Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:35, 3 April 2009

BrownHairedGirl is taking a wikibreak yes

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
List of archives  Jan 2006 Aug 2006 Oct 2006 Jan 2007 Mar 2007 Apr 2007 Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Sep 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2007 Jan 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Mar 2009 May 2009 Dec 2009 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Jan 2011 Feb 2012 Aug 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 Apr 2013 Oct 2013 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014 Jan 2015 Dec 2015 Jun 2016 Aug 2016 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 Jul 2017 Feb 2018 Apr 2018 Oct 2018 Dec 2018 Feb 2019 Mar 2019 Apr 2019 Jun 2019 Jul 2019 Jul 2019 Sep 2019 Oct 2019 Nov 2019 Nov 2019 Feb 2020 Mar 2020 Apr 2020 Jun 2020 Aug 2020 Sep 2020 Oct 2020 Mar 2021 Jun 2021 Jul 2021 Oct 2021 Nov 2021 Dec 2021 Feb 2022 Apr 2022 Jun 2022 Aug 2022 Sep 2022 Jan 2023 Jun 2023 Jul 2023 Aug 2023 Post-Aug future future + Cumulative index

I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

Bairbre De Brún

Le do thoil, please stop changing the subject on the politician page to 'from Northern Ireland'. De Brún is in fact from your neck of the woods, so the category is "Ireland". Thanks!--Theosony (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bairbre De Brún was elected to the European Parliament for the Northern Ireland constituency, and therefore belongs in Category:Members of the European Parliament from Northern Ireland, along with other MEPs elected for that constituency, such as John Hume, Jim Allister, Jim Nicholson et al. She was sent to the EP from that NI constituency, not from any other.

Of course, she is personally from Dublin, which is why she is correctly categorised in Category:People from Dublin (city); but the category European parliament reflects her constituency, not her place of birth.

I think, though, that for clarity the category should be renamed as MEPs for Northern Ireland, to avoid this confusion about its purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Heya ... the format of some succession boxes you have created recently, differs from the standard we generally use, so please would you avoid the "alongside - field" and take the following code instead. Thanks.

{{s-bef| before = }} {{s-ttl| title = ] for <br/> <small> with </small> | years = }} {{s-aft| after = }}

A correct box should look like this:

Phoe, there was a huge amount of work done on this last year at WP:SBS, allowing the use of a wider range of parameters, which allows much neater presentation of situations like new constituencies and multi-members seats: that's what the alongside parameter etc all does, and it does it much more elegantly than squishing these things into other fields. Using before=new constituency produces silly output of "Preceded by New constituency", which is illogical: if it was a new constituency, there was no predecessor.

There was a move to abolish the {{succession box}} template entirely, in favour of the more powerful {{s-bef}}, {{s-ttl}}, {{s-aft}}, {{s-new}}, {{s-non}} series ... but I resisted that because {{succession box}} does fine for the simple cases of one person succeeding another in a single-member constituency. But it only works for that simple case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ehm ... I have'nt urged you to use {{succession box}}, but as you can see above and at my recent edits I use {{s-bef}} by myself. I like the new system and its possibilities - although taken strictly it is not new at all; I believe I have it seen the first time two years ago.

Back to the story: The parameter "alongside" may be nice, but its produced text ("served alongside name") is in the most cases simply too long and as User:Peterkingiron has pointed out on my talkpage) it fits better to American than English, British, Irish or Scottish articles. For these reasons the "with" added after the constituency is more practically, more suitable and apart from that just the format prescribed on Misplaced Pages:SBS/G#i._Parliamentary_seats_.28s-par.29. By the way you can see there also that we don't us "from" and "to", brackets or semicolons with the years other MP have sat. Best wishes ! ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 12:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for a slow reply (I'm on the road).

Thanks for clarifying what your concern is, but I think you are mistaken. There are several good reasons for using the alongside= parameter:

1. It's a separate piece of data to the title. Keeping it in a separate field allows its presentation to be adjusted by tweaking the template, which can't be done if it is joined onto another piece of data
2. The markup for the alongside= parameter is simpler. That makes it easier to use, and easier to read if it needs to be edited
3. The current display of the alongside= parameter places it below the years in office, which is a much more logical position. Using the "with" markup splits the title from the years in office, and does so in a way which will be confusing for those reading the pages through an audio reader

So far as I can see, your objection is solely at you don't like the "served alongside" text. There may be a case for changing the text which the {{s-ttl}} template inserts, so I will raise the issue at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization#alongside_parameter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Province categories

Does two against one really make a consensus? Mejor Los Indios (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to appeal the deletion, go to WP:DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Is that a no? Mejor Los Indios (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends what the question was. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

PS it may be relevant to read Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus, which says "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

Thanks for that. I was looking over the page earlier and was sure I'd endorsed my own statement - meant to check, then got distracted elsewhere. I assumed it was normal practice as you'd done it on your own assertions, but would be happy to remove it (obviously) if we're not supposed to. Bastun 00:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. There's a case for and against, but I object to one editor inventing a rule without (AFAICS) seeking consensus for it in the WP:IECOLL process.

