| Revision as of 03:22, 29 November 2008 editMatt Lewis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers9,196 edits →Proposed move to Ireland (island): r← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:22, 7 January 2025 edit undoMossWoodMetric (talk | contribs)54 edits →Ireland is not a "British" isle: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Move|Ireland (island)|section=Proposed move to Ireland (island)}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
|
{{Calm|lightgreen}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Hiberno-English}} |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|
|
{{Article history|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=19:28, 15 April 2006 |
|
|action1date=19:28, 15 April 2006 |
|
|action1result=listed |
|
|action1result=listed |
| Line 18: |
Line 19: |
|
|action3result=not listed |
|
|action3result=not listed |
|
|action3oldid=247349387 |
|
|action3oldid=247349387 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=GAN |
|
|
|action4link=Talk:Ireland/GA2 |
|
|
|action4date=11:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|action4result=listed |
|
|
|action4oldid=354414345 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=GAR |
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Ireland/2 |
|
|
|action5date=08:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|action5result=delisted |
|
|
|action5oldid=936577796 |
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|topic=geography |
|
|topic=geography |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WPB |
|
|
|1={{WikiProject Ireland|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Ireland|importance=top}} |
|
|2={{WikiProject Celts|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Celts|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islands}} |
|
|3={{Project Catholicism|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject UK geography|importance=Top}} |
|
|4={{WP1.0|class=B|category=Geography|coresup=yes|WPCD=yes}} |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|5={{FAOL|Astur-Leonese|ast:Islla d'Irlanda}} |
|
|
|
{{Press |
|
|6={{WPUKgeo|class=B|importance=}} |
|
|
|
| subject = article |
|
|
| author = Shane Hegarty |
|
|
| title = Misplaced Pages at 20: Did you know Will Ferrell was once not killed in a paragliding incident? |
|
|
| org = ] |
|
|
| url = https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/wikipedia-at-20-did-you-know-will-ferrell-was-once-not-killed-in-a-paragliding-incident-1.4450726 |
|
|
| date = 2021-01-10 |
|
|
| quote = Its entry on “Ireland” is typical: “The earliest evidence of human presence in Ireland is dated at 10,500 BC. Gaelic Ireland had emerged by the 1st century AD. The island was Christianised from the 5th century onward.” And so on. It reads like it was put together by committee, although this is sort of the point. |
|
|
| archiveurl = |
|
|
| archivedate = |
|
|
| accessdate = 2021-01-13 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Ireland naming discussions}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 16 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Ireland/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{todo}} |
|
|
{{calm talk|lightgreen}} |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Template:Archive box begins --> |
|
|
<div class="infobox" style="width: {{{box-width|250px}}}"> |
|
|
<div style="padding-top: 4px; text-align: center">{{{image|]}}}'''<br/>]''' |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
---- |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# |
|
|
</div><!-- Template:Archive box ends --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== What it means to be a geographical term == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, there appears to be different ideas over what constitutes a "Geographical" term versus terminology for political and cultural areas. |
|
|
|
|
|
A geographical term refers to a geographical area. Pretty simple. |
|
|
|
|
|
] correctly states above that a geographical area can acquire political and cultural activites. I agree - but these regions are not the same as geographical regions. Politics and culture easily bleed past geographical regions. |
|
|
|
|
|
For example. |
|
|
*'''Geographical term = Great Britain'''. |
|
|
*'''Cultural Term = British'''. But British "culture" and thinking, while originating in Great Britain, extends across the world (mainly due to colonization - think empire). |
|
|
*'''Political Term = United Kingdom''', which incorporates many cultures, including Irish culture from the North of Ireland. But there is not such thing as a UK culture. The political term naturally incorporates both land and sea. |
|
|
*'''Legal Term = British islands''' - effectively a legal jurisdiction which may be different than the cultural and geographical areas. |
|
|
|
|
|
Other examples are easier - think Vatican city. |
|
|
|
|
|
It gets more difficult when there is less "bleed"... |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Geographical term = Ireland''' |
|
|
*'''Cultural Term = Irish'''. But Irish "culture" and thinking also extends across the world (mainly due to migration). |
|
|
*'''Political Term(s) = Northern Ireland and Ireland (Republic)'''. |
|
|
*'''Legal Term = Ireland (in the English language) and Northern Ireland''' |
|
|
|
|
|
So what is this article? Is it intended to be a geographical article? Cos it isn't - as has been correctly pointed out, there are sections on Culture, Politics, etc. (It's a mixed up article, but being edited by 150 people can do that) |
|
|
|
|
|
An easy solution would be to separate the geographic section from the other sections.... |
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 11:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Here are some more examples: |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Geographical term = British Isles''' |
|
|
*'''Cultural term(s) = English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh''' (there is no such thing as "British" culture, though the 4 nations have much in common, notably language, and all 4 have also spread abroad because of the British Empire) |
|
|
*'''Political term(s) = UK, RoI (etc.)''' |
|
|
*'''Legal term(s) = Essentially the same as the political terms''' ("British Islands" is only used in very limited contexts, mainly concerned with passports) |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 13:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:You've oversimplified something very complex to the point where it isn't valid. For example, Cornish culture? Or what about the Isle of Man as a political area? Irish travellers? British Indians? Channel Islands culture and politics? But let's not distract this discussion into a British Isles discussion though, although I'm happy for it to be moved to the British Isles Talk page.. --] (]) 13:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hi guys. It is probably valuable (amongst the editing community) to ensure clarity around some of these terms - in case anyone is unclear on how/when/where to use them (and what pitfalls to avoid). However, unless we are going to add this extensive definition in line with every usage of (say) a geographical term (that could also be interpreted as a geopolitical term) then I'm still reticent about using those terms here. Specifically, as noted, while categorised as a "geographical label", the term "British Isles" has it's basis in a historical and political reality. This historical/political reality has since changed, but the term has not. IE: The term "British" has very strong political connotations in modern usage, and so applying a label (which includes this term) to an entity (like Ireland) which has mixed connections to that political entity, may confuse the reader. Or, to put it in a simpler way: Readers are very unlikely to readily recognise that the term "British Isles" is intended to be purely geographical, and doesn't infer political connections. In particular because it USED TO. And so (in the absence of an alternative term which doesn't suffer these problems) it's probably best left out. And therefore, my view remains that (because using the term is likely to DETRACT from the users understanding than to add to it), we should leave it out. ] (]) 13:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The term British Isles has existed since Ancient Greek times, so cannot possibly be derived from the politicial situation you describe. ] (]) 14:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::OK - apologies if I wasn't clear, but I wasn't stating that the term the "British Isles" had it's origins in the "United Kingdom or Great Britain and Ireland", and the various historical revisions of that political entity. I was simply pointing out that the term "British" TODAY is taken to relate to Great Britain or the UK - because (for a very long time) it has been a label describing nationality and sovereignty. EXCEPT in the term "the British Isles" - where it is ambiguous. Further, the whole point is that it's NOT the ancient Greeks who are going to be reading this. So, even if the ancient Greeks had a term which could be geographically applied to the entire island group (without political overtones), we don't have one today. Too many readers (without a 20 page explanation) will have difficulty recognising that the term "British" (in its use in that term) is not intended to imply political overtones. There is already too much difficulty in explaining the complexities of the relationship between Ireland (the island), Ireland (the state) and Northern Ireland (a UK constituent) without introducing ANOTHER confusing term. ] (]) 15:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I don't think people have a problem recognising that ] isn't British (any more), despite its name. Nor, that an island group can be named after its largest island, e.g. ]. Or, that ] refers, by definition, to something more than India. ] (]) 15:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::OK. Firstly, ] may not be part of "Britain" per sé, but then it is still a subset of the ] and was explicitly NAMED so by the then British head of state to EXPLICITLY reflect its "Britishness". (As opposed to Frenchness or American-ness). It is therefore a totally inappropriate example for your argument - supporting as it does the assertion that the term "British" has had colonial connotations for at least 150 years. Long since usurping its Greek origins in application to the region as a geographic term. |
|
|
:::::Secondly, with regard to the ] "precedent" cited, again I think you are picking a particularly bad example that only supports the argument against using BI here. Specifically, the term "Indian subcontinent" is highly questionable to people from Pakistan. And for that reason, you will note that it is not used on the ] article. For exactly the same reason that British Isles is questionable here. (And, in all honesty, if you tried to add it you would likely precipitate the same kind of editor conflict over there.) |
|
|
:::::The "Canary Islands" argument is mute because all constituents share the same sovereignty and therefore the same issues don't really apply. |
|
|
:::::(FYI - Just so I'm clear, I am not advocating that BI be avoided for reasons of "political correctness", or because it may be "offensive" (as others have argued), or because it's validity is challenged by people of a particular political bent. I am advocating that it be avoided PARTIALLY because of this, but MAINLY because it is ambiguous, confusing, potentially problematic under set theory, and WAY too open to mis-interpretation, and therefore generally detracts from the article. Rather than adding to it.) |
|
|
:::::I'm stepping out of this now. As noted, constantly arguing every minor point is not adding value. Longstanding consensus has been to avoid the term here because of all these issues. If someone can come up with an appropriate term which describes the shared geographical, historical and cultural overlaps of "these Islands", then I'd be OK with a discussion on a compromise. But categorising the island of Ireland under a super-set labelled as "British" is just not cricket. ] (]) 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think precisely for the reasons you've outlined above, editing guidelines should be clear. I believe if there were clearer guidelines on the use of the term British Isles, there'd be less to argue about and less edit warring. And guidelines for British Isles may (or may not) be unique - they may not apply generically for all geographic terms. --] (]) 14:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: British Columbia is also the Political name of a province in canada so its not a valid example. I notice that while I was off line an edit war has happened. At the moment there is not agreement here to insert the British Isles and it looks to me more and more like a covert political agenda (or anti-agenda namely assuming political intent of those who do not want it). If an agreement can't be reached here then I am happy to put to to mediation if other editors are, and if anyone is prepared to face this issue yet again in yet another venue. From my perspective I argued strongly that the British Isles article should remain so named for historical accuracy, here I think it is confusing and there is not the same historical issue so I recommend we do not include it. Now I may be wrong but there are not enough editors who want it to justify the recent edits. --] (]) 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::To BI, or not to BI. Personally I prefer BI being included; but, oh the headaches we shall endure to settle the matter. ] (]) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I agree.] (]) 00:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: We largely fought together on the BI Page itself! Here I think we should avoid it. --] (]) 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=="erosion of natural and cultural heritage"== |
|
|
In the 'Economy' section i think there is an inaccuracy which needs to be corrected. It states that there has been an "erosion of natural and cultural heritage" due to "unbalanced economic growth". The document it references to support this does not attribute any loss of heritage to economic factors. Ireland has always in my opinion (like most countries) given too little attention/funding/legislation to protecting our cultural heritage. It was the same in the recession of the 80's, the boom of the last 15 years and it probably will always be - it cannot be attributed to economic factors, at least not without referencing something that states this. Any proven failings in Ireland's cultural/heritage support should be addressed in a "Culture" section or similar.] (]) 18:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:''Re: comment from Fin1213, above'': I notice that the statements re: erosion of heritage were removed by Sarah777, then reinstated recently by Mudpudlles1418 with improved citations, and removed again lately by Dppowell. I agree that the references on cultural heritage last given by Mudpuddles do not definitively show a link between recent economic growth and loss of heritage. These references clearly identify an '''accelerated''' rate of loss but the link to recent economic development is not clear. But, in the case of natural heritage, the link with economic development is very clear in the referenced web site, in which a Government press release states: "''The bad and poor ratings for habitats reflect the impacts of 35 years of agricultural intensification and a period of unrivalled economic growth in Ireland''". Clearly this references the recent Celtic Tiger era. The detail of the associated report ("The Status of EU Habitats and Species in Ireland") also clearly identifies increased infrastructure development and land use change as two of the main drivers of habitat destruction and subsequent biodiversity loss. While I agree with Fin123 that heritage loss is a chronic issue in Ireland and elsewhere, the accelerated loss of heritage is recognised as an important downside of rapid economic growth, in Ireland and in other countries (look to China for a typical example). Therefore I suggest that (1) a reference to the impact of Ireland's recent economic growth on cultural heritage should be reinstated somewhere but only if clearly supported by unambiguous references, and (2) the comments on natural heritage are reinstated as they were - the citation already given was valid and illustrates an important issue for the sustainability of Ireland's future economic growth. |
