Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:00, 15 June 2012

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, without prejudice to any further discussion on scope of content, renaming, or relationship to other articles. I declared below that I would not detail my reasoning, but I will make one single point. I have recognised in this assessment that, in the context of politics, the term British Isles can be interpreted with the POV of pro-British, or even anti-Irish. I have seen no evidence that the article was written with this POV, nor was it the intention of the author, although several contributors to this debate on both sides clearly did have a POV regarding this. It is hard to hold it against KarlB for using this term when there is no widely recognised neutral alternative (I had not even heard of Atlantic Archipelago until today): at least, none has been suggested during this discussion. I also apologise for being British - I had not realised that this could be an issue when I began this close and have made every effort not to allow my nationality to sway my judgement. Spinning Spark 18:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 May 30.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This debate is taking some time to close. It will be a lengthy process to read all the material on this page and referenced debates and give them due consideration. It may take up to 24 hours to close. Spinning Spark 01:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is my normal practice on closing controversial debates to give details of my reasoning and assessment of the arguments. I have been keeping copious notes for that purpose. I have just made the decision not to give any such assessment in this case: to do so would invite wall-of-text disputation on my talk page, and, judging by the previous close, accusations of super-voting. The close is merely going to give the result after my assessment is complete. Spinning Spark 10:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics in the British Isles

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (another term used to describe the same)

Conflation of geographic term (British Isles) with politics. Politics occurs in the sovereign states as in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. It does not occur within a geographic area like the British Isles. For example, we do not have a Politics in the Levant article. Multiple OR issues. Snappy (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Snappy (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Snappy (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is pure OR and another of Karl's pointless cats/articles. BTW I do not need Karl commenting on my input. And can I also request that he keeps his input to the absolute minimum here (and for that matter at other delete discussions). Thanks. Bjmullan (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Politics in the British Isles is the subject of endless streams of ink. Given the shared history (see History of the British Isles and recent creation of multi-lateral bodies whose scope is the whole of the British isles, a survey article like this one is completely reasonable, not OR, and obviously notable. If your general argument is with the intersection of politics and regions, well, we also have Water politics in the Middle East, Water politics in the Nile Basin, Politics of the Caribbean, Politics of the European Union, Politics of Europe, for starters; but I suppose you might respond that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? If you can point out the OR, you are of course welcome to improve the article. I'm just not sure why you are saying this article is OR, or which parts are OR? Also, this is not WP:SYN, because no additional conclusions are being drawn about politics in the british isles that isn't supported by references. Nice to see you too BJ. --KarlB (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment here is a recent book source, which uses a similar title to that of this article:
- Nicholas Aylott, Iain Ogilvie, John Barry (2003). The Politics of the British Isles: A Comparative Introduction. Sage Pubs. ISBN 978-0761969600.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) --KarlB (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, this is getting tedious. I think we have a problem here and would direct Karl to examine the Wikipedia:General sanctions with regard to the term "British Isles". While Karl's exact behavior is not typical of the sort we have seen before on this issue it is touching on disruptive and is certainly tendentious. --RA (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Thanks RA for your suggestion; I have read about the general sanctions, but in this case I don't think there is a violation; in fact the discussions on the CfD have brought to light lots of interesting material about politics within and between these countries. While the category is fine, an article is also of value here. If we end up renaming the category, then the article could be renamed too, but I don't see that as a reason to delete. I welcome your continued contributions to improve the encyclopedia. --KarlB (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment for another reference, attesting notibility, see this recent book: The Atlantic Archipelago A Political History of the British Isles "Presents a comprehensive political history of what are usually known as the British Isles without taking an Anglocentric point of view."] If you are searching for sources, I'd suggest looking under 'Atlantic archipelago' as well, as many sources are now using this term. If wikipedia moves to this term as well, then of course this article should be renamed. But I'd ask all those voting to please consider this is a deletion discussion, not a renaming discussion, so the title is not at issue - what is at issue is whether the contents are notable and sourced.--KarlB (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following editors have been canvassed for their participation: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. --RA (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RA, are you suggesting that Karl should not have carried out this "canvassing" ? Van Speijk (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I thank RA for notifying this discussion, something I should have done myself. I believe the notifications were fair; they were not done with any knowledge of political positions (they were just people who recently edited the related article History of the British Isles).--KarlB (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At best, this is excessive cross-posting, per WP:CANVASS#Spamming_and_excessive_cross-posting. The notification of a group of no less than 9 individual editors is quite excessive. It may have been relevant to place a link to this CfD at Talk:History of the British Isles, but the notification of individual editors looks to me like an attempt to select a particular group. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is a common political system - with variations - in most of the area and a different system in the Irish state. This article is the equivalent of a basket of apples with one pear. The same is not true of Europe, the EU, the Middle East etc. An article on bilateral relations between the UK and Ireland makes sense. This does not. Scolaire (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a ~~POV fork~~ redundant content fork. There are only two sovereign states in the archipelago. The politics of the archipelago is thus more than sufficiently met by Ireland-United Kingdom relations and the main British Isles article. The mere existence of a particular string of words in a published source (in this case "politics of the British Isles", or just, as easily, "British-Irish politics", or "Anglo-Irish politics", etc.) does not, in itself, merit a separate article. --RA (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like Karl is now looking to canvas: [10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15], [16] and [17]. Bjmullan (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, what I did was notify the editors who had recently editied 'History of the British Isles' as this article is clearly related. I notified them in a neutral fashion and did not base the notification on any particular pov. So, the notification was within the bounds. Thanks for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia.--KarlB (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can understand why we do need an article called "Politic in the British Isles" that is separate from "Politics in the United Kingdom". The British Isles would include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, both of which are outside the United Kingdom. Since they have their own parliaments (and different tax rates to the United Kingdom, at least in the case of the Isle of Man) it would make sense to keep this article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how that is a rationale for this article existing. You are saying that because the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are separate and distinct politically from both the UK and Ireland, as well as each other, it somehow makes sense to group them all together although you haven't shown why this is the case, you have merely stated that it is. Also note that you have inserted your new comment into the old AfD section and not where the latest comments go IRWolfie- (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of the nomination - that politics "does not occur within a geographic area like the British Isles" - is obviously false and seems quite tendentious. There seem to be plenty of sources which frame the topic in this way and here's another one: The Political Development of the British Isles. Warden (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not occur within geographic areas, it occurs within nation states, and what goes on between is covered in bilateral relations, e.g. Ireland-United Kingdom relations. As RA has pointed out, this article is large duplicate and pov fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. I also am concerned that KarlB's canvassing has turned into campaigning, in an effort to stack the !vote. Snappy (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so your claim is that politics cannot occur between nation states? Or politics can *only* be bilateral? You seem to forget the multi-lateral relations in the isles, which are well documented in the article. Perhaps you'd care to read it? --KarlB (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Snappy, I appreciate your unfounded concern; it was not canvassing, as explained above. I do note however that you added this to the list of 'Ireland'-related discussions, but you neglected to add it to any other countries (like, say, the UK). I wonder who is trying to stack the vote now? Please don't throw petty rocks when you're smack dab in the middle of a glass house. I know you're an honorable person, so I'll give you a chance to fix this, and notify all of the other concerned countries (UK, Wales, Isle of Man, etc etc etc - you know the drill)--KarlB (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Warden, I'm sure you chose that book quite by random and it is merely an unfortunate choice. However, in citing it, you neglected a part of the title that refers to the period it covers: 1100-1400. Like many of the books that Karl is citing, it's a history book. We already have History of the British Isles. We don't need a second one. Neither do we need a second article dealing with the contemporary politics of the region. --RA (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate because it rebuts the argument of the nomination? As for the history of the British Isles, that's a broad subject which has many subdivisions: geological history; economic history; military history; religious history. The political history of the region is quite valid as a topic. Warden (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate because the topic under discussion is the contemporary politics of the archipelago and you cited a book on the politics of the archipelago almost a millennium ago. It gives the impression that you didn't read the title fully, let alone the contents of the book. --RA (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources:

A source that tackles the issue from a modern light, see here: The British-Irish Council: Nordic Lessons for the Council of the Isles. This is an excellent paper, which analyzes the British irish council and other multilateral bodies, and compares them with the nordic council; it also looks at the history of bilateralism and multilaterlism, including a useful table on citizens rights for voting, residency, tax, social security, etc
Academic research center Atlantic Archipelagos Research Project (AARP) - whose purpose is to take an interdisciplinary view on how Britain’s post-devolution state inflects the formation of post-split Welsh, Scottish and English identities in the context of Ireland’s own experience of partition and self-rule. Consider the significance of this island grouping to the understanding of a Europe that exists in a range of configurations; from large scale political union, to provinces, dependencies, and micro-nationalist regions (such as Cornwall), each with their contribution and presence. Reconsider relations across our island grouping in light of issues regarding the management and use of the environment.

