Talk:British Isles

An Idea

I have the "credentials" of being not being knowledgable or opinionated on this topic, (Just yesterday I learned that the world did not end at the shores of the USA  :-) ) and of hopefully being good at proposing a good course for situations like this. This is a contentious issue outside of / bigger than Wikipedia. There are probably two things at work here, first the objective of folks on both sides of the issue on what gets into the article, second, this provides a "boxing ring" for the opposing parties to joust with each other, even for those for whom the article content is secondary. Wikipedia does not currently have the structure or tools to guide, resolve or evolve a resolution to this mess. The net result is that, in 2013, you will have spent another about 2,000 hours of your valuable lives to result in an unstable article that looks just like it does today. Life is too short for that.

On the mechanistic side, the mechanics of handling this with just article wording, and a transient talk page (where, for an active talk page, everything disappears from sight a few days after it was written) is not enough structure to get something like this worked out.

My idea would be to set up a structured sub-page (meeting place) of this article to set the direction on strategic issues. This would provide the main (editable) sub-article space for longer lived summaries and decisions, and its talk page for ongoing discussion per the normal talk page mechanics. A core theme would be to decide on the generalities of what to say to ACCURATELY REFLECT THE CURRENT SITUATION in the contentious areas. Once decided, the article wording would follow that decision. Possibly this could be done in a way where folks could have fun being fellow human beings even if / separate from them being and remaining absolute opponents on the issue. The two can co-exist, I've done it. We might all get famous for creating the structure for solving one of Wikipedia's toughest and most prevalent problems. My initial proposal is to give it a 2 month trial. If this is desired by many on both sides of the issue, I would volunteer to be the housekeeper / moderator. If lots of folks from both sides of the issue (please excuse my ignorance and identify yourselves) would respond by saying "yes", I would be humbly honored to do it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think you have a chance of success, carry on! AJRG (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force. --RA (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear North8000, you really should reconsider that offer, Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear to Tread ClemMcGann (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice from everyone. I really thought that this might work, it would fully recognize the reality that we would not settle the real-world underlying dispute here. It looks like not many folks are interested in this, so I'll kind of "sign off" here on this idea....if interest arises later, I'm always available at my user page. Life is too short for the pain and man-hours of the current course. May the wind be at your back in your efforts to resolve this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It was kind of you to offer. It was wise of you to reconsider. It is not a 'real world dispute'. It may have been once. These disputes are rarely encountered in the real world, in my experience. ClemMcGann (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It was also brave of them to offer. A shame really, fresh eyes on this is probably what it needed. That, or speedy deleting every article that has a British Isles terminology dispute. :) Jack forbes (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In my slow and vague awakening, I was assuming that there are folks that want to emphasize / highlight current separateness to the extent that they would prefer to see any term that "combines" disappear / never be used, and also folks that feel the opposite, and that the same dispute exists outside of Wikipedia. And that a Wikipedia effort would need to be realistic that difference of opinion that substantially exists outside of Wikipedia can't be resolved in Wikipedia, but that maybe some common and more fun ground could be found anyway. North8000 (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW my initial introduction to this article was when I mentioned British Isles as roots for some folk music in an article that I authored, and, as I and others interpreted it, someone threatened to Wiki-Lawyer my article on it's other unrelated weaknesses if I did not remove the term, and it led back to this article.North8000 (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Folk music of British North America, I assume? ;) ClemMcGann (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it too late to rejoin? 1776 was just a little tantrum that we had....didn't really mean it. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You will be required to renounce baseball and play cricket instead ;) 109.76.123.65 (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A small price to pay. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to edit war and change the lede

There appears to be a couple of editors attempting to change the lede through edit warring, without testing consensus for such a change, in relation to using "Republic of Ireland" rather than "Ireland". Currently no consensus exists for making such a change. The MOS regarding usage states to use "Republic of Ireland" if confusion may arise when the island is also being discussed:

• In other places prefer use of [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use [[Republic of Ireland]] (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland").

In the context of the lede for this article, I believe it is valid to use the (full) formal names of the entities being discussed, and to use the correct names when first encountered. Note that I've no objection to using "Republic of Ireland" in subsequent places throughout the article if disambiguation is required, just not in the lede on first usage. The lede using full names was agreed previously in 2009 and a consensus ws achieved. If people are not happy, please discuss and let's retest consensus. --HighKing (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The stable version which I restored a day or so ago uses the proper name of the states - United Kingdom and Ireland. This has been debated before in WIkipedia and it is agreed (as per the UN, the EU and the UK) that the name of the state is IRELAND. Wikipedia uses ROI as an article name to distinguish from the island if Ireland, but it is not the name of the state. There is no danger of confusion here and the proper name should be used with a pipelink. --Snowded ^TALK 03:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to use the proper and official name of Ireland, then why don't we use the proper and official name of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Using ROI/UK will instantly afford the reader the knowledge that we are talking about two independent states with the ROI only encompassing that part of the island of Ireland under its jurisdiction. Likewise, using Ireland/UKGBNI would also afford the same visibility as Northern Ireland would be included in the name for the UK - i.e. it can not be part of both Ireland and the UK. Otherwise, if we use Ireland/United Kingdom we are are using the official name for Ireland but the Common name for the UK - which in my opinion is a bit off and inconsistent. --MacTire02 (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We should certainly use the full title in the lede when we first encounter those entities. And that way, there is no risk of "confusion" when bandying common names about. --HighKing (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about a "stable" version. "Republic of Ireland" has been used since April 19 without a problem until you changed it a few days ago. The consensus in 2009 was during the WP:IECOLL process, when discussion of these matters was put on hold. Since then we have an approach, advocated by ArbCom, to decide when to use Ireland and when the use Republic of Ireland.

A small bit of common sense would not go amiss here. The first sentence uses Ireland to mean the island. The second sentence uses Ireland to mean the state. What we all agreed - and what ArbCom as "enjoined" us to - was that (see WP:IRE-IRL):

In other places prefer use of [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use [[Republic of Ireland]]...

Clearly this is one of those times where the island of Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise (i.e in the first sentence uses Ireland to mean the island, the second use Ireland to mean the state).

I'll remind editors that ArbCom has said that it wants no more wrangling over this. From the ArbCom notice:

... the Committee takes notes of the existence of a de facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of the Ireland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.

I suggest we get an uninvolved third party to adjudicate between what appears in the article and what appear in the MOS and has been been said by ArbCom. --RA (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. AJRG (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence concerned is not about the island of Ireland, it is about the two states that occupy the British Isles. The proper names for those states are the UK and Ireland (although if someone wants to use the long for of UK of GB and NI then I have no objections. It has been agreed that ROI will be used for the article name, but that the proper name for the country is Ireland. I am really surprised that this is an issue. --Snowded ^TALK 10:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As am I. Particularly since, ArbCom has told us not to rehash it. The MOS entry is straight forward: the island is being discussed in the same context, the article is not about the state or politics (indeed if anything it is about the island), so use [[Republic of Ireland]]. What's the problem? --RA (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Arbcom ruling certainly doesn't state that we always use "Republic of Ireland" everywhere, and doesn't state that the name of the state is "Republic of Ireland". The problems of "confusion" are largely manufactured (and you've contributed to that) in this case. Simply using the correct and proper names for the entities being discussed, especially when first encountered, *is* common sense, and accurate, and encyclopedic. The current lede using the full names was discussed and agreed by consensus in April 2009. In contrast, *your* change was not discussed, not agreed, and doesn't have consensus. I've no objections to using "Republic of Ireland" in other parts of the article where necessary, but not in the lede where we are explicitly stating that the British Isles has two soveriegn states located there, and then go on to name them. --HighKing (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Per the ArbCom ruling, stop re-hasing this debate.

