Talk:Ireland (disambiguation)

Disambiguation page

I'm currently working on articles for Ireland (the country) and Ireland (the island) (drafts on my sandbox, links from my userpage). I may also get started on Northern Ireland. The general intention, in order to avoid repetition, would be to keep things like geography, geology, climate, flora and fauna, etc., on the Ireland (the island) article - possibly also the ancient history. Then the country article(s) would contain politics, economy, culture, (recent) history, etc.

Note that the actual article titles haven't been decided upon yet. To forestall the endless circular arguments found elsewhere, my intention would be to have the issue discussed and agreed before actually setting up the articles proper. Anton Sweeney 08:27, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

Good thinking, Anton.

I think you should combine the country and island articles (since it's a bit arbitrary to hive off the twiddly bits of the Irish Archipelago like Sceilig Mhichíl, Rathlin, Blasket, Saltee, Aran, etc, islands) and you should be able to get to at least 1731 before serious dissension occurs. Obviously by the third decade of the nineteenth century you will need at least two articles to discuss the various state entities. Despite the recent shortening of the Dublin state entity's official title, I am sure you will be able to distinguish the articles about the whole island country of Ireland (even Dr Paisley replied that he was unambiguously an Irishman when I asked him in 1993) from those articles dealing with the various states.

Do you intend to include the Irish kingdoms across the water (like Strathclyde) in your ancient history? W. Frank 09:56, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

The question here isn't just what the titles should be, but how the whole topic of Ireland should be divided up. I'd like to leave that in the hands of the Irish--preferably, Irish Studies people, but actual Irish people would do in a pinch. I imagine that we might have articles about the geography of Ireland that cover all the Irish islands; a history article called something like history of Ireland to 1731, and then later installments based on political entities; one big history of Ireland article that covers the whole island (why not?); I think Ireland itself should be a brief discussion of what can be found on the island, politically, historically, geographically, and otherwise, but mainly with pointers to Eire or Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland. In the latter case, I'm not sure we actually need a disambiguation page at all. There are many questions involved here. We should take them up one at a time. --Larry Sanger 23:41, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Naming Irish articles

Editor in Chief, Larry Sanger just used the edit summary of "(Rendering anticipated names consistent with CZ:Naming Conventions)" when changing the title of "Ireland, Republic of" to "Republic of Ireland" and "Ireland, Island of" to "Ireland (island).

However, I think he is wrong on one reading of the reference he provided: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Naming_Conventions#Typographical_and_stylistic_rules which currently emboldens: "put keywords first"

Since we can safely envision more than three Ireland articles developing over the course of time I would respectfully suggest that this reference encourages a series of articles named after this pattern:

• Ireland, Republic of
• Ireland, Southern (interim state in 1922)
• Ireland, Rugby in
• Ireland, prehistory
• Ireland, missionaries from
• Ireland, writers from
• Ireland, traditional sports     etc,    etc

W. Frank 18:18, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

The main problem I see there is with the first one - "Ireland, Republic of". The Irish Constitution says "Article 4: The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."[1] The description of the state, according to the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948, is the "Republic of Ireland" [2]. (Note: W. Frank has mentioned that this has changed, but I didn't manage to find a reference to the change today). Now, on WP, there have been pages and pages of arguments, polls, etc., about where articles should reside - currently, over there,

• "Republic of Ireland" is the article on the state, Ireland;
• "Ireland" is the article on the island as a whole;
• "Ireland (disambiguation)" is (obviously) a disambiguation page linking to both the above, plus "Northern Ireland", plus former political entities on the island, people with Ireland as a surname, etc.

The gist of the argument is that the article on the state should not have to reside at a page named after its description, rather than its proper name. The prevailing consensus is that it would be too much trouble to move pages around and that things work fine as they are. However, every so often, someone kicks off the debate again...

Here at CZ, we have the opportunity to do things right from the start. My initial idea is that we should have:

• Ireland - a disambiguation page, linking to:
• Ireland - the island;
• Ireland - the state;

primarily in order to forestall such interminable recurring arguments.