This all demonstrates that there is more to the story than just a simple bilateral relationship. RA, I appreciate your comments, but you seem to be making the point that people have done historical analysis of the politics of the Isles - that's ok; and you seem to agree that there are bilateral relations in the isles - between the UK and Ireland - ok (which you will note is not really repeated in the article at all) But, you are completely ignoring the devolved countries of the isles (which are now empowered to act on their on behalf in certain areas), and the crown dependencies, and the multilateral bodies, and the various bilaterla/multilateral political arrangements - none of this material is covered well in a survey form anywhere - you have to go the individual articles or categories. I note that we have a whole template devoted to this, and a whole section of the British Isles article is devoted to governance - so the question is, if we have a template, and a category, and books and articles written about this, what is the wikipedia-policy based argument for delete - besides the fact that people don't like the name? Would you accept this if it was called "Political economy of the atlantic archipelago"? --KarlB (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strong, as strong as an ox, keep, keep, keep (bullshit of course, we should either say keep or delete) For the reasons outlined by Warden. There's a book on the subject for heaven's sake. What more justification could there be for keeping such as article about a very real subject - historical or otherwise. Van Speijk (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Van Spike and Karl, the book Warden cites is about the politics of the Isles between the 12th and 15th century. We already have History of the British Isles.

@Karl:

"...the devolved countries of the isles..." — Ah, all parts of the UK. See, Ireland-UK relations.
"…and the crown dependencies.." — Ah, dependencies of the UK. See, Ireland-UK relations
"...and the multilateral bodies…" — Ah, compose of Ireland and different parts/depedencies of the UK. See, Ireland-UK relations.
"…the various bilateral/multilateral political arrangements…" — Ah, between Ireland and different parts/dependencies of the UK. See, Ireland-UK relations.

Karl, you can cite as many sources as you like. An article on this topic already exists. See Ireland-UK relations. --RA (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RA, I appreciate your comments; I hope you will take time to read and understand what those sources suggest; almost all of the sources I've cited are modern. I simply will note that, as you well know, the crown dependencies are not dependencies of the UK, they are dependencies of the British Crown. While I appreciate that some believe that "politics" only happens between sovereign nations, I think the evidence shows otherwise. As long as the crown dependencies are not part of the UK, political arrangements involving them should not be considered under Ireland-UK relations - especially in cases like Sellafield controversy, where Ireland and the Isle of Man are working together to pressure the UK government. That hardly sounds like a bilateral relationship to me.--KarlB (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added effectively all of this article to Ireland-United Kingdom relations. All of it is good stuff IMO and is a great addition to that article. However, doing so only underlines that this is a POV fork of that article. --RA (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you've taken material from this article, added it to another, and then claim this article is a POV fork of that other article? (further)Words fail me! BTW, could you answer my question about canvassing above. Thanks, Van Speijk (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted RA's change to Ireland-United Kingdom relations. I appreciate his good faith efforts to improve the wiki; just in this case it is best to complete this AfD before copying 12000k of text from one article to another and thus creating a fork of the content (that would then be edited in two places - ugh). I'm sure if a merge is proposed, then this content can be merged over. Thanks again for the kind words about the content RA.--KarlB (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are political organisations that operate in both countries of the British Isles, that alone I think would justify this article. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Van, yes. This article is a redundent a content fork. I've included the material form the fork in the original now. It is an enhancement. Just because something is a fork doesn't mean it's wrong or that it's text is bad. It's just, we can't have two articles on the same subject.

Regarding your question on Karls' canvassing, acceptable and unacceptable forms of canvassing are described in WP:CANVASS. It is not immediately obvious to me why Karl chose to notify those specific editors. They do not appear to be people "who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed"

OK, thanks for the clarification. Van Speijk (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@CoE - "...that operate in both countries of the British Isles..." Both countries. Ireland and the United Kingdom. I'll point again to UK-Ireland relations. An article on this topic already exists. --RA (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is there a culture section on what is supposed to be a politics article? We already have a British Isles article. Snappy (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; its a good question; and certainly could be debated; I linked out to the main culture section in the British Isles article; I just thought it might be useful to have a stub here, as shared culture is an important part of politics and identity formation, and of course sports are an important proxy for politics, but it should remain short given more content elsewhere. Thanks for your comment, and I hope you'll consider improving the article itself rather than focusing on deleting it.--KarlB (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point Snappy, we could remove that section. Maybe have a 'See also' or something. Van Speijk (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment oh dear. [18]. RA, as the one who made the first edit, would you mind asking Snappy and others to stop the forking? There is no need to maintain two copies of this article while it is under discussion. As soon as the discussion is finished, if the decision is merge, we will do so - but it is silly and even disruptive to do so in advance.--KarlB (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who created the fork in the first place, so don't throw stones when you're in a glass house yourself. Snappy (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is not a fork; it is mostly new material. The fork is when you copy 12k and paste it into another article. I've gone ahead and reverted, so that when you make constructive edits, they will all be centralized here; then of course if a merge happens, all the better.--KarlB (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, see Wikipedia:Content forking:

A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided.

We can't have two articles on the same thing. --RA (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should be known by now that the Republic of Ireland is an independent country. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is known. What has that got to do with anything? Van Speijk (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Night of the Big Wind. I want to thank you for your comment. I think you have a good point - we need to be very clear in this article that Ireland (RoI) is not a subservient state of the United Kingdom. If you look at the article, you will note that the first sentence in the history section says that there are two sovereign nations in the British isles (RoI and UK). I've also, as a result of your comment, added a hatnote to the top of the page, which attempts to explain the purpose of this page, and to distinguish it from Ireland-United Kingdom relations, so thanks for inspiring me to clarify further.

In terms of the scope of this article, for example, a discussion about a joint arrangement between Isle of Man, Ireland, and Scotland around the Irish Sea would fit better here than in Ireland-United Kingdom relations, since the Isle of Man is not part of the UK.

In short, I welcome your further thoughts on the issues, and if you have other suggestions on how to improve either the content, or even the name of the page so as to not give a mistaken impression, they would be appreciated.

I realize this name can cause some consternation, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be another good name in common use, but I suppose we could use the academic sounding 'atlantic archipelago'. In any case, I do hope that we can differentiate between whether the content is useful and encyclopedic, and ~~our own personal feelings~~ debates about the title (an article can always be renamed). Thanks again.--KarlB (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back up the truck. Karl, you wrote below that you wanted to have a "reasoned discussion", but what you write here shows the opposite. Dismissing another editor's reasoned concerns as "personal feelings" is a form of words which has the effect of devaluing their contribution to the discussion, and your repeated use of that sort of response looks like trolling. Please stop it.

There are plenty of reasons why "British Isles" may be contested as a term, and they are not simply "personal feelings"; they are longstanding policy of the government of Ireland. You may choose to ignore that factor, but please have the manners not to dismiss it as "personal feelings".

Secondly, there is the question of whether the geographical area referred to by some POVs as the "British Isles" is the appropriate scope for an article politics. If you do actually want a "reasoned discussion", don't dismiss that as "personal feelings". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is now worringly tenditious, especially as a quick look at Karl's recent creation history demonstrates an unwillingness on his part to accept a single objection raised by any editor, and the fact that this is now the 3rd or 4th open discussion involving one of Karl's creations. I've seen objections raised on one discussion totally ignored and the same points raised on the next discussion. Is this not precisely the behaviour that WP:GS/BI was set up to deal with? --HighKing (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing is right. Karl's tendentiousness here is becoming extremely disruptive, and the fact that all of his recent creations in this are have been opposed by a significant number of editors would give a reasonable editor pause for thought. Instead of stepping back and seeking consensus, KarlB continues to create more of these pointy pages, and engages in a verbose battleground response when challenged. WP:GS/BI will be needed soon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if you have ideas on how to rename or reframe the contents they would be most welcome. I appreciate your continued contributions to improve the encyclopedia.--KarlB (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, first of all drop the "I appreciate your continued contributions" pasting. It is superfluous, and since most of editors with whom you are interacting have a much longer contribution history than you, it comes across as a form of sneering.

Secondly, if you want suggestions on how to reframe or reuse the contents, then I offer you one simple solution: start by deleting this page. Keep a copy in userspace, and take the time to have a long discussion with other editors on how to approach these complex topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This piece is yet another WP:POINTy creation by KarlB, a synthesis of disparate topics created in furtherance of his campaign to construct the notion of a common polity across the so-called British Isles, and designed to serve as a head article for his self-created Category:Politics of the British Isles. The topics covered are primarily a hybrid of 1) A fork of Ireland–United Kingdom relations, and 2) a description of government structures and international relations in the islands. Neither aspect is best described as "politics".
There may be some content in here which could be re-used in neutrally-focused articles, so I would be happy for the page to be userified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per BHG above and also NPOV. In a strictly political sense use of the term 'British Isles' is seen by the Irish Government as politically unacceptable and very deliberately not used, which appears not to upset the other parties in the least. Best to leave political negotiations over political terminology to the politicians and not force on Wikipedia phrasing that is eschewed by the parties concerned. Editor's are free to think what they like of the respective governments' positions, but it is as it is. RashersTierney (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the argument for deletion seems to be based solely on the notion that politics is something wholly independent of geography, which is sheer nonsense. Other editors have provided reference material that shows the subject is notable in its own right. The article itself could do with some work, but having read through the discussion on this page I can see no good reason why there shouldn't be an article on this subject on Wikipedia. waggers (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article on this subject on Wikipedia: Ireland-United Kingdom relations. There is nothing substantively different about this article, nor can there be: there are only two sovereign states in the archipelago. --RA (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RA. However, it seems the crux of your argument is that politics can *only* be between sovereign states, or that all politics, if it happens between non-sovereign entities, is somehow subservient to the sovereign states. I suggest you do a bit of research on international relations. It will help you understand what sovereignty is, and what it isn't. You can have politics of Chicago, you can have mid-west politics, you can have middle-east politics, you can have politics of identity, you can have inter-state politics, you can have provincial politics, etc. Politics is *not* solely between sovereign states, and in fact there is a whole field of study looking at non-state actors in international relations. This paper may be a good start: [19].--KarlB (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, I suggest that you stop trying to patronise RA; it is ugly behaviour, and does not assist the discussion. The article does not identify non-state actors, so your comments are irrelevant.

