Talk:Ireland

Pronunciation of Ireland

The local pronunciation is more widely used than the general one, and is also not exclusive to Ireland. Therefore, I do not think it should be listed as a local pronunciation, it should be listed as the correct one. The other pronunciation is only used by Americans and Canadians...

Signed fiveby5. 14:42 9 February 2010

Mistake in mixing up Famines

The text under "HISTORY" describes the 1740 Famine as due to Potato Blight, which I think is incorrect, being instead due to freakish climate conditions causing crop failure. Quote ....Abnormal weather conditions, teamed with the arrival of a deadly potato mould from North America, caused the failure of the ubiquitous potato crop. This resulted in the famine in 1740. An estimated 250,000[38] people (about one in eight of the population) died from the ensuing pestilence and disease. The Irish government halted export of corn and kept the army in quarters but little more.[38][39 ....Unquote. (Elsewhere, in the link to The Great Famine, there is reference to the absence of blight until much later Quote ..."How and when the blight Phytophthora infestans arrived in Europe is still uncertain; according to P.M.A Bourke, however, it almost certainly was not present prior to 1842, and probably arrived in 1844." .... Unquote.

The text under "HISTORY" goes on to describe the later 1840's Great Famine but does not refer to the cause although there is a link to a section which does describe the potato famine being due to blight. For readers not using the link, I think it is necessary to include the reason for the later famine on the same page.

Rocdoc69 (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I believe that I have repaired it but consequently there is now no reference to potato blight anywhere. This needs to be repaired. --Red King (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition of British Isles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as no consensus for addition. Consistency across related articles (e.g. Isle of Man, Great Britain, etc) is useful but not mandatory. This island (Ireland) is a major component of the controversy surrounding the term "British Isles" (and I'd personally like to see some mention of the dispute in this article), but that does not necessarily have to be in the infobox. TFOWR 09:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Proposals have been put forward here to add various references to British Isles to this and other related articles.--Snowded ^TALK 13:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments on one of the proposals

The proposal in question currently being debated is to insert British Isles as the archipelago in the infobox. Comments on this proposal from other editors are invited.

• Support This would bring this articles infobox in line with Great Britain and the overwhelming majority of islands that are part of the many archipelagos which state them in their infobox. It is also possible the infobox could include a note to explain it, depending how people feel. There is also a question of if this should be mentioned somewhere in the text, including a mention of the controversy. We also have a problem that the BI template on this page incorrectly pipelinks Great Britain and Ireland to the British Isles article, it should just say British Isles as that is the template and the area it is about. But the main issue at the moment is the infobox. Obviously BI does not belong in the country infobox of Republic of Ireland, but this is an island infobox and should follow standard practice of other islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: The term "British Isles" is highly contentious, as evidenced by the lead and "Etymology" section of the British Isles article, the lengthy British Isles naming dispute article, the equally lengthy Terminology of the British Isles article, the 37 (thirty-seven) British Isles talk page archives, the British Isles Terminology task force and its various offshoots which have failed to reach any sort of consensus after two years, the repeated warnings on incivility and personal remarks at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples etc. etc. In these circumstances it would not be a useful addition to the infobox or to any other part of the article. Scolaire (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Simply put the island of Ireland is part of the group of islands called the British Isles, and to fail to say so because it is to some "highly contentious" is pure POV pushing, we are here to create an encyclopaedia and a look at Wikipedia:Five pillars would suggest that by refusing to mention goes against the first two fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. Codf1977 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• To say "Simply put the island of Ireland is part of the group of islands called the British Isles" goes against the first two 'pillars'. It is not simple at all, as I have shown above and as everybody in this discussion already knows. To add it to the infobox in order to score in an argument at BITASK could be called soap-boxing, and it adds a point of view which is demonstrably not neutral. Scolaire (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How is that then ? please show how this is demonstrably not neutral as I fail to see that ? What part of the island of Ireland being part of the British Isles is not the case ? Codf1977 (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two points of view on the term "British Isles". Adding the term to the box, or saying "simply put..." is expressing one of those points of view only. Scolaire (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there? It is fact that Ireland is part of the British Isles. People have different points of view on if they like the term or not, but it is an acceptable term and we should not avoid saying something because a few people do not like it. This article must inform the reader its part of the BI. Failing to mention it at all seems to suggest some neutrality issues with this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether this is in the information box is optional and arguments have been advanced as to why it should not be there, but can be covered elsewhere. Please stop assuming that opposition to inclusion in the information box represents a POV denial of a geographical fact - it doesn't. --Snowded ^TALK 20:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes mentioning it in the article will address potential neutrality issues, but i still see no reason why we should not mention this fact in the infobox too.BritishWatcher (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the inclusion of the archipelago label in the information box is not mandatory and it is not used in other cases where there are complicated political issues (for example the Malay archipelago). It is generally used for groups of islands within a single country of which they are many. BW's use of "overwhelmingly" is thus misleading as to precedent. Reference to the archipelago in the geography section where the full context can be explained is more than enough to satisfy Wikipedia policy. Personally I think it should also be removed from the information box of the Great Britain article, although again it should be referenced in the geography section--Snowded ^TALK 22:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support on condition that it's in the Great Britain article. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support As said, Ireland is part of the British Isles, and that is the smallest scale common archipelago there. The Malay Archipelago argument is not a good example, as it is a huge one made up of smaller ones, which are the ones used in those infoboxes. The infobox should give a short overview of an island, and the archipelago it is in is part of that. Having it in the geography section is a good idea too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There are several small archipelagos in the British Isles, and if size is a factor then most in the world are too small to compare! --Snowded ^TALK 05:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There are, but Ireland is not part of them. It's not size, but scale. The shetlands represent a group of islands that form an archipelago. This is part of the Greater Archipelago of the British Isles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You will be counting the angels on the heads of pins next  :-) --Snowded ^TALK 07:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, last time I counted there were 42, but that's besides the point! All malay archipelago islands have some archipelago included in their article (and infobox). So far I've seen no alternatives to British Isles (and the only ones I can think of are a couple of weird synonyms). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Scolarie and Snowded. No need to create conflicts with terminology that is controversial, that could give the false idea of a particular POV being favored. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: Optional field that really does nothing to improve the article and as has been pointed out about is normally avoided in areas where there is a complex political situation. Bjmullan (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide other complex situations where it is avoided? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Malay Archipelago (see above) --Snowded ^TALK 19:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a different situation. Smaller archipelago's exist which are the ones listed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How does informing the reader the island is part of an archipelago not improve the article? At the very least it certainly has to be contained in the text somewhere, otherwise there may be potential neutrality concerns about this article. We can not simply avoid stating fact because some do not like it or it is controversial. If it is explained in the text, where is the harm in it being correctly listed in the Infobox like the overwhelming majority of island infoboxes do. We can always include a note with it there. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The repeated use of the phrase "overwhelming majority" does not help the discussion. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Every article is unique, and what it says is decided by consensus among the editors on that article, not by other articles, be they the majority or the minority, or however whelming they are. Scolaire (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am simply stating that on many articles on islands with infoboxes that are part of an archipelago state this in their infobox. That has nothing to do with if Wikipedia is a democracy or not, it is simply highlighting a pattern which we should follow. We should not censor this article because some people do not like the term British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And we should not refer to a consensus against a change as "censorship". Scolaire (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Failure to mention this in the infobox is one thing, but yes i consider it censorship if the article itself does not at least mention it. There is a potential neutrality issue here. Imagine if all the Eurosceptics in Britain (there are tons) blocked in the inclusion of the fact Britain is in Europe on the UK article. It would be totally unacceptable. I see this as no different. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I see it as no different either. If there was a failure of consensus on the UK article to mention the fact that Britain is in Europe, then that would be a failure of consensus, and not censorship. An article's content is decided by consensus; if Jimmy Wales or some admin overturned consensus, that would be censorship. But that's not going to happen on the UK article, is it? Whereas this current proposal is having difficulty in getting a consensus, for reasons that you disagree with, but valid reasons nonetheless.

In summary, all I'm saying is that moderate speech is more likely to get you a hearing than hyperbole. Scolaire (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Failure to mention anything about it draws into question the neutrality issue. We are avoiding stating fact because some people do not like the term or are offended by it. That is problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - as per Scolaire Fmph (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per Scolaire, Snowded and Bjmullan. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this proposal sure took hold, eh? GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Stalled due to a vote instead of a debate. Pity really. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a long debate on the project page which was linked. No need to go through it all again. --Snowded ^TALK 14:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, root-canals can be painful. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Especially when it is done in a way that is obviously going to be more painful or problematic. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tax

Ireland has a pretty substantial involvement in Tax (as in - Haven) - I'm surprised the word "Tax" appears exactly nowhere in here - someone should include it.

16:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.103.88 (talk)

This article is on the island of Ireland, there for the tax rates between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are radically different and do not need mentioning in this article. Im sure it is covered in the Republic of Ireland article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"United Kingdom"

Should this article really have the Union Flag and suggest that Ireland is part of the United Kingdom in the right hand info box?--JamesHirst (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this article is on the island of Ireland (not the Republic of Ireland) and Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom then yes. Codf1977 (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much my point, the whole island of Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom as far as I know. JamesHirst (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats why it is listed under Ireland and it's flag or are you saying that both should be removed ? Codf1977 (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A better solution would be to have the Irish flag as is, but replace the UK flag with the flag of Northern Ireland. The article is about the island, which consists of two different countries.--Dmol (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland does not have a flag, so it is the Butcher's Apron or nothing I am afraid. O Fenian (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Ulster Banner is commonly used as the Northern Ireland flag.

Which is a historic flag, now unofficial. O Fenian (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The so-called "Butcher's Apron" is an uncalled for highly provocative phrase O Fenian. Might i remind you about civility on wikipedia? The Ulster Banner has no official status in Northern Ireland outside the fields of sports, the loyal orders, and a wheen of other things. The Union Flag is the de facto flag of Northern Ireland.

JamesHirst might i suggest that your viewing this issue from one side? You make mention that the use of the Union Flag suggests that Ireland is part of the UK, but on that arguement doesn't the tricolour then also suggest that the entire island is part of the Republic? There is no case for changing the flags, however maybe the field "Country" could be changed to "Countries" seeing as the island is split between two. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Failure of this article to mention the British Isles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved, consensus reached and the following was added to the geography section :
"Ireland and Great Britain, together with nearby islands, are known collectively as the British Isles, although the name is contentious in relation to Ireland and other terms are also in use."
Codf1977 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

---

The failure of this article to mention what every school child knows, namely the island of Ireland is part of an archipelago called the British Isles for reasons related to the fact that a very small number of people dislike the name of the archipelago for political and historical reasons is pushing that view contra to WP's WP:NPOV policy. Codf1977 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I have cross posted to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard here

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As I howled before, if ya can get British Isles mentioned at Great Britain? then no probs with it here. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry don't follow. Codf1977 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposals to insert it in the information box and the lede were rejected for a variety of reasons. None of them were NPOV ones. Maybe it was a mistake on your part (BW) to propose multiple insertions over several articles. That appeared provocative whatever the intent. A less ambitious proposal to make a minor insert on the geography section might have got more support. --Snowded ^TALK 17:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It was not me that made all these proposals at the same time and i believe inclusion on these articles would have met the same hostility anyway. Of course it was yourself that turned one debate into a vote, which meant instead of a debate taking place it was simply people stating their obvious positions with a vote and no clear consensus coming out of it. Until this article states Ireland is in the British Isles, there are clear NPOV issues. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Leaving behind previous discussions and editor actions, is this latest proposal to add it into the geography section? eg. "Ireland is an island in the British Isles, and archipelago..." Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing people have voted about above is to block its inclusion in the infobox. So it needs to be included in the geography section at the very least, although as this article is on the island, the location of the island is notable for the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed at Great Britain, Isle of Mann & Channel islands, too? GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to keep it in one venue for now. Let's not dwell on other things BW, focus on the one topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Atleast have it at the other major island article, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Who cares?! Aren't you guys sick of this dispute? It's so boring ... go write some articles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV tag has some truth to it, though. This is a geographical article. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Codf1977 just because the consensus goes against your pov doesn't make the neutrality of this article a problem. Perhaps we should go around tagging ALL articles that have BI says that they are in dispute?

In just the same way that just because there is a consensus between involved editors to exclude a major fact of geography does not mean that it meets WP:NPOV, there has been a conserted effort to make sure the phrase British Isles does not appear on here for political and historical reasons - that is a clear breach of WP:NPOV. Secondly the discussion was closed as no consensus. Codf1977 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And the only subject of the debate above was the infobox. It was nothing to do with if the text in the article, which we now need to address. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is yet another conquest by BW who in my opinion seeks only to make provocative British related edits to Irish articles, no doubt his next will be to do with Dublin. This article has been recognised for its good quality, which shows that this article is neutral. Great Britain doesn't even have that accolade. To leave out a contentious issue is a neutral solution. And this is not the POV of just one editor.--NorthernCounties (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue being contentious should be irrelevant (even I felt the way you do now, mere weeks ago). GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was reached on earlier proposals relating to the information box and the lede. At the moment no new proposal has been introduced, discussed or resolved so an NPOV tag is really silly. Its far from clear that it is a "major fact" of geography or particularly notable. The geography section (which is the only appropriate place) is largely about weather and geology so if there is a notable aspect of that (or some other feature) which justifies the use then lets see a proposal and see how it stacks up. In the meantime can be please have less of the virulent accusations of POV before discussion has even started. --Snowded ^TALK 18:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, this is a proposal to add British Isles to the geographic section. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Concrete proposal

In my opinion an article about an island which is part of an archipelago needs to make that fact clear. (Except if there is a single island which dominates the archipelago by far because it is several times bigger than the others together. But this obviously doesn't apply here.) On the other hand, since it is more common to think of Ireland and Great Britain as two separate islands close to each other in a certain area of Europe, I think it's defensible no to put the information in the lead. To (hopefully!) get a more constructive discussion started, I propose the following insertion right at the start of Ireland#Geography:

"Together with Great Britain and the surrounding much smaller islands, Ireland is part of an archipelago that has traditionally been known under the collective term British Isles."

I think this represents a good compromise between giving the full information, indicating that there is a dispute, making sure not to overstate the dispute, and encyclopedic brevity. How do people feel about this? Hans Adler 18:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hans, many thanks for a sensible proposal. The rest of you - edit warring over a damn tag? Really? I don't feel comfortable fully protecting the page, due to my closure of the discussion above but I am more than happy to request protection. And I am equally happy to block editors for edit warring. This issue has been raised at WP:NPOVN, there really is no need to jump the gun here. Wait: there is no hurry. TFOWR 18:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this proposal, i believe there is justification for the archipelago to be mentioned in the introduction itself, this is a very notable fact, especially as we are not allowed to include it in the infobox (something the vast majority of island infoboxes do). If we are to simply place this in the geography section, it should not be watered down with words "traditionally known under the collective term". It is fact. Ireland is part of the British Isles. I dont mind a second sentence in the geography section explaining this is controversial, but we should state it as fact that Ireland is part of the British Isles, in the way we state it is part of Europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this is rather a good proposal, and even more so due to it coming from an editor which is obviously detached from the issue. However it may require a vote to whether we change the article or not. If that vote results in a majority in favour of change, then this phrasing may be the most apt. --NorthernCounties (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I happy that you haven't suggested pipelinking the term. The best way, is the direct way. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the geography section of this article, i think it would seem slightly out of place unless we added a whole paragraph of detail about Irelands geographical place in the world. The geography section appears to strictly focus on internal geography at present. Whilst it is certainly going to be harder to get agreement on, its most suitable position would be in the introduction which talks about Irelands place in Europe, and the fact its "is surrounded by hundreds of islands and islets" . It is that sentence where British Isles should be mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've no objections. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I am only here in an attempt to moderate this situation, I obviously don't have any objections to this, with the caveat that I haven't read the earlier discussions about (non-)inclusion in the lead/infobox. However, putting the information only in the lead would be unacceptable lead doctoring. Articles whose lead gives information not in the body regularly fail FA for this reason. Therefore it needs to go somewhere in the body first. Feel free to find a section better than "Geography" if you can find one. Hans Adler 19:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