I'm open as to what the actual names of the articles are, though for the reasons stated, I do think calling the article on the state either "Ireland, Republic of" or "Republic of Ireland" would be a mistake.

At this stage of CZ's life - I'm wondering is this the correct place to have this debate, or should it be in a more "central" location such as the Geography forum, or CZ:Geography Workgroup? Regards, Anton Sweeney 18:57, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

The rule you found was articulated by a new arrival to Citizendium who has made that rule as a proposal. I disagree with it, and I've removed it, pending a discussion by the Editorial Council.

I do agree that a more central location such as the Geography forum would be more appropriate. --Larry Sanger 20:25, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

Discussion started here. Anton Sweeney 04:17, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Disambiguation

Wouldn't it be better for this page to be located at Ireland (disambiguation) or something similar and for Ireland (state) to be located at Ireland? After all, most people who type "Ireland" into their web browser are probably looking for the country. William Niday 09:43, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

But many will instead be looking for the island. Possibly this article should be located at Ireland (disambiguation) - but with Ireland redirecting to it. "Ireland" is both the name of one state on the island, and of the island itself. When I set up the pages as I did, it was mainly to avoid the protracted discussions over this issue which take place on Wikipedia, and which never seem to die off for long. Anton Sweeney 10:17, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Proposal

I would suggest that we keep this disambiguation page, but re-use the article Ireland as a conatiner name for the island. The name the Republic declared as a description of that country (ie "Ireland") is relatively new (1937). Historically, however, the island has been known by the name "Ireland" for far longer.

As an example of what I mean, I had occasion just now to look at the article on James Tytler (I had never heard of him before), and I noticed that the man had "fled to Ireland". Given that the man was apparently a contemporary of Robert Burns, he wouldn't have fled to the Republic of Ireland, as it was yet to come to be. Whoever edited the article didn't disambiguate however, and anyone clicking on the blue link would be directed to this disambiguation page.

Ireland, for most of Tytler's life, was a kingdom, and at the end of his life was an integral part of the United Kingdom, having been joined in union just prior to his death. It is my suspicion that this will be the most common use of the link Ireland by editors referring to the region, and that the link should therefore contain a description of the island as a whole.

Ireland (island) should therefore, to avoid duplication, redirect to Ireland. --Mal McKee 16:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

While the boundaries obviously are controversial, I've found it useful, as a parallel, to have both Israel and State of Israel. This is something I've done for several other countries. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So a precedent has already been set then, Howard. Perhaps another couple of views on the matter would be useful before we resolve to make any changes. --Mal McKee 18:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better to avoid such controversial actions, just keep disambiguation. Just look at all the endless wars on Wikipedia on this subject. Peter Jackson 10:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not interested in wars or even the discussion of wars on other sites, Peter. I'm simply proposing this as being the most logical solution to stop blue links directing to a disambiguation page. I can't see anyone here having any kind of problem with it.

In fact, having just checked Wikipedia, it seems they are doing what I have proposed with regard to their article. They have the article on Ireland, which is about the historic and geographic region, and they have a disambiguation article for the various meanings and contexts of Ireland.--Mal McKee 21:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That just shows you who's been winning the wars. Remember the old saying: "Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done." I think it's desirable for us to avoid even the appearance of bias. Peter Jackson 14:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter, I'd love to know what you mean by this. How does "justice" relate in any way to my suggestion? I don't think that the consensus on that particular small part of the ongoing 'war' in Wikipedia is an example of any particular faction having "won" anything. --Mal McKee 17:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Justice was merely an analogy. Peter Jackson 11:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

[de-indent] Yes Peter, but an analogy for what? For the Wikipedia war? For disambiguation? For controversy? For bias?

