Talk:Republic of Ireland

Officially described as Republic of Ireland

The country is "officially" described as Republic of Ireland by the Irish government. The introduction should state this rather than just saying "described as.." BritishWatcher (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

yeah, sorry, got confused there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Officially should never have been removed from this articles introduction as it was back in January. Its questionable how much consensus back then there was for its removal. ROI is officially the description of this state. The introduction should say that Snowded. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

January is a long time ago BW so WP:BRD applies. Its an unnecessary addition and its questionable how up todate "official" is anyway --Snowded ^TALK 03:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

BRD applies? So an editor added it back in, it got reverted, i restored it because it is "officially" the description. Seb did not undo my revert. The problem with the current wording is the question of "by who" comes to mind. We should not simply say and "is described as Republic of Ireland" If use of official there or an issue of it being up to date, id support saying "described as the Republic of Ireland in the...) so its clear where the description is from. But we need to say something. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how uptodate it is Snowded - if the government hasn't over-written this piece of the The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 then its uptodate. As its a government act it makes the description of Republic of Ireland an official description. Its hardly unnecessary and questionable. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

BW - BRD does apply after over six months, you know that and you know you have posted a "I will reinstate the January position if no one objects" notice here

Mabuska, as far as I am concerned "described as" is more than enough and the common use is Ireland anyway. There are also if you go back through the interminable debates over the country name issues on current use from Irish Government sources.

Both of you, this is another storm in a teacup, any change on this is potentially controversial and should be posted here for editors to comment. Lets see what others think shall we, the world is not going to end over a day or so. --Snowded ^TALK 10:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowded its not just about you and your opinion. Its about reliability and verifibility not weight of numbers to crush all disagreement with you. The Irish government passed an act officially describing the state as the Republic of Ireland - there is no reasonable arguement that you can offer to refuse the inclusion of the term "official". Wikilawyering to back up your position is also frowned upon and i'd suggest you stop trying to game the system to your own ends and actually try to provide a proper arguement against its inclusion. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Mooretwin (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually its about allowing other editors to express an opinion --Snowded ^TALK 11:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

" any change on this is potentially controversial ". I really am getting sick of the censorship that appears to be taking place on some issues. I honestly do not see how it should be controversial to state a fact that the Irish Government officially declared ROI the description of their country. I know including this weakens the excuse that ROI is some British imposed term but it belongs in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please cool it BW you're into general accusations again. This is a minor issue, but it should still be subject to WP:BRD which means if a version has been in place for several months on what you know is a potentially controversial issue then you should propose the change and see what other people think if your change is reverted. If the discussion stands as per the current state (although I think it is generally prudent to leave it 48 hours) then putting "official" back in is fine, its not something I intend to fight about although I think its unnecessary and not strictly accurate in current use. Please follow process and stop throwing out accusations--Snowded ^TALK 12:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not making accusations about editors, simply stating im seeing a pattern of what appears to be censorship on several articles where we seem to leave off information incase its controversial for some. I did not add it into the introduction myself (i did not know it had been removed until i saw someone add it and then it being undone, which i reverted. I do not see how its not accurate to state it is the official description of the country, but i am open to being convinced if evidence is provided. Will wait and see others responses, but looking at the debate that took place in January some appeared opposed to its removal then too. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded on this,there has been no problems with any other editors since January except BW and one or two others.So keep it as it was.This is really petty behaviour on their part.Sheodred (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Petty behaviour for wanting this article introduction to state clearly that it is officially described as the Republic of Ireland? lmao. Also it is not just myself and MB. It was another editor that readded it, Seb az86556 undid that edit and i reverted saying it was accurate, and Seb replied above agreeing and did not undo my revert, that was snowded with another lecture for me in the edit summary. Another editor has since restored the text and this is all on top of the fact the debate in January showed some others opposed to its removal, i can not see clear consensus in that section for its removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Britishwatcher,I accepted your POV and edits on Celtic Nations,now you are just overstepping the line,I gave you the benefit of the doubt,but now it is clear as crystal that you only seem to have edit issues with anything in which Ireland is involved in.Sheodred (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I get involved in many different issues not just things relating to Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is ridiculous. The user who originally reverted the addition of "officially" did not object to BW's putting it back. Since then, all we've had are process arguments, along with some weak claims by snowded that the change was "unnecessary" (what does that mean?) and that "it's questionable how up to date official is," a claim which he has yet to substantiate. Why shouldn't officially be there? The best way for disputes to get personal is when they focus on whether users have violated wikipedia procedure, rather than actual content issues. Who cares whether BW violated BRD? The question should be whether or not "officially" should be in the article. john k (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Following process and allowing time for editors to comment is a very simple way of avoiding conflict, or it should be. I actually don't care too much about the use of official or not, but I do care about an unwillingness to follow that process. I really don't see what the issue is with allowing that --Snowded ^TALK 13:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the fact is Éire is the official term for the Republic of Ireland and Ireland,so why not just say Éire.Sheodred (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

These edits are wikilawyering around the clear ArbCom clarification that "... the motion enjoins editors not to rehash needlessly the debate over Ireland names. In no way does it impede the normal operation of WP:CCC ...". Now if people would prefer to carry on making points, then I sure as hell will ask for another ArbCom clarification on this. If you have consensus, then make the edit. If not, then work on the consensus, not on making obtuse points. Fmph (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You see the problem here Fmph is that there are certain fanatical editors who object to everything that is required for this article,and I am not referring to Irish nationalists.Sheodred (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Now the introduction makes no sense at all. Why does it say described as Republic of Ireland or Ireland linking to the article on the island? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Because that the Republic of Ireland and Ireland are the terms used when referring to Ireland.I also added some details in second paragraph to make some clarifications,I believe the majority of non-bias editors consider it an improvement.Sheodred (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Now even the bold of Republic of Ireland has been removed. I wont revert, but someone needs to because the changes are getting messy now. The introduction should be restored to say officially describes as the Republic of Ireland.BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to have it in bold because people already know what the Republic of Ireland is.Sheodred (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Now even "described as" has vanished from the introduction. There will be nothing left at this rate. I would think saying "officially described as the Republic of Ireland" would be far more clear and useful to the reader than just saying "Ireland of Republic of Ireland" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

".. described as the Republic of Ireland" with the link to the constitution makes exactly the same point. Basically it should go back to the position a few days ago (the lede having been stable for months) while we sort out if a change is needed here. --Snowded ^TALK 13:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying "or" is exactly the same as "described as",has the same meaning if not better,it enhances the neutrality of the article,there is no point in tripping over words in the introduction when "or" could just be used.lol.Sheodred (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ireland officially described as the Republic of Ireland. Would be very useful to the reader. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The title of the article alone addresses that,as does the link Snowded mentioned.It is fine now Sheodred (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not fine now. Your debolding of Republic of Ireland is totally unacceptable and i think the removal of "officially described as" replacing it with "or" is actually a step backwards. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be poor linking ,BW. If it needs linking then it should be linked from the actual name. Jack1297 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am open to other options on this, just so long as it states clearly in the first sentence ROI is the official description of the state. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The TITLE OF THE ARTICLE ADDRESSES THAT along with Snowded's link.Sheodred (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The lede should be reverted back to the version before any of the recent changes were made and then discussed. If there is consensus for any change it can be implemented. I have no strong opinion on what it says in the lede. Jack1297 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the term ROI was a term that was dropped by the UK despite their insistence after the Good Friday Agreement in line with EU and UN convention.(Thanks for that information Snowded) I have no problem using "described as",which after this enlightening piece of information I am more than happy to use.Sheodred (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The British government stopped using it as their official term for Ireland. Nobody cares about what the British government uses, though. The reason the article is at Republic of Ireland and the term needs to be mentioned in the ifrst line is because that is the standard term used to distinguish Ireland the country from Ireland the island. That usage is, in fact, codified in Irish law, so I'm not sure where the UK comes into it. And could anyone please present a cogent argument against "officially described". As BW, I think, notes above, without "officially," it is unclear who describes it as the Republic of Ireland. It is weaselly. john k (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.Sheodred (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The United Nations,the European Union and even the UK do not use Republic of Ireland but Ireland as the official term,therefor this debate should be finished; "officially described" will not be used.If the most powerful and influential international organisations use Ireland as the official term, than it is obvious there is no point in "officially described".It is only a few editors with out-dated and misplaced views who don't like it.Sheodred (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Officially described" explains why we're using that as the title of the article. We don't use "Ireland" as the name of the article about the state named "Ireland" because it conflicts with the name of the article about the island named "Ireland", which is much older and has gone through many different governments.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If "Officially" were to be used then there should be an immediate explanation (or link?) of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 and also a mention that it was not a constitutional amendment. Ps, I still have no strong opinion on whether it should be used or not. Jack1297 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the official description why we're using it as the title of the article? Aren't we using it as the title because it's the standard term actually in use to distinguish the state from the island, and the republic from Northern Ireland? john k (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If there were no need to disambiguate the title would be Ireland, which is the official name of the state. Jack1297 (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is, we're disambiguating with "Republic of Ireland" rather than, say "Ireland (state)" largely because "Republic of Ireland" is the "natural disambiguator" that is typically used in non-wikipedia contexts when disambiguation is necessary. It might be that "Republic of Ireland" is the natural disambiguator because of that term's status in the Irish constitution as the "official description," but ultimately that's a second order consideration. We mostly use it because it is the term in general use for that purpose. john k (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

From the responses so far and taking into account the previous debate i think its clear there is more support for "offically described as" to be included with a few who do not mind either way/oppose. When can it be readded to the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're right on that BW leave it 24 hours then run a straw poll. --Snowded ^TALK 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I disagree. This is a contentious proposal. Such decisions are not to be taken lightly. Give it time. There is no urgency to this. There has been very few responses so far. I'd suggest that the main reason for that is that people are sick and tired of all this posturing over a single word. We have a stable article. Why is any change needed? Fmph (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And we've just come out of multiple proposals to insert the equally contentious "British Isles" from the same editor. Its becoming a pattern. --Snowded ^TALK 16:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The pattern is in fact censorship of information to avoid "controversy" or upseting some editors. Of course the difference with this case is we are talking about something the Irish government itself has done. What on earth is controversial about the fact the Irish government officially gave the state the description Republic of Ireland. I have yet to hear a single justified reason against inclusion yet BritishWatcher (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand why people have a problem with Republic of Ireland anyway. If people are glad Ireland is a Republic they should like the description and want it mentioned everywhere. What is there to be ashamed about? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Look BW, to me it is beginning to look like a whole series of tokenistic insertion of "factual" words over several articles which make no substantive difference to the quality of those articles which were seem designed to make a point, That with constant accusations of anti-british bias and censorship. I'd take a week off and think about what is really necessary. --Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider stating geographical fact or explaining a term has official status is tokenistic. If it makes little difference to the article i do not understand why some put up opposition to some of the things we have been debating. As for taking a holiday, i took a few months off wikipedia and whilst i was gone certain changes were made id have strongly opposed at the time. The removal of official from that introduction being one of them. Sadly i can not be so selfish again for some time. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowded (and Shoedred) you have still failed (no surprise) to provide any substantial reason or evidence as to why "official" should be left out. I have already provided the link to the Irish government act that states that it is a description of the state which makes it official - and it hasn't been overwritten by any act since which makes it still official. Unless you can provide a substantial reason with backup to argue against it and show how its not official, your opposition to its inclusion falls flat.

The matter of fact is that who describes it as the Republic of Ireland? Who describes it is left out. The Irish government says that the description of the state (which means described) is the Republic of Ireland. Do you have any verifiable sources that explicitly state that the term Republic of Ireland is questionable, controversial and problematic??? Otherwise all we have is you and a few others words which is doesn't equate to verifiability and reliability. Provide the proof to show its a problem otherwise quit complaining. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've nothing to add to my previous statements Mabuska, I fully accept that you may not like them/accept them/find them adequate. --Snowded ^TALK 16:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded here. Give it 24hrs and see if there are other opinions forthcoming. Not a lot to ask, is it? Jack1297 (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it 24 hours and Snowded will still have nothing to back up his claims and reasons for why the term "official" shouldn't be included and how its suppossed to controversial. Reliability and verifiability Snowded thats how Wiki works, i fully accept you may not like/accept that but its how the site works. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh --Snowded ^TALK 17:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I already gave valid explanations,so I believe the 1st paragraph should stay the way it is,as does the ArbCom.Sheodred (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You did not give reasons and please point me to where Arbcom has ruled on the introduction not stating officially described or not being changed (if they ruled no change, then officially should not have been removed in January). BritishWatcher (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, give it 24 hours. For the moment attention is needed to some of the other changes Sheodred seems to be making to certain parts of the article :\. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah and your explaination Shoedred fell flat as the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 still makes it official - it has nothing to do with what the UK, UN or whatever foreign states decide to call it. All that matters is that the Irish government made the term official with that Act, which so far no-one has provided any proof that it has been overwritten. Its not like we are trying to rename the article or the very first part of the sentence which is the declaration of the official name of the state (not description), so how does ArbCom exactly come into this? 24 hours will come and go and still they'll have no sources to back up their claims. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please undo or fix this edit by Sheodred [1] i do not want to get into an edit war with the guy, but that change is totally unacceptable. He has replaced "The country is bordered to the north-east by Northern Ireland" with "The country is divided to the north-east with Northern Ireland," . I hope everyone can understand why i strongly oppose this alteration and it needs undoing. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Might i also propose that all editing to this article, especially the controversial pov edits by Shoedred, be stopped with the article returned the "stable" version prior to this whole thing occuring? Or at least discussed. For at least Shoedred we are discussing the "official" thing. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Or atleast one edit at a time so its easy to follow and revert each change if needed. The history page is looking very mixed up. I think we are back to the stable and acceptable wording now. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jack for changing that back. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Something I recommended further up, so yes, it should be reverted to the version before this all started. Mabuska, there's no need to claim that Shoedred's edits were POV. Jack1297 (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Stating the country is divided is certainly not WP:NPOV. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can assume it was a POV edit or just a badly worded edit. We should assume good faith. Anyway, it doesn't much matter now if it's back to the version before this all started. Jack1297 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes i am prepared to assume good faith on his part for the moment even though hes already suggested myself and some others have "destroyed the article" BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Im my opinion the inclusion of "official" emphasises the extremist view that the name of the country is "Republic of Ireland. The alleged "official description" is rarely used. O Fenian (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"extremist view"? "alleged official description"? lmao. It is fact that the state is officially described as the Republic of Ireland, we have the sources saying it very clearly. At the moment just saying "described as ROI" fails to explain to the reader who gave it that description. It was the Irish government which makes it an official description. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources? I've seen the link to one. Are there others? Daicaregos (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again i ask, this time to Fenian - do you have sources to back up your statements? Verifiability and reliability afterall. So does that make the Irish government extremist when it has used the term (which it has done so many times over the decades) it made official? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The primary source is the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, which hasn't been overwritten or overruled thus far. It is provided online here by the Irish Statute Book, produced by the Office of the Attorney General of the RoI government. How much more reliability, verifiability and officialness can you get? The fact they said the act could even called the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 says it all! Mabuska ^(talk) 18:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks remarkably like the one you provided earlier (which no-one seems to have doubted). Please confirm whether or not it is a different source. BritishWatcher referred to "sources". I was curious if there were others that hadn't been noted, or if he'd simply made it up. Daicaregos (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Its the exact same source, just reiterated so it can be easily found. Though the name of the act itself could be form of source as well as it clearly shows the use of the name by the Irish government. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As you were answering my post here, which contained ten words, six of which were " I've seen the link to one.", why would you do that? Daicaregos (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The source says that the description shall be the republic of Ireland. I can't find the word official there anywhere. As it stands the language is economical and reflects the source. Arguing for insertion of "official" seems to match a POV position which rejects the official and recognised name IRELAND and wishes to substitute the pre GFI POV position of emphasising ROI as a name. If we reflect the source then there is no need for "official". --Snowded ^TALK 19:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is official because the Irish government declared it. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowded your splitting hairs for the sake of trying to find something to disprove it. The fact the Irish government stated in an act that the description of the state shall be the Republic of Ireland makes it official. Just like you keep stating how "Ireland" is the official name of the state as the Irish government said so. Can't use them as an official source and then discount something else declared by them as not. We are only affecting the description of the state not the official name of it. You better make that distinction clearer Snowded. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Its official because the state has declared it in the same way they declare their name as Ireland. We are not trying to confuse people about the name of the state, otherwise we would be arguing for "officially Republic of Ireland". We want it to say Officially described as the Republic of Ireland and if we want to be clear and avoid confusion about if its still in use or not, we could just say officially described as the Republic of Ireland in the 1948 Act. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No guys, you are proposing to insert a completely unnecessary word not in the source which adds no value, I have no objection to a statement that the description is ROI or of linking to the 1948 act. --Snowded ^TALK 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sure some other sources talking about the act can be found if that is really required. I just can not get my head around why editors have a problem with "officially described as the Republic of Ireland" This act broke all ties to the British monarchy, and made the country a republic. why is it so hated? I honestly can not understand this nonsense and have never understood why the term is considered British POV by certain Irish editors.  :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My query was whether or not additional sources existed outside your imagination. It appears that at this time they do not. Daicaregos (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. Maybe Ireland did not become a republic via the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, clearly giving the state the description Republic of Ireland. It was all part of my imagination. I am glad we have resolved that. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop talking nonsense BritishWatcher. You claimed there were sources. Only one source has been provided. Your claim was false. Even you can understand that. Please stop making false claims. Daicaregos (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you want sources of? Are you disputing the fact Republic of Ireland Act 1948 exists? Came into force? gave the description of the state Republic of Ireland? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Ireland didn't become a republic until 1949. Officially, that is. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You really need to read up on Irish history and the use of the term by the British Government before the GFA, there is even an off extradition case you might want to check out. That aside you are arguing to insert "official" when the source conforms with the current text. Further the Act can be a reference from that text. So what is the argument for the insertion of the term? --Snowded ^TALK 19:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Whats the GFA and the British Government got to do with this? This is about the Irish government Snowded. Fact still stands. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) This has nothing to do with the GFA or the British Government. The Irish government when it cut all ties with the British monarchy declared itself a republic and its description was Republic of Ireland. It is their term! Not Britains. The need for a change is because we do not state WHO describes it, we simply say described as the ROI. That could be by anyone. We add officially to make clear it was by the Irish government. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't avoid the historically disputes about the phrase you know. But even if you want to, fine. Please explain how a link to the 1948 act does not make things clear? --Snowded ^TALK 19:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well i have no problem with it saying "Described as the Republic of Ireland in the 1948 Act" or something like that, it would be a big improvement from the present wording, but i see no reason why it shouldnt say officially described, that too is fact. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