At the moment that is already the case though, some of the detail about its location do not actually appear elsewhere except the introduction. If that is a problem then a full paragraph in the geography section mentioning that stuff and clearly stating the island of Ireland is located in the British Isles along with detail about it being considered controversial by some would be good. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been (silently) following the recent discussions, and for what it's worth, I think the proposal above is probably as good as it gets. It would bring the article more in line with, for example, Haiti and Papua New Guinea. I agree with Hans that the information needs to be in both the geography section and in the lead. Gabhala (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A clarification: I didn't say it needs to be in the lead. In fact, I am agnostic about that. In the lead it may be advisable to omit the link to British Isles altogether and thereby avoid the need to hint at the naming dispute (which is certainly not notable enough for the lead). We already have this: "To the east of Ireland is Great Britain, separated from it by the Irish Sea." Incidentally, this provides additional information that should go into the Geography section (or a new Topography [sub]section?), along with mentioning northwest Europe and the Atlantic Ocean. Hans Adler 19:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Hans - I misread your post. I have no strong feelings either way on the use or non-use of the term British Isles, but I do feel that the island of Ireland being part of an archipelago is significant geographical information, and needs to be in the article. Gabhala (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this fact already implicit in the existence of a neighbour island? I guess the fact that this situation technically falls under the definition of an archipelago is not a particularly notable fact about Ireland, so I think we can omit the term itself. Hans Adler 20:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hans, what about if the mention of it in the introduction was pipelinked so (British Isles) does not actually appear in the text (like just for example.. "Ireland is part of a group of islands in north west Europe"), and then in the geography section its mentioned properly including with a mention of the controversy? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that the controversy about the term British Isles should get any weight at all in the article about Ireland. I am sure most reliable sources don't do this (probably with the exception of books about Ireland), so it seems better to fudge around the problem to the maximum extent possible. Otherwise what you propose sounds perfectly reasonable and uncontroversial to me. But I still think it's better practice to fix the body first, and then perhaps adjust it once more if that becomes necessary for consensus-building. Hans Adler 20:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be prepared to support the piping in the intro and saying "Traditionally been known under the collective term British Isles." in the geography section if we are not going to mention the controversy itself in this article. If there is a need to mention the controversy then it should leave out the "traditionally been known", as its still known and mentioning the controversy means there is no reason to water down the sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I oppose pipelinking, as it's worst then exclusion. Enough with the sensativities stuff, either include or don't. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am repeating myself, but I think we should really defer discussion of the lead until we have had success with the body. Let's reach for the low-hanging fruit first. Hans Adler 21:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That's cool, but no pipelinking of BI. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Pipelinking it once if it is mentioned properly within the geography section is far better than exclusion from the introduction completely, something that is notable information on the location of the island, which should be mentioned along with Europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't accept pipelinking. But of course, I'm just one voice. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand opposition to piping as Britain and Ireland, but you are opposed to "A group of islands in North west europe" or An archipelago in North West Europe. if its mentioned properly elsewhere in the text. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, as it gives in to the it offends people argument. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I see you understand completely why and how I came up with my formulation, and I am happy you can live with it. I just caught myself at trying out several formulations for the lead, but I am not sure discussing that is a good idea at this stage. Let's see if we can all agree about the body first. I am not sure how many Irish voices there have been in this discussion recently. Hans Adler 21:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Splitting the discussion sometimes does not always help resolve something, as it means once and agreement is reached we have to start all over again on the issue of the introduction, once a change has been made to one section it is then more difficult to get a second change to another section, a package compromise to avoid mentioning BI in the intro (using a pipelink) and then mentioning it in the geography section with "traditionally known as" seemed a reasonable idea and something agreed to along those lines should all be implemented at once, rather than partially resolving it. But i do agree we need to see some more opinions. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec with two comments above) Since we should really incorporate all the topographical information we have, especially what already appears in the lead, I have extended my proposal. I think it can now live as a separate paragraph.

"Ireland is an island in the extreme north-west of Europe, in the northern Atlantic Ocean. It is separated from its eastern neighbour Great Britain by the Irish Sea and the North Channel, which has a width of 23 kilometres (14 mi)[1] at its narrowest point. The part of the Atlantic Ocean south of Ireland and west of Brittany and southern Great Britain is known as the Celtic Sea. Together with the surrounding much smaller islands and islets, Ireland and Great Britain form an archipelago that has traditionally been known under the collective term British Isles."

Hans Adler 20:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

At the moment the geography section is weak, if it was expanded slightly then I think think there is a case to include working on the archipelago in that section, assuming there are more common geographical features other than it just being one of a set of islands. I think the phrase above could well belong in the lede of the specific geography article but its really too minor a feature to merit inclusion in the lede of this one. --Snowded ^TALK 21:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still to be convinced that mentioning BI anywhere in the article is notable. Ireland is an island located in Northwest Europe does me. The bit above is just missing Northern Hemisphere, Earth, Milky Way, The Universe to get the full postal address so that some aliens can find it :-) Bjmullan (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please help me, I am having language difficulties: By "X does me" (an idiom I don't understand), do you mean X is fine and all the rest isn't needed, or do you mean X alone is so ridiculous that you don't even have to look at the rest? I am not sure if you are aware that I am proposing this text for the Geography section, not for the lead. Hans Adler 22:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It means good enough! --Snowded ^TALK 05:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Geography section could use expansion, no doubt about that. I like the new expanded prose from Hans, it would make the start of a good paragraph. It also includes all lead information, which is a necessity. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Whilst i think BI belongs in the introduction of this article (especially as its being left out of the infobox), i would go along with a paragraph like the example by Hans Adler in the geography section here and in the introduction of the Geography of Ireland article and leave it at that. At least then it will be mentioned in both articles it needs to be in. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Its a minor fact so its nothing to do with the lede, to make it notable it needs to have some more context (for example the fauna/flora issue) that makes it relevant. --Snowded ^TALK 05:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Snowded, it appears BritishWatcher is prepared to go along with you. Maybe we should stick one of those nice "resolved" icons on the discussion and move ahead with constructive editing. Scolaire (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Christmas and Easter all rolled into one - but yes it does --Snowded ^TALK 08:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So far everybody but Bjmullan seems to agree, and before adding the new paragraph to the Geography section I would like to understand how serious that opposition is. Please keep in mind that some of our readers are blind, and some of our readers are not from Europe. For comparison, you might want to look at Taiwan. A native of that island might think that "Taiwan is a an island in East Asia" would be perfectly sufficient. But this is what the first lead sentence says about Taiwan's topography:

"Taiwan [...] is an island situated in East Asia in the Western Pacific Ocean and located off the southeastern coast of mainland China."

The first two sentences of the Geography section go into even more detail:

"The island of Taiwan lies some 180 kilometers off the southeastern coast of China, across the Taiwan Strait [...]. The East China Sea lies to the north, the Philippine Sea to the east, the Luzon Strait directly to the south and the South China Sea to the southwest."

I think it is really appropriate to mention all significant "neighbours" of a geographic entity in this way, at the very least in the Geography section. Do we have a consensus to add my proposed paragraph to that section? Hans Adler 12:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's always a good idea to give detail about geographic location in the geography section of an island. It's hard to argue that it won't enhance the article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Has an agreement been reached? GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It does appear so, but let's not jump the gun. So far only Bjmullan has disagreed (as far as I can tell), so let's wait till we get another opinion from them? (Assuming they reply in an appropriate time ;) ) Also, a bit more time for other editors to perhaps voice other arguments. Another day or two? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I jumped in from the neutrality noticeboard. Hans' proposal for the Geography section appears very sensible to me. According to the British Isles article, at least encyclopedia britannica includes Ireland in the BIs. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there ever was a question whether Ireland is included in the term. The problem is that the connotations of "British" have shifted to the point that what was once an unremarkable description has become a potentially offensive term with no satisfactory synonym. Hans Adler 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It offends people, is never a good reason to exclude the term. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of descriptive words that I would like to use in relation to your behaviour in Britain/Ireland-related discussions (which I have been observing for a while), but even though there are no non-offensive synonyms I am not allowed to use these words here. That's exactly as it should be. Hans Adler 19:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My preceived behaviour here, is irrelevant. If one wishes to express disappointment, my talkpage is availible. No criticism will be turned away. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As there seemed to be no opposition, I have finally inserted the paragraph I proposed above as the new first paragraph of Ireland#Geography. Now that the archipelago is mentioned in the body, it makes more sense to also mention it in the lead. Whether it should be done, and how, is another question that may not be easy to agree about. I suggest postponing this discussion for another day or two until we can be sure that the Geography section is stable. Hans Adler 23:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in creating the paragraph and trying to resolve this. Whilst it is not for us to decide here, i think inclusion in the lead of the Geography of Ireland article will be enough now its in the summary of the geography section here it is certainly justified for there. I still believe its justified to be included in the lead of this article, but it will be far more difficult to get support for that so im prepared to accept the status quo. Atleast it is mentioned now which was the main problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the term "extreme" from the newly added paragraph. If Ireland is in the extreme north-west of Europe then someone must of sunk Iceland... ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 23:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get a more lasting consensus

