Within this section it should be mentioned that there has been a history of rebellion, fighting (or even "troubles") going back over 300 years to try to overthrow British Rule in Ireland and that this led to the circumstances which resulted in the formation of Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Also (which is relevant here) the potato famine should be documented here instead of the brief reference to it under the section Respect! 89.243.40.56 09:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good ideas, now please make these changes! --Peter ^Talk 21:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

"In Ireland there are significant concerns regarding children. Any visitor to Ireland with children should be aware that under Irish law children can be taken from anyone who is in Ireland, even a visitor. The full Child Care law is here. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/act/pub/0017/print.html All Child Care/family hearings are "in-camera" which means that they are secret court hearings. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/judge-upholds-contempt-finding-against-three-editors-over-childcare-case-3255427.html Be aware of these laws and what is acceptable as cultural norms in Ireland to ensure the safety of your children if bringing them with you on a visit or stay. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/couple-win-court-battle-for-children-268822.html"

I don't think there's any real risk of the Irish state taking the children of visitors off them and I say this paragraph should be removed. 87.38.8.2 08:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

That seemed quite odd to me too. I also say remove it. --Peter ^Talk 09:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

You would be inaccurate in that statement. There has been a growing number of internationals targeted by social services since the fall of the Celtic tiger who are citing cultural differences as reasons for removal of children. To not warn people of the law is wrong. A number of groups and individuals have been investigating the serious human rights violations that have been occurring in relation to this problem that is on the rise. Some groups have speculated that the rise is due to the use of foster placement as a means of giving employment to friends and family who have lost their jobs. Others have attributed it to an over zealousness on the part of social workers. Regardless of the cause or motivation parents need to be made aware. Due to the in-camera nature of the hearings specifics cannot be discussed outside the court. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/judge-upholds-contempt-finding-against-three-editors-over-childcare-case-3255427.html In addition, in Ireland, where there is a long history of state abuse of children such as the well publicized Magdalene Laundries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_laundry In law single parents still do not have the same rights as married couples and as such are vulnerable to abuse by the state and the use of the Child Care act section 18 c as a reason to take their children due to the potential harm of growing up in a single parent home. This is still used as justification for removing children from good people. If visitors are not made aware of these laws and the dangers they —The preceding comment was added by User:Humanrightschild (talk • contribs)

I would also point out to Peter and the special contribution individual that the point is that people are not aware and need to be made aware. and may I suggest to contribute to the discussion about removal you should substantiate it with fact and not just the idea that it seems odd. This is the law in Ireland. Humanrightschild (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm not a lawyer but afaik most countries in Europe have in camera laws for legal cases that effect minors. At least in Germany, Switzerland and some other Continental European countries it is the norm that the names of minors and the trial excludes the public if the person concerned is under 14/16 years of age. I read the article and can't find anything that is outside the norm of legal cases. Details that could identify minors are clearly limited in most countries. Concerning the Magdalene laundry: Most European countries have similar issues. In Switzerland it is https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kloster_Fischingen (only in the German version are the abuse cases mentioned) and Germany has so far 27 registered cases https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexueller_Missbrauch_in_der_r%C3%B6misch-katholischen_Kirche . It's not good to surpress such cases but Ireland is rather the norm than the exception. jan (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also, Ireland has been considered by some to be a haven for child abductions http://www.international-divorce.com/ireland_child_abduction.htm There is also the multitude of concerns for children in care which I have not addressed here as this is a travel site, but is why it is very important for people to know such as these issues before bringing their children to Ireland. http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Wikileaks-Children-under-care-of-Irish-government-ended-up-in-brothels-123154328.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-vatican-child-sex-abuse-investigation http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/8770-wikileaks-foster-care-children-in-ireland-used-as-sex-slaves http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0620/breaking4.html even a small search will highlight numerous current issues with regards to treatment of children in Ireland and Human Rights Violations. Humanrightschild (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mmh, Ireland signed the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_on_the_Civil_Aspects_of_International_Child_Abduction in 1955 and most respect EU law due to its membership. I don't know what your problem with Ireland is but i would say that child abduction are a real problem in countries that have not signed or are not member of the HCCH. If you look a bit closer on your first link, you will find out that Turkey and other countries are way higher offenders of international law than Ireland. I guess that doesn't make the case better but when it comes to travelling parents and their kids, Ireland at least offer some judical oversight and doesn't ignore international law. jan (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Jan I don't have a problem with Ireland I just do quite a bit of work in terms of Human Rights and children and Ireland is currently one of those countries that is very problematic. I personally hope that they will choose to do better. and no Ireland does not offer much in terms of judicial oversight. there are cases of travelling or people temporarily or permanently working abroad in Ireland are having their children taken. There are cases where Ireland is refusing to allow families to return to their home country and due to the slow judicial process the cases go on for years with little or no contact between parent(s) and child(ren). I only included the information with regards to child abduction as an example of how the problem is on the rise and how Ireland's reputation is among those who actually work in this area. Personally I think that saying that it's not as bad as other countries is not really a reason not to warn parents. I also think that Ireland has numerous issues with implementing international law especially in terms of human rights.There is a significant lack of accountability and transparency.see for example Committee against Torture (3 June 2011). "Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture". http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/CAT.C.IRL.CO.1.doc Parents who bring their children need to be aware of this so as to ensure that they take the right precautions before visiting. Also it would be useful in their decision making with regards to visiting or working in Ireland. I have encountered many parents who wish they had this information before coming to Ireland. —The preceding comment was added by Humanrightschild (talk • contribs)