""the name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland"" - Irish constitution. I do not see where it says "officially Eire/Ireland". BritishWatcher (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Very true BW, so we don't need to say officially Ireland or officially anything. The current lede is a good summary of the main article where the 1948 act is elaborated.--Snowded ^TALK 19:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The current wording does not explain who describes it as a republic of Ireland, it is no good. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And a link to the 1948 act doesn't do that? Check the main body of the text, its fully explained there. The lede summarises the text BW it doesn't replicate it. --Snowded ^TALK 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The present link doesnt because it is in the second paragraph and simply says "The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 when Ireland declared itself a republic". Nowhere in the intro does it make clear ROI is the official description by the Irish state in the ROI Act 1948. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So the fact that it says "described as the Republic of Ireland" in the lede will be read by the average reader as implying it is somehow or other unofficial? Please. It says what the ROI Act 1948 says no more and no less which is what Wikipedia should do. Further in the main body of the article the ROI Act of 1948 is more fully described. The lede should summarise the main content and conform with sources. It does that. It could be argued that the description itself is an unnecessary addition to the lede --Snowded ^TALK 20:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We do not know, there is a hell of alot of editors in this dispute who seem to think the term was dreamt up and only used by British POV pushers. The introduction does not state who describes it as Republic of Ireland, it could be anyone considering we state common names on other articles. If you are really cut up about the "official" word, then "described as the Republic of Ireland in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948." Or something like that would be a good compromise, but ive still yet to see any reason why we should not say official, id just rather that compromise than the status quo which clearly is problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which editors - the hell of a lot (how many is a hell of a lot btw? More than one perhaps?) - think the term was dreamt up and only used by British POV pushers? Or is this another example of your unfounded claims? Please provide diffs. Daicaregos (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

lol lets stay on topic shall we. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume the answer to be: Yes, this is another example of your unfounded claims. I'd still like to know how many a hell of a lot is :) Daicaregos (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this is becoming surreal. The lede simply states that it is described as the ROI. This is elaborated in the main body as is proper. We have a simple statement, referenced. There is no ambiguity as to the source of the statement whatsoever. As to your other statements about "other editors" I don't know of anyone who has ever said the term was dreamt up. It is a fact that it was preferred by the British Government and the Unionist community as the name for the country against the wishes of the Irish Government and common practice in the UN and EU. I would hope that no editor here would wish to resurrect or perpetuate that dispute which is now over. --Snowded ^TALK 20:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"The lede simply states that it is described as the ROI" - Indeed, we do not say by who in the introduction and we should. Now you may be against use of the term officially. But at the very least it should say something like "described as the Republic of Ireland in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948". BritishWatcher (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

BW not every sentence in the Wikipedia has a qualifier to say who says it. It says it is described as the ROI, a broad statement that does not need qualification. All the details are later in the article to support the statement. I am for using the proper name of the country - Ireland, describing it as a republic is fine. You are reminding me of people who insist on adding, Europe, the World, The Solar System, The Milky Way, The Universe to their address. --Snowded ^TALK 20:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If the sources say the country is officially described as Republic of Ireland? then say so in the article. No fussing. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, however in this case the source doesn't have to explicitly state "official" as it was made official by the fact the government of the actual country passed the act and made it law. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I aint checked the source, but does it have the word Official or Officially in it? If not, then don't add to content. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Simples! Fmph (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is official because the act which declares it a description was passed by the Irish government. That makes it official and we would be deleting a lot of things from wikipedia if we required something to specifically use the term "official" for it to say official in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Go directly by the source, it saves alot of migraines. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my edit to from bordered-divided, it was in good faith, not POV,so less of the accusations if you don't mind.Sheodred (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall claiming otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a good point being made here in that we should stick to what the source says. Also, what is to stop anyone demanding that it should also state that Ireland is the official name. Put all those officials in the first sentence and it wouldn't look too good. A link to the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 should be sufficient. Jack1297 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We could you know add a foot-note to it where it gives the direct quote from the Irish Statute Book website, detailing that the state's description as defined by the Irish government itself is the Republic of Ireland. If not the word official, then what term do we use to declare who describes it as the "Republic of Ireland"? The word official relates to the country's government, however as it clearly states "described" does not mean that it is the official name of the country. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We make clear in the introduction the name of the state as in the constitution is Ireland. At present no where in the introduction do we say the description Republic of Ireland was given by the state in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So the reason not to include officially is because the word officially does not appear in the text despite it being officially signed into law and an act of the Irish government. So leaving aside the word officially. What are the objections to saying: "and described as the Republic of Ireland in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. (not in italics) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No probs there. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No BW, the lede reflects the source, you want to add in a completely unnecessary word. You now suggest adding in detail which is appropriate for the article (and is there) but is not necessary in the lede which summarises the article. --Snowded ^TALK 20:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we put the word 'officially' in front of everything which talks about something which happened as a result of an official ruling by a government or governing body? "The offside rule was officially introduced in 19xx...", or "Scotland officially received a devolved parliament in 19xx...", that sort of thing. Its obviously necessary for some of the dullards that use WP. Fmph (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In the introduction it usually clearly states the official name of the state, like at France or Australia, Republic of Ireland is the official description of the state by the Irish government so why should it not do the same thing, clearly using the word description and not "name". BritishWatcher (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The above couple of posts are about saying described as the ROI in the ROI Act. Not about use of "officially" bit. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The introduction does not explain who describes the country as the Republic of Ireland. You say mentioning the Act is too much detail for the introduction, but that proposal is a compromise to avoid saying "officially" which you object to because it is not in the source. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Officially support And all things that are not official should have the word "unofficial" put before them. --RA (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What about keeping it the way it is however adding a footnote to it (after Republic of Ireland) where it can be elaborated that the Republic of Ireland Act of 1948 declares that the description of the state as enacted by the Irish government is the "Republic of Ireland" with a direct quote from the Irish Statute Book? That way it gets detailed who describes it as the Republic of Ireland, with the declaration of the exact act of parliament passed by the Irish government, which equals in my eyes actually stating official and clearly implies it as well. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A Footnote is not enough. It should state clearly in the introduction it is an official description or state who/where it is described as ROI. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

How about moving the fuss about the description down to where it can be explained more clearly explained? There is no need for other names to appear emboldened in the first sentence. They can appear anywhere in the text (see Abbreviations and synonyms in WP:LEAD).

Ireland (pronounced /ˈaɪərlənd/ , locally [ˈaɾlənd], Irish: Éire, pronounced [ˈeːɾʲə] ) is a country in north-western Europe. The modern sovereign state occupies approximately five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned into two jurisdictions in 1921. It is bordered to the north-east by Northern Ireland, which is a part of the United Kingdom, and is otherwise surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the Irish Sea to the east, St George's Channel to the south-east, and the Celtic Sea to the south. It is a constitutional republic and parliamentary democracy.

The state, initially the Irish Free State, was established on 6 December 1922 as a dominion within the British Commonwealth as a result of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which concluded the Irish War of Independence. It gained increasing sovereignty through the Statute of Westminster and the abdication crisis of 1936. A new constitution was introduced in 1937 declaring it as an entirely sovereign state, simply named Ireland. The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 when Ireland declared itself a republic, and formally ceased to be a dominion with the description (as distinct from name), Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann). Consequently Ireland left the then British Commonwealth, having already ceased to attend Commonwealth meetings since 1937.

The piece about the state formally ceasing to be a dominion in 1949 should be removed as it is incorrect. The state ceased to be a dominion in 1937 when it declared itself sovereign. Rather, in the years between 1937 and 1949 the status of the state as a republic or constitutional monarchy was ambiguous. --RA (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that. Republic of Ireland belongs at the start of the introduction, not near the end. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland is the title of the article. It's hardly going to be missed if it isn't mentioned in the first sentence. Jack1297 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact it is the title makes it all the more important we explain it right away in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I support it.Sheodred (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As the title of the article Republic of Ireland should be stated as close to the start of the article as possible, in otherwords the first sentence. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How about something like this? Tebibyte (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ireland (pronounced /ˈaɪərlənd/ , locally [ˈaɾlənd], Irish: Éire, pronounced [ˈeːɾʲə] ), described as the Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann), is a country in north-western Europe. The modern sovereign state occupies approximately five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned into two jurisdictions in 1921. It is bordered to the north-east by Northern Ireland, which is a part of the United Kingdom, and is otherwise surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the Irish Sea to the east, St George's Channel to the south-east, and the Celtic Sea to the south. It is a constitutional republic and parliamentary democracy.

The state, initially the Irish Free State, was established on 6 December 1922 as a dominion within the British Commonwealth as a result of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which concluded the Irish War of Independence. It gained increasing sovereignty through the Statute of Westminster and the abdication crisis of 1936. Formal links with the United Kingdom was severed through the 1937 constitution and the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, which declared it as an entirely sovereign state named Ireland, with the Republic of Ireland as its supplementary legal description. Consequently Ireland left the then British Commonwealth, having already ceased to attend Commonwealth meetings since 1937.

I would be willing to accept a compromise along those lines if it could get consensus although it still leaves you with the question "by who" until you get to the second paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer this version. The description "Republic of Ireland" should be mentioned in the first sentence. ~Asarlaí 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition to my proposal, I wouldn't mind if it read "officially described as the Republic of Ireland", as it would indicate that the government describes the state as such. Although, I'm not sure if that would get unanimous support. Tebibyte (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think just saying "officially described as..." in that first sentence would resolve the matter better than a full rewrite which may be even harder to get agreement on. Quite a few editors have said theyd support it and it was only removed in January 2010 without clear consensus then either. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Where does "supplementary" come in? Also, formal links weren't severed by the 1937 constitution, rather the constitution built upon a series of constitutional steps away from 1922 to 1937. It was the 1949 act that severed the last link. Also it conflates the ROI Act and the constitution. That may make sense from a UK perspective (where acts of parliament are the constitution but not form an Irish or worldwide view) - and probably because the topic is being looked at from the perspective of the two names/descriptions of the state, which this article is not about. Don't conflate the constitution and the ROI Act.

We are in a bit of a bind on this issue because Wikipedia, from what I read at least, is the only general publication that properly treats the (undefined) destination between "name" and "description". That is not a bad thing. The difference does exist. It is good that we treat it properly. However it means that we are very limited in the sources we can look to.

The relevant primary documents are as follows:

• The constitution says: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."
• The Republic of Ireland Act says, "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."
• The Supreme Court clarified in 1989 that "Éire" was not a name the state in English and that "Ireland" was the sole name of the state in English.

There are only a handful of academic articles that I can see that treat the topic. This excellent one used to available to read online but not any more.

However, we have in these enough to simply state the facts. No more, no less. Without commenting or editorialising. --RA (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol Tebibyte thats what me and BW were argueing for lol. At RA, so what exactly does that mean, official or not?

The above proposal is better and i think we are on the right path to getting this sorted. Though BW's concern is still viable. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to add that if you go back far enough, you'll find previous arguments about 'officially described' and 'legally described' that concluded with just leaving it as 'described'. Mmmfpff! . --Red King (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I see a debate on this matter from January 2010 where a 1 editor (who hasnt commented this time) was against removal of officially. There didnt appear to be consensus in that debate and the edit warring that took place back then also suggests some others were unhappy with it. We just seemed to get stuck with the version with it removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How about this:

Ireland (pronounced /ˈaɪərlənd/ , locally [ˈaɾlənd], Irish: Éire, pronounced [ˈeːɾʲə] ), described as the Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann), is a country in north-western Europe. The modern sovereign state occupies approximately five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned into two jurisdictions in 1921. It is bordered to the north-east by Northern Ireland, which is a part of the United Kingdom, and is otherwise surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the Irish Sea to the east, St George's Channel to the south-east, and the Celtic Sea to the south. It is a constitutional republic and parliamentary democracy.

The state, initially the Irish Free State, was established on 6 December 1922 as a dominion within the British Commonwealth as a result of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which concluded the Irish War of Independence. It gained increasing sovereignty through the Statute of Westminster and the abdication crisis of 1936. A new constitution was introduced in 1937 declaring it as an entirely sovereign state, simply named Ireland. The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 when the Oireachtas (the National Parliament) removed the last duties of the monarch and "declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." Consequently Ireland left the then British Commonwealth, having already ceased to attend Commonwealth meetings since 1937.

