Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Name v description

I am not happy that, after I allowed three days for discussion, and then went the extra mile to address the concerns of another editor, my edit was immediately changed without any discussion. It is important to explain in simple terms why, if the name of the state is "Ireland", it is officially called "the Republic of Ireland". Years ago I tried to have that explained in the lead, but everybody insisted that it properly belonged in the Name section. It was in the name section before my edit and it is in the Name section (neutrally worded and with a proper citation) now. There is no justification for removing it. Scolaire (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a minor issue in the section if it is being cut down. There are lots more important things than some discussion eighty years ago which anyway was nowhere near as clear cut as that sentence implied. You said in reply to me above 'Obviously, I'm very happy with this solution, since my desire at the outset was to trim the section down' where I described that sentence should be taken out to make the section small enough to ignore the dispute over the name. Then you just went and stuck it in. That was not an extra mile of anything. There is no particular requirement to cater for the bee in your bonnet but I tried to do so and then you complain after agreeing with what I said and immediately ignoring it. Dmcq (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Scolaire: While not insensitive to your concern after the above discussion, I feel the removal of the allusion to a supposed contention probably does more good than harm to the article, whatever the merits some may feel for talking it up ot talking it down. To my mind, the present trimmed version, which is based on your draft, is certainly an improvement from the point of view of most readers, who, we may surmise, will not be particularly interested in this, and would not be thankful to have much more about it impeding their progress in reaching what the rest of the article has to say; but a few others will be looking for the sort of detailed information that they can choose to look at by the link to the Name article. Qexigator (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dmcq: I didn't "stick" anything in. I opened a discussion, then proposed a draft, then waited until I got agreement. You said that Qexigator's draft was okay, except that it left out the GFA, which I took on board. You said I "could" leave out that sentence, not "should". I took that as an off-the-cuff suggestion, since you gave no reason, and went ahead with what had apparently been agreed.

The sentence is not about any discussion eighty years ago. Neither has it anything to do with the "dispute" between Ireland and Britain over the name. It is an explanation of what the act does and doesn't do. It says that the state is to be called "the Republic of Ireland", but it does not make that the name of the state. "Éire", "Ireland" and "the Republic of Ireland" are all used today. This is necessary information for readers of the article. The section is pointless without it, since the opening sentence of the article already says what the three names are. It was in the previous version and it needs to remain in the section. Scolaire (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the whole section to before you stuck in the change. It seems there was no consensus about what the change was in aid of as you seem to be determined to push a POV rather than just trim the section to what's of interest nowadays and leave people to go to the other article otherwise. If they had a will to change the name they could have quite easily, they wouldn't have been bothered about legal niceties any more than they were bothered about the vote required to change the constitution. Is that really more important than why they had to wait till the Belfast Agreement to use each other's proper name? Dmcq (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I shall try yet again to compromise with you. You say that the sentence was simply to reiterate tht the name of the state hadn't changed and that it repeated the names which were used nowadays. I see no need for repeating the names but that can be done in the last sentence so I'll try just putting in a statement saying that the official name remained Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm grateful that you are willing to compromise. I want to re-iterate that I am not trying to push a POV, and I am at a loss to know what POV you thought I was trying to push. Whether the three names go in the second paragraph or the last doesn't matter to me, so that part of the edit is fine.

The question I am trying to address is this: why did the Republic of Ireland Act not say "the name of the state shall be the Republic of Ireland"? Other things being equal, that is the only logical wording to use. You and I know the answer to that, but the average reader does not. Therefore the whole Name section makes no sense to him/her. Why is the name one thing and the description another? Why have a description at all? Factually stating the reason (and I want to re-iterate that the reason has always been stated, and has never attracted comment, never mind criticism) does not favour any political or other agenda. It only answers a question that the reader is bound to ask. Scolaire (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You are totally deluded if you think some technicality would have stopped them if they really wanted to do it. They had an argument over it. I wish it had been resolved to avoid the claim to Northern Ireland but that isn't what happened. What you're trying to stick in is unbalanced without the rest of the stuff in the article about this and has not got enough weigh to stay here in a chopped down section. Dmcq (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

To say the least, the article content needs to be enough to let readers (as well as some past and possible future editors) have a npov inkling why, as result of editorial discussion, we have an article titled "Republic of Ireland" which begins "Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland..." with its infobox headed "Ireland", annotated with "Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland declares that the name of the state is Ireland; Section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 declares that Republic of Ireland is "the description of the State". Qexigator (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dmcq: Who is this "they" you are talking about? Who are the people who could have disregarded the constitution with impunity? "They wouldn't have been bothered about legal niceties" – really? Are you saying that John A. Costello was a despot? That he, and all the other TDs from five different parties who passed the bill, were in the pay of the British? What, exactly? And explain this to me, if "they" could do what they wanted, why did they bother their heads making up the designation "description"? What purpose did it serve? And if all of this (whatever "this" is) is common knowledge, why is it not in the article? Scolaire (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

They is the government of Ireland at the time and they could easily have called for a constitutional change to say 'Republic of Ireland' as part of a show of hands that people agreed with becoming a republic, and they would almost certainly have got it thorough quite easily on that basis. The point is they were well aware there was a problem with Britain calling the state Eire but they did not have the will to fix the problem properly. It was not some legal technicality that stopped them. What was said was a technical truth covering up a bigger untruth and does not deserve a place with weight in the article. None of this deserves a place in the article because the section has been chopped down and is past history and the problem is resolved. Dmcq (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please point me to where this is in the history books (or anywhere else). Scolaire (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

To my npov mind, the present version of the article serves its purpose as it stands. Enough is known to history to show that, despite deep differences of feeling and aspiration among them, de Valera and other leading republican politicians, on the one hand, conducted themselves vis-a-vis the UK and in the international arena, with no little skill, and on the other hand, the kings (V and VI) and those proceeding in their behalf, acted with a measure of prudence and dignity in these serious matters affecting internal and external affairs of grave consequence. Let them RIP. Qexigator (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Recommend that WP:BRD is respected, folks. Be sure ya'll have a consensus before implimenting any major changes. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your solicitude, but we're we were getting along quite nicely so far without brandishing WPs as weapons of last resort. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Scolaire has invoked 3RR against me so it really is up to you what you want to do. It looks like I should have just invoked BRD rather than trying to edit to some compromise text. Dmcq (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:3RR I should revert my most recent edit so I'll do that. It is the one you just thanked me for doing! Dmcq (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

BRD does not apply. My edit was not bold. It was discussed extensively beforehand. It was the modification proposed by Qexigator, and was agreed by all parties, including Dmcq. Unless you mean that Dmcq's subsequent deletion was bold, in which case I'm content for discussion to continue, as long as it's realistic and leaves out vague and unsubstantiated accusations of POV-pushing.

