Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

"Uachtarán" or "President"?

Previously the info box showed "President (Uachtarán na hÉireann)". An IP changed this but made a fluff of the ref so I went to fix it. When I did I changed it first to "Uachtarán na hÉireann" on the basis that the other titles were in Irish (Taoiseach and Tánaiste). Then I actually looked at the constitution. The English-language version of the Constitution uses Taoiseach and Tánaiste for those offices:

13.1.1 - "The President shall, on the nomination of Dáil Éireann, appoint the Taoiseach, that is, the head of the Government or Prime Minister."

28.6.1 - "The Taoiseach shall nominate a member of the Government to be the Tánaiste."

The word President (not Uachtarán) is used for that office though:

12.1 - There shall be a President of Ireland (Uachtarán na hÉireann), hereinafter called the President, who shall take precedence over all other persons in the State and who shall exercise and perform the powers and functions conferred on the President by this Constitution and by law.

I think this reflects common practice too though e.g. the head of government is called Taoiseach not Prime Minister, even though that title correct also (and sometimes used by the UK press).

In the mean time, I've taken out na hÉireann in line with other info boxes (where else would she be president of?). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The constitution of Ireland is written in Irish. The first offical languageis Irish. In the eventof conflict of interpretation between the english and Irish version theIrish is the primary text. That .pdf is an english language translation. There is no suitable translation for Taoiseach or Tainiste so they are not translated. I think its better to leave in the official (irish version). It looks more balanced to with the other office holders title holders being in Irish too.

Just my 2 cents. Not going to fight hard about itCathar11 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The last time I check, this was the English language Wikipedia, not the Irish language Wikipedia. Anyways, President of Ireland is the most common usage. PS: Why was the changes made, without discussion? GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It was an IP that made the first change (from "President of Ireland (Uachtarán na hÉireann)" to "President of Ireland"). They fluffed the edit so I went to fix it. I changed it first to "Uachtarán na hÉireann" then immediately reconsidered and changed it to "President". Cathar changed it back to my first edit ("Uachtarán na hÉireann"). I then opened this tread to get discussion, and edited to be only "Uachtarán" in the meantime (no need for "na hÉireann", which means "of Ireland").

Since the IP got the ball moving there was no opportunity for discussion. We could revert to the previous "President of Ireland (Uachtarán na hÉireann)" if though best while discussion happens? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd recomment reverting to 'President' as the linked article is President of Ireland. We must remember that this isn't the Irish language Wikipedia, to a English speaking layman (like me), Uachtaran is un-readable & unfamiliar. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The infobox always listed it as President as this is what the office is known as even in english, the irish title was only added in September by User talk:RashersTierney, I support just having President. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 04:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The infobox should give the common English term for the office first, followed by the official name of the office in Irish: "President (Irish: Uachtarán)". Unfamiliarity with a word or term should be insufficient reason (on its own) not to include it. This is an encyclopaedia; we should expect to encounter words that are beyond the limits of our knowledge. Daicaregos (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Dai! --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

agree. RashersTierney (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone against? If not, I'll make the change. Daicaregos (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Daicaregos (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the purpose of it (is there precedent on other info boxes?) - but if others think it adds something... --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I am opposed to it, its not a case of unfamiliarity with the term its the fact that it is never used in english, it would be like putting Bundespräsident in the Germany infobox or translations in another other country infobox for that matter.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 07:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit made to include "(Irish: Uachtarán)", as it does not appear to have been resolved. Ireland is unlike countries such as Germany, in that it is officially bilingual, hence the need to note the title in both languages. In my opinion including Uachtarán enhances the information given to the reader, is unobtrusive in the infobox and shows graphically that Ireland has two living languages. Still, if the consensus is that it should not be included, it would be a pity, but life goes on. As it is, there seem to be three in favour of inclusion and two against. Any other views would be welcome. Daicaregos (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe put it back to something similar to how it was: "President (Uachtarán)". There's no need for a reference for that, it only draws the eye to it and makes it look contested. In a similar vein of thought, dropping the {{lang-ga}} may help ease it in, if others want it there. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. The reference was already there before my edit btw, so it should have consensus to remove it. I don't think it's necessary, as there should be sufficient refs in the article text. Daicaregos (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we now agree the consensus is to have it in both languages.Cathar11 (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As user Goodday says this is the English wikipedia, the fact that Ireland is bilingual is of little relevance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.65.69 (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To answer the IP - Firstly, that is not what GoodDay said. What he said was this and this. Secondly, GoodDay supported the change following discussion, see here. Daicaregos (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion is to amend an infobox entry from "President" to "President (Uachtarán)". We should assume consensus if no objections are raised within the next two days. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Changed. Daicaregos (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally described, rather than officially described

Changing the original "additionally described" to "officially described", (whcih I have reverted), an editor quotes the example of Australia. The position there is quite different. The formal, constitutional, name is Commonwealth of Australia: 'Australia' is just a common name. The CIA fact book uses the terms "short conventional name" and "long conventional name". For Oz, it says these are 'Australia' and 'Commonwealth of Australia'; (for the UK, it says that these are 'United Kingdom' and 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'); but for Ireland, it says that these are 'Ireland' and '<none>' see CIA world Fact Book {click on Government.} . So the term 'officially' as used in the AU and UK articles is not appropriate in the case of Ireland: to use it is WP:OR. --Red King (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So to emphasise, the term 'Republic of Ireland' is not an alternative name or synonym for 'Ireland'. It is an additional or supplementary description. The fact that the 'article' is named as it is, is unfortunate but entirely irrelevant. --Red King (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct except on the issue of the naming of the Wikipedia article. It isn't irrelevant as it gives the implication of authority. There have been years of debate on this point, as you know, and the issue was conceded strictly on 'technical' grounds ie name of island name of state and ambiguity blah blah blah. The name of the state is 'Ireland' until it is changed by constitutional referendum, full stop. RashersDogRusty (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What does "additionally" mean? Additional to what? The state has only one description. I've moved RoI down to the second para where it can be explained in context. (And used wording direct from the ROI act.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

'Additional' in the sense of a subsidiary appendix. 'Supplementarily' would be more accurate, but it is such an ugly word. --Red King (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 'additionally' is rather meaningless, even 'also' would be simpler and similar in meaning, but I strenuously disagree with burying the description in the 2nd paragraph -- per the Manual of Style, the article title should be iterated in the lead (and so it is somewhat relevant), and little brought up to date would lead me to believe that it shouldn't be there. I invoked Australia as but one comparison: many others exist across the spectrum, including Canada (Name of Canada#Use of Canada and Dominion of Canada). After all, RoI is prescribed in statute, but at no point is it indicated as an alternative name. Subsidiarity is maintained by excluding it from the infobox. Additionally, as it is in statute, how is referring to it as 'official' OR -- a statute is a legality. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Like Red King alludes to, there is a difference between the Irish state and (for argument's sake) Australia. Australia doesn't mind being called either the Commonwealth of Australia or (simply) Australia in an official capacity. The Irish state on the other rebukes Republic of Ireland as a name and has repeatedly made efforts to only be called Ireland, a desire that has been internationally respected (for better or worse).

I disagree that having ROI in the second paragraph is "burrying it". It is only the first appearance that needs to be bolded. The subject is already introduced in the first paragraph. We don't need to jump through hoops to have synonyms appear as soon as possible in the article, even where that synonym is the location of the article on the 'pedia. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The difference is artificial. As for other commentary, not quite. Actually, in the MOS section above the one you cite, it says: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence", and the rest of that section elaborates. Nothing above has satisfactorily addressed why the country's legal description, prescribed in statute, cannot be in the first sentence or paragraph and so framed. So, it is buried -- otherwise, we should be moving this article to Ireland (country) and thereafter this wouldn't be an issue. We do not have to jump through hoops to have every possible synonym appear, and that is not at issue, but we don't need to cast the hoops aside either due to subjectivism. After all, the synonym is the article title. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Which would be unarguable were it not for the fact that your starting premise is false: RoI is not a synonym for Ireland. It is a supplementary description, not an alternate name. It at best an adjective that clarifies that Ireland is not a monarchy. --Red King (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Bosonic dressing is also assuming that the UK practice applies, that Statute Law is all there is (and can change the unwritten 'constitution' if Parliament agrees). In the case of Ireland, it does not: the Constitution is superior to all positive law. --Red King (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why, then, is the article entitled so? I have not made any declaration that RoI is an alternate name though, as a description, it may be a synonym. Your opining declaring otherwise is just that. Nonetheless, it is deserving -- and I believe earlier -- in the lead,[1] per the Manual of Style. And, no, you know what they say about making assumptions. If my premise is false, yours is more so: apropos, given the rigor above and throughout, the article is titled incorrectly. But, I will leave that for others to hereafter quibble about. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason why this article is so named is a long and sorry tale. If you wish to inform yourself on the pros and cons re. alternatives, see the banner at the top of this page. If you are familiar with the arguments and have decided to rake this issue up anyway, again please see the banner above for the proper location for that particular discussion. Best. RashersDogRusty (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the long and sorry tale, which I don't really want to add to, as well as alternatives to this and that. I simply challenge the hypocrisy of those who maintain that the state name is simply Ireland, while maintaining the current lengthier article title (a la description) while burying (yes) that title later in the lead, in contravention of MOS. If the article title was simpler, I would have no qualm with the placement of the description as is. But, it's not, so ... Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You are conflating two issues that are entirely separate. The name of the state is unambiguously 'Ireland'. It is entirely a constitutional matter for the citizens of that state. The other issue is the name of the Wikipedia article about that state (for Wikipedia editors to decide) which has for years been vigorously disputed and debated on various pages here. If the name of the article is giving rise to a misunderstanding that the name of the state is somehow disputed or ambiguous, then I don't see how your proposed change would help in any way to clarify things. RashersDogRusty (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The issues are not separate. If the name of the state is unambiguously 'Ireland', it should not be entitled per its deprecated, legal description. However, since the article is entitled as such, the description should be in the first sentence or further up and not buried later on, per MOS, resistance of which I suspect is partially due to irrendentism. The change to the lead (which was in place for a brief time) strengthens why the article about Ireland is at Republic of Ireland upfront, instead of leaving it to later; also, it obviates excessive description of the 'why' until (rightfully) the 'Name' section. And, as with Republic of Macedonia and a host of other territories, it is not simply a matter of how the locals self-identify but notions at large. Moreover, I can make changes at anytime. Perhaps it's time for others who may be uninvolved to comment. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding to this discussion by edit summaries is acting in bad faith. If editors feel there is a need to make changes on this current topic, the case should be made here for consensus to emerge. RashersDogRusty (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is unclear. My intent is to garner wider input, but to make bold edits if necessary. And, this discussion was was initially about the use of one word in the lead I crafted in lieu of another. So, what is this of bad faith? Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Bd. My comment was not directed at you, but to two editors so far mute here, who have decided to bypass the discussion entirely and just do their own thing by changing the article anyway. Bad form! RashersDogRusty (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. I do say, though, that I concur with SarekofVulcan's edits -- logical. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how a chunk of editors do appear to concur with having the description upfront, per MOS, I have tweaked the syntax and made other minor improvements. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Bosonic dressing, I've put back your edit which took ROI out of brackets. This was mainly because of the line "officially described as the ...". I get what you mean but the heartbreak of the term is that officialdom (in Ireland and abroad) goes out of it's way to not use the term. So whilst ROI may be the description of the state in law ("...the description of the State shall be..." per ROI Act), in present tense, by officials, the state is not described as the Republic of Ireland (per "...officially described as...").

I've put ROI back to being a byline in the parenthesis of the first sentence ("description: Republic of Ireland"). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As above, this makes little sense. A number of other editors have insinuated 'official description' or similar; more details about all in the 'name' section. Removing 'official' makes it rather spartan and begs the question as to why or by whom it is described as such -- maybe that's a good thing. Current officials may seek to deprecate the term, but the heartbreak of the matter is there is a statute that officially/legally describes the state as such, and it is referred to as such out there. (For example, the country's entry in the New Oxford Dictionary of English is the Republic of Ireland.) As well, syntax is better than an orphan point in the lead in parentheticals. So, I have reinsinuated the syntax, BUT without 'officially' and have included a note about its deprecation in the infobox; however, I will await other comments and reserve the right before possibly restoring the prior wording. Bosonic dressing (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You're correct: it does make little sense. That is why I recommend the "Spartan" approach rather than trying to make sense out of it two words or less.

