Jump to content

Talk:Names of the Irish state/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Eire and Ulster in newspaper headlines

You only have to look at Google News pretty much any day of the week! --Red King 12:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gaeilgeoirs in so many English papers, who would have thought?

Lapsed Pacifist 12:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree somewhat with LP on this one, their is approx 135 instances of "Eire" in Google News, 15 are of these are "Eire Og" (Google does not appear to respect the "fada"), additionally their are 2,280 instances of "Republic of Ireland", 38,000 of Ireland, 584 of "Irish Republic" - some of these stories are of historical nature and this should be taken into account. Using Eire for the Republic of Ireland football team is pure idleness, moreover my honest belief is that "Eire" is often used purely out of incompetence, if not sectarianism. Theirfore I would be reserved in my use of Eire. Djegan 19:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course its idleness, and arguably incompetence. That was precisely my point. Without the footnote, the article is being too precious. Yes, their are certainly cases where "Eire" (sic) and Ulster are used with malice aforethought. But the vast majority of cases are innocent, alebit culpably so. I have been asked a few times "Are you from southern Ireland", which I take as meaning "Aroo from Cork?" before realising the question meant "not Northern Ireland". The questioner had never heard of Southern Ireland. --Red King 22:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Names of Ireland

For an informal merger discussion see Wikipedia_talk:Irish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Names_of_Ireland.

Djegan 20:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cropped euro coin.png

Image:Cropped euro coin.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cropped euro coin.png

Image:Cropped euro coin.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Article title

This should be Republic of Ireland (name) or something similar as thats what it deals with -- Republic of Ireland. Djegan (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. The name of the state is Ireland. 'Republic of' is a description to put beyond doubt that it is not subject to the Crown (of England). Please read Republic of Ireland Act. --Red King (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It was at Names of the Irish state before a couple of moves which can only be undone by an administrator --Rumping (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The article has been moved back to Names of the Irish state, but not the Talk: page; probably just an oversight. jnestorius(talk) 11:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I've fixed that. Things are now back to the status quo ante (12 August). Complaints over the ill-advised "toponymy" move spree go to User talk:Neelix please. --dab (𒁳) 15:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Ireland48cstamp.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Rationale added but source needed. Original uploader is retired. ww2censor (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


Colloquial names

Originally, the last section covered colloquial terms used by Irish people for their country - that is, what they actually call themselves in real life. This was a very important section, because it emphasised that the naming controversy discussed above is largely irrelevant to ordinary Irish people. Now someone has inserted a lot of quotes from the style guides of British newspapers. How are these relevant to this important section? Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-Dab material removed from Dab Ireland (disambiguation)

Of the following group of entries, only the first is a reasonable contender for the title "Ireland":

The island has formerly been subject to a number of political arrangements (arranged in reverse chronological order):

  • Irish Free State, the name, from 1922 to 1937, of the state comprising 26 of Ireland's 32 counties
  • Irish Republic, the unilaterally declared independent state between 1919 and 1922, also sometimes wrongly used to describe the current state
  • Southern Ireland, the 26-county Irish state envisaged by the Government of Ireland Act 1920
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the name of the state of which Ireland formed a part between 1801 and 1922
  • Kingdom of Ireland, the name given to the Irish state from 1541 to 1801.
  • Lordship of Ireland, a nominally all-island Irish state created in the wake of the Norman invasion of the east coast of Ireland in 1169
  • Gaelic Ireland, the political order that existed in Ireland prior to the Norman invasion

The rest of them are aspects of Ireland (the island) that are appropriate to find via the Ireland article, the accompanying article Names of the Irish state, or perhaps something along the lines of List of Irish states, Succession of sovereignties in Ireland, or possibilities i probably still wouldn't blunder onto if i kept listing possibilities.
I've moved those entries to this talk page rather than just discarding them where they don't belong, in the hope that the work of compiling them will not be wasted if the accompanying article (which is now a see-also entry on the Dab'n page for "Ireland") doesn't leave them redundant, and to draw attention to the possibility that there are roles, valid for WP but which were misplaced onto the Dab page, that should be provided for on new or existing pages.
--Jerzy•t 07:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolution and the Belfast Agreement

I don't really think the Belfast Agreement actually resolved anything on the name of the Irish state. It talked about the Government of Ireland and the Constitution of Ireland, a body and a document, but it did not seem to use a name for the state or the geographical area which is that part of the island of Ireland which is not Northern Ireland. By contrast, Northern Ireland was mentioned frequently and United Kingdom occasionally. A star to anyone who can find something better at [1] which is clearer and more explicit than either South as in "North and South", or the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution meaning the territory of the pre-1937 Irish Free State. --Rumping (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right, Rumping. If anything the document gives stronger precedence to the island of Ireland and Northern Ireland both terms capitalised as such when they appear. It says Irish Government not Government of Ireland (these people are smart). It reaffirms the right to Irish citizenship any part of the island. Contrary dispute is a) seperatist to the point of social exclusion and b) militant to the point of claiming ground on a fought for in blood basis. These are ridiculous and are ideals that surely predate the people of Ireland such as shouting "woof" and running. The rest of it is stuff like "We will meet and talk about all things that are best for Northern Ireland." "We will not be killing each other." "We will be equal people." and "We will not nick all the funds the minute we get them." As like any good legal documents do as well as stuff specific to people in specific situations. ~ R.T.G 16:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Striking, to be fair, a lot of it was fought and died for. I can't get this arguments for dulling of the islands title. Sorry and not the first time in some days now. There was no naming dispute to resolve, Rumping. It's rare Irish will object the republic because people who died for the country named it so. It is a title deserving not imposed. Any judge taking a snipe at a British document is just that and nothing more. ~ R.T.G 08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of info on the football team and the passport