As you state above judical process in Ireland do take time and often might violate international and/or European law 'but at least laws exist and are respected in general. Wikivoyage is a travel guide for the whole world and compared to other offenders Ireland is way far above the average of nations when it comes to respect of law. I guess that Ireland is even in Europe not within the lowest median of injustice. I see no compelling reason to add a warning because Ireland is compared to it peers rather the norm and not the exception. We all hope the respect for international law and children rights is sustained but the focus should be on nations that are way worse. jan (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Jan I appreciate your thoughts. However, Ireland is currently one of the worst if not the worst in Europe with regards to these issues. Other countries in Europe may have human rights issues and children's rights issues, but they do not give the state the right to take children from visitors in law, nor do they target non-nationals with regards to taking children by the state. In fact they often have protections in place that are utilized. I think due to the fact that non-national visitors and international migrant workers' children are being taken and are able to be taken based upon their own cultural views being different from the Irish and that it can result in their children being affected for years and perhaps their entire childhood until the age of 18. It is vital that visitors and those thinking about immigrating to Ireland be made aware. I think it morally wrong not to let people know especially knowing so many immigrant and visitors have lost their children as a result. Like I said before I have encountered many parents who wish they had this information before coming to Ireland. Due to the in-camera rule specific cases cannot be cited. Again I think Ireland has the potential to do and be better. However, currently they lack the desire. And in the mean time parents should be warned before bringing their children to Ireland so that they can be forewarned. This will enable them upon visiting to be careful to follow cultural norms and be aware that certain practices within their own culture could be used as a reason to take their children. Some examples are feeding their child with their fingers/hand, giving their child chores, being a single parent, and so on. These are things that are considered normal and acceptable in many cultures around the world, but in Ireland can be used to obtain a care order to remove a child from the care of his/her parent/s. I think in particular single parents must be warned especially since they do not have the same rights as a married couple when it comes to their children. Being a single parent is seen as grounds for having a child/ren taken away. Even for visiting and immigrant parents. This is not the case in the rest of Europe. I am not aware of any other country in Europe that does that currently. —The preceding comment was added by Humanrightschild (talk • contribs)