It would really help if all editors who see something like Ireland#Concrete proposal on their watchlists could respond clearly when they don't agree with an emerging consensus. There were some unambiguous improvements to the new paragraph, but after an undiscussed complete change of the most delicate part by an editor who did not comment in the above subsection, I have removed it again to prevent instability of this high-profile article. Hans Adler 09:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont support the alterations that were made. Mentioning "political overtones" and "Britain and Ireland being the preferred term gives undue weight to the controversy. Basically there was just"known as the British Isles" and then the rest of the sentence was to rubbish it. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't get tetchy Hans, there was agreement on use in the geography section and the lede of the geography article, but there was not for your precise wording. I think that is self evident. I liked RA's version so suggest we discuss from there. Happy for you to revert it BW, status quo is no mention --Snowded ^TALK 10:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Snowded, content, not contributors. Hans is working very hard here, in an area that we have no right to expect him to work in. TFOWR 10:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If we are to include the baggage. we should not simply say "Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term. I do not accept that is accurate, as ive said before on the British Isles talk page. People often may use Britain and Ireland instead of mentioning the archipelago known as the British Isles. But i do not accept that "Britain and Ireland" is an archipelago in north west europe. Which is what the proposed wording implies like the article incorrectly implies. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What you accept or don't does not stand up against the reference RA used, but you could always suggest a variation --Snowded ^TALK 10:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Must we delve into the depths of the terminology dispute here? Why not just have a sentence saying "...the name British Isles is sometimes disputed" Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support something like "is traditionally known as the British Isles although the name is sometimes disputed. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to "delve in". It is not the pace. (Though one sentence is hardly "delving in".) However, in the context of Ireland, if we are going to give the archipelago a name then we should be neutral and give the breadth of names common in Ireland. --RA (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In the context of Ireland we should mention that there is a dispute. "is traditionally known as the British Isles although the name is sometimes disputed". Seems a reasonable sentence which mentions the fact its part of an archipelago and the fact the name is disputed.. thats neutral, especially as we water it down by saying "traditionally". We do not need to go into details about alternative terms here. Which sources specifically say that Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in North West Europe? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Straw man. The text I posted did not say that, "Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in North West Europe".

Let's be careful to stick to what the sources say. What the sources support is that, "This archipelago is known as the British Isles however, owing to perceived political overtones of the word British, Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term." No more. No less. --RA (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying it is becoming a preferred term implies it is the preferred term for the archipelago, which simply is not true. GB+I or B+I may be used often but it is instead of talking about the archipelago, not talking about it with the name Britain and Ireland. Which is why "Britain and Ireland is a archipelago in north west europe" does not work. All we need to do on this page is say Ireland is part of an archipelago known as the British isles, and add although the name is sometimes disputed, linking to the naming dispute article. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I will ask an experienced admin to give their opinion whether genuine miscommunication is possible or whether this is an obvious case of static warfare, as it appears to me. Hans Adler 11:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Static Warfare? What are you talking about? If you read the discussion you will see agreement to a principle, concern to allow some time for other editors to get involved. You jumped the gun on assuming your wording was agreed, it wasn't, that happens all the time. Making accusations really does not help on these pages. --Snowded ^TALK 11:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe you are serious. I have asked an admin to look at the discussion. He is very experienced with national conflicts and is a professional linguist in real life. I will defer to his opinion, if he has the time. Hans Adler 11:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Although the British Isles inclusion issue as a whole may contain forms of static warfare, I agree with Snowded that this conversation had not yet moved into that. HighKing has voiced his opinion, I think we now need a new proposal addressing concerns, debate that afresh. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hans, I didn't see the discussion and was just working on text. However, everyone needs to appreciate that this is a wiki and that while it is all good and well making "concrete proposals", no text is ever set in stone.

BW, the offending sentence was fully referenced. I've restored most rest of the paragraph minus the troublesome sentence for the time being and linked "an archipelago". --RA (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Linking archipelago to British Isles is totally unacceptable - the only thing archipelago should EVER be linked to is it's self, the mostlikly click is by someone not knowing what a archipelago is and wanting more information on that. Codf1977 (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't seen the proposal, that's fine. You are not obliged to agree to a consensus you were not part of. But Snowded's claim that the precise wording was not part of the consensus, to the extent that "known as the British Isles however, owing to perceived political overtones of the word British, Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term" is covered by the consensus for "archipelago that has traditionally been known under the collective term British Isles" is a bold one that should not be tolerated. Hans Adler 11:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Codf1977 (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm very clear what I agreed to which is the inclusion of a reference to the archipelago in the geography section and some wording along the lines you suggested in the article on the Geography of Ireland. I don't see a clear consensus for that wording which was originally drafted on the assumption it would be in the lede (something that was rejected). Its also pretty clear that at least one other editor said leave it a couple of days to let other people join in. I have no idea where you get the idea that I suggested RAs rewording was consensus, I said I liked it. So as far as I am concerned by claim that the exact wording was not consensus is valid, your accusation that I claimed "becoming the preferred term" is a false accusation not supported by the text. I'm happy to excuse the misinterpretation on the basis that English is not your first language, but I really suggest you calm down a bit. --Snowded ^TALK 11:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Chill, relax and be tollerant.

The main substance of why I reverted was to restore the stuff about Ireland being and island and describe the seas and surround it. That is hardly controversial stuff? I pipe linked archipelago only to keep a link to British Isles in there if there is some problem that needs to be discussed. --RA (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of lost, but what's new you say! It would be good if someone could layout exactly what line/phase/sentences we are discussing and where it would go. The one thing I am sure of is the I do not think BW's term of "traditionally know as BI" is appropriate. The question is traditionally where? Not in Ireland that is for sure. Bjmullan (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you missed what the discussion was about. It would have been beneficial if you had made that comment three days ago. Hans Adler 12:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So what is the archipelago traditionally known as in Ireland ? Codf1977 (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And some sources stating what the common alternative name of the archipelago is in Ireland would be helpful. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) RA, I fully agree with those of your changes that were unrelated to the last sentence, and I don't expect anyone to disagree with them (at least not along the usual lines). I also agree with restoring the paragraph temporarily without the last sentence (and am going to do that). This should focus attention on that last sentence and hopefully will make it clear to everybody that we are discussing precise formulations. Hans Adler 12:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Sometimes", "always", "enrages the Irish" etc etc. It matters not (to me) how you mold the sentence/paragraph around British Isles. What matters, is that you don't pipelink the term, itself. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

When I created my original proposal I took the following constraints into account:

• Some editors want to avoid using the term "British Isles". Mentioning it with some qualification may be acceptable.
• Some editors want to use the term "British Isles". Mentioning may be acceptable as a compromise.
• Some editors want to link to British Isles.
• Some editors insist that British Isles not appear hidden in a pipelink.
• Some editors want to avoid undue weight of discussions about the term "British Isles" in this tangentially related article.

Satisfying all these concerns is hard, but perhaps not impossible. Modifying my previous proposal to take into account RA's stylistic changes and Bjmullan's objection (taken at face value, so it may not go to the core of the objection) I am repeating my proposal as inspiration: Hans Adler 12:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Voting already? Does anyone have any further points to add to the conversation? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've nothing more to add, as is apparent by my previous comments & support of all 3 proposals. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

!vote

To be entirely clear: The proposal is to add this sentence at the end of the first paragraph of Ireland#Geography. Hans Adler 12:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Together with the surrounding islands, Ireland and Great Britain form an archipelago that has conventionally been known under the collective term British Isles.

Is there a problem with Proposal 1? Are there alternative proposals that make a reasonable attempt to satisfy the above concerns? Hans Adler 12:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support that, if the controversy has to be mentioned then something like.. "Together with the surrounding islands, Ireland and Great Britain form an archipelago known under the collective term British Isles, although the name is sometimes disputed." BritishWatcher (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That is fine by me. Codf1977 (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See where you are coming from but it not an improvement on your fist recommendation, could give the impression that the name of the archipelago has changed so in that respect is misleading. Codf1977 (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support as it doesn't pipelink British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per below. This is a mealy-mouthed treatment of a subject that is complex and controversial with respect to this topic (as evidienced at least by how difficult it has been to bring mention of it in to the article). For the sake of another sentence a little more girth to the subject would bring benefit the topic. The "lite" treatment doesn't benefit understanding of the topic all that much, and just a narrow view of the subject. --RA (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not complex, some people in Ireland, for historical and political reasons dislike the term so "although the name is sometimes disputed" sums it up in a concise manor and gives a link to find more information on the dispute. Codf1977 (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The name is disputed? Why? What other names are there? Are there any elements of this dispute that relate to Ireland in particular (the topic of this article BTW).