As to your comments about sovereignty ... once again, please note that the British Crown says "The United Kingdom government is responsible for the defence and international relations of the Islands". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BHG, thanks for your comment. I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but I'm afraid it is your comment which is irrelevant. If you care to read the article above, you will understand what (non-state actor) means - this includes IGOs for example, which are non-state actors (eg: British-Irish council, or Irish Sea Platform, etc). The article also mentions entities like the Celtic league, which is a political actor, but not a state actor. Best regards!--KarlB (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, that is pointless and tedious pedantry. The British–Irish Council is an intergovernmental organisation, and your claim that its existence is an example of non-state actors is just word-playing. It's like saying that if I place a bag of stones on top of a pile of stones, I no longer have a pile which consist only of stones. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's easier for you to think of stones and bags, how about this - we have several stones, including 2 big sovereign stones, several bags (into which we put different subsets of these stones), and some of the stones are connected to other stones, either constitutionally, culturally, historically, or through other means. Your claim is that the only relationships and politics that matter here are the relationships between the two biggest stones; everything else is just part of that broader relationship. I disagree.--KarlB (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Karl. You need to listen and to repsond to what others write. The crux of my argument is that these two articles are about the same topic form different perspectives (i.e. a WP:POVFORK).

As you say, politics does not merely exist between sovereign states. Thus, Ireland-United Kingdom relations encompasses the totality of the relations that exist in the archipelago. Including, relations between Ireland and sub-national- and dependent-territories of the United Kingdom in the region. Consequently, these two articles are about substantively the same thing and merely differ on perspective. We can't have that. --RA (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Your position is clear- MERGE to Ireland-United Kingdom relations. Thus, you should just make that clearly your 'vote', instead of 'delete', and then revert the pre-emptive merge and wait to see if consensus agrees with you. Enacting *your* solution before consensus has been formed is disruptive.--KarlB (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[@RA,] While Guernesy, Jersey and the Isle of Man are constitutionally linked to the UK they are still states in their own right, and there are most definitely politics between these entities that fall outside of pure UK politics, are bigger than crown dependency politics, and are nothing to do with UK-Ireland relations. waggers (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, from one perspective, OK (because, as you say, the CDs are separate states). In theory, from another perspective, no (because the United Kingdom is responsible for the external relations of the Crown Dependencies). In practice, ultimately, the two topics are identical for practical reasons.

This is borne out by looking at the content of the two articles. What we have are two articles that are 99% identical with scope for 1% difference (specifically intra-Crown dependency relations, which would only involved the UK, as the party with responsibility for their external relations, and not Ireland, which would be uninvolved in that case). — Rannpháirtí anaithnid 11:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]
Facepalm. The reason they are identical, RA, is that you have continually copy/pasted content between them to make them so. --KarlB (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Supreme facepalm of destiny ...which further illustrates that they treat the same subject. --RA (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much meal is made of, for example, the multilateral nature of the British-Irish Council, without considering that the only signatories to the Agreement Establishing a British-Irish Council are Ireland and the United Kingdom. The latter point underlines the reality that UK-Ireland politics is, in reality, the politics of the archipelago as a whole. Those two political entities hold responsibility for political relations of the archipelago as a whole.

A better name for the article may be British-Irish relations or British-Irish politics (or even Politics of the British Islses, though that would be undesirable for other reasons). However, that is a seperate discussion. In the mean time, having two articles on substantively the same thing is a big problem. --RA (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The latter point underlines the reality that UK-Ireland politics is, in reality, the politics of the archipelago as a whole" ^{[citation needed]} Wow. I want to print that one out and frame it, and send it to the heads of all of the governments in the British Isles. I bet the parliament of the Isle of Man, which has existed for 1000 years, had no idea that their politics and relations with other entities was just, "in reality", part of UK-Ireland politics! We should let them know at once... --KarlB (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part I think you're right - the focus of the article at present is wrong and needs to be changed. But that's a content issue, which can be resolved through editing. Certainly much of what goes in this article can be, and is, covered elsewhere, and I don't think the article should be a content fork. Instead this article should stick strictly to summary style, summarising and linking to the Anglo-Irish and Crown Dependency articles where appropriate.

The question then becomes whether Politics in the BI is a sufficiently notable topic in its own right, even it that's as a summary of other more specific politics articles. Based on the fact that several books have been written on the subject, my conclusion is that the topic is indeed sufficiently notable to have a WP article. waggers (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is potential for a sort of political history/landscape type article discussing trends and themes outside of institutional politics and international relations (e.g. summarising the political history for the Isles and trends/themes like migration/colonialism/emigration/immigration, nationalism/unionism, devolution/separatism/independence, monarchism/republicanism, religion, identity, the political entities and their structures, etc.). These cut across the different places in the archipelago and are neither fully common or unique to any part.

That would be potentially very interesting. However, the current article, focusing as it does on institutional politics and international relations, is just duplication of the Ireland-United Kingdom relations. I'd be potentially supportive of a complete re-write with a wholly different starting point and focus, but I'd like to see a list of headers first. --RA (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content forks

Well the bold move by RA has caused a bit of a mess. We now have massive duplication of content across two articles. I've tried reverting, but I've hit my limit; so if other eds want to help, it would be appreciated; I can't participate in an edit war. Snappy is almost out of reverts too by the way. Again, I call on everyone to stop the content forking; keep the content in this article without forking it to another article, and await the outcome of the AfD. Otherwise it's just making a WP:POINT, e.g disrupting wikipedia to make a point.--KarlB (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I've tried reverting, but I've hit my limit; so if other eds want to help, it would be appreciated..." — Karl inviting tag teaming is not a good road to go down.

"I can't participate in an edit war. Snappy is almost out of reverts too by the way." — And neither is blatant battlefield-ism.

This is an area in which community sanctions and related ArbCom rulings exist. You would be well-advised to be very careful how you thread. --RA (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again for the warning. I would appreciate it if you would try to see my side, as I've tried to see yours. I think we have room to have a reasoned discussion here, especially since you seem to agree that the content itself is useful. Given that, pre-emptively merging, before consensus has been reached here, impedes full consensus formation and leads to duplicate maintenance of a lot of new content (as has already started happening). I also feel like you're angry, and lashing out.

RA, there isn't a rush, and if a merge is the consensus outcome, then all of that content will be moved over in due time. I'd thus like to kindly ask you to consider reverting your edits to the Ireland-UK relations article. If you want to show people what it *could* be like, then just point them to an old diff. As you can see passions are rising here, and I appeal to the levelheaded logic that you have showed in other threads, to bring this back to a reasonable conversation, rather than wikitricks like:

Ed1: Article A is a POV fork of Article B

Ed2: where's the proof?

Ed1: watch - I just copied everything from A into B - see - now A is a POV fork of B!!'

This kind of sneakiness is not becoming of you. I know you are an honorable editor, and I have faith that your better judgement will prevail; I agree content forks are bad, so why create one 7 days before the AfD is closed?

Also, I grow rather tired of pointing out that the crown dependencies are not part of the UK, so I'm not sure why *anything* about them belongs in the Ireland-UK article. My friends in the channel islands would be quite miffed by this assertion that they are just 'dependencies of the UK'. They're not.--KarlB (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, there is a pattern here.

You create content which reflects your view of a highly contentious issue. Many people object, and you edit-war, reply at huge length, all the while claiming that you want a "reasoned discussion". However, you are so verbose that reasoned discussion becomes impossible in the limited format of a talk page, and your style of participation is always to defend your initial position against all opposition. This is classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, uncannily like the view parodied in WP:TRUTH.

