Talk:Ireland/Archive 4

message: I'm going to cut the history section right down. We now have a very big summary article at History of Ireland and many more detailed articles. It makes no sense for this page to have such a long section as its really a summary of a summary of a summary. People who are interested should be directed to the main articles.
Jdorney 13:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History Again

message: (Could someone format this page to remove the large blanks caused by the picture boxes? --Krashlandon 17:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the Arts up a bit, and the page looks better. Also, I moved your request here, to the talk page, as I'm responding to it, and I think this'll generate more talk than anything that should be on the article itself. More work should probably be done, but it looks a bit better now. Canaen 23:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Formatting 

message: I'm going to start a proper Archiving of this talk page. It shouldn't be more than 2, or at most 3 pages. I'll leave what seems to still be active. If you have any qualms, then plese bring them up to me. Better yet, be bold and do it yourself! Canaen 00:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: About the title of this page: I understand that this has been up for several motions and votes and debates and what not over on the article entitled Republic of Ireland. But if that article itself states that the name of this sovereign state is usually just Ireland in the English language, then why does the island of the same name monopolize on that entry on WP? Is it really unequivocally the predominant usage in English? Similar cases elsewhere will usually lead to a disambiguation page if several uses of a word are equally common. Like this:
::Ireland may refer to either:
::*Ireland (state), a country in Northern Europe
::*Ireland (island), one of the British Isles
::See also New Ireland and Northern Ireland
Compare where the reader is (re)directed if he/she types in other ambiguous terms with multiple meanings, such as "Georgia", "Samoa", "China", "Micronesia" or "Macedonia". //Big Adamsky 03:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The entry "Ireland"

message: The page looks awful with 1600x1200 resolution (Mozilla Firefox). The row of images continues for a kilometer after the text has ended, and the "[edit]" signs are scattered all over the place. I think that this is because of the long Flags of Ireland, etc image blocks. There's also three very random images at the bottom without any captions (picture of an airplane, a picture of a train, a picture of some construction yard, and "ESB" logo).  Could anything be done about this problem? (this is the only page where I've noticed the [edit]s get messed up). --85.49.234.240 16:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with you, I think removing one is a start. For those who think the image boxes add enough to merit there use, well it might look good at your resolution but it doesn't at every ones so its not a bad idea getting rid of one. lets have a vote. - Fabhcún 19:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout on higher resolutions

message: A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp.  Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Poll:_Ireland_article_titles|Poll: Ireland article titles]] 

message: From Talk:Hibernophile
"I don't find the word "Hibernophile" in any online dictionary. Can somebody give a cite for this word (online or in print)? If not, we should probably yank this article. (Also, Google only gives 265 hits for this word and Wikipedia is among them.)" -- 12 Feb 2006
It may not be much used it is a perfectly valid word, just as Hibernophobe, Anglophile, Anglophobe, homophile, homophobe, etc. For minor topics (and even major ones) google is worthless. It regularly throws up inaccurate facts and simply matches the linguistic dominance of American English and British English usage while largely ignoring all other variants of English many of which use the word. But then as most internet users are American or from the Commonwealth of Nations, the bias towards their usage is hardly unusual. FearÉIREANN15px\(caint) 19:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Hibernophile" not in dictionaries?

message: Éire is the official name of the Republic of Ireland, it is not "Ireland" in Irish. "Ireland in Irish is "Éireann".
:Éire is the name of the state, in Irish, and most certainly not English. I understand that Éireann means of Ireland. Djegan 00:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you've been misinformed.  Éire and Éireann are just two different forms of the Irish word for "Ireland", the latter being the genitive case.  As Djegan says, Éire is the name of the state in Irish.--Ryano 09:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Éire is NOT Ireland in Irish 

message: Will people please use the "Preview" button instead of making multiple consecutive edits! A user called "SeanMack" made 21 edits over two days when two or three would have been enough. Patrick 13.55, 15 April 2006.
:And will people, in this case you, please not change others talk page comments, as you've done directly above this to El Gringo's comments? --Kiand 13:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry one or 2 edits would not have been enough. I find people on wikipedia are SO quick to criticise others. Did I vandalise? No. Did I add rubbish? No. I added references which this article was badly lacking. I spent a long time between edits trying to find sites online that would backup what was being said in the article. Plus, when I was doing this I had to correct facts, which should have been correct in the first place. Can I ask a question big man, is your criticism because I fixed up an article or some other reason. Did I use up some finite resource doing what I did? Again I don't think so. As far as I remember multiple edits do not cost anything, it seems to me you are being sh***y without reason. Really what is your point? SeanMack 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have reverted the changes — its generally frowned on to change any editors comments, except for instance if they are a personal attack, libelous etc in which case they may be removed. Djegan 13:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You are quite right, I lost my cool. As I mentioned my PC was crashing a lot and I was losing work, I did try to bundle some of the refs together and if I had realised that multiple edits were so frowned upon I would have tried harder to bundle more together. I also take you point about language, it was over the top, and I have moderated my comments. I let my frustrations get the better of me. It seemed at the time I was being criticised for doing something that wikipedia needs more of, and that's making sure article facts can be independently checked. I should never have let the frustrations of my own pc and the criticism get to me. Please accept my apologies. SeanMack 14:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Edits 