This was particularly disruptive in the case of my multiple-proposition statement, where MusicInTheHouse (talk · contribs) removed the crucial point that I oppose one of my own series of propositions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(Slightly nervous laugh)

So, uh, BHG ... —have you given any thought to these subcategories? (Heh heh—slightly nervous laugh.) It would be a relatively mammoth job, even to speedy them, which I don't think is an option now considering our chosen format. ... Good Ol’factory 04:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You can take the above inquiry with a grain of salt—I'm not at all trying to be critical of your "inaction" on this. Just curious as to where you are at this point in thinking about these ... Hence the nervous laugh as I approach the issue. Good Ol’factory 04:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Should I bear in mind the date when reading this? ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe. I was thinking about ... not "doing", necessarily, because it's too big to think about that—but I was thinking about "thinking about" perhaps doing something about the subcategories. I certainly didn't want to pre-empt anything you might have been planning, but at the same time I thought you probably were not planning anything for the same reason I'm not thinking about actually doing anything quite yet. Good Ol’factory 21:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Summary study

Hi, I have checked out some of your claims on this page , and I'm afraid that on examination the stats are not accurate. I'm certainly not going to attempt to make a "study of your study" as it would take too long, but have you done any auditing on the links proffered? PurpleA (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have done only a little checking, and am well aware that the sort of search tends to overstate results for a number of reasons. One problem is that some documents are counted more than once, since the search may pick up the same document in different formats; another problem is that some of the documents included may be the work of third parties rather than of the Department; and a further problem is that some usages by the depart may refer to the term "Republic of Ireland" as part of another name, such as "Republic of Ireland Football team".

So yes, of course, the raw numbers need to be treated with caution, and it was never my intention for those numbers to be treated as gospel.

However, regardless of the numbers, the substantive point still stands: that "Republic of Ireland" has been repeatedly used by govt departments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on your statements

Hi BHG, Peace :-) I've read your latest statement on the RoI/Ireland debate and since there doesn't appear to be anywhere else to discuss these things, I hope it's OK to point some things out here in a non-confrontational way.

• You pointed out that the phrase "Republic of Ireland" is used in the Irish Statute Book. That is correct - but you'll find it's correctly used as a description, not as a name. So there's nothing wrong with it's usage in this context. (They state that "Ireland refers to the Republic of Ireland". Much the same as saying the "John Does refers to the solicitor")
• A good number (but in fairness, not all) of your examples also use the phrase correctly (like above) as a description and not as a name.
• Many of your links point to older content.
• Many government departments reviewed their usage of the term between 2007/2008. If you check you'll find that your links refer to older documents dating before 2007, or are referring to other documents pre-2007. Some departments are slower than others e.g. the GRO changed their website only last month!
• As to our previous discussion on "Elections in Ireland", can I point you to Elections in the UK where the same argument could be used, but that the modern meaning is given priority with links to historic elections. This approach takes into consideration that most people searching for "UK" or "United Kingdom" are searching for the modern/current meaning of the term, and not the historic meaning.

--HighKing (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you have misread things.

Name/Description

See article II, (1)(b) ( b ) of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997. It says

In other words, the precise name in use is the "Republic of Ireland", which for the purpose of this act is shortened to "Ireland".

Look also, for example, at some of the many documents on the Dept of Social and Family Affairs website which unambiguously use "Republic of Ireland as a name:

• Payment Dates for Pension Recipients outside the Republic of Ireland
• When and how do I apply? "within the Republic of Ireland" … "your Birth Certificate (if born outside Republic of Ireland)" … "were born outside Republic of Ireland"
• and dozens of others, all repeatedly calling the state "The Republic of Ireland"

When?

Some of the links may indeed point to content predating 2007. But it is not wikipedia's purpose to rename everything to suit the current use of particular government ministers. The article "Republic of Ireland" covers the period since 1922, and the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 has been inm force for over 60 years, in which time the name "Republic of Ireland" has been widely used. There is no guarantee that the current government's reported dislike of the phrase will be shared by its successor.