WP:GS/BI may soon be brought into play. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I welcome your suggestions on how to improve this article, or even rename it. What if we did a rename to Multilateral relations between Ireland, UK, devolved governments of the UK, and the Channel islands? or something less wordy? While I appreciate your POV, it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black to say I edit war - because you were edit warring just the other day if I recall correctly - you made 3 reverts to a page [20] [21] [22]. You also have a tendency to reply at huge length. In any case, let's just have a cup of tea, and focus on improving the encyclopedia; the content is not OR (it is well sourced), and it is not SYN either, because there aren't conclusions being drawn that aren't present in the sources; and it's not just my POV - an archipelagic 'outlook' is a perspective held by many scholars and historians; there is even a literary journal devoted to literature and writing from the archipelago: [23] and a research center devoted to this topic [24]. So I'd simply ask that you overlook for now the title of the article, and focus on the content - how could we improve the content, and how might the article be renamed?--KarlB (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"What if we did a rename to Multilateral relations between Ireland, UK, devolved governments of the UK, and the Channel islands [the Crown Dependencies of the UK]?" — Then we would still have two articles on the same subject. We already have an article on Ireland-United Kingdom relations. All of the sources you cite describe just that. All of the institutions you list are ones created by Ireland and the UK as part of their relations. --RA (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really quite confused RA. Why do you continue to insist that the crown dependencies belong to the UK, or are part of it? --KarlB (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Karl, have you actually read what I wrote above? Your reply gives little impression that you have done so.

The fundamental problem with this article is its scope, which seeks to conflate the politics of two independent nation-states and the dependencies of one of those states. This is not a historical article -- we already have History of the British Isles for that -- it sets out to be a political article. And in the study of comparative politics, authors may select geographical or other groupings as the basis of their comparison -- but that alone does not make for either a neutral or a notable topic.

Renaming it will not solve those problems.

There is a secondary problem of content, in that the article is a strange hybrid of governmental structure and international relations; very odd. There is a third problem, of naming, in that the use of the POV term "British Isles", which colors the readers perception of the international relations involved.

As to the edit-warring response, you have a lot to learn. When a contribution of yours is reverted, and you continue to restore it despite repeated requests to discuss it, you clearly have not read WP:BRD. This section opens with a request by your for other editors to join you in a tag-team edit war, so you clearly have not changed your behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The crown dependencies are not dependencies of the united kingdom.[25]. I appreciate you disagree with the scope; do you discount the multiple sources I've provided that use a similar scope for politics and political history? --KarlB (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, you are either playing silly games, or posing refs without reading them (just you did in another discussion). The link you posted above (to the Queen's own website at http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandCrowndependencies/ChannelIslands.aspx) says quite clearly "The United Kingdom government is responsible for the defence and international relations of the Islands, and the Crown is ultimately responsible for their good government". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, I've read those articles a lot. One of the first things they always say is "The crown dependencies are not part of the UK". That much is clear. And, they can act independently, even internationally, in some cases; for example, signing of tax ~~treaties~~ agreements. They have special membership rights within the european union; in short, while they are not sovereign nations, they are not just part of the UK, and thus in an article on Ireland-UK relations, they don't belong.--KarlB (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, I hope nobody disagrees with your second statement., viz, that "The crown dependencies are not part of the UK".

However, in the post to which i was replying, you wrote something different: that "the crown dependencies are not dependencies of the united kingdom". That is a very important distinction.

The dependencies are dependencies of the crown, but since the crown acts solely on the advice of its ministers, the distinction is one of constitutional labelling rather than practice. The actual practice is that the crown's relationship with the Channel islands is handled through government departments in Whitehall, by ministers of the crown and their civil servants.

As to the rest of what you write, you seem to be saying that you know better than the Crown itself, which says "The United Kingdom government is responsible for the defence and international relations of the Islands". So let's have a one-word answer from you: is that statement on the Crown's website True or False? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The Isle of Man has not signed any tax treaties, or treaties in any field for that matter. It has several agreements with states relating to taxation matters, which are referred to as such because it does not have such capacity in law. This is not a minor point wrt an apparent misunderstanding you have regarding competencies in the field of foreign relations. RashersTierney (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, please don't play word games. Next you'll be telling us that the United Kingdom doesn't have a government — "Her Majesty" does. FYI the UK Ministry of Justice is the department with responsibility for the three Crown Dependencies.

The key point is that there is no substantive difference between this article and Ireland-United Kingdom relations. There are only two sovereign states in the region: Ireland and the United Kingdom. All other polities in the region are either part of the UK or a dependency of it. And the institutions you list are UK-Ireland institutions. That is what makes this article a content fork. Its about the same topic, just from a different point-of-view (POV). --RA (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restart

Note - the below should be construed as my opinion, and not a statement of fact about other's positions
I think we've made a lot of progress in this discussion thus far. I think I've learned several things:

Some editors think the content is POV, WP:OR, and WP:SYN, and should be summarily deleted

Other editors strongly support this article, and appreciate its contents

A small minority - RA and Snappy - seem to believe that the content in this article is extremely valuable; so much so that Snappy has edit-warred [26], [27] to keep the (copied) content safe in Ireland-United Kingdom relations; and RA is spending precious time copying over fresh content from Politics in the British Isles to Ireland-United Kingdom relations (ex: [28]) (sadly losing some other editors edits in the process), so he's effectively helping maintain two copies of the content on the wiki. I can only suppose he thinks this content is so good, it's worth maintaining two copies for now (instead of waiting for the outcome of this discussion) - and who am I to judge?

Thus to me it seems there are 3 main points of view - two strands that agree with the content, and one strand which does not. It's a most fascinating discussion.
At present, the discussion seems to have tumbled into a deep hole of legal logic - and arguments are being brought forth to establish whether Isle of Man/Jersey/Guernsey are in fact dependencies of the United Kingdom, or are they dependencies of the British Crown, and does it matter? In any case, while there is no agreement on *that* point, there is agreement on the following:

The crown dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom and

There are two sovereign states in the British Isles

So, at this point, at least for those who agree on the content, the question is a rather simple one - where should the content go? Is it reasonable to have an article covering the numerous multilateral relationships between Ireland, United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, England, Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, and to treat these arrangements separately from the direct bi-lateral relationships between the central Irish state and the government of the UK? To see why "bilateral" relations does not capture the complexity here, see [29]; the relationships engendered by the British-Irish council are almost always described as multilateral. As another example, we have the Sellafield controversy, where Irish and Isle of Man governments are working together to pressure the UK government to shut down a reactor. Multilateralism at its finest!
As for those who think the content is rubbish, you may want to have a look here Ireland-United_Kingdom_relations#Co-operation, as the same content was copy/pasted, and now has multiplied and is producing offspring (e.g. *new* content). So if this content is *really* bad, you may want to have a word with RA.
In any case, I propose a compromise, and a way forward:

Rename the article to Multilateral relations and politics between Ireland, devolved governments of the UK and the Crown dependencies. This avoids the term 'British isles'. We would then keep Ireland-United Kingdom relations focused on the bilateral relations (and entities) between the countries, which are significant (and worth much more work), and keep this article linked from that one. In addition, instead of a heated discussion here, we could spend time working together on improving the article.--KarlB (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Karl's comment is far too verbose. It should simply have consisted of the final paragraph, which is his concrete proposal to rename the article as Multilateral relations and politics between Ireland, devolved governments of the UK and the Crown dependencies.

That title is incredibly long, and its sheer length is reminiscent of an essay rather than encyclopedic title. The only reason for the proposal of such a verbose title is Karl's determination to pursue his POV that there is a "politics of the British Isles", which he is now prepared to accommodate by dropping the contested labels.

There is no need for this page, which remains a POV split from Ireland-United Kingdom relations. The material in this article can all be accommodated in Ireland-United Kingdom relations, without making it unduly long, and RA acted quite properly in copying the relevant material there so that it can be reworked as appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So just to be clear, you're suggesting that a merge of an article, in advance of consensus at AfD, when a merge is one of the proposed outcomes of the AfD, is a *good* idea and RA should be commended for doing so (rather than waiting until the AfD was complete)? I always thought encouraging the creation of content forks and pre-empting consensus was not supported by admins...--KarlB (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also, please note, I've always been willing to accommodate a title change, and have suggested the same several times. I do wish, given that now you seem to be in the camp that supports the content (and not the title/location), that you would help come up with a better title... --KarlB (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No new title is needed, and I don't "support the content". I support the coverage of some of these issues, in the appropriate place, which is at Ireland-United Kingdom relations. The content of this article should be merged there, and revised to eliminate problems such as disagrecefully-biased "scholarly perspectives" section. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I always thought encouraging the creation of content forks and pre-empting consensus was not supported by admins..." - Karl, the redundant article is Politics in the British Isles, which you (in good faith) created.

There is a reasonable argument that the Crown Dependencies are not (strictly speaking) a part of the UK. However, given their constitutional relationship with the the UK and their minor role in the politics of the archipelago, any article on Ireland-United Kingdom relations, or Politics of the British Isles, or any other combination of words, is going to be substantively the same. That is a real cause for concern. We cannot have two articles on the substantively the same topic but written from different points of view (POVs).

Now, this does raise questions about the title of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. A discussion on that may be merited. Alternatively, we could simply add a note to the introduction explaining that, for the purposes of the article (and given the subject matter), we are including the Crown Dependencies in discussion of the topic (but explain that, strictly speaking, they are not part of the UK). Individual articles, such as Ireland-Isle of Man relations, are still helpful IMO. --RA (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RA. I appreciate your response. I do wish you would reconsider, and remove the fork until this discussion is finished. it is causing no end of trouble; for example, duplicate maintenance on different parts of the content.