message: For an informal merger discussion see Wikipedia_talk:Irish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#Names_of_Ireland.
Djegan 20:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of Ireland

message: I was looking at the external likns, and after remoivg some basic spam links to external boards, i noticed that their are a fair amount of republic specific links. Considering that this article is not about the republic and about the island as a whole, i think that the country specific and non cultural links should be removed. Any objections? --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 19:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: How can an article about Ireland not include a reference and information about Michael Collins?  I looked at the article for the first time today.  It may never be a FA if there is no reference to Michael Collins.  Mfields1 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the Island of Ireland, not the state. I would imagine that Republic of Ireland would be the place for Michael Collins stuff (and indeed, he's mentioned in the history section). Martin 01:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, despite what the film may have portrayed, he wasn't as important as most of the world outside of Ireland seems to think.... --Kiand 01:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Collins 

message: This article is about Geography, not Politics. It is a fact that the island of Ireland is the second largest of the British Isles. This is borne out in very many sources, including Wikipedia List of the British Isles by area. Some people might not like this, but there's nothing that can be done about it; it remains a fact. We are not here to placate the sensibilities of a particular group. It matters not if no-one in the Republic of Ireland uses this term, or even if they all find it offensive, because it is used elsewhere and there's even a lengthy Wikipedia article on it. I would urge certain users to stop removing facts because they don't like the particular terminology associated with them. Don't forget, the island of Ireland is not exclusively the territory of the Republic of Ireland. Part of the island is British - part of Irleand is British. Having said that, this is about geography. Another point: I find it childish that two editors (User:Sarah777 and User:MelForbes) have combined to overcome the 3RR rule and remove the fact that Ireland is the second largest of the British Isles. Incidently, the River Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles - that is also a fact. Arcturus 16:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarah, no one is saying you live on a British island (political), but like it or not, you do live in the British Isles (geographical). You cannot abolish a geographical entity simply because you don't agree with the concept. If you don't want to acknowledge that the Republic of Ireland is in the British Isles (actually it is) then take it up at that article. This article is about geography and includes an area of land that is not part of the Republic of Ireland. British Isles is a widely accepted term throughtout the world and we have an article about it here on Wikipedia. You are denying the fact of the matter. Arcturus 21:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it up with the article? The one that has a preface which states: The term "British Isles" can be confusing and is objectionable to some people, particularly in Ireland. See the Terminology section below for details of the controversy. and later goes on to note In October 2006, Irish educational publisher Folens announced that it was removing the term British Isles from its popular school atlas from January 2007. That article? Seeing as how that article itself takes great pains to illustrate how controversial that term is, how can you possibly use that as an argument to add the term into other articles? IrishGuy talk 00:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If Arcturus or anyone who supports his position can find a contemporary (say, last ten years) reference to the British Isles on a map or in a geography text that was not produced in Britain, there may be an argument for retaining its use in this article.  His effective assertion that the term's use is immune to the march of history is so obviously laughable that I suspect he's trolling (and enjoying the rise he's getting out of everyone).  Yes, it's correct that Ireland is part of the "British Isles."  It's also true that the Navajo tribes of the U.S. southwest are "Indians", if one insists on using obsolete labels.  By the way, since I'm here, I'd like to point out to everyone in the UK and Ireland that the liquid you fill your cars' fuel tanks with is, in fact, gas--not "petrol", whatever that is.  If you don't want to acknowledge that you're actually buying gas, take it up at that article.  ;-)  Dppowell 01:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean something like this , from National Geographic, no less! Arcturus 08:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Touché!  As I said above, though, that's merely one piece of evidence (the first you've produced, as far as I can tell from my admittedly hasty overview of the discussion) to support an extremely contentious assertion. Labels are not "geographical entities" like mountains or oceans. They do change. They change to reflect evolving knowledge, understanding, and, yes, sensibilities. I understand the desire to stem the often-insidious tide of political correctness, but at some point that becomes more obstinacy than noble traditionalism. It's clear which way the wind is blowing on this label.  Why intentionally bat the hornets' nest?  Dppowell 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The example from NG is one of thousands available online. They depict the British Isles as a geographic entity, including Ireland. The term "British Isles" scores 9.1 million Google hits (not exactly scientific, I know, but a good indicator - "Republic of Ireland" scores 8 million). The truth of the matter is that the term is used widely across the world. Only in the Republic of Ireland is it not favoured, and I bet it's only a voiciferous minority who object to it there. Funny thing is, I don't have a problem with Irish Sea at all. Unless someone can come up with a geographic reason as to why Irleand is not the second largest island in the British Isles I will re-instate this basic fact in the article. This article is for readers, not editors with a grudge. Arcturus 17:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a NPOV-friendly reference to the British Isles (and the attendant controversy) in the article.  That should be sufficient. Dppowell 02:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Argghh!!! I live in the Americas but most Canadians and South Americans I know do not want to be styled with any appellation denoting that ( excluding America which by an anamoly of English has already been taken by citizens of the States). Even though it is a geographic fact borne of history. I also know many Pakistanis who do not want it mentioned that their country is on the Indian subcontinent. Ah, history thou art a hideous bitch goddess!Gary Joseph 00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Ireland, or is it not, the second largest of the British Isles? 