|
|
|
|
|
:On another note, the summary attached to Dppowell's recent edit, by my reading, suggests that Mudpuddles1418 made additions constituting new research ('synthesis') and vandalism (hence use of Twinkle), and unsubstantiated POV. Can I politely suggest that substantive edits (removing or including statements with important implications for a topic) and any suggestions of inappropriate editing should be discussed? Might ], ] and ] care to comment? ] (]) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm not clear what you want a comment on? , my only recent edit, I think I was just removing POV language and obvious weasels rather than any referenced facts. ] (]) 21:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "heritage" in this context - it is being constantly lost everywhere and all the time surely? What was created 30 years ago is now part of our heritage? And some of that is already being lost and replaced by tomorrow's heritage. ] (]) 21:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Celtic Tiger == |
|
|
|
|
|
I find the discussion of the 'Celtic Tiger' phenomenon could do with some expansion. For example, the EU policy of pumping money from the richer states like France, Germany, Britain, etc. into the poorer states (like Ireland) was possibly the major cause of Ireland's sudden new wealth, which took the form more of fiscal than economic prosperity for the first decade or so. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
It's a common misconception that Ireland's economic growth was majorly due to EU funding. EU (or EEC at the time) funds were mainly spent on infrastructure which was badly needed at the time and of course was a factor. Ireland's unique policy of extremely low rates of corporate tax, tax-free areas and generous grants would have had more of an impact. Having good infrastructure is one thing but getting multi-national companies to invest in Ireland as opposed to other EU countries (of similar infrastructure levels) was surely the hardest and most relevant factor. This is proven by the fact that many countries have since copied Ireland's incentives packages to try and replicate the success. |
|
|
If anything Ireland's membership of the EU today is a blockage to further rapid economic growth as many of these incentives are now not allowed under EU anti-competition laws.] (]) 10:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'd go a bit further! Despite having a ''very sub-standard infrastructure'' the Yanks invested here because of a number of reasons including (primarily) the taxation situation (plus cheap educated young English-speaking pop, etc etc). Also the level of EU aid as a % of GNP was never more than 3% at its peak and couldn't possibly explain the growth - also the other EU countries were, believe it or not, in the EU as well and the FDI didn't go to them! I'm sure the effect of getting between a quarter and a third of all American FDI in Europe for two decades dwarfed the EU transfers. I am, of course, open to contradiction from those closer to Berlin than to Boston. But it does seem to me that 30% of US foreign investment showered on 4 million people while the other 400 million had to do with the remainder, must be rather significant. ] (]) 00:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::From ]: ''"The United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. American investment in the United Kingdom reached $255.4 billion in 2002, while British direct investment in the United States totaled $283.3 billion."'' So, it would seem that the British Isles gobbled up almost all of America's FDI in Europe, leaving the rest of the EU with almost nothing at all. A question though - if the RoI was getting all that American cash, why was it still getting EU handouts, paid for by taxpayers in countries such as the UK? ] (]) 00:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Did you mean to use the term "British Isles" in this context? I'm confused. The quote talks about USA and UK. --] (]) 09:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Yes, because I was talking about the combined US FDI in both RoI and UK (see previous posts). ] (]) 09:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Payment for the some of the richest fishing rights in the world, which we gave to the EU? ]<sup>]</sup> 08:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The UK also gave up vast and economically crucial fishing rights - but we have always been a net ''contributor'' to the EEC/EU. But do we ever get any thanks for it? Not bloody likely! ] (]) 09:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Bring on the violins..sob! ] (]) 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Info Box map == |
|
|
|
|
|
] (light grey) with ] (dark grey) to the east</small>]] |
|
|
How about using this instead of the current squashed/distorted example. ] (]) 19:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Dear ] user from London - which "squashed/distorted example"? They all look fairly unsquashed to me. ] (]) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Dear ] editor from Ireland - the "squashed/distorted example" to which I refer is that currently in the Info Box, which simply shows Ireland as a green blob off the coast of continental Europe. The map has little definition in terms of the physical geography of the island itself, and while appreciating that it falls to personal taste, I felt that the one I proposed gives the reader, (self included), a much greater appreciation of the shape, relative size and position of what the article actually concerns. Regards. ] (]) 19:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC) (PS Ain't "from London" - Alba gu bràth! :) ) |
|
|
:::That map would be acceptable, only if Great Britain is the same colour as France. ] (]) 19:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I suspect France is a different shade to Great Britain as one is Continental Europe, while the other isn't. Perhaps the description beneath the map could cater for this by stating "Northwest of ] (light grey) with ] (dark grey) to the east". ] (]) 19:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The current shading, gives the impression that Ireland & Great Britain are one country. ] (]) 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sorry -edit conflict ] (]) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I see ] that you've undone my change at Great Britain, therefore please forget I ever raised this issue. You have clearly demonstrated how easily some can become confused and think that ] is the same as ], and that each in turn are the same as ], despite the shading attributed to each geographical entity being completely different in the maps which I suggested be adopted both here and at ]. Best leave well alone so as not to confuse; I hereby withdraw my suggestion. ] (]) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Fear not, no harm done. Also, feel free to place your proposed map at ]; who knows, others may view it differently. ] (]) 20:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Dear IP, having looked at the infobox I must say I find the blob a much better indication of the position of Ireland than your proposed box; how many semi-educated folk from Utah would recognise that shapeless bit of France as being continental Europe? And, remember, we are led to believe by our minders on Wiki that the average reader of en:Wiki is a borderline moron. ] (]) 09:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Athletics== |
|
|
"Irish athletics has seen some development in recent times, with Sonia O'Sullivan..." |
|
|
Irish athletics didn't start with Sonia O'Sullivan. What about Eamonn Coughlan? World champion, indoor mile world record holder for many years. --] (]) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== pronunciation == |
|
|
|
|
|
the 'ire' of Ireland should rhyme with tyre, but on the first line it says its pronounced 'ar' which is wrong. i'd change it myself but the page is locked <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Others would pronoune the "ire" to rhyme with "oire". Still others would make two sounds to rhyme with "higher" without the leading "h". --] (]) 15:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Image copyright problem with Image:Enyaclannad.jpg== |
|
|
The image ] is used in this article under a claim of ], but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the ] when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an ] linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check |
|
|
|
|
|
:* That there is a ] on the image's description page for the use in this article. |
|
|
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page. |
|
|
<!-- Additional 10c list header goes here --> |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. --12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
An '''Ireland disambiguation task force''' (]) has been created. It will: free up various Talk pages for their respective articles, avoid inner and cross article repetition, avoid debate-postponing moratoriums from needing to be placed, and can accommodate all aspects of the issue of disambiguating the word "Ireland". --] (]) 04:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
==Flora== |
|
|
In the section on flora the article states that until mediaeval times, Ireland was heavily forested with various genera of trees, but is now covered with only 9% of forest. The article fails to explain the causes of de-forestation, and precisely when it began. The Mediaeval period roughly spanned a thousand years from the fall of Rome to the 15th century.--] (]) 07:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The cause? They were chopped down for use.] (]) 08:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::More than likely they were cleared for agricultural reasons. The article still does not specify which part of the middle ages this occured.--] (]) 12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Celtic nations template== |
|
|
Please stop edit warring over the ]. It was added recently without any discussion or agreement to add it or whether it was even appropriate to this article, so should be removed until agreement has been reached on its use or not. ] (]) 15:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ireland a Republic since 1937 or 1949? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I always thought 1949, but I've seen 1937 being mentioned on Misplaced Pages.] (]) 00:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:1949. See the ]. However, the 26 counties acted as a republic since before then e.g. De Valera saying that there was no need to declare Ireland as a republic in 1943 because "we already are a republic". 1937 is the constitution, and a watershed date, but de jure 1949 is the actual date. If you go for 1937 then you might as well go for 1916 while you're at it. --] (]) 02:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Talk:Ireland/GA1}} |
|
|
==Northern Ireland has no flag== |
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the Union flag beside "United Kingdom" but Northern Ireland has no flag; and people from Northern Ireland have the constitutional right to be "Irish, British or both". There shouldn't be any flag beside 'Northern Ireland', located on the sidebar, beside 'constituent country', under United Kingdom. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:With all due respect, there is a flag of Northern Ireland with a red hand, crown and red cross on a white background. Of course, I agree that Northern Irish people have the right to decide whether they are Irish, British or both, but they do have their own flag to be proud of if, say, they were playing in a football match. ] (]) 21:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I assume you are talking about the ], this is not the flag of NI. The only official flag it has is the ]. <strong>]</strong>] 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Airlann == |
|
|
Why was '']'' removed from the introduction and infobox? Under the ] (approved by a majority of people on both sides of the border) Irish and Ulster Scots are granted 'parity of esteem'. Within an all-Ireland context neither should be given preference (as Irish is on this article). ] (]) 16:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I had put it back several times (based on previous - if not uncontroversial - consensus discussion), after a few other editors kept taking it out. After the last deletion in August, I just got fed up with the editwarring, and decided to focus on something more positive/valuable (instead of getting bogged down in yet another pseudo-political/linguistic debate). Possibly it should go back in the infobox - though I'm not sure where anymore. It had been included (without a specific explanatory label) beneath the English name in a HTML construct. Now that the infobox template has been updated however, the equivalent Irish term is placed under the "native name" label. With all due respect to 'parity of esteem', however, while its inclusion with an explanatory label seemed OK, I'm not sure Airlann would sit comfortably under the "native name" label. If that row was labelled "other names", or "names in other languages", I could see it. But "native name" is probably not entirely appropriate. And I'm not sure whereelse in the current infobox template it can sit. ] (]) 00:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I put it into the introduction, we'll see what happens. ] (]) 13:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::This was previously removed and there was ], but why reinsert it if there will be any controversy. ] (]) 14:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't think it will cause controversy. I had read the above discussion, it didn't seem to have any resolution of note. ]] 20:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Sport== |
|
|
We have a rugby league team playing, or to play, don't know which, in Australia at the minute, playing in a World Cup. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:If no-one else is going to write about it I will have to add my limited knowledge of the sport. ] (]) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm afraid I lack any sort of knowledge on Rugby League but I look forward to reading what Perry Groves puts up. ] (]) 20:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==GA reassessment by community== |
|
|