The question now seems to be about whether the content is best served in one article, or in two. Every single XX-XX relations article I've seen is about bi-lateral relations. And, as you've pointed out, the crown dependencies are not only *not* part of the UK, they're not even *technically* part of the UK. They have no representation in parliament,and they have authority to negotiate tax agreements, they have 'special' position within the EU, and if Isle of Man and Ireland are both pressuring UK to do something, how can that be captured as a bi-lateral relationship? Ireland regularly indulges in bi-lateral relations with the UK, and has bi-lateral bodies like the British–Irish Intergovernmental Conference, and they have Ango-Irish summits. There is so *much* content that could be written just on bi-lateral relations, and that's where it belongs. But this content is different, is it looking at an all-islands perspective; I think it deserves it's own article.--KarlB (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same topic, different perspective = POV fork. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is so sad to see such a great admin as BHG sink to such low depths. This was a quote from a few days ago: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_24#Category:Nobility_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland

Karl, you created the categories under discussion at CfD May 21. There are are several possible outcomes to that discussion, deletion of the categories, merger, or renaming to one of several possible targets. What you have done, however, is to pre-empt the outcome of that CfD by unilaterally creating a category which reflects one possible outcome of the CfD. This is blatantly disruptive, because it either creates a fait accompli or it splits the discussion into two, by having 2 separate discussions on related categories. If you do not agree to its prompt deletion pending the outcome of the other discussion, then I will take this up elsewhere to seek admin intervention against this disruptive editing.

Now, I conceded the point, and deleted the offending category, and we moved on. But now, 2 days later, RA does basically the same thing, doing a full-copy paste of an article under discussion, where one of the proposed outcomes is MERGE, thus impeding consensus formation by creating a content fork, and attempting to establish facts on the ground in advance of a full discussion, and resulting in dual maintenance of tons of duplicated content at Politics in the British Isles and Ireland-United Kingdom relations, and meanwhile you sit idly by and encourage it, because it fits *your* particular POV. If you had any honor at all, you would hang up your admin powers for the rest of this discussion, you have not shown yourself deserving of them.--KarlB (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...it is causing no end of trouble; for example, duplicate maintenance on different parts of the content. ... resulting in dual maintenance of tons of duplicated content at Politics in the British Isles and Ireland-United Kingdom relations" - That's the problem with a fork. Forks are not about duplicate content, they are about duplicated topics. The existence of two articles on the same subject then leads to duplication of content and, as you say, "no end of trouble". That's why we delete one topic. --RA (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
YOU forked the content RA. Don't be daft. At least we agree it shouldn't be in two places - so why not wait till the AfD is finished? You're impeding consensus formation. --KarlB (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, You forked the content KarlB, Ireland–United Kingdom relations existed for 6 years before this article. The correct procedure should have been to expand the existing article first. Unfortunately, you choose to create (a gf) fork. This is what we are trying to remedy now. Snappy (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fork is a copy of the original. RA copied the original. If he wanted to merge, the correct action would be to delete all of the content in Politics in the British Isles and set it as a redirect. But that would be inappropriate at this moment, since the article in question is under discussion as AfD. instead, Snappy, RA, and BHG are working in concert to maintain a duplicate content fork while the article in question is still under discussion at AfD. This is disruptive behavior, and I'm going to ask for admin intervention. --KarlB (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Content forking: "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sigh. Content forking is not inherently bad. see Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view."

There are plenty of sources, referenced here and elsewhere, that suggest a multi-lateral, multi-actor, archipelago wide perspective is a valid one to take, vs just considering that all politics in the British isles boils down to Irish-British bilateral relations, as you guys seem to.

If, as you and others are arguing, the new article is a 'redundant content fork', then the proper procedure is a merge - which you're not performing here. The article was proposed for deletion, one outcome may indeed be merge, but by merging *before* consensus is reached, you are muddying the waters for other uninvolved editors. I do ask again that you all stop this silliness, but I know you're not going to, because you obviously believe it bolsters your argument at this AfD. --KarlB (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, there is a big difference between writing an article about a POV and writing an article from a POV.
Y To write seperate articles about different perspectives on British-Irish politics

N To write seperate articles from different perspectives on British-Irish politics

--RA (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RA, there is a big difference between helping the wiki, and disrupting it:
Y Allowing consensus to form before unilaterally enacting the results of an AfD

N Unilaterally enacting your preferred outcome of an AfD before consensus is formed.

--KarlB (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other editors

New editors coming to this AfD may be confused by the fact that much of the content in Politics in the British Isles seems to be replicated in Ireland-United Kingdom relations. The reason this is so is that several editors who want to delete this: Politics in the British Isles (including the AfD nominator Snappy) have unilaterally and continually copy/pasted [30],[31],[32] any and all new and revised content from Politics in the British Isles and pasted it into Ireland-United Kingdom relations, thus creating facts on the ground in this debate. This duplication of content is then used to argue that the two articles are substantially similar. I can assure you that if I write two good paragraphs about multilateralism between the states in the archipelago at 9am and place it in Politics in the British Isles, by noon that content will have been copied over to the Ireland-United Kingdom relations article. Hopefully, this note will help you in making a judgement; do not be deceived by appearance of duplication, which is a disruptive and time-wasting duplication in advance of consensus by RA and Snappy. --KarlB (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt to the question of whether the two articles duplicate each other, the main issue is the scope of the topics, not the current content of either article. See Wikipedia:Content forking.

So please just drop the drama, and use this AFD to discuss whether or not the topic "Politics in the British Isles" duplicates the topic "Ireland-United Kingdom relations". What issues can be covered under one title but not under the other? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to leave this here again, since BHG had no defense for the hypocrisy it implies, and let other editors interpret its meaning: from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_24#Category:Nobility_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland
"Karl, you created the categories under discussion at CfD May 21. There are are several possible outcomes to that discussion, deletion of the categories, merger, or renaming to one of several possible targets. What you have done, however, is to pre-empt the outcome of that CfD by unilaterally creating a category which reflects one possible outcome of the CfD. This is blatantly disruptive, because it either creates a fait accompli or it splits the discussion into two, by having 2 separate discussions on related categories. If you do not agree to its prompt deletion pending the outcome of the other discussion, then I will take this up elsewhere to seek admin intervention against this disruptive editing." (written by BrownHairedGirl a few days ago)

--KarlB (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that Ireland-UK relations is not sufficient to capture all politics in the Isles

Recent news article: AHERN UPBEAT ON LINKS TO ISLAND; Isle of Man Today; 23 April 2003. "He said that despite issues raised in Irish tribunals on the subject of some Irish nationals using the Isle of Man to avoid tax in their own country, the situation had 'moved on from that position'. The two countries were working closely together on a range of tax matters and progress had been made on a draft tax information exchange agreement." "The British Irish Council had facilitated meetings between the Irish premier and Chief Minister Richard Corkill and presented an opportunity for the two countries to discuss a whole range of issues, of which regulatory and associated economic measures were key, together with 'common concerns' such as Sellafield and the transportation of nuclear cargoes in the Irish Sea. 'The British Irish Council,' he said, 'brings us (Ireland and the Isle of Man) closer than ever before.'" "Mr Ahern continued: 'I am aware that, as an internally self-governing dependent territory of the Crown — and, as you underline, not a part of the United Kingdom — you guard your fiscal independence. However, this independence has not been at the expense of cooperation with the international community.". So I guess someone needs to tell Bertie Ahern that, according to experts BrownHairedGirl and RA, the relations between Ireland and Isle of Man are really just a part of the bilateral relationship between Ireland and the UK. I'm sure this knowledge will be of use to him. --KarlB (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or another one: "Governors discuss our relationship with UK": "THE Crown Dependencies’ relationship with the UK was on the agenda as their Lt-Governors met yesterday." "‘We discussed issues of common interest, such as the relationship with the UK: are we pursuing the same line?,’ said Sir Fabian. It was useful to find out what was happening in the other jurisdictions, he added." [33]. Gosh, that sounds, well, *nothing* like Ireland-UK politics to me...
Here's more: "Ahern foresees closer links with devolved Scotland"; The Herald - Glasgow (UK); Oct 30, 1998; "Mr Ahern said he looked forward to bilateral exchanges between Ireland and Scotland on economic and EU issues in the British-Irish council. He foresaw closer links in tourism, fisheries and transport and said: "I would certainly like to encourage more people from the Republic to visit Scotland and, equally, more Scottish people to visit Ireland because I am certain we both feel at home in each other's countries." Somebody needs to tell Ahern that Ireland-Scotland can't have bilateral relations! He seems to have forgotten that Scotland isn't sovereign, so any relationship with Ireland is really just part of Ireland relationship with the UK. Shall we draft a letter to the Irish government to inform them of their error? --KarlB (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early closure

While this debate is certainly interesting I think all the arguments for and against deletion are already covered here, and we're beginning to see accusations of gaming and edit warring flying around. I've therefore asked at WP:AN/I that an early closure is considered. Clearly this is an emotive subject for some and I'd hate to see good editors losing their rag over it and then being blocked/banned/whatever. WaggersTALK 15:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting following DRV

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "delete" closure of this discussion was appealed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 30, and the result of the review discussion was to relist this deletion discussion. I ask all who have already participated in the debate above, especially those who have done so at great length, to refrain from continuing to do so, so as to allow others to offer their opinion. Sandstein 06:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to cover a proper subject, the overarching political relations between the countries and dependencies in what is termed the British Isles. This includes relations like the British–Irish Council and other related international organizations involved in the region. The sources clearly discuss this topic and indicate that it is notable, so I am not seeing any OR issues or SYNTH issues. If the issue is the use of the controversial term British Isles, which does seem to be influencing a fair amount of the Delete voters above, I propose the article is renamed to Politics of the Atlantic Archipelago, with Atlantic Archipelago being another, perhaps more neutral, term for the region in question. The article was also named this at one point, so it seems a proper suggestion to go back to this title. Silverseren^C 06:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that delete suggestions above saying this article should not exist and should just be redirected to the article on British-Irish relations, I point out that this article is not discussing that. That article is certainly a subsection of this topic, but this article is discussing something far more expansive than just the politics between the UK and Ireland. Silverseren^C 06:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This includes relations like the British–Irish Council and other related international organizations involved in the region." - All of which are institutions of British-Irish relations, established by treaties with two signatories: the United Kingdom and Ireland (example). These are and listed by the British and Irish governments as being bilateral (bilateral) between those two states. The topic is deal already with on British-Irish relations.