Jan is completely right, all this information should be removed. This is a travel wiki, not a political or human rights wiki. We keep the political information here to the bare minimum of facts travelers should be aware of, not topics like these. Globe-trotter (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have never heard of someone visiting Ireland and the state then taking away their children, even if the law technically allows it. As far as I know, it simply doesn't happen. This is not Wikipedia, it's a travel guide and this information is not useful for travelers. 86.45.222.91 22:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate that Humanrightschild is here on a campaign. It may be entirely justified, and I respect that their intentions may be well founded and honourable. However, their mission isn't our mission. We're a travel guide. --Inas (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The point is that you wouldn't hear about the cases of Ireland taking the children from visitors because of the in-camera rule in Ireland. However, they do exist. Again the in-camera rule means that anyone reporting the cases would be in contempt of court and can be jailed. I appreciate that this is a travel guide and am not suggesting to highlight all of the human rights issues in Ireland regarding children in this venue. What I am suggesting is to have a warning for parents so that they can take appropriate precautions. I can see no justifiable reason for not providing such a warning in the travel guide when there is a warning for Illegal drug users on the china page http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/China and what I am suggesting is a warning for Innocent parents so they can protect their Innocent children. Humanrightschild (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can't we just refer to w:A Modest Proposal and be done with it? K7L (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's enough. Go to Wikipedia. Globe-trotter (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Definitely the content don't belong here and again in-camera laws are common standard for cases involving minors (not juvis). Also Ireland does allow the journalistic discussion about it laws but it bans (again like pretty much every European, US, AUS and Kiwi court) information that lead to a possible identification of the minor. Regards, jan (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am shocked that people, according to your pages, have never been to Ireland and who have no problem with the need to warn illegal drug users in child in the wiki voyage page for China http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/China have a problem with warning for Innocent parents so they can protect their Innocent children. There is a current epidemic of innocent children of internationals in Ireland being taken. This is not a Modest Proposal this is now and horrifying and all you want to do is keep silent for what I can see no other reason than you don't want to know and don't care to know. You are obviously not parents, because if you were you would want to know. We're talking breastfeeding babies being taken and not from drug users etc, but from good homes and loving mothers. The spirit of the Magdalene laundries is live and well today. Everyone knew what was and is going on in Ireland and their Prime Minister is still debating an apology for this http://www.thejournal.ie/magdalene-laundries/news/ and the idea that it takes "exceptional circumstances" for this to occur is inaccurate. The HSE rarely have to make a case,the judges just okay practically any request made. and I mean it when I say breastfeeding babies from good mothers. Forget the idea that there is reason in this country regarding children of internationals. Feeding a baby with one's hand is argued as a reason for permanently taking a child. A child doesn't have to be abused to be taken. A child can be poor or from a culture that the Irish do not approve of and the child can be taken. It is argued that the parent(s) cultural values have the potential to harm the child. Globe-Trotter and Jan you are being truly naive. I can't believe I even have to argue for this. Perhaps your just closet Irish and don't want anything to harm it's reputation. Humanrightschild (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's quite enough. If you're only going to be insulting, and you aren't going to provide any concrete evidence that this is something the average traveler needs to worry about, then please just leave. LtPowers (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

To paraphrase yourself, LtPowers: Don't be such a prick and stop trying to get editors to leave this project. If you can't be bothered to do the research yourself, please don't denigrate experts that have. The average traveller with children does need, not to worry about this, but at least be aware - and not just in Ireland but in many countries you may need to ensure that you have the necessary documentation if both parents are not travelling together.

Where I do agree with you is that we need to find a balanced, travel guide focussed way to deal with this. It's a great pity that our current policy does not really allow a short in-line link to Wikipedia so that the amount of detail in a relevant warning does not unbalance the focus of the article. Do we have an article about travelling with children? If so perhaps we could go into detail there and provide a (permissible) internal link. --118.93.67.66 10:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC) --118.93nzp (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's a little bit wierd the current division, because I haven't found any correspondance (geographical/historical) in any guide that I've consulted. All of them speaks about the four historical provinces of Connacht, Munster, Leinster, Ulster. Some mention Meath where all the other consider it inside Leinster. And about Ulster most of them consider it (obviously) divided into English Ulster and Irish Ulster.

I've read above some concern about the dimension of those provinces, but those provinces can be divided in sub-regions like North Africa that is definitely much bigger than Ireland :-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

How many counties would there be per province? I don't think it'd be a good idea to add another level of the hierarchy between the country and county levels. LtPowers (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion we should think more about the correctness of the the current division than the number of levels, because the current one it's really strange. The relationship between the historical provinces and the current articles would be:

- Connacht: West + Sligo and Leitrim (that are inside Northwest Ireland & Lakelands)

- Munster: Southwest, Shannon Region + Waterford county (that is inside Southeast)

- Leinster: East Coast & Midlands + Carlow, Kilkenny and Wexford counties (that are inside Southeast)