] has now been put up for a community reassessment ]. Can you help with any of the issues mentioned? 6 & 7 have already been dealt with or don't exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Places of interest:''' I thought that using one of the popular travel guide, such as ] would be a good source for a reasonable listing of places of interest. I could work on this in the next few days if others agree. ] (]) 15:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi Ww2censor - I think that would be a good idea. I've made a stab at improving/adding references to a few sections (which was mentioned as a possible GA failure issue). I may also have a look at cleaning up the "further reading" section. Though I may simply delete. |
|
|
:The other key remaining "issue" relates to the length/uncited nature of the economy section. (Which as has been discussed before could do with review, summarisation and improved citations). If someone else can have a look at this, that would be great. |
|
|
:This would leave the "format and consistency of references" as the sole issue. Frankly this last one would take up a lot of valuable time, and - as has been noted - would not be a GA stumbling block on its own. It can therefore possibly be left for correction in a more organic fashion over time. (Or possibly to some future robotic to sort out). ] (]) 18:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'll make a start on the "format and consistency of references", if you like. I've been doing a bit of that "tedious" work recently on other sites (yes, doing it properly is time-consuming!). I've been using the citation templates at ]--would that be OK? ]<sup>]</sup>23:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I looked through the article and tagged a few statements which need citations. I located and added one citation; time permitting, I may try to work on some others later this week. Cheers, ] (]) 02:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Thanks Hohenloh, I have deleted the Image Gallery and made a start on paragraphing the places of interest. Hope my work isn't too shabby.--] (]) 11:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Besides which there is already a Commons Ireland link at the bottom of the page so removal of the gallery is not a problem. ] (]) 14:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I've started going through the references. I'll go through them around 10 at a time, remove the bad ones first, then replace them with good ones or fix what needs to be fixed. If I can't find a good one I'll tag where it's needed. OK? ]<sup>]</sup>04:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Places of Interest==== |
|
|
In relation to tidying up the places of interest. ZincBelief, I think your initial steps are fine. However, to stop it turning bac into an exhaustive list again, I think some "criteria for inclusion" are needed. I think a good start is: UNESCO sites (and "proposed sites") per ZincBelief. (Brú na Bóinne, Causeway, Skelligs, Burren, etc) The national monuments of major significance (Glendalough, Clonmacnoise, Cashel). I'm not sure what criteria to apply, but possibly Kilkenny (as uniquely ancient medieval city), Ring of Kerry/Dingle/Killarney (as major "attractions"), and Cliffs of Moher, Bunratty and Blarney as (as "quintessentially" unique). And leave it at that. If someone can find a source that might rank a "top ten" in terms of visitor numbers, that would be great. Possibly a Bord Fáilte report exists. ] (]) 13:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:OK I just found a Bord Fáilte report from 2006 which lists the for that year. I'm going to have a look at it as the basis for finalising the "places of interest" section. |
|
|
:Unsurprisingly it lists Blarney, Bunratty, the Rock of Cashel, the Cliffs of Moher and Holy Cross Abbey, so I'll include these on that basis. |
|
|
:In Dublin it lists the Guinness Storehouse, Dublin Zoo, Book of Kells, St Patrick’s Cathedral, and several museums/etc. I'm not sure all these should be mentioned separately, so I'll see how they might be combined/summarised. |
|
|
:I'm a little surprised that Killarney/Dingle/Ring of Kerry aren't included - but then the nature of an "attraction" focused report is that a "general area" wouldn't have a man with a ticket booth counting passers by. Perhaps instead these could be covered under a "heavily touristed areas" sentence. That might include a summarised Dublin (as above), Kilkenny, Galway and the Aran islands. And I think that should be enough. ] (]) 13:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I started working on a list from ] which is rather long but with little if any apparent criteria. The new list with its criteria is much better though a little short. Perhaps we can find another list source to expand it a little. Well done and thanks folks incl. ]. ] (]) 14:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::In a few days time I'll have access to the Encyclopedia of Ireland, so presumably that would be useful for some missing citations?]<sup>]</sup>17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Newspapers == |
|
|
|
|
|
Newspapers are included under All-island institutions. Can this be improved? A newspaper is not an "institution" (I think). |
|
|
|
|
|
The paragraph begins: "A significant number of newspapers on the island are circulated in both jurisdictions." |
|
|
|
|
|
Is "jurisdiction" the correct term in this respect? |
|
|
?]<sup>]</sup>20:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Take it out, along with 50% of the economy sprawl--] (]) 00:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, I tend to agree...?]<sup>]</sup>02:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Soccer player == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can that paragraph about the NI soccer player playing for Ireland be removed from "All-island institutions"? IMHO it's uncited and unencyclopedic and its removal would simplify an already contentious section.]<sup>]</sup>23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I would support that, especially as the ROI team is not an all-Ireland institution! (Nor is it political). ] (]) 23:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move == |
|
|
|
|
|
It was suggested that this article should be moved to ] or ]. Please comment at ]. Thanks, ] ] 12:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Update''' - further discussion on the above (whether "Ireland" should be a disambig page or not) is now ongoing at a different location, at ] Regards, ] (]) 19:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
==New Ireland project== |
|
|
Hi all,<br> |
|
|
I've started a new ] which I hope will bridge a gap I feel exists between the two Wiki community's with an interest in Ireland related matters. The project has just started but I hope it will allow us to work together at first on uncontroversial articles such as ] and if successful I hope will allow for a more constructive and friendly approach to the controversial issues ] (]) 20:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sport is uncontroversial? Ha! Just kidding. It's a great idea. --] (]) 23:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::That looks interesting. Any chance of getting George Mitchell to lend a hand? ]<sup>]</sup>06:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Boxing== |
|
|
I think it should now be included in the sport section about the fantastic performance in the recent Olympic Games in Beijing by Irish boxers. Our silver medal and two bronze medals should defnitely be mentioned and I will do so if people are alright with that. ] (]) 21:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Article layout== |
|
|
Anyone else thing the big plain green map under the infobox is ugly? (And a bit repetitive and too big). Also the pictures of Boyle and Joyce are way too big. The layout needs a bit of attention here; compare it with the ] article. ] (]) 21:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I took out the "nickname" nonsense but I have left "Ireland" floating free above the infobox - anyone know how to fix that (without reintroducing the nickname and "native" name? ] (]) 21:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hi Sarah. To your points. |
|
|
::# Location map in Infobox - I think this looks fine. It is consistent with the infoboxes of other islands. |
|
|
::# Names in Infobox - Can you explain precisely why you feel that "Éire" as the native translation for "Ireland" is nonsense? What's nonsense about it? Surely it's factual and verifiable? When I saw you remove this earlier I was more than a little perplexed. Compare to island infobox for ] (an island comprising the Dominican Republic and Haiti) this has a native translation for the island's name. La Española. Quite appropriately in my view. What precisely is the difference here? |
|
|
::# Title of the Infobox - "Can anyone fix the title floating free above the box"? Again, what is there to fix exactly? It is consistent with the island infobox template in use all over the place. |
|
|
::# Duplication in infobox - Again, this is perfectly consistent with island infoboxes elsewhere. Compare ] or ]. What duplication is there? I can't see any. |
|
|
::# Boyle and Joyce pics are too big - I have applied the "upright" standard to those two thumbs. That should address. |
|
|
::# Compare to the United States article - What specifically are you comparing? The infobox is obviously different. As one deals with a nation and the other an island. So, I can only assume you mean the body text. Is there any "best practices" from the US article you think should be applied here? |
|
|
::Finally, I am actually tempted to reinstate the native and nicknames. As I don't see how "nonsense" applies - certainly when applied to a literal native translation that pre-dates the English term, and a commonly held "romantic sobriquet" that has been in use for several hundred years. (From the mid 1700s at least). ] (]) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree with Gulio. Infobox looks fine now, IMHO--could we leave it at that? Smaller pics look better too. Maybe the green map might be a little smaller? Could someone finish off the remaining citations that need to be done? There's not many left. Still needs a little pruning--emigration and economy come to mind. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Emerald Isle=== |
|
|
Hi. Twice now a commonly held sobriquet for the island has been removed from the infobox. Stating that it is "ridiculous", "nonsensical" and "unencyclopedic". (In one edit the native name was also removed with the same rationale). I have restored it, again. There is nothing "nonsensical" about the term "the Emerald Isle" - which has been used as a ] for the island for hundreds of years. (See: "The Emerald Isle : a poem" - Charles Phillips/1812. And other earlier examples.) Nor is the term "unencyclopedic". ( includes it in the relevant article intro.) Unless the editor who has removed it can explain (beyond "I don't like it"), I can see no reason to remove it. ] (]) 10:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Snowded's last edit - removal of Army pipelink == |
|
|
What other army would it be? It's unnecessary to specify "British Army". ] (]) 11:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Proposed move to Ireland (island) == |
|
|
|
|
|
Per Misplaced Pages naming policy and the ], as well as following extensive discussion at ] and ], it is proposed that ] be moved to ]. This will enable these pages to accord with Misplaced Pages-wide policy as well as the opinion of most of the task force editors. In order to make way for this move, it is proposed that this article is moved to ]. ] (]) 11:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The ''new'' '''Ireland''' article will have the contents of ''']''', and so will now correctly disambiguate, per the rules of Misplaced Pages. All the many incorrectly-linked "Ireland"s on Misplaced Pages that actually refer to Ireland-the-state (ie the ] article) will now link page that gives them a choice: ], ], ].-] (]) 17:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
-- As always with these Ireland related polls ''after'' it starts there are retro-fitted statements to clarify a bad start. ] (]) 17:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Where you born rude? |
|
|
|
|
|
<u>MAIN ISSUE:</u> ] is supposed to be the ''island'' article, and ] is supposed to be the ''state'' article. But Wikpedia mainly refers (and links) to 'Ireland' as the state - so this article consequently has masses of forked political and cultural information in it which shouldn't be there. The problem has ultimately lead to TWO Ireland state articles, with the ] article covering the British ] as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
<u>SURROUNDING FACT:</u> Ireland the island contains both the state 'Ireland' (also called Republic of Ireland), and the British ] called ']'. It is not the case that the island and the state are one and the same 'Ireland'. --] (]) 01:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<u>POLITE NOTE:</u> If people actually want this ] article to be the ''state article'' (like many opposers here seem to be suggesting), can you add a note? (optional, but helpful) Many thanks. --] (]) 01:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Re. this 'polite note', you could just read everybody's oppose in detail and actually realise that not everybody who opposes wants Ireland to be the state article. ] (]) 03:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Support''' ] (]) 11:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Strongly Support'' --] <small>]</small> 11:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* {{tl|Recentism}} is a fault for which we have a tag already made. No. ] ] 11:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*: I wouldn't call 1921 recent, but hey... ] (]) 12:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*::If that is what you believe, then that supports Angus McLellan's accusation of recentism. ] (]) 12:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Strongly oppose''' - there is a disambiguation task force looking at the whole area of how to disambiguate Ireland, which is highly controversial and complicated. No moves such as this should take place until the task force has completed. It is against the ethos and spirit of the task force to hive off particular moves and deal with them separately. This arbitrary action by Waggers is out of order and reduces the likelihood of achieving compromise agreement on the whole issue. ] (]) 12:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Discussion has been extensive and prolonged, Waggers is not taking arbitrary action, Mooretwin is attempting a filibuster to preserve a minority position. --] <small>]</small> 12:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::He is taking arbitrary action. He has pushed for this over the last few days, and abitrarily decided himself to take this course of action. This is not a filibuster - I have regularly argued for compromise, but it seems that those determined to push a particular agenda are not interested in compromise, confident that they can force measures through by majority votes. This behaviour leaves a bad taste in the mouth. ] (]) 12:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Moortwin, there is no evidence of you attempting to compromise in any meaningful sense of the word and you have this time (and historically) done your level best to prevent discussion moving forward so that you can retain the status quo. Your comments abound with accusations and conspiracy theories - enough, please. --] <small>]</small> 13:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::There's plenty of evidence. I have proposed a compromise on the name of the article in return for an agreement about usage within texts. I also proposed bringing Derry/Londonderry into it. Again, I make an appeal that you and others do not engage in misrepresentation of those with whom you disagree. ] (]) 13:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Go ahead, make a proposal to move Derry to Londonderry. Argue for it in light of the argument that its formal name should be primary. -- ]·] 19:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: I think you just made my point for me, bringing a shopping basket of controversial requests is exactly not what a compromise is about, its a way of protracting the issue and obscuring it.