@Qexigator:, Dmcq is saying or implying that you are now opposed to my edit (which was actually your draft) and prefer this version of his, that he has had to revert. Can you confirm that? Scolaire (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you ask, when I saw Dmcq's edit[1] I sent a 'thank' message. Qexigator (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I asked. Are you now opposed to going back to the version that you and I agreed? Scolaire (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you are driving at. You have my answer. I have nothing to add to it. Qexigator (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Driving at? I want to know whether it is worth while continuing this discussion, or whether you now think there is nothing to be gained by going back to the agreed version. I have never at any stage spoken anything but clear English, but now it seems you are joining Dmcq in only speaking in riddles. This whole thing could have been sorted in a civil way if people had only been willing to say what they meant and not got caught up in non-existent conspiracy theories. I am not going to continue hitting my head against a brick wall. I wish you and Dmcq many happy edits together. Scolaire (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Resorting to reporting Dmcq as edit warrior was a bad move in my view, like it or not.[2] I regard either version here[3] as acceptable. The present version of the Name section is mainly your draft and is an improvement on what was there before. The less argy-bargy[4] between editors the better. Let all parties carry on the good work of improving Wikipedia as best they can. Qexigator (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If he had stuck to abusing me endlessly on the talk page he would probably have got away with it, but there was no way I was going to let him get away with abusing me and edit-warring at the same time. Since he self-reverted, he probably won't be sanctioned. But, as I say, I'm going to leave the two of you to your love-in. I have better things to be doing. Scolaire (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

How about just saying why [5] was a bad idea? I removed the duplication of the names and the reference and put in'constitutional' instead of 'official' which shows pretty clearly that it was an act and so didn't affect the constitutional name rather than them having to refer to a note. The names are in the last paragraph as current as well as being metioned in that paragraph so the note would bring that up to three times. That's the basic facts. What more than the basic facts are you trying to say? Dmcq (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that interests me is not that the act was an act. We don't need an encyclopedia to tell us that. The fact that interests me is that there is a reason for the use of the word "description". The reason is that, constitutionally, the act can't use the word "name". I said that at the start. Why are you now coming at me with "How about just saying why that was a bad idea?" I say what I mean. There is no hidden agenda underneath it, and I wish you would once and for all tell me what you think I am trying to conceal and what I am trying to misrepresent. If you don't agree that that simple fact is a fact worth stating, then so be it. But stop with the aggression. It's really wearing. Scolaire (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I said that I was okay with not having the three names three times. It was Qexigator that put them back in when he added the footnote. Nothing to do with me. Scolaire (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

As you say it doesn't need an encyclopaedia to tell us that an act can't change a constitution. Saying the name 'Ireland' is the constitutional name is enough explanation for that. The interesting thing is why they used the phrase 'Republic of Ireland' in the act in the first place which that 'explanation' throws no light on at all. As to an agenda the wording in isolation makes it appear they wanted the official name to be 'Republic of Ireland' but weren't able to because of technical difficulties and what followed was just good buddies working round the problem. We should just avoid trying to present a side on all that in a section as small as that. Dmcq (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

First off, I said we don't need an encyclopedia to tell us an act is an act, not that an act can't change the constitution. The question I was asking was why the act couldn't make the name "Ireland" and the answer is that it couldn't because of the constitution. Why did they use "Republic of Ireland"? They were fed up of the British saying "Eire" and they wanted to establish in law that the state was a republic, so "Republic of Ireland" was the obvious name. They did want the official name to be "Republic of Ireland", they weren't able to, not because of technical difficulties but because of the constitutional question, and they didn't try to be buddies with anyone, just passed the bill through the Dáil against the protests of Fianna Fáil and with the slimmest of majorities. This is all, as you say, basic facts. It is not partisan; there are no "sides". It's narrative history. If you don't want to include it, fair enough, but again, please stop with the "taking a side" remarks. Scolaire (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Some acts can change some constitutions, and the point, when relevant, should be made clear. But, yes, the footnote needed trimming, as now done. Qexigator (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is nice, factual, concise, neutral and informative. Scolaire (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Emphasizing that the note is about the name rather than a desire on their part helps, with that it could be merged back I think. If the government had really wanted to name the state the 'Republic of Ireland' a I said before they could have done it quite easily at the time with a constitutional vote which they could link to becoming a republic. The act was passed unanimously, Fianna Fáil did not oppose it. Dmcq (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the vote. Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to an edit putting the footnote content inline. Qexigator (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I have merged it in as suggested by you both. It involved over-writing "but the official name remained Ireland" (which Dmcq in his self-reverted edit had changed to "but the constitutional name remained Ireland"), because that was only saying the same thing. If either of you disagrees with that, feel free to put it back in. Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I put it back, but changed it to the present tense and put it after the ref because it is not stated in the cited source. Scolaire (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I put back 'official' as constitutional was only there to explain why it wasn't changed and now that is inline just beside it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcq (talk • contribs) 12:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Official" has no meaning. Its name is Ireland according to the consitution, and its description is "Republic of Ireland" according to the 1948 Act. Both are official. Either it should say "The official name remains Ireland and The official description remains Republic of Ireland" or it should be taken back out. Scolaire (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Qexigator attempted a "tweak" here which to my mind only shows the pointlessness of continuing to try to "tweak" it (no offence, Q). I'm pretty sure that when both of you said above that the footnote could go back inline, you meant that it could over-write what had previously replaced it. I added that second sentence as a belt-and-braces approach to avoid deleting anything, but it was a mistake. It adds nothing to what is in the previous sentence, and only leads to conflicting views on what it means. Let's quit while we're ahead. Scolaire (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's grand now. Walk away from the dead horse. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The conditional isn't a tense, it's a mood. Scolaire (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You have some peculiar ideas of English sense not knowing what official name means and thinking this is wrong. See for example [6] "Her little pranks she did not deny, To do so she would have had to lie, And lying, she knew, was a sin," where practically that exact form is used and works well. Dmcq (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's conditional mood, not conditional tense. "...would have put it in conflict with the Constitution" is the perfect tense, conditional mood. I was poking a little fun at Laurel's edit summary. Will I never again be able to say anything on Wikipedia without you launching into another personal attack? Scolaire (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks? Where? If so they are the most tame I've ever seen on this site. Also official has a meaning. If the state gives itself a name and a dexcription then they are the official descriptions of that state as its government dictated them. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I made a mistake and thought Scolaire was putting in the clunky language and explaining why here rather than that they were trying to make some sort of joke. A good illustration I guess that humour doesn't work well on Wikipedia unless heavily marked as such and even then can be misunderstood. Dmcq (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Now that the concerns about revising the Name section have been resolved, may we not adopt the suitable mood for letting this go and moving on? Qexigator (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

'Name' section part 2

The 1922 state, comprising 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland, was "styled and known as the Irish Free State." The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Article 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 states, "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." The 1948 Act does not name the state as "Republic of Ireland", because to have done so would have put it in conflict with the Constitution.

