Talk:British Isles

Trying to downplay the controversy

So finally somebody has removed the controversy from the opening paragraph, as if the existence of almost 40 discussion archives on this page alone, the objections of the sovereign state of Ireland (the correct, internationally-recognised name, by the way but let´s overlook that, also), the dropping of the term by international organisations such as National Geographic, its removal from Irish school books, and much, much else has nothing to do with this controversy. This is the worst, most politically-motivated article in Wikipedia - and that´s saying something - a page where, among other things, references for ´many´ objections result in the references themselves being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.45 (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, anon IP kicks off an edit war. When will they be blocked from this article? Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The term is certainly controversial now and has been so for several decades, perhaps longer. It has not, however, always been controversial so there is a danger of recentism here. Since the term has been in use since Roman times it might be better to say currently controversial or some similar wording. AJRG (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is given a paragraph in the introduction. There's no need for it to be mentioned in the first sentence as a defining element of the term. This article is about the subject, not a name given to that subject. We should focus on the subject, not that name. --RA (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I like AJRG's suggestion --Snowded ^TALK 17:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I total agree with RA, once in the lede is enough. Bjmullan (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the term certainly is controversial now - and like you say it has been controversial for several decades at least. For example the following from 1981:

The geographical term "British Isles" is not generally acceptable in Ireland, the term "these islands" being widely used instead. I prefer "the Anglo-Celitc Isles", or "the North-West European Archipelago". - D. A. Coleman, ed. (1982), Demography of Immigrants and Minority Groups in the United Kingdom: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Symposium of the Eugenics Society, London: Academic Press, ISBN 0121797805

Sure, in terms of the Roman conquest of Britain, the controversy around the term is a relatively "current" event; but saying something is "currently controversial" when it has been so for at least 30 years (and probably refs can be found going back to 1922 or further) is rather peculiar. In the same terms, we could say that the larger island is "currently called Great Britain" (as opposed to the far longer established name, "Albion", of Roman times). Or that the Parliament of Ireland is "currently independent from the Parliament of England" (something that it has only been for 107 years of since 1494). --RA (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhm. Not to poke the bear, but really, a eugenics book? That doesn't overly strike me as a RS. I rank it up there wth frenology and Flat Earther. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

:-) Probably why the are now called the Galton Institute. --RA (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Actually, "eugenics" is in the name of the organisation (which has since changed) that published the book, not the book itself. I think the book is fairly respectable in historiographical terms. Talking of which, following Pocock in 1975 several authors came up with a variety of different names, some of which are quoted here, some of which are not. There has been quite a lot of bandwagon-jumping since then, but no consensus on an accurate or concise alternative. Unfortunately the current introduction does not reflect this and picks one alternative, seemingly at random. I am working on an update to ensure the historiography, limited though it is, is accurately and neutrally covered. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The introduction ...are a group of islands is sufficiant. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Two US examples from 1942:

Americans in Ireland Show British Their Parade Tactics

American troops today stepped out proudly in a show for their British buddies and Irish townsfolk in the first ceremonial since the second A.E.F. vanguard landed in the British Isles less than two weeks ago.

Los Angeles Times. Feb 6, 1942. Page 5.

Book review of NAPOLEON AT THE CHANNEL (Carola Oman) By HERBERT GORMAN

All this was in 1798 and, ominously enough, there were 'invasions' of the British Isles -- that is, if Ireland be considered a part of those Isles, an admission that no Irishman would make.

New York Times. Aug 9, 1942. Page BR1.

which show both the established use of the term at that time and its growing sensitivity. AJRG (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The opening sentence of an article should be free of value judgements. Paragraph 2 does more than a good job of describing the term. Wikipedia articles begin "Adolf Hitler was a political leader", not "Adolf Hitler was a wicked political leader"; "Nigger is a noun", not "Nigger is an offensive noun". "British Isles is a controversial term" is simply inappropirate for an encylopedia. Pretty Green (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. We start with simple facts. The British Isles are a group of islands.... Anything else comes after to retain NPOV as much as possible. --HighKing (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Are a group" or "Is a group" ? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussed above and in the archives. Apparently both are fine. There's something about whether you want on emphasise the "collectiveness". Personally, I go with "are". A ready reckoner puts "are" ahead 29 to 5 on Google Books ("are" vs. "is"). --RA (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm keeping quiet on that one. It would become a point of contention if it was understood :D Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Aren't at least two 3RR bans due - not even to count the 1RR rule - for the firefight on the 6th? Where are the admins? Wotapalaver (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole of the second paragraph in the intro should be moved down to a separate controversy section - it isn't of main importance in an objective Wikipedia article about the British Isles. It's only of main importance within a segment of Irish opinion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Its a long standing consensus to keep a reference in the lede. If "controversial" was inserted then that might allow the move of the second paragraph down but not otherwise. Opinions of editors as to the range of the controversy are not relevant, what matters is that there is a body of cited material that says it is and also evidence of a move away from the name by atlas publishers and others who are hardly Fenians.--Snowded ^TALK 09:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that anyone has carried out an exhaustive survey of the literature of the last 100 years and mapped out the controversy and skilfully weighted it to prove it one way or the other! Snowded claims something as evidential that is not. What we are seeing here is a tussle between references brought forward to serve interests. The debate will clearly go nowhere as a determined faction will "fight to the last m? \mjjkanmn nb mnnn" over what is in fact a minority view, in true Wikipedia fashion! In the meantime, we are stuck with an article that highlights a dispute at the top that isn't of that significance. Ask most people around the world where the "British Isles" are and they can point to the correct place on the map. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry James, the point is that there are references that show it is controversial and that some avoid its use. To state that is therefore legitimate content. If anyone said it was a universal opinion, or a majority one your point might have some validity, but no one is saying that. Your (or my) opinion about the legitimacy or otherwise of that controversy has little relevance. The various references do not permit its removal as a valid geographical term, neither do they allow us to ignore the controversy. --Snowded ^TALK 10:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying there aren't references to indicate the controversy. As you know, the issue is inclusion and weight in the introduction. At the moment the intro reads as if the controversy about naming conventions is the most important fact about the BI. This is nonsense. WP is meant to be an international resource and this is just the outcome of internal WP faction-fighting. By all means have an extensive controversy section (and indeed of course there are whole articles about it too!) but downgrade the significance in the intro, which does not align with real-world relevance. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The lede summarises the article and the controversy is significant (one of the two governments is after all cited). The current wording does not make it the most important fact. Please avoid provocative edit summaries and asserting that consensus outcomes are faction fighting. It really doesn't help. Address content issues not the motivation of editors who disagree with you. --Snowded ^TALK 10:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) There isn't a consensus about it, despite your repeated claims to the contrary. (2) Are you really, seriously claiming that there are is no faction within the WP communities that wants to see all British-Isles-related articles renamed or removed? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

<reduce indent> The flaw in the lead is not the presence of the controversy paragraph, it is the absence of a paragraph detailing other significant aspects of the isles eg geography, climate etc. From WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. " So the controversy is fine, but I'd argue that the lead doesn't necessarily provide many of the other points. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree with this. The prominence of the controversy paragraph is partly caused by the absence of other material one would expect to find in the intro. However, this should not excuse the use of synthesis (NOR) and over-weighting (NPOV) of niche sources. The other problem we have is that a minority believe the term is political, making it rather difficult to develop additional geographic content when they insist upon highlighting a political point. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see that the reference deleters are back. Next we'll have more discussion on how the text about the controversy is a fringe view then - once that's been debunked through provision of references - that there are too many references. Oh, wait, people are already saying it's a fringe view and references are getting deleted at the exact same time. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is a fringe view really, coming from the Irish fringe. I think we should phase out reference to it here because there is a whole article about it elsewhere. We should just link to that article. Hrotovice (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Geography in the introduction

As above, for a geographical article there is a distinct lack of geographical information in the introduction.