Is the football team and the passport not notable? funny, I thought the football was one of the best in the world and the passport was one of the most unique in the world. Silly me that must be crap I don't understand. ~ R.T.G 14:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(moved from my Talk page)
Do not remove well sourced and relevent info such as related to the national football team and the Irish passport being unrestricted over the island[2][3]. What are you doing? If the passport bearing the states name goes outside the bounds of other legislation bearing the states name, that is not for you removing. If the football team is commonly refered to as either name, that is not for removing. If you want to discuss that do so on the talk page Talk:Names of the Irish state thanks. ~ R.T.G 14:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have trouble understanding your English. What exactly does your point about the passport have to do with the Name of the state? Likewise, what exactly does your point about the name of the association football team have to do with the name of the state? Your meandering additions to the article add nothing. I removed your additions as per WP:BRD - I suggest you familiarize yourself with this policy. Finally, keep off my Talk page. Any page I edit is on my watch list. --HighKing (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the football team names are notable and should be restored. --Rumping (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

@Highking, I said that what you did was crappy (wasteful) and I didn't understand. I shouldn't like to point such clear language out as it can be construed incivil when stressed, can it not? You understand perfectly, do you not, the edits cited were rubbishing the info? Well, the football team, the passport, and the island, they are important stuffs, older and more respected than you or I. Alter by all means (and cite the passport why don't you? I suspect it is not within your interest perhaps?). The team is a state institution. I am sorry if you think that is final. I assure you, I do not get the scent from you, like. Oh I mean, don't worry, it is unlikely you will gather my interest again is it? Yeah sure, I will note your preferences, now in a minute, thanks for the personal notes. ~ R.T.G 16:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

copied from another user talk:

Hi, you recently reverted an edit where I reverted a user trying to insert the following into an article: The state's national football team, while often referred to (including by itself) as "Ireland", officially plays as the "Republic of Ireland" because Northern Ireland also fields a team in international competitions and in 1954 FIFA was no longer prepared to tolerate two teams called "Ireland". Can you help me understand why you believe that this is relevant in the article? It appears in the "official description" section, but it has nothing to do with the official description. Is there some dispute over the description and you're using the football team as an example of something? Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The name of the national football team which plays its home games in Dublin is the "Republic of Ireland". It is the representative team of the state which has its capital in Dublin, so its name is relevant to the question of the name of the Irish state. In fact the point was in the article for some time before you were "bold" twice today[4][5] though I do not think your edit summaries fairly described what you did.--Rumping (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but what has any of that got to do with the name of the national association football team? It is the representative team of Ireland, for sure, but are you trying to state that the name of the team somehow affects the name of the state or vice versa? --HighKing (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
It is an example of a particular use which had to deal with the state/island distinction and therefore relevant. Compare with the Ireland national rugby union team, which is also a representative team, but of a larger Ireland (the Ireland international rules football team and Ireland cricket team are similar to the rugby team). --Rumping (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
So to be clear, this is being used as an example where the description of the state is being used to disambiguate between the name of the island and the name of the state? If this the correct understanding, let's split it out into it's own section and make the point more clearly. At the moment it's just not that clear why the point is being made. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Removal is denialism. Djegan (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Insightful. Still, it'd be great if someone would actually answer the question asked rather than sly personal digs. --HighKing (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
It's easy for you to say that. Sarah777 (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Simply put, it is related to Names of the Irish state. You want to suggest that football should be left out here because football is not notable? When was the last time that the national stadium was not sold out to a match of international football? Surely there is some way that people make their support of football notable and if one per cent of the population arrives for limited seats at every match..? Will I cite some of this stuff? ~ R.T.G 18:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well ... I'd much rather if you didn't presume to attribute incorrect motives to me. I am not suggesting that football is not notable. I'm suggesting that the entire point is irrelevant to this section of the article, which is describing the official description of the state. If the article was about the football team itself and was describing how the name of the team was decided, this point is notable. Or if the article had a section describing how the description of the state is used as a name for certain objects or organizations, then this could be included as a notable point. But to lump it into a section that is describing the Act and the description makes no sense and is irrelevant. While I believe I now understand why other editors feel that the point may be notable, it should moved to an appropriate section. --HighKing (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Then you move into the place it is relevant or leave it alone. Delete stuff that is incorrect or unsuitable for the article. Counter productivity will not get the job done. "I'd much rather if you didn't presume to attribute incorrect motives to me" - it's getting off the topic now, that is an wikt:obscure remark with no bearing on this article, qoute the attribution of your motives because I do not see it. ~ R.T.G 23:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Stuff as you call it, that is deemed irrelevant and off-topic, will be obviously removed. If you take the time to follow the discussion above, you'll see that there is an obvious and good faith attempt being made on my part to understand why the football team name is relevant. So far, none of the editors that claim it is relevant have tried to answer my straight-forward questions, and I'm in the dark. I've made a suggestion as to why it might be relevant, but it would be nice if you could confirm. And I also answered your query already on your "presumptuousness" - once again I invite you to read what has already been said above (hint:notability of football), or use spectacles to "see" it. That way both our times will be less wasted, and more productive. --HighKing (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The football team is very popular in Ireland you know. They represent the state. They got knocked out last time but they are world class. We love them here in Ireland. Roy Keane? Robbie Keane? Eamonn Dunphy? Jackie Charlton? Ooh ahh Paul Mcgrath? They're worth it Highking. Who is more worth it? ~ R.T.G 07:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Moving on...: We currently have 3 sections: Official name; Official description; European Union. The UN is mentioned in the "official name" section since the UN calls the state by its official name; FIFA is mentioned in the "official description" section since FIFA calls the state's team by the state's official description. The EU is separate because it's more complex. IMO, HighKing's concerns can be addressed and the article improved by removing the UN and FIFA mentions into an expanded EU section renamed something like "International practice", explaining how various international organisations currently and previously refer to the state.Other titbits for this section would be the following, which I can't yet source:

  • IOC: The OCI boycotted the 1936 Olympics because they weren't allowed compete as "Ireland"
  • IAAF: Irish athletics (BLÉ and predecessors) had to compete as "Éire" till c.1980

Some of this overlapped with Irish bodies claiming 32-county jurisdiction. I'm also unhappy that calling the state "Eire" is being presented as a purely British practice. I've seen "Eire" described in French and German reference books as the former name for the Republic of Ireland. Feel free to prove the Brits spread that canard. jnestorius(talk) 01:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Some claim that Tara was a place where European kings were crowned and in German Deutsche Europe sounds Air-ope like Eire but I cannot recall that good source for the Euro-kings study. I think this page could be moved to Names of Irish states for a better article, any opinions on that? ~ R.T.G 18:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move to Names of Irish states

There has never been a the Irish state. There is of course one today that may be seen as "The State Ireland" (close but not the whole biscuit). ~ R.T.G 18:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I recommend Names of Ireland - if anything. Djegan (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Good gods. No, thank you, RTG. -- Evertype·✆ 19:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there a the Irish state? If not, is the title accurate? Any pros and cons? ~ R.T.G 02:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a relatively small semantic issue, probably best to leave alone. Could also suggest "Historic names of Ireland (state)" for example....  :-) --HighKing (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Whats historic about it? The state still exists. Djegan (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately it should be Names of Ireland (preferred) or Names of the Republic of Ireland. No Names of Ireland (state) nonsense. Djegan (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Names of the Republic of Ireland? What a hilariously ironic suggestion!213.202.176.154 (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is Names of Ireland (state) 'nonsense'? I'd prefer Names of Ireland, but that's obviously ambiguous, also referring to the island.hippo43 (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Because neither the constitution nor the law do call the place "Ireland (state)". Disambiguation in this manner is just a nonsense and shambles. The place is more than just a state, its a people with shared culture, economy, history, etc - it is also a country and nation. A job worth doing, is a job worth doing right - so it should be "Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland". Djegan (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, why is disambiguation nonsense (and a shambles)? Disambiguation is commonly used throughout wikipedia and seems useful when a word refers to a country and an island which are not synonymous. Names of Ireland is ambiguous. Names of the Republic of Ireland is problematic because the Republic of Ireland is not a name, is one of the various terms discussed in the article and only refers to the state (as a description) fairly recently. In any case, this article is about the names of the state, not the people, nation, culture, economy etc. hippo43 (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Considering the state was founded in 1922, with the present name since 1937, and with the present description since 1949 - I would hardly refer to the description as "fairly recently". Djegan (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The article refers to names for Ireland from 1171, well before Ireland existed as a republic, so 1949 is 'fairly recently'.hippo43 (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
So it is an article on Ireland, not just the state. The state did not exist before 1922. Djegan (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The current state did not exist before 1922. The article covers older names for the state/s that previously existed on the island. 'Lordship of Ireland', for example, does not refer to the island/people/culture etc.hippo43 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
How richly ironic. You argue that Names of Ireland (state) is nonsense and argue that neither the constitution or law call the place "Ireland (state)", and then you argue for using "Republic of Ireland" instead (which neither the constitution or law name it either). Made me laugh. --HighKing (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This is pretty immature, but so amusing all the same!--Theosony (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I am still laughing at your "historic..." suggestion. Djegan (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Only because you misread what I suggested. The "historic" part refers to the names. Most people seemed to get it - not sure why you didn't. And the reason to suggest "historic" is because there is only one name for the Irish state, therefore (by process of logic), the rest are historic :-). --HighKing (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe your still laughing, but moving on to a more mature footing... There are still many people who use "Irish Republic", "Eire", "Southern Ireland", "Republic of Ireland" as the name - they are hardly "historic" names, they are very much current. The colloquial names section for instance is a reminder of how past names are anything but historic. Djegan (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why 'historic' is funny - yes, the state still exists, but has had many names throughout history - I'm fairly sure that's what HighKing meant.hippo43 (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, to discuss the naming of the Ireland article visit this place where all of my views are set out. I am just going to ask here, if nobody manages to use the word Irish in this debate except me and the articles title, are we politically biased? and, Anybody discussing a move from singular to plural? ~ R.T.G 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I Oppose any move of this article. The name of the article is very clear and appropriate. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Irish Government use of "Republic of Ireland"