On your note on who you think has been winning the Wikipedia war, I genuinely don't know who you think that is. I could take a guess, but I'm not sure that I'd be correct, and I wouldn't like to make assumptions. I would say the following though, and forgive me as the text I've written here, while quite succinct really (given the complexity of the 'war'), is reasonably long:

The last time I checked that place, it seemed pretty clear to me who was winning any 'war'. Take a look at the categories to witness the lack of consistency in Wikipedia due to petty and illogical pseudo-political objections:

• Cornish culture
• English culture
• Culture of Northern Ireland
• Scottish culture
• Welsh culture

• English society
• Society of Northern Ireland
• Scottish society
• Welsh society

Notice a theme? It continues throughout the categories, with a handful of exceptions, and through many Wikipedia articles too.

Members of terrorist organisations relating to the conflict in Northern Ireland are divided into two main categories in Wikipedia: members applied to Loyalist terrorists, such as members of the Ulster Volunteer Force and volunteers applied to Republican terrorists, such as members of the Provisional IRA. What has been going on in Wikipedia in regard to this subject area has been, quite frankly, creepy.

Take, for example, articles on said terrorists. Let's contrast two people, on opposite sides, catalogued by Wikipedia: Billy Hutchinson (a Loyalist) and Francis Hughes (a Republican).

Francis Hughes was "an Irish volunteer in the Provisional Irish Republican Army". I should note at this point that there had been a move in Wikipedia to make the 'V' of the word volunteer a capital letter. To continue, Francis Hughes according to Wikipedia, died during the "1981 Irish hunger strike". Let's take stock of that: I'm an Irish person, but I don't recall any general Irish Hunger Strike in 1981. <sarcasm>It is most unfortunate that this man happened to die, somehow, during this strike that I was unaware of and had no part in.</sarcasm>

The article on Hughes goes on to explain his rationale or motive behind joining the IRA. In the section describing his "Paramilitary activity", a quote waxes lyrically about how he spent his time on the move and cut a soldierly figure in his nice beret and uniform. The section describes how he took part in "scores of.. operations" and, while it uses the word "bombings", the strongest word besides that is "attacks", and later describes how he "killed.. two officers".

Hutchinson's short article describes him as "a former member of the Ulster Volunteer Force" (<sarcasm>the 'M' isn't capitalised</sarcasm>) who was imprisoned for the killing of "two Catholic men" (the word "Catholic" is wikilinked to a description of what an Irish Catholic apparently is). Although the article points out that Hutchinson is an atheist, he also points out how he was arrested "in connection with the murder of [a] Catholic teenager".

Hughes is categorised in 'Irish republicans imprisoned on charges of terrorism' and 'Shooting survivors'. Hutchinson is categorised in 'Ulster loyalists imprisoned on charges of terrorism and 'People convicted of murder by Northern Ireland'.

These are just a couple of examples. Others, just while we're on the subject, include the fact that Ross McWhirter was "assassinated by" the IRA, that Mark Haddock has apparently been "named by various sources in connection with more than twenty-one murders", and that Martina Anderson "is a nationalist politician.. and is a former volunteer of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)", always linking the word volunteer to the discussion article about what an IRA volunteer is.

So Wikipedia is biased, yeah. It suffers from systemic bias which is unfortunately compounded by facts as specifically noted in website, such as that Francis Hughes is commemorated: "The American city of Boston renamed the street the British consulate is on to Francis Hughes Street. He is commemorated on the Irish Martyrs Memorial at Waverley Cemetery in Sydney, Australia."

Now I'm not arguing about the morality of martyring the Hunger Strikers (streets in other parts of the world have been named after Bobby Sands also). I have my opinion, which we need not go into here. What I believe it does illustrate though, is a certain populist sentiment which leads to systemic bias. The same is probably true for many other subjects besides this one, but when working on a project such as this, I think it is important to stick to logic and a certain amount of consistency rather than sentiment.