Elections in the UK

Please look again at the article Elections in the United Kingdom. It does not cover the period before the establishment of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801. The title "United Kingdom" is also unambiguous, because it clearly refers to a political entity which has at all times been a sovereign state. There is no question of "United Kingdom" having an alternative meaning of a geographical area which precedes the establishment of the state, or of an earlier state, so "Elections in the United Kingdom" clearly refers to elections held within the territory at that time of the United Kingdom. The same does not apply to the word "Ireland", which is why the phrase "Elections in Ireland" is ambiguous: an election Omagh was has always been Ireland, but five editors have actually supported the astonishing proposition that "When Ireland was partitioned under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, Omagh ceased to be a town in Ireland. Where else is Omagh? In asia?

I'm afraid that this is the part of the anti-"Republic of Ireland" argument which saddens me most: the attempt to deny that there is any ambiguity. I'm delighted that you have the sense not to follow Domer48 down the bizarre path of refusing to either accept or deny that "Ireland" is both the name of the 26-county state and of the simultaneously-existing 32-county island, and also of and that this creates ambiguity.

That ambiguity is the reason why the government of Ireland, amongst many other bodies, has repeatedly used the name "Republic of Ireland" for the state, in contexts where ambiguity arises. Naturally, that doesn't apply in some fields: in international bodies, the only seat for "Ireland" is occupied by the representative of the Dublin govt, so no ambiguity arises. But when the Dept of Social Welfare or other govt bodies need a simple a and clear way of specifying which part of the island they are referring to, they call it the "Republic of Ireland". It's simple, it works, it's clear and it's unambiguous. Why on earth are some editors going through such bizarre contortions to deny that the distinction is needed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi BHG, thanks for taking the time for a comprehensive response. Always fun, although it would be nice if there was a hint of acknowledgement of some of the points I raise (or even agreement). Anyway...

• It's odd/strange/mind boggling/bizarre that you find The term "Ireland" means the Republic of Ireland and the term "Irish" has a corresponding meaning. to mean that opposite of what I read into it. To me, that states that the "name" in use is "Ireland", and the description of "Republic of Ireland" is by way of clarification. Now way and it most certainly does not mean that "Ireland" is being used as a shortcut for "Republic of Ireland" as you've stated. That's just wrong and you are plainly misinterpreting this section.
• Yup - you're correct with the other examples on the Dept. of Social Welfare, etc. But I predict they'll catch up "real soon". Thanks for pointing them out.
• The point about pre2007 is an important point. It shows that changes were made in recognition of an error (and will continue to be made). You could at least acknowledge that rather than pretend it doesn't/isn't happening. As to your point about "Republic of Ireland" being in use for decades - I've no problem with an article on the term - it's history, how it came about, UK usage, falling out of favour, etc. But don't mix this up with being the same thing as where the article on "Ireland" the state should reside.
• The point about Elections in the United Kingdom was made because it is primarily about the present day (modern) meaning of the term, which is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You state that "There is no question of "United Kingdom" having an alternative meaning of a geographical area which precedes the establishment of the state", but that's wrong. The geographical area at one time excluded Ireland (United Kingdom of Great Britain), included Ireland (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), and presently includes part of Ireland (I'm referring to the island here). An election in Omagh is an election in the UK, not Ireland. That's the modern meaning, and the most common look-up.
• I was one of the 5 editors that Endorsed the statement about Omagh no longer being a town in Ireland, and I still endorse it. Omagh is in the UK. The context of the statement was political because you mentioned partition, therefore the meaning of Ireland cannot be the island. So I'm more surprised at the 13 editors who opposed the statement.  :-)
• Your final point - that the government uses "Republic of Ireland" as a name is false in nearly all cases (Dept. of Social Welfare accepted, and other examples I'm sure, but mostly false). The government of Ireland is always careful to use the description by way of clarification and disambiguation (and getting more careful and accurate as we go on).
• Finally, I don't believe that enough weight is being given to the fact that within the UK, the Republic of Ireland is the official name of our state. So it is confusing to use the same term as a disambiguating term as well because it leads to many people believing that Ireland has an perfectly acceptable alternative name. Which I believe has happened here...

Once again, peace. I accept we see things differently. --HighKing (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on Problem 2.2

In a similar vein, I wonder if you could elaborate on your opposition on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRockpocket (Problem 2.2). On the event that Problem 1 was resolved in the manner that this problem becomes relevant, what would you propose the article about the island be named? Rockpocket 19:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The only clear, unambiguous and non-contrived name for the 26-county state is "Republic of Ireland". The logical contortions of those who oppose that name are bewildering, but if they get their way, then result will be an almighty mess … and I'm not interested in tweaking the nature of that mess.

