also "drives on the..." and the rest of the specifics you get in a country infobox? --Inops (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

As this is not a country article it would be better to remove the TLD unless it has been allocated to the island. For the same reason it is not a country article the drives on x side is not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
TLD removed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The status of .ie is a bit unclear as it was allocated to the island rather than the country and though the Irish government has enacted a law to control .ie it has never actually done anything about it. I agree with the removal from this article though, it is better left out of a geographical article. Funny things happened when the TLD's were first being set up, Great Britain was going to be .gb but of course they used .uk to stand for the country instead. Dmcq (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
As opposed to their Olympic sports team, which is GB. Isn't .ie administered by IEDR in UCD, though? Didn't know it was geographical rather than state-based. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I would say unclear rather than specifically geographical. It was set up originally as geographical and that has proven useful with people in Northern Ireland who wish to use the domain. What is the 'though' about? Dmcq (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Just that I'd have assumed that if it was geographical, but crossed state lines, that Queens or similar would have gotten to "share" responsibility for it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
That's assuming a political basis. This was before the first web browser, people used to route by putting in numbers for each step. It was something research institutions with interested individuals did. Dmcq (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a question: how relevant is the TLD for this article? The Banner talk 21:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Well nobody here including me seems to be in favour of including anything about TLD. It doesn't sound like you have a reason for including it either. Dmcq (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Counting "legal jurisdictions"

A quote from the Northern Ireland section: "Along with England, Wales and Scotland, Northern Ireland forms one of the three separate legal jurisdictions of the UK". A previous talk paragraph above also addresses this, but unfortunately confusion still reigns. Every county and civil parish is a "legal jurisdiction"! What about "four countries" or "four nations"? 2602:304:CDA6:51B0:E1:DF31:5B44:7E0A (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe Wales and England are a single "legal jurisdiction" in that they share all the same laws whereas Northern Ireland and Scotland have partially separate legal systems. Canterbury Tail talk 22:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I think they are asking why we aren't also stating that Northern Ireland is one of four countries of the UK, which is more significant. This is probably because some don't like to describe Northern Ireland as a country. But it should be mentioned in some way. Rob984 (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
In the context it is used here saying they all share a supreme court it seems fine to me. Dmcq (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2016

African have not had a significant influence on Irish culture.

78.19.249.135 (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Ballymeena to Ballymena

Under Economy in the table of biggest population Centres, for the East of Northern Ireland, Ballymena is misspelled Ballymeena

Can Someone with access edit this, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.84.2 (talk • contribs)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Dumbasses

How long has it said "Largest Settlement" instead of "Capital" you incompetent xenophobes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2161:7280:806F:5235:9989:97AB (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe it's pretty much always been there. This article is about the island, so much like the island of Great Britain is not usually appropriate to talk of a capital city. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"So called" British Isles

Since when have the British Isles been called the "so called British Isles"? They are called the British Isles.CdOl0lO (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not. It's an edit someone did recently that has now been reverted. Nothing to see here. Canterbury Tail talk 12:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2016

The weather is MODERATE (not moderated), second paragraph 2001:569:FB46:1F00:48FE:A573:BBB0:B129 (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done! Thanks you for pointing that out. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC).

World Snooker Champions

The sports section mentions that Northern Ireland has produced two world snooker champions (Alex Higgins and Dennis Taylor, though not named in the article), but it should really also mention that R.O. Ireland has had one as well (Ken Doherty). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.115.17 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Area

Rob984 inserted different area figures with a UN source removing the Irish Government's own source adding an edit comment: I have amened the area per the UN's Island Directory. The figure given by the Irish Government is 84,421 km2, which ≈ combined area of the Republic and Northern Ireland (84,412 km2); thus is most certainly including surrounding islands. I reverted it for now suggesting it should be discussed here to determine the correct area. What reliable sources do others have? ww2censor (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any other reliable sources from a quick Google Search, but...
The Republic of Ireland has an area of 70,273[7]–70,282 km2[8]
Northern Ireland has an area of 14,130 km2[9]
The figure cited by the Irish Government for the whole island is 84,421 km2, greater than the combined area of the two jurisdictions (84,417 km2).
Note also that the source is comparing the Republic of Ireland's area to the whole of Ireland—which would be a misleading comparison if it did not include surrounding islands like in the Republic of Ireland's figure.
The area of just a few islands would create discrepancy: Achill Island (146 km2), Great Island (53 km2) Inishmore (31 km2), Valentia Island (26 km2), Gorumna Island (24 km2), Bere Island (19 km2), Aran Island (18 km2), Clare Island (16 km2)[10]
So I thinnk all islands taken into account could encompass around 2,500 km2, as the UN's Island Directory suggests.
Although I agree, additional sources would be ideal.
Rob984 (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Unresolved
Rob984 (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Oldest pub

Ireland's oldest Pub is the Brazen Head which was established in 1198. The structure is still standing with some upgrades inside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Amwurt (talk • contribs) 04:07, 5 February 2017

The Brazen Head has its own article so we know that. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
That's disputed, Sean's Bar in Athlone is supposed to date to sometime in the 900's. Dmcq (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually I was really acknowledging the existence of its own article rather than the veracity of the claim itself. ww2censor (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2017

change to red fox to madra rua (red dog) Edit2017zinerly (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Why? The Banner talk 08:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: In the absence of any rationale for such a seemingly erroneous change, I must decline your request. RivertorchFIREWATER 20:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Statistics

I noticed that the stats in the infobox at the top of the page all seem to be taken from sources that are at least 3 years old, some as much as five years or older. Not a big deal for some categories, but I very much suspect that a lot of the demographics information is badly in need of updating. It looked off enough to me that I felt the need to check the date on the sources anyway. I'm not a regular contributor, and I don't have replacement sources/stats ready to pop in, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to shine a light on it in case someone felt like looking in to it? Thanks. 37.228.226.218 (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Area of island discussion