"The sources clearly discuss this topic and indicate that it is notable, ..." - Yes. And all of the source deal with the same topic that is already treated in British-Irish relations.

"If the issue is the use of the controversial term British Isles,..." - That's not the issue. The substantive problem is the existence of two articles on the same topic but merely approaching it from different POVs. This is a POV fork.

"...perhaps more neutral, term for the region in question." - British-Irish relations, perhaps? As already exists :-) --RA (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"That article is certainly a subsection of this topic, but this article is discussing something far more expansive than just the politics between the UK and Ireland." - Like what? Relations between parts of the UK and Ireland? Relations between dependencies of the UK and Ireland? Institutions set-up by the UK and Ireland in bilateral agreements that involve the participation of parts/dependencies of the UK and Ireland? If we strip out everything that is already covered by Ireland-United Kingdom relations, what's left? --RA (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how they were established, the British–Irish Council is a International governmental organization (IGO) that is meant to represent more than just Ireland and the UK, which is clear to see from the mere fact that the devolved administrations and the crown dependencies are all considered separate within the Council. It should only be shallowly dealt with in British-Irish relations (since that should focus on just Britain and Ireland for the most part, since the crown dependencies are not constitutionally a part of these relations).

The sources are a non-starter, since you copied over the content during the course of the AfD, as I outline in a reply below.

So you're saying that British Isles is not the issue, but then saying the article is POV? Isn't said POV applying to the term British Isles?

I've already explained how the British Isles (Atlantic Archipelago) is larger than what you consider to be the UK and Ireland. Silverseren^C 09:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, different parts of the UK are represented on the British-Irish Council. That doesn't mean it is not a part of British-Irish relations. Perhaps you could indicate a signatory to the establishing agreement that is not either Ireland or the United Kingdom?

Sources that purportedly deal with the politics of the British Isles were forwarded as part the arguemnt for keeping this article. However, whether those sources deal with the politics of the British Isles or British-Irish relations is only a matter of perspective and choice of vocabulary. Yes, sources exist to support the inclusion of an article on this topic. And that topic already exists: British-Irish relations.

I don't know what you mean by the last sentence. The POV behind the POV fork in this case is one to do with international relations theory. Karl wants to write about British-Irish relations from an "archipelagist" perspective and complains that the current article leans/leaned too much on the realist school of international relations theory. That's fine. And he has/had a point. But we should do so by improving the existing article so that it is written from a neutral point of view and not by creating a second article on the same topic written from a different perspective. --RA (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the British Isles is larger than the UK and Ireland is one of perspective. The devolved administrations of the UK, are of course, unarguably, a part of the UK. Domestically, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK. Externally, they are the dependent possession of the it. See Bradley and Ewing (2007) below. Aside form the UK, there is only one other sovereign state in the archipelago: Ireland. Consequently, the politics of the entire archipelago are encompassed by Politics of the United Kingdom and Ireland-United Kingdom relations. --RA (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What original research looks like: Given accusations above that this article was WP:SYN, I thought it might be useful to show a real example of WP:SYN (i.e. coming to a conclusion never stated by any sources). RA has just provided a lovely example above. Watch carefully:
"Aside form the UK, there is only one other sovereign state in the archipelago: Ireland": Ok, this is pretty easy to source. No debates on that.

"Consequently, the politics of the entire archipelago are encompassed by Politics of the United Kingdom and Ireland-United Kingdom relations"

Whoah! That leap of logic could cross the Pacific ocean! How exactly did we jump from #1 to #2? In an amazing twist of logic, RA has turned years of international relations theory and political science on its head, and deftly concluded that politics is only between sovereign states, and everything else is simply encompassed by those relations. Unfortunately, RA will be unable to provide any sources that back this claim up, because no-one except him and a few other editors here actually believe that to be true. If you don't believe me, then please try and find a source: specifically, try to find a source that states that all politics (or perhaps, all international relations) in the British Isles is encompassed by UK politics or Ireland-UK relations. Best of luck! FWIW, as one small piece of evidence on the opposing side, here is [156 pages on Ireland/NI/Scotland cooperation (and including mentions of Isle of Man)]. Guess what word is never mentioned in this document? "London". But I'm sure all of those involved realized that all of this cooperation was just a subset of Dublin-London bilateral relations, right?--KarlB (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "British Isles" is a POV-laden phrasing, Anglo imperialist if you will. The first step to ending this circus is to come up with NPOV titling. Carrite (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said just above your comment, Atlantic Archipelago? It is a synonym for the region (indeed, it redirects to the British Isles article itself), but has little to none of the controversy. Silverseren^C 06:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think if this were titled Politics in Great Britain and Her Majesty's Enclave In Ulster and By the Way, Fuck You Ireland, the POV would be more apparent. That's pretty much what this title sounds like to an Irish patriot though. To end fisticuffs, get rid of the silly crap that starts fights. Why is this piece at AfD again???? Clearly a Keeper, topic-wise... Carrite (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retitle, per the above. Carrite (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations Mo ainm~Talk 07:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do note that the "duplicated content" was added into the relations article inappropriately after the start of this AfD in an attempt to then get this article deleted. For example, see one such inappropriate duplication here. Thus, this article is not so much a content fork as the content in this article was inappropriately forked out of it in a pointy manner. Silverseren^C 08:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate content does not make a content fork. A content fork is created when two articles are created on the same subject (not content). In this case, the two articles deal with the same subject: British-Irish relations. Naturally, they have the same content. Indeed, the duplication of content is a specific problem caused by the creation of content forks. See Wikipedia:Content fork. --RA (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the Ireland–United Kingdom relations was not about the dependencies or other government in the region besides being strictly about Ireland and the UK. That is, it was not about this subject before this article was created and you began trying to get it deleted by copying over out of scope information into the Ireland–United Kingdom relations article. For example, this is the Ireland–United Kingdom relations article before this Politics article was created. Then, after this AfD was started, Karl made this edit to link a related, though more expansive, article. The very next edit here is you copying over content from the Politics article while this AfD was ongoing. Then, Karl reverted the addition, explaining in the edit summary that this should not be added until the AfD is over. However, you and a number of other editors didn't listen, breaking policy numerous times and edit warring (and the fault of edit warring is on all of you and not Karl, because you were the ones trying to get this article deleted in an underhanded way of influencing the AfD). It's all very clear and obvious for everyone to see. Silverseren^C 08:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What information did I copy over that was out of scope? For example, Karl is pushing energy links between Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man. Closer inspection, however, reveals that this is in fact an agreement between Ireland and the United Kingdom.

There are only two sovereign states in the region. We do not, for example, fork Portugal–Spain relations in to Politics in Iberia merely because there exists in Spain several autonomous regions. --RA (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sidestepping the points I made above about trying to influence the AfD doesn't really put you in a good light. But, as for the hypothetical Politics in Iberia article, there probably should be one, considering that the Iberian Peninsula includes Andorra (a country) and Gibraltar (a British territory). Neither of those should be going under Portugal-Spain relations at all. Silverseren^C 09:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not side stepping anything. I included content from Politics in the British Isles that was directly relevant to British-Irish politics. As it happened that was effectively the entire article because ... they treat the same topic. What I am illustrating is that these two article deal with the same topic i.e. one is a content fork.