--] <small>]</small> 13:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The purpose of the task force was to deal with the issue in the round, so suggesting that this is actually what should happen is not "bringing a shopping basket of controversial requests". It is better to deal with controversial requests in the round, rather than divide them up and force them through one by one, as appears to be happening now. ] (]) 13:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::This is not a controversial request since it is simply a ratification of existing policy. As has been explained to you countless times, the purpose of the task force is not to solve all of the Ireland-related issues in one go. The notion that it should fulfil its entire remit on one go (and do nothing until it is at a point of being able to do so) is absolutely ludicrous. ] (]) 23:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::"the purpose of the task force is not to solve all of the Ireland-related issues in one go" -- says who? I should have thought that very obviously the purpose was to deal with the issue in the round. Why else establish it? ] (]) 09:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' This RM has been made now, and it was unquestionably the most fully and cross-supported ''singlular'' approach (even if it does leave the name of the Irish state for another day). One of the best arguments for it is ''''''. In no way will the outcome of this effect the taskforce - that will remain solid. A number of people felt confident about going this way (including admin) - and they are entitled to do it. It's a question of people's time as much as anything - people want to see something positive happen here. --] (]) 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''comment''' Whatever may happen to the ROI state article, this current forked-info, state/island, 3-choice-link-inducing, eroniously-linked-to ambiguity-causing 'Ireland' article is supported by few people indeed. --] (]) 12:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have no confidence in the task force now. It seems clear that a group of editors with a particular agenda is determined to force its will by pushing majority votes on each individual issue. ] (]) 12:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't think it's fair to blame the taskforce - it was only ever a place for discussion and straw polls. If people feel strong enough to move on it, then no one can stop them from doing it. --] (]) 12:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. ] (]) 12:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''', won't work and needs more time, and the task force hasn't deliberated as yet. ] (]) 12:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support''' ] (]) 13:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong Support''' ] ] 13:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' An entirely unnecessary move. ] (]) 14:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Care to give a reason why it's unnecessary to abide by the ]? ] (]) 14:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose (strongly)''' - what is this "Misplaced Pages-wide policy" - bogus? This is a nonsense move request. It should be withdrawn immediately. ] (]) 14:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*:The answer to your question is in the links above. In a nutshell, there are (at least) two entities called Ireland, therefore ] should be a disambiguation page per ]. ] (]) 14:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Oh yeah the ] and ] nonsense that would lead to nonsense like ] and ]. That is daft. No thanks. ] (]) 14:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Of course it wouldn't. Have you not read '''''', or do you not understand the nature of pipelinks. This bogus argument devalues your otherwise legitimate opinion. ] ] 15:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::So we are going to "keep" ], rather than ]. Because moving the ] article to ] is the ultimate objective? Isn't it? ] (]) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::This proposed move is purely about the ] article, to make way for ] to move here. There are no hidden motives. ] (]) 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::So its ''death by a thousand cuts''? Oh ''bugger''. ] (]) 15:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Excuse me? This ignorant paranoia has been devastating for Wikpedia - ']' being in such a mess is the clear the problem for most Misplaced Pages-concerned people - but we are not allowed to address it because of petty squabbling by the likes of you, over ROI. In the meantime (and over the years) the Irish articles flounder in a confused mess themselves. Some of them have cobwebs from not being touched. But do you care about that at all? In any case, even if ROI was changed, I've explained to you before that ] won't need to happen - ] would be absolutely fine! At the moment we have countless 'Sport/Decycling/]' (etc) format articles anyway (some including Northern Ireland, some not)! It is all a mess. If you had the courage to support this disam-page Move, the chances are that ROI would never be changed. But I wonder if keeping ROI ''really is'' your wish - or if you are really fighting for a unified Ireland, via keeping hold of this mish-mash 'single-state-appearing' Ireland article that we currently have? -] (]) 16:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::"...ignorant paranoid...fighting for a unified Ireland...petty squabbling by the likes of you..."; '''Calm down Matt, but above all else don't loose it - you do more damage than good for your cause!'''. You say that ] is confusing, yet you want ] for the island and ] for the state. That is confused? '''This is not though out'''. ] (]) 16:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Will you stop this stupidity? I never once said ] is confusing in itself! It is the mixed 'Ireland' that confuses everything - and is being dealt with in this Move request. ] rubs against using ROI anyway, as it covers the periods of the state! You want every period in covered in ROI too. It is you who have not thought anything though - and you are simply reacting here with nonsense. Also, I simply corrected you saying that ] would need to be used if Misplaced Pages used ] - that simply isn't true. I don't care what happens to ROI - neither does waggers, who started this Move. --] (]) 16:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::You have dug yourself a hole, and are still digging; good luck. ] (]) 16:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::That is just a losing shot. Everything you said above was foolish. --] (]) 16:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::ROI: Just read your own comments at ]. Enjoy. ] (]) 16:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Enjoy reading my arguments? Another empty comment. I ''have'' said ] could (in a pedantic sense) cover more history than ROI (which was an official name for only 50 years) - but that was only to state an order preference - as we all were doing! I have supported an ROI-based proposal, and I started the whole taskforce because I had problems with not being allowed to use ROI myself(!). I even got rid of the 20-plus sockmaster who endlessly removed it from Wikpedia (which took hour and hours of my time). You know the problems surrounding Ireland ''full well'' - but you resent anybody trying to deal with it. Why? --] (]) 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::I must call this one. Matt - you are 100% correct in this instance; while I wouldn't call DJ stupid in the classical sense he is clearly pushing blatant POV in this case. I also find his taking refuge in abrasive comments when he finds himself losing the argument is contrary to the Wikipedian spirit. ] (]) 01:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Matt, you're inadvertently paving the way here for more changes - firstly the change in the name of ]. Let's get wholesale agreement across all the issues before making individual changes such as this. ] (]) 17:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::::I didn't perform this Requested Move - but I understand why it was done, and I support it now it is done. Nobody backed the two 'hatnote' suggestions at all - and the extended version of this (which included the state) had less support. There is nothing actually illegal about this RM - and most of the arguements against it are on side matters. This RM can actually work whatever happens (or doesn't happen) to the Irish state article. I've never myself accused anyone of 'filibustering', but I'm certainly tired of the endless card playing - if you have your own proposal, put it down for gods sake. --] (]) 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::If, for example, the "European Union" decided tomorrow that its new name is the "European United" would we have two articles which deal the terms separately (thats just dumb) or would we create a made-up title "]" (even dumber). No, we would just rename the original article (and have one article "European United") and carry on. ] (]) 17:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::::What a truly iritating post. One cannot logically see what those examples refer to at all (nothing actually logical I am sure) - you really are being a wilful fool now. You shouldn't be taking this as a joke - unless unpsetting people really turns you on?--] (]) 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC) by |
|
|
::::::::::::::::If you are irritated (because, fundamentally, you see my point) then imagine my surprise at this initial . Don't get too upset, but my comments are robust and made in good faith - and no apologies. ] (]) 19:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::Sound bites are everyting on Misplaced Pages, aren't they? Impressive looking 'diff' links that lead to the same discussion a few comments up. Clearly you think readers are as thick as planks. Not a ''single'' point you have made above has been "robust" - not one single point. --] (]) 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' - The article about ] is in the right place. ]] 14:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' - In current form. Per MattLewis, if this move were arrived at as the result of a broader agreement on how to deal with the complex Ireland DAB issues, then I'd be happy to support. However, this singular move request has been carved out of the big ball of complex issues, and shouldn't really be completed until some of the other issues are resolved. (Namely: when to pipe, when not to pipe, when to say Ireland (when referring to the state), when to say Ireland (when referring to the island), when to say Republic of Ireland (when DAB absolutely required), etc, etc.) Moving this article, in the absence of some closure/guidelines around the other issues is premature and problematic. ] (]) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Can you lay out at the taskforce what you will accept yourself? This is the one thing nearly all of the 'No. No. No.' people just aren't doing - the more you all hold back, the more stressful it gets, and the greater chance something breaks out from the taskforce (like this Requested Move). --] (]) 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strongly support''' per Una Smith: "''An ambiguous title such as Ireland should be a disambiguation page, because it is Ireland that will accumulate incoming links needing disambiguation and the task of disambiguating them is made vastly more difficult if Ireland also has "correct" incoming links that refer to one topic by that name.''" Since the '''Ireland''' should point to the disambiguation page, the correct thing to do is to move that content to '''Ireland (island)''' as proposed here. -- ]·] 19:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per reasons above.] (]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' - Per the reasons above, particularly Mooretwins. I don't see a need to move this page give that people only wish to make a disambiguation page out of it! :) --''']]''' 20:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Yes we do''' - so all the thousand's of incorrect "]"s - incorrect because people actually meant the Republic of Ireland - link to somewhere sensible, and not this geographical island article! --] (]) 22:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{tl|fact}} I just checked the first twenty links to ], which is closer to being a random sample than your carefully selected handful. Of those, only one appeared incorrect to me. Do you think ] or ] or ] would do as well? And if ambiguous Irish stuff offends, there are over a hundred links to ], as well as whatever's left for ], ] and ], for ], ], ], ], ], and ], for ] ... ] ] 01:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::But do they go to Ireland? Looking at them, they are mostly 'pipe-linked' ]s! The first link in "" to Ireland is ], and ']' sits amongst a list of 10 or so states! My examples in the taskforce were not "carefully selected" at all, they were all the uses in the Ireland info box! If you looked around all the Misplaced Pages articles you would realise how many link to Ireland meaning the state - in my opinion, the majority of over 10,000 links on Misplaced Pages clearly mean the state (states are always referenced more than landforms). Not 'pipe-linked' Republic of Ireland's (which appear as 'Ireland'), but straight-linked "Irelands"! --] (]) 17:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: ] - refers to Barbary Corsairs attacking the Republic of Ireland in the 17th century; ] - Riordan is a surname with Republic of Ireland origins; ] - dulse can be bought in shops in the Republic of Ireland ; ] - Jonathan Swift's satirical look at poverty in the Republic of Ireland; ] - borders the west coast of the Republic of Ireland ; ] - the British Empire expanding beyond the limits of Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland; ] - French troops in the Republic of Ireland in 1798; ] - largest island in the Republic of Ireland ; ] - some success at last! the Buttevant Rail Disaster really did take place in the Republic of Ireland ; ] - ], a C7th monk from the Republic of Ireland; ] - forces of the Republic of Ireland defeated at Dungans Hill; ... Thousands of incorrect links? Really? ] ] 20:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::'''Yes - those are nearly all incorrect links!''' And do you have to play games? I can see your point now in inserting "Republic of Ireland"s in text that in reality say "Ireland" (you completely confused me to begin with - and others too no-doubt) - but they are supposed to '''pipe-link''' to Republic of Ireland!!!!! Disn't you know that? All but one of them refers to the state/country - actually proving my point on how comparatively little Misplaced Pages references the island. (So yes, thousands