The government of the United Kingdom used the name "Eire" (without the diacritic), and, from 1949, "Republic of Ireland", for the state, it was not until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement that it used the name "Ireland".

As well as "Ireland", "Éire" or "the Republic of Ireland", the state is also referred to as "the Republic", "Southern Ireland" or "the South". In an Irish republican context it is often referred to as "the Free State" or "the 26 Counties".

The above is really slippery, sneaky stuff. The words "because to have done so would have put it in conflict with the Constitution" suggest there was an intention to rename the State. The Irish have a habit of having referendums. If they'd wanted a new name, they could have had one at any point. It ignores entirely that there was most certainly a diplomatic dispute about the name. It's seems to me to just be written (1) to gloss over the importance so many Irish governments have attached tothe name "Ireland"; and (2) minimise how inappropriate the prominence given on WP to the ROI description is. Stylistically, its horribly written too. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

All this in an article whose sneaky leade reads "Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland, is a sovereign state in western Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland." That presentation with the putting in bold of the ROI term is, in my opinion, trying to fudge that ROI is not the state's name. So this is more of the same. A few years ago, the lede was far different from the sneaky one it is now. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

For those who weren't on Wikipedia a few years ago, this is how the lede used to read (I picked this from a random version back in 2008): "Ireland (Irish: Éire, Irish pronunciation: [ˈeːrʲə]) is a country in north-western Europe." No sneaky reference to Republic of Ireland to confuse the reader in a lede and no reference to five sixths of the island which is a lot of detail to put in a lede.... The latest re-write of the name section is certainly in the same mould. Gloss and fudge. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why you have to invest so much feeling in it. I think the lead is fine but I agree with you that the sentence " The 1948 Act does not name the state as "Republic of Ireland", because to have done so would have put it in conflict with the Constitution." conveys a falsehood even if it is technically true. The act didn't try to rename the state, it gave an official sanctioned description of the state and there really isn't anything more to it. It is true the act couldn't rename the state but so what? However the citation does back up what is said and gives the same impression even if patently false so I can't see that much can be done about it. What exactly is it you want to say though other than to complain alleging that editors are being sneaky? Dmcq (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I should have written in a way that was consistent with the assume good faith regardless of the reality and my instincts. Sorry for that.

Pretty clearly, I think (i) the old Name section was better; (ii) the new name section glosses over the fact there was a diplomatic dispute with the UK over the name and this should instead be clearly stated; and (iii) specifically on the wording we both mention is problematic: yes the wording is backed up by a source..but so what? That doesn't mean it doesn't convey a false impression - the wording suggests the Irish wanted to change the name to the ROI but didn't on account of the constitution...this isn't true; successive Irish governments have gone to considerable lenghts to insist that the proper name is simply IRL. If all that is too complicated, I simply would like the old section back again. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Stating that the Act did not change the name because the name in the Constitution was "Ireland" is factually correct given that for whatever reason, actual or surmised, the Constitution had not been changed. Further details are given in the linked article Names of the Irish state. This has all been discussed at length above (including Archive 18[7]). Qexigator (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well it is factually correct that I haven't beaten my wife for the last two weeks (no citation I'm afraid so no verifiability) but that also might convey a falsehood. But as I said the citation does incline towards saying something like that so we'd need a good citation saying something different to do much about it I think. Dmcq (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I really don't want to start this all over again, but I am really and truly puzzled about this and I would love for somebody to give me a straight and comprehensible answer. Article 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 states, "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." If it was not the intention of the framers of this act that the state should be referred to as "the Republic of Ireland" what was their intention? We have references to "a diplomatic dispute about the name." Am I to infer that Article 2 was added just to give the Brits a chance to create a diplomatic dispute? I am not trying to be clever or funny here. I just genuinely don't understand what it is that Article 2 was supposed to do or why it was put in, if it wasn't so that the state should be called "the Republic of Ireland". Obviously, if it was intended that the state should be called "the Republic of Ireland", then it needs to be clarified that it did not change the name of the state. From where I'm standing, there is no fudge in the article section as it stands, but the arguments against it lack clarity. Scolaire (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and I do not understand why the grumble keeps rumbling on, now that the point has been encyclopedically settled for the purpose of this article, all as previously explained and discussed. Qexigator (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Two purposes, to assert that Ireland was a republic and to stop Britain referring to Eire. It could be described as the Republic of Ireland. However the name remained Ireland. What more is needed? The problems of insisting on it being called Ireland without having a standard description are obvious now and must have been obvious then too. They knew what they were doing, they discussed this very point about the difference between the description and the name. They could have changed the name if they so wished by having a referendum on the constitution, as a package to assert independence it would have passed without any problem. Probably some people would have liked to changed the name - I certainly think it would have been better to - but there is no evidence that they wished to do so. About all we can infer is that it allowed Britain to use a more acceptable name. Britain was told that the name was Ireland but that it could be alluded to as the Republic of Ireland, everyone else they asked to refer to it as Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

To assert that Ireland was a republic, it was only necessary to say "It is hereby declared that Ireland is a republic." There would have been no room for ambiguity then. So we're left with "to stop Britain referring to Eire." But no domestic legislation can stop a foreign nation from doing anything. And if all they wanted was to suggest an alternative description to Britain (which they could then have a fifty-year dispute to stop them using!) all they needed to do was to write a letter or make a phone call. Article 2 states, "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." It is imperative, not permissive. It says "you shall use it", not "you may use it". So why do that? It doesn't accomplish either of the things you said there. And as for this assertion that they "could have passed a referendum without any problem", Mr. Kenny and several of his predecessors could tell you it's not as easy as that. Sometimes it's easier to legislate to get around the constitution than to risk losing a referendum and thereby losing everything: look at the recent abortion legislation. So, again, why enact a law saying the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland if your particular desire is that that description should not be used? Scolaire (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

