Talk:Republic of Ireland

Well, I've edited the article to make it fit once more into the agreed upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries template. I know, JTDirl is not going to like it one bit (see Talk:Republic of Ireland/temp). Jeronimo was right though on the points he raised and I've edited the sections accordingly, though Politics and Counties still need to done. The excellent and detailed information that was here is not lost, but has been moved to more appropriate pages. Before we start Round Two of JTDirl vs. the Template, I'd like to point out that this is not the page for any in-depth information on Ireland, excellent though it is, but rather a summary of the more important facts and a repository of links to articles that go deeper into a particular matter. Now I'm off to bed. -Scipius 00:11 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oh great. Scipius is back. What is his pre-occupation with trying to force in here a version littered with inaccuracies and simplistic nonsense onto this page? He ignored everyone else the last time, now he wants to do it again. For the record, Scipius, the temp version here was worked on by people, was agreed with a consensus behind it and hence installed here. You tried to bulldoze your version through last time and failed. You tried to get this article put in under the wrong name and failed. This version has been agreed after a discussion. FearÉIREANN 02:48 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's a pity that it looks like we're not going to have a more constructive discussion. My "pre-occupation" is simply that we have agreed to apply a certain template to all the main country articles. This template is meant, as said, as a collection of the most vital information on a country, embellished by links to articles that delve deeper into a subject matter. Ireland is of course no exception and I think my version offers a reasonably good overview of the Republic, without being overly specific on certain subjects. Certainly, there's always room for corrections or improvement and feel free to edit the page further, though keep in mind that for this page, (relative) brevity is desired.

As for things being decided, that's not exactly true. The /temp talk page consists of Jeronimo pointing out what is needed for the template and your rebuttal, but no agreement on the part of Jeronimo at all. The template was agreed upon in July/August 2002 and has since been applied to a great many countries. The version that was on the temp page unfortunately does not comply with it, in particular the history section is far too long and I think we can all agree on that it had to shortened. -Scipius 21:13 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Just read the first part of this talk page that included arguments by Larry Sanger and also many mailing list posts made at about the same time. This horse has already been beaten to death. --mav 21:55 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The earlier discussion was about the name of the article, which is not now the issue. There was no objection then to the history section. The issue at stake here is the template itself. -Scipius 22:26 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No. The whole point was about which entity the article should be about (Ireland or the RoI). The name was just the most obvious issue. --mav

I do find Scipius' version odd; the text, esp in the history area, seems to be about Ireland and Irish culture instead about the far more recent political entity known as the "Republic of Ireland" (although that is not the official name). In this case we cannot associate Ireland with its thousands of years of history with the RoI in the same way as we cannot associate Korea and its thousands of years of history just with S. Korea. --mav

This is the way we've been doing it for all countries up till now, mav. We do indeed refer to the more extensive history of Korea in the article for South Korea, but when I added the two templates, I added the same text regarding the combined history to the article for North Korea. All country articles refer to events that were prior to the current incarnation of the country and I would say that a historic background is helpful to someone wanting to know more about a country.

I'm entirely open to suggestions that we limit country articles to only the current form of the state and create a general meta article for the greater entity (such as here) or for past forms. This should probably be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries though, where I raised the issue before, and until then I'd say the template as is stands. Consider this: the /temp article contained a wealth of excellent detailed information on the history of Ireland 1919-1949, but did not mention Saint Patrick, the arrival of English and Scottish settlers, the Famine, or the Easter Rising. Even if those issues can be seen as pre-Republic, there was also no mention of the Troubles or the Good Friday Agreement. The template version mentions all of these and more, at the expense of detail on a certain period, however crucial it was. Which would you rather have? -Scipius 21:13 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"All country articles refer to events that were prior to the current incarnation" Only when there is a one-to-one relationship between the current nation and its past history. The pre-history of the United States, for example, only starts with the colonial period - not with the Native Americans. Also the pre-history of Mexico starts with the Spanish conquest, not with the Aztec Empire. Lumping all that together is confusing and especially wrong in cases like Korea and Ireland. It is also bad database design to have the same information copied in two different places (the history of North Korea and the history of South Korea). It is best to simply start the split histories when the countries split and have everything prior to that at History of Korea. Then both the North and South articles would link to History of Korea. That way there is only one place for us to maintain text on the history before the split. This is good design and it makes things clear and easy to follow for our readers. --mav

And how do we deal with relationships that are supposedly not one-on-one, but still help to give the background to why a country is what it is? Both our articles on Mexico and the US do mention the situation prior to statehood. Do you suggest we do not mention any of the background history for any country article? -Scipius 22:26 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please read what I said again about "pre-history". What you propose would be the same as having the history of the Milky Way galaxy in an article about the earth. --mav