Also, this is an "archipelago" unlike any other I've ever seen. It contains (by tradition at least) islands that that are separated from the main body of the archipelago by a sea and are closer to the coast-line of another body of land. If it is not "geography" in the ordinary sense of the word that ties all of these islands together, what is it?

Complex and relevant to the topic and it takes just a sentence or two to give a proper treatment to it.

As someone who worked hard to bring this article up to GA standard, I'm concerned for the quality of this article and want to ensuring that subjects covered by the article are dealt with to an appropriate depth. I don't want to see it descend into a theatre for some to play out their POV wars. I'm not one of those editors who skips from article-to-article inserting or removing a term that they know to be controversial. --RA (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - per RA. Daicaregos (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, principally because of the uncertainty over the meaning of "conventionally" - whose conventions, and when? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per RA--Snowded ^TALK 20:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I don't see the need to dance around the full picture. We've gone from a clutch (two?) editors saying it is intolerable that this article wouldn't mention one term to the same editors saying it is intolerable that the article should give a full description of it and mention another.

Anyway ....

Together with the surrounding islands, Ireland and Great Britain form an archipelago, traditionally including the Channel Islands off the French shore that also have ties to the United Kingdom. This archipelago is known as the British Isles however, owing to perceived political overtones of the word British, Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term.^[1][2]

1. Davies, Alistair; Sinfield, Alan (2000), British Culture of the Postwar: An Introduction to Literature and Society, 1945-1999, Routledge, p. 9, ISBN 0415128110, Many of the Irish dislike the 'British' in 'British Isles', while the Welsh and Scottish are not keen on 'Great Britain'. … In response to these difficulties, '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'.

2. Hazlett, Ian (2003). The Reformation in Britain and Ireland: an introduction. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 17. ISBN 9780567082800. At the outset, it should be stated that while the expression 'The British Isles' is evidently still commonly employed, its intermittent use throughout this work is only in the geographic sense, in so far as that is acceptable. Since the early twentieth century, that nomenclature has been regarded by some as increasingly less usable. It has been perceived as cloaking the idea of a 'greater England', or an extended south-eastern English imperium, under a common Crown since 1603 onwards. … Nowadays, however, 'Britain and Ireland' is the more favoured expression, though there are problems with that too. … There is no consensus on the matter, inevitably. It is unlikely that the ultimate in non-partisanship that has recently appeared the (East) 'Atlantic Archipelago' will have any appeal beyond captious scholars. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

Put it all out in the open and let the reader decide.

--RA (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, as it doesn't pipelink British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I reiterate that this much detail is highly unnecessary in this article, especially information about the channel islands. We don't need to present a debate on the terminology on this article, we have articles for that already. Terminology of the British Isles, British Isles naming dispute Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunkdavis two much political detail on a non-political article - BritishWatcher's option is better in it is more concise and to the point, it also has a link to the naming dispute article which those interested in it can read more on the topic. Codf1977 (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I can not support that. The two sources provided also clearly fail to state Britain and Ireland is an alternative name of the archipelago in north west Europe the rest of us know as British Isles. All these sources are saying is instead of talking about the archipelago known as the British Isles because some people dont like it, simply saying Britain and Ireland is preferred. Again like i said about the introduction of British Isles, we should not confuse people into thinking Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in north west europe. There is no need to mention this different wording. It should just say its known as British isles although sometimes the name is disputed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is necessary in order to give a picture of the archipelago. You want to mention the archipelago but don't want to give a full picture of the archipelago? What gives?

One minute it's all about censorship because the archipelago isn't being mentioned. The next minute it's all about weight when it is.

Either give the full picture or no picture. That is NPOV. --RA (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not opposing this because i simply want one line although i think that is all thats needed, i am prepared to support several sentences, provided the wording is clear. Your proposal whilst matching what is said on the BI article does in my opinion lead to confusion (which is why i have tried to get that changed before). "Britain and Ireland" is not a archipelago in north west europe. Ive not seen several reliable sources suggest this is the case. The sources that talk about B+I are simply saying instead of talking about the archipelago, people just say Britain and Ireland. That is very different, and whilst we know what the sentence means (although im not convinced we do because i seem to read it a different way than some others do), we can not cause potential confusion for others who know nothing about this archipelago. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - per RA. Daicaregos (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• (multiple edit conflicts) I disagree with Proposal 2 because it goes into absurd detail about an expression in a geography section of a geographic entity that is only somewhat related. It's enough to discuss this in detail at British Isles. We even have an entire article about this relatively minor issue. BW's version makes elegant use of that article, and it works for me as a compromise.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Adler (talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 September 2010

Absurd? That's not very nice, nor is it true. There is nothing absurd about the proposal nor its detail. If the contention is that the 'geographic' entity is only somewhat related, then perhaps it is not notable enough to be mentioned here at all. Daicaregos (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently my longer comment, which included Proposal 3, was split so that it appeared unsigned. – Of course it is absurd. The dispute about the term "British Isles" has almost nothing to do with geography, and it is only remotely connected to Ireland. This is just a tiny detail in the relations between Ireland and the UK. Perhaps it will become clearer if you consider Spitsbergen. Some editors there are debating about the spelling (it used to be spelled Spitzbergen), and want to include several sentences about why the "Dutch" spelling is only slightly more correct than the "German" spelling. Is that the main thing you expect to learn from an encyclopedia article about a large inhabited island with many unusual features? Hans Adler 17:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the "dispute" is not the main thing to learn from this encyclopedia article. Neither is it the main thing about the proposal above. The proposal above would give 18 words out of an article of 12,527 words over to the "dispute". Really, try to get some perspective before using a word like "absurd". --RA (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If you honestly think that rejection of this term is so important that it should make up more than 0.1% of the discussion of the island, then I guess we simply have to agree to differ. For comparison: Irish monasteries (once famous throughout Europe) make up one 13-word sentence (as being plundered by Vikings). The Great Famine gets one 113-word paragraph (9%). I am sure these are not even the best example, since I picked the topics at random before looking for them in the article. Hans Adler 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mention of anything will take a few words. That doesn't mean we have to gravely sit down and wring our hands while we calculate the numbers to determine If something is worth mentioning. It doesn't mean that the importance of everything that is mentioned will be equivalent or in proportion to their word count.

Also, mention of the monastic tradition comes to 117 words, not 13. --RA (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So too is that nature of the archipelago: yes, it includes "surrounding" islands (as one would expect), but it also includes quite distant islands and is so less clearly "geographical" (in the physical sense) in nature but has a important "historico-political" dimension as well.

Is any of that supportable by references? What do you mean

The "dispute" around the term is 100% related to geography is - it concerns an archipelago

The dispute about the term "British Isles" has almost nothing to do with geography, and it is only remotely connected to Ireland. --RA (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The dispute is not about whether it is an archipelago or a mountain. It's not about whether Ireland and Britain form a single island or two. It's about naming the thing. Hans Adler 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

[Slaps face.] I'm more concerned with the broader matter of how to properly describe the geography of Ireland so that it can be properly understood. The "dispute" is a minor thing but one that blinkers and consumes many contributors to this and related articles - "contributors" who, co-incidentally or otherwise, contribute very little to this article --RA (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I thought I could contribute an entire paragraph to this article and make sure that it isn't defaced by a POV tag. To this purpose I carefully drafted what I thought would be acceptable to all, and initially appeared to be so. Now I see that it was the main contributor to this article who missed the discussion and destroyed the consensus, so that we are all running around in circles now. Maybe this encourages me to contribute more to this article. Maybe. Hans Adler 19:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to include you among the contributors that I was referring to above. And I know that you are working in very good faith. Apologies if my comments above (any of them) offended you or put you off contributing to this or any other article. --RA (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being so direct and undiplomatic. When something gets on my nerves I tend to make that clear immediately. But it's good to know it wasn't targeted at me. Unfortunately we are now in exactly the kind of situation with everybody begin hypercritical in opposite directions that I tried to prevent. But let's see what happens. Hans Adler 20:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Please take the time and trouble to format and sign your posts. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - unnecessary and distracting for this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ghmyrtle although this is the best of the options provided and a variation might work--Snowded ^TALK 20:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Together with the surrounding islands, Ireland and Great Britain form an archipelago known under the collective term British Isles, although the name is sometimes disputed.

Again: The proposal is to add this sentence at the end of the first paragraph of Ireland#Geography.