In my view Scolaire's reasoning is convincing, but we remain with conjecture, and Dmcq has acknowledged above we'd need a good citation saying something different to change it. Unless that is produced, we have no basis for reopening a discussion on this point with improving the article in mind, for the simple reasons stated above (factually correct in itself, linked to article giving further details). The present version says all that needs to be said there and is better suited to this article than the earlier one (as at 13:38, 7 February[8], which tended to verbosity and needless, tendentious, and possibly unfounded, detail. Qexigator (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do want to thank Dmcq for saying that we shouldn't change it without a good citation. I notice that the OP has started tendentious threads on a couple of other talk pages at the same time as this one, so probably we should decline to pursue this further. That is, of course, without prejudice to Dmcq's right to respond to my last post if he wishes. Scolaire (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If they had really wanted Ireland to be generally referred to as the Republic of Ireland they would not for instance have written to the Council of Europe that the state should be referred to as Ireland. It was only to Britain where they said they they could refer to it as the Republic of Ireland even though the name was Ireland. How else could they suggest anything besides Eire to Britain and get it accepted?, any name needed some sort of official stamp and a phone call doesn't do that. I hope that makes it abundantly clear to you that they did not wish it to be generally referred to as the Republic of Ireland but they would prefer Britain to use that compared to what it was doing before. There was no two sides about the Act like there was for abortion and it is just plain silly to compare it to that. 'Sometimes' does not cover this case, becoming independent had overwhelming support. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

...we still remain with conjecture, we'd need a good citation saying something different to change the article, and unless that is produced, we have no basis for reopening a discussion on this point with improving the article in mind, and the present version says all that is needed encyclopedically. Qexigator (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As to your edit comment yes it is silly as in stupid or daft to suggest they wanted to do something when they wrote to people saying the exact opposite. Dmcq (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Not silly, stupid or daft to differ from another's pov, particullarly when, it seems invested with so much feeling, unsuited to the bona fide work of editing Wikipedia. Qexigator (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Pov? It is Scolaire who pushed for the inclusion of that piece and who interprets the bit you say is purely factual, they see it as shoring up their pov. Do you still assert it is just purely factual and not a support of a pov? There is no evidence from the time to shore up that pov and there is good evidence against. Dmcq (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do think we should all just stop this theoretical discussion, not add anything more and not respond to anything. I'm done, at any rate. Scolaire (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What if we changed the sentence to, "The 1948 Act did not name the state as "Republic of Ireland", and could not have done so, because that would have put it in conflict with the Constitution"? Scolaire (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I would personally see no objection to inserting and could not have done so, if that were actually helping a reader to understand anything more than the present version, but when others see that later someone could well be tempted to trim it out as unnecessarily pedantic or verbose, without adding any clarity. I do not see it does anything for the point of view that has been grumbling about the present version, but it is more likely to excite unverified conjecture, as given above at some length. Your previous proposal is the better one: stop this theoretical discussion, not add anything more and not respond to anything. Cheers, all! Qexigator (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Might as well just leave it as it is. I was just saying to Frenchmalawi that I felt there was something wrong too but there was no point just going on about it without some citation. I don't think moving the words around a little or putting in a few more will make much difference to it. Dmcq (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Scolaire (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What about:

"The 1922 state, comprising 26 of the traditional 32 counties of Ireland, was "styled and known as the Irish Free State." The Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "the name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 describes the state as a republic and leaves the name of the state (Ireland) unchanged.

Note: Republic of Ireland Act 1948, Article 2 states: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."

Other citations temporarily removed for clarity. This improves readability and eliminates weasleiness. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It may be better still to use words closer to the act's section 2, thus: The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 declared the description of the State to be "the Republic of Ireland", while the name "Ireland", as given in the Constitution, continued unchanged. Qexigator (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait! We've just managed to get agreement for the second time on the same wording. The first time around Laurel Lodged told us to stop flogging a dead horse. Now he wants a complete re-write! And he wants to take "Republic of Ireland" out of it altogether! The paragraph tells the reader (please remember this is for the readers, not for the people who want a discussion on the talk page) how the "Republic of Ireland" came to be, and why the act that gave it the description did not change the name. Please just leave it alone. Scolaire (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

True enough, and good enough. Cheers, all! Qexigator (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I can back the proposal at the start of this sub-ssection. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Southern Ireland is a better name

AlwynJPie (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)When Ireland was partitioned the names given to the two parts ot the island were Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland. Southern Ireland was the origional name of the territory that this article is about. The current Government of the Ireland (the Republic of Ireland) formally laid claim to the whole island of Ireland and this is why they used the term Ireland instead of Southern Ireland. Even the former Irish Free State origionally included Northern Ireland. Governments can call themselves what they like but to me Ireland means the whole Ireland and Southern Ireland is the part of Ireland controlled by the current Government of Ireland. There are many All Ireland institutions and agreements but this article is only about the 26 counties. AlwynJPie (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Since Donegall is one of those 26 counties, Southern Ireland isn't a better name. Valenciano (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there any circumstances under which you would stop this business short of everybody else doing what you want? Have you ever been wrong? Dmcq (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You say it yourself, governments can call themselves what THEY like. Wikipedia editors do not have those powers. Let's stick with the official name. Arnoutf (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Valenciano and Dmcq. This Wikipedia article is about the 26 counties. Southern Ireland is the best name to use for the article because it is the origional name for the 26 counties and, unlike the Republic of Ireland (which formally laid claim to the whole island) or the Irish Free State it does not contain any reference to the states political situation. Yes, it’s peculiar that the most northerly point of the island of Ireland happens to be in Southern Ireland, but this is one of those geographical anomalies.

Arnoutf. What would Wikipedia do if Northern Ireland decided to change its official name to Ireland? AlwynJPie (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Alwyn, it should be abundantly clear that nobody shares your view or even has any interest in it. Your continued flogging of a horse that wasn't even alive to begin with has become disruptive. Please stop. Scolaire (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Technicially Southern Ireland stopped existing when the Free State came into being. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Mabuska. On the day the Irish Free State was established, it comprised the ENTIRE island of Ireland and, as I pointed out before, the Republic of Ireland formally laid claim to the WHOLE island. Whereas Southern Ireland has only ever been the 26 counties. Southern Ireland still exists, it was never abolished. It is currently the territory of the Government of Ireland. This long running naming dispute would be solved once and for all if the article was called by the ORIGINAL name given to the state when it was created, i.e. Southern Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Alwyn, do you see the big box at the top of this page? The one that says "Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration by order of the Arbitration Committee" ? You do. Good. If you want to continue this discussion, go there, but Scolaire has a point, you're unlikely to find consensus for that. In the meantime, someone uninvolved needs to close this discussion. Valenciano (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Valenciano. I am copying and pasting this section to the talk section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration and I will continue this discussion there. AlwynJPie (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