But you would still like to mention just who the Spanish conquered, right? It doesn't need to go into detail, but some links to a substantial part of a territory's history would seem useful. Your analogy is not entirely apt, I get the point, but that would be like describing the history of Asia in an article on Korea, which no-one is suggesting. Local territorial history does seem somewhat relevant to me.-Scipius 22:11 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

After reading it over, I have to concur with mav and JTD. The text in Scipius' version is a bit too focused on the culture and identity of Ireland as a whole, as opposed to the newer Republic of Ireland. And if according to a person formally educated in such matters there are many inaccuracies in Scipius' article, why is this even an issue? -- goatasaur

As said, we do not yet limit the history of a country to only the current state. For the RoI this necessarily means we then talk about Ireland in general in certain cases, but as the Republic came forth from and consists of most of the island of Ireland, some overlap is only natural. As for supposed inaccuracies, JTD is more than welcome to correct them (he is after all likely to be far more knowledgeable) and I've paid attention to correcting some myself. However, I would like everyone to compare the two versions to see which you would deem more informative in general. Wiki-articles are never quite finished, but I would suggest we use the template version as a basis for further improvements. -Scipius 21:13 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

An article titled "Republic of Ireland" should not try to discuss the history of Ireland from the early Middle Ages. It is, among other things, offensive to the people of Northern Ireland, and needless - the article History of Ireland can cover that easily enough. john 21:19 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree and so do several others so. Only one person disagrees so IMO the case is closed. --mav

Well, what I would like to know is how this effects other countries. I may have to make a lot of changes if we make this policy. As for the history I added, as I said, it is a basis. I personally think it could be shortened in itself, but I would say JTD is more suited for it. Given the desire for more on the creation of the Irish state, why not expand that and cut back on the first two paragraphs? I maintain that the history section as it is now is not suitable for the template. -Scipius 22:26 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It makes sense in a case as complex as Ireland, where an article is called Republic of Ireland to focus on the history of that republic. If instead it focuses on the history and culture of the entire island it risks not only offending people but also unnecessary replication in Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Éire, Irish Free State, and Ireland. I have also from time to time encountered a degree of ignorance and misunderstanding as to the status of Ireland with regard to Britain, and the current version makes it very clear how the current state evolved. In reference to the lack of mentioning Saint Patrick, the arrival of English and Scottish settlers, the Famine. Saint Patrick is the patron saint of Northern Ireland as well as the republic. The settlements mainly happened in the north, and all of these including the famine pre-date the republic. The Easter Rising was a failed declaration of independence, which affected the whole Ireland and pre-dates the republic. The troubles (of Northern Ireland) and the Good Friday agreement (for Northern Ireland) do require some mention perhaps in that particularly the latter has affected the constitution of the republic. Mintguy 22:07 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Northern Ireland could not also include parts of the shared history of Ireland? Why does linking some cultural and political history of the entire island to one of its resulting parts necessarily constitute an offence to the other, which after all shares it and should mention it as well? We certainly shouldn't claim the Republic is all of Ireland, but it does have a history that goes beyond 1919. -Scipius 22:26 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If you have to ask that question, Scipius, you are simply showing how little you understand the topic. The majority of people in Northern Ireland do not see themselves as Irish but as British, and believe their history should be on a page on the United Kingdom. The minority see themselves as Irish and would want their history put on an Irish page. Doing either on wiki would be taking sides, offensive to one side or the other, and so POV. That is why this page is on the Republic and why there is a separate page on Northern Ireland. It is to ensure that wiki is not perceived as talking sides in the debate over whether Northern Ireland is British or Irish. As a nationalist, I would perceive it as Irish, but wiki cannot make such a POV judgement. This point was explained to you in depth MONTHS ago when you last tried to do this. How many times does it have to be repeated before you get the message? You wouldn't listen to anyone last time. Please listen to people this time. FearÉIREANN 23:38 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Obviously it would be best to have a separate page like History of Northern Ireland, which mentions in more detail and correctness the past history of that territory. We do not yet categorise pages, so pages do not have nationality. My point is that it would not necessairly prohibit us from mentioning some relevant information from prior to the formation of the Irish state. Such as when English involvement in Ireland began, which is after all why an Irish state had to be created in the first place, just like the NI page mentions the arrival of the settlers. And again, the issue of having separate pages for Ireland and the Republic is long over, so there's no need to imply this is what this is about. The only relation is that the separation need not be this strict and in my view can overlap to a small extent, increasing the usefulness of an article, provided we avoid potential confusion and inaccuracy of course. Consider also the Culture section you apparently had no objection to, is it uncontroversial to mention pre-Republic Irish writers there?