The ArbCom ruling, the MOS entry and the two versions of the lead are there for everyone to see.

Now, would you be OK with getting an outside view to adjudicate based on the ArbCom ruling, the MOS entry and the two versions of the article? The debate itself is not to be re-hashed, per the ArbCom ruling. --RA (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The lede is still confusing, mentioning "Ireland" with two different meanings in two adjoining sentences. I did, a while ago, amend[1] the second sentence to read There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and republic of Ireland., but that was deemed as "step toeing around it"[2]. Bazza (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RA's interpretation of the ArbCom ruling - using the same name for the geographical island and the political state in the same section is confusing. However, using the full name of the UK (i.e. by including NI) would make it clear that the state of Ireland does not incorporate the whole of the island of Ireland, which seems to be the issue here. It might be seen as "toeing" around the issue, but it might be a viable compromise. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

One possibility that might lessen confusion would be to change the order around and use a comma to separate them more clearly, thus: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: Ireland, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with that as a solution although I don't think its necessary as there is no danger of confusion whichever way round we put it. The Arbcom ruling relates to the article name and says explicitly that the remedies do not apply to the use of the term in other articles. The manual of style issue is settled by the issue of "confusion" --Snowded ^TALK 14:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The arbitration ruling was two-part. Part one dealt with the article names. Ruling two was as follows:

While the related matter of how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (such as articles) is not directly covered by the aforementioned remedies, the Committee takes notes of the existence of a de facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of the Ireland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.

Clearly there is an basic issue of clarity in writing when we use the two "Irelands" in such close proximity to each other. You can dress it up with commas but what's the point? It is a needless problem that can be circumvented very easily. Apart from a few die-hards that will not allow this matter to rest, no-one has any issue with the occasional adroit use of the phrase Republic of Ireland. Simply respect the consensus at the manual of style and stop dragging this issue back up. --RA (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Footstamping tantrum aside, etc, who exactly is confused? You? If it's purely a proximity issue, that can be solved easily. If you look closely at the IMOS, it also states An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating states, politics or governance) and this article would certainly fall under that category, as opposed to the clause you highlighted that uses an example of (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland"). Finally, as an encyclopedia, we must be conscious of the need for clarification (using disambiguation), and the danger of miseducation by calling entities by their incorrect name, and than trying to argue that it's the Common Name or some other ludricious self-fulfilling argument. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. In what way do the two states form a major component of the topic? It's about geography, geology and historical timescales counted in millennia. The states (both very recent creations) each have their own topics, as they should. AJRG (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland refers to the independent country that covers five-sixths of the Island of Ireland. The other one-six of the Island of Ireland is covered by the Province of Northern Ireland which forms apart of the independent country whose long-form Name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Government of Great Britain steadfastly used the term Republic of Ireland until 1998, when it signed the Good Friday Agreement. This (i.e., the Good Friday Agreement 1998) was the first time when refering to the Irish State, that Government of Great Britain used just Ireland.

The usage of just Ireland for both the Republic of Ireland and the Island of Ireland is a linguistic trick that the Republican-Irish have been trying to get accepted since 1937. They have never accepted the Partition of Ireland and the Anglo-Irish Treaty of Dec.6 1921. The Republican-Irish reject the word British, whose meaning is simply a catch-all term to refer to English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish, collectively.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed its a minor question It should simply reference the two states by their proper name and move on. RA, I have no idea why this has become such an issue for you. The phrase respects the manual of style. --Snowded ^TALK 18:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone considered using [Ireland|island of Ireland]? That would avoid potential confusion. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"It should simply reference the two states by their proper name and move on" Why? This article is about the isles, not the states. What's the need for giving the two states by their proper names? It's a needless mouthful. Just say "United Kingdom" and move on. As for "Ireland": in first sentence we use the word to mean one thing, in the second sentence we use the same word to mean something else. This is fine for those of us who already know this topic inside-out but for someone who doesn't already know the ins-and-outs ... have some mercy on them!

Why not initially keep the vocabulary to "Ireland", "Great Britain", "United Kingdom" and "Republic of Ireland" and build it up from there? KISS, you know? Hitting people in the first two lines with an eight-word name for one thing and then calling two other things by the same name ... not the best path to take if effective communication is the aim, IMHO. --RA (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The article may be about the geographical entity, but that sentence is about the states. Your argument for keeping things simple is one for "the UK and Ireland". Very few people who don't know the ins and outs of the subject would be remotely confused by the use of Ireland as it confirms with the use by all international bodies. Those of us who do know the ins and outs remain concerned at constant attempts to use pre GFA language when its not necessary. --Snowded ^TALK 21:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RA that using the word "Ireland" to describe two different entities, of different areas, in adjoining sentences, is likely to confuse a good proportion of readers. See WP:EASTEREGG: "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on. Also remember there are people who print the articles." So, another suggestion: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom, and Ireland (often described as the Republic of Ireland)." Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I would support changing it to Republic of Ireland, or using your example of Ireland (often described as the Republic of Ireland)." A change is needed to avoid confusion for the reader. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We should avoid confusing less familiar readers, folks. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We should also avoid inaccurate data and using names which are at best a description and at worst offensive. I would accept Ghmyrtle's suggestion with "often" replaced by "also". Another option is to move the whole of those sentences to the end of the lede with the controversy section where we could get a form of words that might be clearer all round. --Snowded ^TALK 00:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not the descriptive offends anybody, is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, using the wording in the Ireland article, "..Ireland (described as the Republic of Ireland).." I'd be content with either that or Snowded's wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

For a country that prides itself on being a republic i have still yet to understand why people would be offended by the term Republic of Ireland. You would think they would wear that title with pride. We here love saying the United KINGDOM. :) Fine with "also" rather than "often" though and seems like a good compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM: "...bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I was simply responding to the claim that Republic of Ireland is "at worst offensive". Throughout the whole Ireland naming dispute, no real evidence at all was provided to back up the claim use of the term is offensive. The whole thing is at the heart of the problem about if Republic of Ireland can be used and i offered a comparison with the United Kingdom. I also did point out i support the compromise wording suggested so the post did contain a view on improving the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"We should also avoid inaccurate data and using names which are at best a description and at worst offensive." This is part of that same trot that believed that RoI was a "British imposition" (1949, anyone?). As for avoiding "inaccurate data" and so on - why do editors fret over having to call the Irish state, Ireland, for "accuracy"? We rarely call states by their formal names (even in this article, the absence of Bailiwick of Jersey or Bailiwick of Guernsey doesn't seem to spark such ire). For those interested in correcting genuine inaccuracies, their time might be spent correcting true errors in the article; such as the one I corrected yesterday that said there were two crown dependencies in the Isles (there are in fact three) and listed the Channel Islands one of them (it is in fact two grouped together).