1. Currently the first paragraph defines the topic. Fine.
2. We have nothing on context so we need a new paragraph expanding on physical elements (perhaps a chronological structure: borrow from the geology section and move on to glaciations and then the modern day)
3. Notability should be covered by a second new paragraph, merging human geography (i.e. to follow from the previous paragraph) into something on the general relevance of this island group and its peoples to the rest of the world (culture, language, migrations etc).
4. Controversies are more than adequately covered already.

This would give us a four-paragraph structure which would comply with the rules. Thoughts? Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your suggestions seem reasonable, provided the lead paragraphs don't get too long. I think there is too much empahsis on the controversy and it's highly POV since no opposing view is offered. LevenBoy (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That would seem normal. --RA (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is obviously right and it will be interesting to see what people come up with. At the moment, the controversy section itself also presents a distorted and partisan view of reality, but we can get back to that when we have rebalanced the intro as a whole. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yo James! I put your edit back. It seems to make sense. I also left a message for you at my talk page. JuanJose (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has reverted that revert using TW - is that a breach of the 1RR protection for this article? Also, isn't TW supposed to be used for vandalism rather than good-faith edits? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi James. Although Twinkle (TW) is mostly used for reverting vandalism, it can also be used for reverting good faith edits (a button for good faith edits even exists). I only used TW because it was easier to revert to a previous version.

Also, my edit was not in breach of 1RR as JuanJose reverted Snowded's revert, i.e. I was reverting JuanJose's breach of 1RR. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 11:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, the previously stable text had a reference and the alteration to the text didn't match the reference. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear that the self-denying and doubtless non-existent(!) "faction" will prevent any alteration to the current term debate paragraph to render it less POV, so I've tagged it to indicate that the article editors are not permitting alternative views. I suppose one of you will just delete the tag and make some spurious defence of that, but it is crystal clear to any external and objective viewer that the current para makes a crudely exaggerated case for the dispute, as in numerous other articles of a similarly contested nature. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If you bother to look at the history you will see that the wording was agreed as a result of an extended discussion between editors of many different views. No view is being excluded as far as I can see, although you seem if anything to be attempting to downgrade the controversy. You would be better occupied addressing the arguments and content issues than issuing a general statement of your own opinion --Snowded ^TALK 21:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am working on new versions of the lead. And for your information I have read back extensively - it's a mess. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion possibly, but if you have read it you should be aware that this is not a simple matter. The current wording is not a mess, doubtless it can be improved but not by removing reference to the controversy, to do so would be a POV position --Snowded ^TALK 22:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

James, didn't see you post about working on an into. Sorry to step on your toes.

I boldly added two new paras to the lead. I don't expect the are perfect but they are there as a discussion piece. --RA (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, those are interesting - I wasn't certain of the protocol, so am working offline on mine and was then going to offer them up via sandbox, but I suppose this is useful to as we can trade ideas. I was planning to include brief stuff on the integrated modern economies, etc and much similar material to you, especially on climate, surely always the leading topic of conversation across these islands! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@RA - big step in the right direction! Two points: firstly, the community languages sentence doesn't really fit where it is and might need to say what the languages are. Secondly, the last sentence about 1922 could mention that the war completely failed militarily yet overwhelmingly succeeded politically, resulting in the intervention of the King (and setting a worldwide trend in both decolonization and independence struggle). AJRG (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for starting us off RA. James - I would guess quite a few people were thinking about this but there is no protocol. RA got in there first and now we have to make sure it (a) says what we want it to and (b) make sure it has references.

I think the first new paragraph generally covers off context. I'm tempted to add a bit of geology and I'll try to add references for that section over the weekend if no-one else does. The second new paragraph does not, in my opinion, really tackle 'notability. Why are the British Isles important to people who don't live there? What influence have the peoples of those islands had on the rest of the world? I think we're going the wrong way with the history. However, we have a solid foundation to work with. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to dissent, but the new intro content is a mess. It wanders from geography to history to demographics with nary a ref to be seen. "Relatively low altitudes"? Relative to who? The Netherlands? Lakes are "generally not large"? "Generally"? As for the historical summary, it's hardly a balanced view, is it? Starting at 1066 and all that? Wotapalaver (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Celtic Church deserves a mention. You could also talk about the megaliths; say that for the Greeks, Cornwall was a source of tin; for the Romans, Wales was a source of Lead and Gold, Hampshire and Kent sources of Iron, and Essex was a bread basket for the Roman Army. Ireland was fleetingly visited by the Romans and partially settled by the Vikings. How much do you want to put in the introduction? AJRG (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Bear in mind that the lead should be fairly general. We don't need specific points, but we should be summarising the article. These are a good start, but I will run a little copy edit --Pretty Green (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there needs to be something in the relevant history section or we'll have an intro which is summarising something that isn't actually in the article itself. A cut down summary should lead into something explaining notability. As for references, Wotapalaver, it's a draft... but if you want to make yourself useful you could go and find some. (Just don't complain if we subsequently delete the text you've found a reference for.) Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Have your cake and eat it?

And now the intro is way too long and covers Britain and Ireland rather than the British Isles. Also, the discussion of Empire is not relevant to a geographical article. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The length is well within the parameters described at WP:LEAD. As for the scope, it's still a work in progress; Feel free to make positive contributions any time. As for imperialism, it is the vector by which English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh influence spread - it is this (more than any one other thing) which makes the islands notable in human geographical terms to the rest of the world. It is entirely relevant. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User Snowded has chipped in[1] to delete material asserting that the British Empire has no relevance to the notability of the British Isles. Now there is certainly some debate between nationalist and unionists on the nature of the involvement of different parts of the isles, but there is no debate over the fact that it is highly relevant (see [2] pg 114 onwards, or [3] or [4]). One might argue we should cut out the historical information altogether, but then how would we define notability as per WP:LEAD? If we include historical information it needs to be be complete, and cutting out a major episode which brought the isles together as a political entity (surely this is what Snowded and friends have been arguing all along?!) should not be glossed over. Of course if they're surrendering that point I'll quite happily strike out the stuff on the "controversy". Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The POV problem with this article has always been the conflation of a geographical name "British Isles" with politics. The references you give are to the British Empire, not to the British Isles. Remember that they were only a combined political entity for a very short period in their history. In terms of process the material on Empire is the new data and its removal follows WP:BRD. Wiki-Ed you have reverted a revert which is meant to be banned here at the moment --Snowded ^TALK 06:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

First point: The references I provided conflate British Isles and British Empire; that was the point - they're talking about the effects and controversial elements of the historiography etc. 500 years (or more if one includes Norman invasions of Ireland and the plantations) might be a relatively short period, but it had a significant effect on the islands - as you have acknowledged by inserting references to the famine and clearances. As for BRD, we're working on a new draft and have an ongoing discussion here. Until you came along all the edits were constructive amendments or additions. It's nice that you've now pedalled back on your original assertion and made some constructive contributions, nearly all of which I think are good and move us forward. What's not nice is the fact you resort to wikilawyering when someone reverts a bold edit. Please try to be more co-operative.