- Irish Ulster: Cavan, Donegal, Monaghan counties only (that are inside Northwest Ireland & Lakelands) without Sligo and Leitrim

The change it's not so big, but I think it really make a lot of sense. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Leinster would have twelve counties, then; that's a lot of subdivisions for a reader to take in. Of course, given that they're official, maybe that's okay. But keep in mind we have to provide regional breakdowns that make sense for the traveler, not to bureaucrats or even necessarily locals. LtPowers (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

If we agree on the approach of dividing the country in the 4 historical regions/provinces, that we can decide on how divide each one of them, and I see to different approaches:

1) Directly into the contained counties (as you said)

2) Using the above subregion as an intermediate layer

In my opinion with the second approach we should apply few modification on the current articles because we'll reuse most of the existing ones as they are and at the same time we shouldn't risk to have too much information in any of the four new ones. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how we could preserve the current regional breakdown if we go with four super-regions. For example, Northwest Ireland and Lakelands would be split between Irish Ulster and Connacht, and Southeast Ireland would be split between Munster and Leinster. LtPowers (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Without commenting on the appropriateness of the regions themselves (I'm not knowledgeable enough), I do think it would be best to try to not reduce the number of regions. If anything, increasing them would be helpful. I agree with LtPowers that it would harm the Ireland guide to introduce yet another layer of mostly blank region articles. Readers are more likely to stop reading our guide altogether when it looks like we lack useful content (before getting to the good stuff at the bottom of the geographical hierarchy). --Peter ^Talk 17:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think different. Before getting into details I need to know which are the areas with common backgroud in order to organize my trip and the historical regions are the primary step for that. I may understand the reluctance in revisiting a group of articles already done, but the current division it's very "creative". It's like dividing Italy, as first layer, into provinces instead of regions or macro-areas (i.e. north, center, south), it simply doesn't make sense for any readers because it goes too much in details. Furthermore the common features like culture, history, etc. should be repeated into the various articles, instead on concentrate it into the "parents" ones. --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Italy has six top-level regions; Ireland has seven. That seems pretty comparable. LtPowers (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

They are not. Italy has ~300K km² while Ireland has ~70K km² (~85K km² if you include English territory as well). However, in my opinion it's not a matter of "quantity" but it's a matter of "quality". Because the current layer division it's not based on a significant history/geographical difference. Easter Island in Chile it's a tiny island, but it make sense to be a 1st layer division, because its history (not only the geographical position) it totaly different from the rest of the continental land. --Andyrom75 (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you are seeing more resistance to a change than there actually is, and I fully agree that a division that helps inform a traveler regarding culture and history is ideal. My concern is just organizational—having two layers before reaching the county articles is not user-friendly navigation. It's a matter of both quantity and quality. Is there any other option than the four that would still allow more informative, interesting travel writing than we have now? --Peter ^Talk 17:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

As said above, all the sources I've consulted speak about those four provinces so I can't figure out an alternative for the 1st layer. Maybe we can discuss about what the second layer would be:

Opt1) The existing territories (with minor changes in few of them)

Opt2) The counties inside to each provinces

Personally I prefer Opt1 because I don't see any issue with adding a layer (see Germany for example), however, in principle I have nothing in contrary with Opt2. --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

What's your opinion about it? --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

(RFC response) After reading through most of this talk page I get the impression that the current regional divisions are based largely on the arbitrary limit of 9 counties per region. If there is a more natural or logical reason for the current regional breakdown I have missed it. As a complete outsider to the problem, the provincial split makes more sense to me, with the proviso that Ulster should be specified as Irish Ulster (as opposed to British Ulster). I feel that I can manage numbers greater than 9 without much difficulty, but if they remain offensive to others the provinces could be split where a logical and useful distinction can be made that would actually provide sub-regions which are notably different (a lead paragraph to distinguish each sub-region from the rest of the province should be easy to write and contain significant information). Splitting into sub-regions just for the sake of keeping the number of counties to less than 9 does not look very useful to the traveler. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree on specificing explicitely the division between Irish and British Ulster. Afterwards we could/should also revise the Ulster disambiguation page in order to properly index the two pages. --Andyrom75 (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I think we want to make navigation from top-level regions to individual articles as painless as possible. I'm not hugely familiar with the counties of Ireland and their obvious groupings, but if we could find a compromise between that and using historically and geographically recognisable names then that would seem the best way to go. --Nick ^talk 09:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