of the Ireland's on Misplaced Pages are wrongly linked here). Nearly all of those examples above ''wrongly'' link to this ] '''<u>island</u>''' article. --] (]) 01:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Are you suggesting that we ought to put Saint Trudpert in the Republic of Ireland? And read the Republic back into the 17th century? If "Republic of Ireland" sounds absurd, it's because it is absurd. No pipelinking rectifies it. ] (]) 04:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::You ought to be pipe-linking to ] for the historical stuff. So you too are dealing with your dislike of Misplaced Pages's official ] state article, by enforcing a state presence in this island article! And you don't care that we have two state articles covering the same stuff? If you allowed this disam page proposal, you could support a name change for 'ROI' to 'Ireland (state? country? period?)' (and there is a lot of support for it). But why bust up this poll? And I promise you anyway, most of the forked stuff in Ireland will soon be removed as being anti-policy. This is seriously on the cards - look at the taskforce for proof. You need to think of a better solution, as this hatchet job has gone on for too long. --] (]) 05:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::], the island, seems to me to be the intended target in these. I see no evidence elsewhere to support your assertion that links should go to ]. Let's try the East Asian equivalent to see how it's done there. ] doesn't invade ], he invades ] (and the ] too). ], made up though he likely is, doesn't rule ], he rules ]. Is there any reason why Ireland should be treated differently from Korea? ] ] 14:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sad, answering my own question, but Waterford had at least three wrong in twenty. ] ] 01:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Surely Ireland has existed far longer than ROI? ;) Say I want to write "Queen Victoria visited Ireland"...I don't want it to link to ROI! Either way there has to be some extent of pipelinking...I merely believe this way is the easier of the two. --''']]''' 16:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::This is simple proof of what happens here! Queen Victoria went to ] - Ireland was a British country during her entire reign. Cameron makes it clear she went to a visit a social structure, not a lump of rock, and says that this geographical article must stand in for ROI (which only lasted for 50 years as an official name) on certain occasions. But ROI is supposed to be Misplaced Pages's state article for the whole of Irish history. Don't you see that it is cheating to use a geographical one too, just when it suits some editors? It creates a seriously mess-making two-way approach, and often makes it look like Northern Ireland doesn't exist, too. The Irish state is the only country on Misplaced Pages with an effective choice of modern state articles like this - it is cheating, it is political at times, and it has got to stop. This Ireland article begins, ''"This is the article for the island, for the state..."'' for a reason, but it is consistently abused.--] (]) 17:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::How do you know she didn't want to see the "Lump of Rock"? I've heard the scenery is supposed to be quite nice! :) --''']]''' 17:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' move proposal. ] (]) 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''', for reasons given in detail ]. --] (]) 22:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Oppose''' While the state and the island have the same name, it makes more sense to have the island at the primary title/topic as per ] because, barring corner cases, things in the state, are also on the island. (but not vice versa) Thus, very few incoming links will be "incorrect" per say, - at worst they will be less precise than intended. However, to make this a disambiguation will only serve to make all links less precise and useful for *everyone* by creating unnecessary disambiguation. While he ] describe many ways of handing potentially ambiguous topics/names, we should not forget that the fundamental point behind these guidelines is ''to get the reader to the article they want as quickly and as easily as possible''. So, making things worse for one set while not making it any better for any other set makes no sense to me, and seems to run contrary to the basic idea behind the guidelines. Regards, ] (]) 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Excuse me? Refering to Northern Ireland as "corner cases" (I assume you mean the 6 counties of Ulster) - that's just a little bit ''rude'' isn't it? To say that a link that refers to the state - but instead goes to the island - is not wrong "per se", is a particular POV that I 100% disagree with. It ''is'' wrong for the links to mislead. <u>'''The island of Ireland is shared between the Irish state, and the UK's Northern Ireland. The Irish state is NOT superior to Northern Ireland.'''</u> The basic idea behind all guidelines is to be ''correct''. All disam pages involve that extra click, it is hardly a chore, and most disam pages inform at the same time. Let's at least keep these politics hidden, eh?--] (]) 00:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::You appear to have misunderstood my comment - by about 180 degrees - as what you are disputing is the exact opposite of what I said. In fact, what you have underlined above is the core of my arguments, that the island is shared between the state and NI, ergo, you can equally say that the state is a subset of the island (not in the mathematical sense but generally). As for links not being wrong, only less precise, take for example someone writes "Galway in Ireland", meaning to link the word Ireland to the state, but links it to the island instead. This is not "incorrect" - unless you are disputing that Galway is not on the island! The corner cases I was referring to are not items like NI, (so I wasn't being rude as you claimed), but items that are within the state, but not on the island, Irish embassies abroad was one such case pointed out to me. I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding. Regards, ] (]) 18:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose:''' The ] article is and should remain an article about the whole island of Ireland, period. ] (]) 00:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's not just an island article though is it? It forks political material from the main articles, and is essentially used as a second Irish state article - a place for those thousands of Ireland links. It is utterly and completely wrong. --] (]) 00:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Why is it that you, Matt Lewis, always have to make some comment when you disagree with editors views? Please don't reply to that question. What you say is just plain rubbish; it is not a second Irish state article. About 2 screenfuls is all the political information in the article, the rest is about the island as a whole. ] (]) 00:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You must be joking!!! Compare it to ''']'''! Where is the Sport section in that? Culture? Modern Architecture? Science? Economy? The History is ''way'' too long - we also have it in ] and ] (which is almost all forked over to the supposedly island ] article!!). It is all done to make Ireland a plausible cover for the Republic of Ireland state article. Unsurprisingly Northern Ireland is hardly covered. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE GEOGRAPHICAL ARTICLE FOR THE ISLAND!! It is totally bullshitting Misplaced Pages's readers - and it only hasn't been addressed because a group of around 10 people have never allowed it to be. --] (]) 01:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'm not sure I agree that ] is merely a geographical article. For example, Ireland exists currently as a cultural entity distinct from either of the two states (the obvious example of this is sport, but also religious organisations, trade unions, etc.). Material relating to this should feature in the ] article as well as geographical material. Also, Ireland existed as a single political entity for many centuries before the Irish Free State was created. ] (]) 09:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I think he is joking Matt. As you say, he must be. ] (]) 02:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''', with no reasons to ''add''. ] (]) 01:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' - as per policy; "Ireland" must be a dab page (if it isn't the page about the country). ] (]) 01:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**] ] (]) 04:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**:] ] (]) 10:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***Use common sense <font color="Blue">Message</font> <font color="green">from</font> <font color="red"><b>XENU</b></font><font color="gold"><sup>], ]</sup></font> 10:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***:Exactly. And common sense accords with the policy: that there are two entities called Ireland, the island (this article) and the state (]), therefore ] should be a disambiguation page since the same term could refer to either entity. ] (]) 10:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***::It is sad to see that Waggers cannot distinguish a global policy from an essay giving advice and opinion. It is up to the Wikipedians involved in this discussion to determine what the best locations for the three articles under dispute are, not any supposed "rule". ] (]) 20:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***:::It is even sadder to see someone making such a comment when this requested move is based entirely on global policy - ], and yet they continue to oppose it without giving a reason why ] should apply in this case. ] (]) 23:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***::::You don't know what a global policy is. See ]. NAME is not one of them. Why should IAR apply? Just in case the current "conventions" actually agree with the move proposal, because the move proposal is a bad idea. The reasons this is so have been stated by others. See ]. ] (]) 04:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***:::::It would be helpful if you could name a "reason"! The problem is that a VERY mixed bag of reasoning is here, from 1) wanting Ireland to be the state article (so being happy with the forked state information), to 2) wanting to go back to the taskforce (so not a straight objection), to 3) wanting an island ambiguity, as that is how Ireland feels to them in the heart, to 4) wanting the Republic of Ireland to represent modern Ireland - and Ireland representing historical Ireland (or post ROI 1948-98 Ireland, even), to 5) wanting an Ireland that appears to be an all-island (and non-British) country! You can't want them all, surely? I prefer a disam page, myself, as it is per Misplaced Pages policy, and will enlighten all the many messed-up Ireland articles.--] (]) 05:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong Oppose''' - I don't think I even need a reason. It's a country. There is no need for this ridiculous move. <font color="Blue">Message</font> <font color="green">from</font> <font color="red"><b>XENU</b></font><font color="gold"><sup>], ]</sup></font> 10:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*:The country article is located at ]; this article is about the island and the island only. ] (]) 10:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' - I know that the issue regarding Ireland is a unique one. Most other island countries (e.g. ], ], ]) have the one country, thus making the page about the country itself rather than the island. While if that was the only argument, then I would approve, since the official name of my country is ], then it makes more sense to promote the topic about the island itself for the main name, and leaving the "This page is about the island. For the country" etc. there to redirect people looking for more specific information. Seriously, if someone comes to the page directly, they're likely looking for information on the country or the island. Since the country is at ], then it makes sense for the article on the island to remain here. '''<font color="green" face="Verdana">]</font>''' <sup><font color="lime">]</font>•<font color="lime">]</font></sup> 11:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*:TheChrisD, the "official name" of your country is defined in Bunreacht na hÉireann and is "Ireland", not "Republic of Ireland". There is legislation which states that "Republic of Ireland" is the "official description" of the state. That is not the same thing. The problem is that "Ireland" is ambiguous in a way that Malta and Australia are not. The proposal here is for '''Ireland''' to be a disambiguation page, because there's no way of knowing what people are looking for when they look for "Ireland". -- ]·] 11:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Since the argument seems to to shifting slightly from the original point, I'm going to have to make my view clear (and also since some people can't blatantly see it). |
|
|
*::I '''oppose''' the moving of the article to ] to make way for the disambig page. But I '''support''' the moving of the article to make way for the moving of ] to here. '''<font color="green" face="Verdana">]</font>''' <sup><font color="lime">]</font>•<font color="lime">]</font></sup> 10:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' This is not an either or case. Naming policy is in this case calls for reference to ], which in the case of the use of the name Ireland is in disute, and so cannot be cited as supporting anything regarding this specific move. The disambiguation guideline is just that, a guideline, a thing that can be ignored when following it produces an undesired worse position. The undesired worse position in this case is this: requiring all articles with Ireland in their name to be listed at Ireland, when there are are only two possible contenders for the ] of Ireland that people typing in Ireland could possibly be looking for. (Nobody looking specifically for Northern Ireland the state is going to type in Ireland). None of the other entries on Ireland (disambiguation) merit a liting anywhere other than on Ireland (disambiguation), with that linked to in the usual way from a hatnote at the top of Ireland. And since the two meanings of Ireland (ROI/island) have a linked common history and deduced meaning, they do not merit a plain disambiguation as per to two unrelated topics, as can be seen in ]. As the disambiguation guideline is thus irrelevant as it cannot handle two inter-related primary topics for a title, we turn to the only possible solution, a common sense compromise of acceptance of the (in the grand scheme of history), recent dual use of the term, and writing an article covering that term, along the lines of ] and ] (and in this case there is even more justification for doing this, as Ireland is not just the common name of both, but the official English language name of the state and the de facto official name of the island in the English speaking world). This article would not cover either the geography or the ROI state in undue detail compared to other aspects such as history and culture, per the ], with both of those topics dealt with in detail in differently named 'home' articles, (which would also settle the pipe wars where the specific target is one or the other) for example ] and ], or ] and ], or Bill and Ben, (and settlement of the wording of those exact names is irrelevant to this move). Or we can just keep arguing over whether Ireland is a state or an Island, y'know, ]. ] (]) 15:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:] is indeed a guideline, but ] isn't, it's a policy. And what does ] say about disambiguation? It says follow the guideline. Therefore it is ''policy'' that we follow the disambiguation guideline. And that guideline is clear: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"." I think that's clearly the case here. ] (]) 23:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::All guidelines are derived from policies, that does not make them equal to policies. The guideline is clearly not helpful in this case, where two so similar and related terms are acting effectively as a dual primary topic. You can either take the advice which is given at the top of every guideline, ''best treated with common sense and the occasional exception.'', or you can try and hammer your head against a brick wall all day long and try and convince people that there honeslty is a level of sufficient ambiguity between the dual term Ireland, and people/villages named Ireland, justifying this move. Joe China must be a very happy man, 'clearly' his time has nearly come. ] (]) 01:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' I may be wrong, but I cannot help feeling that the proposed move has less to do with disambiguity or usability issues and more to do with political manoeuvering. Also see Guliolopez's points above. ]<sup>]</sup>20:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I honestly believe that you are wrong. I am not engaging in political manoeuvering. -- ]·] 22:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::One of the ''reasons'' of this Move is to remove unwanted 'politics '(ie using this article to make Ireland appear to be a single unified island)!! If that is "political manoeuvering", then it is only for the good of Wikipdedia! ie to tell the truth!