'Name' section part 3

I have attempted to edit out the sentence "In an Irish republican context it is often referred to as "the Free State" or "the 26 Counties"" and extend the preceeding sentence to include "the Free State" or "the 26 Counties". Primarily because, in my experience, these terms for the state are not limited to an Irish republican context nor those of any particular persuasion. Also, Irish nationalists and anti-partitionists are not necessarily republicans. In addition to making the section more accurate, editing out the said would further trim the Name section. The hatnote at the top of the section gives a link for those who require or desire a more comprehensive explaination of the naming of the state. I was hoping my brief explaination in the edit summary would have sufficed and that I wouldn't have needed to have written this. But it is nice to get the views and feedback of others. AlwynJPie (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Are the 26 counties and the free state common names outside republican circles nowadays?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Another editor is saying

"As well as "Ireland", "Éire" or "the Republic of Ireland", the state is also referred to as "the Republic", "Southern Ireland", "the South", "the Free State" and "the 26 Counties"

instead of

"As well as "Ireland", "Éire" or "the Republic of Ireland", the state is also referred to as "the Republic", "Southern Ireland" or "the South".[20] In an Irish republican context it is often referred to as "the Free State" or "the 26 Counties".[21]"

Has 'the free state' or 'the 26 counties' been used to any extent by anyone outside of republican circles for Ireland in the last thirty years or so? Sinn Fein and republican news certainly seems to me to be the only real users and that's what the article about names of the Irish state says Dmcq (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Dmcq. Sorry, I hadn't realised you had started this section as unfortunately I started up one as well entitled "Name section part 3" on the same topic! To answer your question, in my personal experience, I have often heard people referring to the area of the state as the "26 counties" and "the Free State" just as another way of distinguishing the state from the island but I don't think for any political bias. AlwynJPie (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You have often heard people referring to it as the free state or the 26 counties? I see from the latest talk page you just said a few days ago that "Nine of of ten letters to my home have Middlesex in the address" so I am rather surprised. Anyway let's see what anyone else says. Dmcq (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way new sections go at the bottom of the talk page. If you click the tab 'new section' it will start up a new discussion at the end of the talk page. Dmcq (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Dmcq for that information. I put it there because it was to do with the Name section. My statement "Nine of of ten letters to my home have Middlesex in the address" was true. I live in Harrow. Looking through my post now it is less than that I think that maybe because more businesses are now using postcode search engines to generate addresses which omit Middlesex (or other county names) from addresses. Getting back to the topic, as I say, in my own experience I did not see those that used the terms "Free State" or "the 26 counties" as being particularly republican. AlwynJPie (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is extremely unlikely that you have come across people in Middlesex referring to 'the Free State' and 'The 26 counties' so my guess is you referring to some things on the web you've seen. From the way you go on and on about names here I would guess you've been mainly looking at sites with some political axe to grind about the legitimacy of the state rather than just straightforwardly referring to the state, and that's what the text in the article says. Dmcq (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't remember last time I've time I've seen either used outside of a republican context. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alwyn, by pure chance I lived and worked in Harrow for years and often stopped off in some of the Irish bars down the Northolt Road and in bars like the Shawl and so on, I rarely recall people speaking about the "26 counties" or "The Free State." It was usually "back home", "Ireland" or just the town they were from. 26 counties or the Free State would have sounded like "Shinnerspeak." Ultimately, though, my personal anecdotes are as meaningless as yours in the grand scale of things, since Wikipedia goes on the basis of reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay sorry AlwynJPie, I can see how it might happen if you go to somewhere like that. It sounds like some of the clientele were stuck a bit in the past. Not as bad as people in the US taking about Britain's part in the famine I guess. Dmcq (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted a similar edit a month ago, which led to this discussion on my talk page. My position is still the same: this section has only become stable after a lot of heated discussion, so we have to be able to say that it is 100% verifiable. Anecdotal evidence just isn't enough. At any rate, if a significant number of non-republican people used these descriptions, it would have found its way into print or onto the web somewhere. It may well be that there are a couple of people in County Antrim or wherever that use them, but that is not enough to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia article. Scolaire (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Scolaire, Mabuska and DMCQ - not used outside of a republican context often enough to be worthy of inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

…."the Republic of Ireland", "the Republic", "Southern Ireland", "the South", "the Free State" and "the 26 Counties": The usage of these terms are not confined to any specific group. I’ve heard all these terms used colloquially to distinguish the state from the island by a wide range of people of various points of view. AlwynJPie (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Well perhaps you have a much wider range of experience than the rest of us then. I tried out the Google ngram search and the irish free state and the 26 counties were vanishingly small compared to Ireland and doing a Google search certainly seemed to back up they were republican related. I found one entry on the 26 counties about 26 counties 6 to go about the same-sex marriage referendum and I though perhaps I'm wrong - but no it was in a republican newsletter. Dmcq (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The terms "the Free State" or "the 26 counties" are often used informally to distinguish the state from the island, not when talking about Ireland in general. Yes, many people, including myself, are often ignorant when it comes to official names of places. The “free” merely means the part of Ireland that is “free”, or independent, of the United Kingdom. The 26 counties are the counties contained in the free area. Btw Britian had to play a part in the Great Famine. It actually took place in Britain as all of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom at that time. AlwynJPie (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Ireland"