It seems that the Irish Government often uses "Republic of Ireland", usually when it wishes to distinguish Northern Ireland, though not always even in that case. A wide variety of examples from different departments include [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. A Google search of the phrase "Ireland and Northern Ireland" turn up a variety of pages,[15] some of which use "Republic of" and other which do not - there does not seem to be a pattern of when it is used and when not, except when some other word can be used such as "Fáilte Ireland and Northern Ireland Tourist Board". It also seems that international agreements in the second half of 1949 and the first half of 1950 were signed by the "Government of the Republic of Ireland".[16][17] I would guess that a decision was then made to return to "Government of Ireland".--Rumping (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to what Rumping says, here are some hits for "We are an island nation" including many from the president and the taioseach -

~ R.T.G 15:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We are a nation that is located on an island. Therefore we are an island nation. We may share part of the island with another nation but that still doesn't change the fact that we are an island nation. No slip of the tongue for Biffo, lawyer trained and all that. No one is suggesting that the nation is the island, just that the nation is on one! Snappy (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
We are are an island planet, Snappy, but you have a good point there. The constitution makes many reference to "people" of the "island" before making mention of the state. I always think it is unfair to consider any as the Irish state so long as there is not only one. One was named with the design that it be the entire Irish state and the other that it be a seperate rish state. I think use of the term "Northern" is quite trivial regarding who gets to be Irish or not (also backed up in the constitution of both those states) but use of the term "Irish" in an exclusive manner may be less trivial to the ambiguity of that term. If this one is ipso de facto Irish the other one follows as not, raising a question. "Republic" is a description of the type of state that the independant one was founded as. ~ R.T.G 15:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I won't pretend to comperehend all of what User:RTG has said nor do I care to speak to all points I might understand - But Re. "it is unfair to consider any as the Irish state so long as there is not only one" - I've heard this sort of thing said before. I would try to put those willing to listen straight: - Northern Ireland is not a state (merely part of one). The UK is a state - the British state. There is only one Irish state - Ireland (or call it what you will if you have an issue with its name!). Ireland is the Irish state. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
That is a controversial matter. There is certainly more than one state on the island be a whole or in part. Britain is also an island. The "state" you speak of is a commonwealth, a pact of freindship and money, no state is called the "British State". There are "British Commonwealth States" not a "The British Commonwealth State". The United Kingdom is a unity of states brought about under the influence of royalty (kingdom). Is it any more sensible now? There is more than one state pertaining to be Irish however strong you view that Irishness to be. ~ R.T.G 14:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
How is it controlversial to say that the UK is a state and England, Scotland, Wales and NI are not states? Does anyone seriously disagree?
As for "British Commonwealth States" - Hadn't heard of it before - sounds interesting - any sources/references or articles on this expression? Who are these British Commonwealth States?
As to "No state is called the "British State" - Indeed, its the UK but what nationality is on its passports?....You seem to think it can be argued that Northern Ireland, Scotalnd, Wales and England are states...when clearly they are not. By your logic, I suppose Munster might be regarded as a state - like England, it was an ancient kingdom after all. Might I ask you a question, do you think Munster is a state? If not, why not? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way I fully agree that "[t]here is more than one state pertaining to be[ing] Irish". Nothing controversial in that. Lots of states have significant Irish populations and connections - clearly the UK is one such state; Australia; the USA and Argentina strike me as others. I cannot see that that is relevant to what I was discussing though - that there is only one Irish state and that Northern Ireland is not a state, rather part of one. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Redking7, it is very complicated what you are saying. You are saying that that which is a nation is not a state or are you? Nations with a signifigant Irish population obviously do not fall into the same category as nations which are in Ireland. Of course I would claim that the ancient nations are/were states. Irish law sets it out clearly that if his name be Jim (let us say) that does not make him a Jim, one of many Jims or the Jim. He is the republic of Jim but like her majesty her self likes to sign the name as plain old Jim regardless of any titles befitting or earned. Titles are for books and encyclopaedias to provide. ~ R.T.G 17:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Re. Of course I would claim that the ancient nations are/were states. - I guess that means you think Munster is a state. Enough said. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Look if you are just going to tell people they are dumm clear off ~ R.T.G 11:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Did I start a section above suggesting that there have been many Irish states historically? If you didn't know what on earth I am talking about and come this far on the talk with me... what are you replying to? If you are having a laugh go to cabal rouge or youtube. ~ R.T.G 11:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Explicitly recognised?

What does "Explicitly recognise" mean, in the context of this passage? :-

His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom has considered the position created by the new Constitution ... of the Irish Free State, in future to be described under the Constitution as 'Eire' [sic] or 'Ireland' ... [and] cannot recognize that the adoption of the name 'Eire' or 'Ireland', or any other provision of those articles [of the Irish constitution], involves any right to territory ... forming part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ... They therefore regard the use of the name 'Eire' or 'Ireland' in this connection as relating only to that area which has hitherto been known as the Irish Free State.