It also makes the clearer descrinction between the fact that it was the Oireachtas, not "Ireland" (in the form the people or the Constitution) that gave the description and that it did not actually declare a republic but merely removed the last duties. --RA (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it need to have National Parliament added in? Surely the Oireachtas link will provide the reader the info on what it is. Though stating Oireachtas is more accurate as it is an act of it. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind. I only added it because "Oireachtas" might not be understood by all ("national parliament" is the phrasing used in the Constitution but "parliament" might be simpler, if we were to keep it or use another word in place of Oireachtas). --RA (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Id rather it said (national parliament) considering this is before the term is explained anywhere else. However i would also rather it clearly state the Republic of Ireland Act rather than just piping about the duties of the monarch being removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with this version. And about your previous question RA, in my proposal the word "supplementary" is used because the term "Republic of Ireland" is deprecated by the state. Tebibyte (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I do think the act needs to be clearly stated, like the Statute of Westminster and the Constitution is. So something like.. "The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 after the Oireachtas (the National Parliament) passed the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 that removed the last duties of the monarch and "declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." BritishWatcher (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with this layout. I also support BW's rewording, although may I suggest: "The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 after the Oireachtas (the "national parliament") passed the Republic of Ireland Act that removed the last duties of the monarch and declared that "the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland". ~Asarlaí 00:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that RA. I don't see the need to add the Act's name - its in the body and just clutters up the lede --Snowded ^TALK 02:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I like RA's version, as well. john k (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think its all way too wordy for the lede, but if stabilises the article I'll accept RAs version. Fmph (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well my first choice is to leave well alone, my second would be RAs without an addition. If that will stop multiple attempts to insert token words then the compromise is worth it --Snowded ^TALK 08:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone honestly think that this suggested change improves the article? It looks like the committee led compromise it is attempting to be. The intro is fine as it is. The suggested amendment adds nothing to the understanding of the subject, and reads worse. Daicaregos (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Failing to mention clearly the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 if we can not state officially in the first sentence will not address the problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There we have it. Attempted appeasement of entrenched positions is a waste of time anyway. So why bother. The current intro is just fine as it is. Daicaregos (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Censorship of fact because certain editors do not like something is far worse. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BW will you please STOP these continued accusations of censorship. The article contains a full reference to the Act, the question is what is needed in the lede. That should be an open discussion without these ignorant accusations. Its not censorship and its failure to follow WP:AGF, it also seems designed to raise the temperature. Such accusations constitute about 50% of your posts over the last few days. --Snowded ^TALK 11:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I back Asarlai's slight amendment to BW's:

“ The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 after the Oireachtas (the "national parliament") passed the Republic of Ireland Act that removed the last duties of the monarch and declared that "the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland". ~Asarlaí 00:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC) ”

And Daicaregos i believe it improves the article as it clearly and immediately makes it clear what declares the state is described as the Republic of Ireland etc and how it was an act passed by the state itself, without hiding it in the article body or wording it so that any notion that the Irish state actually condoned the term's usage is hiding away. Not everyone reads the entire article and its important to get the key points stated in the lede as they are the most commonly read parts of an article. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If we said that in the second paragraph it would take away the need to put "officially" in the first sentence about Republic of Ireland, so it seems like a reasonable compromise and is worded well. That will clearly explain where the term comes from for the reader and its status. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the above to the article (with a change that the link point to Monarch of Ireland, rather that UK, as it was in 1949).

I don't understand what the fuss over "official" is/was but the version above is at least more accurate, and corrects an error, compared to the previous version. No facts are being "censored" by not adding "official". It would be a baseless addition IMHO and open to varying interpreation according to each readers eye. The raw facts are better stated simply as they are. --RA (talk) 10:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That second paragraph looks good and more clearly presents an important Act in the Republics history which got lost in a pipelink until now. I think the intro is now far better than it was thanks. I agree there is no censorship in the introduction now it clearly presents where the term came from. To be honest it is far better to state it clearly there than just say officially yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just one thing, should "The description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland" be in italics or is it ok in ordinary text? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Closure here was premature. Daicaregos (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem with that wording? The compromise should be ok with all sides, it avoids saying "officially" but clearly states the Act where the description is given. So despite still thinking officially is justified in the first sentence, im prepared to support that introduction now it makes clear where the term comes from. Leaving aside the description issue, the Act itself was rather important and should have been clearly mentioned rather than pipelinked like the article had done before. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. I've reverted RA's last change as per WP:BRD. The previous version was just fine, and the insistence that the name of the Act gets included in the lede appears to be the primary motivation for these changes, which is petty and WP:POINTy. --HighKing (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What are your objections to that wording? The Act in question is the most important Act in the history of the Republic of Ireland. Why should it not be clearly mentioned? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --HighKing (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is broke, atleast 4 editors have requested a change. The present wording only came about in January 2010 when someone removed the term officially. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Its a long time since January and we need to reach a consensus. --Snowded ^TALK 11:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We do need to reach consensus, the proposed compromise addresses concerns from people on both sides. It does not just state "officially", but the introduction does clearly explain where the term comes from and its status. I do not see what objections there are to this change. So far all Highking has said is if it aint broke dont fix it, many of us think it is broke currently for reasons we have stated before. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, HK, it is broke.

The sentence you reverted to contains an error ("...and formally ceased to be a dominion."). The 26 counties ceased to be a domininion in 1937. Also, though not an error, the statement that the state "Ireland declared itself a republic" is open to question. First, it was the Oireachtas exactly, not Ireland, but more to the point, the ambigious status of the 1937 constitution and statements such as Devs in 1943 that "we are already a republic" make it less clean cut than that.

The version you reverted was more accurate and did not contain the error. --RA (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@RA, no problem with fixing that point at all, and it's a very good point to fix. --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, so lets work through the options and reach an agreement on how best to deal with this, both in the article and the lede. I am concerned that we are overloading the lede with detail that is already (or should be covered) in the main content. --Snowded ^TALK 11:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Is it really necessary? Fmph (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 is the most important Act (outside of the constitution) in the country's history. I can not see any reason why it should not be clearly stated in that introduction, saying it does not take up a lot of space or overload the introduction. I can see one reason why people may not like it there, although i hope it is not the reason and i will WP:AGF but until specific reasons against stating it are explained, it seems rather odd. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@Fmph - I don't think it is. The only thing that needs to be changed is the misstatement about Ireland ceasing to be a dominion in 1949. The other more accurate statements about the 1949 act are nice to have IMHO - I don't think they do any harm - but like Snowded says we don't need this kind of detail in the lead. --RA (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If we can not say officially in the first sentence then we need to be clear where it is officially described as ROI in the second paragraph. I do not see how mentioning the Act is problematic, it is giving the reader more detail by stating the most important Act (after the constitution) in the country's history. It mentions the statute of Westminster and the new constitution. The ROI Act should not get lost in a pipelink. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well one editor is clearly showing that their opposition is not just centered around the use of the word "official" in case it hints thats the official name of the state but even the statement of the government act that gave the state the description of "Republic of Ireland". Why are a couple of editors so desperate to deny that the Irish government passed an act that described the state as the Republic of Ireland? Does it contradict their arguements elsewhere that its a British coined phrase when clearly its not?

As i've already stated it should be stated in the lede as not everyone reads the entire article, and the key points gets shown in the lede. This is a key point as it informs the reader who and why the state is "described as the Republic of Ireland". Trying to gloss over it and bury it in the article is tantamount to censorship and denial. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is in a better condition now, I suggest it stays the way it is despite the small entrenched opposition.By the way, what is the national motto of Ireland?Does anyone know what it is and can they provide citations?Sheodred (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, what I think is rather WP:POINTy is the insistence that the primary importance of the Act is the fact that it gave the state an official description. Most of us would see that as a rather trivial side-effect of the Act that severed the final ties with the United Kingdom. And for that reason, I believe it's important to *not* mention this in the lede, as it is *obviously* misleading the vast number of uninformed editors here. --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a trivial side effect of the act and the wording did not treat it as such. It stated very clearly the ROI Act removed all ties to the British Monarchy and gave the state the description republic of Ireland. This is the most important Act after the constitution in the country's history. It should be clearly stated, by not stating such things we are causing more confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You and Snowded and anyone else who has disagreed with the addition of "official" and now an addition of the actual Irish government act which means we don't mention "official" have all failed to provide a single verifiable source to say why its controversial and shouldn't be included. Wikipedia is not weight of numbers - its verifiability and reliability. I'd say the Irish government is a verifiable and reliable source on to what they describe the country they run as.

All key points raised by me or BW have been as usual ignored in the hope that continually saying no and complaining will succeed in preventing any change. You guys mightn't like the fact the Irish government passed an act that described the state as the "Republic of Ireland" but its fact, and it should be declared who or what exactly describes Ireland as the Republic of Ireland.Mabuska ^(talk) 14:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Mabuska - I can't find many articles with multiple insertions of official and unofficial based on editors inference. The onus is on you to argue why such a word should be inserted. --Snowded ^TALK 15:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@Sheodred, thanks for your work! This is an article that I was afraid to touch but has been on my wishlist to improve. I appreciate that you say it should be left as it is but it is still a long way off from being a good article. You have done an excellent job of opening it up after a long period of staleness and I don't think the ball should be dropped now.

On the question of the national motto, there is none. Several may apply to the wider/historical country of Ireland (i.e. the island of Ireland) e.g. Éire go breagh; but the state has no motto. I have seen some imagintative ones appear here from time-to-time though! --RA (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all RA,but Snowded and others (including yourself) deserve more credit for what you have contributed to the well being of the article, I appreciate what you said :).But regarding the motto perhaps we can add "unofficial" to the national motto,I'm sure that would work out.Sheodred (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we keep this to the topic and issues raised instead of deflecting away from the issue and continually ignoring the points stated. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@HK and all - I agree, HK, that this is a relatively trivial matter but, then again, at most a third of a sentence is being proposed to be given over to it. If it is of interest to people, and verifiable, then how bad?

Would you be OK with the following:

The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 when the Oireachtas (national parliament) passed the Republic of Ireland Act that removed the remaining duties of the monarch. Consequently, Ireland left the then British Commonwealth, having already ceased to attend Commonwealth meetings since 1937.

The "name" vs. "description" (and all of the other monikers) can be described in more detail in the Etymology section, which could (should?) be renamed as Name of the state. Possibly a subsection in that dealing specifically with the "description", might draw enough attention to it to satisfy those with greater interest in that aspect than others?

@Sheodred, both the long and the short answer is that the state doesn't have a motto (either unofficial or otherwise). --RA (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok no problem, there is time for that later.Regarding the above proposal, it is much better,it is more informative and scholarly.Sheodred (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How is the above more informative when information has been removed explaining the Act described the state as Republic of Ireland. It is the whole reason for the debate we are having now. You were against officially being in the first sentence, the compromise was to state it was described as ROI in the ROI Act. Where is the harm in that? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No sorry that will not do. If the introduction is not allowed to say officially because some people do not like the term, the second paragraph needs to state clearly the Republic of Ireland Act gave the description of the state as Republic of Ireland. Nobody has yet to give a reason why they opposed the previous version which Highking undid. All he was prepared to say was if it aint broke dont fix it. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That change would mean no where in the introduction do we state clearly WHO describes the state as the Republic of Ireland which was the whole point about a compromise to avoid saying "officially" which some people simply refuse to accept is accurate but have provided no evidence to suggest otherwise. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Its only much better for some as it omits the description of the state by the state - which is actually less informative. Its sourced, there is nothing contradicting it, so what on earth is there to prevent its inclusion?

As BW said - who describes it as the Republic of Ireland? We could remove the "describe" bit in the first sentence and state "also known as" but that'd start a hoohah as well with the same editors. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So what is happening. A reasonable compromise was placed in the article, it got undone.. now none of those demanding it not be added can even be bothered to carry on debating this. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

From what i've seen over the past while on several debates its a common pattern for sudden quietness from the "no" camp. Still no sources provided as to why the inclusion is troublesome or problematic other than baseless claims. Who describes the state as the Republic of Ireland? Tom, Dick & Harry? No wait it was the Irish government, better not tell the deniers. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey ya'll try this feather in the cap. For duration of this article current name? let's not use official in the context. But, should the article ever be moved to Ireland or Ireland (country) etc? Then we add official. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

well to avoid using the term official in the first sentence, the compromise was for the second paragraph to say..

"The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 when the Oireachtas (national parliament) passed the Republic of Ireland Act that removed the remaining duties of the monarch and declared that "the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland". Consequently Ireland left the then British Commonwealth, having already ceased to attend Commonwealth meetings since 1937."

But sadly it got undone by one editor and nobody has stated why the changed wording is a problem. Are you ok with that wordirng if it means we avoid saying official? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I officially accept this version. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal is not an improvement to what it currently is,it is a step backwards,there is a footnote and a link there, should readers feel to delve further into the subject. Also, I added the template for the British Isles in the Geographic Locale section under Ireland and Britain, so BW this discussion is more or less finished in relation to your insistence on adding the Republic of Ireland Act and the British Isles.Sheodred (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What is your objection to the above proposed wording? It clearly explains where the term Republic of Ireland comes from. Saying that there means we do not have to say officially in the first sentence, i thought that was a fair compromise, i dont see why its not an improvement. Its making an Act (the most important Act in the country's history) clearer rather than it being hidden in a pipelink. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing more to add to what I said,I gave you the reasons why.Sheodred (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You supported.

"The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 when Ireland declared itself a republic, and formally ceased to be a dominion with the description (as distinct from name), Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann). Consequently Ireland left the then British Commonwealth, having already ceased to attend Commonwealth meetings since 1937."

All the proposed change to that was is to clearly state Republic of Ireland Act which will make it easier for readers to see the Act in question that made the country a republic and where it was described as ROI. Where is the harm in that? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No offence BW but if every editor took your advice regarding your methods adding quotations from legislature into articles when footnotes and links would suffice, almost every article on the nations of the world would suffer. Your claim regarding the Republic of Ireland Act being the most important in the history of the Irish state is woefully ignorant, most Irish people would consider the Third Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1972 (above all) , Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1992 , Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1992 and the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act , 1995 the most important, so less of your claims as you evidently lack the knowledge of Irish Law to make them.Sheodred (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not just about a "quote" the state declared itself a republic and made its official description "Republic of Ireland". That is a pretty big deal and notable. I consider it more notable than the Act which led to Ireland joining the European Union. This is the Act that made the county a republic and broke all links with the British monarchy.. Its a big deal. The reason to change this paragraph is so we explain WHO described the country as ROI. At the moment the introduction fails to make this clear anywhere. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I consider it more notable than the Act which led to Ireland joining the European Union. My point exactly.Sheodred (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Act in question is pipelinked in the introduction at present because it is when the country declared itself a republic. I am sorry if you think EU membership is a bigger deal than if your country is a Republic of a constitutional monarchy, but we do note the country is part of the EU already in the introduction anyway. The Constitution of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland Act are two key developments in the country's political and constitutional history. This surely can not be denied? Are you honestly suggesting an amendment to allow divorce is more important to Irelands constitutional status than the fact it became a republic? and would be just as deserving as a mention in the introduction? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The act is clearly mentioned and explained in the body of the text. The purpose of the lede is to summarise the article not to replicated it. In that context the break from Britain is key and that is clear. There is therefore no need to go into the detail of act in the lede. This is wikipedia 101 and I really can't understand why you are insisting. Unless (and I clutching at straws here) you think the relationship with the Queen is the most important thing? --Snowded ^TALK 07:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i thought my position was clear. If we are not going to say the Republic of Ireland is the official description of the country, because you guys dont like "officially" then we need to say WHERE the description comes from. Hence the wording saying the Republic of Ireland Act stated that it "shall be described as Republic of Ireland". BritishWatcher (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it OK to make the following change at least:

The last formal link with the United Kingdom was severed in 1949 when the Oireachtas (national parliament) passed the Republic of Ireland Act that removed the remaining duties of the monarch. Consequently, Ireland left the then British Commonwealth, having already ceased to attend Commonwealth meetings since 1937.