Similarly, it makes no sense for the article on the island and its history before 1922 to be called Ireland (island). That name conveys a solely geographical article, and that's not what that article contains -- as well as geography, it also covers the history of the Irish nation as a whole, as well as its people. The mess is described quite well at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyOne Night In Hackney.

To be honest, this whole exercise is a bit silly. There are pages full of logical contortions, as some editors try to deny that twp things with the same name is ambiguous, and some editors taking such bizarre and daft positions as Omagh not being in Ireland, and even one who believes that it was untrue to say in 1798 that "Lough Neagh is a lake in Ireland". (Sure, it was in Mongolia until Christy Ring whacked it over here with a mighty blow)

And for what? What's all this standing-on-heads about? That why I made my elephant in the room suggestion. I'd like people to explain in their own words why exactly they feel so strongly about this issue that we have so many assertions of the whiteness of black, and such widespread disdain for the practical consequences of this move for disambiguating hundreds of articles and thousands of categories. Is it because some Republicans dislike anything which acknowledges the existence of a 26-county Republic? Or was Kittybrewster onto something here? I can only speculate, and I don't like doing that, because very bad practice to attribute motives to other people by guesswork. So it would help enormously if editors could explain this in their own words. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good post. I agree that this process is silly, if for no other reason than privileging the opinions of a marginal group of politically polarised ideologues (on both sides obviously ;0). There is not one English-speaker who is confused by the terms "united Ireland" and "all Ireland", and I seriously doubt there are many English speakers who'd be familiar with this use of the word "description" without also being familiar with the Irish constitution. But I bet there are loads who'd be confused by the assertion that Belfast is not in Ireland. In reality, the linguistic part of our brain organises semantic hierarchies (less obvious if you only know languages with 10000+ vocab), in which Ireland (island) is top and Ireland (state) is below. (c/f fr:Pomme and fr:Pomme de terre, despite the fact potatoes are grown more than apples). But meh, fat chance of getting anyone obsessed enough to matter to put aside legalistic fictions and realise this. The good thing is that for normal users it doesn't matter beyond the tedious burden of piping ] instead of just writing Ireland, and if they're all happy and life on wiki can proceed in a more harmonious manner, it'll be worth it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish it was that easy :(

What we will have then is editors arguing that a phrase like "corporate taxation in the Republic of Ireland" is an unacceptable use of the hateful term, so first it will be piped to ] and then it will be changed to ]. Then there'll be an edit war and blocks and bans, and an attempt to revise WP:IMOS#Use_of_.27Republic_of_Ireland.27_and_.27Ireland.27_for_the_Irish_state to outlaw use of the term "Republic of Ireland" ... and we'll have this same issue back at arbcom again to try to unravel the mess.

My own interest in this is not ideological, but practical: I want a naming convention that works, unambiguously. Nobody has offered any workable alternative to "Republic of Ireland", and those determined to excise that phrase seem to be entirely unconcerned about the confusion which this will cause for readers. The absurdities advanced in pursuit of this are manifested through the WP:IECOLL process, with hilarities such as two editors who don't believe that the Republic of Ireland act 1948 is still in force. This is a never-never land :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The really 'least whackiest' and most simple solutions is to have Ireland and island of Ireland. There are no ugly pipings involved, and the string "island of Ireland" can be quite versatile in its usage. I have thought and thought about this for weeks, and the ugly brackets don't do the trick either. Maybe worth a ponder. PurpleA (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it works. The simple phrase "In 1791, Humbert landed in ]" would point to an article on a state which only came into existence 120 years later. So it would need to be "In 1791, Humbert landed in ]" ... but apart the problem of Ireland's history as a nation before 1922 being reduced to the status of an island, mistanen links like that will be hard to detect by using Special:WhatLinksHere, because they will be pointing to an article rather than a dab page an will be jumbled up in all the links which should point to the state. As ONIH points out, why create a situation where a phrase like "X was born in ]" may be completely wrong? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for response to this, and only one point to make. France had, was it four Republics, and that problem doesn't arise with that article. And to split hairs further, Ireland was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 1801 to 1922, politically speaking that is. So it is just about impossible to be accurate on this count. PurpleA (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