Like most formulations this is acceptable to me. Anything wrong with it? Hans Adler 13:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose It is clear that this is a complex issue with regards to the topic. (The fact that it has been avoided for so long should make that clear.) It is tempting to take a "lite" view of it but that doesn't do the topic much justice. There's no need to brush a proper treatment of the matter underneath the carpet. It only takes and additional sentence to give the full picture. --RA (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - this or BritishWatcher's option above - it is clear concise and has a link to the naming dispute article which those interested in it can read more on the topic. Codf1977 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - as it doesn't pipelink British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Mentions the British Isles and also the naming dispute in a neutral way. This is all that is needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - As it seems the term British Isles will be mentioned here, the subject should be given more than mere cursory attention. Daicaregos (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

can you give us an example of what you think should be said then ? Codf1977 (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps something like:

Together with the surrounding islands, Ireland and Great Britain form an archipelago (traditionally including the British Crown Dependencies among the Channel Islands archipelago off the French coast) known as the British Isles. However, owing to the perceived political overtones of the word British, Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term.

Which is why I voted for Proposal 2 above. Daicaregos (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide sources showing that Britain and Ireland is the preferred term to describe an archipelago in north west europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

References, including extended quotations, are given above.

Also, Dai's rewrite of proposal 2 is better. --RA (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The sentence being proposed implies that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming the preferred term for the archipelago in north west europe that the rest of us know as British Isles. The sources do not say that and we need to ensure it is not implied. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Your reading of the sources is an eccentric one. --RA (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Almost support - but would suggest that the words "usually" and "contentious" (rather than "sometimes disputed") be added - "Together with the surrounding islands, Ireland and Great Britain form an archipelago usually known under the collective term British Isles, although the name is contentious." Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Id be prepared to support "sometimes contentious" rather than "sometimes disputed" or "...can be contentious in relation to Ireland." BritishWatcher (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Words like "usually", "sometimes", "often", etc. are best avoided IMHO unless they are supported by sources. I'd avoid editorialising with something like: "...an archipelago known by the collective term, British Isles, although the name is contentious." --RA (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

But the words "..known by...", without any qualification, would imply always known by, which is clearly not the case - so some qualification, explained in the linked dispute article, seems reasonable in the circumstances. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"...would imply always known by..." Do they? For example, "Paris is called the City of Lights." That doesn't mean that is it alway called the City of Lights. Or that everybody calls it the City of Lights. Or that it is never called Paris. --RA (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's different. The name of the city, always, is Paris - "City of Lights" is a poetic description, used occasionally and at the user's discretion. Here, "BI" is more than a description - it is the usual name, but is not the only name for the feature being described. So, in the circumstances here it would seem prudent to take a step towards removing any uncertainty over whether (WP is claiming that} it is the archipelago's only name, by qualifying it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - its clear, accurate, short and to the point and also makes it clear that their is a controversy over it which is also linked to. However does Great Britain even need mentioned as this article deals with the island of Ireland? Would surrounding islands not cover GB? Mabuska ^(talk) 16:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think for most readers this would not include GB, unless they already know the definition of "British Isles". Great Britain is the largest European island, Ireland is the third largest (I guess). The others in the archipelago are all dramatically smaller, and most "belong" either to one or the other of the two main islands. Hans Adler 17:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: either state the plain fact per proposal 1 (if you can get a consensus) or leave it out (if it is too contentious). This article does not need a re-hash or summary of the British Isles naming dispute article or the "Etymology" section of British Isles. And the focus has to be on improving this article. Scolaire (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose (and I think this whole move to a vote on three options demonstrates naivety)--Snowded ^TALK 20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I can take responsibility for that. I commented one of my posts with Oppose which set the ball rolling. --RA (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thinking aloud here, but as a straw poll to assess where we could achieve consensus it's certainly been useful. I broadly agree with Snowded (voting is evil) apart from the "naive" part - obviously I think the process has some value. Could we use the votes above to extract "bits" from each proposal? TFOWR 20:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do. I do think that, despite some of the comments today, a broad consensus is within reach. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think so too. TBH any or all of the "proposals" above are fine. A problem IMO is that the great "negotiations" that come with things like this. Yes, it has to be dealt with appropriately but if it wasn't made such a big deal of it mightn't drive people so scatty (myself included). Just stick something in knowing that it will get edited and mulched up into the article over time: no sacred sentences, sacred phraseology, no cries of "you can't change that: it's the consensus". If someone edits it in a way that's found truly problematic then take that edit to the talk and work it out. But the building of it up and the great negotiations just creates tension.

For the sake of moving on, I'm happy with Proposal 3 on the understanding that this is a wiki and it is going to get edited. This isn't a topic that we are all ever going to agree on fully but so long as all voices a represented fairly that's all that matters. That happens best by working over time on the page - not in a deal made, or agreement reached, once on the talk.

Also, this British Isles business has blown up again lately and it's a bad thing. I know you think it's the bees knees, TFOWR, but I blame the WT:BISE for keeping the topic live in editors minds. --RA (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate to quote or paraphrase rulers in general and Tories in particular, but WT:BISE is the worst form of process except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time ;-) TFOWR 21:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it? Why? What was wrong before? I was here before. I remember it. It wasn't that bad.

Forget Churchill, BISE not a process — it's 1984 and perpetual war. WAR IS PEACE! FREEDOM IS SLAVERY! IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!

TFOWR, let WP:GS/BI set you free. --RA (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure I am at least in part responsible for the voting, by beginning to number the options without at the same time strongly suggesting that the discussion stay unstructured. Hans Adler 20:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not take it personally, this sort of thing always happens.. Its how things are blocked from inclusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you are right I still blame myself for providing plausible deniability to whoever used the method in this instance. That's the kind of thing I tried to avoid, but I am still learning these things. Hans Adler 21:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Article still fails to inform people of the British Isles

Well what is happening, has been over 24 hours and all quiet. The information should be re added to the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal #3 seems to have support. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, petty much. I'm fine with something similar to three under the understanding that it is not "sacred". For example, I would intend to edit it as follows:

"Together with nearby islands, Ireland and Great Britain are known collectively as the British Isles, although that name is contentious particularly in relation to Ireland."

("nearby" rather that "surrounding", on account of Shetland and the Channel Islands; simplify "form an archipelago usually known under the collective term"; change "the" to "that" WRT the purported name; and add that the contention is particularly relevant to the subject of this article; etc..)

Don't, however, take this question as having any relation to the discussion at {{British Isles}} (as you appear to do below). That is a different matter, for which another solution has been proposed. --RA (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That wording looks OK to me, although personally I would tweak it slightly to avoid the words "island" and "Ireland" being next to each other, which doesn't read well to me. So: "Ireland and Great Britain, together with nearby islands, are known collectively as the British Isles, although that name is contentious particularly in relation to Ireland." Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That reads better. --RA (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, lets get this resolved. Codf1977 (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"That name is contentious particularly in relation to Ireland" is very strong words, it is ONLY contentious in relation to Ireland. It should say "CAN be contentious particularly in relation to Ireland". I am sure i heard God's representative here on earth mention the British Isles in his speech a few hours ago. That does not mean his speech is contentious. We can not state the term is always contentious, but saying IS rather than CAN certainly implies that. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Who's representative? GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, mentioned the British Isles in his speech:

"Looking abroad, the United Kingdom remains a key figure politically and economically on the international stage. Your government and people are the shapers of ideas that still have an impact far beyond the British Isles." BritishWatcher (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't think he got that cleared on WT:BISE - perhaps a block is in order ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well on one reading of that BW he is using British Isles as a synonym for the UK, but his ability to confuse unrelated ideas goes back the the 70s when he confused Liberation Theology with Soviet state socialism --Snowded ^TALK 15:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm an atheist. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounded to me like he was talking about a geographical location, not just synonym for the United Kingdom, but either way.. its the fact he said it that counts =) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well back in the 70s he and I (along with a lot of others) used the term Marxism as well but we meant very different things by it. Here it is conflation of terms --Snowded ^TALK 15:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Happy with "can", please for the love of sanity lets get this resolved. Codf1977 (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's impliment it. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I would accept removing "particularly" - "Ireland and Great Britain, together with nearby islands, are known collectively as the British Isles, although that name is contentious in relation to Ireland." But I would be unhappy with BW's insertion of "can be..". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Id accept that compromise. My main concern with the previous wording was it made it sound like it was contentious in general, rather than specifically about Ireland which is the only issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Its moved from the original proposal 2. It seems we now have ""Ireland and Great Britain, together with nearby islands, are known collectively as the British Isles, although that name is contentious in relation to Ireland." I can live with that if we add "Other terms, such as Britain and Ireland are also used" --Snowded ^TALK 15:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ditto. "Contentious" means there is a difference of opinion. Saying something "can be contentious" introduces a layer of complexity, implying that there are some special set of circumstances under which it is "contentious". "Contentious" by itself means that some see no problem with the term.