...that would correct the error about ceasing to be a dominion and avoids an Easter egg link. IMHO it is more accurate about the origin of the act and is clearer about its significance too.

I don't mind the quote from the act about the "description" appearing in the lead but do agree with others that it is not the most significant part of the act and wouldn't strike me as lead stuff. --RA (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No sorry but that does not address the actual problem. The whole reason for a change is so we make clear where the term Republic of Ireland comes from. That proposed wording does not. And so far its been over 15 hours since your addition was undone and they have given no actual reason why they oppose it. They all go silent. The compromise proposal you inserted to the article should be readded with one exception the "shall be describes as Republic of Ireland", should be in italics. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't address your concern, it addresses other concerns i.e. the error in the current text, the easter egg link, greater accuracy about the origin of the Act, the consequence of it, etc. I'm not proposing that this is the end of the road for you; I just want to make these improvements now. We can continue the discussion and these changes can be changed again later if necessary. --RA (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No the full change should be implemented that addresses all issues. They have given no reason why it should not be included and others have shown support for the proposal. I am not going to support a change to the introduction now which will result in these people saying its all been resolved now when it does nothing to solve the problem that started this whole debate. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a seperate issue. Improvements to the article be held up simply because they don't address separate concerns. I'll change the text but that doesn't mean that this discussion is "closed". You still have concerns about the article that have not been addressed. --RA (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It is held up because they refuse to accept a very reasonable compromise to avoid saying "officially". BritishWatcher (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BW - they object to the word "official" in case it says the country is officially called the Republic of Ireland (even though it states described, which means thats bull), and then when we offer a compromise that omits official but instead declares a quote from the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, they still say no. It is obvious certain editors are trying to get rid of the term "Republic of Ireland" from Wiki as much as others are trying to get rid of the term "British Isles" - whilst trying to prevent any hint that it wasn't the British who coinded the term in the first place or made it an official description of the state with the RoI Act 1948.

Shoedred you may think it adds nothing to the article but your reinstatement of the template doesn't address this issue. You and another have failed to provide any reason or sources to back up your stance as to why it shouldn't be included. Its sourced, its not contentious in the real world as there are no sources that state it is - so give the real reason? If we took this along the content dispute path i'd bet non-involved editors would see no problems with it for the reasons thats it sourced and there is no reliable sources that say its contentious or a problem. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way no-one has discussed my earlier idea of using a footnote reference after described as the Republic of Ireland for clarification on who describes it with a direct quote from the act - it would also prevent the so called "adds nothing to the lede" complaints. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to a footnote. Adding "officially" before the description would raises more questions than it answers IMHO. A footnote could briefly clarify the origin of the "description", clear up how it is different from the "name" - but (possibly) say that ROI is frequeltly used as a name.

It might be an idea to base the footnote on the three primary documents (Constitution, ROI Act and Supreme Court ruling) in doing so as they are the authoritative and defining sources on this matter. And there is no room for misinterpretation (and so disagreement) in the statements that they make. --RA (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Direct full quotes from the sources leaves no room for misinterpretation (in his case its only one small sentence), though for the time being there is no harm in just using the RoI Act 1948 at this moment as its the one easiest to add in at the minute and easiest to find too lol :-P A footnote link would also prevent it being buried away as they are eye-catching and twig the curiousity of readers, whilst avoiding the so called "cluttering" and "adding nothing" to the lede. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to support just a footnote on this matter because some editors clearly do not like the fact the government gave the description Republic of Ireland. It should be presented clearly in the second paragraph of the text or it should state officially in the first sentence. They have yet to give any valid reasons to oppose the change, they just do not like it. It is a blatant case of censorship of important information. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Subdivide for sake of finding the edit button

BW does have a very good point about the fact there are no valid reasons not to include it in the lede, at least nothing that they can back up with sources and Wiki is about verifiability and reliability not weight of numbers or "shout no till they drop it" - should we take the issue along the content dispute path and see what uninvolved people who hopefully don't have a biased viewpoint on this think? I'd safely assume they'd back the use of a verifiable source over unsourced claims that is full of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst the people opposing can not even be bothered to give reasons i do not see the point of dispute resolution, if they do not engage the new text should be inserted. Highking who undid RAs edit has simply said if it aint broke dont fix it, hes not stated reasons why he opposes the text, and we know hes been active on the BI issue so hes been about. If we can not get agreement to insert this reasonable well sourced change (especially as officially was removed in January with limited debate) then yes we will have to take other steps. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether something is broken or not depends on personal POV, and reverts without a viable reason backed up by facts should be reverted. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Now another change to the wording has been made, with no agreement here. Yet the sentence we seek requested which several editors support about it declaring the description Republic of Ireland is not allowed. It gets undone and we are told we have to debate it and the other side can not even be bothered to comment. Its disgusting and pathetic. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

They think that weight of numbers rules and that if they keep together they can determine everything but Wiki doesn't work like that. Unless Shoedred or Snowded or whoever can provide a single source that states that the RoI Act 1948's statement that the state is described as the Republic of Ireland is actually controversial and problematic in the real-world then they will have to accept its inclusion as they will have no case against its inclusion. Reliability and verifiability - but those who'd ignore those two key foundations of Wikipedia would be the first to use those terms when it suits them. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but this is getting absurd. There is no issue about inclusion in the lede of the fact that Ireland (the state) is a republic or reference elsewhere to the act itself; the article already has both and there are no objections. Mabuska your statement above implies that this is being opposed which it is not so please don't misrepresent my or other editors position. The issue has been proposals to insert "official" and/or the specific name of the act in the lede. No valid vase has been made for the use of the official word which is not contained in the source and insertion would be a form of original research. Other articles are not littered with multiple qualifiers as to the official or unofficial nature of cited facts whose meaning is clear. Further the full act is quoted in the body of the text. The lede SUMMARISES the main body of the article and adding in the act in a summary is not necessary and has been pointed out above is unusual. We now have the additional absurdity that having failed to make a case for the insertion of "offical" a claim is made that inserting the name of the act would be a compromise. This is not the way to create an enccycolpedia. A lede is a summary, the body of the text should have cited material. At the moment it does that well and no case has been made for changne. --Snowded ^TALK 19:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue was no longer about official but a comrpomise that was offered about a line stating who "describes" the state as the Republic of Ireland. Thats the issue - the lede doesn't say who describes it as the Republic of Ireland. How do you propose to remedy that? The inclusion of a line that makes it clear that the Irish government gave the state the description of "Republic of Ireland" is what is now being proposed. But it appears some people don't want it acknowledged in the lede that the state allowed such a term to have existence. I do know how strongly some editors here feel against the term "Republic of Ireland" so i'm not surprised by the want to keep the fact it was an Irish invented term hidden away out of the lede and into the article body.

Having said that i've already said i;d be happy with a footnote ref straight after "described as the Republic of Ireland", for it needs stated by who describes it as such. RA has stated agreement with that as a solution. Whether BW would be happy with that is up for him to say. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not normal or necessary to include footnotes in the lede when the material is present in the main body of the article. A summary summarises and its not hiding something away if it is clearly articulated in the main body of an article. I for one don't object to the use of republic in the lede and more elaborately in the article, but I do object to tokenistic efforts to unduly emphasise it. --Snowded ^TALK 06:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I will accept a footnote after ROI in the first sentence clearly explaining the source of the term being the Republic of Ireland Act. The fact Republic of Ireland Act is now clearly presented in the second paragraph also should help people understand where the term has come from and that paragraph is actually worded well, its rather difficult now to see exactly where "and is described as Republic of Ireland" will fit in. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not normal to include footnotes in the lede? Its nothing new on Wikipedia and sounds like yet another attempt to prevent a reader from easily finding out who describes Ireland as the Republic of Ireland. This isn't about the term republic Snowded, its about the term "Republic of Ireland". Can you accept that term in full? Firstly you complained the word "officially described" would make it look like thats its official name. Secondly you objected to a declaration of what gave Ireland the description of Republic of Ireland in the lede which omitted the term "official". And now you are objecting on the basis of footnotes don't go in ledes. Whats the next excuse? A footnote as i proposed way above would be the best solution and allow the reader to find out who exactly describes it as the Republic of Ireland - yes the Irish government. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A note should be fine, especially as theres already two notes in that introduction and have been there for some time. A note seems a reasonable compromise to avoid stating it in full again within the introduction or using the word officially, which would still be the easiest solution and was in the article previously. All that really needs doing is changing Ref 7 into a slightly more detailed Note 2. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I like the edit that was made yesterday (which has since been reverted) where in the first sentence we simply say "described by the Government of Ireland as the Republic of Ireland". That would be good if officially is not allowed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not accurate, it is described as such in a 1920s Act, and that citable fact is covered in the main body of the article --Snowded ^TALK 12:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It is described as Republic of Ireland in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. How is it not accurate to say the Government of Ireland describes it as such? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly you are right its 1948 not the 1920s thank you for that correction. If you move into the modern day you will find examples of use and rejection (included the famous rejection of an extradition request). This is basic history. Aside from that any additional material in the lede is excessive, the main body of the article covers this issue well and is properly summarised in the lede. Please just leave it --Snowded ^TALK 12:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Until the Government of Ireland repeal the 1948 Act or change it. Republic of Ireland is the official description of the state by the Irish government. It is not inaccurate to say that, and i am unsure why we are avoiding saying it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose the use of a footnote reference to sort the issue on who exactly describes Ireland as the Republic of Ireland. Its too vague even if its the lede and avoids putting "too much" into the lede and avoids the so-called dodgy term "official". Mabuska ^(talk) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ill still accept that compromise, although i am still concerned that people do not seem to think "Officially" / "the government describes it as".. is accurate. Theres not been any other objections to that proposal, so the change should be made then we can close this debate. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, you guys keep repeating the same points time and time again and I can't see anyone else coming in to support you --Snowded ^TALK 21:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not see lots of editors coming in and opposing either, especially after several agreed to proposals that more clearly state who describes the ROI as ROI. Putting it in a footnote, is a minor alteration that should not even be considered controversial, it is shocking that it is. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there's apparent indecision on any changes, perhaps it's best to revert to earlier content version. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I suspect everyone is brain dead and has better things to do that engage with constant repetition of the same point an an apparent inability to see the difference between the lede and main content. Stable state sounds a good idea. --Snowded ^TALK 21:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The current version is better than the old one, however as pointed out in the edit summary when these changes were made. this issue is still outstanding. A footnote after description Republic of Ireland hardly seems unreasonable to explain the term and where it came from. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons. Rather than trying to imply that "Republic of Ireland" is bandied about as a name due to an obscure Act, perhaps we should face reality and insert a footnote of "Republic of Ireland is the legal name of the state in the UK and used throughout British media" because that's the real reason the term is used as a name. --HighKing (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

an obscure act? lmao. Am i missing something here? This is the Act that made Ireland a Republic, completely breaking its ties with the British Monarchy after how many centuries of involvement in Irish history? The idea this is an "obscure" Act is laughable. I am sorry but i can only see one reason why people would like to hide this act and the description it gave to the state. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say it was an obscure point in the act. Of course the act itself is notable. But for you to try to make out that the central point of the act is the creation of an official description, and to imply this as the notable reason the predominance of "Republic of Ireland" as a name ... now that's laughable, and ignoring the real reason. In the past, the British tried to avoid using "Ireland" and some editors here, like you, are still trying to imply a respectability to this practice. Trying to insert this obscure point into the article to score a political point isn't surprising though, but it won't happen for such transparent reasons. --HighKing (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course the key thing about the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 was that it made the country a republic, rather than the description itself, i have never said otherwise. But that is one reason why i was strongly supporting the ROI act be clearly stated in the introduction rather than pipelinked, so that the important act is clear for all to see. It now is thankfully and there for the introduction is far superior to the previous wording. However we are left with the problem of WHO describes the country as Republic of Ireland. We need to make clear somewhere the term comes from the Republic of Ireland Act. Doing this in a footnote seems reasonable, and it could of course also state other usage, like by the UK, by the countrys football team and things like that, but thats another matter. The key thing is to atleast explain where ROI comes from and why it is stated in the introduction like it is. I see no reason why we should not inform the reader of these things. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It made the country a republic. It didn't name the country "Republic of Ireland". The description is a minor and obscure point in the act. The idea that we are left with the problem of WHO describes the country as "Republic of Ireland" doesn't follow on from the point the country declared a republic. In fact, I can't think of anyone who uses the term "Republic of Ireland" as a description, or says things like "Ireland is a Republic of Ireland", which is how you would use a "description" in a discussion. --HighKing (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying it named the country Republic of Ireland. We are saying it gave the country its official description - Republic of Ireland. As we say described as ROI in the intro, we need to be clear who describes it as ROI to avoid confusion and clearly inform people as not all understand where the term comes from. The Irish government declared it the description, its not my fault they did that and we can not hide it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowded we repeat the same thing over and over again as you all still fail to address issue using the same excuses to back it up. I've seen ledes made more complicated to suit certain PoV's, a footnote is hardly going to be overkill. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So nothing more to say? When i get time very soon i'll be taking this to the Neutral PoV board to see whether or not its justifiable or not to use a footnote reference. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah before i do... so Snowded notes in the lede when stuff is already covered the article "not normal or necessary", do you propose we delete the two footnotes already in the lede especially as the one about the Irish War of Independance is already mentioned in the article? Add to that the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 isn't even properly detailed and there is no mention made of "Republic of Ireland" as declared by the act in the article itself? Other lame excuse exposed. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