The naming of the article at Ireland and the usage and topic of the pagename "Ireland" are up for discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Move "Ireland" to "Ireland (island)" or similar (June 2015) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110810192700/http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Taoiseach_and_Government/History_of_Government/1916_Commemorations/Irish_Soldiers_in_the_First_World_War.html to http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Taoiseach_and_Government/History_of_Government/1916_Commemorations/Irish_Soldiers_in_the_First_World_War.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090606053238/http://www.rdf.ie:80/corps/military-police.html to http://www.rdf.ie/corps/military-police.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141027201916/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/1228/1198509920335.html to http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/1228/1198509920335.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120227055815/http://www.bgeuk.ie/corporate/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=97&3nID=354&nID=364 to http://www.bgeuk.ie/corporate/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=97&3nID=354&nID=364
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131115181705/http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Renewable_Energy_in_Ireland_2011.pdf to http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Renewable_Energy_in_Ireland_2011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120510102545/http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2003/03/31/story437213650.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2003/03/31/story437213650.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100419141444/http://www.forbes.com:80/feeds/ap/2010/04/16/business-eu-iceland-volcano-ryanair_7521491.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews to http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/04/16/business-eu-iceland-volcano-ryanair_7521491.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141109120115/http://www.iata.org:80/ps/publications/wats-passenger-carried.htm to http://www.iata.org/ps/publications/wats-passenger-carried.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110628025059/http://www.transport21.ie:80/What_Is_Transport_21/Transport_21/What_is_Transport_21.html to http://www.transport21.ie/What_Is_Transport_21/Transport_21/What_is_Transport_21.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930015328/http://193.178.1.79/ZZA22Y2000S17.html to http://193.178.1.79/ZZA22Y2000S17.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101029070824/http://educationireland.ie/irish-education/secondary-education/leaving-certificate.html to http://www.educationireland.ie/irish-education/secondary-education/leaving-certificate.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110623192352/http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_uni_top_500_percap-universities-top-500-per-capita to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_uni_top_500_percap-universities-top-500-per-capita
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090325005303/http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/Final%20Principal%20Demographic%20Results%202006.pdf to http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/Final%20Principal%20Demographic%20Results%202006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120811173736/http://www.rte.ie/ten/2001/0404/mooreb.html to http://www.rte.ie/ten/2001/0404/mooreb.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121124221048/http://www.rte.ie/radio1/stephensday/1030324.html to http://www.rte.ie/radio1/stephensday/1030324.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100928211424/http://www.riai.ie:80/about_the_riai to http://www.riai.ie/about_the_riai
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110824215241/http://www.ejc.net:80/media_landscape/article/ireland/ to http://www.ejc.net/media_landscape/article/ireland
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100510153927/http://www.irelandby.com:80/recipes/recipes.htm to http://www.irelandby.com/recipes/recipes.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110810093228/http://dublinmarathon.ie/general_history.php to http://dublinmarathon.ie/general_history.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100414031723/http://www.military.ie:80/overseas/index.htm to http://www.military.ie/overseas/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110511175910/http://www.forfas.ie/media/ncc090108_acr_2008.pdf to http://www.forfas.ie/media/ncc090108_acr_2008.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130507042744/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0726/1224320827565.html to http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0726/1224320827565.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131219132130/http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/Ireland-on-course-to-meet-Kyoto-emissions-target-1.1631207 to http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/Ireland-on-course-to-meet-Kyoto-emissions-target-1.1631207
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121113182336/http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011pdr/Census%202011%20Highlights%20Part%201%20web%2072dpi.pdf to http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011pdr/Census%202011%20Highlights%20Part%201%20web%2072dpi.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121113165416/http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011profile6/Profile%206%20Migration%20and%20Diversity%20entire%20doc.pdf to http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011profile6/Profile%206%20Migration%20and%20Diversity%20entire%20doc.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141026204119/http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/technology/Ireland-still-lags-behind-eu-counterparts-in-access-to-broadband-1.1631826 to http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/technology/Ireland-still-lags-behind-eu-counterparts-in-access-to-broadband-1.1631826

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Establishment field in infobox

78.18.69.141 has added the Good Friday Agreement to the "established_event" field of the infobox, first with an edit summary of "added Good Friday Agreement as it significantly changed the Irish constitution and the state's relationship with NI" and then with "It established the state's territorial extent." I presume this is a reference to the removal of the "territorial claim" from Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution, which was done by referendum after the signing of the GFA. But in fact, the effective territorial extent of the state remained unchanged from 1922, a fact that was explicitly acknowledged in the old Article 3. Therefore, neither the GFA nor the consequent constitutional change established anything new in the Republic. The state's relationship with its neighbor is not a part of its establishment. Scolaire (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The same editor, editing from a new IP, and I agree that the Statute of Westminster is "not mentioned much in Ireland" and "barely mentioned in Irish histories". Nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the article, except the infobox, which is supposed to be a simple and concise summary of the article and not a means of introducing extra material (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes). Hence, it should probably be cut. DrKay (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, the editor was only quoting your edit summary here when he/she said it "doesn't matter if its not mentioned much in Ireland." Having said that, I agree that it doesn't belong in the infobox, especially if it's not in the article.

This might be the time to open a discussion on that field generally. Having six or seven establishment dates – 1916, 1919, 1921, 1922, 1937 and 1949, plus or minus 1931 – looks like overkill to me. Really, to be in any way meaningful to the reader, it should only have one or two. It would be a matter of discussion as to which two they should be, but I would tentatively suggest the creation of the Free State in 1922 and the de facto creation of the republic in 1937. Scolaire (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

use of a government source - need better RS - neutral POV

I tagged reference 57 since it comes from the Defense Forces Ireland (www.military.ie:80/) website. Naturally, they will speak in glowing terms of the Republic's UN participation and significance. Surely there is a neutral source out there for this and perhaps to modify the claim somewhat. 98.67.15.158 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Time in Ireland

Just wanted to know why the infallible wikipedia says that time in Ireland is GMT when the Standard Time Act establishes that "the time for general purposes in the State (to be known as standard time) shall be one hour in advance of Greenwich mean time" Any thoughts on that???? BTW: If you doubt this: the eeeeexcellllent wikipedia has an article on "Time in Ireland" form which I took this piece of information :-o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.220.252.239 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Irish Standard Time is actually the time during the summer months; Ireland effectively puts its clocks one hour behind IST in the winter (as is explained in the opening paragraphs of the Time In Ireland wiki page) and operates GMT as IST-1. Krytenia (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Because in practice the time is Ireland is the same as in the UK, Portugal and the Canary islands and different from France and Germany. The template just follows the pattern used in other countries, rather than going for Irish exceptionalism, the article explains the actual legal situation. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It's called Southern Ireland because it's NOT Northern Ireland

Before I read on Wikipedia that Southern Ireland was the origional name of the 26 county state when Ireland was first partitioned (1921) I used to think that Southern Ireland was just a nickname for the RoI, being the opposite of Northern Ireland. I added a link to the term to inform those unaware that SI was an official name. AlwynJPie (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It is just a nickname, being the opposite of Northern Ireland. Linking it to Southern Ireland (1921–22) in the Name section is inappropriate, because it implies that it is called that because of an article in the GOI ACT that most people have never heard of. And, once again, Southern Ireland was not the original name of the 26-county state; it was the proposed name of an entity that never came into being. The original name of the 26-county state was the Irish Free State. Scolaire (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2015‎

Yes the link is quite inappropriate. It is not that would-be country. It is simply a description that some people especially in Britain have used for the state to distinguish it from Northern Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC).