The one thing that we can say for sure is that article 2 of the ROI Act states that "the description of the State shall be the Republic of Irealnd". That does not make it a reality. For quite a long time article 2 of the Constitution stated that "the national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland". Article 3 stated that the Oireachtas and government had the right to "exercise jurisdiction over the whole territory". Yet, only a fool would say that just because it was stated so so in law that it was a reality.

The current copy reads that the state is "described" as the Republic of Ireland. Interesting. By who? There are many who would call the state by that name (whatever its status under Irish law) but I cannot for the life of me think of anyone who describes the state as such. Do you see the benefit of a Spartan approach?

In any event, I'm not going to argue with you over it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to belabour the point, the Irish government only chucked their claims to the whole of the island in 1999 ... so, some may still assert that. And, invoking that point is apples and oranges: do you challenge article 2, or does it not mesh with reality? While deprecated, it has not been repealed and is not inaccurate: after all, it is how the country is described in said statute. Anyhow, if there is benefit to the spartan approach, it is somewhat more beneficial to do so as a bona fide sentence, as with most other country articles in Wikipedia (AFAICT), than an incomplete orphan point. Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucratic legalisms regarding name

In the section on name, IMO there is too much focus on an older naming dispute, which is now largely arcane and discarded (the United Kingdom, including its embassy in the country covered here, refer to it as "Ireland" too). If there is a consensus that Ireland is the official name of this state, then I think the focus of this section, should like any other country article, focus more on the etymological roots of the word "Ireland", "Éire" and other associated phrases such as "Hibernia"—explaining the origins of these words and what they mean. By all means still mention the legalisms and former naming controversy, but to a much lesser extent than presently in the article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with this; compare with Canada#Etymology Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The Dominion of Canada is the long-form Name of Canada. The Governments since the 1950s decided to use only the short-form Name of Canada to appease the Republican-Separatists who wanted to found the Republique Quebecois (i.e, Quebecish Republic). The Republic of Ireland is the analogous naming structure that the Government of the Dominion of Canada used to openly use (i.e., when the Government had the guts too).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Move "military" from "economy" section and create a new criminal justice section

I don't see the logic of having military in the economy section as defence spending only makes up a tiny portion of the economy in Ireland. I therefore propose adding a new section called criminal justice. This would be a brief overview that would direct people to the courts, Gardai, probation, DPP, Dept. of Justice, prisons and other similar pages. The military section could be then moved from economy and tagged on to this new section (as the military actually have a role as an aid to the civil power). Rubensni (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oileán na hÉireann (Island of Ireland) versus Poblacht na hÉireann (Republic of Ireland)

Oileán na hÉireann (Island of Ireland) versus Poblacht na hÉireann (Republic of Ireland) ... are Oileán na hÉireann and Poblacht na hÉireann forbidden terms in Irish Gaelic or something? Why not use them and therefore avoid the "just" Éire (Island or Republic) ambiguity?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia in spanish, the article was renamed to "Irlanda" (Ireland). Alakasam 02:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Alakasam.

Wikipedia does make mistakes. Take for instance the Russian Federation, in French is long-form Name translates as Fédération russe, just like the French Republic translates as République française. However, in French Wikipedia they call it the Fédération de Russie (i.e., Federation of Russia) which is wrong.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, not that it is very important here, but neither of these two French terms are translated from English, nor wrong. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.171.64 (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And as far as Oileán na hÉireann versus Poblacht na hÉireann are concerned, that is simply a badly translated repetition of the debate that is out of bounds for about 4 years and 9 months. Anyway, "Oileán na hÉireann" does not mean Éire, it means one of its islands. Thus "Is oileán na hÉireann é Rocáil agas nach oileán na hAlbainn é" meaning 'Rockall is an island of Ireland and not of Scotland'. To use it in the sense you mean is a schoolboy error. If I knew the relevant wikipedia mark-up, I would get my red pen out! But I have unwlinked because it is so painful. --Red King (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Red King. No. "oileán na hÉireann" can mean BOTH "the island of Ireland" OR "an island of Ireland" depending upon context. Though, generally I would have thought that the latter meaning would be rendered as "oileán de chuid na hÉireann" (an island in the ownership of/belonging to Ireland). Furthermore, "Is oileán na hÉireann é Rocáil agas nach oileán na hAlbainn é" is incorrect; it should be "Is oileán(de chuid) na hÉireann é Rocail agas ní/chan oileán (de chuid) na hAlban é". Generally however in the printed press in the Irish language Éire/Éirinn/Éireann (all meaning 'Ireland') are used in reference to the island, whereas an Phoblacht('the Republic')/Poblacht na hÉireann('(the) Republic of Ireland')/an Deisceart ('the South') are used to refer to the sovereign southern state. D.de.loinsigh (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My point was that the construction "the island of Ireland" is a purely English (language) one and that a literal translation into Irish does not yield a construction that is valid in Irish. (Poblacht na hÉireann translates most accurately as "the Irish Republic" which of course in English ceased to exist with the Treaty). --Red King (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Shamrocks

Since the shamrock is a symbol of Ireland and registered as such, I was surprised not to find any mention of that in the article. Someone native speaker please go fix it. :-) --Sir48 (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is on Ireland the state. The harp seal is the official symbol of state. Religious icons were deliberately avoided at the foundation of the state which included the shamrock, St. Brigid's cross and 'round tower'. While the shamrock has been used by such semi-state bodies as Aer Lingus (since privitised) and the tourist board Fáilte Ireland, it is emphatically not an official state symbol. The St. Brigid's cross has also since been dropped by RTÉ, the state broadcaster. RashersTierney (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not widely known, but shamrock is an emblem of the state (and its use is controlled under law).

Example: "Any person who wishes to obtain registration of a trade mark containing a State emblem (HARP, SHAMROCK) or to use a State emblem in connection with any businessmust first obtain consent from the Minister." (Source) --RA (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd love to see the Minister try to enforce it against Guinness or the Catholic church. RashersTierney (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

RashersTierney, you may see it discussed here. Anyway, I find it hard to see the shamrock as a religious symbol, although it may interpreted that way by some (in Ireland?) and besides, it was not decided at the foundation of the state that symbols of Ireland - religious or not - could not be described in Wikipedia :-). Ireland as a state has the harp as the official symbol, but also has registered the shamrock as an international trademark and uphelds its protection. Please note also, that the shamrock is listed in category:National symbols of Ireland. Your remarks about other symbols give rise to the suggestion that a small section about symbols could be appropriate. --Sir48 (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't missed that exchange. There is probably scope for an article on 'Irish national symbols' rather than a section that would neatly fit into existing articles (symbols by their nature are often disputed). Ewan Morris's 'Our Own Devices' is an excellent source. RashersTierney (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

pic

maybe I'm missing something, but what is the picture of Slieve League doing is the "name"-section? Does it have anything to do with the name? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, nothing. Nice pic. but clearly belongs elsewhere in article. RashersTierney (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Images are supposed to the in section where the prose is related to the image. Move it or dump it as it would be best in a geography section but that is already well illustrated and the Geography of Ireland article also has a good range of images though there is a Slieve League image making a point which even this image cannot make. nice pic though. ww2censor (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's gone! I think the rather hyper-photo-shopped pic of the Cliffs of Moher could be replaced by something more in tune with nature? Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

cat handler

There are a number of occurrences of {{cat handler| .... }} displayed in the human readable text. Can they be deleted or are they meant to do something without being visible?  Stepho  (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read the documentation at {{cat handler}} it tells you that its functions is to: "helps other templates to automate both categorization and category suppression" and is used by 800,000+ pages. ww2censor (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I read that before I even asked the question. I've no problem with {{cat handler| .... }} being scattered through the source but that still doesn't explain why a causal reader of the article has to see {{cat handler| .... }} in the final output.  Stepho  (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen it on a saved page only in edit mode; this article does not show it in the saved version. Point to a page where this occurs. ww2censor (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Arrgh! The problem has gone away. I swear, this very article had {{cat handler| .... }} scattered all over the final output but it no longer does. I guess somebody has been editing the 'cat handler' template (or a sub template) and it had a temporary side effect. Nothing to do then - just a hiccup from the WP servers. :(  Stepho  (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland "?

Any article entitled Republic of Ireland is completely incorrect. It is true that in 1948 the Government declared a Republic. This was because there was an ambiguity about whether the then King of UK or the President of Ireland was the Head of State.

However, the internationally recognised name of the territory of the Republic of Ireland is "Ireland". This is the name of the sovereign state of 'Ireland' at both the United Nations and in the European Union and in all treaties. Indeed it is the case that if ever the name Republic of Ireland is used the Irish Government will hold that there is no such legal entity as the 'Republic of Ireland" and the name "Ireland" must be used on all occasions. This is a matter of International Law. While the term Republic of Ireland is sometimes used incorrectly by the British to refer to Ireland, the title has never been used by the Irish Government or the People of Ireland in its Constitution - the sovereign Law of Ireland.

Wikis own section on the name of Ireland is instructive:

"There have been various names of the Irish state, some of which have been controversial. The constitutional name of the contemporary state is Ireland,[1] the same as the island of Ireland, of which it comprises the major portion. However, in 1949 it formally declared itself a republic and was described in statute as the Republic of Ireland.[2]

The United Kingdom objected to the name Ireland on the basis that it may be confused with the entire island.[3] (Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, occupies the remaining one sixth of the island.) However, that name was internationally recognised by the early 1960s and since the end of the 1990s has been accepted by the United Kingdom also.[3]"

If this name is accepted by the UK, it is unclear how you can have a reference on this site declaring the name of Ireland to be the "Republic of Ireland"

At the United Nations the name plate reads "Éire - Ireland". At all meetings of the Member States of the European Union the name plate is "Éire / Ireland". In all international treaties the name of Ireland is Ireland. The 'Eire' is a politically expedient appendage added recently with the introduction of Irish Language legislation in Ireland, previously name plates were "Ireland". However, the name plate is only indicative.

The legal name of the territory of the Republic of Ireland is as stated above set out in the Constitution of Ireland and is "Ireland". This is the case in both Irish and English versions. The Irish version takes precedence and reads "Ireland" as the name.

However when Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom invited the 'President of Ireland' to visit her some years ago and the matter lost its constitutional bitterness when the The Irish Peace process promulgated the 'Good Friday Agreement'.

It is unacceptable to incorrectly portray the name of a sovereign country as something which it is not. It is not acceptable to have a page on entitled Republic of Ireland as there is no such legal entity in the world. Indeed such a reference has no correctness at all in International Law but rather makes the web site the subject of unnecessary political controversy and inaccuracy. The declaration of a Republic did not change the name of Ireland. That would have required a change to the Irish Constitution.