A little bit of clarity in both our writing style and in what counts as an "inaccuracy" would not go amiss. --RA (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

RA you know perfectly well that the name of the state was a source of contention between the UK and Irish Governments and was resolved (in favour of Ireland) in the GFA. As far as I know there have been no such disputes about the Balliwick of either of the two channel islands. --Snowded ^TALK 09:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a consensus for moving forward with: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom, and Ireland (described as the Republic of Ireland)." - either with or without the word "also" ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That proposal is acceptable. Hopefully, all present will accept it. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with the (described as the Republic of Ireland)" bit however i would still want to see the full UK title in the article, not just United Kingdom, it must state United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in that intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please give a reason, not simply an opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Because just saying United Kingdom and then saying Ireland is going to make some people think Ireland is talking about the whole of Ireland. The fact Northern Ireland is part of the UK must be in that introduction and the easiest way of doing it is to use the full formal title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, this is what it has said for a very long time and i totally oppose the idea we shrink it down to just United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Disclaimer: It is not my intent to lump people together with anyone they don't want to be associated with, nor to make assumptions about anyone's motivations or lack of good faith, nor to draw battle lines where they do not and should not exist. That said, it seems to me that, as a general principle, one group of editors would like to see the UK's full title used and/or would like to see the ROI referred to as "The Republic of Ireland", whereas the other group would like to see each state described as "The United Kingdom" and "Ireland". (Confusingly, if one were forced to put the label "republican" on one of these groups, it would be the latter). Of course there are political subtexts here - should Wikipedia make clear that one state extends over the two largest islands in the group, or should it imply that the islands themselves are the natural division? To me, it seems that a compromise is in order. Traditionally on Wikipedia we often use the principle of self-identification in borderline cases, and perhaps we should use the name of each state that's preferred by those who identify with that state. At the risk of putting words in anyone's mouth, that would seem to point towards "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "Ireland" as the compromise. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If it'll stop the bickering, cool. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Hard to know where to start with that. I'm trying to inch towards a more readable encyclopedia for the general reader - WP:MOS: "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." Including the words "..of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.." does not help to achieve that, IMHO. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The it's offensive argument, is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not bickering GoodDay. You can't ignore the history and the symbolism of words especially in Ireland. Until the GFA the UK government used ROI in the main for historical reasons, post the GFA they fell in line with the UN, EU etc. etc and the name of the state is now without dispute Ireland. Using a historical form (which produced intergovernmental conflict) is wrong in fact and POV in nature. SheffieldSteel is suggesting using the full OFFICIAL names of each state, doing so is factually correct and it avoids any risk (if there ever was any) of confusion,--Snowded ^TALK 18:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, for the longest time you would not admit to the Good Friday Agreement 1998 being the source of the change in usage of the term Republic of Ireland to just Ireland by the Government of Great Britain. (You can check the record that you and I debated this, and you always frustratingly denighed and dodged the issue). The reason that I always pushed for the usage of the term Republic of Ireland is that it explicitly recognises (in the English language) the Partition of the Island of Ireland per the Anglo-Irish Treaty, Dec. 6 1921. In contrast, the usage of the term of just Ireland is ambigous and implicitly ignores the Partition of the Island of Ireland. Just what symbolism of the present usage of just Ireland, by the Government of Great Britain, that (you seem to strongly feel) this represents ... God only knows. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Using the full name of the UK sounds unnecessarily long-winded to me. Doesn't the ISO 3166-2 standard use 'United Kingdom' and 'Ireland'? [3] --Pondle (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Since this is first use in the article, help the reader: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (better known as the United Kingdom or the UK) and Ireland (also known as the Republic of Ireland)." AJRG (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If that length of sentence is deemed necessary (and my view is that the best would be Pondle's suggestion so I am not wild about it), then "also known" would need to read "also described" to conform with the citation. --Snowded ^TALK 19:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The UK article also has commonly known rather than better known, so:

"There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom or the UK) and Ireland (also described as the Republic of Ireland)." AJRG (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Although I do think it's long-winded, I wouldn't oppose that wording if it moves us forward. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

We do not need "(commonly known as the United Kingdom or the UK)". I would rather we just leave it as saying United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland although id be ok with it saying (commonly known as the United Kingdom) if it makes saying (described as Republic of Ireland) for Ireland ok. But i cant support any change to that introduction which fails to highlight that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and not the state called Ireland, the easiest way to do that without having a sentence or two on it is to use the full formal title of the UK. It doesnt really take up that much space. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose that as it can be condensed quite simply as the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Going by the Wiki Manual of Style: Use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland. This section here as already pointed out above:

“ In other places prefer use of Ireland, except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use Republic of Ireland (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland"). ”

As the state of Ireland is being mentioned alongside the UK and Northern Ireland a clear distinction must be provided. Also as the state is being discussed along with the island in the same paragraph a clear distinction must be provided to avoid confusing the reader; thus Republic of Ireland should be used. Some might prefer to just use Ireland but some poor bloke from Botswana or Timbuktu mightn't know the difference or understand the context. Why a few people can't accept "Republic of Ireland" explicitly stated in the text.

To Snowded, this comment by you:

“ The stable version which I restored a day or so ago uses the proper name of the states - United Kingdom and Ireland. This has been debated before in WIkipedia and it is agreed (as per the UN, the EU and the UK) that the name of the state is IRELAND. Wikipedia uses ROI as an article name to distinguish from the island if Ireland, but it is not the name of the state. There is no danger of confusion here and the proper name should be used with a pipelink. ”

It makes no difference of they use Ireland for the state. The United Kingdom uses Londonderry as the official name for the city but Wikipedia uses the unofficial Derry. You mightn't get confused by the use of Ireland on its own but using it twice in the same paragraph in two different contexts is silly and confusing for those who don't know. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

We should help the reader to understand both the geography and the controversy. So:

"There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom) and Ireland (also described as the Republic of Ireland)." AJRG (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That looks good, full support for that. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Great idea AJRG ... I support that. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"RA you know perfectly well that the name of the state was a source of contention between the UK and Irish Governments and was resolved (in favour of Ireland) in the GFA." — Actually, no, I am not aware of that, Snowded! You might indicate where in the GFA that is stated?

This myth is another example of the kind of trot that fuels this debate on Wikipedia. It is true that since the GFA both governments more regularly call each other by their preferred diplomatic names but there is no provision to that effect in the GFA. Both the Government of the UK and the Government of Ireland still refer to the Irish state as the "Republic of Ireland" for clarity where it is useful to do so for clarity. For example, see here for an example of how the island and Irish state are described on the website of the Government of Ireland (dating from about a decade after the GFA): "The Republic of Ireland occupies 70,282 sq. km. of the island of Ireland which has a total area of 84,421 sq. km."

That is the kind of clarity in our writing that we should be aiming for. Are we really going to dance around certain words and introduce unnecessary complexity based on the ill-conceived notions of two editors? --RA (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the agreement to use the official name of each state was made at the same time as the British-Irish Agreement, as explained here. AJRG (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"the agreement"? What agreement? Can you link to this "agreement" or call it by some name?