So Nick you would go for option2 (i.e. each historical region will contain directly its countships)? --Andyrom75 (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the slow reply! Yes, I think so, though I don't claim to be an authority on the subject. --Nick ^talk 19:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's an unfortunate truism that Irishmen are obsessed with history, but I would prefer (what is for me) the natural hierarchy of the four provinces divided into the historic counties (these have been officially abolished in Northern Ireland,but everyone here is still very aware of the old county boundaries) and making clear the difference between "UK" Ulster and "IE" Ulster. --90.215.245.164 19:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm about as far from Ireland as it's possible to get and remain on this planet, but I would also agree with Nick and 90.215.245.164: keep the natural hierarchy of the four historic provinces divided into the historic counties. --118.93.67.66 10:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC) --118.93nzp (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can someone start drawing a map of Ireland (according to the voy standard) based on the 4 historical provinces? --Andyrom75 (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

An IP user has just removed the quickbar from this page, citing the fact that it applies only to the Republic of Ireland. I can completely understand this view, though I have reverted the change to ask for some opinions. Is it time to admit defeat on this one and establish separate NI and RoI articles at this point? Whilst it is nice to think of them as one region, there still exists many differences between the nations as has been noted previously (see above). If we do persist with Ireland as region, it might be best to remove the quickbar or institute some form of hybrid. Any thoughts would be welcome! --Nick ^talk 22:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes. It is time for completely separate NI and RoI articles. NI is already a region of the United Kingdom, and we should just make this article concerned with the RoI only. As far as the country level things, currency, visas, etc differ entirely between the two entities. --Inas (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

We already have separate articles. This article says "This article is primarily concerned with the Republic of Ireland". And we have Northern Ireland. I don't see the issue. LtPowers (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the issue is that Northern Ireland has its own article, but it's also mentioned rather a lot in this one as part of a 'region'. Unfortunately, I think we have the worst of both worlds at present. --Nick ^talk 18:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you be specific? Most of what I'm seeing is convenience links for people who might be confused due to the similarity between the name of the country and the name of the island. LtPowers (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The entire Understand section for a start, currently deals with Ireland as a region consisting of NI and RoI. --Inas (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Only in an historical sense, which seems perfectly appropriate, as the pre-Republic history incorporates both. LtPowers (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't in the history section - both the lede and the first paragraph of the understand section treated it as a region - in addition to it being a region in the region diagram. Anyway, I've removed otheruses, I've added a specialist disamb notice. I've removed the region into prose. I've moved the historical information on the 32 counties below the history heading. I've tried to replace that with a lede that isn't a geopolitical intro, but is rather a visitor intro - however at that point I've just failed, and the lede I've written is rubbish. WIP. --Inas (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say it was just in the history section. The very first sentence of the Understand section started "The island of Ireland historically consists of 32 counties" (emphasis mine). I really don't see the problem you do, but I appreciate your efforts to improve the article. LtPowers (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

As argued above, travelers visit Ireland, not Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, and I think our travel guide should reflect that. We do endorse a nationalistic view of travel at Wikivoyage, but the argument for that has always been that it's necessary because of the regulations imposed by national governments. But there are no visa regimens to worry about here—I think ghettoizing the Northern Ireland content isn't helpful for the traveler. --Peter ^Talk 20:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have a certain sympathy for that stance, but have you thought about the implications if that stance were adopted across the Schengen area? If we take that to the logical conclusion then, for those countries in both the Schengen and the Euro area, that will lead to an awful lot of debate about re-jigging whole regions and abolishing the "country" articles on Belgium and the Netherlands, etc... Although it's a common travel area (like Schengen, or Canada and the USA used to be) the currencies, language and shape of road signs, the colour of the road markings and whether the police are routinely armed, change when you travel from Dundalk to Newry but remain the same on a journey from Antwerp to Breda. --W. Frank^email_talk 22:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Two points.

Firstly, the need to have to start the article with geopolitical guff, rather than the reasons we need to visit is a bad thing. I noticed it has reappeared. What the country is officially called, may be worth a mention, but in the lede is wrong.