I would suggest the removal of the page entitled Republic of Ireland and that it should be replaced with a page titled Ireland. Appropriate references to the fact that Ireland declared a Republic in 1948 are important. All other references to Republic of Ireland should be changed to “Ireland” or the state of “Ireland” as appropriate. Such editing would bring Wiki’s references into line with International Law as recognized by the UN, the EU and perhaps most importantly to some readers the position of the UK since the 1960’s!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishbxl (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Irishbxl (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This issue has a very long history of 'debate' at various locations on Wikipedia. An Ireland-related Manual of Style, WP:IMOS, has been agreed largely in response. Not exactly to everyone's liking, as with all compromises, but it has taken much of the heat out of dealing with certain Ireland-related naming disputes, (at least for the moment). Happy reading and hope this helps. RashersTierney (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you also missed the obvious large banner at the top of the page that states: Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration by order of the Arbitration Committee where you can see the discussions about this topic. ww2censor (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

For the zillionth time, the state itself is not a republic, but can be described as the "Republic of Ireland". The 1937 constitution describes the state as "sovereign and independent" and "democratic", but not specifically as a republic. Despite this omission, we in Ireland tend to think of the state as a republic, even if we are wrong. I'm afraid logic really doesn't come into it. Alles klar?Red Hurley (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland is not a republic??? Has anyone told Republicans in Northern Ireland this? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(not discussing - just explaining) According to the wikipedia article on Republic: James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy. In a republic (or "representative democracy") you elect a parliament and they can do just about anything. In a democracy (or "direct democracy") many decisions can only be made by all the people in a referendum. For example the various EU treaties were agreed by the UK parliament, but in Ireland the people had to agree, the Dáil/parliament could not ratify the treaty. Ireland can be described as a republic to distinguish it from a monarchy. However it is a democracy (ruled by the people) rather than a republic (ruled by an elected assembly). As rashers says: Happy reading and hope this helps. - ClemMcGann (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Come on, seriously? The direct vs. indirect democracy distinction between democracy and republic is nonsense and has never been applied in practice. In common practice a "republic" is a country that is not a monarchy (with perhaps a few minor exceptions). Of course Ireland is a republic. john k (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You will also learn that here on Wikipedia that legal and official names have little relevance in the naming of certain places ;-) Though i've seen evidence provided here before previously that the Republic of Ireland government has made use of the term in their own official documents - and a distinction must be made clear when the island and when the country is being discussed especially in the same paragraph or section. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This hold topic is put on hold 'til September 2011, by community agreement. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition of British Isles

Proposals have been put forward here to add various references to British Isles to this and other related articles. --Snowded ^TALK 12:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

With the current geographical description, I think people can locate Ireland on the map without too much difficulty. If the British Isles were to be included, a brief mention in the Geography section would be ideal, but not anywhere near the introduction. I personally have no problem with the term, because there is no other name to describe the islands. However, it is very controversial in Ireland. Tebibyte (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes the proposal was simply to mention it once in the geography section of this article and it could include a brief mention of the controversial nature of the term. The other thing proposed about this article was just for the {{British Isles}} template at the bottom of the article, it is already on the Ireland article and has been there a couple of years. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ireland, the state, has not been even nominally British in nearly 90 years. To suggest that it is in any way British would be wildly inappropriate and greviously misleading to readers who are not from these islands. No such reference should be added. --Red King (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is part of the British Isles. This is fact, it is not misleading. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, it isn't! Rather than make another pantomime response, please justify your challenge. It may be argued with reference to tradition that the island, Ireland, is one of the British Isles but the state, Ireland, is not an isle and clearly can't be a British isle on two counts. Furthermore, in eons of debate at talk:British Isles, BW and his/her fellow-travellers argue consistently that the term British Isles is a geopgraphic term. If this is so, then then the term cannot be said to include political entities. --Red King (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland is in Europe, just like it is in the British Isles. Why should the geography section of this article not mention Europe and the British Isles? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Ireland (island) is part of Europe (continent or shelf); Ireland (state) is part of the European Union. The former is geophysical, the latter political. --Red King (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Majorca was given as an example of an article that uses a geographic term (the Balearic Islands) in describing the location of the place. In that particular case, the geographic entity also doubles as a political entity (an autonomous community of Spain, so it is useful in describing the place.

The British Isles are split amongst various political entities and so including it in this article wouldn't clarify anything for the reader and could potentially confuse them. I would leave it out given a choice. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a complete non-starter, for the reasons above and per discussion at talk:Ireland and talk:British Isles. End of discussion. --Red King (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So you do not accept that Ireland is part of the British Isles in the same way it is part of Europe? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Europe is a higher level of geographical entity and also has political meaning so its more sensible to work at that level. The issue is not one of fact BW but notability and appropriateness. --Snowded ^TALK 11:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We should of course mention Europe and it should be the first location mentioned in the introduction. However, there is no reason not to mention BI in the geography section of this article. I am curious if Red King accepts the existence of the British Isles or not. If he does not accept its a legitimate term, then obviously hes going to be opposed to its inclusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not notable for an article about the country BW and that looks to be the general consensus here. Red King referenced other arguments here and elsewhere. He is obviously free to answer but in his shoes I would refuse. You are spending far too much energy on the motivations of other editors --Snowded ^TALK 12:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone does not even accept something exists then they clearly will have a problem with accepting its inclusion in the article, i am simply asking Red King his views on it, of course he can refuse to answer. As for spending too much energy on the motives of other editors, i take those motives into account but i rarely comment on them directly. It is hard not to notice what is going on though. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually you keep commenting on motivations indirectly, with broad accusations. This is worse. Please stop --Snowded ^TALK 12:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would not describe them as accusations, i am simply stating what i see to be happening on certain occasions. My views on editors and their actions i try to avoid mentioning. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

and you also repeat them, frequently. Its just as bad, please, please, please stop --Snowded ^TALK 12:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a guess. British Isles will never be accepted on this article. Yes, we partially know why that is, but there's probably other reasons too. We can't assume it's all political motivation. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the argument that a geographical term can't be said to include political entities. The United States is in North America; Massachusetts is in New England; India is in South Asia; Yemen is on the Arabian Peninsula; American Samoa is in the Samoan Islands; Martinique is in the Lesser Antilles. Would anyone dispute any of these statements? If not, then the problem with "The Republic of Ireland is in the British Isles" lies elsewhere than a general problem with saying geographical terms include political entities. john k (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

History

Why is there no section explicitly about the History? The section "Independence" deals with the history up to 1949, but not since. Why not change it to a section called "history" which gives an overview of history down to the present? john k (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe changing the overall heading from "Independence" to "History" and including a heading like "Recent history" might be a good idea. All the information is already available in the History of the Republic of Ireland article, it just needs to be more concise if we are to include it here. Tebibyte (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Troubles restriction

I'm rather surprised that this talkpage isn't tagged with {{Troubles restriction}}. Was that a consensus decision not to tag it, or did nobody get around to doing it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be. I've always worked on the assumption it is --Snowded ^TALK 20:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So had I. But editors new to the topic would not be aware of it. Daicaregos (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It ougtta be tagged. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need those things? When there is no trouble on an article why assume there's need for restrictions? Also, as Dai and Snowded are aware, there is a question that hangs over them at all.

This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 3RR is the bright rule. Unless there is trouble there's no need for any other rule. --RA (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If its meant to be tagged then it should be, no need to have exceptions otherwise otehrs will argue that other articles should be exempt. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Others have. Two of who have commented above :-) Clearly, however, if Republic of Ireland is "Troubles-related" then so to is United Kingdom. This is probably moot. I'm going to go seek some full clarification. --RA (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for community clarification on the {{Troubles restriction}} sanction. The thread is at ANI. --RA (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This Article is in a bad state

Thanks to the petty edit warring on this article by the radicals on both sides,the article of Ireland is perhaps the most disgraceful article on any nation.Thanks a bunch guys,it was fine the way it used to be.Even looking at the diagrams that is not a proper map for this article.Sheodred (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well i suggest you seek to improve the article instead of moaning about other editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you contribute something positive to the article with your time as you clearly have not.You seem to be drawn towards articles that include Ireland and Irish like moths to a flame, and cause problems.Sheodred (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If there was not the problems with the articles in the first place i would not have to waste my time on these sorts of issues. I have plenty of other things i would love to be doing right now, but these things need to be dealt with. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because you perceive them as problems does not mean they are,and everyone else will share that opinion.People who have no political bias should clean up the article and lock it so editors such as yourself and others do not destroy it again,end of story.I have nothing more to discuss.Sheodred (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

lol i do not quite understand how i am responsible for destroying the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Geography of Republic of Ireland - British Isles and other alternate terms removed undiscussed

Tebibyte removed the following (in red font) from the geography section: (i included the references for it as well)

The country belongs to a group of islands in northwestern Europe which include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and over six thousand smaller islands. These islands are referred to as the British Isles. Although this controversial term is frequently used, various discriptions such the British and Irish Isles, Britain and Ireland or the Atlantic Archipelago are preferred. The island extends over 84,421 km² (32,595 sq mi), of which 83% belongs to the Republic of Ireland (70,280 km² (27,135 sq mi)) and the remainder constitutes Northern Ireland. It is bounded to the north and west by the Atlantic Ocean, and to the northeast by the North Channel. To the east is found the Irish Sea which reconnects to the ocean via the southwest with St George's Channel and the Celtic Sea. The west coast of Ireland mostly consists of cliffs, hills and low mountains (the highest point being Carrauntoohil at 1,038 m or 3,406 ft).

References

I don't know when this was put into the article but shouldn't such deletions be discussed beforehand? I don't see a big problem with it as it states the name of the islands, the controversy and alternate names for the islands. However if we leave it out then what name or link or whatever should be provided to allow the user to go to the British Isles article to find out about the "over six thousand ... islands"? Or do we keep the censorship? Mabuska ^(talk) 14:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, that the geographic location itself is addressed in the introduction, the article Ireland already addresses the geography of Ireland,so I agree and support with what Tebibyte has edited.Sheodred (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Why should the geography section of this article not state it is in the British Isles? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Shoedred the introduction only summarises whats in the article. There is no reason for its omission from the section actually detailing the geography and i believe this issue should be brought to the attention of BISE or whatever its called about the unwarranted removal of the term British Isles. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We were (I thought) getting close to an agreement to use BI on the island articles but not the country articles. That said removal should be reverted and the editor advised of BISE so that discussion can take place there. --Snowded ^TALK 15:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the reversion, though someone else should do it as i've reverted it twice and then reverted myself for this discussion so technically 3 reverts?? The way it was, was fine enough as it gave alternate names used for the islands too. Though the exact wording of it doesn't fit in right, but a footnote detailing the alternate names and the controversy can be provided straight after British Isles? Mabuska ^(talk) 15:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was the one that added that information in the first place. But it's too controversial, so I decided to remove it. Ireland's geographical location can easily be described without mentioning the British Isles. Tebibyte (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So controversial that no one noticed it had been in the article for a week. As far as im aware there was no riots breaking out throughout the Republic because it got mentioned lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You can banter all you want, but it's going. I also removed it because it will totally confuse some readers. It's no big deal. The word "British" appears more than enough times in this article, so you should be pleased. Tebibyte (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am never pleased when British Isles is removed from an article because of a "controversy" that people have yet to provide reliable sources to actually existing. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an entire article about it (British Isles naming dispute), so it does exist. The term is also very imperialistic and dated. I think my decision to remove it will be supported by most. End of discussion. Tebibyte (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh i am sure it will be supported by many here yes. As for imperialistic, it is no different to the Irish sea or English channel they are simply names for geographical locations. As for the naming dispute, there is certainly a dispute here on wikipedia. For many years certain editors have engaged in a crusade to remove the term from wikipedia entirely, even demanding the article itself be moved to pretend it never existed. Theres little evidence of serious controversy in the real world, just a few limited examples given. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that leaves the geography section talking about a group of islands without giving a name to that group of islands or a wiki-link to the article about them - it is more confusing for a reader. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole paragraph is terribly awkward. I tend to think we should just say that the Republic of Ireland is part of the British Isles. Certainly the removed sentences were terrible, though; does every article that mentions "British Isles" have to then go on and talk about how the term is controversial and other terms exist? Why don't we leave out the material Tebibyte removed, and then just use piping - "The country belongs to a [[British Isles|group of islands]]? That way we avoid using the controversial term in this article, but still link to the group of islands that Ireland is part of. john k (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Tebibyte (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Id be prepared to support that as a compromise on this article because i can see people strongly opposing mentioning it properly, piping would at least let those interested to find facts access it, although maybe we need a warning "Clicking this link could be controversial or offend you" :) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That would seem like a sensible way. We can all acknowledge that the term is problematic (or at least there is a not unreasonable body of opinion that consider it to be). At the same time we can all appreciate that there is a context (greater than mere geography) that we don't want issues over the term prohibiting us from mentioning.

For a very long time, this article and the Ireland article included a {{British Isles}} template. That was possible because the term was pipe linked as Britain and Ireland. That template was recently removed (I can't see the reason why) but it illustrates a point: we don't always need to use that term when we want to discuss that context. --RA (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I restored that template,see the View History,I thought it was appropiate to include it, but then again if the majority of people object, I have no problem.Sheodred (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest piping British Isles in some form however thought the idea wouldn't fly - obviously i was wrong :-) I'd support it just to save wrangling over whether the term is appropriate or not - which for the record it is as its about the geography and makes references to the collective group of islands. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Most Irish people are not hardcore "nationalist" republicans who want to erase everything related to the British from their history.;)Sheodred (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Then consign it to history. BI is a valid term in an historical context - only in history - It's gone. It has no place today. We are not living in the past. Please - do not introduce it. ClemMcGann (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a verifiable and reliable source that says the term is only valid in a historical context and that it has no place today? Especially when its still the most commonly used term for the islands which is backed up by sources. I was told it was in the lede but its not, so how is a person going to know what this group of islands is commonly called? And how are they going to get a link to that article? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

“ The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term.