Maybe calling Southern Ireland a "state" is incorrect but the 1920 Act divided Ireland into two sef-governing territories that were named Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland in the Act. The modern state is more or less the same 26 county area that was called Southern Ireland in the Act. AlwynJPie (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The 1920 act did not divide Ireland into two self-governing territories. It's stated purpose was to do so, but one of them never came into existence. At any rate, this has no bearing on what Dmcq or I said. "Southern Ireland" is used because it's not Northern Ireland. That's all. Scolaire (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not just a nickname, the term stems from the origional name for the 26 county territory created in the 1920 Act. AlwynJPie (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again you have amply demonstrated that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, only to push your own fringe theory. Once again I am going to deny recognition, and ask others to do the same. Scolaire (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you can say that Southern Ireland never existed when, on 24 May 1921, elections were held for the House of Commons of Southern Ireland (simultaneously with elections for Northern Ireland). AlwynJPie (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not relevant. Dmcq (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Move page to Ireland

I am currently trying to compile a decent list of countries along with ISO 3166.
I decided to compare Wikipedia ISO_3166-2 and http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/country_codes.htm
The underlying idea is to have something easy to read (not to add the 'Republic', the articles or such but use the 'most-commonly' given name for a country)
Most of them simply match but for Ireland, I was surprised to be redirected to Republic of Ireland
First, the ISO does not even state the 'Republic' part (even though it does for some other countries)
Second, Ireland goes to the island part when a disambiguation could easily do the job
My question is: could this page be renamed Ireland, and the current Ireland moved to something like Ireland (island)?
88.190.131.1 (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This question and requests to move are asked regularly so you need to read the FAQ at the top of the page and many pages of talk page discussions on the subject. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The most important banner at the top is the one that says, "Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration by order of the Arbitration Committee." I wouldn't waste my time, though. This was the subject of lengthy (as in ten years) and heated discussion, but in the end there was an indisputable consensus to keep the article at this title. Scolaire (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

While you're at it why don't you get ISO to change from GB to UK for the United Kingdom. Dmcq (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Formating

It would appear this page needs some formatting fixes.Atworker (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If you dont want to fix them yourself we might need some clues. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to be dismissive/combative, but I've found it futile to edit Wikipedia pages, as they are almost always reverted.146.1.2.19 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027201916/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/1228/1198509920335.html to http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/1228/1198509920335.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227055815/http://www.bgeuk.ie/corporate/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=97&3nID=354&nID=364 to http://www.bgeuk.ie/corporate/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=97&3nID=354&nID=364
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419141444/http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/04/16/business-eu-iceland-volcano-ryanair_7521491.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews to http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/04/16/business-eu-iceland-volcano-ryanair_7521491.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027201916/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/1228/1198509920335.html to http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/1228/1198509920335.html

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227055815/http://www.bgeuk.ie/corporate/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=97&3nID=354&nID=364 to http://www.bgeuk.ie/corporate/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=97&3nID=354&nID=364
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419141444/http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/04/16/business-eu-iceland-volcano-ryanair_7521491.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews to http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/04/16/business-eu-iceland-volcano-ryanair_7521491.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910082950/https://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0016/D.0016.192607200020.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0016/D.0016.192607200020.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggested move Republic of Ireland -> Ireland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As per WP:COMMONNAME and the fact that a similar set of articles where the geographical entity of Taiwan's is called Geography of Taiwan and the political entity of the Republic of China is Taiwan, sure the Republic of Ireland is the "correct" and "official" name of the state but the common name is Ireland like how the Republic of China is formally referred to as "Taiwan".

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is nothing new; it has been argued about many times before. The consensus is outlined at WP:IRE-IRL. Cheers. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Also note per the large message that appears when you edit refering to the naming of this and other Ireland articles you need to raise and discuss this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration and not here, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@86.81.201.94: Did see the notice saying Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration by order of the Arbitration Committee.? If not, then I hope to help solve this problem after a similar one at Talk:New York is solved. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion which I fully support...Ireland may be one of the only countries on enWiki that is saddled with a description rather than its actual sovereign name. Sadly, there is a plurality of non-Irish or Unionist editors here who are determined to keep the title of the Republic diminished. Sarah777 (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sarah777: Is Ireland really a country though, or a piece of land with two countries on it? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Provisional Government of Ireland (1922)

Discussion about what legal description of UK-devolved provisional government in Dublin was back in 1922. Marginal topic; knowledgable editors welcome! Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipéire / MusicInTheHouse sock back again

Quite obvious that he/she is back again, the article was semi-protected and now he/she has made the same edit, changing Republic of Ireland to Ireland. I also tracked the IP to Madrid again using ip2location.com. I will simply rollback in future. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's alright, the page has been semi-protected again --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 18:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted. It doesn't seem that big a deal, but the edit war certainly falls under the "ambiguous cases" of WP:BAN. --McGeddon (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User:SirFozzie has also put on a notice on Wikipéire's user page saying that any edits by the editor must be reverted. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 20:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

For three reasons I have changed "Ireland" back to "Republic of Ireland".

1. "Republic of Ireland" was the stable term until 26 October until it was changed without consensus by User:Cadbury Wispa.
2. This issue regarding Ireland names was dealt with in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names over the Summer.
3. "Republic of Ireland" is less confusing to the reader, as we're not talking about Northern Ireland here. Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 20:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Points 1 and 2 are invalid, as Ireland was stable for several months and the Poll was about a title nothing else. Point three is merely your opinion and once reverted you should accept it is not consensus, as no editors are agreeing with you.83.43.214.253 (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Infact, I see here you tried to change it in July before you were reverted [9].83.43.214.253 (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am new to this page but I do not see consensus for the term as the Irish manual of style indicates to use the correct term where there is no disambiguation necessary. The lead of this article is a classic example of this. Can someone please clarify further?LikeTreasure (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't say that. But it says where there is disambiguation necessary to use "Republic of Ireland", seeing as "Ireland" is commonly mistaken for the whole island (the IMOS even says that). So therefore using Republic of Ireland is the best solution in this case. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 17:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ireland is the common and official name of the state, with the UK being mentioned, (and the link being provided to the right article) disambiguation isn't necessary. Can you please provide more reason why this particular page with the same circumstances as 99% of pages is different?LikeTreasure (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is mentioned in the article, yes, but one can still be confused as to what "Ireland" is. As for your second statement, lots of articles use "Republic of Ireland". Saying that 99% of articles, or anywhere near 99% use "Ireland" is completely false (except for the ones that were edited by Wikipéire's socks). I think that is you who needs to provide more reason. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 19:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup this was another Wikipéire sock. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 21:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the name because there's no need for a dab according to IMOS. --HighKing (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2016

The Irish healthcare system ranked 13th out of 34 European countries in 2012 according to the European Health Consumer Index produced by Health Consumer Powerhouse.