The problem with this particular subject (and it may be the same for other subjects also) is that there is often only one 'side' or the other, and sometimes no suitable compromise between viewpoints. I try to divorce myself from my own sentiment and bias, and work on the idea of logic and common sense. I think that working this way, we can avoid some of the arguments that have grown in Wikipedia, and the factionalist methods used there in conflict resolution (which leads to stalemates or the introduction of systemic bias). Sometimes working this way may result in an outcome which favours my own bias, and sometimes it may work against it. Hopefully that will result in keeping a certain amount of balance and consistency within this encyclopaedia which is missing from Wikipedia.

So, given what I had noticed with the article I mentioned (we shouldn't have a blue link which redirects to a disambiguation page unless we specifically mean browsers to go to such a page), would you agree that the logical thing to do would be to give the page ownership for a general article on Ireland to the page Ireland? --Mal McKee 12:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether we have some rule about such things. My own instinct would be that the article Ireland should be a sort of stub/disambiguation, just telling people basic points like

• until the 20th century, "Ireland" always referred to the whole island of Ireland, with or without numerous much smaller islands around it
• it often still does
• but it also often refers to Southern Ireland/Irish Free State/Eire/Republic of Ireland/Irish Republic

Then you can have some suitably named articles for the two (or three) meanings. Peter Jackson 18:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the status quo at the minute. But I'm proposing we change that. I'm making the proposition because most people, and I include myself here, when they think of Ireland they think of the whole island - it's geography and history. Everything before 1937 or 1949, despite the name that the southern state on the island has chosen to be known by, which excludes most of the province of Ulster. So instead of a blue link redirecting to a disambiguation page, when new articles are created, I think it would be best that the link goes to a generic article about the island, with a note ('See also' section or something) that explains and points to articles about other usages of the name. Your bullet point text above is nearly perfect for an intro to the Ireland article, in my opinion.

Newer editors (and by that, I mean authors and editors), and some who are already here, won't necessarily bother looking up to see exactly which link we should be piping through the text, and considering whether or not they have the correct context or not. But if people feel linking to a disambiguation page is perfectly fine, then so be it. :) I suggested other people opine here because I wanted to gather a general consensus (I know... that word probably has dirty connotations for people who have been involved in any way with Wikipedia!).

Personally, if anyone can show a logical reason to keep Ireland as a redirection to a disambiguation page, then I'm willing to explore and possibly accept it. Ireland hasn't changed though, in more then 2,000 years. The new state was created; the people have changed; the landscape has been developed etc, but it's still roughly in the same position it has been, drifting slowly away from its neighbouring island at something like 1 cm per year, and pretty much the same shape and with the same history it has had in that period. Ireland refers to some 9,000 years of habitation, or around 2,300 years of recorded history. Not to belittle the state that was basically formed in 1920 and separated in 1949, whose people accepted a constitution which, optimistically, opted for the name of the island as the name of the state, but that has some sixty or seventy years of claim to the name by comparison. When I think of Ireland, I think of the Ireland that my ancestors lived in thousands of years ago - not necessarily the politics of the last couple of hundred years.

I know of one, otherwise intelligent and successful man who, in the 21st century, wasn't even aware of the existence of Northern Ireland. This man was, however, aware of Ireland, along with its stereotyping and myths etc. So when people think of Ireland, especially before 1920, they think of the whole island - not about the nation state.

I hope you don't mind that I've rambled a bit here! I just wanted to make it clear that, although I come from Northern Ireland specifically, I come from Ireland, and that my motive for proposing this change isn't borne out of mere political ideology or bias, I guess. --Mal McKee 19:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not discussing your motivations here. My quotation about justice was trying to suggest we should avoid even the appearance of bias. Alternative quotation: "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion." The WP wars illustrate that people are liable to see bias in such things. Peter Jackson 11:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have made an effort to explain how this proposal is unbiased, Peter - that is the point of my discussing my motivation. Once again, I cannot see that anyone would see this proposal, if implemented, as being biased in any way. I think, after having given a full explaination of it, it is now up to you (as you seem to be the only person with any objection so far) to show how this might "appear" biased. After that, we can then possibly move the debate on. --Mal McKee 17:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)