France had several Empires and a monarchy or two as well, but you miss the crucial difference: France was not partitioned. So "in France in <<year>>" is always an unambiguous statement. The same does not apply to Ireland since partition was imposed in 1920/21, and that's the core of the problem, because "Cushendall is in Ireland", but since 1921 "Cushendall is not in Ireland". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I find your reasoning somewhat disheartening, BHG. I don't like this process any more than you do, but it was put in place by an Arbcom sanctioned panel of moderators. They gave us three specific problems to consider, and that is what my proposals addressed. You are opposing not because you disagree with the solution, but because you refuse to entertain the question. We now have people refusing to entertain either option, which means either we continue this discussion ad infinitum or else at some point some people are going to have to consider the unthinkable. If you are not interested in "tweaking the nature of that mess" then I would much prefer you simply avoid commenting, rather than scupper an attempt to decide what to do on the very real possibility that it could happen. Intransigence, being it ideologically or practically minded, is the biggest barrier to resolution, in my opinion. Rockpocket 23:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rock, I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm astonished by your logic. I want a solution which works, and I see only one solution that actually works by providing a clear, simple and unambiguous name for the article on the state.

What astonishes me is that you are normally a very practical editor, but you don't address that question of what works. Why? Is it more important to satisfy a vocal group of editors than to ensure that Ireland-related articles can be unambiguously cross-linked without needing an instruction manual? If insisting on a practical solution is a mark of intransigence, then we really are in very big trouble. Are you really tryting to tell me that arbcom will cheesed off if we choose a messy solution which half-satisfies a few editors who believe that Omagh is not in Ireland, rather than one which actually works?

So I'll respond in kind. If your only interest is in calming a dispute rather than in producing a workable solution, why don't you withdraw your proposal rather than asking for to silence those who disagree with you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

BHG, your perspective is highly-clued and very reasonable, and frankly your voice is badly needed (if only to increase the proportion of sense being inputted). I don't agree with Rockpocket that highly-motivated but marginal ideologues should be given such power (though I accept that they are being given such), esp. as I think your rather apocalyptic vision of what will happen is probably accurate ... same users will just move on to new fights anyway. I very much hope the mini-panel will given due weight to good arguments rather than subordinating them to numerical strength. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks, Deacon! That's very kind of you. It looks, though, like I will be public enemy number 1 for daring to try to focus this on practicalities. I was minded at the start to sit out his process, but now that I'm involved I reckon I might as well press the case.

In the meantime, however, the moderators of the WP:IECOLL are notable for their absence. I really do sympathise with them, because the only absolutely-guaranteed outcome of this process is that their name will be mud in amongst some editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think my proposal lacks practicality? There is no reason whatsoever that the title of the article could be at Ireland (state) and any in text reference to it could either be ] or ] (depending on whether there was a reasonable expectation of island/state ambiguity). Yes, it requires piping, but thats hardly extraordinary. Obviously a practical solution is important, but so is one that has a consensus of support. I can assure you my interest is in producing a workable, policy compliant solution that is acceptable to a wide range of Wikipedians. I also think dismissing a point of view that one doesn't necessarily agree with as being held by "marginal ideologues" is unhelpful. There are ideologues involves in the discussion (on both sides) but there are also reasonable editors who hold opposing views. Rockpocket 00:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rock, are you really saying that the outcome of this process will be that all the editors who bare mortally offended by calling the state "Republic of Ireland" will be happy to continue to use "Republic of Ireland" in article text and category names and in the name of "Foo in the Republic of Ireland" articles, and that they will think it's absolutely fine to go from ] to ]? This doesn't add up: if "Republic of Ireland" is offensive enough to require the renaming of the head article, do you really believe that the editors concerned will be completely unoffended by its use in text and the names of other articles? Sorry, but this doesn't compute, and nor does it tally with the history of disputes in this area.

I'm afraid that all your solution does is to displace the problem to countless mini-disputes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For me, the simple question is why do people insist that "Republic of Ireland" the the only acceptable disambiguator? Lots of the anti-RoI crowd agree that disambiguation is required, and I guess would agree to use a different term other than the one that confuses and blurs the issue between a name and a description. It's all very well polarizing the anti-RoI brigage, but there is an overwhelming polarization and emotional/illogical attachment to the name enshrined in British law. Putting aside, for one moment, people's preferences for the disambiguation term to be used. If we asked a simple question - should articles have the ability to disambiguate between the island, and the political sub-divisions, the answer would be overwhelmingly "Yes". Given the agreement therefore, that a term must be found, and that RoI is not acceptable, would it not be more productive to explore alternatives? --HighKing (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to hear of any alternatives, but I have yet to see anything else proposed that ticks all the necessary boxes: it should be plain English (no brackets), and widely recognisable without requiring explanation. The only one I can see is "Southern Ireland", and if that was on the table I would mount my own ideological high horse and howl about a British-imposed name (which is just what I do when that name is used ny English people, an all-too-frequent occurrence).