Second point: User Snowded's edits have tightened up the wording. There are probably a few more tweaks to be made, but are people generally happy with the structure and flow of the new text? If so we should look for a few references to support bits which might be contended. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I did my best to work a compromise pleased you are broadly happy with it. Not sure I was wikilawyering to be honest more making the point that the article is under a 1RR restriction and you were taking a risk. However alls well that (hopefully) ends well. --Snowded ^TALK 10:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Third paragraph

I think the sentence "The Norman conquest in the eleventh century swept away Anglo-Saxon and Viking culture" could be improved. How about: "The Norman conquest of England in the eleventh century led to the imposition of a new ruling elite and a gradual transformation of the English language and culture." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I like your version, Ghmyrtle as it sounds more encyclopedic. We should really strive to avoid vague, simplistic terms such as swept away as it makes out like the Normans, in one fell swoop, bulldozed everything in their path!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OK by me--Snowded ^TALK 12:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Except that the Normans (Norsemen) were Vikings. Parliament (Thing-vollr/Dingwall/Tynwald) is a Viking tradition familiar from Iceland and the Isle of Man. What was different was what is now called the feudal system. 90.199.165.251 (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Why "Except that.."? That was part of my point, to remove the ref to the Normans "sweeping away" Viking culture. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is OK, but we should make it clear that the Normans invaded all the islands; the setnence could imply that it was just England. I've inserted the first half of the sentence.Pretty Green (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use edit summaries like "as per talk" when you are putting in words different to those under discussion. The word "Norman" needs to be disambiguated, at the very least. The Normans did not occupy (most of) Wales or Ireland in the 11th century - the later conquests are covered in the sentence that follows. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The 'as per talk' referred to my other comments below - sorry for the lack of clarity, had to finish editing quickly. I though the editing procedure on this article was to be bold and edit to quality, rather than discuss wording on here. --94.194.88.189 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

King Canute (King of England 1016–1035, Denmark 1018–1035, Norway 1028–1035) seems to have been missed in all this. Also the intermarriage between the Anglo-Saxon elite and the Vikings that led to William claiming the throne. The Norman conquest was the culmination of the Viking influx, not a separate event. AJRG (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A little Ango-centric? Deserves mention in the body, if we were to describes the events that led to the Norman invasions, but Canute was king of England and came to be so after Danish relations in Ireland were definitively settled. --RA (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Cnut, a Viking, was to be one of England's most successful kings. The protection he lent against Viking raiders – with many of them under his command – restored the prosperity that had been increasingly impaired since the resumption of Viking attacks in the 980s. As well as England itself, he was able to restore the overlordship of earlier English kings over much of the British Isles, while the resources he commanded in England helped him to establish control of the majority of Scandinavia. In July 1017, Cnut wed Emma of Normandy, the widow of Aethelred, and daughter of Richard the Fearless, the first Duke of Normandy. (from Cnut the Great). William I was the grandson of Emma's brother Richard, and the Norman conquest of Ireland under William's great grandson Henry II made good the failure there of Sweyn Forkbeard and Cnut. AJRG (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Normans ("North men") were certainly descendants of Vikings but they spoke French, adbided by French law, were vassals of the King of France and belonged to the Angevin Empire. They had not been "Viking" since the time of Rollo and had lost connection with Scandinavia. --RA (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Later, certainly. Your view on this is much too slanted towards the Norman invasion of Ireland under Henry II. A quick summary may help. In the eleventh century they were still speaking Old Norse in Bayeux and the mother of Richard II, Duke of Normandy, (970-1026) was a Dane. AJRG (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd support AJRG's revised wording of "culminating in the Norman conquests in 1066 in England and 1169 in Ireland which", which I don't think is OR. Bill's invasion of Britain was a result of succession debates following the period of intermarriage/power struggles between Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and their descendents - that's why there were so many potential successors around in 1066! The invasion was thus a culmination of this period; I know less about the Irish invasion to comment however. The sentence doesn't imply that Vikings and Normans were the same, but does allow for the fact that they were related. Pretty Green (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. If it is not original thought then it will be supported by reliable sources. I, personally, am dubious that the Vikings had a 400-year master plan that "culminated" in the conquests of 1066 and 1169. I am dubious because of the very idea that anything that could historically be described as "culminated" 400 years after its beginning. But I am dubious too because I would have imagined that if the Vikings did have a plan that would "culminate" in anything that the plan would have put the Vikings in control of these islands ... not the Franks.

In seriousness though, it looks like history being written from a window in the future. Looking back on anything, especially distant events, it is tempting to join dots and see things as "culminating" in something. But history happens forwards, not backwards. Few things "culminate" - nothing with 400-years in between its "start" and its "finish". Consider that there was 100 years between 1066 and 1169. Even tieing those two events together is like joining dots between the Second Anglo-Afghan War and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Sure, weren't the British involved in both? And aren't the Americans British in the same was that the Normans were Vikings? It's all part of a master plan - just like the Anglo-Irish moon landing of 1969 :-) --RA (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Culminated is definitely the wrong word. The current version [5] is accurate and while one could expand on the Viking origins of the Normans (etc etc), to do so would require a lot of additional text. Let's keep it simple. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess we're taking 'culminating' to have different meanings here. Perhaps 'resulting' or 'leading to' is more straight forward here? I don't think 'culmination' implies intent, but the Viking invasions contributed to the creation of a centralised Anglo-Saxon kingdom - as an attempt to fight the invaders - and then a complex set of relations between Anglo/Viking/Norman (and other?) royal families, which was the primary cause for the succession crisis which lead to the 1066 invasion. I don't see 'culminating' as implying any sort of plan to this though. I do realise that this is rather Whiggish, but I think it's very difficult to write a summary any other way. Pretty Green (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Scandinavia lost control because Harald III of Norway and the Scandinavian nobility were massacred at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. William's subsequent victory at Hastings gave him time to consolidate power before the Scandinavians returned, and he spent several years successfully fighting off his kinsmen. AJRG (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The dots are very alluring but - particularly in the into - I think we should just give the raw facts without "resulting" or "culminating" etc..

I get what you both are saying and I like the "Revenge of the Vikings" story (among others); but 1166 could could equally be attributed to a butterfly flapping its wings in China. There's too many variables and centuries of human activity between the discrete events. --RA (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem then is linking together the Norman conquest of England in the eleventh century and the Norman conquest of Ireland in the twelfth century. In the eleventh century the Normans are clearly Scandinavian but becoming something more, through a combination of military technology and intermarriage. In the twelfth century the Normans become Angevins and by the early thirteenth century they have disappeared entirely. AJRG (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

By the 11th century, the Normans had lost most of their ties with the Vikings. The Duke of Normandy was a vassal of the King of France, and William himself had quite a bit of French ancestry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not so early. It later became convenient to claim that because of the Pagan/Christian conflict. See The Normans in their histories: propaganda, myth and subversion by Emily Albu and From the Vikings to the Normans (Short Oxford History of the British Isles) by Wendy Davies. AJRG (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also The Persistence of Scandinavian Connections in Normandy in the Tenth and Early Eleventh Centuries by LW Breese (Viator, Volume 8 / 1977, pp 47-62). AJRG (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not the only problem, as Jeanne says, but even at that this article is about the entire archipelago not just the English part. We here on this island dealt with the Vikings in 980 and (just in case the message was lost on them) laid it down again in 1014. Those that came in 1169 were a different lot. --RA (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

By then we call them Angevins. Until the early eleventh century the Normans are Scandinavians settled in France, still speaking Old Norse in Bayeux but increasingly assimilating elsewhere. Significantly, they have become Christian and William's invasion plan has the support of both the Pope and the King of Norway. Afterwards the Scandinavians, having been humiliated at Stamford Bridge, are frozen out and the links downplayed. AJRG (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Devolution? Far too much detail on this. Can we trim it back down. We're starting with geological epochs and ending with some very specific comments on domestic political arrangements. Secession should be mentioned, sure, but "devolution" is a long way short of that and much less significant in the scale of this introduction. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The third paragraph is too long, although there is now a good understanding of what needs to be in it. The term Celts is ambiguous - not a bar to using it, but care is needed. The tribes in Roman Gaul showed a spectrum of culture and language from Celtic to Germanic and this is also likely to have been the case in Britain. The Roman Army brought Germanic rather than Celtic auxiliaries to Britain and the lack of linguistically Celtic place names in eastern England, together with very old Frisian elements in Anglo-Saxon, suggests that the inhabitants spoke an early form of Frisian. Connected with this is the reality that none of the invasions (Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking/Norman) replaced more than a tiny proportion of the population, so that the wording needs to avoid implying otherwise. AJRG (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion:

Celts were inhabiting the islands by the time of the Roman Empire, which expanded to control most of Britain. Anglo-Saxons arrived as Roman power waned in the 5th century and from the ninth century Viking invasions followed by more permanent settlements resulted in political change - particularly in England. The subsequent Norman conquest of England in 1066 and the later Angevin conquest of Ireland from 1169 led to the imposition of a new Norman ruling elite.