To my mind, discussing a document by quoting words used in it does not amount to endorsing it. jnestorius(talk) 01:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No question arises about "endorsement". The article does not state that the UK government "endorsed" any name. What it does mean is that the UK government "explicitly recognised" that "Ireland" and "Eire" were offical names under the Irish constitution for the newly refounded state. Later the UK government chose to use only the term "Eire" for the state. I've removed the dubious tag because its not needed. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, there. It acknowledged that those were the names used in the constitution, and it rejected the idea that they conveyed a right to Northern Ireland.
"In the communiqué, the British government explicitly recognised the two names Ireland and Éire and, implicitly, their identical meaning [...] Despite this initial response, the British government quickly decided to refer to the state only as "Eire" and not Ireland."
In diplomatic parlance, "recognising" is endorsing; "noting" is acknowledging the existence of something without endorsing or condemning it. The "Despite" at the start of the second sentence suggests the later actions contradicted the purport of the initial communiqué. I can't see any contradiction between noting that two names are used in a particular document and deciding to use one and not the other in one's own documents. I have removed the interpretive sentences and left just the facts. If you have a cited source that backs up your interpretation, fair enough. The Guardian's headline "Britain accepts new name for the Free State" is a little vague but I've mentioned it. jnestorius(talk) 22:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Have amended wording to address concern of endorsement etc. The Guardian Headline was in a footnote as a source material and has been put back there. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The point about promoting the Guardian title from the footnote is that it offers a modicum of support for the claim that the British government "recognised" the new name(s). I also don't see the point of the sentence "implicitly recognised that the two names had an identical meaning". As far as I can see, this sentence is either contentious, if it's interpreting the ensuing quote; or vacuous, if it's paraphrasing the quote. Just let the quote speak for itself. jnestorius(talk) 07:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, for clarity and to keep things as simple as I can, I reproduce here the few sentences we are discussing and add in what I can to clarify things for you:

The statement in Article 4 "The name of the state is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland" giving the state the names of the island in both Irish and English was another anti-partitionist attempt to lay claim to the whole of the island.[Not disputed by you I think] In response to the new constitution, the British government published a communiqué on 30 December 1937, the day after the constitution took effect.[Not disputed by you I think] In the communiqué, the British government recognised that the new constitution gave the Irish state two names Ireland or Éire.[Do you dispute this? If you do - I do not know why, here are a few words from the UK Gov. communique below...in future to be described under the Constitution as 'Eire' [sic] or 'Ireland ]' It also implicitly recognised that the two names had an identical meaning, [You appear to think this is controversial - I do not know why you think that - For starters, have a look at this: [40] and in particular paragraph 3 and 4 of that Canadian Government Circular - which says, inter alia, "The United Kingdom Government, in a statement published on December 30, 1937, recognized implicitly the identical meaning of the names "Ireland" and "Eire""] by declaring:

"His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom has considered the position created by the new Constitution ... of the Irish Free State, in future to be described under the Constitution as 'Eire' [sic] or 'Ireland' ... [and] cannot recognize that the adoption of the name 'Eire' or 'Ireland', or any other provision of those articles [of the Irish constitution], involves any right to territory ... forming part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ... They therefore regard the use of the name 'Eire' or 'Ireland' in this connection as relating only to that area which has hitherto been known as the Irish Free State."

After this initial response, the British government quickly decided to refer to the state only as "Eire" and not Ireland. The British government finessed Article 4 and ignored Articles 2 and 3: if the Irish constitution said the name of the state in the national language was Éire, then that (written as "Eire") was what the British government would call it. By doing so, it avoided any need to call the Irish state, in the English language, Ireland. The change of name effected by the 1937 constitution (but not the other constitutional changes), was given effect in United Kingdom law in the Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Act 1938. Under Section 1 of that Act, it was declared that (for the purposes of United Kingdom legislation) the territory "which was ... known as Irish Free State shall be styled as ... Eire". [OK - Hope, this clarifies things. Re the Guardian headline, I think you'll agree, sticking a headline into the article did not work. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)]

Okay, thanks for taking the time on this. The Canadian document is exactly the kind of cited source I was talking about. I'm sorry I hadn't read it before. I've added an extra cite at the relevant clause to make its relevance more obvious. I've also deleted the Guardian ref altogether as I don't see what it adds to the other references. jnestorius(talk) 22:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Good. But the Guardian ref is a further source for the fact that the Communique was made. There is no reason to delete it. Multiple sources are preferable to one. I've added it back in. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Eire"

I'm not very comfortable with the presentation of the discrepancy between the correct "Éire" and the foreign use of "Eire". While the latter is undoubtedly incorrect, we must avoid suggesting it is egregiously ignorant, still less a calculated snub. There is no evidence that either is the case. Consider the following points:

