Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRed King

Statement by Red King

1. I support the view that the article Ireland must be a generally descriptive one with pointers to sub-articles or related articles (known as the "MickMacNee solution").
   1. I support the view that Ireland (country), if it has to exist at all, should redirect to the new master article, not to any of the alternate meaning articles.
2. I support the view that Ireland (island) be established, which is primarily about the geography and natural history.
3. I support the view that Ireland (state) be established, which is primarily about the nation state that has existed since 1921.
4. I do not support the view that Ireland or Ireland (country) should be simple disambiguation articles.
5. I do not support the continued existence of a Republic of Ireland article as being other than a redirect to the Ireland (state) article. (I would accept a disambiguation article that offered readers a choice of either the state article or the Republic of Ireland national soccer team article).

My reasons are these:

The Ireland article should be a generally descriptive one with pointers to sub-articles or related articles

1. Wikipedia is for a world-wide audience. It should aim to inform people who know very little about the subject and have come to Wikipedia to be enlightened. The prejudices of the local audience are secondary.
2. As the long raging debate over the term 'Ireland' has shown, the position is complicated and that complexity needs to be exposed overtly. This follows from the previous point: visitors need a context that gives them enough information to choose the most relevant article, yet makes them aware that the subject is complicated.
3. It is wrong to define Ireland only in terms of the 20th century (which is what many of the options proposed by others seeks to do). The term Ireland, in the context of its people and their political structures, has an undisputed history as a distinct single nation going back at least 1000 years (see High Kings of Ireland - an even longer history is argued by some). Even under [disputed] English overlordship, Ireland remained politically distinct until the Act of Union 1801 - and even then we had the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, albeit for just 120 years.
4. We need a hook on which to hang all-island items (such as the transport infrastructure, religious and many sporting organisations.
5. It has the benefit of "equality of misery" (or a win-win solution) - neither of the current factions wins but neither do they lose.

Ireland (country), if it has to exist at all, should redirect to the new master article

Ireland as a distinct country has a long history, see above. In certain sports, such as Rugby, it continues to operate as such. For less than 100 years of its long history, it has two jurisdictions. The standard Wikipedia definition of country does not fit and it seems best to me to dodge the issue by redirecting to the new Ireland (context) article that I have described above.

1. My own preference is the article Ireland (country) be deleted completely since it has no practical value other than to be a bone of contention.

Ireland (island) should be established, which is primarily about the geography and natural history.

1. We certainly need a distinct article about the geography, geology and natural history of the island, since it has more than enough material on those subjects alone. I assume that there is a strong consensus for such and article, the only debate is what it should to be called. In my view, this article has to give way to the context-setting article.

Ireland (state) should be established, which is primarily about the nation state that has existed since 1921.

1. As with Ireland (island), I believe that the article about the nation state has to give way to the context article in terms of priority.
2. It is subordinate to the context article because it describes a state that has existed for at most 8% of the history of the country.
3. It is consistent with the handling of Georgia (which isn't a great reason but it's a factor).

Ireland or Ireland (country) should not be simple disambiguation articles

1. since to do so would contradict the reasons that I have already given as to why Ireland should be a context or scene setting article and Ireland (country) should redirect to it.

The Republic of Ireland article should not be other than a redirect to the Ireland (state) article.

1. because this is not its name, but merely a description of its constitutional arrangement.
   1. compare with République Française and Repubblica Italiana where these are the names of the those countries as enshrined in their constitutions. [But interestingly, the primary Wikipedia aricles are France and Italy respectively, not 'Republic of', even though in both cases the short names describe a geographical area that contains more than one severeign state (cf Monaco, San Marino, Vatican).
2. because it is not the name used in any international body (other than some sports bodies).
3. because it is not how the state describes itself
4. because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland no longer disputes its use. (see Belfast Agreement#Provisions)

...but there is a case for a disambiguation article Republic of Ireland

1. because the most common use of the phrase (other than in the UK press, who still even use "Eire" [sic]!) is to refer to the Republic of Ireland national soccer team. [note that Ireland has three football codes (GAA, AF, Rugby)].

Alternative perspectives

• BritishWatcher