British Isles template in Geographic Locale

If we're adding the British Isles template into the Geographic Locale (which it really should be) then we shouldn't Easter Egg the title as Britain and Ireland. Thing is, the template isn't about Britain and Ireland, it's about the British Isles and has lots of links and connections to articles outside of Britain and Ireland (Isle of Man, Orkneys etc.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The term Britain itself includes those smaller sections, anyway if you checked the template under Britain and Ireland in the Geoprahic Locale at the bottom of the article you will see those links and connections, you obviously missed that.Sheodred (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No I didn't miss those, hence my referring to the fact the template includes items outside Britain and Ireland. The fact they are in there is why the title is misleading, and it easter eggs to British Isles. Britain is usually used for Great Britain which is the large island, and is obviously the case in this usage as Ireland is an island as well. To mix types of terms otherwise would be incorrect. The fact that the term Britain and Ireland is used, and the template includes items outside the heading, is why it shouldn't be used. Canterbury Tail talk 12:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, pardon me I misinterpreted what you said. But what do you suggest?Should we remove it altogether?Sheodred (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest using the correct name. Simple fact is "Britain and Ireland" does not equal "British Isles" and to suggest otherwise is misleading. If the temp;ate only contained info on Britain and Ireland, then it wouldn't be an issue. Canterbury Tail talk 13:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree and the problem is the introduction on the British Isles is what made Sheodred think "Britain and Ireland" is an alternative name for the British Isles where as what its trying to say is, instead of talking about the British Isles, people just say Britain and Ireland (nothing to do with the British Isles). BritishWatcher (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, i do not think that British Isles should ever be pipelinked Britain and Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats your opinion BW, but I was asking for CanterburyTail's input.Sheodred (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds Shoedred like your suggesting if it ain't piped as "Britain and Ireland" then it should be deleted altogether. I'd suggest depiping. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is better the way it is, piped,I don't see the point in having it removed. Even if the template was under British Isles instead of Britain and Ireland the information listed would still be the exact same, this way we are avoiding any potential edit wars over something trivial. Sheodred (talk]) 12:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying Britain and Ireland is misleading. Isle of Man and Channel Islands are not part of either. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland is one of the accepted forms for British Isles, like it or lump it its fact, take your protests to the people over on the British Isles article if you don't like it,and see if you can persuade them to change their minds.Sheodred (talk]) 12:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not say Britain and Ireland is another term for the British Isles although i accept it misleading makes it sound like that. I will raise this matter on the talk page now though, because for some time i have thought it makes people think what you have just said. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL.Good luck with that buddy, you will need it there.109.78.20.121 (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not need luck, i have your sentence thanks. I have warned before that people read that sentence the way you just have but my concerns have been dismissed. no matter what that article says at present, what it means is "British Isles may be controversial, so some people use the term Britain and Ireland instead. It does not mean they say it as another name for the British Isles, they are just talking about avoiding the term BI by saying something completely different which describes a different area. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

His sentence?You mean my sentence.Sheodred (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You should really signin Shoedred your leaving your IP open for abuse. Also once again your still factless and sourceless. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny you mention me being factless and sourceless as it only seems to be yourself and BritishWatcher that seem to think so.Sheodred (talk])13:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail has just said above it is wrong to suggest Britain and Ireland = British Isles. The two terms are talking about completely different things. One is "a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland and over six thousand smaller islands." The other are two islands or two states. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (I'm !voting because I don't want another "discussion" on this term.) This is nothing new. It has been like that since the template's inception. (The template was re-added yesterday after having been recently removed for some reason I cannot see.)

"Britain and Ireland" is a common synonym to "British Isles" (though some dispute it in the same way that some dispute that the Republic of Ireland can be in the "British" Isles). There no need to change it. Adding "British Isles" to this page would be needlessly provocative to some. What would be the point of it? What is better, to include the template with a common synonym or to start a needless war between nationalists of all ilk simply to lord one person's favoured term another? --RA (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose . Same reasons as RA.Sheodred (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, as we'd rather not have it pipelinked as Britain, Ireland, Channel islands, Isle of Mann & all the other little islands. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Shoedred no-one else has said that you do have sourced facts, your failure to produce any says more than those that don't want to acknowledge it. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Drop the template altogether - if it's so controversial to mention it, or pipelink it to something else (even "archipelago" or "group of islands") then just drop it. --HighKing (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I wouldn't loose any sleep, over its deletion. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Its only controversial because a few editors on here make a fuss about the term British Isles and thanks to what took place during the crusades. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I blame the Pope too. --HighKing (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about "Britiain and Ireland" except where some editors make a fuss :-) I've posted another ref on the BI page that equates the two terms. --RA (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about Britain and Ireland, i simply do not believe Britain and Ireland = a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland and over six thousand smaller islands. And no sources have yet made me think otherwise. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a very big issue that goes way beyond the question of the introduction of the article or a template pipelink. We need more input about if others agree with this view of Britain and Ireland or not, i will create another new section on the British Isles page so we can leave aside the introduction issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to just refer to them as the "Atlantic Archipelago" and create a link from there to the "British Isles" article? Tebibyte (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The country belongs to the Atlantic Archipelago in northwestern Europe, which consists of the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and over six thousand smaller islands.

So you propose an equally controversial minority term that in essence can refer to any archipelago in the Atlantic? Whats the templates proper name? Use that and end the debate as there is no need to pipe it. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there anybody on all those islands, who could create & agree to an undisputable equivelent alternative term for British Isles? so we can use it? When ya think about, why do these islands have to be grouped at all, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Because they are an archepelago of related islands. On your arguement should we consider the Caribbean to be an obsolete name for that group of islands and associated coastlands? Mabuska ^(talk) 20:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Grrr, that's the thing about this topic, both sides of the dispute are equally non-original research. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well we can see evidence that "Britain and Ireland" is emerging as an alternative to "British Isles" while "Great Britain and Ireland" refers to the two main islands without Isle of Man etc. Personally I have always thought that this would allow compromise, using B&I on articles where BI is likely to be controversial. There is little evidence for Atlantic Archipelago--Snowded ^TALK 05:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The AA thing just isn't at all a common name - it belongs to some academic books and journals. Not nearly notable enough for us to use it in high-up points in articles here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Geography again

"The country belongs to a group of islands in northwest Europe which include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland..." Does it? I would say the Republic "belongs" on the island of Ireland. If the reader wants to know where the island "belongs" he or she need only click the link. The remainder of the Geography section in no way depends on the location of the island, making that first sentence pointless as well as meaningless. It should simply be deleted. Scolaire (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I also think editors should stop "taking things to BISE" as though BISE had authority to legislate for articles. It doesn't. It's a talk shop. Decisions on articles should have consensus on the article talk page. I've said this before in relation to Ireland but it still doesn't seem to have sunk in. Scolaire (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right but I think the issue is "to BI or not to BI".

If not delete, how about something like the following:

The Republic of Ireland covers about five-sixths of the island of Ireland (70,280 km² (27,135 sq mi)), one of a group of islands off northwest Europe. The remainder constitutes Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom.

And could not agree more on the BSIE comment.

--RA (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Everybody wishes BISE wasn't necessary, without exception. Also, be aware of this posting although I'm pretty sure BISE has little weight over consensus on individual articles. One upside though - it keeps the messy stuff tucked out of the way! --HighKing (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think TFOWR has a growing emotional investment in BISE. As far as I'm concerned, they are the "limited group of editors, at one place and time" talked about in WP:CONLIMITED.

BTW I am not objecting to the existence of BISE, just the presumption of its members that they can make decisions for others. It is free to discuss the British Isles articles, i.e. articles with "British Isles" in the title, as much as it wants, but it has no more business deciding for Ireland than for Jamaica. Scolaire (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

How about something like this:

The Republic of Ireland covers about five-sixths of the island of Ireland (70,280 km² (27,135 sq mi)), one of the British Isles off northwest Europe. The remainder constitutes Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom. LevenBoy (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If not delete, then RA's suggestion is better, but I still say delete. The Geography section of Portugal does not say that it is part of a group of lands and peninsulae known as the Mediterranean Countries, or even, for that matter, that it is on the Iberian peninsula. The Geography section of Illinois does not say that it is on the North American Continent. The information is simply not needed. Scolaire (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be an option to say "...to the west of the island of Great Britain, off northwest Europe." ... ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There are unlimited options, Ghmyrtle, but they are all equally meaningless. The Republic of Ireland is not floating around among any group of islands, it is on a single island. However phrased, the opening sentence is silly. Scolaire (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the opening sentence is poor; that's why I suggested an alternative. For clarity, my alternative suggestion is: "The Republic of Ireland covers about five-sixths of the island of Ireland (70,280 km² (27,135 sq mi)), which is located to the west of the island of Great Britain, off northwest Europe." Nothing about "floating" in a "group of islands" at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I oppose attempts to censor the fact the Republic of Ireland is in the British Isles. Whilst it would be better if we did not have to pipelink BI, that is better than not recognising the fact Ireland is part of a group of islands in North west europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Funny how those you could say are oppossed to the terminology BI don't like BISE. If we didn't have it HighKing would be willy-nilly removing the term BI and LevenBoy willy-nilly adding it. Recently the BISE concluded (or rather TWOFR) to keep the "group of islands" pipe-link of British Isles rather than state British Isles outright. An amendment to the first article quote above i'd suggest would be: "The country belongs to a group of islands off northwest Europe..." - Great Britain really doesn't need mentioned exactly, however the pipe-link will provide the reader the way to find out more about the group of islands being referred to.

RA's suggestion is actually quite good, and the BISE (TFOWR) approved pipe-link gives the user the ability to find out more about the group of islands:

The Republic of Ireland covers about five-sixths of the island of Ireland (70,280 km² (27,135 sq mi)), one of a group of islands off northwest Europe. The remainder constitutes Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom.

Mabuska ^(talk) 10:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of you POV merchants really make me laugh! You'll do anything to avoid "British Isles" appearing in this article, even if it means deleting useful content - such as the despicable suggestion proffered above. You are in denial. Let me give it to you straight; THE ISLAND OF IRELAND IS PART OF THE BRITISH ISLES AND THAT'S A BASIC GEOGRAPHIC FACT. This article is not written to pander to a disgusting minority Irish nationalist view that says otherwise, it's written for a world audience, an audience who are entitled to know that Ireland is part of the British Isles, and if some of you don't like it then tough. LevenBoy (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know how to break it to you, LevenBoy: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT THE ISLAND OF IRELAND. Scolaire (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Last time i checked the Republic of Ireland was on the island of Ireland, making the islands location relevant to the country. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought RoI was on the Island of Ireland, my fault. LevenBoy (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

None of you has made any attempt to answer the fundamental question: why does it have to be in the Republic of Ireland article? What does it have to do with the geography of the Republic? The geography of the Republic has more in common with the geography of Brittany, in continental Europe, than with, say, Highland Scotland or Jersey. And where do we stop? If we have to have it for the Republic do we have to have it for Leinster? For County Carlow? For Carlow town? For Carlow Institute of Technology? What about Beckii Cruel? She's not from Great Britain; surely we have to say that she belongs to the British Isles? Instead of endlessly reformulating the sentence to suit one POV or the other can any of you give me a proper encyclopaedic reason why it must be there? Scolaire (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you oppose saying the Republic of Ireland is in Europe, in that geography section? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)It surely needs to be said that the ROI is located on the island of Ireland. There is then the question of what further needs to be said, in this article, about where the island is located. You could take the view that nothing further needs to be said, or simply that the island is "in the North Atlantic". Or, you may wish to give more information. In that case, is it acceptable to say that the island is "off the coast of Europe", or should it recognise, in some way, that another, larger, island is located between Ireland and the continent of Europe. If the latter, then how is that best summarised? I personally don't have a strong view - I'm just trying to clarify the debate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the rest of the section. Where the island of Ireland is has no bearing on the remainder of the text. It doesn't need to be said - not BI, not Europe, not Eurasia, not Planet Earth. Take out the first sentence, the section doesn't lose anything; it only gains. Scolaire (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, i think its important we go into detail about the Republic of Irelands geographial location. We should not just hope everyone reads the island of Ireland article instead. I see no reason for the removal of the sentence, except to avoid even having a link to the British Isles. Id not object to a slight rewording to change "belongs to" to another term, but at the very least the link to BI needs to remain and we should not change the current wording until there is full agreement. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You think its important we go into detail about the Republic of Irelands geographial location why? I asked for a proper encyclopaedic reason. I'm still waiting. Scolaire (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Heaven forbid we go into detail about the Republic of Irelands geographical location in a section on the Republic of Ireland article marked Geography. Also i note at present we are still hiding the fact the island is part of the British Isles on Ireland, so they can not get their facts from that article either. If you want we can look at other country articles and check if they state the geographical location they are in. I respect that fact you seem to be suggesting we do not even need to mention Europe either, i think that will be very out of line with other articles. But we can do a little research. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, "Heaven forbid" and "hiding the fact...on Ireland" don't rate as proper encyclopaedic reasons with me. If you think something is important, surely you can say in a straightforward and positive way why it is important? That's all I'm asking. As for research, I dit a small bit this morning but you seem to have missed it so I'll repeat it here: The Geography section of Portugal does not say that it is part of a group of lands and peninsulae known as the Mediterranean Countries, or even, for that matter, that it is on the Iberian peninsula. The Geography section of Illinois does not say that it is on the North American Continent. These were the first two places I thought of; I've no reason to believe the majority of articles are different. Scolaire (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly and for comparison, Britannica world describes it's (RoI) geo-location as: "Country, western Europe, occupying the greater part of the island of Ireland west of Great Britain". [2] On the BISE relevance point, I think those who think it's the work of narrow obsessionals supervised by an equally obsessive admin could try taking that to ANI or RFC and judge for themselves the reactions of TFOWR's fellow admins. TFOWR has effectively been delegated to it and the BISE game is the only game in town short of wiki-wide blocks. Anyone feeling otherwise can always take it up on ANI and see what happens. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I do think it's the work of narrow obsessionals supervised by an admin who was bound to start seeing things through that prism eventually, but I see no reason to take it up on ANI because they have every right to obsess and it doesn't harm me at all. What they cannot do - and they need to recognise this - is make decisions on articles outside the narrow BI scope and say "BISE has decreed." Scolaire (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

So a compromise? Simply state that RoI occupies 5/6 of Ireland and leave it at that (I note there is no reference to BI in the UK geography article). Then, add the fact that Ireland is the second largest island in the British Isles in the lead of the Ireland article. You can't say fairer than that. LevenBoy (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise i would be prepared to support stating BI clearly in the introduction of the Ireland article, and leaving it off this one. Although i feel there is justification for both mentioning it in the intro of Ireland and mentioning it in the geography section of this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to a compromise, but (1) why has nobody yet bothered to answer my question? and (2) can editors of one article make an agreement relating to another one? Scolaire (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention (3) if the sentence can be dropped just like that, as part of a compromise, what conceivable justification can there be for saying it is necessary? Scolaire (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

1) It is important in the geography section of an article on a country to describe its geographical location. The Republic of Ireland is on the island of Ireland, its in the British Isles and it is in Europe, these 3 things seem rather notable. We can go through country articles and compare if they mention their geographical locations, but i am sure most do. To remove such information certainly would not be a benefit to the reader. 2) No we can not decide one thing here and impose it on another article, however many editors on here are also involved over on that page, and we can make such a proposed compromise there and see how people feel. 3) I think there is absolute justification for both mentioning BI on both articles, and on the Ireland articles introduction. However as wikipedia depends on consensus, i have to accept sometimes attempts at a compromise are required. But simply not mentioning BI on this article and no other change is not a compromise, it is simply censorship. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing to delete a sentence in return for something else is compromise, but agreeing to delete it without a quid pro quo is censorship? I guess I'll have to check my dictionary again! Scolaire (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, did you miss my post on Portugal and Illinois again? I'll post it a third time if you want, but I'd really like you to read it and give me your view. Scolaire (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Compromise is not always the right thing. We should not have to compromise on this matter at all, both articles should clearly mention they are part of the British Isles. But atleast if the Ireland article clearly mentions the island is part of the British Isles the information is available for those reading the island article. At present it is not which makes inclusion on this page more important. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(usual ec with BW) I agree with Scolaire's Portugal/Illinois comparisons. As for "compromises", if they are compromises between POVs, they are nonsense - the only compromises we should be interested in are ones about which portions of sourcing to elevate above others, etc. I'm sure there are heaps of sources that place the RoI in the BI and heaps that don't. So we have a decision to make. The BISE page is useful for discussing that, as is this one. The decision should be about what is notable, NPOV, sourced and typical for WP. I think on the first one, it is actually pretty notable. On the sourcing point, I think there are sources both ways. On NPOV, it seems NPOV either way. On typicality, at the moment, the other main country articles within the BI do not mention in the main infobox or lede contexts that they are parts of the BI. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