I'm unsure what kind of rephrasing might be done, or what sources might be cited. jnestorius(talk) 20:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No objection can be raised to the use of Roman characters instead of Gaeilge ones in the spelling of "Eire". But in the former, one should dot the letter "i", and in the latter one should draw a síne fada on the letter "E"; but not both in either characters.[..] Only once before has the "i" been dotted, that is in 1952 on the Thomas Moore issue, but the "E" in that case was left untouched.
I was not born in Ireland [... I] care not if Eire be spelt with or without fada and have no political axe to grind.
jnestorius(talk) 01:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Dáil Éireann - Volume 226 - 28 February, 1967; Industrial Training Bill, 1965: From the Seanad.
    • Dr. Hillery: I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:
      Title: In page 3, lines 8 and 10, “TRAENALA” deleted and “OILIUNA” substituted.
    • Mr. Ryan: Cá bhfuil an síne fada imithe? Níl aon síne fada ar “TRAENALA” ná ar “OILIUNA”?
    • Dr. Hillery: Níl an síne fada ann mar is príomh-litreacha iad go léir.
    • Mr. Ryan: Feach ar theideal an Bhille féin ar an bpáipéar seo ón Seanad. Tá síne fada ann.
    • Dr. Hillery: Níl sé ar an cheann atá ós mo chóirse.
    • Mr. Ryan: Tá sé ar an cheann seo atá agamsa.
    • Dr. Hillery: Níl ag an Teachta ach na leasuithe. Is Bille é seo.
jnestorius(talk) 01:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
jnestorius(talk) 01:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


I think this is the passage you appear to have a concern with:
After this initial response, the British government quickly decided to refer to the state only as "Eire" and not Ireland. The British government finessed Article 4 and ignored Articles 2 and 3: if the Irish constitution said the name of the state in the national language was Éire, then that (written as "Eire") was what the British government would call it.
You say that "I'm not very comfortable with the presentation of the discrepancy between the correct "Éire" and the foreign use of "Eire". While the latter is undoubtedly incorrect, we must avoid suggesting it is egregiously ignorant, still less a calculated snub. There is no evidence that either is the case." The above wording "(written as Eire)" etc was based on a source I can't find off hand but in any event was certainly intended to be neutral as to motive - I have no source one way or the other on what the motive (if any) was. Have a go at rewording it if you like. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Éire" is a different word than "Éireann" ... right?

"Éire" is a different word than "Éireann" ... right?

So if Éire is Ireland in English, then is Éireann ... what?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Éireann is the genitive case of Éire. It means "of Ireland". +Angr 06:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Angr.

The Kingdom of France (c. 843-1789), and the Kingdom of the French (1791-1792) were two different countries. The series of Names of the French Kingdom, the Kingdom of France, and the Kingdom of the French in the French Language are analogous to the series of Names of the Irish Republic, the Republic of Ireland, and the Republic of the Irish in the English Language.

Now, Saorstát Éireann has a literal translation of Irish Free State,

So what would be the literal translation of Saorstát na hÉireann ... ?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Both Saorstát Éireann and Saorstát na hÉireann are literally "Free State of Ireland" rather than "Irish Free State" (which would be Saorstát Éireannach). But perhaps the official English name and the official Irish name are not literal translations of each other. +Angr 11:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha!!!!

Thank you.

Éireannach is Irish, and Éireann is Ireland.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

not quite. Éireannach is Irish, and Éireann (or na hÉireann) is Ireland's. --Red King (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of sockpuppet edits by One Night In Hackney

User One Night In Hackney has made POV edits (POV as they are not backed up by any sources but are clearly divisive in intent), being:

  • calling "Ireland" the "constitutional" name of the state - it is simply "THE" name (there is only one official name for the state", there are no "names" e.g. constitutional and legal or some such. This Edit (backed up by no source) seems intent on spreading confusion;
  • calling the "Republic of Ireland" the "legal" description of the name - See the Republic of Ireland Act - it is not the "legal" description of the State. It is simply "THE" description.

This is, I am afraid, bad faith editing. No point mincing words. 84.203.65.224 (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is the reality. "Official" is meaningless. Only the constitution and the law matter. The constitution says that the name of the state is Ireland. The law (RoI Act) says that its description is that it is a republic, i.e, that it is not subject to any monarch. To say anything else is invention pure and simple. --Red King (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Not just "a republic". The law declared "the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland" (definite article, capital R and I in English, capital P and É in Irish, capital S in both). Many observers would say that any law which changed the head of state, in this case for external purposes, was a constitional law whether or not it amended the Constitution.--Rumping (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The constituttion of Ireland can only be altered by referendum of the people not by legislation.Cathar11 (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, if anyone had thought the law unconstitutional, they could have taken it to the Supreme Court to tested. There were many precedents before and after: the people have been careful to prevent political hubris and the Supreme Court has certainly found against the government on a number of occasions. In this case, even though the large majority favoured the declaration, it would have taken just one person opposed to have tested it. So (a) approval was unanimous or (b) nobody cared or (c) legal advice suggested that it would be fruitless. Nonetheless, it does seem surprising that the matter was not made the subject of a formal referendum: the view that Cosgrave rushed the bill to the House in a fit of pique does seem to have merit. The fact that the Act did not simply say "Ireland is a republic", but instead went for the full-on, in-your-face long form seems to support the pique theory. The contrary view is that an amendment might not pass: there were many who would say that Ireland could not call it self a republic while "part of the national territory" (sic) remained under British control. --Red King (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Things can have names not defined by law. Southern Ireland is a name employed by the English media on occasion. As is Eire, which is not the legal name of the state in English (as decided by the Supreme Court).
WRT HNiH's changing of "official" → "constitutional" and "legal" → "official", I really don't see what the big deal is. It's a question of vocabulary and any which way will do so long as the meaning gets out there.
I think "official" is fine for the name. The state has only one official name, where "official" means: "relating to an authority or public body and its activities and responsibilities" or "having the approval or authorization of such a body". For that reasons, I'd keep "official" for the description also.
It doesn't really matter though - there is no authoritative adjective that accompanies either of these. However, bear in mind what Rumping has to say. To many, the ROI Act would be a "constitutional" law. In Ireland - because we have a very strong codified constitution - we tend to think of there being only one constitutional instrument. This doesn't represent a global view. We should not assume that when we say "constitutional" others will understand that by this we mean the Bunreacht. So "official", in both cases, may be the best way to go. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Most countries have a written constitution. The word 'official' is meaningless: we have what the constitution says and what the law says. Ireland has a constitutional name and a legal description. That's all there is to it. --Red King (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I take no position on whether the previous version was correct. However as is obvious to anyone who is paying attention, the IP editor is known disruptive indef blocked editor Redking7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) evading his block and he will be reverted and blocked on sight. 2 lines of K303 14:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