In reality - just to be clear - both governments more regularly call each other by their preferred formal names since that time of the GFA, as I explain above; but there is no formal "agreement" to that effect and both governments continue to refer to each other and themselves as the "Republic of Ireland" and the "United Kingdom" where it is practical to do so.

The link you point to is on the ball and does not say what you purport it to say. If I am incorrect please quote to me where it says what you say it does. Indeed, the advice of that website is, "The advice stands: in many contexts it is safe and uncontentious to refer to the Republic simply as 'Ireland'. Where the possibility of ambiguity exists, use 'the Republic of Ireland'." Sound advice. Advice we should surely follow. --RA (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the quote from the Comhairle website, a third of the way down the page. The formal agreement is confirmed here and officially here, though it doesn't appear to have a name. AJRG (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AJRG, thanks for the clarification about what you meant. (Although I have to say that I have never heard of this "Comhairle" website.) The use of "Govt. of Ireland" and "Govt. of UKGBNI" was more a change in practice rather than an "agreement". It was certainly not something that was "resolved (in favour of Ireland) in the GFA". Both governments still refer to each other and themselves as "United Kingdom" and "Republic of Ireland" where that is more practical. Like the link you provide advises, that vocabulary is normal practice where ambiguity may exist. -RA (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lord Dubs, who at the time was Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, describes it (in the reference given above) as an agreed terminology - in which both governments gave ground. AJRG (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. That is not in dispute. Please read over what I wrote. --RA (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I did - several times - and I have done so again. The spin doesn't contribute anything. Each government takes care to formally acknowledge the preferred title of the other. Once that's established, convenience and clarity apply. AJRG (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is now very definately re-hashing the debate that ArbCom enjoins us not to. I'm not going to continue it.

Note that in this instance we are not talking about the governments, we are referring to the states. The MOS is that the titles of offices etc. should be given by their official names (i.e. Government of Ireland not Government of the Republic of Ireland). The MOS is that there are times when the state should be called Republic of Ireland to distinguish it from the island of Ireland and/or Northern Ireland. --RA (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You are continuing it... In this case, though, the issue has nothing to do with WP:IRE-IRL. If the full formal name of the UK is used, being both geographically informative and diplomatically correct, then the same courtesy should be afforded to the Irish state. AJRG (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Point of fact: the wording before the recent change was "United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland". It was changed to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in the same edit that changed it to "Ireland". The MOS entry on this matter came about as a result of a very long (several years) and torturous discussion on this matter that was the subject of an eventual ArbCom case. It is a sensible approach that has consensus and I encourage you to abide by it. --RA (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've disputed any of that, nor do I personally have any vested interest here. This is a geographical article and the full name of the UK is geographically relevant. Our purpose should be to inform the reader and the current version does so, if somewhat inelegantly. AJRG (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We can change it back to what it said originally for the time being if the change AJRG made is unacceptable, but we need the full UK title. It needs to say United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, otherwise the status of Northern Ireland will not be as clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What's there now is better than that. It is at least clearer by making the point (implicitly) that the article is using the diplomatic names for the states. Though if editors are determined that only the full diplomatic names of the two states are necessary (I'll add the name for Jersey and Guernsey also) then I think there is probably a better way of saying it. --RA (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

RA, all of those was gone through on the naming debate - the extradition row, the House of Lords statement etc. etc. (post GFA as the implications of the language of the agreement were worked out). I think the final form here is clumsy, the names of the states are UK and Ireland and a pipelink handles any issues, but if this has to be it fine, it will never make good article status. --Snowded ^TALK 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, we have gone though all of this before. It has been resolved and the consensus can be see at WP:IRL-IRE. It was yourself and HK that brought it up again this time around and that refuse to accept that consensus. Above, you recycle the same weary errors of fact that we had to endure during the "debate" before. What does any of it have to do with this article? Please, stop needlessly politicing otherwise innocuous and useful vocabulary. Even the two governments involved are not so bothered about it. --RA (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well said. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarity swings both ways, and we're only talking about the first occurrence in the lede. After that, we can dab all we like. --HighKing (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland is more than suffice and is simple as well without adding in bracketed information. Ireland in the island context and Ireland in a country context ibn the same paragraph is confusing for not-in-the-know people. If people want the common name of the Republic of Ireland, i.e. Ireland, they can find that out by clicking the link. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But wrong in fact, the same of the state is not RoI it is Ireland --Snowded ^TALK 22:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And? Derry is wrong in fact as its legally and officially Londonderry. Wikipedia doesn't work on truth as i've been told in the past. The Republic of Ireland is a common enough term to refer to that country and would clearly distinct it from the island in the paragraph. Its also common usage on Wikipedia when Northern Ireland or the island of Ireland is mentioned in the same context. That principle should work here as they are both being discussed in the same paragraph. Stating Ireland as a country without having Northern Ireland explicitly declared alongside it could make not-in-the-knows think the whole island is a country - and thats wrong in fact. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Derry is the name used by the elected council of that city, hence its use with Londonderry being used for the county. --Snowded ^TALK 10:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, we all know the name of the state. How long did we spend painfully going over this ground at WP:IECOLL? The resolution is described at WP:IRL-IRE. Please respect the consensus and, per the ArbCom notice, stop needlessly re-hashing it. --RA (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry RA but your above statement is nonsense. Mabuska made a statement which is wrong in fact, there is no common name of the RoI, there is an official name for which ROI is used as a description. This has nothing to do with the Arbcom resolution which is far narrower in its meaning that your attempted use. As long as people make that error I will correct it. I can see no consensus that I am failing to respect. You are starting to get a WP:OWN problem about this which I suggest you moderate. --Snowded ^TALK 07:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked for a request for clarification. --RA (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I really think we need the full United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The first sentence states the fact there are two islands, Great Britain and Ireland if we simply go on to say United Kingdom and Ireland or Republic of Ireland it will confuse some people about the status of Northern Ireland. It must be made very clear that Northern Ireland is part of the UK< the easiest way to do this without having sentences more of details is with the full UK title, it does not take up much room. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

How about stating the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and (Republic of) Ireland?? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How about using and respecting the proper name of the state? --Snowded ^TALK 10:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hah since when does Wikipedia respect the proper names of places? If your going to go on that basis then why not open up Pandora's Box for the Londonderry/Derry (city not county) dispute?? Londonderry is the official and legal name given to it by the state it belongs to (the United Kingdom). Derry is unofficial other than as Derry City Council. Should we not respect its proper name? Seeing as obviously we don't, why should the state of Ireland get special treatment? Especially when Republic of Ireland is commonly used by media, news, amongst other things. And in this case would help distinguish it from the island of Ireland which is being described in the same paragraph opening up a bag of confusion for people none-the-wiser. Think of them before your own view. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no Pandoras Box. The elected council call it Derry and there is a long standing convention to use Derry for the city and Londonderry for the country (see my earlier response on this). As previously stated I don't think there is any risk of confusion, especially with the full UK name which includes Northern Ireland. Common use in the world is Ireland as is official use. --Snowded ^TALK 11:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the council call it in documents as officially its still Londonderry, and so it doesn't matter about the conventions on Wikipedia as it still flies in the face of "respecting the proper name" arguement you supply. The MOS conventions stated about Ireland place names should be used and not your personal opinion. Republic of Ireland to distinguish from the island of Ireland should be enforced here as both are mentioned in the same opening paragraph. Or should we just ignore the conventions? Mabuska ^(talk) 12:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the name is disputed, as was the ROI/Ireland so there is a compromise solution. If ROI/Ireland was still disputed by the UK then we would need to note both but it is not. MOS conventions are being followed if we use Ireland here as there is no danger of confusion. We should not perpetuate old disputes. --Snowded ^TALK 22:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Snowded do you think it is sometimes acceptable with good reasons to use Republic of Ireland in the article text? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It use should be depreciated given its history and alternatives found where Ireland causes confusion (which is rare) --Snowded ^TALK 08:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go quite that far. The Government of Ireland isn't afraid to use the term,¹²³⁴ albeit rarely. It is, after all, an official description of the Irish state, just not the formal name. AJRG (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Information prioritisation in the introduction