As for there being a consensus, that's not entirely accurate. Certainly, it's always good to ask other people for their opinion, but obviously a consensus is not something where those holding the opposing view to your own (such as Jeronimo and myself) are mostly ignored. This is supposed to be a country template page and thus this view is entirely relevant no matter at what point it is brought up. Issues with the template can be discussed at any time as far as I'm concerned.

Let's explore two issues you mentioned elsewhere: the status of the languages and the name on the table. You accused me of ignorance and what not because I deleted your text that described English as a secondary language, thereby wanting to imply they are equal. That's not exactly the case. If brevity is desired in the article, it is absolutely essential in the table, so I limited it to a simple enumeration of both official languages. The primary reason I deleted the note however was because it unnecessarily lengthened the table and created ugly whitespace. Some preference was already given in that Irish was mentioned first and we usually can explain the linguistic situation more extensively in the Demographics section, but I've now edited that part to an extent that should be unambiguous, yet still neat and tidy. If you would still like a more explicit mention that we can add it as a note similar to that to the euro, but we shouldn't do it in that cell.

As for the name on top of the table, that is reserved for the local official long name of a country. The local official name, given the preference for Irish, would be Éire, as is explained in Republic of Ireland Act. Combined with its constitutional superiority, this is probably what should come first, being the most promiment >local< name (and there being no real "long" form AFAIK). Now, the above article also mentions that the constitution also gives "Ireland" as its name in English and that is where it gets messy of course. Normally we would use "Ireland" as the second name, being constitutionally the English and other local name, rather than the description of "Republic of Ireland", which is at any rate already used as the article title and is mentioned in the first paragraph, which is normally reserved for the official long English (local or not) name. But given that this too appears to be undesirable I've replaced it with "Republic of Ireland", cutting out "Ireland" all together, but I'm open to suggestions.

One other thing remains and that is the naming of the subarticles. I've restored the links to the normal subarticles "of Ireland" as this is where most of them remain at the moment. They usually contain only Factbook and State Dep. info on the Republic though and so most could be moved to "of the Republic of Ireland", but I thought I'd first ask if there are some that need to be kept at "of Ireland" (I'm mostly thinking of Counties of Ireland here).-Scipius 22:11 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree. This page should give a broad overview and the detail should be at the daughter article. If the ~230 history and ~150 year pre-history of the United States can be introduced a longish paragraph, then the history of this far younger republic can also be cut to the basics for this article. Think of the intro material in each section of this article as a hook to get people interested in reading the far more complete material presented in each daughter article. --mav 19:35 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I concur, as I had said before. Given his feelings on this subject, I'd say JTD is eminently the best man for the job. Would you please consider writing a, say, three paragraphs long appetiser on RoI's history? -Scipius 22:11 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. It will be difficult to do it in three paragraphs without producing paragraphs so dense and complex that people without the basic facts may not be able to follow them, given that it is highly complicated subject.(Even trying to explain the difference between Ireland, Éire and the Republic of Ireland is complex: one is an constitutionally inferior term often used but only by some, not all international states. Another is a constitutionally superior term whose usage in some cases offends Irish people, and the third name isn't a name but is used as a name to avoid using a name that in certain usage causes offence. Follow that? It is all thanks to the warped twisted mind of Eamon de Valera, a mathematician who thought he could apply mathematical formulæ to the creation of the names (I kid you not) and in one occasion so confused everyone that even his Attorney-General gave up in frustration and quit to become Chief Justice (he had been AG for only 1 month!), the Governor-General deV had 'sacked' wasn't sure if he had been sacked (deV's advice to him was in effect 'we think you are sacked, but just in case you haven't been sacked, act as though you have been sacked and hide from the public! The GG ended up sueing deV!), the state's main civil servants and law officers held meeting after meeting to try to make head or tail of it all, and fifty years later deV himself admitted that he himself couldn't work out what he had done! What I've been doing here is trying to get the facts right (which by the way is a first in any encyclopædia: everyone else gets them wrong, to the fury of Irish people, who know they are wrong but don't know do you actually get them right!!) while not making it too confusing to follow. I can understand that it looks too long and I will start chopping but it may require a number of daughter articles that could turn the page into a jigsaw. But just be thankful de Valera only worked on the Irish constitution. Image the chaos wiki could have if he had done the same to other world constitutions!!! :-) FearÉIREANN 01:54 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll work out. If you're worried about length, you could, if possible, try to keep the paragraphs in roughly the same order of length as those of the current politics section. The problem is that the History section is necessarily a little narrower due to the table next to it, so paragraphs will appear differently in the edit window than on the final page. I suspect we both work at fairly high resolutions, but a longish paragraph at 1280x1024 can become a dense slab of text at 800x600, so you may want to narrow your browser window to see the layout at lower resolutions. As for deV, it sounds like you could add yet more to either the article on the Constitution or on the man himself or perhaps a separate article of its own...;) -Scipius 19:10 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)