Happy to loose "particularly". It focuses the sentence more on the topic. --RA (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

@Snowded. How about: "Ireland and Great Britain, together with nearby islands, are known collectively as the British Isles, although that name is contentious in relation to Ireland and other terms are also used." I don't think this is the article to flag up particular alternatives - the dispute article covers that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly oppose mentioning "such as Great Britain and Ireland". BritishWatcher (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

How about "and other terms are also sometimes used."? Its clear that these alternative terms for the archipelago are not used as often as British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As it happens I didn't suggest that. However I am happy with Ghymrtle's formulation, but not with "sometimes", weasel words--Snowded ^TALK 15:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, leave the alternative terms in the dispute article. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose the following change to the proposal:

Ireland and Great Britain, together with nearby islands, are known collectively as the British Isles, although the term is contentious in relation to Ireland and other terms are also used.

Stating "that name" sounds kinda disparaging against the term sp i'd propose changing it to "the". Also changing "name" to "term" looks more encyclopedic or something to me. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that "term" is more encyclopedic than "name", and on stylistic grounds I would avoid using the word "term" twice in one sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: How about "...other terms are also in use" rather than "...other terms are also used" Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I would be tempted to say "increasingly used" for which we have a citation, but will accept that as a compromise --Snowded ^TALK 15:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So: "Ireland and Great Britain, together with nearby islands, are known collectively as the British Isles, although that name is contentious in relation to Ireland and other terms are also in use." Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Id agree with that, it is certainly true other terms are also in use, (no where near as much as British Isles) but id accept that if it means we can resolve this. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Jolly good, now let's impliment it. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I do think "and other terms are sometimes used" would flow better than "other terms are also in use." BritishWatcher (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of "that name", "the name" would sound better. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ghmyrtle, disagree with BW --Snowded ^TALK 15:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Why Snowded? "that name" is disparaging and doesn't sound like neutral language. Using "the name" is hardly controversal and is more neutral sounding that "that name". I'm assuming your responding to the BW comment above his last one. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So is this what we can agree with, with the disparaging "that" changed to "the":

Ireland and Great Britain, together with nearby islands, are known collectively as the British Isles, although the name is contentious in relation to Ireland and other terms are also in use.

Mabuska ^(talk) 15:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Id accept that. "the name" is more neutral than "that name"... for example "that woman" certainly has a negative sound to it. It is clear what name we are talking about and it is without doubt the primary name of the location. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Why bring her into it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, lovely, perfect, jolly good. Now may we impliment? GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'm going out - I'll check back later! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A fair compromise addressing concerns on all sides. Thanks everyone. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No probs, I couldn't have accomplished this feat, without all your help. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure, consensus and other considerations

Not modifying discussion, as requested, but I'm a bit put out that after five days of discussion, with absolutely no consensus reached (FTR proposal 3 had four support, four oppose and one "almost support"), this was closed in less than two hours, with no opportunity given to anybody who was not online at that time to comment. Hans Adler would have closed the discussion long ago, but for the objection of Bjmullan. Yesterday it was closed without waiting for input from BJ, from Hans, from TFOWR or from myself. Are we suddenly not players any more? Just in case anybody's interested, I think the sentence is okay - excessive, but not as excessive as its predecessors. Scolaire (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

On a point of order, is it acceptable to add a comma after "in relation to Ireland", so that it doesn't read "in relation to Ireland and other terms"? Scolaire (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

no problem with that change, which ever is the better English. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Feeling bold again today, so I've added the comma.  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel I am in a minority of one when it came to mentioning BI at all. I still believe that the sentence adds nothing to the geography section or indeed the article. Bjmullan (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it does add more words to the article; hahaha. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at how other encyclopaedias cover Ireland's geography? I'd argue that if most other treatments of Ireland discuss Ireland's place in the "archipelago that shall not be named" then we should, too. Likewise, if the archipelago doesn't get a look in we should probably regard it as not hugely relevant to Irish geography. TFOWR 14:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Its relevant. lets not undo consensus as soon as its reached. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Britannica gets a mention somewhere on this page, and somewhere on one of the other related pages. I don't know what "other encyclopedias" you would consider authoritative. The point is, though, that print encyclopedias (1) tend to be written once, not edited many times per day, (2) aren't usually bang up to date, so that something that was considered standard in the 80s wouldn't always be questioned, and (3) tend towards a "British" or "American" point of view, which is not wrong per se, but is not a worldwide view either. Looking at other 'pedias might be interesting, but it's unlikely to resolve anything. Agree with BW re undoing BTW. Scolaire (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - though I'd have prefered a slightly more considered argument than "it's relevant", BW ;-) Scolaire, I was thinking of online encyclopaedias - Britannica, obviously, though I take your point about it having a US-centric worldview (and the same would apply to the CIA factbook and Encarta, which were others I'd thought about). TFOWR 15:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But just because it's online, I wouldn't assume that it's updated more often than the print version, or that there's a more stringent requirement to be up to date. Scolaire (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Link Please!

When everyone stops arguing about discussing certain Isles, a link would be good between "The Great Frost", and the relevant article at Great Frost of 1709. It's here, first sentence Ireland#Union with Great Britain. Thanks, - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 04:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC) (First time i've used that template :p )

I suppose it would be inappropriate to remark that 220.101 could have done it him/herself if he/she took the trouble to register ;-) Scolaire (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You can say it, it's been said many times! :-P 220.101 talk^\Contribs 14:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

British Isles template in Geographic Locale

A editor has raised the question of removing the ability to pipe link the title of the British Isles template. Currently, on this page, it pipe links as [[British Isles|Britain and Ireland]]. The editor would like this ability to be removed.

Discussion is taking place here. --RA (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that this article mentions the fact Ireland is part of the archipelago traditionally known as the British Isles, is there any reason why we need to continue with the problematic piping? If it is up to individual pages to decide (although i think such an ability should be removed), theres no reason not to use the proper title in it now the article here actually explains the term. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Political development?

I'm a bit curious about why political development is included in this addition. I know this article is hardly the place to go into large depth concerning the Columban/Irish influence on European monastic tradition - but wasn't the influence from the Irish scholars more cultural and ecclesiastical than political? Unless this is a quotation from a source or there are other reasons to emphasise "political" that I'm overlooking - wouldn't it be sufficient to say "...exerting much influence in Europe." Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)My apologies for disappointing watchers who thought this was yet another tread about the name of those islands

Certainly I don't mind the change to simply "influence". It's probably better.

The "political influence" I was referring to was the influence of Irish scholars in the courts of Alfred the Great and Charlemagne etc.. --RA (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of British Isles

The proposal is to add a reference to "the British Isles" in the article's lead.

TFOWR 20:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an attempt by a SPA (LevinBoy) to re open a debate which has been resolved a few days ago . It should have been dismissed on the BISE task page not taken seriously. --Snowded ^TALK 20:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The proposal should be a joint one for this & the Great Britain article. The timing of the proposal is bad, however. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BI and Ireland-related articles seems to be the major topic of the season. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. Is there something in the water?Malke 2010 (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We ought to shelve this proposal, for 6 months. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, maybe a rest would be helpful.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Six months seems a rather long time, three or four months maybe? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Three months is good.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should leave the introduction issue i am happy with the compromise. However i think we need to debate in detail the infobox again. There is clear justification for stating the archipelago in the infobox, sadly when this was raised before an editor turned it into a vote which prevented debate and blocked any change. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC) (late signing lol)

And you may be? Mr. Anonymous? ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 12:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. anon is a stalker of the highest caliber, dedicated to observing a race of people who once controlled the world but have since fallen ;)