Our officials in the Embassy of Ireland, London, continue to monitor the media in Britain for any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation. These include the name of the State, the President, Taoiseach and others.

”

[2]

I have no wish to get involved in this un-encyclopedic argument. Do you not know that the term BI is controversial? Doing so discredits wp. (as would continuing this discussion) ClemMcGann (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Now where in that does it say its historical. The Irish embassy can monitor what ever they like, the fact remains the term is heavily used still to this day. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It is there under the term Ireland and Britain in Geographic Locale, so leave it alone.Sheodred (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure it should be done like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Shoedred has no arguement. This section is talking about geography and the island of Ireland, in that respect it is very easily sourced and reliably sourced that the island is part of the British Isles. However i noticed the link of the islands was changed to a British Isles pipe. However we are now working alongside the guidelines of BISE, and i'm raising the issue at BISE to see whether or not the term BI is appropriate to be mentioned without piping. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Officially described as Republic of Ireland

The country is "officially" described as Republic of Ireland by the Irish government. The introduction should state this rather than just saying "described as.." BritishWatcher (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

yeah, sorry, got confused there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Officially should never have been removed from this articles introduction as it was back in January. Its questionable how much consensus back then there was for its removal. ROI is officially the description of this state. The introduction should say that Snowded. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

January is a long time ago BW so WP:BRD applies. Its an unnecessary addition and its questionable how up todate "official" is anyway --Snowded ^TALK 03:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

BRD applies? So an editor added it back in, it got reverted, i restored it because it is "officially" the description. Seb did not undo my revert. The problem with the current wording is the question of "by who" comes to mind. We should not simply say and "is described as Republic of Ireland" If use of official there or an issue of it being up to date, id support saying "described as the Republic of Ireland in the...) so its clear where the description is from. But we need to say something. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how uptodate it is Snowded - if the government hasn't over-written this piece of the The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 then its uptodate. As its a government act it makes the description of Republic of Ireland an official description. Its hardly unnecessary and questionable. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

BW - BRD does apply after over six months, you know that and you know you have posted a "I will reinstate the January position if no one objects" notice here

Mabuska, as far as I am concerned "described as" is more than enough and the common use is Ireland anyway. There are also if you go back through the interminable debates over the country name issues on current use from Irish Government sources.

Both of you, this is another storm in a teacup, any change on this is potentially controversial and should be posted here for editors to comment. Lets see what others think shall we, the world is not going to end over a day or so. --Snowded ^TALK 10:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowded its not just about you and your opinion. Its about reliability and verifibility not weight of numbers to crush all disagreement with you. The Irish government passed an act officially describing the state as the Republic of Ireland - there is no reasonable arguement that you can offer to refuse the inclusion of the term "official". Wikilawyering to back up your position is also frowned upon and i'd suggest you stop trying to game the system to your own ends and actually try to provide a proper arguement against its inclusion. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Mooretwin (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually its about allowing other editors to express an opinion --Snowded ^TALK 11:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

" any change on this is potentially controversial ". I really am getting sick of the censorship that appears to be taking place on some issues. I honestly do not see how it should be controversial to state a fact that the Irish Government officially declared ROI the description of their country. I know including this weakens the excuse that ROI is some British imposed term but it belongs in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please cool it BW you're into general accusations again. This is a minor issue, but it should still be subject to WP:BRD which means if a version has been in place for several months on what you know is a potentially controversial issue then you should propose the change and see what other people think if your change is reverted. If the discussion stands as per the current state (although I think it is generally prudent to leave it 48 hours) then putting "official" back in is fine, its not something I intend to fight about although I think its unnecessary and not strictly accurate in current use. Please follow process and stop throwing out accusations--Snowded ^TALK 12:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not making accusations about editors, simply stating im seeing a pattern of what appears to be censorship on several articles where we seem to leave off information incase its controversial for some. I did not add it into the introduction myself (i did not know it had been removed until i saw someone add it and then it being undone, which i reverted. I do not see how its not accurate to state it is the official description of the country, but i am open to being convinced if evidence is provided. Will wait and see others responses, but looking at the debate that took place in January some appeared opposed to its removal then too. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded on this,there has been no problems with any other editors since January except BW and one or two others.So keep it as it was.This is really petty behaviour on their part.Sheodred (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Petty behaviour for wanting this article introduction to state clearly that it is officially described as the Republic of Ireland? lmao. Also it is not just myself and MB. It was another editor that readded it, Seb az86556 undid that edit and i reverted saying it was accurate, and Seb replied above agreeing and did not undo my revert, that was snowded with another lecture for me in the edit summary. Another editor has since restored the text and this is all on top of the fact the debate in January showed some others opposed to its removal, i can not see clear consensus in that section for its removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Britishwatcher,I accepted your POV and edits on Celtic Nations,now you are just overstepping the line,I gave you the benefit of the doubt,but now it is clear as crystal that you only seem to have edit issues with anything in which Ireland is involved in.Sheodred (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I get involved in many different issues not just things relating to Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is ridiculous. The user who originally reverted the addition of "officially" did not object to BW's putting it back. Since then, all we've had are process arguments, along with some weak claims by snowded that the change was "unnecessary" (what does that mean?) and that "it's questionable how up to date official is," a claim which he has yet to substantiate. Why shouldn't officially be there? The best way for disputes to get personal is when they focus on whether users have violated wikipedia procedure, rather than actual content issues. Who cares whether BW violated BRD? The question should be whether or not "officially" should be in the article. john k (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Following process and allowing time for editors to comment is a very simple way of avoiding conflict, or it should be. I actually don't care too much about the use of official or not, but I do care about an unwillingness to follow that process. I really don't see what the issue is with allowing that --Snowded ^TALK 13:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the fact is Éire is the official term for the Republic of Ireland and Ireland,so why not just say Éire.Sheodred (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

These edits are wikilawyering around the clear ArbCom clarification that "... the motion enjoins editors not to rehash needlessly the debate over Ireland names. In no way does it impede the normal operation of WP:CCC ...". Now if people would prefer to carry on making points, then I sure as hell will ask for another ArbCom clarification on this. If you have consensus, then make the edit. If not, then work on the consensus, not on making obtuse points. Fmph (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You see the problem here Fmph is that there are certain fanatical editors who object to everything that is required for this article,and I am not referring to Irish nationalists.Sheodred (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Now the introduction makes no sense at all. Why does it say described as Republic of Ireland or Ireland linking to the article on the island? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Because that the Republic of Ireland and Ireland are the terms used when referring to Ireland.I also added some details in second paragraph to make some clarifications,I believe the majority of non-bias editors consider it an improvement.Sheodred (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Now even the bold of Republic of Ireland has been removed. I wont revert, but someone needs to because the changes are getting messy now. The introduction should be restored to say officially describes as the Republic of Ireland.BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to have it in bold because people already know what the Republic of Ireland is.Sheodred (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Now even "described as" has vanished from the introduction. There will be nothing left at this rate. I would think saying "officially described as the Republic of Ireland" would be far more clear and useful to the reader than just saying "Ireland of Republic of Ireland" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

".. described as the Republic of Ireland" with the link to the constitution makes exactly the same point. Basically it should go back to the position a few days ago (the lede having been stable for months) while we sort out if a change is needed here. --Snowded ^TALK 13:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying "or" is exactly the same as "described as",has the same meaning if not better,it enhances the neutrality of the article,there is no point in tripping over words in the introduction when "or" could just be used.lol.Sheodred (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ireland officially described as the Republic of Ireland. Would be very useful to the reader. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The title of the article alone addresses that,as does the link Snowded mentioned.It is fine now Sheodred (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not fine now. Your debolding of Republic of Ireland is totally unacceptable and i think the removal of "officially described as" replacing it with "or" is actually a step backwards. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be poor linking ,BW. If it needs linking then it should be linked from the actual name. Jack1297 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am open to other options on this, just so long as it states clearly in the first sentence ROI is the official description of the state. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The TITLE OF THE ARTICLE ADDRESSES THAT along with Snowded's link.Sheodred (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The lede should be reverted back to the version before any of the recent changes were made and then discussed. If there is consensus for any change it can be implemented. I have no strong opinion on what it says in the lede. Jack1297 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the term ROI was a term that was dropped by the UK despite their insistence after the Good Friday Agreement in line with EU and UN convention.(Thanks for that information Snowded) I have no problem using "described as",which after this enlightening piece of information I am more than happy to use.Sheodred (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The British government stopped using it as their official term for Ireland. Nobody cares about what the British government uses, though. The reason the article is at Republic of Ireland and the term needs to be mentioned in the ifrst line is because that is the standard term used to distinguish Ireland the country from Ireland the island. That usage is, in fact, codified in Irish law, so I'm not sure where the UK comes into it. And could anyone please present a cogent argument against "officially described". As BW, I think, notes above, without "officially," it is unclear who describes it as the Republic of Ireland. It is weaselly. john k (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.Sheodred (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The United Nations,the European Union and even the UK do not use Republic of Ireland but Ireland as the official term,therefor this debate should be finished; "officially described" will not be used.If the most powerful and influential international organisations use Ireland as the official term, than it is obvious there is no point in "officially described".It is only a few editors with out-dated and misplaced views who don't like it.Sheodred (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Officially described" explains why we're using that as the title of the article. We don't use "Ireland" as the name of the article about the state named "Ireland" because it conflicts with the name of the article about the island named "Ireland", which is much older and has gone through many different governments.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If "Officially" were to be used then there should be an immediate explanation (or link?) of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 and also a mention that it was not a constitutional amendment. Ps, I still have no strong opinion on whether it should be used or not. Jack1297 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the official description why we're using it as the title of the article? Aren't we using it as the title because it's the standard term actually in use to distinguish the state from the island, and the republic from Northern Ireland? john k (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If there were no need to disambiguate the title would be Ireland, which is the official name of the state. Jack1297 (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is, we're disambiguating with "Republic of Ireland" rather than, say "Ireland (state)" largely because "Republic of Ireland" is the "natural disambiguator" that is typically used in non-wikipedia contexts when disambiguation is necessary. It might be that "Republic of Ireland" is the natural disambiguator because of that term's status in the Irish constitution as the "official description," but ultimately that's a second order consideration. We mostly use it because it is the term in general use for that purpose. john k (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

From the responses so far and taking into account the previous debate i think its clear there is more support for "offically described as" to be included with a few who do not mind either way/oppose. When can it be readded to the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're right on that BW leave it 24 hours then run a straw poll. --Snowded ^TALK 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I disagree. This is a contentious proposal. Such decisions are not to be taken lightly. Give it time. There is no urgency to this. There has been very few responses so far. I'd suggest that the main reason for that is that people are sick and tired of all this posturing over a single word. We have a stable article. Why is any change needed? Fmph (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And we've just come out of multiple proposals to insert the equally contentious "British Isles" from the same editor. Its becoming a pattern. --Snowded ^TALK 16:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The pattern is in fact censorship of information to avoid "controversy" or upseting some editors. Of course the difference with this case is we are talking about something the Irish government itself has done. What on earth is controversial about the fact the Irish government officially gave the state the description Republic of Ireland. I have yet to hear a single justified reason against inclusion yet BritishWatcher (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand why people have a problem with Republic of Ireland anyway. If people are glad Ireland is a Republic they should like the description and want it mentioned everywhere. What is there to be ashamed about? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Look BW, to me it is beginning to look like a whole series of tokenistic insertion of "factual" words over several articles which make no substantive difference to the quality of those articles which were seem designed to make a point, That with constant accusations of anti-british bias and censorship. I'd take a week off and think about what is really necessary. --Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider stating geographical fact or explaining a term has official status is tokenistic. If it makes little difference to the article i do not understand why some put up opposition to some of the things we have been debating. As for taking a holiday, i took a few months off wikipedia and whilst i was gone certain changes were made id have strongly opposed at the time. The removal of official from that introduction being one of them. Sadly i can not be so selfish again for some time. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowded (and Shoedred) you have still failed (no surprise) to provide any substantial reason or evidence as to why "official" should be left out. I have already provided the link to the Irish government act that states that it is a description of the state which makes it official - and it hasn't been overwritten by any act since which makes it still official. Unless you can provide a substantial reason with backup to argue against it and show how its not official, your opposition to its inclusion falls flat.