Hi, I’ve just looked at how this Wikipedia entry is developing and the content appears nicely factual and well referenced. As the single Wikipedia entry covering the subject directly and in its entirety however, I did find the prioritisation of information in the introductory piece odd - by which I mean the order of its presentation. For what must constitute a clear majority of Wikipedia users, I think the controversial (for some) nature of the term is of greater research relevance than the oldest rocks being 2,700 million years old. I think the delicate political sensitivities should be in the very first paragraph, but for tonight in the interests of avoiding another great wording debate I haven’t changed a word and simply moved one paragraph one step up. Pconlon 11:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I moved it back. Article is about British Isles not about how some Irish don't like it. JuanJose (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's about the subject term in all it's glory! Your comment on Irish opinion is remarkably ignorant - the controversy point is well documented and very relevant. Are we going to see-saw back and forth on this until one of us expires? I'm just in my 30s...how old are you?! Pconlon 00:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

150. JuanJose (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's nice. How can you reasonably argue that detailed geological text (on rock age) should be placed above text indicating that one of the two governments in the area described is entirely opposed to the term's use? Approach the Wikipedia entry objectively as the vast majority of users do and you'll see the validity of my point. Whether you are personally an avid geologist or selective observer of history and politics - I imagine the latter - I don't see how you can argue against it. Incidentally, that the UK has a rather larger population and thus wins any opinion vote is not a valid argument as you well know. The point would be cast-iron even if the population of the Republic was 150. Pconlon 07:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is about geography. Political controversy - indeed any controversy - belongs at the bottom of the introduction, as per WP:LEAD. We reached a consensus on the structure of the section. Wiki-Ed (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and come to think of it, your final point is utterly wrong. Wikipedia covers different perspectives in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. If the population of Ireland was 150 (and assuming all of those people were avid writers of reliable sources which held a consistent line) their views would not hold sufficient weight to merit inclusion given the vast numbers of other sources that argue against that view, as per WP:UNDUE. Wiki-Ed (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Where in WP:LEAD does it state that? Though i think the way it is now (as of Wiki-Eds revert) is good enough and gets the politics out of the way giving the reader a quick identification of the political units on the islands. The political controversies about the terminology should either be at the end of indeed even in its own section titled along the lines of "Political controversy". Mabuska ^(talk) 09:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph of WP:LEAD: It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. We've used exactly that format: definition, context, notability, controversy and I see no reason to divert from it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose such a controversial change and it was rightly reverted. The geographical location and details are more important than the "political dispute" which has always seemed more like a wikipedia dispute than anything serious in the real world. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully thats the issue sorted. The second paragraph from WP:LEAD clearly makes it clear the manual of style to be used - why should it be changed. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Also please note this article is about the British Isles. The article over the controversy and naming dispute can be found over here. Since it has it's own article, please leave any significant discussion on that topic to the relevant article. Canterbury Tail talk 11:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

See the section "Proposal for new lede" above. It would simplify a lot of the article, and remove a lot of squabbling. --HighKing (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To address comments above I would say three things:

Firstly, that a Wikipedia article about anything should include ALL its aspects (appropriately weighted of course) - a general overview article on the BI term is just that. Therefore JuanJose, with everything else, the article IS about how ‘some’ Irish object to it. BritishWatcher, what you wish to explain away as little more than a ‘Wikipedia dispute’ is very well referenced here as being much much more than that!

Secondly, it is not reasonable application of Wikipedia rules to say that consistent and well documented perspectives of a relatively small minority do not merit inclusion – were that the case, a large grouping (e.g. Indonesia) could delete any opinions of a much smaller grouping (e.g. East Timor) it didn’t like. Wiki-Ed, you should know better than to argue that!

Thirdly, I would say that ‘notable controversies’ are a key component of context – nowhere I am aware of it being Wikipedia-specified that mention of controversy should be swept away to last place - Wiki-Ed ‘exactly that format’ you speak of isn’t Wikipedia-specified.

Pconlon 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It is explained in the "Wikipedia-specified" guidance on the introduction to an article. In a nutshell: The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. Most readers would expect the introduction to a geographical article to provide geographical context, not opinions on the etymology. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, your message above (from 27 June) regarding the format you 'see no reason to divert from' is that this format is official Wikipedia practice - i.e. 'definition, context, notability, controversy'. Nowhere that I can see is it specified that controversy (where it does occur) should only be mentioned after all else has been covered. My conclusion is that it is not Wikipedia-specified and is therefore only your interpretation. My interpretation is that significant referenced controversy (as occurs here) is a key integral part of context.

It is clear that one of the two sovereign nations in the geographic location covered by the term in question officially avoids the term. This rather transcends mere opinions on etymology. It strikes me as strange that the identity of people inhabiting this region 2000+ years ago (and less than 1 million in number) merits mention in detail before the identities (and opinions on where they live) of the 70 million resident there today. If the daily practice of the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants on one of the two major islands concerned is to use the term 'Britain and Ireland' in conscious avoidance of 'British Isles', then that in my opinion should be referenced in the very first paragraph of the introduction. Pconlon 10:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is specified in the MOS guidance which I have linked to (twice). The italics are quotes from that page. The rest is your interpretation and opinion. Even if it is shared by the "overwhelming majority of the inhabitants on one of the two major islands" it is still a tiny minority (i.e. less than 7% of the total population of the area). For the vast majority of readers this is a geographical topic and that is why the article focuses on geographical information first and foremost. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Pconlon, I reject your assertion that the "overwhelming majority" use the term Britain and Ireland in a conscious avoidance of the term British Isles. I believe that the opposite is true ... i.e., the "overwhelming majority" use the term British Isles. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, i oppose Pconlons proposal and conclusions on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be better to remove reference to this "controversy" from the lead section? If it has to be anywhere it should be in the section on nomenclature. LIke BW I don't believe there's a real controversy anyway, apart from in Wikipedia. Hrotovice (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence. (WP:LEAD) AJRG (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