Secondly, in direct contradiction to what Peter said, there is definitely a visa regime, and it is a complex one. Going from the UK to Northern Ireland requires no checks at all. Going from the UK to Ireland does. If you don't have the right visas or exemptions you'll be refused entry or deported. The visa checks are more important than between Germany/France.

Also, (three points?) the article does only cover RoI, not Northern Ireland. It is just confusing in its structure so the traveller may not realise that they should be looking elsewhere for that info. So, integrate away if you want to if you think it is in the interest of the traveller, but lets not make the information separate, but this article confusingly pretend to cover it. --Inas (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what the situation with the border is but the traveler comes first. If the border is almost completely open then the article should be all-Ireland. A "border" that has little effect on the traveler much is far less impotent then the Irish Sea, a border that severely effects the traveler. Of coerce this is based on a big if; the tighter the border is, the stronger the case for Republic-only is. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Even with open borders, there's still a pretty strong question of identity. Imagine fully open borders between Israel proper and the West Bank. If that ever happened, the West Bank would still have a pretty strong sense of different identity, with many people considering themselves not to be Israelis, much as most Protestants in Northern Ireland wouldn't be caught dead contemplating being citizens of the Republic of Ireland or under her government. I think there's an analogy to be made there. Northern Ireland should be covered separately, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

The locals can consider themselves whatever they want, but our primary concern is the traveler. That's not to say that Northern Ireland necessarily shouldn't receive it's own dedicated page tough, cultural distinction alone is a good argument for making it one of the region pages. If nothing else, NI could always be an extra-hierarchical region.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think I agree with Ikan Kekek here. The border between the two countries is, as far as I can tell, completely open, but whilst I understand your points Emmette, I don't think we can take open borders alone as a cue to merge the two. Many countries in continental Europe have open borders but merging them (say France and the Netherlands) is unimaginable. Indeed there are major differences between the two countries (not least currency, culture and (arguably?) language). Whilst there are several pan-Hibernian institutions (the GAA amongst others?), I think it's important for the traveller that they are aware of this division and so don't cause offence on either side of the border. If we were to merge the two, this article would need a complete rewrite to establish the island's duality. I'd be interested to hear what someone from Ireland (Northern or the Republic) had to say on this issue. --Nick ^talk 01:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

This map of Ireland is very out of date at this stage. The country's motorway network has seen major expansion since this map was drawn. Here's a more up to date map of the road network. 86.45.188.65 17:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

True.

However, since the map is primarily used to show our regional division of Ireland - rather than for road navigation, it might be best to conclude the discussion at Talk:Ireland#Regions_division before we replace it... --118.93.240.37 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

As per previous discussions on the regions and on the map, new map has been developed to visualize both considerations and get consensus before make any substantial change over the article(s). Here on the left the new map. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discontinuity in Ulster is highly unusual. Am I correct that these are historical regions rather than modern? Powers ^(talk) 16:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:LtPowers: The map was created using this map. Also please take a look at the map here. --Saqib (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid that doesn't well answer my question, though perhaps I should be more specific: are these political boundaries only, or are they useful divisions for the traveler? Powers ^(talk) 16:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah okay. In that case, I'll leave it onto others to answer since I don't have any expertise on this. I only created the map on the request of User:Andyrom75. But yes your concerns about discontinuity are valid. --Saqib (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:LtPowers: These are old administrative boundaries, no longer valid. To be honest, I created the map in a hurry longtime ago. Please, take a look here --Gobbler (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:LtPowers correct, as said by Gobbler, those are the historical regions, not the modern ones, so more interesting for travellers. You can get more information for example on wikipedia. --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

More interesting, perhaps, but only more useful if the traveler is traveling with an interest in history. The discontinuity of Ulster due to the existence of Northern Ireland makes this regional breakdown problematic. Powers ^(talk) 18:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:LtPowers history is the mother of culture so tourists will see the "effect" of it all around (like almost all the touristic regions) although they didn't know anything about history; our purpose is to guide them. In previous discussions other users supported this division, that's way (finally) has been developed this map, to help to plunge forward the change. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I hate to harp on this point, but not all travelers are tourists. And I also think having a discontinuous region is problematic from a traveler's perspective. Powers ^(talk) 02:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a viewpoint on whether the regions for Ireland should be changed, but I'd point out that Ulster is not actually discontinuous, as there is no impediment to people driving across the border and through Northern Ireland from one section of the Irish Republic to another. As the UK and Ireland are both members of the EU, the borders are open. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think no one will be able to sort out a global solution for all wv language versions. While the current hierarchy here is based on Fáilte Ireland, the National Tourism Development Authority, wv non-English speaking communities are free to take alternative decisions evaluating different criteria --Gobbler (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