By the Late Middle Ages, Great Britain was separated into the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, while control in Ireland fluxed between Gaelic kingdoms, Hiberno-Norman lords and the English-dominated Lordship of Ireland. The 1603 Union of the Crowns, Acts of Union 1707 and Acts of Union 1800 consolidated Britain and Ireland into a single political unit, the United Kingdom, with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands remaining as Crown Dependencies.

The expansion of the British Empire and migrations following the Irish Famine and Highland Clearances resulted in the distribution of the islands' population and culture throughout the world and a rapid de-population of Ireland in the second-half of the 19th century. Most of Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom after the Irish War of Independence.

(divided into three for ease of discussion). AJRG (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

The lead is coming along nicely. Snowded's cuts have helped. It is perhaps still a little too long, so I've cut a sentence or two from the geology bit. One further point - the union of the crowns did not result in the Kingdom of Great Britain; that came a hundred years later. Pretty Green (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead isn't coming along nicely. It's unstructured, unbalanced, and inaccurate. Let's take an example. "The 1603 Union of the Crowns, Acts of Union 1707 and Acts of Union 1800 consolidated the isles into a single political unit, the United Kingdom". This isn't correct, is it? IoM and Channel Islands aren't in the UK, are they? Wotapalaver (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but a lead is meant to be a generalised summary. It's not perfect, because guess what - the editors on it aren't perfect. The IoM and Channel Islands account for a small percentage of both population and land. A lead is never going to be able to cover everything in full detail - there is neither the space nor the need to cover every event, every political unit, the difference between Vikings/Normans. Why not edit that sentence if you don't like it? . --Pretty Green (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to make constructive suggestions if people are not respecting facts in the lead. I put in a CN tag on a fact which is, as far as I know and as far as reference tells me, incorrect. The CN tag has been removed. I'll remove the text, which is still incorrect. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure of the dates and the degree of political freedom but, as I understand it, the CIs and the IOM were 100% under the direct legislative jurisdiction of the parliament at London until the mid 20th century (although they had their own legistlatures). I still think that "technically" the London parliament can legislate directly but hasn't done so in half a century. From that perspective, the idea that the 1801 act of union didn't create a single political unit out of the whole archipelago is a bit pedantic: one monarch, one parliament across the entire isles? --RA (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the text has already been corrected, but it's still too vague. I'm editing it. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Good! Snowded removed the cn because (as I interpret his edit summary) he thought it was referring to the fact of the union of GB and I. No-one is "not respecting the facts", but people will overlook or forget things! Pretty Green (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

<>I've corrected the text and removed the vague "majority of the isles" and replaced it with the accurate "Britain and Ireland" and clarified the IoM and CI. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added mention of Scotland and Wales to the political history of the UK. No point stopping in 1922. Also re-paragraphed a little to make it more clearly geographical then historical. I think it's about right. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Final Paragraph in lead

I was bold earlier, but I think we can do more. I would like to move all the references into the later section and the reference to the Irish Government non use. Any objections? --Snowded ^TALK 12:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to get that - do you mean have the text flow, then a single references section at the end of the paragraph? Potentially this might make it more readable and easier to edit. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, can I check - " The Government of Ireland uses "these islands" on occasion avoiding the use of "British Isles"" - do you want this to read "The Government of Ireland uses "these islands", avoiding the use of "British Isles""? --Pretty Green (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I see edits are being made to the fourth paragraph. I've been sitting on a revision of this text for a while following the discussions above about weighting of sources and alternatives. Perhaps now would be a good time to revisit this. At the moment it says (a) that one government occasionally uses one term, (b) an unidentified group prefers another term, and (c) the original term is still commonly employed. I could add (d) and (e) to provide additional fully-sourced contradictory assertions of "more common" or "most favoured" usage of (yet more) alternative terms. Given the divergent and incomplete nature of this summary I propose we move the last two sentences to the relevant section where they can be expanded properly. At the moment it is misleading. The controversey is adequately covered by the first sentence. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I think this means I mostly agree with Snowded. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The current version is making a consequential link between 1922 and the problems with "British Isles" that the references don't support. The facts of 1922 and the fact that the term is controversial need to be treated as independent facts unless there's reference saying otherwise. To link them may be tempting, but the references don't support it. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And the phrasing of the last part of the paragraph is - to put it mildly - terrible. "The Government of Ireland uses "these islands" on occasion avoiding the use of "British Isles". That's not what the references support, and it's terrible English to boot. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Eugenics Society ref above just says "the term 'these islands' being widely used instead [of the term British Isles]".

Wiki-Ed, the references support what is said in the article. If you disagree with them, you should contact the respective authors or publishing houses. We go with reliable sources. It is verifiability, not truth that we are interested in.

In general however, can we simply move our attention away from that section of the article and concentrate on the substance. Surely enough space has already been given on this talk page to discussion of that one element of the topic? --RA (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said previously, I wasn't finished. It took some time to find sources to cover all the alternatives you'd decided were not worth mentioning. I've done that now. We have some verification, but the truth is... it looks a bit of a mess. Writers most certainly are NOT unified on terminology. Hopefully this new neutrally weighted summary makes that clear. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wild about the English or the flow either to be honest, but I thought it was best if those of us on the "Its controversial" side of the fence took on the editing of that section so I took a first stab. Ideally I would take all the Irish Government stuff down to the main body so the paragraph flows better - that would also involve moving on the references. The lede after all should summarise not be a main source. As the the link between 1922 and the controversy, aside from the fact it is self evidence, its actually in most of the citation as to the controversy, maybe it would be more accurate to say "Do to the separation of ROI, but the link to 1922 flows better and is accurate. --Snowded ^TALK 22:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Let's move it... all those alternative terms which are all referenced. The controversy within the controversy should belong in the section on the controversy. Imho. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

PS. It didn't like references to the last sentence of the paragraph and kept throwing up error messages. I realise it needs them, but someone else will have to figure that out because my eyes are tired. :( Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That last paragrpah in the lead looks out of place. I agree it should be moved. Hrotovice (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We do need to keep the high level reference to the controversy in the lede and I suggest the B&I alternative. The greater detail goes into the main body. FAD removing reference to the controversy from the lede is not acceptable. --Snowded ^TALK 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(What does FAD mean?) Anyway, I agree that we need to keep the first sentence as per WP:LEAD. However, we cannot cut down the sentence on alternative terms to select one particular term over all the others. That is not neutral and is not supported by the sources, each of which believes its own choice is better than the others, hence my inclusion of their disparaging remarks. We mention none of them or all of them (or at least as broad a range as we can support). Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