including any notable controversies. This "controversy" is not notable. In fact, there are a few people and organisations who don't like using British Isles, and don't do so. That is not a controversy. If there was a controversy there would be some sort of campaign against use of the term; I see no campaign, apart from here. Hrotovice (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There are reliable sources for the controversy going all the way back to a book review in the New York Times of Aug 9, 1942 (page BR1), and before that the Balfour Declaration of 1926 which advised a change to the title of George V, so it is unquestionably notable. It doesn't need to be given undue weight, but it does need to be in the lede. AJRG (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with AJRG (and some nice research there by the way, kudos to you) --Snowded ^TALK 21:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So where's the campaign against the term? Acknowledged some people/institutions don't like it, some (not many) don't use it, but where is the campaign?. The controversy doesn't exist! Do a Google search for "British Isles controversy" - exactly! Hrotovice (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason why you should necessarily understand the wider context, so I'll try to explain it. Once upon a time the British Empire went round stamping the word British on anything it could lay its hands on, so when decolonization brought the empire to an end, it at first became the British Commonwealth. A campaign by the Irish Free State was taken up by other Commonwealth members resulting in the recommendation of the Balfour Declaration of 1926 that the British and Irish crowns should be separated and the London Declaration of 1949 which removed the word British from the title of the Commonwealth of Nations. AJRG (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

101 logic, most campaigns will be associated with a controversy but not all controversies have campaigns. If you check out all the references you will see that the question of its controversy if firmly established and the increasing use of alternative terms. Wikipedia works from sources not a personal view that a campaign is necessary to establish controversy. --Snowded ^TALK 22:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources relate to individuals or institutions who don't use or don't like the term, and that's it. No cotroversy, just a bunch of losers mouthing off about it. Hrotovice (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Snowded - coming from someone who is unable to contest the evidence of usage of the term Republic of Ireland by that same state despite your adamance that they don't! British Isles is still the most commonly used term, no need to change this. Topic is about prioritisation, and according to Wiki standards, controversies are at the ass-end, and as this is a controversy it belongs at the ass-end. British Isles is common usage not the multitude of Anglophobic variants that haven't caught on. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(tired sigh) ROI is a description not a name as you should know. You should really tone your arguments down a bit - accusing the publishers of several major atlases of anglophobia is a bit silly isn't it? --Snowded ^TALK 23:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Good Friday Agreement 1998 did not ban or renounce the term Republic of Ireland. The Government of Great Britain can, at any time it wishes, start using the Republic of Ireland term again. All it will take is an elected Government with the guts to do so. Perhaps the latest Prime Minister, the Right Honourable David Cameron, will do so. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see a major atlas not use the term British Isles. What other reason is there for changing the historical name for the islands other than anglophobia? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

See, for example, Philip's Road Atlas Britain and Ireland and National Geographic's Britain and Ireland Political Map. The motivation is not anglophobia, but anti-imperialism. The irony in this case is that it was the Greeks who called these islands British. AJRG (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. The Greeks (and the Romans who followed) referred to the land by the inhabitants. They used terms like "Islands of the Prettanic", etc. A long time afterwards, the idea of "ownership" (and dominions and empires) crept in, regardless of the inhabitants. It's a long-standing myth that the Greeks and Romans names these islands. --HighKing (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Greeks used both the 'p' and the 'b' form of the name (modern Greek has Βρετανικά νησιά). Educated Romans spoke Greek and transliterated the name Britanniae. In the ninth century Nennius (in the preface to the Historia Brittonum) has insulae Britanniae. You can argue that the correct translation should be Britannic Isles or Isles of the Britons, but that doesn't change much. AJRG (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst i accept the fact a map or two may no longer use the term British Isles, to claim it is anti imperialism is nonsense. Its just a small number of individuals with political motivations who cause trouble which results in a map maker changing their actions. Im considering starting a campaign to reclaim the Irish sea, im having nightmares at the Irish imperialism which lay claims to some British waters. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Imperialism and nationalism: The Home Rule struggle and border creation in Ireland, 1885–1925 AJRG (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What about one form the father of the atlas? Gerardus Mercator’s atlas makes reference to "Anglia, Scotia et Hibernia" and not BI. [4] Bjmullan (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And? He also makes reference to the "Oceanus Britannicus" rather than the "English Channel". That map of his is about the geo-political entities of the islands. Just because he omitted "British Isles" diesnn't mean he never used it - note how he fails to even use any alternative name for the islands? So is that source being taken out of context - possibly. Read British_Isles#Etymology and you'll see the islands have been referred to along the lines of Britannia or whatever long before that. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm that guy died in 1594, according to the article the earliest citation of the phrase "Brytish Iles" is dated 1577 in a work by John Dee. So we should not be shocked it does not appear in that one. Some modern atlas's do not mention British Isles but the term is still widely used and no single other term has taken its place. I dont know why all you guys are going over and over this again. Having the fact there is a controversy about the term in the 4th paragraph of the introduction seems reasonable, it certainly should not be moved up to the third, second or first though. Part of the wording of the paragraph talking about the controversy may need changing, but thats another debate. Can we please just all accept there is absolutely no consensus for moving information on the controversy higher up in the intro? Then we can move on to something else. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Anglia, Scotia et Hibernia" (are the countries which) sit on-top of the "Insulae Britanniae" (the Islands). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it - [proves he used the term British Isles. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, if the source does show that maybe that also needs adding to the article? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

LoL. Nice one. Made me laugh. --HighKing (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Give it a rest. This isn't a forum. There is some controversy and we mention it in passing even though (or perhaps because) it is difficult to be sure how notable it is in relative terms. Giving it more prominence would be wrong, but glossing over it entirely would also be wrong. That is all. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah there isn't a concensus to move the controversy up (against the conventions in place) so lets just let it rest. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

I've asked for a peer review of the article. The request can be seen here: Wikipedia:Peer review/British Isles/archive1. It might give us some focus in developing the article further. --RA (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please enough with all these reverts

Can we stop the edit warring going on, i dont want new restrictions imposed on this page which always adds complications and ruins the friendly environment we all operate in. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good point, but we can't have some editors, whatever side they are on, deciding for themselves what, and what doesn't, appear on this page. Unless it a direct personal attack or something as serious we should err on the side of acceptance. Hrotovice (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Armchair made a direct personal attack on Snowded. This isn't about censorship, it's about protecting Wikipedia. I agree with Wiki-Ed that Snowded's comment can go too. Comment on content, not on the contributor. AJRG (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So there is a bit of guilt on both sides. Best for all to move on i think. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not about guilt. Can we agree that neither comment makes a positive contribution to Wikipedia and remove them both, per Wiki-Ed. Then we can move on. AJRG (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Id support both bits being removed provided someone else is not going to revert it again. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Leave it and move on. Talk about the article itself instead. Hrotovice (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Go and read WP:CENSOR. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed. Armchair's comment violates WP:NPA and must go. Snowded's comment was unnecessary and can go too. AJRG (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That is talking about articles, I guess. It doesn't specifically mention talk pages, but hey, give it a rest. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Hrotovice (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Upholding a policy whose purpose is to protect Wikipedia doesn't qualify as making a mountain out of a molehill. AJRG (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Having just woken up (9 hour time diff with the UK at the moment) and missed all the above, I have no objections if people want to remove that comment if they think it was unhelpful. To set the context, it follows a comment which was a direct personal attack, together with a general accusation of "anglophobia" against editors on one side of this argument; before that we have Hrotovice saying " just a bunch of losers mouthing off about it". I do think that the point I made is an issue for the WIkipedia and one which affects many pages, that said it may be more appropriate for another forum on another occasion rather than the particulars of this article. --Snowded ^TALK 20:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Still commonly employed"