I do believe the fork was made in good faith. Karl is quite driven by the "archipelagist" perspecitive on British-Irish relations (one I happen to share to a great extent, for what it's worth). But, that doesn't redress the fact that they still treat the same subject, just from different perspectives. --RA (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Comment: In spite of Sandstein's suggestion, I'll restate that this article should be deleted as a content fork of British-Irish relations. The two articles deal with substantively the same topic, but merely approach it from two different perspectives: British-Irish relations is framed from the realist perspective of international relations (which appears to be an orthodox for titles on Wikipedia), whereas Politics of the British Isles being framed from an "archipelagist" perspective on the international relations of the two states (which is a trend in the topic).
There mere existence of two POVs on a the same topic however is not reason for the existence of two articles on the same topic. All articles should be written from a neutral POV and incorporate disparate POVs on the topic.
Substantial discussion with the creator of the article (here and on various talk pages) has borne this out as does the content of the two articles. Reliable sources of course exist, yes, and treat the same topic as is already described at British-Irish relations. --RA (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You already voted in the AfD prior in the above sections, so i'm striking this duplicate vote. Silverseren^C 08:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I wasn't sure of the process. --RA (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crown dependencies / Ireland-United Kingdom relations

In the previous listing, a point of argument was whether the Crown dependencies of the UK (the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) were covered in the scope of the article Ireland-United Kingdom relations.
An argument put was that since there are only two sovereign states in the archipelago, the politics of the archipelago is already covered by Ireland-United Kingdom relations. The counter argument was that the Crown dependencies are not part of the UK and so are covered by Ireland-United Kingdom relations.
The following, I hope, will shed light on this question:

In law, the expression 'United Kingdom' refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it does not include the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. For the purposes of international relations, however, the Channel islands and the Isle of Man are represented by the UK government.
…
International law has the primary function of regulating the relations of independent, sovereign states with one another. For this purpose the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the state, with authority to act also for its dependent possessions, such as the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and its surviving overseas territories, such as Gibraltar, none of which is a state at international law. - Anthony Wilfred Bradley; Keith D. Ewing (2007), Constitutional and Administrative Law, vol. Volume 1 (14 ed.), Harlow: Pearson Education, p. 33, 323, ISBN 1405812079 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Another point that was raised was the existence of institutions such as the British-Irish Council. An argument was put that these are multi-lateral bodies and so outside of the scope of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. The counter argument was that these institutions were established through bilateral agreements between Ireland and the United Kingdom alone, as the sole sovereign states in the region.
I hope the following will shed some light on this issue. They are the establishing traties for these organisations. They are all described as being between the United Kingdom and Ireland and as being "bilateral":

Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland (British-Irish Agreement)

Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland establishing a British-Irish Council

Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland establishing a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference

--RA (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I await your response above. Silverseren^C 08:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, aren't you already violating what Sandstein asked above when reopening this AfD? Specifically, "I ask all who have already participated in the debate above, especially those who have done so at great length, to refrain from continuing to do so, so as to allow others to offer their opinion." Silverseren^C 08:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can hardly call for a response and then complain when you get it. RashersTierney (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is an unnecessary POV content fork with liberal doses of synthesis. Despite the title most of the content attempts to describe relations between the UK, Crown dependencies, and the Republic of Ireland, which makes it a content fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. Yes there are parts of the British Isles which are not part of the UK or Ireland, but this is nothing more than a technicality in this context as their external relations are handled by the UK. While there are sources which cover things like UK-Ireland history from a "British Isles" perspective, this usage is POV and by no means universal, and as a result the article is forced to use quite a lot of synthesis in order to get the sources to fit the article purpose. Obviously we can cover this POV within Wikipedia, but we have to do so on an article about the POV itself rather than structuring all our content around it. Hut 8.5 09:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then please explain how the Irish Sea Region, the North-South Ministerial Council, and the Ireland Wales Programme are a part of Ireland-UK relations. The UK government is not even involved in those. Silverseren^C 09:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean we should group them all together as if they are all connected as is done so here. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense. How should they be grouped then? They clearly do not fall under Ireland-UK relations, so how else would you deal with them? Silverseren^C 09:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
False dichotomy, Why do they need to be grouped together? These topics are notable on their own right. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because there needs to be an overarching summary article. While I have no problem with there also being a Ireland-Isle of Man relations article (using info such as taxation agreements for one) or articles for the rest of the groupings, there still needs to be an overarching article that discusses the region as a whole and summarizes each of the constituent articles. Silverseren^C 09:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable source summarizes these topics together in the way that is done. If there is no obvious connection, and no reliable source makes the connection between the topics then there should be no joint summary, it is not a requirement that the summary exist. By the same reasoning we could arbitrarily group any collection of nations and have an article summarizing unrelated treaties etc between them. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should check out The State of the Nations 2003 then. It has an entire chapter devoted to Intergovernmental relations of the region. Silverseren^C 10:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or to give the book it's full title, The State of the Nations 2003: The Third Year of Devolution in the United Kingdom (my emphasis). The "intergovernmental relations" it is referring to are those of between the devolved administrations of the UK and the UK itself. That touches on British-Irish relations, yes, through the participation of the devolved administrations of the UK in the British-Irish Council and the North/South Ministerial Council alongside the UK central government. However, it also demonstrates a particular problem with the framing the subject in this way. It conflates the internal politics of the UK and the international politics of Ireland-United Kingdom relations and encourages synthesis. --RA (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ireland-Isle of Man relations is an example of the articles and categories Karl has been created to push this "archipelagist" POV. I don't necessarily mind it inclusion, but it needs to be noted that even in the case of the taxation agreement linked above, the Isle of Man was operating under a letter of endorsement from the UK. --RA (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Sea Region doesn't exist as a programme of any sort from what I can determine. It's inclusion is purely a fiction, from what I can tell. The Ireland-Wales Programme is in fact an EU programme.

The North-South Ministerial Council was created by agreement between the UK and Irish governments (the British-Irish Agreement). It is concerned with relations between the UK and Ireland, specifically to do with issues arising Ireland's secession from the United Kingdom and the partition of Ireland. It is related to the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, established at the same time, which also include participation of representatives from Northern Ireland (a part of the UK) from time to time.

In any case, all of these examples deal with the relations between (a part of) Ireland and (a part of) the UK.--RA (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except Ireland-UK relations was specifically about the relationship between Ireland and the UK proper, not the administrations or the dependencies, before you changed it two weeks ago. This article is about the relations between all the parts of the regions. It is clearly a higher level, more expansive article than the Ireland-UK one, which is a subarticle. The most important subarticle, sure, but still on the same level as Ireland-Isle of Man relations. Silverseren^C 09:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Except Ireland-UK relations was specifically about the relationship between Ireland and the UK proper..." - Is it? OK, accepting that at face value, the article is about relations between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom? Well, as it happens, those are the two bodies between which all of these agreements (North/South Ministerial Council, British/Irish Council, Ireland-Isle of Man-Scotland pipeline, etc.) have been made.

The British-Irish relations article is improved by the new content. There's much in there now that was simply missing before. It should have been improved to begin with. We do not need a two articles on the same subject. --RA (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"X-Y relations" articles do not necessarily have to be solely about formal diplomatic relations between the national governments of X and Y. Take United Kingdom–United States relations, for instance: it covers trade relations, tourism, transport, relations between intelligence and law enforcement agencies, shared heritage and culture, and even relations involving the Scottish government (the al-Megrahi release) and the Bermudan government (Guantanamo Bay prisoners). Hut 8.5 09:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. --RA (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a synthesis of disparate topics into a single article. The OR is integrated throughout the article, many of the references which look like they verify links across politics in the British Isles fail basic verification, they only partially verify. For example for the section Politics_in_the_British_Isles#Political_movements, there is no reliable source verifying all the content that treats politics in the whole of the british isles. Instead we have references that don't verify the content, e.g: Nationalism can take the form of Welsh nationalism, Cornish_nationalism, English nationalism, Scottish nationalism, Ulster nationalism, or independence movements in the Isle of Man or Channel Islands. is not verified by [34]. Also There are no major political parties that are present in all of the countries, but several Irish parties such as Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail have won elections in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and both of these parties have established offices in Britain in order to raise funds and win additional supporters is not verified by [35], the source does not say that no major political parties are present in all countries in the British Isles, instead it is inferred. This synthesis is true of almost every section: Government structure, Immigration and emigration,International relations etc etc. No reliable sources appear to connect these sources to the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now that content has been copied over to another article, is deleting this article an option? The edit history is required to provide attribution to the authors of the content, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I know RA listed the authors in the edit summary, but given that more than one editor edited the article, the history is needed to attribute specific content to its author. Maybe a redirect or userfying the history would be better alternatives to deletion should the consensus be decided in that way. Quasi human | Talk 12:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the specifics of how, but administrators can merge the history into another article and then delete this article. see WP:HISTMERGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the author of the material was acknowledged in the edit summary when the material was copied then there's no reason to keep this article's edit history around. History merges are not used for merges, only to fix cut-and-paste moves. Hut 8.5 12:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Several new sources have come to light since this discussion was started. ~~The article is still protected so I can't add them there yet, but will list them here:~~ When I get some time, I will add these to the British Isles article.
Political integration and disintegration in the British Isles; A. H. Birch. Allen & Unwin, 1977.

Scotland, Ireland, and Northern Ireland: Time for Lateral Thinking; Scottish Affairs, no.24, summer 1998 (relevant quote: "Complementary to this is a need to build a relationship [of Scotland] with the Republic of Ireland, and here we come up against the issue of whether initiatives of this kind come within the terms of reference of the Scottish parliament. Probably not, but this has been overtaken by a more recent event, the Easter Agreement, which should facilitate new sets of relationships among the various countries of these Isles once the provisions under Strand Three are implemented. For the first time it will be legitimate for Scotland to deal directly with both Northern Ireland and Ireland without recourse to London. Although Ireland has had a special relationship with the UK since independence it has had no cause to deal separately with Scotland, until now."