FAD=For avoidance of doubt and I would have thought the Atlas choice was a good illustration that could be selected --Snowded ^TALK 06:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The list of alternatives seems very detailed for the lede. Probably only Britain and Ireland needs to be included. The full list belongs in the body of the article. AJRG (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)} I reverted the detail in the introduction. Like AJRG says, the new text was overly detailed in listing alternatives that could be left to the body. IMHO it also re-introduced weasels words ("some authors" for example) and made unsupported statements ("deprecated" for example). How about we turn our attention to the body with repsects to this element of the topic and when done there we return to the lead to summarise what appears in the body? --RA (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, let's not ignore it. See the unsurprising comments below on Snowded's proposal; there will never be full co-operation on this article while it contains OR. The statement on criticism provided some much-needed neutrality and was supported by four sources. You've deleted it. The other fully-referenced examples prove the current text is OR. You've deleted them. As for weasel words: we could say "four sources say this" and "three sources say that" but in the interests of plain English it's better to say "some" in each case. Even if don't accept that argument NOR and NPOV are more important that the MOS. Moreover the absence of qualification is not neutral since it implies that the assertion (that term X is preferred) is widely accepted whereas, of course, it is not. You've refused to accept reason and demanded sources, and now you're refusing to accept the sources. I have to conclude that you're pushing a POV and should step away from this section altogether. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't need so much detail in the lede. For example:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to its usage due to the association of the word British with Ireland. As a result, Britain and Ireland may be preferred, although British Isles is still commonly employed.

is quite adequate. AJRG (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are proposing weasel words ("may be preferred") to introduce an element of doubt, but not including references to support this contention. (a) It is unclear and (b) unsourced. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an example of weasel words, it's a summary (because this is the lede). There are multiple references that individual groups of people, and even the Irish Government, prefer alternatives and that a number of organisations are sensitive to this. All of that detail belongs in the article about the controversy. Amongst a number of referenced alternatives, Britain and Ireland has most currency but doesn't begin to approach the usage of "British Isles" except in the historical phrase "Great Britain and Ireland". So "may be preferred" is a shorthand for "is preferred by a significant minority of (referenced) reliable sources". AJRG (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that a "significant minority" prefers a particular term? The examples and references I included - which RA deleted - clearly indicate that there is no preference among reliable sources. The particular problem with "Britain and Ireland" is that very few sources use it as an alternative in this context. The phrase may be used regularly to refer to the two states, but very few sources say it is a preferred equivalent to "British Isles". Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The summary form is less contentious, because any brief but more specific wording is open to this kind of debate. Try, though a Google web search for "britain and ireland" -"great britain" site:.ac.uk for a direct answer to your question. AJRG (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Google doesn't tell you whether the sites it has found are referring to the archipelago or to the two states. (It's normally the latter so its not an equivalent term.) In any case we've had this discussion a number of times (check the archives) and it will keep coming up as long as the text is inaccurate - this summary form is contentious POV synthesis and asserts something which the sources do not support. I've suggested a number of ways to amend it; the current version is not acceptable because it violates all 3 WP core policies. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a Google Books search for "britain and ireland" -"great britain" is more persuasive, or a Google Scholar search for the same? Lots of reliable sources use Britain and Ireland to mean the archipelago, just not as many as use British Isles. If you compare modern academic usage the balance is different, but as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball that needn't concern us yet. What is clear is that Britain and Ireland is a significant minority usage in reliable sources and so we say so. There are many other suggested alternatives but I'm not aware of any with a significant following. Weighing usage in reliable sources is fundamental to Wikipedia - labelling it as OR or POV is unconvincing. AJRG (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said already, read through the archives. I've been talking about weighting for weeks. And do you not see the irony in telling me not to label this as OR in the same paragraph as telling me to perform Google searches? Your contention that "lots of reliable sources use Britain and Ireland to mean the archipelago" is not supported. There are two sources(three if you do a bit of synthesis and use the Guardian). If the term was used by a "significant minority" one would expect a few more right? But no. Why? Presumably because it is impossible to know whether a source is intentionally using it as an equivalent alternative to British Isles unless the source is also discussing this controversy. (See WP:NOR: you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented.) Perhaps you could use Google to try and find some more example to support the case? I'd suggest you probably need 8 for Britain and Ireland to outweigh the others. If you can't find them then we have to contend with four equally weighted alternatives, none of which has precedence over any of the others. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not hard to find:

Geology and environment in Britain and Ireland N. H. Woodcock CRC Press, 1994

The Population History of Britain and Ireland 1500-1750 R. A. Houston Cambridge University Press, 1995

The ferns of Britain and Ireland Christopher Nigel Page Cambridge University Press, 1997

Geological history of Britain and Ireland N. H. Woodcock, Robin A. Strachan Wiley-Blackwell, 2000

Languages in Britain and Ireland Glanville Price Wiley-Blackwell, 2000

The millennium atlas of butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Asher, J., Warren, M., Fox, R., Harding, P., Jeffcoate, G., Jeffcoate, S. Oxford University Press, 2001

The reformation in Britain and Ireland: an introduction Ian Hazlett Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003

Where to Watch Birds in Britain and Ireland David Tipling New Holland Publishers, 2006

The prehistory of Britain and Ireland Richard Bradley Cambridge University Press, 2007

Integrated population monitoring of breeding birds in Britain and Ireland SR Baillie Ibis, 2008

amongst many others. AJRG (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. How many of those sources are talking about this issue and how many are talking about birds, butterflies and ferns? Hazlett is valid (already cited) and Bradley is tenuous (it mentions the controversy but doesn't explain whether it is deliberately using the alternative as an equivalent). The other references you've dug up are not directly related and do not directly support the case - as per WP:NOR. Check the reference RA just found here [6] for an indication of what is needed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

See below. AJRG (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, I think we are working of different copies or you are confusing me with a different editor. The above doesn't make sense to me. Can you be explicit about what statements and references you say I deleted and what they supported? --RA (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, let's just move on from this. There is a whole article to be written. What's there in this short paragraph has been discussed to death. For now, at least, let's just move on. --RA (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't get to "move on" when you've got your preferred version fixed on the page because of 1RR. I am talking about this [7] edit where you removed three alternative terms (each with two supporting refs) and a statement indicating that the sources disagreed with one-another (supported by four refs). Maybe it is too much detail for the introduction, but we either discuss alternatives terms (plural) neutrally or we don't discuss them at all (and move the detail to the relevant section in the body of the article).

My preference is to keep the sentence saying there is a controversy and a second sentence saying "there are a number of alternative terms in use" (or words to that effect). Everything else (Gov of Ireland use, named alternatives etc) gets moved. This would still comply with WP:LEAD by mentioning the controversy, but give us more space to cover the alternatives neutrally and fully in the appropriate part of the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My preference is to stick to reference. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"is becoming a preferred or favoured description" might be true but is not yet supported by a review of current reliable sources (see above). It is therefore just a point of view and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. AJRG (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The statement is supported explicitly by references that state:

• "Nowadays, however, 'Britain and Ireland' is the more favored expression…"
• "…Britain and Ireland' is becoming preferred usage although there is a growing trend amounts some critics to refer to Britain and Ireland as 'the archipelago'."
• "The preferred description is "Britain and Ireland", which is more politically correct."

--RA (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

These are the points of view of the organisations quoted. Until they reflect a majority of current reliable sources they are no more than that. AJRG (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you the same person who's arguing with me above?! Lol. This is the point I'm making. There are other sources which say their choice of alternative term is "preferred" or "favoured". Who's decided that we should only mention this one? Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The weight of usage in current reliable sources decides. After British Isles, Britain and Ireland is a clear second. No other alternative comes close, though they may deserve a mention in the article on the controversy. AJRG (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Merely counting existing sources doesn't indicate a trend, which is what the references are indicating. Oddly enough, the fact that we're finding new sources probably does indicate a trend... --HighKing (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about that?