--] (]) 22:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Matt, you never have ventured to answer the question of why Wiki's NI Unionist editors have tended to support the location of this article if what you keep claiming again and again and again is true: That the location of this article and its content is a United Ireland ploy aimed at denying NI's existence. And basically accusing almost anyone who defends this article of being a Nationalist POV pusher. I find that rather bizarre myself, especially since you are the one who keeps contending that it is the current Nationalist state alone that deserves to be treated as the heir of all of Ireland's pre-partition history; the state alone, it appears, you believe is the 'real' Ireland. ] (]) 00:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Woah! I've said many times that people have mixed ideas on this - to yourself as well. I have not called everyone a "nationalist POV pusher" here at all (not my language at all). Don't be so OTT. I'm arguing this on the merit of a fullpoof argument - as I have always done. You say I believe the state alone is the 'real' Ireland - of course I do! Can't you see you are being romantic? People always come '''before''' the name of the rock they live on - and you could never prove to me the rock was named before the people, either. There has to be a distinction between island and state - you always try and blur it. That just isn't encyclopedic, and part of that 'mythical' island happens to be British. --] (]) 01:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: So, out of curiousity, if Wales was partitioned--part becoming independent and part remaining in the Union, which part would be the 'real' Wales? Or suppose the Irish constitution hadn't named the state "Ireland" but had instead retained the name "Irish Free State," would that state still be the 'real Ireland' or is its status as heir to all of Ireland's history solely based on the name chosen? And what is romantic about saying that someone who lives on the island of Ireland is part of Ireland? Seems perfectly logical to me. So the NI Unionists who support this article, are they as romantic as you say I am? And what do you have against islands anyways? ] (]) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The question isn't which part would become the "real" Wales. On Wiki such musings are '''irrelevent'''. The article called ''Wales'' would be whichever became the dominant usage in the English language. In the event of a lack of total dominance of the term to refer to one part, "Wales" would become a dab page. As "Ireland" '''must'''. ] (]) 02:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: I'm not talking about the name of the article right at the moment, thank you very much. Regardless of what the article is named, Matt is trying to define this article, its content and all links that would be made to it or to the state article in a very specific way. His intentions towards this article and its links are totally relevant. Although I've a feeling your views concur with Matt's on this matter, although probably for very different reasons. ] (]) 02:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Yes I am - my "specific way" is to be unambiguous - 1 Irish state article, and 1 island article - which you simply don't like, that is all. You talk to me as if I am caning creative children with a stick, sometimes. Misplaced Pages is not place to cater for fond emotions, or be 'poetic' with the truth in any way - it is a serious encyclopedia. --] (]) 04:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::: I don't know what you are talking about half the time, Matt. Fond emotions? Poetic? Wha? I know poetry has and is a huge part of all of the island of Ireland's culture, so in that sense poetry does belong on this page. Beyond that, your just projecting sentiments on people sans evidence. Above you've now suggested the 'Ireland's of history should be linked to 'History of Ireland'. Is that now your position? Because yesterday you seemed to imply that all of Ireland's history belonged to the state alone and should link there. So which is it? I don't much care about the history section on this page; it could stay or go or be amended, but as of yesterday you seemed to be implying that the state is where all history links should go. ] (]) 14:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:@Hohenloh: Ever heard of ]? If you're going to make such an accusation, please provide (a) some evidence and (b) a bit more clarity - what kind of political manoeuvre do you think I'm trying to pull off by making it easier for WP users to find the articles they're looking for? ] (]) 23:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. "Ireland" is an ambiguous term, hence ] should be the disambiguation page, with "Ireland (state)" and "Ireland (island)" articles linked therefrom. ] (]) 21:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===== An arbitrary section break ===== |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Djegan, Mooretwin and others. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>]</b> ]<font color="navy">♦</font>]</font> 22:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. I accept that there is force in arguments on both sides but I think we have got it more or less right at the moment. There should be a substantive article at ], something for people to read, and an article on the geography and general history of the whole island seems the most appropriate article to have there. ] (]) 23:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::What you think appropriate is hardly the issue? What is consistent with ] is the only issue. And RoI is not. ] (]) 23:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:So you think Ireland should have two state articles? People are clearly voting for Ireland to be the state article here. --] (]) 01:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::The logic of his argument would suggest he wants one article to cover the ''whole island'' and merge the other two as ]. I would support that solution, being an Irish nationalist. But I'd be prepared (reluctantly) to go with the dab page as a compromise. ] (]) 02:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' I am a bit perplexed by the proposal. Despite the current assertion at the top that the article is about the island, the article clearly encompasses both geography as well as political and national histories with breakout articles for additional details on many aspects of both. It seems well situated as is. It actually seems '''more''' confusing to me to put the disambig page here. Look at ] or ] for similar geographical/political situations. Neither goes directly to their disambig pages although I think they clearly could. ]] 23:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*:The ] article is about the island only. And there is no ambiguity. Ireland is ambiguous in a way that causes problems. -- ]·] 00:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Pigman - the article currently has forked political information in it - it is supposed to just be about the geographical island. ] is the state article. What you are saying seems to be that you want Ireland to be the state article?--] (]) 01:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If the concept of ] has any legitimate meaning in Wiki, it is here. Clearly Ireland must be a dab page. All this argument about history, precedence, emotion is totally and utterly irrelevant - there are two "Irelands" - the island and the state and research shows that most searches using the term are actually referring to the '''state'''. If "Ireland" isn't to be a dab the only alternative consistent with ] is to use it for the country/state. End of. So dab it must be, regardless of the !votes. The filibustering/blocking group must be ignored here. ] (]) 02:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's the complete opposite of what you said when you argued that a majority vote would be enough.So on the one hand a majority vote is sufficient when it agrees with your views and on the other it isn't sufficient when it doesn't agree with your views? I think you need to make your mind up.] (]) 06:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I said that a majority vote would be enough, not that it was necessary. In this case as this is about supporting Wiki policy as per ]. You'll find my mind is indeed made. ] (]) 07:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Thanks for the clarification. Commonname - that's the place where it says: "use the most common name of a person or thing that '''does not conflict with the names of other people or things''' " isn't it?] (]) 09:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Yes. And in that case you use a dab page - which is what is being proposed here. ] (]) 20:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong support''' per the proposal. Ireland is clearly ambiguous, so what's the fuss? This is a positive step for Misplaced Pages and its editors (and most importantly readers!). <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 02:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**If you want to be helpfull in this respect, you might as well dump ] at Ireland and be done with it. That would certainly be more helpfull than being presented with a list of entires, half of which are people named Ireland. When you look at the likes of China, or Georgia, the current Ireland db page is a total pig's ear of a 'solution' if helping a reader is the goal. ] (]) 02:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***I'm an editor who would like to help sort out '''Ireland''' (the disambiguation page) as well as '''Ireland (island)''' and '''Ireland (state)''' but editing is effectively pointless until we get a compromise. The status quo is not acceptable. It's a mess. -- ]·] 12:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
****I suggested, Ireland stay as it is, ROI -> Ireland(state). That's the only acceptable compromise that will work. At present Ireland(state) maintains 85% of the territory, and that must be of significance when considering any changes. Also, the seas around the whole island legally belong to Ireland(state), which is another point of significance. ] (]) 13:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*****Er, no they aren't. The seas around NI legally belong to the UK. ] (]) 13:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
******Er, yes, they do belong to Ireland(state). That's according to the "Government of Ireland Act, 1920", an internationally binding treaty. Only the boroughs are in the UK, the seas belong to Ireland. See here - ] (]) 16:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*******Highly dubious, to say the least. Only the first page of the source you link to is visible and it makes no such conclusion. It refers only to a (hopeful) interpretation of the 1920 Act on the part of Southern nationalists seeking to claim the waters. In real life, of course, the waters are within the jurisdiction of the UK, with, for example, HM Coastguard and the Royal Navy operating within them. ] (]) 16:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
********The Irish government allow passage on the principle of "friendly cooperation". Why would they do anything else? It's not an issue. My point was that the island belongs to Ireland, less the land counties that are under UK administration. ] (]) 17:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**********Utter nonsense. ] (]) 19:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*********Okay, lets get back to the real world and not some semi-United Ireland cross-dimensional sillyness. There are two jurisdictions in Ireland - the Republic of Ireland and (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and) Northern Ireland. Get real. ] (]) 17:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**********I couldn't agree more with you. That's exactly how I understand it. ] (]) 17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***********The ''names'' of the two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland are "Ireland" and "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Whatever. I ''still'' can't see a better compromise than '''Ireland''' (dab), '''Ireland (state)''' and '''Ireland (island)'''. And I still have yet to hear a counter-proposal that makes sense. -- ]·] 17:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***********It gets more . ] (]) 18:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::The only surreal thing here is the ''apparent'' inability of some to see that "Ireland" must be a dab page as per Wiki policy. ] (]) 20:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Which policy and were is "must"? ] (]) 20:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Support''' - The word ''Ireland'' is ambiguous. It would be sensible to have Ireland as a disambiguation page. ] (]) 10:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**The words China and Korea are 'ambiguous' by this definition, yet they do not have dab pages. An example of true ambiguity, where a word has two completely different and unrelated meanings, is Georgia, which has a dab page. Ireland is not ambiguous in any sense of basic topic navigation on wikipedia. I believe this idea that some hold that readers typing in just Ireland only wish to navigate to a state article or a geographic island article is a complete fiction. ] (]) 18:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***So speaks the contentious editor who argued to an article-lock that ] isn't a "country" (and Scotland etc, despite ]). Nothing like actually ''helping'' Misplaced Pages, is there? China and Korea have their own structures - China is ''"the article about the Chinese civilisation"'' and it '''is''' - it doesn't start by bullshitting people like this one. How an you suggest that Ireland is as complex as China! Please. Ireland is simple to disambiguate for the benefit of Misplaced Pages, but certain culprits always oppose change. If anyone is listening - THE ROT HAS GOT TO STOP!! --] (]) 19:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::No Matt, I doubt anyone is listening to your increasingly personal and off-topic rants, but I have to correct you here in case anyone believed your recollection of history. I argued for the current version of Wales , being that "Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom", having failed to persuade you and others in a polarised debate not too dissimilar to this one, that the official Number 10 version represented a decent compromise, that "Wales is a country within a country", between you, and those who would have country removed completely. I then defended that version agreed upon by lengthy consensus building which you then attempted to some time later change on a personal whim, it being your right as it was somehow 'your' article because you are Welsh, and also because some time had passed and you had whacked the latest wikipeire mole and nobody else had opposed your view in the original debate, in much the same way you try and paint all opposers in here as being the same person/cabal member/Ireland as the state article supporter, whose views are irrelevant because the issue is so 'clear'. But to move to addressing the only part of your reply that was remotely relevant to this debate, the paralells between the ambiguity of terms like China and Ireland are quite obvious to me, and I'm sure it is to others. ] (]) 02:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You utter, utter! I can remember a locked ] article, having to get in mediation, and the mediating admin simply having enough of your verbose rants over Wales not being a real "country". You were forced to compromise in the end, but you and the infernal Wikipeire puppetmaster wore everyone down so deeply and so painfully, that when I tried to make an edit to my own country about a month later (having worked all night creating ] to link it too - and stop your anti-Wales/England/Scotland/Nothern Ireland madness to boot) - you popped up to revert me, and one or two people at Wales cried "Please - No changes!!" to more painful disruption. So I stopped after one go. All for ''you'' (in the very end) - one single man stops play. 6 months ago now? Have I been back? No. Because you are there to stir up shit, and provoke conflict between Welsh editors. What the hell gives the ''right''? Your crusades are the very politics we are being told do not exist here, and unfortunately this Ireland article has always attracted people like you. It's one of the reasons why there is never, ''quite'', any change to things.-] (]) 03:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I agree Matt. Maybe it is time for someone to be ] and slay this dragon? We have a simple policy and one side and a certain group of editors saying "no" - why? - because ] on the other. Time to enforce policy. Time to end this charade. ] (]) 20:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Acting when consensus is against you wouldn't be wise. PS: Let's all remember to concentrate on content...this discussion seems to becoming personal. At the end of the day we all want what is best for Misplaced Pages. :) Best, --''']]''' 20:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::(Sarah) Oh there a big, nasty conspiracy on wikipedia! Oh gosh! Oh the dread! Oh get real, this move is not wanted. That simple. ] (]) 20:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Could I politely suggest DJ that you heed the advice Cameron has just given you? Thanks. ] (]) 22:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::And I was expecting something ground breaking...not this time... ] (]) 22:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I believe you were being asked to be polite; not just polite to Cameron. You might perhaps observe the way I conduct myself here and model your approach on that? ] (]) 22:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::And Cameron, there is a consensus of those actually giving reasons and citing policy. Consensus isn't totting up !votes, as I am being constantly told. There is no counter argument being offered to the dab page except ]. ] (]) 22:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Are you so sure people aren't seeing your provocations for what they are, Djegan? |
|
|
::::::::All the various reasons given for opposing this Move (and there '''is''' a long-standing 'cabal' here too, everyone knows that, and runs a mile when they see it too) - cannot together be called a 'consensus' in the sense of a ''combined view''. They cover too many different approaches (including the mistaken idea that Ireland is the only "country" article, the desire to keep this now-fully-schizophrenic ] - and some cases of plain disruption too). --] (]) 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Matt you keep referring to it as a "Move" -- its not a move until someone actually "moves" it -- currently its just a "move request". And looking increasingly unlikely at that. ] (]) 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Oh god not the cabal/conspiracy nonsense again? Just sore that you cannot muster enough votes. ] (]) 22:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Au contraire - there is enough consensus for this move. The !votes don't need to be taken into consideration. ] (]) 22:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Don't count your... ] (]) 22:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Never do DJ. I always have one eye on the next round. You can bet your bippy on that:) ] (]) 01:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::This move most certainly ''is'' wanted. Come on, this argument has gone on since 2004! That's a clear sign that there is no consensus for the status quo. I agree with Sarah. Gainsaying is no good. We should implement simple policy. -- ]·] 21:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::In 2004 the Ireland article was simply for the island - it was a lot simpler then (although people where not too happy then either). All the extra mixed-up articles that have multiplied in their thousands since didn't then exist - but it's just got to breaking point now. --] (]) 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::"no consensus" -- no consensus for a move you mean, and I suppose your going to invent policy whilst your at it. ] (]) 22:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Policy clearly indicates this must be a dab page. ] (]) 22:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Where exactly - which policy, which paragraph, which sentence? ] ] ] ] (]) 22:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::The policy has been pointed out repeatedly over a prolonged period. This filibustering must stop now. ] (]) 23:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::As I expected this "policy" is so vague it doesn't exist or is not worth repeating - or a combination of both. Yet this "policy" is "cited" again and again. Makebelieve. ] (]) 23:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::You've still offered nothing but gainsaying. You're arguing that "there isn't a problem" which is absurd, and you're arguing nothing more than that ] the solution offered. And whee, now you're trying to Wikilawyer. Bah. Such bad faith. -- ]·] 23:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::DJ, the policy is crystal clear. We are simply not going to (further) indulge your endless demands that it be explained to you. I suggest you read it. If you cannot understand it there is nothing further to be said to you. ] (]) 01:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::My original comments stand, you folks have nothing to offer. ] (]) 08:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Your only actual argument (with which you <u>hijacked this poll</u>) has been against changing the ] article to ], which is <u>NOT</u> proposed here. (You say that it forces ] etc - but that is not true at all, anyway). |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::We are offering freedom to all the countless confused and floundering Irish articles (and potentially some new Northern Ireland ones), struck by a dual-state, mixed-link, non-uniform (regarding titles and content), '''identity crisis''' that suits only the highly-vocal few, and shunned by a notoriously apprehensive wider community. Is that really nothing to offer? --] (]) 12:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(unindent) Please do not misrepresent my comments. And don't bring Northern Ireland into it in another vane attempt to confuse the issue. Your comments at times have been '''inflammatory''' and '''misleading'''. Stop! Halt! ] (]) 13:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''<u>Djegan - you will conceal this matter no longer.</u>''' ''']''' are just the tip of the iceberg. The current situation with this forked-info 'state subsitute' ] article has simply made a progressive mess over time. We have ''''of Ireland'''' articles that have a section on Northern Ireland (ie they refer to the island) and ''''of Ireland'''' articles that are just Irish (ie they refer to the state). Now we have breaking point. And the official ''''of Republic of Ireland'''' articles just confuse things too (and some are ']' to Ireland, some are not). Northern Ireland is a part of a much wider mess that has simply now grown into an '''''untenable positon''''', and it covers every single Ireland-related subject. --] (]) 13:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Any truly differentiated incoming links can still be sent to two specific pages detailing specific geography of Ireland or details of the ROI, without vandalising this Ireland page to enforce the quite false presumption you have that 'Ireland' means only one or the other, and that is all any reader could possibly want to find at ''Ireland''. I see no breaking point here or attempts to cover anything up, or even anything particularly confusing to the normal reader, only a slow and steady descent by yourself into drama mongering for not being able to convince others that your way is the only way. ] (]) 16:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Ireland is not a "British" isle == |
|
===== Another arbitrary section break ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the term is a colonial and outdated one having been dug up from (by even then) archaic sources by one John Dee - an advisor to Elizabeth I of England, and who advocated for the colonisation of Ireland. Today it has no official standing and has no more relevance to Ireland than the term British East Africa has to modern day Kenya. And as such needs to be be kept in the dustbin of history where it belongs ] (]) 12:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
'''Comment:''' This is a continuing poll... (]). Please vote! --] (]) 23:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:It is a geographical term for a group of islands. Nothing colonial here. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 12:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::The now archaic term as detailed is colonial both in origin and use from the 1600s onwards. Denial doesn't change that regardless ] (]) 10:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Denial doesn't change the fact that it's absolutely a common geographical term, and elsewhere. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Best we keep using it. ] (]) 13:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::yes ] (]) 19:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Best according to whom exactly - the same small number of self serving editors? ] (]) 01:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, . ]<sup>]</sup> 12:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Best we keep using it. ] (]) 06:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:British Isles is an internationally recognised geographical term. It is used in educational textbooks in Canada, United States, Australia, New Zealand etc. |
|
|
:It's also in common use in Ireland, ignoring those whose lives revolve around politics |
|
|
:Celebrity Cruises.IE |
|
|
:https://www.celebritycruises.com/ie/destinations/european-cruises/british-isles-cruise |
|
|
:AirBnB Ireland |
|
|
:https://www.airbnb.ie/british-isles/stays/islands |
|
|
:I could go on but I can't be bothered. |
|
|
:It's common use in Ireland and ubiquitous use outside of Ireland. And, mind you, the 'revolt' against the term hasn't begun until Sinn Fein's recent electoral successes. ] (]) 22:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] citing a cruise website and Airbnb is a new low, please remove the term its offensive, to the history of Ireland. |
|
|
::A replacement term of IONA Ialands of the North Atlantic is much more inclusive. ] (]) 07:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Read the rest of the page, and the archives. It's used by a lot more than AirBnB and some cruise site. You'll find, e.g., the link to the search results returned solely from gov.ie websites. The term is offensive ''to you'', not to "the history of Ireland". We won, remember? IONA is mentioned ], but its use is tiny (possibly because it's offensive to Iceland, Greenland, and the Canaries, among others). ]<sup>]</sup> 08:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is deeply disheartening when editors fail to properly evaluate evidence and persist in framing the world through their own cultural biases. The perspectives on this issue are clear: For most British people, the term is claimed to be purely geographical because they seem to have been told repeatedly in school that that is the case even though "from the very beginning, the expression “British Isles” was a deliberate attempt to give geographic legitimacy to the political ambitions of an expansionist English state"<ref>https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/opinion-to-say-britishness-is-authentic-while-denying-irishness-is-quaffing-ones-own-kool-aid-too-deeply-3276952-Mar2017/</ref>. Among Irish people, the term is generally seen as wholly unacceptable. For people who understand the word "British", the term is clearly political. The Irish government’s official stance is that the term is neither used nor considered appropriate. Joint documents issued by the British and Irish governments affirm that the term is not acceptable, favoring alternatives such as “these islands.” The British government itself acknowledges that the term holds no official status. The evidence is clear; the term is contentious and disputed. Despite this, editors based in Britain continue to champion its use on Misplaced Pages, disregarding the controversy and the availability of more neutral alternatives. Why? Search for any reputable Irish publication, e.g. the Irish Times or the Journal and "British Isles" and every result is about how it's not appropriate: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/the-british-isles-1.26569 https://www.thejournal.ie/is-ireland-british-isles-northern-ireland-europe-islands-1140112-Oct2013/ https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2005-09-28/495/ https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio/2023/03/12/wild-isles-quibbles-about-our-british-isles-melt-away-in-the-face-of-david-attenboroughs-passion/ https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/opinion-to-say-britishness-is-authentic-while-denying-irishness-is-quaffing-ones-own-kool-aid-too-deeply-3276952-Mar2017/ ] (]) 17:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Considering this is a page ablut Ireland could we not use something not controversial? The Irish government do not recognise the term British Isles (aka the government that makes up like 75% of the area), and on the good Friday agreement it was also not used and "these islands" wete used instead. How about wr just use Britain and Ireland? Its not controversial. ] (]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Move discussion in progress == |