2 February 10

I have reverted a huge (500+ chars) reversion by User:OneNightinHackney going back many edits. This threw the baby out with the bath water. However the rights and wrongs of its origins, the article had improved significantly as a result. The text matched the legal and constitutional reality: ONiH's version does not do that. It is completely contrary to the consensus rules to make such a major edit without prior discussion. It does not matter that the change was initiated by a subsequently banned editor: a number of other editors had worked on it since. Before you revert it again, please discuss it here. Which words do you not like and what is your basis for doing so. --Red King (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you weren't in such a rush to disruptively act as a proxy/meatpuppet for an editor unwelcome to edit Wikipedia, you might have actually got something right in what you've written above. If you had checked the history you would find I only reverted changes made by *one* editor, back to the consensus version of 19 January, and the only actual changes made to the article since then were by a disruptive editor using sockpuppets to evade his wholly justified indef block who you are now a proxy/meatpuppet for. If you continue down this road, I'll ensure action is taken against you for it. 2 lines of K303 13:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If you could manage to express yourself without ressorting to insulting ad hominem attacks, I might take you seriously. --Red King (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
However I will accept the opinion of a neutral third party. --Red King (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

I note that in recent Edits (over the past few months or less), the opening sentence has been changed for POV reasons. It should read simply as follows (as it did for a long time previuosly):

"The state whose name is Ireland (Irish: Éire) is and has been known by a number of other names, some of which have been controversial."

This article is about the name of the State. Not other things like its description etc. 84.203.65.224 (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The lede sentence is quite clumsy and very poor per WP:LEDE. I've added a new one. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
No you didn't want to summmarise the article in the lead like you're supposed to. You're supposed to remove the hated phrase "Republic of Ireland" which Redking7 hates so much he even piles the pressure on the ever-overloaded Wikimedia servers by editing an article to change [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] to [[Ireland (state)|Ireland]]. Nice job on the new lead, and due to its use as a name (disputed or not) RoI would need to be in there no matter how much Redking7 doesn't like it. 2 lines of K303 14:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Due to its use as a name? That would be British legislation. This is Wikipedia, not Britipedia. --HighKing (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the terms "conventional short form name" and "conventional long form name" (well ok I think I do because I speak Wikpedish, but I don't believe that the man on the Hackney omnibus would). What does the word 'conventional' mean? Is the same as common name?
Let's take the French Republic and the Italian Republic (their respective constitional names). Does 'conventional' mean that they are most often known as France and Italy respectively [and incorrectly: geographic France contains Monaco and the Channel Islands, it does not contain the Overseas Départements; geographic Italy contains San Marino, the Vatican and (arguably) Corsica]. In the case of Ireland, the 'common name' and the 'constitutional name' are both the same, Ireland. [except in the UK, when jounalists use Eire (sic), the Irish Republic (sic!), Southern Ireland (sic), or the Republic of Ireland - and ordinary people just say 'Ireland']. Or are we talking about the UK case where the legal form is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' and the common names are UK and Britain? The former (UKoGB&NI) is not a 'conventional' long form, it is the full legal title. The other two are what I would call common names.
So can we change 'conventional long form' to 'constitutional name' and and 'conventional short name' to common name? --Red King (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The conventional long and short form names are different from the "constitutional" name of a state. Most countries don't explicitly state, 'My name is...' in their constitutions. The constitution of France for example consistently refers to the state as being "France" and never the "French Republic".
The conventional long form and short form names are simply internationally accepted names for the country - only one being merely more of a mouthful than the other. France may like to be referred to as French Republic for the pomp of it but after a while that would grate even on Sarkozy's ears. That's when people switch to the conventional short form. Some countries, like the Czech Republic, have no distinct conventional short form name so, alas, their long form name is the used as their short form name. Other countries, like New Zealand, don't make a fuss with "fancy" names so they have no conventional long name.
We should not change 'conventional long form' → 'constitutional name', not least because it would lead to the sentence that, "The state has no [constitutional name]." --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
So what is a "conventional long form"? Does such exist or is it the OR that I think it is? --Red King (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've found it in the CIA Fact Book cited. So next question: is this nomenclature unique to the CIA? I have never seen it before. --Red King (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Who gives a monkeys about long / short name or the CIA naming convention?Cathar11 (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Czech State has the long-form Name of the Czech Republic, and the short-form Name of Czechia. Google Search: http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0&oq=Czechia&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_en___CA321&q=Czechia Czechia Website: http://www.czechia.org/ ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)IMHO, introducing the current row over Ireland/Republic of Ireland in the lede detracts from what might otherwise be a good article. I'd cut everything between "However... " and "Historically". as it's well covered in the subsequent section concerned with the name dispute. It would also keep the lede short and factual while steering away from potential controversy. --HighKing (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello HighKing.
The crux-of-the-matter is contained in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. The usage of the legal term description as opposed to Name pisses the British Commonwealth of Nations off. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
That's the Commonwealth of Nations & using Republic of Ireland in the content is allowable, as long at the country article has that name. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Historical names