An article on a state does not need to include information about it being in North America, although i would think Hawaii makes note of its location. The location of a country in relation to its place in the world is slightly more important. As for Portugal, It mentions , its a country located in southwestern Europe on the Iberian Peninsula. in the first paragraph of the introduction. So should we include its in the British Isles in the introduction here too so we can delete all mentions of ROIs location in the geography section? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkey, Australia and Japan mention their geographical locations in the geography sections. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"An article on a state does not need to include information about it being in North America" - you're very good at stating rules, but less good at saying where these rules come from or what they are based on. I personally think we should not censor the fact that Illinois is in North America just because a commie-liberal clique want to hide the fact. Scolaire (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And didn't we agree that the ROI is a state? Scolaire (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland is a sovereign state, not a state within a sovereign state. The geographical location of Hawaii and Alaska is notable and should be mentioned. I do not see the need for the other states all in North America to state they are in North America, although they should say where abouts (New England/Southern States etc). BritishWatcher (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Still with the "shoulds" and the "I do not sees"! What is the rationale? See, I didn't ask you for your point of view - I already know that. I'm asking, where is the logic? Scolaire (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we should look at island nations that share their island, which is in turn part of a group of related islands to make a fair comparison. See for example:

Haiti (Template:Pron-en; French Haïti, pronounced [a.iti]; Haitian Creole Ayiti, Haitian Creole pronunciation: [ajiti]), officially the Republic of Haiti ([République d'Haïti] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) Ayiti}}) is a Caribbean country. Along with the Dominican Republic, it occupies the island of Hispaniola, in the Greater Antillean archipelago.

and by contrast

Borneo (Malay: Borneo, Indonesian: Kalimantan) is the third largest island in the world, located north of Australia, at the geographic centre of Maritime Southeast Asia. Politically, the island is divided among three countries: Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia. Approximately 73% of the island is Indonesian territory. The Malaysian states of Sarawak and Sabah (East Malaysia), in the north, occupy about 26% of the island. The sovereign state of Brunei, located on the north coast, comprises about 1% of Borneo's land mass.

So in more precise contexts, typicality rules appear to vary. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, James: we're talking about the Geography section here, not the opening sentence. Scolaire (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

But if we remove information from the geography section, like not allowing it to state the island is in Europe/ part of the British Isles, then it would have to be covered in the lead. The country articles that do not mention their location and instead focus on things like the climate and internal area seem to still state their location in the lead. Portugal being the example you mentioned, which states its in the Iberian peninsula in its introduction, but not the geography section. I think mentioning British Isles in the Geography section of ROI/UK is reasonable and clearly notable, and the articles Great Britain and Ireland should note they are part of the British Isles in their introductions and infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Let's agree a short list of states that are genuine comparators, not nation states or non-nation states embedded within other states, or on continents, as in the case of Illinois and Portugal, but islands with two or more nations that are part of island groups. I raised Haiti and Borneo. Also it could be Dominican Republic and some smaller ones. Any more? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There probably aren't any, and this is just time wasting and stonewalling and pointless "debate" for want of a better word. Do you, or do you not, accept the compromise I've suggested? Regarding editing another article (Ireland), we would need to make a statement on the Talk page explaining what was proposed and see what response was obtained (this statement aimed at no one in particular). LevenBoy (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can not see the compromise being suggested getting accepted sadly even though a mention in the introduction of the Ireland article is totally justified, it will probably be blocked by editors there. If they cant even accept it being in the infobox, opposition to the lead is going to be just as bad. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you reckon it's worth a try though? LevenBoy (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to mention British Isles here or at United Kingdom, whatsoever. Why? The republic doesn't cover any part of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, neither is an 'isle'. --Red King (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Jamesinderbyshire - there are more examples from islands that don't share a land border, for example Montserrat lists the group of islands it belongs too (Leeward Islands) and then lists the next bigger group of islands that it belongs too (Lesser Antilles), and all that in the first sentence of the article. Netherlands Antilles also makes mention of geograhpical group, and its subdivision Bonaire in its lede has several different island groups stated. Guadeloupe, and several other Carribean islands have likewise ledes. Not all do but a good few do. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

...and this article says that Ireland is a state "in northwest Europe" and is located on "the island of Ireland". No more needs to be said. No reader is going to go, "Huh? Were's that?". To which we would answer, "In the British Isles." And they would reply, "Ah! The British Isles! Why didn't you just say so to begin with? Who ever heard of this 'Europe' place? Or this 'island of Ireland'?"

I can never help but feel that if the group was called something else that the desire to located the state and island of Ireland in it would be much less compelling for some. I also cannot help but notice that the editors of the article on the United Kingdom can get by without referring to it. Saying merely that the UK spans "an archipelago" that includes "Great Britain and the northeastern part of the island of Ireland". --RA (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to go back in the history of United Kingdom and see if it used to be there and if so what the stated reason for it's removal was. All too likely it was someone's POV at work if so. On the general point though, all of the articles relating to major chunks of the BI should mention they are part of the BI in the lede, just like for example Anguilla mentions it's part of the Leewards in it's lede. It's really just editor POV that's stopping this, not geographical reality or encyclopedic completeness. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? the lede of articles such as this needs to help the reader locate the country/ North West Europe is not only good enough for that purpose, it is more useful and more commonly understood. --Snowded ^TALK 04:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@James - from a quick look through the archives at Talk:United Kingdom, I can't kind an any meaningful discussion of the term one way or another. It would appear (to me) that it is only on Ireland-related articles that editors are motivated to include it.

As you say, it's likely somebody's POV at work. --RA (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it should be added to the UK article too and it has been proposed, but it does not get the opposition like on Ireland articles. It should be remembered the GB article mentions the BI, but the Ireland article does not at present. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this discussion has moved on to the lead of the article, and that there is consensus that the first sentence in the Geography section is unnecessary as well as messy. I'm deleting it accordingly. Scolaire (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You've jumped the gun. This is not yet agreed so I've reverted. I did suggest a compromise whereby the sentence is removed and the lead of Ireland is adjusted to include British Isles, but your edit just fulfills one part of that with no mention of the other; we should have both elements agreed before either is changed. LevenBoy (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is wrong to link what is going on here with another article. The sentence should be removed from the lede and if people want to change something at Ireland then discuss it at that talk page. Bjmullan (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not in the introduction, it is in the geography section. The sentence should not be removed from this article, there is certainly no clear consensus for that to happen at this stage. If we can not link it with what is decided at Ireland then without doubt the information must remain in this article, otherwise it is censorship. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems like common practice amongst some island articles to make mention of the island group they belong to, on others its not. It can be easily argued as censorship the refusal to add the term for no less a reason (whether you state it or not) because it states "British" and in regards to Ireland thats a huge taboo. Though there is no exact case as to why the term BI needs to be used unless when you say "north-west Europe" you might infer to the ignorant reader that it might be beside Iceland. Stating the island group does help a reader locate places - however we do have a map in the infobox that clearly shows where the Republic of Ireland is located...

However RA's suggestion is still the best in my opinion:

The Republic of Ireland covers about five-sixths of the island of Ireland (70,280 km2/27,135 sq mi), one of a group of islands off northwest Europe. The remainder constitutes Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom.

Mabuska ^(talk) 11:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Pipelinking "group of islands" to "British Isles" strongly implies that there's something wrong with the term and we must have a euphemism to replace it. This is not the case. LevenBoy (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the piping in this case is better than complete removal, i dont have a problem with changing the wording to avoid saying "Belongs to a group of Islands". BritishWatcher (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The piping was already discussed at BISE and approved. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, TFOWR's ruling on the matter, so we just have his opinion, but worse, it seems that some editors ageed with the pipelinking provided the BI template was altered, but I see no such alteration. LevenBoy (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The republic doesn't cover any part of Great Britain. Therefore, there's no need to mention British Isles (pipelinked or not). GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Two days later and no further discussion. There still has been no attempt to provide a proper encyclopaedic reason for the retention of this sentence in the Geography section of the article. If it can be removed as part of a "compromise", then it cannot be necessary to the article. "We must have mention of the BI in one of the Ireland articles" is no reason at all to have it. I am removing it again. Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In agreement. The BI belongs at Ireland, not this article. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Scolaire.Malke2010 19:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. Bjmullan (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Tebibyte (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay if the term BI belongs in the Ireland article, then how come it isn't in the article at all? Mabuska ^(talk) 12:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many theories for this. 1) I didn't insert it there, 2) No consensus was reached to insert it there (to my knowledge). 3) There's possible political motives for preventing its insertion, but that's merely speculation & can't be proven. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Mabuska, please confine discussion to this article. Scolaire (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire i have kept this discussion to this article. I'm just raising a point in response to GoodDays assertion. Just to raise another point, what encyclopedic reason is there for the removal of this information? Especially when its not on the otehr article? Censorship? I don't like? Both? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the censorship of information has been implemented. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this should be reverted. maybe we give Scolaire a few hours to self revert first? LevenBoy (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Id leave it. The censorship on this article, along with on Ireland and Geography of Ireland highlight there is a serious problem. All 3 need addressing BritishWatcher (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest then? We shouldn't leave this - it's symptomatic of a much wider problem. LevenBoy (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Leave it for the time being, BISE needs to act on these 3 articles to try and get consensus there which can help encourage a change here. But for the time being yes, it is a perfect symbol of censorship and the wider problems faced on wikipedia thanks to the crusades. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher,Mabuska etc (you know who you are) people are getting tired of your protests of not including terms that are highly controversial and unneccessary to articles such as this, you are in no position to be accusing people of impeding the progress of articles, you seem to be fond of throwing words like "censorship" "anti-British" "Irish nationalists" etc (in fact one can say the contrary when referring to some of you).

Some of you are obvious examples of one who goes past British Isles related issus (and other British issues) into other non-British national issues, in particular Irish related issues to push your own brand of POV.You vehemently oppose any attempts by people who hold a genuine interest of the article at heart (not smoke screened political beliefs and agendas) when contributing to the article and cleaning it up. Sheodred (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire i'm only asking for an encyclopedic reason for its removal as your demanding BW to provide an encylopedic reason for its inclusion. Quid pro quo especially on wikipedia in the interests of neutrality and equality on the issue.

Shoedred i raised the term "censorship" as that is what it is. You can rant and rave and add nothing to this discussion if you wish. I don't give two hoots if BW and LevenBoy's wish for BI's inclusion is motiviated by politics or not. The term is justified in a geographic sense - you are confusing the issue of a geographical term with politics. The issue here is that it is censorship the removal of the term when it is justified for use in a geographical sense. The pipe-link was okay as it linked to the BI article, but the removal of the entire thing no doubt because it still contained BI even if pipe-linked offends those who go out of their way to be offended to "smoke screen" their political beliefs and agendas.

I don't give two hoots about personal politics on Wikipedia Shoedred, unlike most of the editors here i keep my personal politics out of Wikipedia and don't try to use this site to advance my own politics. I doubt you will find many political;y motiviated edits in my edit history, in fact check out Rathfriland's edit history and see my removal (more than once) of a load of loyalist content as it was unsourced and dubious as well as posting a request for help in preventing its unsourced addition. I have a "genuine interest" in this article to ensure its neutrality and to prevent it becoming a one-sided piece adhering only to a republican viewpoint. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen your history and I do acknowledge you have but the points I made above still stand in relation to the few others,also on a side note,in case some people did not know, being a republican does not equate to being a nationalist or vice-versa, I am getting sick and tired of people viewing them as the same in Ireland.Sheodred (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Censorship (a.k.a. arbitrary section break)

Mabuska's spot on. I want to build on what he/she said and chip in with some thoughts on censorship.

Wikipedia is not censored: We show pictures of penis. We say the name of Yahweh. We say shit, fuck and cunt. That is what is meant when we say that Wikipedia is not censored. Saying that Wikipedia is not censored is not a license to insist on things that wind people up, just because "it's true".

A month or so ago, some editors (some contributing here) got exercised because "Irish" was listed - supported by reliable sources - as a demonym for someone from Northern Ireland. Many KBs later, someone removed the demonym section altogether rather than have "Irish" there.

Was that censorship? No. Nationality and identity in Northern Ireland is a complex question. Despite being the one who added "Irish" (and the supporting references) to the infobox, I can see value (and neutrality) in removing all of the demonyms. They only wind people up and they don't appropriately tell what is a complex story, which is dealt with in detail further down the article.

It is similar with this article (and other ones) where use of "British Isles" is controversial in relation to the subject matter. The detail can be given in some other way, as it was here ("...a group of islands..."), or just neglected altogether (if it isn't that important). Like removing the demonyms for Northern Ireland, that is not censorship. It shows a greater neutrality (and sensitivity) towards a complex topic rather than a blunt statement of "fact". --RA (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Its a matter of what is the most appropriate geographical locator, in this case I think North Western Europe or similar is far more useful and does not involve the complex history of terms like British Isles. I'm also not 100% sure its necessary to even have a locator, but if so lets be less parochial and stop making accusations of censorship. --Snowded ^TALK 22:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Us going out of our way to avoid mentioning a term simply because some editors find it controversial is censorship in my opinion. I accept that there is less of a case for including BI on this article as its about the country compared to the article on the island. That is why i was prepared to accept the pipelink of BI here on this article, but even that has been undone now and of course BI is not mentioned anywhere on the Ireland article still. Its censorship. And i remember coming across an edit on either this page or the island page, where BI was removed with the edit summary of "removing POV" or something along those lines. Censorship is clear and its tied in with the crusades. It is deemed controversial to state a geographical fact on the island article, despite endless sources continuing to use the term.. it is unacceptable to even be mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You continue to go on about your highly personal view of the motivations etc of other editors and as a result fail to address the point. Please read my comment again and respond to it, rather than to your straw man. --Snowded ^TALK 22:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the sentence in question said in the geography section.. "The country belongs to a group of islands in northwest Europe which include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and over six thousand smaller islands". There is no reason why that had to be removed, and there is no reason why that could not have said "The Country is part of the British Isles in northwest Europe which includes...." But apparently because some editors dislike the term, we are not allowed to mention it here at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The country doesn't "belong" to any group of islands. Far better to state that "The country is located..." - as in, "The country is located in Northwest Europe" --HighKing (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i am not fussed about the wording used, the problem is people here have deleted British Isles and any mention of the fact it is part of a group of islands in the geography section. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't need British Isles mentioned on this article or United Kingdom article. As for the islands? well ya know my views on those. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be if we could all accept that British Isles does not need mentioning on the articles of the political entities in the islands, i.e. Republic of Ireland or United Kingdom or subdivisions such as County Kerry or England - however should mentioned (pipe-linked as "group of islands" for the Ireland article if to save a lot of arguing) in the seperate island articles such as Ireland, Great Britain, Shetlands etc.

That way the geographical name is kept to geographical articles and out of political entity articles. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for Compromise

This keeps going round and round. The fact is, every intermediate school child knows ROI is located on an island that is part of an archipelago named the British Isles. But more importantly, this is an encyclopedia. I've given this a lot of thought and obviously, for political reasons, it is an unfortunate fact that the ROI is on the island that is part of BI, but it is a fact that the geography will always be BI. As to providing a link to BI, maybe provide the link to this page [3].