As Ikan Kekek has correctly highlighted, there's no physical obstacle on traveling in/out the two Irish portions of Ulster (that however are quite close to each other), furthermore I do not see a logic/turistic advantage on forcing their union like in one of the current division. --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, but I don't understand how the ability to travel between two discontinuous areas of a region negates the discontinuity. Powers ^(talk) 00:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Northern Ireland is also Ulster. So Ulster is not discontinuous, it's just that most of it is currently part of the UK, with the rest being within the Irish Republic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid you're conflating Ulster, the historical region, with Ulster, our (potential) region article. The latter most certainly does not include Northern Ireland, which is in a separate branch of our hierarchy. Powers ^(talk) 00:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think I've made my point clearly and you understand it, right? So rather than beating a dead horse, I'd like to ask you what alternative regional structure you'd prefer for the Irish Republic on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't understand how the ability to travel between two non-adjacent sections of a region makes it non-discontinuous. As for "alternative regional structures", I don't have an opinion; I'm merely questioning the propriety of this particular proposal for a new structure. Powers ^(talk) 19:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I take it, you prefer to keep the current regional structure? Any reason in addition to your objection to this discontinuity? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

As I said, I don't have a preference; I'm just pointing out a potential problem with the proposal. Discontinuities are problematic because regions should be coherent travel regions, and having two parts separated by a different travel region is confusing and makes it hard to write about the two segments jointly. Powers ^(talk) 17:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to nitpick, but there are no travel restrictions based on existing agreement between UK and Ireland : w:Common_Travel_Area

Neither country belongs to the European w:Schengen_Area , so that would not be a valid reason. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I beg your pardon if I meddle in this discussion; My two cents about: The issue concerning the "most proper" subdivision of Ireland - as I see - grinds on intermittently since 2007. Even though I agree with Gobbler that it's quite difficult "to sort out a global solution for all wv language versions", I think that an attempt should be made in this direction as it entails many advantages for us as editors and also for travelers. I have firstly to admit I'm a complete outsider to the problem. So as an outsider I've tried to compare this article as currently divided and few other sources both online and printed ones trying to imagine myself as a person who's planning to visit Ireland. As result I feel led to agree with Andyrom and the new proposed map. As also Peterfitzgerald said in a precedent comment, "Travelers visit Ireland, not Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland". IMO it could be translated in practice with the effort of creating a subdivision that reflects cultural, historical related differences which in most cases are also helpful for visitors touristic differences, regardless to administrative discontinuities or boundaries. I've also read some anonymous comments which stressed the great importance of history and of the the traditional four-province system. Again, if you check events, museums, buildings, local traditions and in the broadest sense Point of interests, you'll get a clear and immediate impression of how important the subdivision in four province still is (not only for visitors with an historic interest). It would consequently make more sense to describe this PoI within the subdivision sketched by the new map.

Regarding the discontinuity pointed out by Powers, I think it isn't by no means a problem , since - as well underlined by Andrewssi2 and before by other users - there are no restrictions between the two countries. So, my question: What's actually the problem with the new proposed division, if it allows a more pertinent description of the cultural, touristic and historical areas? --Nastoshka (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

If there are no further objections I would start on reorganize the articles in the next days. --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just reread some of this thread, and I'd like to apologize to Powers if I came across as rude. I don't really have a stake in the outcome of this disagreement, and I do think that Powers has a point, though I won't object to a change, myself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Ikan. I don't believe my objection to the proposed regional division has been addressed. It is very unusual to have discontinuous travel regions; it seems like it would require most of the article sections to be divided up based on which half of the region one is in. Powers ^(talk) 23:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The "region discussion" tag is still on the main page... What should we do? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Looks like there is no regions discussion being had any more Hobbitschuster , so I'll just remove. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Reply