Britain and Ireland:

1. Is “more favoured” (Hazlett: The Reformation in Britain and Ireland: an introduction)
2. “Becoming preferred” (Davies and Sinfield: British Culture of the Postwar)
3. A “preferred description” (Morg: How to Do Everything Genealogy)
4. Is tenuously suggested as an alternative by the Guardian style guide

Atlantic Archipelago:

1. Was the original alternative term proposed by JA Pocock in 1975 (British history: A plea for a new subject) and still used (e.g. The discovery of islands: essays in British history)
2. Is favoured and has “merit” (Glenda Norquay: Across the margins: cultural identity and change in the Atlantic archipelago)
3. Has “taken root in terms of academic conferences and publishing” (Schwyzer and Mealor: Archipelagic identities)
4. Is “increasingly” used by historians (David Armitage: The British Atlantic World)
5. Is part of a “growing trend” (Davies and Sinfield: British Culture of the Postwar)
6. Is “more neutral” (Baker and Maley: British identities and English Renaissance literature)
7. “Found increasing favour” (Kumar: The making of English national identity)
8. Is “accurate” (if cumbersome) (Dawson: The politics of religion in the age of Mary, Queen of Scots)

I seem to have found double the number of references and they seem to be equally strident about trends and validity. Fancy that. This is why neutrality is more important than verifiability. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Both neutrality and verifiability are core policy.

	Google Scholar	Google Books	Google Web
"atlantic archipelago"	665	3,420	50,600
"britain and ireland" -"great britain"	22,900	91,000	5,490,000
"british isles"	180,000	918,000	4,900,000

Usual caveats apply, but reliable sources have yet to catch up with the web. AJRG (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia that's known as original research and would be unacceptable even if your search terms weren't fundamentally flawed. I appreciate you've only just come here, but please read through the archives to familiarise yourself with this debate. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Weighing support in reliable sources is fundamental to Wikipedia, not OR. From the references provided it is clear that some organisations prefer to use terms other than British Isles, and that Britain and Ireland is often used. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources use British Isles. AJRG (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Terms like increasingly and becomming preferred indicate a trend. The point I made earlier is that a simple count of terms, as you have done, don't necessarily disagree with those statements. --HighKing (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Even when referenced, as here, such terms are suspect because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can describe the past and, to some extent, the present but future trends are speculation and should be reported (where relevant) as the points of view of those promoting them. AJRG (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Weighing support is fundamental to Wikipedia, but it cannot be done by carrying out original research on Google. As I pointed out above, the overwhelming majority of the sources using "Britain and Ireland" are talking about birds and bees and ferns. They are not discussing this debate; they are not using the term an an equivalent alternative. The un-supported assumption that they are is speculative synthesis. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Birds and bees and ferns share one important characteristic - they ignore political boundaries. Books and research papers about them use the term Britain and Ireland in a purely geographic sense, without any political connotations. Google counts are widely used on Wikipedia, with caveats because they can be misleading, to get a rough understanding of the currency of different terms. See, for example, the current naming dispute about Kaiser Wilhelm's grandfather. AJRG (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Not the point at all: Are your birds and bees sources saying "Britain" and "Ireland" (as shorthand for two specific islands) or are they saying "Britain and Ireland" (as an inaccurate alternative geographical term for "British Isles")? Does Google answer that question? No. So you don't actually know what they mean because they don't say. You can, of course, assume lots of things, but that's synthesis. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

<> If I exclude all pages which include the word "macaroni" when searching for the term "British Isles" I get 5.6 million hits. [8] Wotapalaver (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to be wary, particularly with the Google Web results, but it provides a sense of scale. Google Books and Google Scholar give a better assessment of usage in reliable sources. Atlantic Archipelago is covered by the BBC here. AJRG (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

They give absolutely no useful assessment if the search terms are wrong. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you haven't offered a correction, I'll assume that you get a broadly similar ranking. An index search at a good library would produce another set of figures, equally suspect in detail but also providing a rough sense of scale. AJRG (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no way to correct it. Google or an index search is not a reliable source. It might be useful to us if it could indicate a trend, but the problem is that the terms you are conducting searches on have different meanings. Unless they say otherwise we can only assume that they mean "Britain" and "Ireland" when they say "Britain and Ireland". We cannot assume that they mean the "British Isles" (i.e. Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and all 6000 islands in the group) because they do not mention them or this controversy. The fact that only 3 sources do so is far more telling. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This controversy doesn't even register in most quarters, so expecting many references to it in published literature is over-optimistic. AJRG (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know, that's part of the point of this discussion. The controversy is assigned undue weight on Wikipedia and within that controversy (which we do have to mention as a minority perspective as per WP:LEAD) there is a further debate over which alternative is most popular. With so few valid sources available it is very difficult to assess weighting properly, but it is clear that there is a debate and this is not even mentioned. This is not neutral. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE absolutely doesn't apply to the use of the word "increasingly" or descriptions like "is becoming", since they are supported by verifiable and reputable references and are not contradicted by anything except OR. Conversely, phrases like that inserted by AJRG are classic weasel words. The new insertion "is for many" is hard core weasel. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's an opinion. A referenced opinion, to be sure, but just an opinion. Only some people share it, and the comment is made in that context. Most people still use British Isles, don't even know about the controversy, and possibly wouldn't care if they did. The words increasingly a preferred description only apply to a minority. So Wikipedia needs to use words that reflect the importance of the issue to those who care, but also give due weight to the indifference of the vast majority of reliable sources. AJRG (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE certainly applies. The assertion is contradicted by more sources than it is supported by: They're listed above. Try reading them Wotapalaver, putting the telescope to the blind eye just makes you look foolish. However, the use of weasel words to ensure the assertion is neutrally weighted indicates that there is a problem with that assertion, and, that it should be removed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a point, but it's more important to be helpful to the reader. There has to be a form of words that respects the quote from the New York Times given above: ... of the British Isles -- that is, if Ireland be considered a part of those Isles, an admission that no Irishman would make. whilst still recognising that the vast majority of English speakers hold a different opinion. AJRG (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD simply says significant controversies should be mentioned. This would be covered by the first sentence. The rest of the material could quite happily sit in the body of the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How would you reword it? AJRG (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Two options: (1) Keep the first and second sentences and mention a selection of alternative terms in the third sentence (as I did here [9]) to provide neutral and verified coverage. (2) Keep the first sentence. Move the second sentence to the "Alternative names and descriptions" section. Change the third sentence to read: "As a result alternative terms are used, although British Isles is still commonly employed." (New text in italics.) Support with appropriate sources and move specific alternative terms to the "Alternative names and descriptions" section and provide historiographical coverage. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) is too heavy for the lede. (2) would need to quote the New York Times from 1942 or an earlier reference to establish the timescale of the controversy. AJRG (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(2) Could mention the timescales, but using a quote from 1942 and stating that the controversy dates to 1942 would be synthesis. In any case, if we're keeping it light it does not need to be said in the intro - it's the kind of detail that belongs in the main body of the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting the controversy dates to 1942 - it's just an early reference. The Balfour Declaration of 1926 advised that King George V's title should be changed to reflect the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922, clear evidence of earlier sensitivity to terminology, and the London Declaration of 1949 renamed the 'British Commonwealth' to the 'Commonwealth of Nations', a change relevant to this controversy. There's no way this kind of detail can be accommodated in the lede, and I wasn't proposing that it should be. AJRG (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

<>There were references from Irish govt papers in the - IIRC - 20's which said that the term "British Isles" was unacceptable. I think the references were deleted a long time go, quelle surprise. Meantime, the weasel words in the lead are still unacceptable. "is for many" has to go. If we need to include that terms like "the Atlantic Archipelago" are also preferred then that's possible, but the referenced and visible fact that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming preferred cannot continue to have weasel words around it. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay... Well, let's see how that looks: I'll make the edit. NB, the sentence on the Irish government does not flow so I've moved it as per the discussions above. (Third sentence begins "As a result..." but alternative names have not been developed in response to government action as is implied.) Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made two changes to the last edit:

• I resotred the position of the Government of Ireland as it is noteworthy that a government would have a position on the issue and that their embassy in London would "monitor" use of the term. There doesn't seem to be much reason to remove it from the intro.
• I've flipped around "Atlantic Archipelago" and "Britain and Ireland" because the refs say that "Atlantic Archipelago" does not enjoy use outside of scholarly context, whereas no such rider is attached to the references for "Britain and Ireland".