Please replace the broken link for European Health Consumer Index with http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/files/Report-EHCI-2012.pdf Lianne.Murphy (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Done — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2016

The name of the state is Ireland. Republic is the system of governance. It is the soccer team which is named the Republic of Ireland, not the State. (See list of UN member states - which lists Ireland, not the Republic of Ireland as a member state, also see any treaty between Ireland and another state which lists the state as Ireland.) References to Republic of Ireland and Poblacht na hEireann in this article are factually inaccurate. 86.44.127.1 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: As noted at the top of the article, "Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration by order of the Arbitration Committee." Stickee (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Change GNP claim in Economic Development Section

Most recent OECD has Ireland quite a bit above the OECD average for GNP - https://data.oecd.org/natincome/gross-national-income.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.24.232.146 (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That link is dead. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

See: https://data.oecd.org/natincome/gross-national-income.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.251.216 (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617080413/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/5-15062011-BP/EN/5-15062011-BP-EN.PDF to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/5-15062011-BP/EN/5-15062011-BP-EN.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140602201151/http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernmentAdministration/RHLegislation/FileDownLoad%2C35715%2Cen.pdf to http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernmentAdministration/RHLegislation/FileDownLoad%2C35715%2Cen.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303175716/http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/ConsolidationINCA.pdf/Files/ConsolidationINCA.pdf to http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/ConsolidationINCA.pdf/Files/ConsolidationINCA.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511091051/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0560/D.0560.200301300005.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0560/D.0560.200301300005.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110624030442/http://www.esri.ie/irish_economy/ to http://www.esri.ie/irish_economy
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cso.ie/statistics/botmaintrpartners.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714175240/http://census.cso.ie/sapmap2011/Results.aspx?Geog_Type=ST&Geog_Code=35009 to http://census.cso.ie/sapmap2011/Results.aspx?Geog_Type=ST&Geog_Code=35009
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141029050553/http://census.cso.ie/sapmap2011/Results.aspx?Geog_Type=ST&Geog_Code=10008 to http://census.cso.ie/sapmap2011/Results.aspx?Geog_Type=ST&Geog_Code=10008
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224073202/http://www.cmc.ie/links/index.html to http://www.cmc.ie/links/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150712134834/http://www.esri.ie/pdf/BKMNINT180_Main%20Text_Social%20and%20Economic%20Value%20of%20Sport.pdf to http://www.esri.ie/pdf/BKMNINT180_Main%20Text_Social%20and%20Economic%20Value%20of%20Sport.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Move page to "Ireland (country)" or "Ireland (sovereign state)" proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sense the "Republic of Ireland" isn't the official name of Ireland according to Article 4 of the constitution of Ireland, I think that it might be a good idea to move the page to "Ireland (country)" or "Ireland (sovereign state)", or any other name that would be appropriate to the page. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you see the infobox at the top of this page ^^^^ the bit that starts with "Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must...." ??? Valenciano (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Elevatorrailfan no need for sorry; the move there was a successful bid to close down discussion any way. It ought to be discussed here like any other matter concerning the article. Frenchmalawi (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Lol at the "alternative facts". In actuality, the issue has been discussed to death. Between February 2006 and December 2008 there were no less than seven different discussions and polls (there had been many discussions before then, too). Then there was a marathon, extended, Arbcom-sanctioned mediation and widely-advertised poll, in 2009, resulting in a decision to keep the status quo for two years. There were at least two more discussions in 2012. There have been many more since. The consensus/poll result has always been to maintain the status quo, meaning that the article on the Irish state doesn't reside at the official name of the state. (By the way, there are literally dozens of country articles in the Wiki not on the official name of their state...) Since the change of one article title has implications for the articles on both the state and the island, it makes sense to have any discussions at a central location. Anyone is more than welcome to raise the issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

What does the fact that it's been discussed to death have to do with anything. It is and will continue to be a controversial issue. All of the countries you mentioned have recognised official long-form names, whereas the article titles use their commonly known short-form names. There is no point of contention regarding those countries because there is no denial whatsoever of any of those countries to be referred to by their short-form names, while also acknowledging their official names. In the case of Ireland, there is one and only one official name in English, no long form, no short form. And yet the "Republic of Ireland" moniker is consistently foisted upon the State as if it were the official name. It's a very obvious difference, all of those examples you brought up in an attempt to belittle the issue are worthless. Mutant32z (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101013012557/http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/british_isles/ireland/AD43-410 to http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/british_isles/ireland/AD43-410
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012042003/http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/british_isles/ireland/AD410-1066 to http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/british_isles/ireland/AD410-1066
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510022752/http://udprism01.ucd.ie/TalisPrism/browseResults.do?&expandedWorkID=0.12&browse_action=9057&rootRSetId=12c1e70947c00000&browse_RootRSetId=12c1e70947c00000&displayRowPath=0&pageSize=10&displaySearchAsText=false&openRowPathSet=0%3A1 to http://udprism01.ucd.ie/TalisPrism/browseResults.do?&expandedWorkID=0.12&browse_action=9057&rootRSetId=12c1e70947c00000&browse_RootRSetId=12c1e70947c00000&displayRowPath=0&pageSize=10&displaySearchAsText=false&openRowPathSet=0%3A1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111230062255/http://www.gaa.ie/gaa-news-and-videos/daily-news/3/2107111732-gaa-attendances-hold-firm to http://www.gaa.ie/gaa-news-and-videos/daily-news/3/2107111732-gaa-attendances-hold-firm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110827084718/http://www.gaa.ie/about-the-gaa/ to http://www.gaa.ie/about-the-gaa
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://193.178.1.79/1979/en/act/pub/0020/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Questions and comments

This is a good article. For the most part it's well written, informative and it has a very good layout. I have a few questions and comments.

1. The "Irish Civil War" section is not very clear in explaining the history.

2. "The Seanad is composed of sixty members, with eleven nominated by the Taoiseach, six elected by two universities, and 43 elected by public representatives from panels of candidates established on a vocational basis."

I don't understand what "vocational basis" means and what it implies.

3. "The Corrib gas field was due to come on stream in 2013/14." and "That could provide for Ireland's entire energy needs for up to 13 years, when it is developed in 2015/16." need to be updated.

4. "The average life expectancy in Ireland in 2012 is 81 years".

Is that statistic coming from OECD?

5. "The Programme for International Student Assessment, coordinated by the OECD, currently ranks Ireland as having the fourth highest reading score, ninth highest science score and thirteenth highest mathematics score, among OECD countries, in its 2012 assessment."

The words "currently" and "2012" create contradiction and ambiguity. We are in 2017. The sentence should be updated.

6. The "Music and dance" section mentions "roots music". What is that?

7. "The strength of the British press is a unique feature of the Irish print media scene, with the availability of a wide selection of British published newspapers and magazines."

I do not understand what this sensence means.

8. Note 1 at the bottom of the article should be part of section 5.1 (Development).

ICE77 (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)