The current edit claims that the term "British Isles" is "still commonly employed" and cites a source which says precisely this. Now, how come this is acceptable when we had numerous sources claiming that "many" people objected to the term but all the British nationalists here got the well supported "many" removed because, they contended, it was a subjective opinion/they didn't like it. Yet this edit is fine .... 109.76.150.165 (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The source backs the wording. I do not see the problem. The issue of "many objecting to the term" is a completely separate matter.  :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is still commonly employed. Just do a google search. A few politically motivated academics writing for audiences of a few dozen or hundreds can't change the English language on their own. The way the article is currently written gives far too much weight to their point of view - they may have written lots of articles using the new term, but then they are paid to churn out articles, which hardly anyone will read. Their preferred term is itself ludicrous, as this isn't the only, or even the biggest archipelago in the Atlantic. Wimstead (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I do tend to think the emphasis given to "Atlantic Archipelago" is excessive - I suspect few readers will have ever encountered the term before reading it here and might wonder if did not apply to something off South America or the Antarctic. The fact that some academics discussed using it in the 70s is hardly notable. Other alternate phrases like "these islands" are far more widespread, if alternatives need to be defined in the intro. The former bias of a large part of the intro towards what is essentially a minority view (eg, that "British Isles" should be expunged) is however now less prominent than it was and well done to those making it less so. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this; I don't see why Atlantic archipalego deserves a particular mention. Why not "... and whilst other terms have emerged, British Isles is still commonly employed." --Pretty Green (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems well referenced in Academic circles. --HighKing (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It has more references than any other alternative (note: most are quite recent, not 1970s). Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree "Atlantic Archipelago" position in the introduction is questionable and perhaps should be removed to help shorten the paragraph. I think mentioning "Britain and Ireland as an alternative is enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the lede is waaaayyy too long and should be considerably shortened. Much of the material in the lede is not a summary, which is what is should be. Also, the reference to back up the statement that the "British Isles is still commonly employed" is poor as it is not the main point, and does not qualify the statement. It would be far better to highlight the difference between historical usage where it was often used the way "UK" is used today, and current usage where it is only used in geographic contexts. These points are totally missed from the current lede. --HighKing (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the sources used to support the other statements in that paragrah state that "British Isles" is still commonly used, or use it despite asserting certain alternatives are preferable. Interestingly, however, none of them support the assertion User:Highking has just made, which is probably why we don't say that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, scratch the idea about evolving usage. But I still maintain the lede should be a lot shorter. Does anyone else agree? --HighKing (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the stuff about devolved assemblies belongs in the UK article, not here. AJRG (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference 17 admits ..... 'Atlantic Archipelago' is intended to do the work of including without excluding, and while it seems to have taken root in terms of academic conferences and publishing, I don't see it catching on in popular discourse or official political circles, at least not in a hurry. I rest my case M'Lud. This is marginal stuff - hardly worthy of the main introduction. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the 3rd paragraph covering the shared political history of the islands is useful to the reader. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's all useful. But what about if it is moved to a section within the article as opposed to the lede. Nobody is suggesting to delete anything. Just shorten the lede (i.e. the 1st para) and move everything else into the article. --HighKing (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would still like to point out yet again, with regards to the name, that the name issue has it's own article, British Isles naming dispute, and details should go there. It shouldn't get more than a passing mention in this article. Canterbury Tail talk 12:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh? --HighKing (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Gone Canadian HighKing? :) Just saying the name dispute has it's own article, so it shouldn't be covered in detail in this article. Should be mentioned here and linked, but not covered in great detail or large volume. Canterbury Tail talk 15:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - although I've Canadian relations :-) Yeah, I agree. The naming dispute doesn't need to be covered here. I realize that my previous comment might have been seen as a type of "dispute creep", where more and more .. dispute stuff .. gets added to the article. In my perfect article, the lede would contain a single para, stating as fact it's a group of islands, etc, and everything else gets it's own section. The current lede is a lot of Meh. --HighKing (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would go with this if the dispute para is also taken down to the text - the core of the argument-causing is the attempt to make that paragraph tilt one way and the other. At least, until there is consensus behind renaming it "Atlantic Archipelago"! Joke. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added the bit about the embassy officials back in because it makes an important point. The officials are monitoring the media. The "discourages use" is inaccurate and potentially incorrect, since "discourages" is an "active" action, whereas mere "monitoring" is passive. Pedantic? Perhaps. But better than being inaccurate. --HighKing (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In case there is some confusion, the reason we include "Atlantic Archipelago" is to offset the suggestion that "Britain and Ireland" is the only viable alternative and is in common use. This is patently false. There are only a handful of sources stating directly that "British Isles" = "Britain and Ireland", and half of them don't use that term in their own writing. There are at least twice as many sources making use of "Atlantic Archipelago". Of course both terms are ridiculed by other scholars, and rightly so, but the text (as it was) suggested there was some sort of consensus among the relatively small group of authors who are rocking the boat. In reality there is not and I've included a different alternative term to bring a bit of neutrality to the paragraph. (Naturally I wouldn't shed a tear if the paragraph was removed from the intro altogether, but I think we are obliged to mention it as per WP:LEAD. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You say in your latest edit comment Wiki-Ed that the "increasingly favoured" phrase is direct from the reference (as if we are all just helpless relayers of what sources say around this article - yeah, right) but the source goes on to say that it is favoured amongst supporters of the new British History, a term which is much narrower. It would be silly, but if you are insistent that this must be in, then we must further extend the bloated intro with contradictory statements pointing out the utter absurdity of Atlantic Archipelago as worthy of such note. It is simply not notable enough to be in the lede and it has been seized on here by the anti-British Isles (usage throughout Wikipedia thereof) camp, sources or no sources. I've already identified plenty of material that critiques it btw. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame you've decided to show up now after an extensive debate over whether we should be relying directly on limited sources to support dubious statements. For example, there are three or four sources asserting that "Britain and Ireland" is "becoming preferred". Half of the sources used to support it don't use that term (they use "British Isles") so whether it's weasel words or violation of NPOV it shouldn't be here. But it is and you didn't argue against it at the time.

Consequently, since other editors won't budge on their interpretation of their sources, I've included another alternative with more sources using exactly the same line of fallacious logic. They can't remove one without the other and the paragraph look a bit silly to most readers, but that's the point: one verifiable absurdity undermines the other verifiable absurdity, thus proving why we should not be mindlessly relaying what sources say. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Inevitable will happen if controversy is hidden away

People, to share my experience of watching this page over a number of years, if anyone tries to move proper mention of the naming controversy out of the introduction and place it elsewhere (while deluding themselves that it doesn’t really exist) then that will inevitably cause past (edit warring) history to reoccur.