In the absence of any other suggestion, why is it so deeply awful to use the state's legal description rather than something contrived which has no basis in Irish law? I'm really really puzzled why that description causes deep offense, but the description "Ireland (state)" doesn't. What on earth bis this really about? Are you a monarchist, or you dislike "Republic" being used other than for a 32-county Republic, or what? I'm genuinely puzzled, so I'd really like someone to spell this out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi BHG. Discussions like these would go much smoother and be more open if editors quit trying to personalize the discussion with name-calling and labelling. But to answer your query, I'm not a monarchist and I'm not a republican. I'm not anything except Irish and I like things to be factual, accurate, and referencable.

In a nutshell, the problem I have with using "Republic of Ireland" is that it is being misused as a Name in lots of places, and not as a description. That wouldn't be too much of a problem on it's own - except in the UK it actually *is* the official name. This, very simply, leads to confusion. British people are correct to use it as a name, because that is what Ireland is called (legally) in their country. And if Misplaced Pages adopts RoI as a name, it's going to lead to more confusion as people are pulled up short and told "Hey, that's not the name", and they reply "But it's used all over Misplaced Pages, and it's used in British newspapers, etc". For accuracy, I'd prefer a different disambiguator and I'm not too fussed over what it is to be honest. That said, I'd also not be too fussed if "Republic of Ireland" was used correctly - like the way the legal documents state that "Ireland refers to the Republic of Ireland" or some such. So long as usage is consistent and clear and not confusing. --HighKing (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As Highking says, with the possible exception of Domer and a few others, most people accept disambiguation of some form is required. Therefore there will need to be some piped term for disambiguation. I don't know what specific anti-RoI editors might prefer, but I'm willing to bet that even they would concede that in certain circumstances RoI would perhaps be grammatically most suitable. In others Ireland, the state, might be preferable. There are other variations. The point is that there are many ways to skin a cat. I don't accept that RoI is inherently the only practical disambiguator, neither do I accept that it is absolutely verboten. When we try and enforce a black or white solution people very quickly retreat to their corners. I believe a nuanced solution is both possible and practical. This is what I mean by compromise.

As for why people find ROI offensive. I would suggest its for exactly the same reason you find "Southern Ireland" offensive, but I couldn't care less about either term. You presumably infer some sort of diminishment implied in the term, based on your experience of historical or geopolitical usage. If you get riled by that, I find it odd how you fail to appreciate that a different individual could feel the same things towards a different term. Words are words, they carry only what value you give them. Rockpocket 01:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up my thoughts also. Thanks Rockpocket. --HighKing (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "Southern Ireland" is that it was the name of a legal fiction which was imposed by outsiders, and has never been used by the Irish state. "Republic of Ireland" was devised by the Oireachtas, and repeatedly used for over 60 years by the Oireachtas, by the Irish government and state-sponsored bodies and in Irish business and society. It doesn't seem to have led to a boycott of the Republic of Ireland national football team.