|
(Outdent) ] wishes to cite ] Ignore All Rules. That's no argument against the fact that the Ireland articles are a mess and that there is consensus that something needs to be done to sort it out. It's no argument that we should do nothing. ] wishes to cite ] Exceptions to the Rule Should Leave the Rule Intact. This is no argument that this applies here. This is no argument that the status quo serves the needs of the encyclopaedia. The status quo may serve]'s POV, but that's no reason the normal rule for complex disambiguation should not be applied so that '''Ireland''' = the disambiguation page. ] wishes to cite ] Use Common Sense. I daresay we are doing so. -- ]·] 23:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Republic of Ireland#Requested move 18 August 2024 crosspost --> —] 13:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Four times you refer to "JDegan" - who is that? ]? ] (]) 08:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Corrected. My analysis remains unchanged. -- ]·] 08:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::What is the objection to keeping this page where it is and moving ] to ] or ]? --''']]''' 17:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You would still have the issue of two Irish state articles, though (if this Ireland article remains the same)! There was support for 'Ireland (state)' ]. If it was taken up, this 'Ireland' article would have to be geographical/island only, and have a VERY good hatnote linking to 'Ireland (state)' - as so many links are out there link to 'Ireland' when refering to the state. --] (]) 18:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I believe that if the island article were '''Ireland''' only it would quickly accrete non-island material. -- ]·] 18:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::And eventually we'd end up back where we are now - with two state articles, and a point where it can't hold up any longer. --] (]) 18:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Island" == |
|
*'''Support'''- It seems a reasonable and sensible suggestion to me if i understand it right. "Ireland" takes you to the disam page where you can choose between the Island, ROI and Northern Ireland rather than being sent to the island page by mistake which happens at the moment. I cant understand the objections :\ ] (]) 18:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' I consider the importance of the articles Ireland (the state) and Ireland (the island) of a similar level. Both will receive a high number of visitors. The state might receive more interest but, taking in orders of magnitude, I guess they are comparable. Therefore, I do not support the current implementation that gives preference to the island over the state. A direct disamb page would receive many clicks, which is of course not so nice. However, I think it is justified, and the readers would understand this when they see that the options they have to choose from are of a similar caliber. ]<sub>]]</sub> 19:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**So if you wanted to know who was the ruler of Ireland in 1575, or how cross border rail links are operated, or the history of the Troubles from a neutral perspective, then typing in Ireland and being presented with a 2 option choice of a geography article or an article about a modern state, what happens then? Which option do you click? It's a fiction that there are only two desired destinations of ''Ireland'', this a manufactured solution to stop edit warring, not to help the readers. ] (]) 19:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::(1) To ]. |
|
|
::(2) Crossing which border? The one between the UK and Ireland? Well than I would do a similar thing as to finding cross-border travels between other states. Perhaps I misunderstood you though... |
|
|
::(3) Neutral perspective is Misplaced Pages policy for every article!! "''the Troubles"?? I do not know what you mean. |
|
|
:: I am not interested in your Ireland, Norther Ireland, UK politics. So far, to me it is not even clear which option (oppose or support) would compare to which POV. So believe me, I am only thinking of helping the reader and certainly have no agenda. ]<sub>]]</sub> 20:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::1) Research the proposal then, because ] is not part of it. 2) Maybe your ignorance of cross border issues is relevant, maybe it isn't. I tend to think the fact the links exist negates your ideals. 3)Good luck in finding a neutral account of the Troubles if you think that the only place that that account resides on Misplaced Pages is the ROI article. Naivety doesn't even cover that tbh.] (]) 02:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support''' - The word ''Ireland'' is ambiguous. I've read the arguments above, and my opinion is unchanged. It would be a sensible move to have Ireland as a disambiguation page. ] (]) 20:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:* Also a duplicate. ] ] 20:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Weren't we being asked to vote again? It said please vote. ] (]) 21:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't think that was the intention. ] ] 22:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Sam Blacketer summed it up very well. ] ]] 22:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' ] put it well and per the examples of ] and ]. ] (]) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I just don't get this China thing. It is China for Pete's sake! And were is Northern Ireland on Taiwan? People are linking to Ireland when it is clearly defined as a state, and they are getting cultural info on Northern Ireland. So do they mean Ireland with NI or not?? What do they mean? The mish-mash situation might be 'uber' clever in some people's minds (not mine) - but it's just left an almighty mess where linking, people's sanity, and article quality is concerned. --] (]) 02:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article is very clearly about the Irish nation as a whole, not merely the largest island of Ireland (the Irish mainland), so the lede's current wording of "Ireland is an island" is obviously incorrect. I fixed this with , but {{ping|Canterbury Tail}} reverted the edit, claiming that the fix was "confusing" with no explanation as to how, and suggested discussing it on the talk page. |
|
== Comment on the above proposal == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I have to ask- if not "nation", then what other term should be used to describe the whole nation of Ireland, consisting of all 32 Irish counties (including areas both on the Irish mainland and offshore islands)? ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 18:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
The above proposal is a perennial one and the outcome is always to keep the status quo - if for no better reason on each (increasingly more common) occasion than a lack of consensus. Not only is the discussion perennial, but now it is continued. The latest outbreak has been carried from ], to ] and now to ] without cessation since August. The perennial (and now unceasing) proposal is disruptive and unproductive and I propose that discussion be wrapped up forthwith. |
|
|
|
:The article is about the island and what is on it (plus subsidiary islands as is normal with any large island). It's not about the people, they're secondary. This isn't about the counties, it's about the landmass and all that exists and has existed on it. If it was about a nation we'd need to excise half the article as the concept of Irish as a nation is relatively new in historical terms and the geography, flora and fauna of it don't subscribe to this nationhood. ] ] 18:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think this is missing the point- this article is about all of Ireland, not just about the Irish mainland, so beginning the article with "Ireland is an island" is factually incorrect. It would be correct to say "Ireland has hundreds of islands"; it would not be correct to say "Ireland is an island consisting of hundreds of islands". |
|
|
::By contrast, the ] article makes it clear in the lede that ''Great Britain is an island'' but also that ''the term "Great Britain" can also refer to the political territory of England, Scotland and Wales, which includes their offshore islands.'' ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 19:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And this article also makes it clear that is also refers to the political territory of Ireland (Republic of) and Northern Ireland. But the article is pretty clear it's about the island and that there are other surround islands. It's perfectly normal in the world to discuss small islands surrounding larger ones in the same context, or those in rivers, lakes etc. Are we disputing that Ireland is an island now? ] ] 19:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And mention of other islands can be removed if we feel necessary. ] ] 22:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Languages == |
|
Furthermore, I feel that many of us that are opposed to the move, myself included, have lost the will to continue repeating the discussion over-and-over again. I will not be participating in the discussion or making direct contribution on it. The archives of this page, the ] page and its archives, and the ] page (among others) already contain my opposition the move. I suspect that I am not alone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, I fear my silence and the silence of others will be construed to be consensus. It is disappointing that "discussion" might be reduced to a war of attrition. --] (]) 19:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
BSL is also used in NI ] (]) 21:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Fear not, the majority of the votes are oppose votes! ;) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Population == |
|
I'm not directly addressing this particular IP (who would no-doubt love all the Ireland-related problems to carry on), only two points: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of 2024, population of island would be just over 7.3 million with 5.38m in the Republic and 1.92m in the north. ] (]) 23:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
1) The outcome in previous polls was always to keep the 'status quo', mainly because so many different ideas for change have been supported. No one solution ever got past 2/3, but there has long been a desire to resolve the issues, which have only got progressively worse.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:How do you know that? ] (]) 12:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
2) The pressures brought about by having two increasingly supported ] state articles have reached boiling and breaking point, which can partly be seen in the appearences of IP's and socks so intent on hindering progress. This time around there has been a taskforce created for the job (at ]), and '''''serious efforts''''' from people of all colours of the 'POV' spectrum to resolve the issues. |
|
|
|
::official CSO estimates. https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-pme/populationandmigrationestimatesapril2024/keyfindings/ ] (]) 16:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's just an estimate, keep to actual official census figures. ] ] 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Why? It’s an official estimate which are included in many other country wikipedia articles. I also don’t remember talking to you ] (]) 17:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Um anyone can post on a talk page. You posted on a public talk page of a public article. ] ] 17:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2024 == |
|
I'm not having this IP dismiss the huge efforts of decent people to such a truly cynical degree. --] (]) 23:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Ireland|answered=yee}} |
|
:Matt, please just stop this absolute nonsense that just because your vision of wikipedia is not shared by everybody that some how the "breaking point" has been reached. Just stop being such a drama whore, and then maybe just maybe you might be taken seriously by neutrals. ] (]) 02:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Please do not use “the British isles”. It is not a geographical term. It is an outdated geopolitical term. The Irish government has explicitly stated that it should no longer be used to refer to Britain and Ireland as a whole in any capacity. ] (]) 08:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{not done}}. You didn't specify an exact replacement, this had been discussed above (]) and wider changes could be implemented also which is out of scope of a simple edit request (eg are you suggesting a rename of the article ], ] etc?). There is a note in the article about the use of "British Isles" and a link to ].--] (]) 12:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
the term is a colonial and outdated one having been dug up from (by even then) archaic sources by one John Dee - an advisor to Elizabeth I of England, and who advocated for the colonisation of Ireland. Today it has no official standing and has no more relevance to Ireland than the term British East Africa has to modern day Kenya. And as such needs to be be kept in the dustbin of history where it belongs 109.78.105.250 (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is very clearly about the Irish nation as a whole, not merely the largest island of Ireland (the Irish mainland), so the lede's current wording of "Ireland is an island" is obviously incorrect. I fixed this with this edit, but @Canterbury Tail: reverted the edit, claiming that the fix was "confusing" with no explanation as to how, and suggested discussing it on the talk page.
So I have to ask- if not "nation", then what other term should be used to describe the whole nation of Ireland, consisting of all 32 Irish counties (including areas both on the Irish mainland and offshore islands)? Chessrat 18:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Please do not use “the British isles”. It is not a geographical term. It is an outdated geopolitical term. The Irish government has explicitly stated that it should no longer be used to refer to Britain and Ireland as a whole in any capacity. 2001:BB6:287C:8E00:59B9:484D:25A7:6015 (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done. You didn't specify an exact replacement, this had been discussed above (#Ireland is not a "British" isle) and wider changes could be implemented also which is out of scope of a simple edit request (eg are you suggesting a rename of the article British Isles, Category:British Isles etc?). There is a note in the article about the use of "British Isles" and a link to Names of the British Isles.--Commander Keane (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)