I removed two tags of "dubious" about the area of the island. I didn't see any discussion challenging this on the talk page but now see it has been brought up in archived discussions at least in 2009. It seems someone claims this statement comes from the Republic of Ireland and is wrong? I added an additional citation from National Geographic. If there are credible allegations that the Republic of Ireland was lying/mistaken in its evaluation of the island's area, wouldn't this be a widely known dispute? Surely it would be significant enough to include, if there were anyone of prominence countering with a different number? Otherwise it seems to be WP:OR that it is dubious. Additionally, as was suggested in 2009, any discrepancy seems to be concerning whether or not outlying islands are being counted. Could we get this clarified? Since the 84k figure is given in regards to the actual Island of Ireland itself, it would be confusing if this included the area of other islands nearby. I'm not an expert in this area so am proposing this sake of clarity for laypeople reading the article. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

See #Area above (I just restored it from the archive). Rob984 (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Rob984: Thank you, but I don't see it restored on this page? I purged the cache but still no luck. Can you try again? Nevermind, I see it was re-archived by a bot. Is there a way to get such an old discussion back and to stick? It would be great if we could continue the discussion because having an incorrect area for such a prominent island is bad (and so are dubious tags). —МандичкаYO 😜 07:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The difference between the various figures is quite a bit less than the difference between the shore at high and low tide, so do we really need to worry about the value from one source compared to another except to take the most reliable source? The difference has nothing to do with islands. Dmcq (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's my comment from that discussion:

I can't find any other reliable sources from a quick Google Search, but...

The Republic of Ireland has an area of 70,273[11]–70,282 km2[12]
Northern Ireland has an area of 14,130 km2[13]

The figure cited by the Irish Government for the whole island is 84,421 km2, greater than the combined area of the two jurisdictions (84,417 km2).

Note also that the source is comparing the Republic of Ireland's area to the whole of Ireland—which would be a misleading comparison if it did not include surrounding islands like in the Republic of Ireland's figure.

The area of just a few islands would create discrepancy: Achill Island (146 km2), Great Island (53 km2) Inishmore (31 km2), Valentia Island (26 km2), Gorumna Island (24 km2), Bere Island (19 km2), Aran Island (18 km2), Clare Island (16 km2)[14]

So I thinnk all islands taken into account could encompass around 2,500 km2, as the UN's Island Directory suggests.

Although I agree, additional sources would be ideal.

Rob984 (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, it's pretty clear the Irish Government is taking into account both jurisdictions (since it's being compared with the Republic's total area), so why are we using it as a source for the island?

My understanding is that area figures are calculated up to the low-tide line, given this is regarded as the edge of land and beginning of territorial waters under international law.

Edit: To add, the area of countries often also takes into account coastal internal waters (e.g. small bays), which you wouldn't typically include as part of the area of an island from a geographical perspective. It doesn't make sense for the island to be larger then both jurisdictions when the jurisidctions are taking into account coastal internal waters and other islands, up to the low water mark. The UN's figure is 81,638 sq. km. Here is the listing in the UN's island directory: http://islands.unep.ch/IBT.htm#749

Rob984 (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You're talking about a 3 km^2 difference between two reliable sources. There is no requirement to talk about islands in that context - that is your own original research. They say their figures are the area of the island, they are authorities, what they mean is irrelevant. The difference is insignificant, it is spurious accuracy. Applied to the length of Ireland it would make a 10m difference. And the shoreline is a fractal where it is very hhard to be shure what is included in the low tide. I am removing your 'dubious' because the figure iis accurate whichever oone you include and the only question is which accurate version to include. Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Questions and comments

I read the article and I found it very interesting. I made some minor fixes and improvements, to the grammar, the punctuation and the layout. I leave below a series of questions and comments.

1. "In 1166, Mac Murrough had fled to Anjou, France, following a war involving Tighearnán Ua Ruairc, of Breifne, and sought the assistance of the Angevin king, Henry II, in recapturing his kingdom".

What kingdom?

2. "The British–Irish Intergovernmental Conference provides for co-operation between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom on all matter of mutual interest, especially Northern Ireland."

The last part of the sentence, "especially Northern Ireland" is somewhat ambiguous. I feel that it could be improved.

3. The section that starts with "The algal and seaweed flora" and ends with "although for many years it was regarded as an alien species" in my opinion is awkward, unnecessary, irrelevant, out of context and out of place. It just does not fit with the rest of the text above.

4. "Counties in Northern Ireland are no longer used for local governmental purposes".

What's the reason?

5. Under the "Migration" section, the Great Famine has two date ranges: 1845 to 1852 and 1845 to 1849. This is inconsistent.

6. "As of 2006, 4.3 million Canadians, or 14% of the population, are of Irish descent. As of 2013, a total of 34.5 million Americans claim Irish ancestry."

If the Canada has a percentage it would be proper to add a percentage for the U.S.A.

7. "The Irish philosopher and theologian Johannes Scotus Eriugena was considered one of the leading intellectuals of his early Middle Ages."

His of who?

8. "Paddy Barnes secured bronze in those games and gold in the 2010 European Amateur Boxing Championships".

What are "those" games?

9. What is "salmon driftnet fishery"?

ICE77 (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

By and large I have reverted all your edits as they were not helpful.
I have made four minor edits to solve your concerns (question 9, 7, 5, 4). Question 6 is irrelevant. All others are a case of better reading as the answer is in all cases to be found in the sentences just before the disputed text. The Banner talk 09:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, whatever. ICE77 (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ireland/Archive_14&oldid=1140128054"