But you are missing the core of my point. If "Republic of Ireland" is too offensive to use as the name of the head article, why is it any less offensive to use it in the name of "Foo in the Republic of Ireland" articles or in article text? I'm not insisting that it be used everywhere, and you helpfully remind us that there are some situations where it can be avoided. But the issue is not whether you think it shouldn't be "absolutely verboten", it's that the editors you are trying to pacify believe that it should be, and a significant number of them give not a whit for disambiguation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) This puzzled me too. When I was in Dublin I never got the sense that "Republic of Ireland" was controversial, as you heard it all the time; only on[REDACTED] have I found out the term aroused passions, mainly from people in the north. Presumably this is an issue because "Republic of Ireland" at some point was seen as de-legitimsing the state's moral claim of sovereignty over the whole island. A good comparison I suppose would be the "official" titles used by the Korean governments, though the populaces of both countries aren't motivated enough to argue North Korea and South Korea should be moved to Korea (northern state) and Korea (southern state) based on inflating the relevance of some concocted counter-intuitive distinction between "official name" and "official description" (not to mention the People's Republic of China which, unlike RoI, is almost never called by its "description" and would not be confused with Taiwan even if it was located at China!). Likewise, referring to Northern Ireland as "Ulster" or claiming Northern Ireland is a legitimate enough entity to have a flag arouses similar resentment. I'm presuming too that the other lot probably think of it like that, which is why they like to push it. These are my guesses at any rate. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You may be right that it's a Northern thing, but Mooretwin's statement includes evidence of a Sinn Fein MLA objecting to the 26-county state calling itself "Ireland". So it seems that the only solution to satisfy all these voices will be to choose a name which excludes both the words "Republic" and "Ireland". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Well "Of" would be quick enough to type. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Fein and Extreme Unionists don't like the state calling itself Ireland. Sinn Fein prefer the "Free State", because Ireland is divided at the moment, and Unionists like to use "the South" because they resent Ireland using the name. A sort of notion of a copyright issue. I visit Dublin quite often, at least once a year, and I can tell you quite emphatically that the term "Republic of Ireland" is used very sparingly there. I do hear it sometimes being referred to as "the Republic", but not the ROI, and that's purely for disambiguation purposes when speaking vis a vis Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is usually referred to as "the North". Now we don't call Northern Ireland "the North", here at Misplaced Pages. It's an important point. PurpleA (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sparingly is make-believe. Irish people, like everyone else in the world, use "Ireland" ambiguously and use Republic of Ireland when they need to distinguish. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of historical precedent for why one might infer pejorative connotations from the the term Republic of Ireland. In 1963 the Irish Department of Education issued guidelines on correct geographic terminology insisting on "Ireland" for the state, and explicitly noting "Republic of Ireland" should be avoided. This was because ROI had started to be heavily promoted by the British at that time in an effort to popularize it as the main name of the state. Up until 1999, the UK was the only country in the international community to insist on referring to the state as the "Republic of Ireland", rather than "Ireland" which is what the state self identified as. Given the history, is it really surprising to you that some Irish people may consider RoI as a non-neutral choice of disambiguator? It may have not started out that way, but recent history has clearly charged "ROI" as another British imposition, in the same spirit as "Southern Ireland".

With regards to "Foo in the Republic of Ireland" articles, it could be resolved in "Foo in Ireland (state)". I already mentioned the various options that could be used in text, depending on context. My goal is not to pacify editors with extreme positions. Compromise works both ways, in return for appreciating the the primary disambiguator need not be RoI, editors must also appreciate that RoI is not a toxic term that can never be used. I honestly think you are painting all of the so-called "anti-ROI" brigade with an unnecessarily broad stroke, some of them are very reasonable you know. Jesus, I'm beginning to feel a bit like George Mitchell here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockpocket (talk • contribs)

Well, in fairness, the United Kingdom was the only state other than RoI to possess territory in Ireland, so it had reason beyond a rumbling imperialist belly. Given the attitude of the UK to imperialism c. 1963, it'd be surprising if there was anything sinister behind this, though I'm not surprised if this generated paranoia. Anyways, that doesn't make creating anarchy to appease an extreme but active fringe element seem any more respectable. We are after all supposed to be a cluocracy, though in practice I know that is only a distant dream. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Except when you note that the country is still legally named "Republic of Ireland" in the UK, it's not at all surprising why RoI isn't regarded as POV neutral. Names are important. As stated on the British Governments own PCGN home page, Confucius replied: “If the names are not correct, if they do not match realities, language has no object. If language is without an object, action becomes impossible - and therefore all human affairs disintegrate and their management becomes pointless and impossible. Hence, the very first task of a true statesman is to rectify the names.” --HighKing (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket's suggestion of "Foo in Ireland (state)" is itself ambiguous, because there have been several states in Ireland. The Lordship of Ireland, the Kingdom of Ireland, the sadly-unrecognised Irish Republic, plus the other short-lived insurrectionary states. It is is also unclear to readers because construct of "Ireland (state)" is a novel one not used elsewhere. We are constructing[REDACTED] for benefit of readers, not editors, and WP:DAB is very clear about the first choice for disambiguation: "When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used." The suggestion of a parenthetical disambiguator is a lower option.

HighKing's quote about "Republic of Ireland" not matching realities is inapplicable here. Ireland is a Republic, by any reasonable definition of the term. I think that some of the opposition to the term comes from a desire in some quarters to reserve that name for a 32-county republic, which is a perfectly legitimate political position, but not relevant to the decisions being made here.

Nor is the phrase "Republic of Ireland" a British invention or British imposition. It is taken directly from an Act of the Oireachtas which itself uses exactly that title, and as I have already shown it is a name widely used by the Irish government itself. I quite agree that it is disgraceful that for decades the British government refused to call the Irish state by its own chosen name, especially because there was (and is) no ambiguity issue in international relations: bloody-minded arrogance as part of a long pattern.