Here is my suggestion for compromise:

• Mention the BI w/the link to the article above but add in the disclaimer:

"Some people object to the inclusion of the ROI within the British Isles because it seems to suggest that ROI is part of the U.K. which it is not. It is a separate nation-state."

I don't think censorship is the issue here as much as there is a desire to make it clear that ROI is not part of the nation-state of the U.K. and the ROI editors are feeling put upon. But this is an encyclopedia and the physical facts of geography should not be omitted in the interests of political ones.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think its OK to mention it on the island articles under geography, but for the political ones (UK and Ireland) North West Europe is better. --Snowded ^TALK 04:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Variants of the previous text seemed quite amicable. I can't understand the desire behind removing it and stirring this hornets nest (although the precise text needed fixing):

"...one of a group of islands off northwest Europe..."

i.e. (mention the "fact of geography" but omit the name)

Mentioning the "controversy" seems over bearing and distracting from the topic, but would be necessary if the name used by some is included IMHO.

--RA (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy with that --Snowded ^TALK 08:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support this compromise. I still think there is total justification for saying British Isles rather than just piping it to hide it but if saying it in that way is acceptable it will resolve this matter. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose all "compromise" on a dispute that is external to this article, for reasons detailed at length below. Scolaire (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, if you're gonna mentioned 'British Isles' on this article (and United Kingdom article)? then skip the pipe-linking & be direct about it. Otherwise, exclude 'British Isles'. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Scolaire

I am assuming that this was raised on BISE again, because for two days there was practically no comment on my edit, then suddenly all the usual suspects rushed into print within a few hours. Because I didn't log on yesterday I now have to answer a whole days discussion in one post. This is a statement of my personal position:

• POV: While I am not fond of the term "British Isles" I am not repelled by it either. Any edits I make on any article on my watchlist are related to the quality of the article itself, not to a political or any other kind of POV. I made clear in my original post my objections to the sentence. Since then there has been 38 kilobytes / 6,500 words of discussion and nobody has yet addressed those objections, preferring to accuse me of POV-pushing and censorship. The one single argument that is being advanced against my edit is, "I think it's important, therefore there must be a link to the British Isles". This is - necessarily and by definition - POV-pushing.
• Censorship: The sentence I removed had been in the article for a whole two weeks when I first posted. The link - which is what this hoo-ha is really about - had been in the article for six days, and resulted from the choreographed outrage over the editor editing his own edit. What I did, in other words, was to restore the status quo ante, with the agreement of the original editor. Accusations of censorship will not wash.
• Encyclopaedic reason: Mabuska says, "Scolaire i'm only asking for an encyclopedic reason for its removal as your demanding BW to provide an encylopedic reason for its inclusion." With all due respect, this is a lazy question. I have given my reasons time and again. But as I am not lazy, I will give them again: 1. the sentence as is stood ("The country belongs to...") was meaningless; 2. the remainder of the Geography section in no way depends on the location of the island; 3. Stating the location the entity in the Geography section is not standard practice per Portugal and Illinois; 4. Simply to say that it must be stated for the Republic implies that it must also be stated for Leinster, for County Carlow, for Carlow Town, for Carlow Institute of Technology etc., all of which are on the island of Ireland; 5. Likewise, if it must say British Isles and it must say Europe then it must also say Eurasian landmass, Earth, Solar system, Milky Way etc.; 6. the most vocal defenders of the sentence agree that it could be taken out as part of a "compromise", thus demonstrating that it is not necessary for the integrity of that section in this article. I do not need anybody to counter any of the above arguments again, only to provide me with a purely encyclopaedic and compelling reason for the addition of that sentence.
• Compromise: I am totally opposed to any "compromise" between editors who are carrying on a dispute outside this article for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of this article. Realistically, if I made a controversial edit to the Economy, Transport, Education, Healthcare or Culture section of this article, the people making all the noise here would neither notice nor care. None of them have shown the least concern for the quality of this article, but only in whether their term is shoe-horned into the article or not. This comment says it all: "there's 46 more instances of articles linked to BI now than there was this time last month, so while BISE bogs down the BI deletion POV pushers, normal editing goes on apace. How good is that?" Where a dispute exists between bona fide editors on how to improve an article, compromise may be in order; where a dispute is imported into an article by uninvolved editors who want to spread their own little war as wide as possible, "compromise" is plain wrong.

Thank you for your attention. Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine speech, the bottom line is we should provide the reader with notable information. The geography section of this article talks about the island of Ireland, why should the fact the island is part of a group of islands known as the British Isles be hidden? Especially when it is not mentioned on Ireland or Geography of Ireland articles due to clear censorship. The compromise seemed fair, it dealt with the wording which i agree "belongs to" may have concerned some people, it continues to avoid mentioning BI, simply pipelinking it. Yet the reader gets the information it is part of a group of islands. There was no need to remove the text in the first place, it should have been reworded. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You link to your original post. Lets paste it here so we can deal with each part..

"The country belongs to a group of islands in northwest Europe which include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland..." Does it? I would say the Republic "belongs" on the island of[[Ireland]]. If the reader wants to know where the island "belongs" he or she need only click the link. The remainder of the Geography section in no way depends on the location of the island, making that first sentence pointless as well as meaningless. It should simply be deleted."

Republic belongs on the island of Ireland - Many of us agree the wording could have been better, such as the wording shown above in the new compromise.

If the reader wants to know where the island "belongs" he or she need only click the link. - The trouble is due to censorship on the island of Ireland article, at present it completely fails to make this matter clear. Whilst we can not decide something for another article, it does mean your suggestion of making people click the link is invalid, because the link tells them no information about this matter.

The remainder of the Geography section in no way depends on the location of the island, making that first sentence pointless as well as meaningless - Also why should people need to click the link, a single sentence in the geography section does not give this matter undue weight, it provides notable information for the reader about the Republic of Irelands location on an island that is part of a group of islands in north west europe. As we debated before, plenty of geography sections of countries talk about their geographic location, and some mention if they are part of a group of island. There is a lot of geographical data on country articles, some geography sections do not mention this sort of thing at all, but they do mention it in the introduction.

There is no reason not to provide readers with information, it is one line in the geography section. It is not like we are asking this to be put in the introduction here. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please show me where the fact the island is part of a group of islands known as the British Isles is hidden. The Boyne passes near the ancient city of Trim; a small portion of the Burren has been designated as Burren National Park; Ring is a Gaeltacht region on a peninsula in the western half of County Waterford; are these facts also hidden? No, they are simply not stated. And all of them are more relevant to the Geography of the Republic than the fact that the island is part of a group of islands. There was no need to add the text in the first place, it should have been - and was - removed.

And was it really possible for you do digest my entire statement and type a reply in just four minutes? The word "knee-jerk" springs to mind. Scolaire (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is hidden because it has been removed from this article despite being totally justified. Your example is not more notable for the geography of the Republic of Ireland. The fact it is located on an Island which is part of a group of islands in north west europe is far far more notable and relevant to this article. It does not take me long to read through your statement and reply to the important bits. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact is far far more notable and relevant to this article why? The Boyne, the Burren and Ring are objectively notable and relevant to the geography of the Republic. In what does the greater notability and relevance of your fact consist? You cannot tell me. You simply repeat the same unsubstantiated claim like a stuck record. If you can't be bothered to read what I say I'm not going to bother saying anything more. Goodbye. Scolaire (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire wrote: "The Boyne passes near the ancient city of Trim; a small portion of the Burren has been designated as Burren National Park; Ring is a Gaeltacht region on a peninsula in the western half of County Waterford; are these facts also hidden? No, they are simply not stated."

— Bang on. I'm reminded of a qote from Pi, where the protagonist becomes obsessed with the number 216:

“ Hold on. You have to slow down. You're losing it. You have to take a breath. Listen to yourself. You're connecting a computer bug I had with a computer bug you might have had and some religious hogwash. You want to find the number 216 in the world, you will be able to find it everywhere. 216 steps from a mere street corner to your front door. 216 seconds you spend riding on the elevator. When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere. ”

For those concerned with use of the use or non-use of the term British Isles, the question of its use has become the number 216. It can be seen everywhere. In reality, the decision not to use of the term is not solely a question of "censorship". It can simply mean that there is no occasion to use it or that another choice of words are better. (And similarly for occasions to use it.) --RA (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As you appear concerned about my limited response Scolaire i will add to it for each section.

POV/Censorship - I am glad you admit you have a dislike for the term, this sort of dislike is always important to admit and be open about. I am glad all edits you make are to improve articles, i happen to think that is what those of us who are requesting this information be added are doing. We believe that it is notable information and that Irelands position on the island of Ireland which is part of a group of islands known as the British Isles in North West Europe is a notable fact for this article. I have replied to your original post which you mentioned above in detail. You claim others have accused you of censorship and POV pushing, then go on to say by definition what those of us supporting inclusion are doing is POV pushing. Just for the record, i have not accused you of POV pushing and when i talk of censorship it is not about the actions of a single editor, it is about the collective outcome. It also does not simply apply to the fact this sentence was removed after two weeks, i believe that censorship has been going on for years on wikipedia over this matter, this of course started during the crusades. I remember seeing a diff, i cant remember if it was for this article or the island one, but BI was removed with an edit summary claiming it was POV. It is not POV to say the Republic of Ireland and Ireland are within the British Isles... i hope we can all agree on that. AS mentioned earlier the censorship does not just apply to this article, the fact that there is now no mention of British Isles on Ireland , Republic of Ireland and Geography of Ireland, and the BI templates have been forced to use incorrect pipelinking. It looks like censorship to avoid upsetting a few editors who dislike the term to me,

Encyclopaedic reason - You say you have given reasons, but we too have given reasons, needless to say we disagree on these matters which is why there is a dispute.

1) We agree on the sentence, it should have been improved not removed. The compromise above deals with this matter and is not meaningless, it is clear and notable.

2) The Geography section continues to mention the island of Ireland size, there is no reason why the location of the island should not be mentioned. The location of an island is pretty notable in geography terms as far as im concerned, i am sorry you disagree.

3) It is true that some country articles avoid mentioning their location in the geography section, however they deal with the matter clearly in the introduction still. So for example when you first mentioned portugal you pointed out its geography section did not mention the Iberian peninsula, the big difference is it does get mentioned in the introduction of the article. Suggesting it be in the geography section rather than the introduction of this article seemed reasonable. Illinois is a complete irrelevance, it is a state not a country. However the geographical location of Hawaii being the only state not on the continent of North America is notable, but why would dozens of state articles all need to say they are in north America?

4) no it doesnt.

5) it should mention North west Europe yes, but of course none of those other things are needed. 4+5 were very strange comments by the way and obviously not accurate.

6) It was a compromise we all knew would be rejected, it is simply to test reactions. However if the island of Ireland article did mention the British Isles in the introduction, it would mean your comment about "they can click a link" would be accurate and so yes, it would weaken the case for inclusion although like i said at the time, i believe its justified here and there.

We have explained why it belongs in this article, you simply reject it.

Compromise' - Many of us are members of the British Isles taskforce, a group of people who have come together in the interests of wikipedia to try and resolve a long running dispute, which started with the crusades. However even if the taskforce did not exist, i believe all of us would have this page on our watchlist and many of us would comment anyway. So it is not like we have arrived to impose something agreed in another location on the people here... many of us would consider ourselves "the people" here. I am hurt that you think we would not take an interest in other matters relating to this article, but we all do have many other articles on our lists. I dedicated a long period of my time last year to trying to help resolve the naming issue. I did not have to spend that time helping, there were other matters that needed my attention. Quality of the article is very important, i spent some time above debating the issue of the introduction which previously failed to explain the ROI term (sadly it still fails to) although it atleast mentions the Republic of Ireland Act. I spent hours arguing that the introduction should mention a very important Act in Irelands history, an act that broke ties with the British monarchy an institution i love. If all i ever did was push POV surely i would want that fact hidden, it was ironic that Republicans were against its inclusion in that debate, i have still not figured out why exactly. As for levenboys comments, the BISE page is to deal with the massive instances of removal of British Isles with no justification, i support the project and it has helped. We now debate each issue and usually does help avoid edit wars, this is a very positive development and something that should be celebrated. Of course the British Isle is a widely used and known term, it will naturally be added to articles by many uninvolved editors who do not know there is a wikipedia dispute about it. They are allowed to add it, just as long as those of us involved are not going around adding it to many articles ourselves.

I hope this response to your statement will give you confidence that i read it all and digested it. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't bother saying anything else; I've changed my mind. Just a few short observations and then I'm gone:

I didn't say I have a dislike for the term - I said I'm neither fond of it nor repelled by it. Not the same thing.

I'm interested that you say removal of the sentence "was a compromise we all knew would be rejected." That was news to me. This sort of Machiavellian strategy is always important to admit and be open about. Can I take it the same is true of Malke's "compromise"? Don't answer that, I won't be reading it.

I had to laugh when you said the dispute goes back to the Crusades. I didn't become a user until well into this century, but I can well believe it's true.

Goodbye, and have a good day. Scolaire (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not fond of the term sounded to me like you had a dislike for it, even if you are not repelled by it like some editors clearly are but i am sorry if i misrepresented your position. When i say i am not fond of something i usually say it as a modest way of saying i have a dislike for it - (eg, i am not fond of Chinese food, which actually means i cant stand it).

As for the previous compromise, i was prepared to support it but it was one i knew would be rejected, for a start because we can not really agree on something here and implement it on another page where there would still likely be some hostility. I thought others would know it would be a nonstarter too, but may be it was just me. The proposal above though is very different, it is reasonable and only about this one article. It is a compromise that addresses concerns of both sides. As for the crusades, im talking about the ones that took place on wikipeda this century, which started years before i arrived here too. Anyway thanks for the comments BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You can't fight The Troubles all over again on Wikipedia. If they had never happened, ROI would still be on an island that is part of the archipelago known as the British Isles. It's in every encyclopedia and geography book out there. A simple mention that some people object to the term is edifying to the reader. A compromise such as this is not a nonstarter, it's the truth with a caveat.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I'd prefer having 'British Isles' excluded from this article & the United Kingdom article. However, if it's to be included? skip the pipe-linking & be direct about. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Right i've noticed fors and againsts for many things here, however i'd like to conduct a simple straw poll on points/solutions already raised. Can we agree or disagree with the following (to all as a whole, or to a certain point, you decide):

1. Leave the term British Isles out of political entity articles such the Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom, Kerry, and Wales etc.
2. Use the term British Isles in the geographical island articles such as Ireland, Great Britain, Sheltands etc. This means that this will be given that you'd agree for its usage on the Ireland article.
3. However that leaves an open question as to how to solve the link to the British Isles article question in a political entities geography section such as in this article. A reader should be allowed to wiki-link to the article to find out more about the islands. Obviously this is contentious for the Republic of Ireland article, so should the pipe-link group of islands be used? BISE has already guidelined the pipe-link as acceptable, and whilst many editors don't like to think of BISE as a binding thing of any sorts thats why i stated "guidelined" not "decreed".