--RA (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you didn't read my post above. Correct the sense of the paragraph: Alternative terms were not introduced "as a result" of some members of the Government of Ireland's beliefs (which is extraneous detail for the introduction anyway). Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This has got out of hand again. The present version gives undue weight to the views of a small but vociferous minority. There are about 600 million English speakers in the world, and only four and a half of them live in the Republic of Ireland. Even assuming that all 80 million Irish people worldwide share this point of view, it is still a minority viewpoint. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources still use British Isles, and the small minority that don't mostly use Britain and Ireland. Even in academia, Atlantic Archipelago is hardly used, because it's completely ambiguous - the Canary Islands, the Cape Verde islands, São Tomé and the Azores all qualify for the title. If partisan sources claim non-existent support for their points of view, we don't have to believe them. AJRG (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The coverage of the controversy assigns undue weight to a minority view point. Agreed. However, the coverage of alternative names within that controversy is as neutral as I can make it in the face of determined efforts to gloss over it. Your observations about the absurdity of various alternative terms is, unfortunately, irrelevant since the sources use them. The sources also pour scorn on one-another, but again, a certain group don't want that issue covered. Quelle surprise? Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I would make a distinction between the usage of terms in reliable sources (on the one hand) and the pontifications of the very few reliable sources that cover the controversy (on the other). A very little research demonstrates how divorced from reality they are. AJRG (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, your interpretation of the popularaity of "Atlantic Archepelago" is bogus and based on three references which only show it's favoured by those authors. I reverted your change and you have now reverted my change and therefore broken the 1RR rule. I'm not fiddling, I'm reverting for further discussion, so I'll revert again, and I suggest you don't re-revert but try to justify here how you come to your strange conclusion. Hrotovice (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I count 4 references, which is one more than supports the other alternative, and exactly the same argument applies to them. Note also that the wording quotes directly from the sources - my "interpretation" has nothing to do with what they say. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the relevant policies on verifiability and neutrality and next time you decide to chip do so before the edits are made - this discussion has been going on for a week. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The number of references might warrant a place in the body of the article, but the low number of reliable sources actually using the term suggests that it doesn't warrant a mention in the lede. AJRG (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite. I'd never heard of Atlantic Archipelago until I came to Wikipedia. It's minority usage at best so should not qualify as a term used in an article introduction. Hrotovice (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Since "Atlantic Archipelago" has more reliable sources referencing it (4) than "Britain and Ireland" (3) perhaps we should move both of them to the Alternative Names section. Why don't you try that line of argument with RA and Wotapalaver? This is a compromise. It balances the paragraph by placing (admittedly) verifiable but controversial assertions in context. By removing it your breaking both WP:NPOV and WP:VER. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Less than half a percent of reliable sources use Atlantic Archipelago - including it in the lede is clear POV. Perhaps 10 percent of reliable sources use Britain and Ireland, and more than 20 percent of newly published ones. Hard to see how WP:NPOV and WP:LEDE would allow its exclusion. AJRG (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You're using Google again? We just had this discussion. There are 3 RS using "Britain and Ireland". Not 10%. Not 3%. Three. I've quoted WP:NOR already, I'll do so again: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." Figures from Google do not directly support the case. You are assuming that using two words together in the title or content of a published work means the author is intentionally using an alternative term to "British Isles". This is synthesis and your use of Google illustrates exactly why we have well defined core policies like WP:NOR. Unless you can supply a significant number of directly related reliable references the material will go back in. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Weighing support in reliable sources is not OR. Britain and Ireland is a sideshow because the exact numbers don't matter - the National Geographic Atlas of the World is enough to support its inclusion in the lede. The Google figures for Atlantic Archipelago exaggerate its use for all of the reasons you give - making the true figure even less than half a percent and any suggestion of its inclusion pure POV. AJRG (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much of a weighting problem. It is only a brief sentence and doesn't (grossly) over state what the references support. So long as we stick to what is said in the references in question, it's fine. They say Atlantic Archipelago has taken root among a limited number of scholar/scholarly contexts but not among the wider public. So long as that comes out in the text and it is not put in such as way as to suggest the phrase is more widely used than the references say then there is no great problem IMHO. --RA (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It has so little support that it doesn't even warrant that. AJRG (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:AJRG, you are not "weighing support" you are conducting original research. I've been quite patient trying to explain to you why sources dealing with birds and bees are not directly relevant and do not "count" towards any sort of weighting argument; I'm not quite clear what part you don't understand.

RA - yes, we can and should stick to what the sources say, hence my insistence on the insertion of some sort of caveat to the current assertion which, although it quotes directly from certain sources, does not represent the full picture neutrally. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

@Wiki-Ed - World-famous in Killarney (because O'Flaherty said so) doesn't amount to an argument. AJRG (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia core policies disagree. Let's pretend we have a subject. There are 30 directly relevant reliable sources: 20 assert one thing, 4 assert something else, 3 assert something different, and the other three support a range of views. A third of the sources dispute the majority. That's significant enough to demand a mention. However, they don't all agree so we cannot say they offer a common alternative view. We cover the most well-supported alternatives and pass over the rest. Now, let's pretend that a new editor appears and says "Google says there are actually 23456789 sources which use these words so you must reflect this". However, the sources are not directly relevant to the subject or the debate. We don't know what the authors mean so we ignore those 23456789 sources and stick with the original 30 that we know are dealing with the subject and the debate. That is how Wikipedia works and why Google is not used for writing articles. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you were arguing this at British Isles naming dispute you might have a point. This article isn't about the detail of the controversy. AJRG (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiki-Ed @ 16:34 - that's a fair point about "as a result", but it is reason to clarify what it is "as a result" of not to remove a notable section. For example, what it is "as a result" of could be made explicit or the sentence about the Government of Ireland could be moved to the end of the paragraph. Why do you not think it is notable enough to put in the introduction that the Government of Ireland has a position on use of the term? --RA (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the sentence on the government of Ireland perspective as an obstacle to plain English; it's not necessary in the introduction given that we only need to mention the controversy (as per WP:LEAD), not go into any detail on who supports it etc. I've tried various attempts to edit the paragraph so that it reads correctly and would have sorted out those three words. However, I keep getting reverted and it still reads badly. Since you won't accept my edits I'm inviting you to make the change. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you start with The term British is controversial in relation to Ireland it will read better. AJRG (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It might read better but it's not true. LevenBoy (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree about that (I might point to the Balfour Declaration of 1926) but Wikipedia doesn't try to determine truth. the Republic of Ireland might be more acceptable, perhaps. AJRG (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that the mere word "British" is controversial in Ireland? LevenBoy (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not used by Irish government