The matter of fact is that who describes it as the Republic of Ireland? Who describes it is left out. The Irish government says that the description of the state (which means described) is the Republic of Ireland. Do you have any verifiable sources that explicitly state that the term Republic of Ireland is questionable, controversial and problematic??? Otherwise all we have is you and a few others words which is doesn't equate to verifiability and reliability. Provide the proof to show its a problem otherwise quit complaining. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've nothing to add to my previous statements Mabuska, I fully accept that you may not like them/accept them/find them adequate. --Snowded ^TALK 16:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded here. Give it 24hrs and see if there are other opinions forthcoming. Not a lot to ask, is it? Jack1297 (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it 24 hours and Snowded will still have nothing to back up his claims and reasons for why the term "official" shouldn't be included and how its suppossed to controversial. Reliability and verifiability Snowded thats how Wiki works, i fully accept you may not like/accept that but its how the site works. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh --Snowded ^TALK 17:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I already gave valid explanations,so I believe the 1st paragraph should stay the way it is,as does the ArbCom.Sheodred (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You did not give reasons and please point me to where Arbcom has ruled on the introduction not stating officially described or not being changed (if they ruled no change, then officially should not have been removed in January). BritishWatcher (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, give it 24 hours. For the moment attention is needed to some of the other changes Sheodred seems to be making to certain parts of the article :\. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah and your explaination Shoedred fell flat as the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 still makes it official - it has nothing to do with what the UK, UN or whatever foreign states decide to call it. All that matters is that the Irish government made the term official with that Act, which so far no-one has provided any proof that it has been overwritten. Its not like we are trying to rename the article or the very first part of the sentence which is the declaration of the official name of the state (not description), so how does ArbCom exactly come into this? 24 hours will come and go and still they'll have no sources to back up their claims. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please undo or fix this edit by Sheodred [3] i do not want to get into an edit war with the guy, but that change is totally unacceptable. He has replaced "The country is bordered to the north-east by Northern Ireland" with "The country is divided to the north-east with Northern Ireland," . I hope everyone can understand why i strongly oppose this alteration and it needs undoing. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Might i also propose that all editing to this article, especially the controversial pov edits by Shoedred, be stopped with the article returned the "stable" version prior to this whole thing occuring? Or at least discussed. For at least Shoedred we are discussing the "official" thing. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Or atleast one edit at a time so its easy to follow and revert each change if needed. The history page is looking very mixed up. I think we are back to the stable and acceptable wording now. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jack for changing that back. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Something I recommended further up, so yes, it should be reverted to the version before this all started. Mabuska, there's no need to claim that Shoedred's edits were POV. Jack1297 (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Stating the country is divided is certainly not WP:NPOV. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can assume it was a POV edit or just a badly worded edit. We should assume good faith. Anyway, it doesn't much matter now if it's back to the version before this all started. Jack1297 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes i am prepared to assume good faith on his part for the moment even though hes already suggested myself and some others have "destroyed the article" BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Im my opinion the inclusion of "official" emphasises the extremist view that the name of the country is "Republic of Ireland. The alleged "official description" is rarely used. O Fenian (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"extremist view"? "alleged official description"? lmao. It is fact that the state is officially described as the Republic of Ireland, we have the sources saying it very clearly. At the moment just saying "described as ROI" fails to explain to the reader who gave it that description. It was the Irish government which makes it an official description. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources? I've seen the link to one. Are there others? Daicaregos (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again i ask, this time to Fenian - do you have sources to back up your statements? Verifiability and reliability afterall. So does that make the Irish government extremist when it has used the term (which it has done so many times over the decades) it made official? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The primary source is the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, which hasn't been overwritten or overruled thus far. It is provided online here by the Irish Statute Book, produced by the Office of the Attorney General of the RoI government. How much more reliability, verifiability and officialness can you get? The fact they said the act could even called the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 says it all! Mabuska ^(talk) 18:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks remarkably like the one you provided earlier (which no-one seems to have doubted). Please confirm whether or not it is a different source. BritishWatcher referred to "sources". I was curious if there were others that hadn't been noted, or if he'd simply made it up. Daicaregos (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Its the exact same source, just reiterated so it can be easily found. Though the name of the act itself could be form of source as well as it clearly shows the use of the name by the Irish government. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As you were answering my post here, which contained ten words, six of which were " I've seen the link to one.", why would you do that? Daicaregos (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The source says that the description shall be the republic of Ireland. I can't find the word official there anywhere. As it stands the language is economical and reflects the source. Arguing for insertion of "official" seems to match a POV position which rejects the official and recognised name IRELAND and wishes to substitute the pre GFI POV position of emphasising ROI as a name. If we reflect the source then there is no need for "official". --Snowded ^TALK 19:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is official because the Irish government declared it. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowded your splitting hairs for the sake of trying to find something to disprove it. The fact the Irish government stated in an act that the description of the state shall be the Republic of Ireland makes it official. Just like you keep stating how "Ireland" is the official name of the state as the Irish government said so. Can't use them as an official source and then discount something else declared by them as not. We are only affecting the description of the state not the official name of it. You better make that distinction clearer Snowded. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Its official because the state has declared it in the same way they declare their name as Ireland. We are not trying to confuse people about the name of the state, otherwise we would be arguing for "officially Republic of Ireland". We want it to say Officially described as the Republic of Ireland and if we want to be clear and avoid confusion about if its still in use or not, we could just say officially described as the Republic of Ireland in the 1948 Act. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No guys, you are proposing to insert a completely unnecessary word not in the source which adds no value, I have no objection to a statement that the description is ROI or of linking to the 1948 act. --Snowded ^TALK 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sure some other sources talking about the act can be found if that is really required. I just can not get my head around why editors have a problem with "officially described as the Republic of Ireland" This act broke all ties to the British monarchy, and made the country a republic. why is it so hated? I honestly can not understand this nonsense and have never understood why the term is considered British POV by certain Irish editors.  :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My query was whether or not additional sources existed outside your imagination. It appears that at this time they do not. Daicaregos (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. Maybe Ireland did not become a republic via the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, clearly giving the state the description Republic of Ireland. It was all part of my imagination. I am glad we have resolved that. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop talking nonsense BritishWatcher. You claimed there were sources. Only one source has been provided. Your claim was false. Even you can understand that. Please stop making false claims. Daicaregos (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you want sources of? Are you disputing the fact Republic of Ireland Act 1948 exists? Came into force? gave the description of the state Republic of Ireland? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Ireland didn't become a republic until 1949. Officially, that is. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You really need to read up on Irish history and the use of the term by the British Government before the GFA, there is even an off extradition case you might want to check out. That aside you are arguing to insert "official" when the source conforms with the current text. Further the Act can be a reference from that text. So what is the argument for the insertion of the term? --Snowded ^TALK 19:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Whats the GFA and the British Government got to do with this? This is about the Irish government Snowded. Fact still stands. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) This has nothing to do with the GFA or the British Government. The Irish government when it cut all ties with the British monarchy declared itself a republic and its description was Republic of Ireland. It is their term! Not Britains. The need for a change is because we do not state WHO describes it, we simply say described as the ROI. That could be by anyone. We add officially to make clear it was by the Irish government. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't avoid the historically disputes about the phrase you know. But even if you want to, fine. Please explain how a link to the 1948 act does not make things clear? --Snowded ^TALK 19:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well i have no problem with it saying "Described as the Republic of Ireland in the 1948 Act" or something like that, it would be a big improvement from the present wording, but i see no reason why it shouldnt say officially described, that too is fact. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

""the name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland"" - Irish constitution. I do not see where it says "officially Eire/Ireland". BritishWatcher (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Very true BW, so we don't need to say officially Ireland or officially anything. The current lede is a good summary of the main article where the 1948 act is elaborated.--Snowded ^TALK 19:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The current wording does not explain who describes it as a republic of Ireland, it is no good. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And a link to the 1948 act doesn't do that? Check the main body of the text, its fully explained there. The lede summarises the text BW it doesn't replicate it. --Snowded ^TALK 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The present link doesnt because it is in the second paragraph and simply says "The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 when Ireland declared itself a republic". Nowhere in the intro does it make clear ROI is the official description by the Irish state in the ROI Act 1948. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So the fact that it says "described as the Republic of Ireland" in the lede will be read by the average reader as implying it is somehow or other unofficial? Please. It says what the ROI Act 1948 says no more and no less which is what Wikipedia should do. Further in the main body of the article the ROI Act of 1948 is more fully described. The lede should summarise the main content and conform with sources. It does that. It could be argued that the description itself is an unnecessary addition to the lede --Snowded ^TALK 20:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We do not know, there is a hell of alot of editors in this dispute who seem to think the term was dreamt up and only used by British POV pushers. The introduction does not state who describes it as Republic of Ireland, it could be anyone considering we state common names on other articles. If you are really cut up about the "official" word, then "described as the Republic of Ireland in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948." Or something like that would be a good compromise, but ive still yet to see any reason why we should not say official, id just rather that compromise than the status quo which clearly is problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which editors - the hell of a lot (how many is a hell of a lot btw? More than one perhaps?) - think the term was dreamt up and only used by British POV pushers? Or is this another example of your unfounded claims? Please provide diffs. Daicaregos (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

lol lets stay on topic shall we. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume the answer to be: Yes, this is another example of your unfounded claims. I'd still like to know how many a hell of a lot is :) Daicaregos (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this is becoming surreal. The lede simply states that it is described as the ROI. This is elaborated in the main body as is proper. We have a simple statement, referenced. There is no ambiguity as to the source of the statement whatsoever. As to your other statements about "other editors" I don't know of anyone who has ever said the term was dreamt up. It is a fact that it was preferred by the British Government and the Unionist community as the name for the country against the wishes of the Irish Government and common practice in the UN and EU. I would hope that no editor here would wish to resurrect or perpetuate that dispute which is now over. --Snowded ^TALK 20:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"The lede simply states that it is described as the ROI" - Indeed, we do not say by who in the introduction and we should. Now you may be against use of the term officially. But at the very least it should say something like "described as the Republic of Ireland in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948". BritishWatcher (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

BW not every sentence in the Wikipedia has a qualifier to say who says it. It says it is described as the ROI, a broad statement that does not need qualification. All the details are later in the article to support the statement. I am for using the proper name of the country - Ireland, describing it as a republic is fine. You are reminding me of people who insist on adding, Europe, the World, The Solar System, The Milky Way, The Universe to their address. --Snowded ^TALK 20:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If the sources say the country is officially described as Republic of Ireland? then say so in the article. No fussing. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, however in this case the source doesn't have to explicitly state "official" as it was made official by the fact the government of the actual country passed the act and made it law. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I aint checked the source, but does it have the word Official or Officially in it? If not, then don't add to content. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Simples! Fmph (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is official because the act which declares it a description was passed by the Irish government. That makes it official and we would be deleting a lot of things from wikipedia if we required something to specifically use the term "official" for it to say official in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Go directly by the source, it saves alot of migraines. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my edit to from bordered-divided, it was in good faith, not POV,so less of the accusations if you don't mind.Sheodred (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall claiming otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a good point being made here in that we should stick to what the source says. Also, what is to stop anyone demanding that it should also state that Ireland is the official name. Put all those officials in the first sentence and it wouldn't look too good. A link to the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 should be sufficient. Jack1297 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We could you know add a foot-note to it where it gives the direct quote from the Irish Statute Book website, detailing that the state's description as defined by the Irish government itself is the Republic of Ireland. If not the word official, then what term do we use to declare who describes it as the "Republic of Ireland"? The word official relates to the country's government, however as it clearly states "described" does not mean that it is the official name of the country. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We make clear in the introduction the name of the state as in the constitution is Ireland. At present no where in the introduction do we say the description Republic of Ireland was given by the state in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So the reason not to include officially is because the word officially does not appear in the text despite it being officially signed into law and an act of the Irish government. So leaving aside the word officially. What are the objections to saying: "and described as the Republic of Ireland in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. (not in italics) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No probs there. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No BW, the lede reflects the source, you want to add in a completely unnecessary word. You now suggest adding in detail which is appropriate for the article (and is there) but is not necessary in the lede which summarises the article. --Snowded ^TALK 20:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we put the word 'officially' in front of everything which talks about something which happened as a result of an official ruling by a government or governing body? "The offside rule was officially introduced in 19xx...", or "Scotland officially received a devolved parliament in 19xx...", that sort of thing. Its obviously necessary for some of the dullards that use WP. Fmph (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In the introduction it usually clearly states the official name of the state, like at France or Australia, Republic of Ireland is the official description of the state by the Irish government so why should it not do the same thing, clearly using the word description and not "name". BritishWatcher (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The above couple of posts are about saying described as the ROI in the ROI Act. Not about use of "officially" bit. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The introduction does not explain who describes the country as the Republic of Ireland. You say mentioning the Act is too much detail for the introduction, but that proposal is a compromise to avoid saying "officially" which you object to because it is not in the source. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Officially support And all things that are not official should have the word "unofficial" put before them. --RA (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What about keeping it the way it is however adding a footnote to it (after Republic of Ireland) where it can be elaborated that the Republic of Ireland Act of 1948 declares that the description of the state as enacted by the Irish government is the "Republic of Ireland" with a direct quote from the Irish Statute Book? That way it gets detailed who describes it as the Republic of Ireland, with the declaration of the exact act of parliament passed by the Irish government, which equals in my eyes actually stating official and clearly implies it as well. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A Footnote is not enough. It should state clearly in the introduction it is an official description or state who/where it is described as ROI. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

How about moving the fuss about the description down to where it can be explained more clearly explained? There is no need for other names to appear emboldened in the first sentence. They can appear anywhere in the text (see Abbreviations and synonyms in WP:LEAD).