And that, I think, is what this comes down to. The description "Republic of Ireland" is routinely used as a name both in Ireland and elsewhere, without causing fuss ... but its use on[REDACTED] is being objected to because it was also used by the UK in a malevolent way. This seems to me to be a case of still allowing the UK to dictate the agenda, by insisting on not doing something that the UK approves of. We are in danger here of rejecting the most simple, most widely-used, Oireachtas-approved solution simply because it was also used by our historic enemies, which seems to me to be perverse. Isn't it better to ignore what the Brits want and just take the best solution? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats a convincing argument and there is not much that you say I would disagree with personally. However, you chastised me earlier for not being practical. Here is the practical reality: We were asked by ArbCom to form a consensus on the naming issue and I proposed a process - perhaps the only process - that has any chance of achieving that with the current body of participants. Irrespective of how much you believe your proposal is the only viable solution, the practical reality is that there is not currently a consensus of support for it. Some suggest that is because of an active, extreme fringe. I say there are indeed some of those individuals, but there are also rational editors who simply differ in opinion, and labeling all of those editors "extremists" borders on an ad hominem argument. But that is somewhat beside the point, if we are to form a consensus around your proposal one of two things have to happen: Either we have to convince those who disagree of the merits of your argument, or else you change the body of participants. The former isn't likely to happen, so I believe you we are left with the latter. In practical terms, that means either increasing participation, thereby demonstrating those who disagree with you are indeed a fringe view, or else excusing those that disagree from the decision process. Thats about as practical as it gets, so how would you propose we go forward? Rockpocket 17:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem at all with RockPocket's suggestion of "Foo in Ireland (state)" as well as having articles about the "Kingdom of Ireland", etc. The context of each article would make it clear what is being referred to. A bit like "Elections in Ireland (state)" don't you think?

And I'd hate to think I'm being misquoted deliberately - I don't recall saying anything about not matching realities, or saying that "Republic of Ireland" is a British invention, or that some of my objection comes down to wanting to reserve Ireland for a 32-county republic. As I've stated previously, sometimes these conversations get less heated and are more civil if a less personalised name-calling or labelling approach is taken by everyone involved...

The last point you raise is interesting and partly true - that "Republic of Ireland" is routinely used as a name both in Ireland and elsewhere. Partly true because it is difficult to quantify what you mean by routinely, but I would argue that it is not the most commonly used term by a long shot, and may also be used perfectly well as a description in the right context. Also, you state it is an Oireachtas-approved solution. It most certainly is not - I'll throw down the gauntlet of "Prove It!".

Also, I appreciate the points you make about ignoring what the Brits want and just take the best solution - but here our opinions differ. I believe the best solution needs as it's starting point the correct name recognized within Ireland and internationally. Using "Republic of Ireland", arguably uses the correct name recognized within the UK, and is therefore not acceptable as a solution...

I'll say again. Compromise is required. Ireland is not acceptable. Republic of Ireland is not acceptable. Rule both of these out. --HighKing (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

High-King, do you actually think that "British" people (who are not also Irish) actually care? Sure, if you asked the people at the Foreign Office in the inter-war period you'd probably have heard a bunch of imperialist crap, but I'm pretty sure that if the English people voted on the matter today the emerald isle would regain its political unity. At the very least, you must recognise that when people in the UK (and the USA!) use the term "Republic of Ireland" or "southern Ireland", they are only innocently trying to solve the problem of terminological ambiguity[REDACTED] currently solves. The same "British" people who use "Republic of Ireland" will never call the Irish PM "RoI PM", but always "Irish PM". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of which would be incorrect, of course, and would likely been seen by some as another example of a British imposition ;) Rockpocket 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, wasn't thinking, meant "president". Force of habit. That word in any case always throws me because it's used in medieval Scotland for a hereditary ministerial figure translated as "Thanus" (to which we owe the name of those famous anti-PCs). ;) No British imposition meant though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I must correct you Deacon, people in the USA do not use the term 'Republic of Ireland', they almost always say 'Ireland'. By broad consensus Ireland the country re-established its entitlements back in 1922, and part of Ulster demurred and stayed with a group of countries entitled the UK. Ireland the nation is indeed represented by Ireland the state, and "it" should have ownership "Ireland page". PurpleA (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

People in the USA use the world Ireland to refer to the island, and in the negligible number of circumstances they'd need to distinguish use Republic of Ireland or some variants. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Research and Google books

I seriously recommend doing proper research in google books before you make sweeping statements Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And I recommend posting your evidence to the AFD debate, where it may have some relevance.

Per my comment there, when you create an article, there is a clear warning above the edit box: "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references may quickly be deleted". Which part of that sentence was unclear to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)