I've checked the Annals of the Four Masters at http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T100005A/ but can't find any of these names. Am I missing something obvious (because some are well known). --Red King (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about this edit creating the Ancient section, by User:HighKing in May 2009. Perhaps the Annals of the Four Masters statement is missing a bullet and was not intended to cover the other bullet points. Hibernia for example has much older sources. --Rumping (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Whether or which, all of these names lack citation. --Red King (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Name issue again

I've no real problem with the current name, except that mythological names are included in the article, e.g. Ériu, Fódla, etc, which do not refer to any state in a ny modern sense. Perhaps there could be a split in the article with a new article created at 'Mythological names for Ireland'.

Another issue is that the article deals with the name on an all-Ireland basis, then suddenly from 1921 stops dealing with the north.

Third issue is the 'Irish state' clearly refers to the post-1921 state, not any of the pre-existing states, so the article, if dealing with more than one state (by common usage, the post-1921 one), the title should be pluralised and should also include names of Northern Ireland.

As a proposed solution, there could be a 'Names of Ireland' page giving pre-1921 names, then a split into 'Names of the Irish state' and 'Names of Northern Ireland', similar to what's done with the history articles. - Dalta (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Eire

Is it worth making a list of reference books that state that state that "Eire" was the name from 1937 to 1949? The newly published 5th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary can be added to any such list: see Ireland. jnestorius(talk) 18:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would a list of misspellings be interesting? --Red King (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not talking about "Eire vs Éire"; I'm talking about the official name in British law vs the official name in Irish law. There are modern American and French dictionaries which have an entry on Éire or Eire, defined as "the official name for the Republic of Ireland [or even Irish Free State] from 1937 to 1949". For a British dictionary to do so is arguably correct, since it was the official name in Britain. But for other countries, the "official name" should surely be the Irish name, not the British name. jnestorius(talk) 23:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The issue itself is mentioned:

Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "[t]he name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Hence, the Irish state has two official names, Éire (in Irish) and Ireland (in English).

And use of Eire in UK law is discussed in a section of its own.
What would the purpose of making list of books that state that Eire was the name of the state from 1937 to 1949? Any book that says so without qualification is ambigious at best and arguably plain wrong. --RA (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Some errors are widespread enough to be notable in their own right; as full articles (e.g. Category:Urban legends) or as statements in other articles (e.g. Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940)#Resonance hypothesis). I was not suggesting adding a list of books to the article itself; the article would only state something like "many current reference books continue to describe Éire as having been the official name of the state from 1937 to 1949, without specifying that this refers to British law rather than Irish law". The question is how to do this without WP:NOR or WP:SYN. jnestorius(talk) 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
This kind a scenario is something I've often thought about too. It's a bit of a Catch-22. It's not possible to cite any secondary source so it would be WP:NOR or WP:SYN to say that these sources are wrong. At the same time, we wouldn't cite any of these sources because we know they are wrong.
If you really want to include a line about this then I think you'd have to go down the route of WP:IAR. Post a proposal for a sentence here with some example refs and get consensus for its inclusion, regardless of the "rules". Personally, I think the rules are there for a reason and so it takes a better reason to ignore them. I accept the truth of what you are saying, but I don't believe it is important enough to ignore the rules to include.
I'd say if you hang in there, there are actually refs out there that would support something like what you want to include and it is better to wait, find them and cite them in an article than take the easy route, IAR and add an unsourced sentence to the article. --RA (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Duplication of content in 'Republic of Ireland (term)'

I'm not sure why we have the article Republic of Ireland (term). The material it covers is fully covered in this article. The title Republic of Ireland (name) redirects here rather than there. Why does that article exist? It looks like a pointless fork to me. --Red King (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A pointless fork is what it is. I've redirected it. JonCTalk 19:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Reverted pending discussion here. JonCTalk 20:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've merged everything I though was maybe okay and turned it into a redirect. Dmcq (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Names_of_the_Irish_state/Archive_1&oldid=1270440885"