Ireland (pronounced /ˈaɪərlənd/ , locally [ˈaɾlənd], Irish: Éire, pronounced [ˈeːɾʲə] ) is a country in north-western Europe. The modern sovereign state occupies approximately five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned into two jurisdictions in 1921. It is bordered to the north-east by Northern Ireland, which is a part of the United Kingdom, and is otherwise surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the Irish Sea to the east, St George's Channel to the south-east, and the Celtic Sea to the south. It is a constitutional republic and parliamentary democracy.

The state, initially the Irish Free State, was established on 6 December 1922 as a dominion within the British Commonwealth as a result of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which concluded the Irish War of Independence. It gained increasing sovereignty through the Statute of Westminster and the abdication crisis of 1936. A new constitution was introduced in 1937 declaring it as an entirely sovereign state, simply named Ireland. The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 when Ireland declared itself a republic, and formally ceased to be a dominion with the description (as distinct from name), Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann). Consequently Ireland left the then British Commonwealth, having already ceased to attend Commonwealth meetings since 1937.

The piece about the state formally ceasing to be a dominion in 1949 should be removed as it is incorrect. The state ceased to be a dominion in 1937 when it declared itself sovereign. Rather, in the years between 1937 and 1949 the status of the state as a republic or constitutional monarchy was ambiguous. --RA (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that. Republic of Ireland belongs at the start of the introduction, not near the end. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland is the title of the article. It's hardly going to be missed if it isn't mentioned in the first sentence. Jack1297 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact it is the title makes it all the more important we explain it right away in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I support it.Sheodred (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As the title of the article Republic of Ireland should be stated as close to the start of the article as possible, in otherwords the first sentence. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How about something like this? Tebibyte (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ireland (pronounced /ˈaɪərlənd/ , locally [ˈaɾlənd], Irish: Éire, pronounced [ˈeːɾʲə] ), described as the Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann), is a country in north-western Europe. The modern sovereign state occupies approximately five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned into two jurisdictions in 1921. It is bordered to the north-east by Northern Ireland, which is a part of the United Kingdom, and is otherwise surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the Irish Sea to the east, St George's Channel to the south-east, and the Celtic Sea to the south. It is a constitutional republic and parliamentary democracy.

The state, initially the Irish Free State, was established on 6 December 1922 as a dominion within the British Commonwealth as a result of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which concluded the Irish War of Independence. It gained increasing sovereignty through the Statute of Westminster and the abdication crisis of 1936. Formal links with the United Kingdom was severed through the 1937 constitution and the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, which declared it as an entirely sovereign state named Ireland, with the Republic of Ireland as its supplementary legal description. Consequently Ireland left the then British Commonwealth, having already ceased to attend Commonwealth meetings since 1937.

I would be willing to accept a compromise along those lines if it could get consensus although it still leaves you with the question "by who" until you get to the second paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer this version. The description "Republic of Ireland" should be mentioned in the first sentence. ~Asarlaí 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition to my proposal, I wouldn't mind if it read "officially described as the Republic of Ireland", as it would indicate that the government describes the state as such. Although, I'm not sure if that would get unanimous support. Tebibyte (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think just saying "officially described as..." in that first sentence would resolve the matter better than a full rewrite which may be even harder to get agreement on. Quite a few editors have said theyd support it and it was only removed in January 2010 without clear consensus then either. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Where does "supplementary" come in? Also, formal links weren't severed by the 1937 constitution, rather the constitution built upon a series of constitutional steps away from 1922 to 1937. It was the 1949 act that severed the last link. Also it conflates the ROI Act and the constitution. That may make sense from a UK perspective (where acts of parliament are the constitution but not form an Irish or worldwide view) - and probably because the topic is being looked at from the perspective of the two names/descriptions of the state, which this article is not about. Don't conflate the constitution and the ROI Act.

We are in a bit of a bind on this issue because Wikipedia, from what I read at least, is the only general publication that properly treats the (undefined) destination between "name" and "description". That is not a bad thing. The difference does exist. It is good that we treat it properly. However it means that we are very limited in the sources we can look to.

The relevant primary documents are as follows:

• The constitution says: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."
• The Republic of Ireland Act says, "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."
• The Supreme Court clarified in 1989 that "Éire" was not a name the state in English and that "Ireland" was the sole name of the state in English.

There are only a handful of academic articles that I can see that treat the topic. This excellent one used to available to read online but not any more.

However, we have in these enough to simply state the facts. No more, no less. Without commenting or editorialising. --RA (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol Tebibyte thats what me and BW were argueing for lol. At RA, so what exactly does that mean, official or not?

The above proposal is better and i think we are on the right path to getting this sorted. Though BW's concern is still viable. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to add that if you go back far enough, you'll find previous arguments about 'officially described' and 'legally described' that concluded with just leaving it as 'described'. Mmmfpff! . --Red King (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I see a debate on this matter from January 2010 where a 1 editor (who hasnt commented this time) was against removal of officially. There didnt appear to be consensus in that debate and the edit warring that took place back then also suggests some others were unhappy with it. We just seemed to get stuck with the version with it removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How about this:

Ireland (pronounced /ˈaɪərlənd/ , locally [ˈaɾlənd], Irish: Éire, pronounced [ˈeːɾʲə] ), described as the Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann), is a country in north-western Europe. The modern sovereign state occupies approximately five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned into two jurisdictions in 1921. It is bordered to the north-east by Northern Ireland, which is a part of the United Kingdom, and is otherwise surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the Irish Sea to the east, St George's Channel to the south-east, and the Celtic Sea to the south. It is a constitutional republic and parliamentary democracy.

The state, initially the Irish Free State, was established on 6 December 1922 as a dominion within the British Commonwealth as a result of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which concluded the Irish War of Independence. It gained increasing sovereignty through the Statute of Westminster and the abdication crisis of 1936. A new constitution was introduced in 1937 declaring it as an entirely sovereign state, simply named Ireland. The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 when the Oireachtas (the National Parliament) removed the last duties of the monarch and "declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." Consequently Ireland left the then British Commonwealth, having already ceased to attend Commonwealth meetings since 1937.

It also makes the clearer descrinction between the fact that it was the Oireachtas, not "Ireland" (in the form the people or the Constitution) that gave the description and that it did not actually declare a republic but merely removed the last duties. --RA (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it need to have National Parliament added in? Surely the Oireachtas link will provide the reader the info on what it is. Though stating Oireachtas is more accurate as it is an act of it. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind. I only added it because "Oireachtas" might not be understood by all ("national parliament" is the phrasing used in the Constitution but "parliament" might be simpler, if we were to keep it or use another word in place of Oireachtas). --RA (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Id rather it said (national parliament) considering this is before the term is explained anywhere else. However i would also rather it clearly state the Republic of Ireland Act rather than just piping about the duties of the monarch being removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with this version. And about your previous question RA, in my proposal the word "supplementary" is used because the term "Republic of Ireland" is deprecated by the state. Tebibyte (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I do think the act needs to be clearly stated, like the Statute of Westminster and the Constitution is. So something like.. "The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 after the Oireachtas (the National Parliament) passed the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 that removed the last duties of the monarch and "declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." BritishWatcher (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with this layout. I also support BW's rewording, although may I suggest: "The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 after the Oireachtas (the "national parliament") passed the Republic of Ireland Act that removed the last duties of the monarch and declared that "the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland". ~Asarlaí 00:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that RA. I don't see the need to add the Act's name - its in the body and just clutters up the lede --Snowded ^TALK 02:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I like RA's version, as well. john k (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think its all way too wordy for the lede, but if stabilises the article I'll accept RAs version. Fmph (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well my first choice is to leave well alone, my second would be RAs without an addition. If that will stop multiple attempts to insert token words then the compromise is worth it --Snowded ^TALK 08:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone honestly think that this suggested change improves the article? It looks like the committee led compromise it is attempting to be. The intro is fine as it is. The suggested amendment adds nothing to the understanding of the subject, and reads worse. Daicaregos (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Failing to mention clearly the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 if we can not state officially in the first sentence will not address the problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There we have it. Attempted appeasement of entrenched positions is a waste of time anyway. So why bother. The current intro is just fine as it is. Daicaregos (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Censorship of fact because certain editors do not like something is far worse. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BW will you please STOP these continued accusations of censorship. The article contains a full reference to the Act, the question is what is needed in the lede. That should be an open discussion without these ignorant accusations. Its not censorship and its failure to follow WP:AGF, it also seems designed to raise the temperature. Such accusations constitute about 50% of your posts over the last few days. --Snowded ^TALK 11:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I back Asarlai's slight amendment to BW's:

“ The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 after the Oireachtas (the "national parliament") passed the Republic of Ireland Act that removed the last duties of the monarch and declared that "the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland". ~Asarlaí 00:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC) ”

And Daicaregos i believe it improves the article as it clearly and immediately makes it clear what declares the state is described as the Republic of Ireland etc and how it was an act passed by the state itself, without hiding it in the article body or wording it so that any notion that the Irish state actually condoned the term's usage is hiding away. Not everyone reads the entire article and its important to get the key points stated in the lede as they are the most commonly read parts of an article. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If we said that in the second paragraph it would take away the need to put "officially" in the first sentence about Republic of Ireland, so it seems like a reasonable compromise and is worded well. That will clearly explain where the term comes from for the reader and its status. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the above to the article (with a change that the link point to Monarch of Ireland, rather that UK, as it was in 1949).

I don't understand what the fuss over "official" is/was but the version above is at least more accurate, and corrects an error, compared to the previous version. No facts are being "censored" by not adding "official". It would be a baseless addition IMHO and open to varying interpreation according to each readers eye. The raw facts are better stated simply as they are. --RA (talk) 10:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That second paragraph looks good and more clearly presents an important Act in the Republics history which got lost in a pipelink until now. I think the intro is now far better than it was thanks. I agree there is no censorship in the introduction now it clearly presents where the term came from. To be honest it is far better to state it clearly there than just say officially yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just one thing, should "The description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland" be in italics or is it ok in ordinary text? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Closure here was premature. Daicaregos (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem with that wording? The compromise should be ok with all sides, it avoids saying "officially" but clearly states the Act where the description is given. So despite still thinking officially is justified in the first sentence, im prepared to support that introduction now it makes clear where the term comes from. Leaving aside the description issue, the Act itself was rather important and should have been clearly mentioned rather than pipelinked like the article had done before. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. I've reverted RA's last change as per WP:BRD. The previous version was just fine, and the insistence that the name of the Act gets included in the lede appears to be the primary motivation for these changes, which is petty and WP:POINTy. --HighKing (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What are your objections to that wording? The Act in question is the most important Act in the history of the Republic of Ireland. Why should it not be clearly mentioned? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --HighKing (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is broke, atleast 4 editors have requested a change. The present wording only came about in January 2010 when someone removed the term officially. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Its a long time since January and we need to reach a consensus. --Snowded ^TALK 11:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We do need to reach consensus, the proposed compromise addresses concerns from people on both sides. It does not just state "officially", but the introduction does clearly explain where the term comes from and its status. I do not see what objections there are to this change. So far all Highking has said is if it aint broke dont fix it, many of us think it is broke currently for reasons we have stated before. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, HK, it is broke.