Just to mention about the not used by the Irish government and sources for it. Since the old links that where buried back in the archives where linked to have been moved to a separate site. Search results on debates. I note though that many of the debates are unavailable. Separate to that I notice the irlgov.ie has removed many other references to the term that existed previously, though it's possible they've been moved to separate sites like the debates as they evolve their e-governance policies. Canterbury Tail talk 21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to see that the Irish Government, which "does not use the term", can be seen using the term as recently as February this year. Oops. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Plus to have an official stance against a term, you must indeed use the term thereby giving it validity. Otherwise if it is not valid just ignore it and not use it. Canterbury Tail talk 23:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, as often previously pointed out on the chat page, members of the Irish parliament have indeed used the term "British Isles", and quite a few have also often used it in a way that excludes Ireland. Of course the examples where the usage was "non standard" were disliked and attacked by various editors. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Article

Given that we seem to be making more progress than in years, and assuming we can keep the good will going, how about getting a review done and see if we can get the status of this article up? We can then create a special barnstar ..... --Snowded ^TALK 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit cynical/sceptical about our chances of succeeding, but happy to contribute. An independent review would be a good thing certainly. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Good article? This article is an abomination and an afront to everything that Wikipedia stands for. It is about as far from NPOV as you can get. The concept of verifiability is taken to extremes and as far as the naming controversy goes it is stuffed full of OR, so I would say "Bad article". LevenBoy (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As ever, the enlightened voice of reason and progress, the moderate language and willingness to work with others pervades your contribution LevenBoy, you are an example to us all. --Snowded ^TALK 07:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a very good ambition (and one at the back of my mind too) but I think it's premature for the time being. Let's have it as a target, maybe even set a date in the future to work towards, but I think a GA review right now would be a laughing stock. How about doing a 3rd party review? And from that setting dates/targets? --RA (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just stating it as it is. You must admit this article is hardly NPOV. Anyhow, RA's suggestion of a 3rd party review is a good one. Presumably, RA, you know how to initiate this? BTW, I see user HighKing is at it again, targetting articles containing British Isles. LevenBoy (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I love it when people who have previously deleted references complain that the article doesn't agree with their pre-existing, and apparently unchangeable, point of view. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review should do the trick. --RA (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As above, unless the editors on this page respect verifiability and references more than their own preconceptions, there's no chance of getting anywhere near good article status. With more weasel words being inserted and references being deleted, there's very little hope. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The name of the two sovereign states

This sentence is wrong: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland." It should read: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom and Ireland." Republic of Ireland is not the name of a sovereign state in the British Isles. The name of the state is Ireland. It can be described as Republic of Ireland, but this is merely descriptive, it is not the name of the state. Does anybody object to my correcting this? Qwerta369 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:IRE-IRL. Republic of Ireland is fine and more than appropriate in this context. --RA (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

IMO, this is a good example of where to use the correct name of "Ireland", piplinked naturally to the article on the state. It is the very first mention of the state, so we should use the correct name. This was previously discussed, and this was the stable version until April this year, when an anon IP edit warrior decided to change it. I've restored to using the correct names. --HighKing (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. When discussing the island in the same context, it's better to say "Republic of Ireland". The official name of the state is "Ireland". We all know that; but there is no need to depart from common sense or clarity in writing to beat that home. This is not the place for it. --RA (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for new lede

The current lede is poor. Long winded and political. Can I suggest the lede is drastically shortened so as to briefly describe the term. All of the rest can be moved to other paragraphs. I suggest the following for the new lede (with appropriate citations):

The British Isles are 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. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ireland. The British Isles also include two crown dependencies of the United Kingdom: the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands.

All the rest, the geology, history, etc ()including whether the strict definition of the Channel islands belonging to the archipelago, and the naming controversy, can all get airplay further in further sections within the article. --HighKing (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This would simplify things greatly so it would get my vote if - as per your suggested text - everything was migrated to relevant sections. However, I think you face an uphill struggle, particularly since we inserted all the new text to comply with WP:LEAD. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: may be worth putting to a vote? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The introduction should summarise the article. A single paragraph listing the islands/states contained in the archipelago does not suffice in doing that. --RA (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions as to how to summarize it further. What else needs to be in the lede? --HighKing (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina doesn't suffer from using a shorter lede. --HighKing (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And yes - *everything* should be migrated to a relevant section. --HighKing (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to test Pending Changes on this article

Currently this article is under a "don't revert a revert rule". What constitutes a "revert of a revert" is hard to know and when "consensus" exists about a "revert of a revert" is similarly hard to judge. Wikipedia:Pending changes is currently being tested across the wiki. I suggest we add this page to the trial and means to answering those questions and testing the system (regardless of our attitudes towards it).

Placing this page under the Pending Changes trial would have the effect of locking the public-facing version of the article to a consensus version of the article. We could continue to edit it and normally these edits would be auto-accepted and immediately become the public-facing version of the article. However, if disagreement arose over an edit, that edit could "unaccepted" via the History tab. Once a version was "unaccepted", the public-facing version of the page would be locked at the version immediately before the "unaccepted" version until someone explicitly accepted a later version. Then that would become the accepted version.

I think doing this would take some pressure off the editing process since it would allow us to edit the article liberally with less immediate pressure about what version was "live". And for the duration of the trial we could drop the "don't revert a revert rule" (and associated edit notice).

The current trial of Pending Changes is only for two months. This page (for all the troubles that it gives to us) could give valuable insight into the usefulness or otherwise of Pending Changes beyond areas of vandalism to BLP to areas, like this article, where N/POV is highly fought over.

What say ye? --RA (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How does the bit "until someone explicitly accepted a later version" work? Someone who? We have a number of single-purpose accounts here who would find this feature quite easy and convenient. At the moment there is the vague threat of a block being given to them if they start getting trigger-happy on the revert button. Does this actually help with that issue? (I like the idea in principle, but I'm just not sure it will change things.) Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

SPAs, IPs etc. couldn't approve/unapprove a version. Only editors in the "Reviewer" users group can explicitly approve/unapprove a version. During the trial, membership of the "Reviewer" group is awarded liberally to established editors (just ask for it).

Normally edits would be "auto-approved" as follows:

• Level 1: Edits by "auto-approved" (>4 days and >100 edits) editors are automatically approved, all others pend approval by a "Reviewer".
• Level 2: Edits by a "Reviewers" are automatically approved, all others pend approval by a "Reviewer".

(The standard during the trial seems to be Level 1.)

A version can be "unapproved" as follows:

• Members of the "Reviewer" group can unapprove a version of the article.

Once a version has been unapproved (or if there are version pending approval):

• No edits are "auto-approved" until a member of the "Reviwer" group explicitly approves a version (which can be "unapproved" again by another member of the Reviewer group).

At any given time, the public-facing version of the article is the last "approved" version. Meanwhile, we can continue to work on the "unapproved" version with a mind to getting a consensus on that.

It does however shift edit warring onto the theatre of approving/unapproving version. I suggest we shirt the "don't revert a revert" rule onto something like "don't approve an unapproval", and "one approval per 24hrs" (which applies to the entire article and not just individual editors).

I don't think we have anything to lose by trialling it. --RA (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree - good idea (It's so crazy it just might work). The biggest benefit being that the article itself is stable. --HighKing (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you would say that wouldn't you, being a reviewer yourself. I totally reject this idea, it being just an excuse to limit the influence of the "so-called" SPAs and other editors who some here find an annoyance because they can't get their way. Pending changes is aimed at vandalism not at content disputes, where its introduction, especially on an article such as this, would create a two-tier editing community. LevenBoy (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the benefits of having a stable article outweighs any whining. And all editors would freely contribute as before, the only difference being that a consensus would be necessary to change the stable article. BTW, what exactly is your relationship with Mister Flash and MidnightBlueMan? --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)