message: I propose attaching flag icons to the header of this article for NI and ROI. The majority of people on the island know that the red cross is representative of 'Northern Ireland' and the tri-colour as the 'Rep. of Ireland'. Outsiders visiting the article may skip the italicised header and go straight to the main content. Simple flag icons would catch their eye and assist then in finding the article of the state they might need. I've seen this used before in other Wiki articles, Taiwan for example.
This is how it might look:
   
I can't see how it would have a negative effect on the article as a whole. Any thoughts?  Wiki01916 03:20, 9 October 2006 (GMT)
::The NI flag as shown is no longer an official flag and is never used- I believe (top of head) NI now technically represented by the symbol on the NI Assembly website. The Union Flag would be a far better choice as it remains an official flagWeggie 09:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The corporate logo of the Northern Ireland Assembly isn't used anywhere to represent Northern Ireland (other than the assembly itself). The Union Flag is the only 'official' symbol, with the old Government of Northern Ireland flag used for some purposes to represent Northern Ireland as an individual territory\region\country\statelet. In this case the Union Flag would only add to the confusion. Best to leave the header as it is. « Keith » 20:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding flag icons to the header  

message: Can someone back this up? Coming from an Irish agricultural background, I would have to say that the opposite is true i.e. tillage is usually more profitable on a large scale, Also I've never heard of this change of policy before, a reference would be nice:
"De Valera focused on agriculture again, but this time on tillage farming, as this favoured the small farmers, whereas cattle farming benefited the larger farmers."
Also, I've heard from several sources that the economic war with Britian resulted in severe hardships, and I've never heard anyone suggest that there was a favourable outcome to the Republic at the end of it. If a reasonably good reference for this paragraph in the economy section is not found I think that it should be significantly rewritten.
134.102.186.220 12:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: I didn't want to revert without discussion, but does the ancient Roman name for Ireland need to be the second word in the article? Dppowell 22:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hibernia? 

message: I reverted the last two edits from this IP; I'm not sure any of the edits added anything really necessary to the article, but I try to err on the side of inclusion.  The last two edits, however, could reasonably be labeled as POV.  I was less sure about the first two and would welcome another pair of eyeballs. Will drop a note on that IP's talk page, too.  Dppowell 00:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversions to 81.104.174.7 edits 

message: I don't want to get into a discussion on terms but at present several of the words used go to articles not about the intended subject: e.g. X% are Catholic goes to a disambiguation page on Catholicism and Catholic Church goes to a redirect page. Neither are ideal: redirects are bad for WP overall (it will get fixed by a bot eventually anyway) and bad article links give users a bad experience. However, I don't really want to sort them out through fear of being perceived in an article where I have almost no knowledge (beyond the odd holiday) of trying to switch any meaning. Could one of the regulars have a go? --BozMo talk 18:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the confused linkage is just a function of how many different editors have assembled this article, not of some kind of disagreement over what "Catholic" should link to.  Would anyone object to my pointing all the affected links to Roman Catholic Church? Dppowell 20:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic v Roman Catholic etc.

message: In the first paragraph, it states;
:Politically it is divided into a sovereign state, the Republic of Ireland, that covers about five-sixths of the island (south, east, west and north-west), and Northern Ireland, which is part of the United
If memory serves there is a small area of soverign US soil at Shannon airport, handed over in the 1960s, does anyone know what I am thinking of? 86.12.249.63 11:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Divisions