The sentence you reverted to contains an error ("...and formally ceased to be a dominion."). The 26 counties ceased to be a domininion in 1937. Also, though not an error, the statement that the state "Ireland declared itself a republic" is open to question. First, it was the Oireachtas exactly, not Ireland, but more to the point, the ambigious status of the 1937 constitution and statements such as Devs in 1943 that "we are already a republic" make it less clean cut than that.

The version you reverted was more accurate and did not contain the error. --RA (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@RA, no problem with fixing that point at all, and it's a very good point to fix. --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, so lets work through the options and reach an agreement on how best to deal with this, both in the article and the lede. I am concerned that we are overloading the lede with detail that is already (or should be covered) in the main content. --Snowded ^TALK 11:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Is it really necessary? Fmph (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 is the most important Act (outside of the constitution) in the country's history. I can not see any reason why it should not be clearly stated in that introduction, saying it does not take up a lot of space or overload the introduction. I can see one reason why people may not like it there, although i hope it is not the reason and i will WP:AGF but until specific reasons against stating it are explained, it seems rather odd. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@Fmph - I don't think it is. The only thing that needs to be changed is the misstatement about Ireland ceasing to be a dominion in 1949. The other more accurate statements about the 1949 act are nice to have IMHO - I don't think they do any harm - but like Snowded says we don't need this kind of detail in the lead. --RA (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If we can not say officially in the first sentence then we need to be clear where it is officially described as ROI in the second paragraph. I do not see how mentioning the Act is problematic, it is giving the reader more detail by stating the most important Act (after the constitution) in the country's history. It mentions the statute of Westminster and the new constitution. The ROI Act should not get lost in a pipelink. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well one editor is clearly showing that their opposition is not just centered around the use of the word "official" in case it hints thats the official name of the state but even the statement of the government act that gave the state the description of "Republic of Ireland". Why are a couple of editors so desperate to deny that the Irish government passed an act that described the state as the Republic of Ireland? Does it contradict their arguements elsewhere that its a British coined phrase when clearly its not?

As i've already stated it should be stated in the lede as not everyone reads the entire article, and the key points gets shown in the lede. This is a key point as it informs the reader who and why the state is "described as the Republic of Ireland". Trying to gloss over it and bury it in the article is tantamount to censorship and denial. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is in a better condition now, I suggest it stays the way it is despite the small entrenched opposition.By the way, what is the national motto of Ireland?Does anyone know what it is and can they provide citations?Sheodred (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, what I think is rather WP:POINTy is the insistence that the primary importance of the Act is the fact that it gave the state an official description. Most of us would see that as a rather trivial side-effect of the Act that severed the final ties with the United Kingdom. And for that reason, I believe it's important to *not* mention this in the lede, as it is *obviously* misleading the vast number of uninformed editors here. --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a trivial side effect of the act and the wording did not treat it as such. It stated very clearly the ROI Act removed all ties to the British Monarchy and gave the state the description republic of Ireland. This is the most important Act after the constitution in the country's history. It should be clearly stated, by not stating such things we are causing more confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You and Snowded and anyone else who has disagreed with the addition of "official" and now an addition of the actual Irish government act which means we don't mention "official" have all failed to provide a single verifiable source to say why its controversial and shouldn't be included. Wikipedia is not weight of numbers - its verifiability and reliability. I'd say the Irish government is a verifiable and reliable source on to what they describe the country they run as.

All key points raised by me or BW have been as usual ignored in the hope that continually saying no and complaining will succeed in preventing any change. You guys mightn't like the fact the Irish government passed an act that described the state as the "Republic of Ireland" but its fact, and it should be declared who or what exactly describes Ireland as the Republic of Ireland.Mabuska ^(talk) 14:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Mabuska - I can't find many articles with multiple insertions of official and unofficial based on editors inference. The onus is on you to argue why such a word should be inserted. --Snowded ^TALK 15:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@Sheodred, thanks for your work! This is an article that I was afraid to touch but has been on my wishlist to improve. I appreciate that you say it should be left as it is but it is still a long way off from being a good article. You have done an excellent job of opening it up after a long period of staleness and I don't think the ball should be dropped now.

On the question of the national motto, there is none. Several may apply to the wider/historical country of Ireland (i.e. the island of Ireland) e.g. Éire go breagh; but the state has no motto. I have seen some imagintative ones appear here from time-to-time though! --RA (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all RA,but Snowded and others (including yourself) deserve more credit for what you have contributed to the well being of the article, I appreciate what you said :).But regarding the motto perhaps we can add "unofficial" to the national motto,I'm sure that would work out.Sheodred (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we keep this to the topic and issues raised instead of deflecting away from the issue and continually ignoring the points stated. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@HK and all - I agree, HK, that this is a relatively trivial matter but, then again, at most a third of a sentence is being proposed to be given over to it. If it is of interest to people, and verifiable, then how bad?

Would you be OK with the following:

The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 when the Oireachtas (national parliament) passed the Republic of Ireland Act that removed the remaining duties of the monarch. Consequently, Ireland left the then British Commonwealth, having already ceased to attend Commonwealth meetings since 1937.

The "name" vs. "description" (and all of the other monikers) can be described in more detail in the Etymology section, which could (should?) be renamed as Name of the state. Possibly a subsection in that dealing specifically with the "description", might draw enough attention to it to satisfy those with greater interest in that aspect than others?

@Sheodred, both the long and the short answer is that the state doesn't have a motto (either unofficial or otherwise). --RA (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok no problem, there is time for that later.Regarding the above proposal, it is much better,it is more informative and scholarly.Sheodred (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How is the above more informative when information has been removed explaining the Act described the state as Republic of Ireland. It is the whole reason for the debate we are having now. You were against officially being in the first sentence, the compromise was to state it was described as ROI in the ROI Act. Where is the harm in that? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No sorry that will not do. If the introduction is not allowed to say officially because some people do not like the term, the second paragraph needs to state clearly the Republic of Ireland Act gave the description of the state as Republic of Ireland. Nobody has yet to give a reason why they opposed the previous version which Highking undid. All he was prepared to say was if it aint broke dont fix it. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That change would mean no where in the introduction do we state clearly WHO describes the state as the Republic of Ireland which was the whole point about a compromise to avoid saying "officially" which some people simply refuse to accept is accurate but have provided no evidence to suggest otherwise. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Its only much better for some as it omits the description of the state by the state - which is actually less informative. Its sourced, there is nothing contradicting it, so what on earth is there to prevent its inclusion?

As BW said - who describes it as the Republic of Ireland? We could remove the "describe" bit in the first sentence and state "also known as" but that'd start a hoohah as well with the same editors. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So what is happening. A reasonable compromise was placed in the article, it got undone.. now none of those demanding it not be added can even be bothered to carry on debating this. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

From what i've seen over the past while on several debates its a common pattern for sudden quietness from the "no" camp. Still no sources provided as to why the inclusion is troublesome or problematic other than baseless claims. Who describes the state as the Republic of Ireland? Tom, Dick & Harry? No wait it was the Irish government, better not tell the deniers. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey ya'll try this feather in the cap. For duration of this article current name? let's not use official in the context. But, should the article ever be moved to Ireland or Ireland (country) etc? Then we add official. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

well to avoid using the term official in the first sentence, the compromise was for the second paragraph to say..

"The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 when the Oireachtas (national parliament) passed the Republic of Ireland Act that removed the remaining duties of the monarch and declared that "the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland". Consequently Ireland left the then British Commonwealth, having already ceased to attend Commonwealth meetings since 1937."

But sadly it got undone by one editor and nobody has stated why the changed wording is a problem. Are you ok with that wordirng if it means we avoid saying official? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I officially accept this version. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal is not an improvement to what it currently is,it is a step backwards,there is a footnote and a link there, should readers feel to delve further into the subject. Also, I added the template for the British Isles in the Geographic Locale section under Ireland and Britain, so BW this discussion is more or less finished in relation to your insistence on adding the Republic of Ireland Act and the British Isles.Sheodred (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What is your objection to the above proposed wording? It clearly explains where the term Republic of Ireland comes from. Saying that there means we do not have to say officially in the first sentence, i thought that was a fair compromise, i dont see why its not an improvement. Its making an Act (the most important Act in the country's history) clearer rather than it being hidden in a pipelink. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing more to add to what I said,I gave you the reasons why.Sheodred (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You supported.

"The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 when Ireland declared itself a republic, and formally ceased to be a dominion with the description (as distinct from name), Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann). Consequently Ireland left the then British Commonwealth, having already ceased to attend Commonwealth meetings since 1937."

All the proposed change to that was is to clearly state Republic of Ireland Act which will make it easier for readers to see the Act in question that made the country a republic and where it was described as ROI. Where is the harm in that? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No offence BW but if every editor took your advice regarding your methods adding quotations from legislature into articles when footnotes and links would suffice, almost every article on the nations of the world would suffer. Your claim regarding the Republic of Ireland Act being the most important in the history of the Irish state is woefully ignorant, most Irish people would consider the Third Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1972 (above all) , Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1992 , Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1992 and the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act , 1995 the most important, so less of your claims as you evidently lack the knowledge of Irish Law to make them.Sheodred (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not just about a "quote" the state declared itself a republic and made its official description "Republic of Ireland". That is a pretty big deal and notable. I consider it more notable than the Act which led to Ireland joining the European Union. This is the Act that made the county a republic and broke all links with the British monarchy.. Its a big deal. The reason to change this paragraph is so we explain WHO described the country as ROI. At the moment the introduction fails to make this clear anywhere. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I consider it more notable than the Act which led to Ireland joining the European Union. My point exactly.Sheodred (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Act in question is pipelinked in the introduction at present because it is when the country declared itself a republic. I am sorry if you think EU membership is a bigger deal than if your country is a Republic of a constitutional monarchy, but we do note the country is part of the EU already in the introduction anyway. The Constitution of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland Act are two key developments in the country's political and constitutional history. This surely can not be denied? Are you honestly suggesting an amendment to allow divorce is more important to Irelands constitutional status than the fact it became a republic? and would be just as deserving as a mention in the introduction? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The act is clearly mentioned and explained in the body of the text. The purpose of the lede is to summarise the article not to replicated it. In that context the break from Britain is key and that is clear. There is therefore no need to go into the detail of act in the lede. This is wikipedia 101 and I really can't understand why you are insisting. Unless (and I clutching at straws here) you think the relationship with the Queen is the most important thing? --Snowded ^TALK 07:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i thought my position was clear. If we are not going to say the Republic of Ireland is the official description of the country, because you guys dont like "officially" then we need to say WHERE the description comes from. Hence the wording saying the Republic of Ireland Act stated that it "shall be described as Republic of Ireland". BritishWatcher (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it OK to make the following change at least:

The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 when the Oireachtas (national parliament) passed the Republic of Ireland Act that removed the remaining duties of the monarch. Consequently, Ireland left the then British Commonwealth, having already ceased to attend Commonwealth meetings since 1937.

...that would correct the error about ceasing to be a dominion and avoids an Easter egg link. IMHO it is more accurate about the origin of the act and is clearer about its significance too.

I don't mind the quote from the act about the "description" appearing in the lead but do agree with others that it is not the most significant part of the act and wouldn't strike me as lead stuff. --RA (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No sorry but that does not address the actual problem. The whole reason for a change is so we make clear where the term Republic of Ireland comes from. That proposed wording does not. And so far its been over 15 hours since your addition was undone and they have given no actual reason why they oppose it. They all go silent. The compromise proposal you inserted to the article should be readded with one exception the "shall be describes as Republic of Ireland", should be in italics. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't address your concern, it addresses other concerns i.e. the error in the current text, the easter egg link, greater accuracy about the origin of the Act, the consequence of it, etc. I'm not proposing that this is the end of the road for you; I just want to make these improvements now. We can continue the discussion and these changes can be changed again later if necessary. --RA (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No the full change should be implemented that addresses all issues. They have given no reason why it should not be included and others have shown support for the proposal. I am not going to support a change to the introduction now which will result in these people saying its all been resolved now when it does nothing to solve the problem that started this whole debate. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a seperate issue. Improvements to the article be held up simply because they don't address separate concerns. I'll change the text but that doesn't mean that this discussion is "closed". You still have concerns about the article that have not been addressed. --RA (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It is held up because they refuse to accept a very reasonable compromise to avoid saying "officially". BritishWatcher (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BW - they object to the word "official" in case it says the country is officially called the Republic of Ireland (even though it states described, which means thats bull), and then when we offer a compromise that omits official but instead declares a quote from the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, they still say no. It is obvious certain editors are trying to get rid of the term "Republic of Ireland" from Wiki as much as others are trying to get rid of the term "British Isles" - whilst trying to prevent any hint that it wasn't the British who coinded the term in the first place or made it an official description of the state with the RoI Act 1948.