Mabuska ^(talk) 20:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A simple straw poll on these matters here will simply lead to the same blocking tactics as happened over the infobox on Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't to block anything but to see whether we can find ground to which we can agree on and sort out so that we can wittle the issue down. I think most of the above is agreeable to for most editors however its better to see whether people agree with the points above or not rather than the same rehashing of arguements. I could assume your votes but i'd like you to state it yourself. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

1] If United Kingdom article mentions British Isles? then it should be mentioned here. If not there? then not here. 2] If Great Britain, Isle of Mann etc have BI mentioned? then Ireland should have it mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

By "blocking tactics" I presume BW means the failure to reach a consensus on that page?

As far as the poll is concerned: (3) the Republic of Ireland is not an island. A reader is just as entitled to wiki-link to Nigeria, where missionaries have gone from the Republic, or to a thousand other articles, as to link to an archipelago of which the Reublic is not a constiuent island. But it can't wiki-link to everything it might. Tuscany does not have the word "Mediterranean" in it, or a pipe-link to the Med. Is it hidden? Is it censored? Is there tearing of hair on the talk page? If everybody else is going to say the same thing over and over parrot-like, then so will I: give me a purely encyclopaedic and compelling reason to link from the Republic of Ireland to the British Isles. Failing that, let it go.

I agree with 1; 2 does not concern this article and should not be raised on this talk page. Scolaire (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for the sake of it Scolaire, do you agree or not to 2? We don't have to discuss it here, it's just to see what the overall opinions are on the above. Also i'm not looking for the same rehashing of arguements either, by agreeing to point one you don't have to repeat the need for an encyclopedic reason - that is documented above and is given by what point 1 states. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, forgive my lack of precision. My argument re encyclopaedic reason related to question 3, not question 1. In Q3 you did indeed rehash some old points. I have numbered my argument now, so hopefully that makes it clear.

I decline to answer your question above, on a matter of principle. Consensus for edits to one or more articles should not be sought on another article's talk page. Scolaire (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire's is correct on point #2, it belongs at Ireland & Great Britain talkpages. As for #3? do away with pipelinking, if one's gonna link to the British Isles article, then do so directly. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough GoodDay on your points - i see the UK article just mentions and wikilinks to an archepelago without direct reference to the British Isles piped or not. The only three instances of BI in UK are to do with a Ben Nevis and population arrival. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if BI isn't linked there, it shouldn't be linked here. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

But the UK article clearly mentions the archipelago in the introduction of the article, it simply does not state its the British Isles.. theres justification for saying it. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever's at UK, should be allowed here. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the UK article, its mentions an archipelago in the introduction but does not say what one. I doubt there would be the same sort of opposition to mentioning it on that page as here, so it should be added. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats for another place BW. I agree with 1, 2, and am open about 3 just for the record. Isle of Man makes mention of BI but only its geography section, but as that article serves both the island and country - it can be stated as being used for the island and not the country. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Does 1 mean leave out of the introduction of political entities like this article? Coz point 3 contradicts point 1. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well well well. It turns out the British Isles was mentioned in the introduction of the United Kingdom article for some time. It got removed on several occasions, including in 2007 in this edit [4] . The user responsible for its removal on that occasion has an incredible contributions history, how i wish i was around during the times of the crusades. His 3rd edit on wikipedia was to remove British Isles and replace it with Britain and Ireland. He then made a huge number of contributions to British Isles articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna lay down on the floor, so as to prevent injury from fainting. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It was also removed in 2006 by an IP [5] which also has an interesting contribution history. Of course the IP could have been used by completely different people, but i can not help but highlight an edit by the exact same IP in December 2005.

"If I heard an Irishman use the expression "British Isles" I really would have no choice but to wonder just how warm his bedclothes were in 1916. Nobody here uses it! It's just another product of British claims to this country. Oddly enough that sort of thing doesn't go down to well with the natives. Similarly nobody uses the term "Éire" in the partitionist sense that the British, and they alone, use it. Béal Féirste and Doire are in Éire in precisely the same way that Belfast and Derry are in Ireland."

Considering the large number of edits, mostly relating to Ireland articles, id say its probably the same editor on most of those occasions. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

British Isles was in the UK article introduction at at the start and end of 2005 (not looked throughout the year.) It appears it first got added to the article in May 2004 [6]. So basically British Isles was in the UK introduction for a considerable period of time, but clearly it got removed a few times and ended up being a permanent removal. (not sure if that previous users removal was the last time British Isles was stated, but their edit history shows they had a major dislike for the term British Isles and removed it from the UK introduction. I think that editor highlights the crusades perfectly. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

@BW, on the one hand you make a case for inclusion. On the other, when a straw poll is called to test consensus, you are against it. Either you accept apparent consensus as it is, and move on. Or you test consensus, accept the result, and move on. Any alternative means you're simply arguing for the sake of it. If you insist on poking a nest with a stick, a wandering admin may judge your actions as systematically disruptive. Your choice. --HighKing (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I want us to debate the inclusion of BI on this article, i simply do not think a straw poll will resolve the matter properly the way debate and trying to reach some form of compromise that all sides can accept would. It is not disruptive to debate these matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but at least indicate where you're at relative to the three terms proposed by Mabuska. It helps debate to first know what is already agreed on.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i do not believe 1 because i think BI is notable for this article in the geography section. I agree strongly with 2, it should be mentioned on geography article, in the introduction of such articles in my opinion. On 3 i am prepared to support a pipelink to hide British Isles being added to the geography section of this article as some seem to think its too controversial. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Mabuska:

1. Leave the term British Isles out of political entity articles such the Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom, Kerry, and Wales etc.
2. Use the term British Isles in the geographical island articles such as Ireland, Great Britain, Sheltands etc. This means that this will be given that you'd agree for its usage on the Ireland article.
3. However that leaves an open question as to how to solve the link to the British Isles article question in a political entities geography section such as in this article. A reader should be allowed to wiki-link to the article to find out more about the islands. Obviously this is contentious for the Republic of Ireland article, so should the pipe-link group of islands be used? BISE has already guidelined the pipe-link as acceptable, and whilst many editors don't like to think of BISE as a binding thing of any sorts thats why i stated "guidelined" not "decreed". (— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malke 2010 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC))

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No link. It might be easier to reach a compromise with no link.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Random break

I broadly agree with this. IN response to BW above, there has to be a limit to amount of interminable debates in which the same arguments are constantly reiterated. --Snowded ^TALK 07:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a limit. If its a lost cause or i am a lone voice then that is where my personal limit kicks in, but i have no problem debating these matters for many hours. You agreed with a compromise suggested above by RA, id go along with that wording and this matter would be resolved if it won support. Then the only other thing relating to this article (connected with British Isles) is what we do about that pipelink in the BI template which is still problematic. "...one of a group of islands off northwest Europe..."" is short, makes note of the fact the island is part of a group of islands and it does not show British Isles, just links to it. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You have no problem debating the same matter for many hours? Great! Let's do it again, then: the Republic of Ireland is not an island. A reader is just as entitled to wiki-link to Nigeria, where missionaries have gone from the Republic, or to a thousand other articles, as to link to an archipelago of which the Reublic is not a constiuent island. But it can't wiki-link to everything it might. Tuscany does not have the word "Mediterranean" in it, or a pipe-link to the Med. Is it hidden? Is it censored? Is there tearing of hair on the talk page? If everybody else is going to say the same thing over and over parrot-like, then so will I: give me a purely encyclopaedic and compelling reason to link from the Republic of Ireland to the British Isles. If I keep parrotting that, will you eventually give me a straight answer? Scolaire (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The republic of Ireland is not an island, this is very true, however the article mentions this country is on the island of Ireland, why should it not mention the island is part of a group of islands? We are talking about a single sentence in the geography section. lol @ Nigeria, as far as im aware the ROI is not part of a geographical location with nigeria, it is however within the British Isles. Tuscany is a region not a country, as i explained previously about the American state, the two things are very different. As for the hidden/cenorship, as i have shown above with the example of the United Kingdom, it is blatantly clear that efforts have been made to remove the term British Isles from wikipedia by some editors. The censorship issue is far more important on the island article, where it is certainly needed, but sadly there was no real reason to remove the sentence from this article, although it should have been reworded. When we take into account the fact Ireland and Geography of Ireland completely fails to mention British Isles, and now this one does too, it looks like censorship to me. The geographical location of the Republic of Ireland is notable for this article.. that is the encyclopaedic reason for inclusion. The Republic of Ireland is on the island of Ireland which is part of a group of islands known as the British Isles in North West Europe. I can find you plenty of sources stating the Republic of Ireland is in the British Isles if thats what you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BritishWatcher (talk • contribs) Revision as of 10:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

More repetition and more accusations, the counter position to yours is that North West Europe is the most appropriate geographical locator for a political entity. You say nothing new above and I think you are just trying to wear us down by constantly making the same point again and again and again on multiple articles. --Snowded ^TALK 09:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not my fault some people refuse to accept certain points i have made already and there for have to repeat them. My comment below includes something fresh as an example. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, if you just say the same things then lack of response indicates a refusal to feed your need for repetitive posts not a willingness to accept any changes. If you say something new I will respond. --Snowded ^TALK 10:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

BW, all I can answer to your post is "216". Does "lol @ Nigeria" mean that the geographical location of the island of Ireland is the only criterion for wiki-linking from this article? If so, that is a truly bizarre assertion. Once again, the answer you give to my question, "why should we link?" is "why should we not mention it?". Answering a question with a question. This has been the pattern throughout. "The geographical location of the Republic of Ireland is notable for this article" is not an encyclopaedic reason; "The geographical location of the Republic of Ireland is notable for this article because..." is an encyclopaedic reason, and that is what I am still waiting for. Take your time. Scolaire (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"The geographical location of the Republic of Ireland is notable for this article because." Ummm i am not sure exactly how to answer that question. Of course the geographical location of the country is important for this article. Every country article mentions its geographical location be it in the geography section or the introduction itself. This country's geographical location has a major impact on the country's history and status today. For example it is a member of the European Union because it is in Europe, but it is not in the Schengen Area because it is part of the Common Travel Area like the rest of the British Isles. That is only the case because of its geographical location. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're not sure exactly how to answer that question. Is that not what I've been saying all along? If you can't say why it's notable, then you can't justify adding it. Certainly, you can't say "it is important because of course it is important". Every country article mentions its geographical location, and so does this. It is in Ireland. --Scolaire (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It might be more correct to say that the common travel agreement with the UK prevented Ireland from entering the Schengen, they did however enter the Euro unlike the UK and that is more significant. Whatever its still irrelevant to the main argument and smacks of desperation - for most readers North West Europe is an easier to to understand and more appropriate locator for a political entity.--Snowded ^TALK 10:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly correct to say Ireland has not joined the schengen zone because it is part of the Common travel area with the UK. The reason why that is the case is because of the Republic of Irelands geographical location within the British Isles. If it was in some other part of north west europe such an area would make no sense. No one is saying the North west Europe should not be stated in the introduction, or in the geography section. But ive still yet to see what is wrong with "a group of islands in North West Europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason why that is the case is because of the Republic of Irelands geographical location within the British Isles - eh .... no. More to do with the fact that Irish people were once British citizens and part of the UK, and it was a matter of convenience at the time that has continued since. But if you have a reference I'd love to be corrected .... --HighKing (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how to answer it because the question was so odd. Of course the geographical location of the Republic of Ireland is notable for this article and it is partly covered with the exception of mentioning the island of Ireland is part of a group of islands known as the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a cup of tea and then read the question again. It is not odd. We establish the notability of something by giving a reason for its notability. "Of course it's notable" is not a reason. In what does the notability consist? If you can't answer that then you can't say it's notable. As I say, there's no rush. Scolaire (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i found it odd because you implied no geographical information is notable for this article. Do you think it is notable to say the Republic of Ireland is on an island and is in Europe? Both are bits of geographical information which your question was asking me to defend. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You really don't have a problem debating the same matter for many hours, do you? My question didn't ask you to defend anything - read it again. It asks you to make a statement, the simplest of all statements: why is the fact that that a country is on an island that is in a group of islands that lie off a continental mass more notable than the fact that a town is in a county that is in a province that is in a country that is on an island that is in a group of islands that lie off a continental mass? Which verse of This Is the House That Jack Built do we stop at? Where is the notability guideline that establishes that? What is the source for that guideline? Scolaire (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As i said before, all country articles state their geographical location, it is rather important tot he subject. Are you saying that the Republic of Ireland article would be fine if it did not mention ROI is on the island of Ireland and in europe? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"As i said before" says it all --Snowded ^TALK 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it such an urgent thing, to have British Isles (pipelinked or not) mentioned in this article (and United Kingdom article) anyways? The inclusion argument should be at Ireland, Great Britain, Isle of Mann & Channel Islands. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with GoodDay.

I also think there is an overall concensus to leave British Isles out of political entity articles such as Republic of Ireland. I don't think there is an overall concensus for its inclusion on the Ireland island article but that debate belongs there not here.

In response to your remark about point 3 BW, yes it is contradicting, i worded it badly. I meant to say "in the geography section of political entities". Mabuska ^(talk) 20:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Its inclusion is being blocked because editors dislike the term or think some peoples dislike for the term justifies exclusion to avoid controversy. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no urgency, but geographic location of countries are notable for the country article. Scolaire above seems to be suggesting no information on its location at all is needed. If we mention the island of Ireland and we mention Europe, why should we not mention the island of ireland is located in a group of islands in north west europe. As for the UK article, British Isles was in the article introduction for a couple of years before its removal by clearly involved editors in BI matters. A single line in the geography section of both is hardly unreasonable, it is more notable information for the reader. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no use for it in this article & United Kingdom. As for Great Britain & Ireland? that's another matter (which should be discussed at those talkpages). GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If, as Mabuska says and as appears to me to be the case, there is an overall consensus to leave the sentence out, and if we all recognise and respect the fact that BritishWatcher disagrees, can we please declare the discussion closed? At 92 kilobytes this section is equivalent to three archived talk pages. There is nothing to be gained by prolonging the agony. Scolaire (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire asked me yesterday to close this; I declined on the grounds that I'd been involved in the general discussion at WT:BISE, and I punted the issue to WP:AN. Thinking about it, I have not commented on "Republic of Ireland" - if there are no objections I'll close this tonight (UTC) if someone else hasn't already done so, and if there are no objections before hand. TFOWR 10:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You're involved owing to your involvement at BISE (both in general and with specific relation to this page) and because of your involvement in making related changes to this page based on discussions (in which you were a participant) at BISE that you believed reflected "consensus". Whether you are conscious of it or not, you are not neutral on this subject.

I feel it would be better if someone else closed this discussion or if it was just left to close by itself. --RA (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Religion section

I think the religion section is too long, as it contains almost exactly the same information that is on the main article. Wouldn't it be better if the section was condensed, so that when people visit the main article they will get additional information, as opposed to reading word for word what they've already read? Tebibyte (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If most of the information is already in the main article of religion in the Republic, then yes it should be condensed down to enough to get the general point across. A "See Also" link would suffice in directing a reader to the article. If anyone wants to question what makes this different to my current stance in regards to townlands - this is one article and it is a main component of any country article and needs an appropriate abstract. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There's no point having a "Main" tag if you're just going to reproduce the main article. Scolaire (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Enough needs to remain so that the reader doesn't need to go to the other article on religion. Some readers might just want to stay on this article.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I agree. I assume that that is exactly what Tebibyte is proposing. Scolaire (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since everyone is in agreement, I will work on it at some stage. I will try to condense it as much as possible, while keeping most of the important information there. Tebibyte (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)