One misinformed soul above, Hrotovice, came up with the following comment: ‘Would it not be better to remove reference to this "controversy" from the lead section?...I don't believe there's a real controversy anyway, apart from in Wikipedia…This "controversy" is not notable.’ It is actually very noticeable indeed given that it is official Irish Government policy (as is so clearly referenced - read them...it's the stuff encyclopedias are made of!).

Despite what ArmchairVexillologistDonLives and BritishWatcher may believe (and/or say), the majority of people in Ireland (alone) do use the term ‘Britain and Ireland’ in conscious avoidance of the term ‘British Isles’ and it is ridiculous to hide this. I appreciate that, for some, even a sworn statement of the fact signed by every person in the presence of a judge wouldn’t convince them. I do not try to change the opinions of those dead set against it in the face of all reason (and evidence) and I’m sure some of these folk will unfairly belittle or rubbish what I say. I do however wish to caution all contributors that this is a boomerang that will keep returning destructively if it is thrown elsewhere. Exhaustive details of the controversy can (and I agree should) be confined to the separate ‘British Isles naming dispute’ article. To reduce however what modest reference there currently is in the INTRODUCTION to the main article – which must include every aspect as an encyclopedic entry should (not pretending to just be historical, geographic, natural or whatever) – will soon enough kick off dispute round #whatever-high-number-we-are-up-to-now.

Why does the discussion section of this article fill so many archive folders? – you all must know why… Pconlon 10:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned, sure, but there are very few sources agreeing with your assertion that "Britain and Ireland" is deliberately used by millions of Irish people as a direct alternative to "British Isles" (and not just the two main islands as one might think from the wording). That's why the paragraph says what it does: neutrality. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have never ever disputed the fact many people may use "Britain and Ireland" The trouble is it does not have the same use as British isles. If i say "Britain and Ireland" i may be talking about the two islands Great Britain and Ireland, or i would be talking about two countries United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (sometimes simply called Britain) and theRepublic of Ireland. Never would i be talking about the geographical area that makes up the British Isles and i think that applies to most people who use "Britain and Ireland".

Oh and there is a long archive because some have tried to undermine and remove British isles from the history books and wikipedia.BritishWatcher (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, the attempts to remove BI were accuracy based, not politically based. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

They were not accuracy-based, they were pursuing a Wikipedia-based dispute which (as stated repeatedly before by many contributors) has a relatively marginal existence in the real world. It is doubtless true that a strand of opinion in Ireland and the Irish Government get exercized about it, but the majority of people everywhere in the World continue to make use of the term. Having it removed from a few Atlas pages and some academics debating alternatives does not alter this. This is a classic case of the weaknesses in the way Wikipedia operates, in that it gives far too much space to those who fiercely believe in a minority position to game, manouvre, rehearse and block against simple common sense. Thus we have an encyclopedia riddled with lede paras that give undue weight to minority positions. In a way it's no big deal, since any casual visitor browsing this page will immediately see the minority pressure at work on that para, but it will confuse some and that's a shame. Apart from that, this is just a game and will continue to be so unless there is some major change in the way Wikipedia is run. Nice try though Pconlon. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If the government most affected by the misuse of the term is concerned then I think its significant, and your "a few Atlas Pages" really fails to get the point. --Snowded ^TALK 06:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be foolish not to accept that point Snowded, or at least, to accept that the Irish Government show official concern, but with respect, this is clearly about lede status. The term is used in multiple languages and around the world. Continually trying to get it edited out of Wikipedia is POV-pushing. Continually trying to extend and magnify the significance of it as a debating point in a lede para in this article is POV-pushing. The other side, removing the debate altogether, would also be POV-pushing. It's about emphasis. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we are agreed there - its a sentence in the lede and a more substantive section later --Snowded ^TALK 07:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There's been one or two other editors that agree the lede is too long and would benefit from being shortened. Not sure if that adds up to consensus though. But if it does, as a framework for a new lede, can I suggest that we keep the first paragraph in it's entirity, and add to it a short one-liner that simply states "The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[6][10] where there are objections to its usage due to the association of the word British with Ireland" or something similar. The middle two paragraphs get moved down to new sections on "History" and "Civilisation" or something relevant. Thoughts? --HighKing (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the inclusion of the controversy being added to the first paragraph. If we are going to shorten the introduction then the focus needs to be mostly on the second and third paragraphs to see where it can be slimmed down. A full final paragraph in the introduction on the dispute is more than fair. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It would probably get more attention in a paragraph on its own, but I don't really care about formatting at this stage. I agree that there's a ton of scope to shorten the 2nd and 3rd paras. Perhaps to the point where we actually don't need them at all? Maybe? I'd also suggest we only need a sentence for the 4th para, but if others want to give it a paragraph... At this stage, I'm really only sounding out, in a general way, if there's consensus to shorten and move text. --HighKing (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you perhaps explain why you want it shortened? The structure and length are appropriate for an article of this size and scope. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The main reason is that its too long, which makes it very uninviting to read. And it's not a summary - for example there's a lot detail that is only mentioned in the lede. I've no other motives or axes to grind or anything like that. Just too long is all, and doesn't make me want to read it. --HighKing (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Despite what ArmchairVexillologistDonLives and BritishWatcher may believe (and/or say), the majority of people in Ireland (alone) do use the term ‘Britain and Ireland’ in conscious avoidance of the term ‘British Isles’ and it is ridiculous to hide this." - so the opinion of an island of around 6-7 million people outweighs the opinion of an island with nearly 60 million people? Convention states controversies should be stuck at the end of the lede. For a fuller detailing of the controvery a link can be provided to article that goes into this inane controversy. I suggest we stick to that convention and ignore the POV. There is no concensus for change and there won't be so why continuely argue about it? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A real logical error there Mabuska, a controversy is a controversy not a vote --Snowded ^TALK 11:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said Snowded. I also concur with HighKing…the introduction 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are rather too long and detail-heavy for an introduction. The controversy exists, is significant and so it is right & proper that we include direct mention of it in the intro. I would like this to be included in or just after the first paragraph – it was on this point that I originally chimed in. If though the consensus of reasonable contributors is to place it below reduced versions of the second and third paragraphs, I can go with that. Let’s get the emphasis right as many of us have stated.

Can some contributors please give up the ‘I don't believe there's a real controversy anyway’ line. It is more than a mere ‘strand of opinion’ in Ireland I assure you. The Irish state was established with the rejection of British control, interference and association as a founding principle, let’s not forget this in maintaining a reasonable perspective. What is being argued for here is POV-including (where significant and properly referenced) rather than POV-pushing. The democratically elected Government of Ireland is fairly representing the majority of citizens in its stated position. Should be included. Pconlon 19:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Discourages its use"

I've tagged the lede paragraph as the statement "and its embassy in London discourages its use" is unsupported by the provided reference. I tried to fix this, but it got reverted as a "controversial change". LoL. Can someone explain how it's controversial exactly?  :-) --HighKing (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Brits don't like it/ it's a popish plot/ it undermines the realm? Otherwise known as: it does not subscribe to the myths which underpin the modern invention of "Britishness" and the "British" nation? There are references, my dear boy, and there are Paddy references. Next we'll be referencing the fact that "many" Irish object to the term "British Isles". And we can't have that here on Britipedia. 109.78.46.48 (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)