Shoedred you may think it adds nothing to the article but your reinstatement of the template doesn't address this issue. You and another have failed to provide any reason or sources to back up your stance as to why it shouldn't be included. Its sourced, its not contentious in the real world as there are no sources that state it is - so give the real reason? If we took this along the content dispute path i'd bet non-involved editors would see no problems with it for the reasons thats it sourced and there is no reliable sources that say its contentious or a problem. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way no-one has discussed my earlier idea of using a footnote reference after described as the Republic of Ireland for clarification on who describes it with a direct quote from the act - it would also prevent the so called "adds nothing to the lede" complaints. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to a footnote. Adding "officially" before the description would raises more questions than it answers IMHO. A footnote could briefly clarify the origin of the "description", clear up how it is different from the "name" - but (possibly) say that ROI is frequeltly used as a name.

It might be an idea to base the footnote on the three primary documents (Constitution, ROI Act and Supreme Court ruling) in doing so as they are the authoritative and defining sources on this matter. And there is no room for misinterpretation (and so disagreement) in the statements that they make. --RA (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Direct full quotes from the sources leaves no room for misinterpretation (in his case its only one small sentence), though for the time being there is no harm in just using the RoI Act 1948 at this moment as its the one easiest to add in at the minute and easiest to find too lol :-P A footnote link would also prevent it being buried away as they are eye-catching and twig the curiousity of readers, whilst avoiding the so called "cluttering" and "adding nothing" to the lede. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to support just a footnote on this matter because some editors clearly do not like the fact the government gave the description Republic of Ireland. It should be presented clearly in the second paragraph of the text or it should state officially in the first sentence. They have yet to give any valid reasons to oppose the change, they just do not like it. It is a blatant case of censorship of important information. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Subdivide for sake of finding the edit button

BW does have a very good point about the fact there are no valid reasons not to include it in the lede, at least nothing that they can back up with sources and Wiki is about verifiability and reliability not weight of numbers or "shout no till they drop it" - should we take the issue along the content dispute path and see what uninvolved people who hopefully don't have a biased viewpoint on this think? I'd safely assume they'd back the use of a verifiable source over unsourced claims that is full of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst the people opposing can not even be bothered to give reasons i do not see the point of dispute resolution, if they do not engage the new text should be inserted. Highking who undid RAs edit has simply said if it aint broke dont fix it, hes not stated reasons why he opposes the text, and we know hes been active on the BI issue so hes been about. If we can not get agreement to insert this reasonable well sourced change (especially as officially was removed in January with limited debate) then yes we will have to take other steps. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether something is broken or not depends on personal POV, and reverts without a viable reason backed up by facts should be reverted. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Now another change to the wording has been made, with no agreement here. Yet the sentence we seek requested which several editors support about it declaring the description Republic of Ireland is not allowed. It gets undone and we are told we have to debate it and the other side can not even be bothered to comment. Its disgusting and pathetic. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

They think that weight of numbers rules and that if they keep together they can determine everything but Wiki doesn't work like that. Unless Shoedred or Snowded or whoever can provide a single source that states that the RoI Act 1948's statement that the state is described as the Republic of Ireland is actually controversial and problematic in the real-world then they will have to accept its inclusion as they will have no case against its inclusion. Reliability and verifiability - but those who'd ignore those two key foundations of Wikipedia would be the first to use those terms when it suits them. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but this is getting absurd. There is no issue about inclusion in the lede of the fact that Ireland (the state) is a republic or reference elsewhere to the act itself; the article already has both and there are no objections. Mabuska your statement above implies that this is being opposed which it is not so please don't misrepresent my or other editors position. The issue has been proposals to insert "official" and/or the specific name of the act in the lede. No valid vase has been made for the use of the official word which is not contained in the source and insertion would be a form of original research. Other articles are not littered with multiple qualifiers as to the official or unofficial nature of cited facts whose meaning is clear. Further the full act is quoted in the body of the text. The lede SUMMARISES the main body of the article and adding in the act in a summary is not necessary and has been pointed out above is unusual. We now have the additional absurdity that having failed to make a case for the insertion of "offical" a claim is made that inserting the name of the act would be a compromise. This is not the way to create an enccycolpedia. A lede is a summary, the body of the text should have cited material. At the moment it does that well and no case has been made for changne. --Snowded ^TALK 19:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue was no longer about official but a comrpomise that was offered about a line stating who "describes" the state as the Republic of Ireland. Thats the issue - the lede doesn't say who describes it as the Republic of Ireland. How do you propose to remedy that? The inclusion of a line that makes it clear that the Irish government gave the state the description of "Republic of Ireland" is what is now being proposed. But it appears some people don't want it acknowledged in the lede that the state allowed such a term to have existence. I do know how strongly some editors here feel against the term "Republic of Ireland" so i'm not surprised by the want to keep the fact it was an Irish invented term hidden away out of the lede and into the article body.

Having said that i've already said i;d be happy with a footnote ref straight after "described as the Republic of Ireland", for it needs stated by who describes it as such. RA has stated agreement with that as a solution. Whether BW would be happy with that is up for him to say. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not normal or necessary to include footnotes in the lede when the material is present in the main body of the article. A summary summarises and its not hiding something away if it is clearly articulated in the main body of an article. I for one don't object to the use of republic in the lede and more elaborately in the article, but I do object to tokenistic efforts to unduly emphasise it. --Snowded ^TALK 06:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I will accept a footnote after ROI in the first sentence clearly explaining the source of the term being the Republic of Ireland Act. The fact Republic of Ireland Act is now clearly presented in the second paragraph also should help people understand where the term has come from and that paragraph is actually worded well, its rather difficult now to see exactly where "and is described as Republic of Ireland" will fit in. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not normal to include footnotes in the lede? Its nothing new on Wikipedia and sounds like yet another attempt to prevent a reader from easily finding out who describes Ireland as the Republic of Ireland. This isn't about the term republic Snowded, its about the term "Republic of Ireland". Can you accept that term in full? Firstly you complained the word "officially described" would make it look like thats its official name. Secondly you objected to a declaration of what gave Ireland the description of Republic of Ireland in the lede which omitted the term "official". And now you are objecting on the basis of footnotes don't go in ledes. Whats the next excuse? A footnote as i proposed way above would be the best solution and allow the reader to find out who exactly describes it as the Republic of Ireland - yes the Irish government. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A note should be fine, especially as theres already two notes in that introduction and have been there for some time. A note seems a reasonable compromise to avoid stating it in full again within the introduction or using the word officially, which would still be the easiest solution and was in the article previously. All that really needs doing is changing Ref 7 into a slightly more detailed Note 2. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I like the edit that was made yesterday (which has since been reverted) where in the first sentence we simply say "described by the Government of Ireland as the Republic of Ireland". That would be good if officially is not allowed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not accurate, it is described as such in a 1920s Act, and that citable fact is covered in the main body of the article --Snowded ^TALK 12:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It is described as Republic of Ireland in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. How is it not accurate to say the Government of Ireland describes it as such? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly you are right its 1948 not the 1920s thank you for that correction. If you move into the modern day you will find examples of use and rejection (included the famous rejection of an extradition request). This is basic history. Aside from that any additional material in the lede is excessive, the main body of the article covers this issue well and is properly summarised in the lede. Please just leave it --Snowded ^TALK 12:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Until the Government of Ireland repeal the 1948 Act or change it. Republic of Ireland is the official description of the state by the Irish government. It is not inaccurate to say that, and i am unsure why we are avoiding saying it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose the use of a footnote reference to sort the issue on who exactly describes Ireland as the Republic of Ireland. Its too vague even if its the lede and avoids putting "too much" into the lede and avoids the so-called dodgy term "official". Mabuska ^(talk) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ill still accept that compromise, although i am still concerned that people do not seem to think "Officially" / "the government describes it as".. is accurate. Theres not been any other objections to that proposal, so the change should be made then we can close this debate. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, you guys keep repeating the same points time and time again and I can't see anyone else coming in to support you --Snowded ^TALK 21:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not see lots of editors coming in and opposing either, especially after several agreed to proposals that more clearly state who describes the ROI as ROI. Putting it in a footnote, is a minor alteration that should not even be considered controversial, it is shocking that it is. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there's apparent indecision on any changes, perhaps it's best to revert to earlier content version. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I suspect everyone is brain dead and has better things to do that engage with constant repetition of the same point an an apparent inability to see the difference between the lede and main content. Stable state sounds a good idea. --Snowded ^TALK 21:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The current version is better than the old one, however as pointed out in the edit summary when these changes were made. this issue is still outstanding. A footnote after description Republic of Ireland hardly seems unreasonable to explain the term and where it came from. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons. Rather than trying to imply that "Republic of Ireland" is bandied about as a name due to an obscure Act, perhaps we should face reality and insert a footnote of "Republic of Ireland is the legal name of the state in the UK and used throughout British media" because that's the real reason the term is used as a name. --HighKing (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

an obscure act? lmao. Am i missing something here? This is the Act that made Ireland a Republic, completely breaking its ties with the British Monarchy after how many centuries of involvement in Irish history? The idea this is an "obscure" Act is laughable. I am sorry but i can only see one reason why people would like to hide this act and the description it gave to the state. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say it was an obscure point in the act. Of course the act itself is notable. But for you to try to make out that the central point of the act is the creation of an official description, and to imply this as the notable reason the predominance of "Republic of Ireland" as a name ... now that's laughable, and ignoring the real reason. In the past, the British tried to avoid using "Ireland" and some editors here, like you, are still trying to imply a respectability to this practice. Trying to insert this obscure point into the article to score a political point isn't surprising though, but it won't happen for such transparent reasons. --HighKing (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course the key thing about the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 was that it made the country a republic, rather than the description itself, i have never said otherwise. But that is one reason why i was strongly supporting the ROI act be clearly stated in the introduction rather than pipelinked, so that the important act is clear for all to see. It now is thankfully and there for the introduction is far superior to the previous wording. However we are left with the problem of WHO describes the country as Republic of Ireland. We need to make clear somewhere the term comes from the Republic of Ireland Act. Doing this in a footnote seems reasonable, and it could of course also state other usage, like by the UK, by the countrys football team and things like that, but thats another matter. The key thing is to atleast explain where ROI comes from and why it is stated in the introduction like it is. I see no reason why we should not inform the reader of these things. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It made the country a republic. It didn't name the country "Republic of Ireland". The description is a minor and obscure point in the act. The idea that we are left with the problem of WHO describes the country as "Republic of Ireland" doesn't follow on from the point the country declared a republic. In fact, I can't think of anyone who uses the term "Republic of Ireland" as a description, or says things like "Ireland is a Republic of Ireland", which is how you would use a "description" in a discussion. --HighKing (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying it named the country Republic of Ireland. We are saying it gave the country its official description - Republic of Ireland. As we say described as ROI in the intro, we need to be clear who describes it as ROI to avoid confusion and clearly inform people as not all understand where the term comes from. The Irish government declared it the description, its not my fault they did that and we can not hide it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowded we repeat the same thing over and over again as you all still fail to address issue using the same excuses to back it up. I've seen ledes made more complicated to suit certain PoV's, a footnote is hardly going to be overkill. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So nothing more to say? When i get time very soon i'll be taking this to the Neutral PoV board to see whether or not its justifiable or not to use a footnote reference. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah before i do... so Snowded notes in the lede when stuff is already covered the article "not normal or necessary", do you propose we delete the two footnotes already in the lede especially as the one about the Irish War of Independance is already mentioned in the article? Add to that the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 isn't even properly detailed and there is no mention made of "Republic of Ireland" as declared by the act in the article itself? Other lame excuse exposed. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)