Can we leave the infobox for now? Why do I forsee something like North-atlantic archipelago eventually going in there and being pipelinked... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It would never get concensus :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 18:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The overhwelming majority of infoboxes state the archipelago. it was only when it got turned into a vote it obviously got blocked. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You know that statement is disputed BW and I really object to anyone on either side raising something in less than a three months window. --Snowded ^TALK 19:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule against debating this issue again if people question the original decision which was problematic, because of it was turned into a vote right away rather than a debate. I believe the overwhelming majority of geography infoboxes state the archipelago if they belong to one. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I know you believe it, but it was challenged. Raising an issue so soon after it has been resolved is generally considered disruptive behaviour under wikipedia rules, especially it it is repetitive or in controversial areas --Snowded ^TALK 19:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The vote on the Infobox happened a month ago, there is nothing wrong with us debating the matter again on BISE. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There is everything wrong with attempting to reverse a consensus decision so soon, it is disruptive behaviour and smacks of a threat to the community that if they don't agree with you then you will simply raise the issue again, and again, and again until you wear them down. I am beginning to think that this may require an amendment to the sanctions if we can't voluntarily agree a limit. --Snowded ^TALK 19:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I oppose changes to the sanctions aimed at stifling debate, banning any form of debate on a subject for 3 - 6 months aint workable. Sanctions were imposed by arbcom to lock the ireland articles into place for 2 years, it still did not prevent debate taking place on several occasions about it. In this case a month has passed, the information is now actually in the article itself (when previously it was not, which hurt the justification for placing it in the infobox), the previous decision was a rushed vote, rather than a debate. We did not have a chance to even display all the facts because it was a vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A three month break would bring us to just around Christmas. Perhaps agreeing to begin discussion again right at the start of the New Year will give time to pass so not to be disruptive and help everyone regain perspective. Shall we take a consensus 'vote' on this?Malke 2010 (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to anticipate the New Year by almost three months but I shall have passed on to other things of greater interest to me by then. As a relative newcomer drifting around the edges of Wikipedia I find it quite ironic that the naming and location of Ireland have not been settled after at least eight years of animated discussions. I was reminded of this a couple of days ago when fliers for Lions Clubs International's 60th anniversary International Board Meeting in Edinburgh were thrust into my hand as I walked along the city's Princes Street. I noted that the "local" Multiple District 105, with its headquarters in a suburb of Birmingham, is entitled "British Isles & Ireland". The fliers refer to "800 British & Irish Lions Clubs" and to the many hours of service given by "The Lions of the British Isles and Ireland, along with European colleagues". From this I might infer that not only do Lions International not regard Ireland as part of the British Isles but that neither Ireland nor the British Isles are part of Europe. And to think that geography was once my best subject at school. Jamjarface (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thins make erroneous use of terms which leads to greater confusion. I thought they where called the British Lions before being called the British and Irish Lions. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

City population stats

Just a note to say, I am wondering why Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Derry, all use their urban area population statistics in the demographics section, when the Belfast City population is only displayed. However each time I change Belfasts population statistics from City to urban accordingly, it is edited back to the city population. This creates an inaccurate picture of Belfasts size and crates an invalid group of stats. It would be better to either have all cities at City only or Urban area only populations. I will continue to correct the Belfast population stats each time it is edited, and I ask that whoever is doing it please stops.

Conor2k10 (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The figures for the Republic are for urban areas from the 2006 census. The statistics for Northern Ireland are for Derry and Belfast City Council areas and are 2006 estimates from the NISRA. I couldn't find comparable urban statistics for Northern Ireland at that time but looked again now.

The 2008 estimates of the NISRA are as follows (ref):

• Belfast Urban Area: 267,742
• Belfast Metropolitan Area: 575,231
• Derry Urban Area: 93,512

I will add these three figures and the up-dated ref. --RA (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland a country?

I have attempted to substitute the neutral term "region" in references to Northern Ireland as a "constituent country" of the UK - but this is repeatedly and quickly reverted. As I think that the proponents of "country" are well aware of the political sensitivities around describing Northern Ireland in that way, and my message to one of them has had no response, I am requesting third-party opinions on this issue. My position is that "country" is a politically controversial term 'in Northern Ireland', where most people regard the place as part of the "country" of Ireland or as part of the "country" that is the United Kingdom. I have lived in the region for rather a long time and can say that I have never heard anyone from the Nationalist minority refer to Northern Ireland as "a country": in my experience it is a term used exclusively by members of the Unionist majority. There are many controversial terminologies around our geography - "the mainland", "the province", "the Free State", "Derry" etc. - but surely everyone can agree that Northern Ireland is "a region" or "a part" of the island of Ireland, and/or "a region" or "a part" of the UK. Wikipedia should not be used to advance a particular view on the status of Northern Ireland so the neutral term should prevail. Views please? Brocach (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This might be a relevant discussion. I guess it is fair to say NI is a country. Hope it helps, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Other than your own personal agenda, you have not produce any evidence to show that NI is not a country. Controvertial or not, it is a fact, and has been for decades. NI is as much a country as Wales or Scotland are, but you are not disputing those. Saying NI is part of the country of the United Kingdom ignores the fact that the UK is a union of countries, hence its name. Northern Ireland is often represented as a separate country in sport and business, and has its own bank notes. You are not attempting to add a neutral term as you claim, rather you are pushing your own nationalist point of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where facts are presented whether we like them or now.--Dmol (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dmol, I don't believe we have met - you know nothing of my politics and nothing that I have written in WP shows any political bias at all. Please confine your response to the issue, not to any assumptions you make about me as a person. Brocach (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is not a fact, since Northern Ireland has no formal status (be it "province", "country" or otherwise in UK legislation. "NI is as much a country as Wales or Scotland" is also wrong, as these show..

1. "One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." - S. Dunn and H. Dawson, 2000, An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Edwin Mellen Press: Lampeter
2. "Next - what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? 'Province' won't do since one-third of the province is on the wrong side of the border. 'State' implies more self-determination than Northern Ireland has ever had and 'country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd. 'Colony' has overtones that would be resented by both communities and 'statelet' sounds too patronizing, though outsiders might consider it more precise than anything else; so one is left with the unsatisfactory word 'region'." - D. Murphy, 1979, A Place Apart, Penguin Books: London
3. "Although a seat of government, strictly speaking Belfast is not a 'capital' since Northern Ireland is not a 'country', at least not in the same sense that England, Scotland and Wales are 'countries'." - J Morrill, 2004, The promotion of knowledge: lectures to mark the Centenary of the British Academy 1992-2002, Oxford University Press: Oxford
4. "Not a country in itself, Northern Ireland consists of six of the thirty-two original counties of Ireland, all part of the section of that island historically known as Ulster." - J V Til, 2008, Breaching Derry's walls: the quest for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, University Press of America
5. "Northern Ireland is not a country in itself, but a small fragment torn from the living body of Ireland where now the last act of its long struggle for independence is being played out." - W V Shannon, Northern Ireland and America's Responsibility in K M. Cahill (ed), 1984, The American Irish revival: a decade of the Recorder, 1974-1983, Associated Faculty Press
6. "Northern Ireland (though of course not a country) was the only other place where terrorism can be said to have achieved a comparable social impact." - M Crenshaw, 1985, An Organizational Approach to the Analysis of Political Terrorism in Orbis, 29 (3)
7. "The study compare attitudes in Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, the UK, Holland, Ireland, Italy and West Germany. It also includes Northern Ireland, which of course is not a country." - P Kurzer, 2001, Markets and moral regulation: cultural change in the European Union, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
8. "As I see it, I'm an Irish Unionist. I'm Irish, that's my race if you like. My identity is British, because that it the way I have been brought up, and I identify with Britain and there are historical bonds, psychological bonds, emotional bonds, all the rest of it you know. ... Bit to talk of independence in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is not a country, Northern Ireland is a province of Ireland and it is a province in the UK and I think that the notion of a national identity or group identity or racial identity or cultural identity here is a nonsense." - Michael McGimpsey quoted in F. Cochrane, 2001, Unionist politics and the politics of Unionism since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Cork University Press: Cork
9. "Moreover, Northern Ireland is a province, not a country. Even before direct rule, many of the decisions affecting the economy, labour law, and wage bargaining were in reality taken in London, thereby diminishing the importance of local control." A Aughey, 1996, Duncan Morrow, Northern Ireland Politics, Longmon: London

Arguments about bank notes are wrong also, see Manx pound. Are you saying that makes the Isle of Man a country? The Isle of Man competes at the Commonwealth Games too. O Fenian (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks O Fenian for that informative collection of quotes - from a very wide spectrum of opinion. Maybe the answer can be found by asking anyone who cares to join this discussion: whether or not you think that Northern Ireland is "a country", do you agree that it is "a region"? Brocach (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth I have always thought the NI is a province. How can it be ever considered a country when it doesn't even have a flag never mind an army or a foreign secretary for that matter. For what it's worth competing in the I was raped and pillaged by the British games doesn't count as recondition of anything. Bjmullan (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)