The United Kingdom now issues "Letters of Entrustment" to the Jersey government, which delegate power to Jersey to negotiate international agreements on its own behalf and sign treaties in Jersey's own name rather than through the United Kingdom. This development was "strongly supported" by the House of Commons Justice Committee in its March 2010 report on the Crown Dependencies.[36]"; Guernsey's international identity:[37]; framework for international identity of Jersey: [38]; BBC: International role for Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man

The Impact of a Scottish Referendum on Ethnoregionalist Movements in the British Isles; Britt Cartrite; analyzes the impact of the Scottish national party's referendum on political movements in the Crown dependencies; thus this analysis is really about how "domestic" politics in one portion of the isles affects domestic politics in another portion of the isles (also handily defeating the argument of those who say that no-one outside of Karl has ever looked at politics across the isles)

British Isles - Political Maps; Philip's Wall Maps Series; Octopus Publishing Group; 2006; the fact that a major map publisher has published a 'political map' of the British isles is worth noting

The politics of identity in the British isles: Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development; Michael Hechter; Transaction Publishers, 1999: "This book presents the social basis of ethnic identity, and examines changes in the strength of ethnic solidarity in the United Kingdom in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In addition to its value as a case study, the work also has important comparative implications, for it suggests that internal colonialism of the kind experienced in the British Isles has its analogues in the histories of other industrial societies. Hechter examines the unexpected persistence of ethnicity in the politics of industrial societies by focusing on the British Isles. Why do many of the inhabitants of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland continue to maintain an ethnic identity opposed to England?

recent conference: Identity and the 'Other British Isles "As issues of nationalism, identity, and what it means to be ‘British’ continue to affect the cultural and political landscape of Britain itself, its impact on the islands that share (or have shared) a cultural heritage with the United Kingdom has become new ground for academics.

The persistence of regionalism in the British Isles, 1885-1966; Michael Hechter; comparative politics looking at regionalism across the british isles

Northern Ireland - A British Isles Security Complex Joanne Wright; Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol 5 No 4, 1993; "This article, drawing on the work of Barry Buzan, creates a British Isles security complex. Six patterns of enmity and amity are identified as making up this complex: Norther Ireland Protestants and Catholics; Northern Ireland Protestants and mainland Britain; Northern Ireland Catholics and mainland Britain; Northern Ireland Protestants and the republic of Ireland; Nothern Ireland Catholics and the republic of Ireland; mainland Britain and the republic of Ireland..."

The Cornish paradox: ethnoregionalism in a hybrid territory; Deacon, Bernard; 2003 - makes comparisons between ethnic nationalism in Cornwall and that of "Isle of Man"

Constitutional Practices and British Crown Dependencies: The Gap Between Theory and Practice. Common Law World Review: March 2012, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 1-28. Outlines the difference between the official/legal/constitutional relationship between UK and the crown dependencies, and what actually happens in practice.

A Short History of Parliament: England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Scotland Clyve Jones "it covers the English parliament from its origins, the pre-1707 Scottish parliament and the pre-1800 Irish parliament, the parliament of Great Britain from 1707 and the parliament of the United Kingdom from 1801, together with sections on the post-devolution parliaments and assemblies set up in the 1990s and on parliaments in the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and the Irish Republic."

Finally, I'm not going to repeat fully citations from above, but I do think it is worth linking to this article: AHERN UPBEAT ON LINKS TO ISLAND Isle of Man Today; 23 April 2003. The two countries were working closely together on a range of tax matters and progress had been made on a draft tax information exchange agreement." "The British Irish Council had facilitated meetings between the Irish premier and Chief Minister Richard Corkill and presented an opportunity for the two countries to discuss a whole range of issues, of which regulatory and associated economic measures were key, together with 'common concerns' such as Sellafield and the transportation of nuclear cargoes in the Irish Sea. 'The British Irish Council,' he said, 'brings us (Ireland and the Isle of Man) closer than ever before.'" "Mr Ahern continued: 'I am aware that, as an internally self-governing dependent territory of the Crown — and, as you underline, not a part of the United Kingdom — you guard your fiscal independence. However, this independence has not been at the expense of cooperation with the international community." Note the wording; two countries working together and not a part of the United kingdom and common concerns - to me all of this is clear evidence that in spite of a constitutional relationship between the UK and Isle of Man, the realpolitik is that Isle of Man has an independent relationship with republic of ireland, and in some cases works on things that are contrary to the wishes of the UK government (ex: Sellafield controversy, regulations on transport of nuclear material, etc). See more from previous diffs [39] and [40].

I think the above is sufficient evidence that a *lot* more could be written, based on reliable sources, about the complex politics in the atlantic archipelago.

comment RENAME to Politics in the Atlantic archipelago because the name British Isles just seems to cause too much controversy; but the topic is clearly notable and different than Anglo-Irish relations, in spite of earlier attempts to mirror the articles. --KarlB (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, responding with 8000 words in an AfD is ridiculous. Please check your links before you dump a large amount of content here, it has dead links. Anyway, only one of these sources appears to explicitly deal with the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, UK and Ireland together and it's about the histories of parliaments. It only very briefly mentions modern parliaments in Wales, Scotland and the Oireachtas (review by David Lewis Jones). All these sources only deal with very specific subsets with no thought to treating the politics of the British isles as a single subject. Throwing all these subsets into a single article is what is the synthesis of topics and original research. For example the source A Short History of Parliament: England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Scotland covers only historical issues with parliament. The definition of the article is: Politics in the British Isles describes the multilateral and bilateral relationships and the political, economic and cultural interchanges between the countries in the British Isles, where is the source that does anything close to covering that? Clearly by this very loose definition we could pick any number of countries, almost arbitrarily and group them together. I could very easily have an article on the "Politics of Spain, France and the UK" or any particular grouping I desired to push a POV. These topics are all covered individually by separate articles, there is no reason to link them all together into this giant synthesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which just sums up the WP:SYNTH concerns about this article. The above are a hodgepodge of references dealing with all sorts of matters to do with the politics of the United Kingdom, the politics of the Republic of Ireland and Ireland-United Kingdom relations ... with a random map thrown in to boot! A topic cannot simply be created by mish-mashing other topics together - even if there are references to be found that support statements to do with each of the mish-mashed topics individually. --RA (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You both have a very bizarre notion of what WP:SYN means. It seems that unless a given source deals with every single part of the British isles, it is not worthy of inclusion here. In other words, if I found a source that studied political movements in Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, and Jersey, you would claim it was 'synthesis' because that source did not cover Guernsey and Sark, and thus including it in an article on the British Isles is original research. We do not apply this standard to any other part of wikipedia, so your insistence on it here doesn't jibe with any practice or policy. Finally your assertion that this grouping of countries is arbitrary is easily defeated by looking at the list of countries who are part of the British-Irish council, which was not a body I created just to defend this article. The fact that these countries have created a common travel area, common parliamentary body, and common multilateral/intergovernmental forum is significant, and your wishing it wasn't so doesn't change things. The British-Irish council is not a POV, and the fact that they deal with issues related to all countries in the British Isles is also not a POV. If your issue is with sources, why don't you go attack Politics_of_Asia or Politics of the Caribbean (no sources)? I've given multiple sources, by the way, that look exactly at the relationships between the various countries in the isles, why don't you try to read the article and look at the sources at the bottom. --KarlB (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about the British-Irish council, that article already exists, and yes a source should precisely go into the details of politics in the British isles, that is precisely what would help make the topic notable. You have shown multiple sources which you have synthesised into one topic. As the original creator of the article your ownship issue with the article prevents you from recoqnising the synthesis, I suggest you allow others, who aren't so closely connected (I note your usage of the word "attack"), to comment in the AfD, as indicated by Sandstein. Also, if I nominated other articles on the basis of this AfD that would effectively be WP:POINTY behaviour on my part. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact that these countries have created a common travel area, common parliamentary body, and common multilateral/intergovernmental forum is significant, and your wishing it wasn't so doesn't change things." - No. The fact is that Ireland and the United Kingdom created the Common Travel Area. Ireland and the United Kingdom created the parliamentary body. Ireland and the United Kingdom created the intergovernmental body. Look at the agreements. Do you see anyone else's names on them? Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man and so on participate in or enjoy these arrangements as parts of or dependants of the UK, but these are bodies created between Ireland and the United Kingdom. Just because the United Kingdom is a multi-faceted state does not make relations with the United Kingdom anything more than just that. These are all topics already covered by Ireland-United Kingdom relations.

In 2014, the people of Scotland will get a chance to vote in an independence referendum. When they do so, and if they vote Yes, then there will be a third sovereign state in the region. When that happens, then we can reasonably talk of the politics of the British Isles as something more than Ireland-United Kingdom relations. --RA (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wrong again. See STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN IMMIGRATION RULES; this is domestic legislation, enacted by the government of Isle of Man, that (in part) modifies the rules of the common travel area as they apply to immigration into the Isle of Man. The problem is you have painted yourself into a logical corner out from which you cannot escape - you have already accepted that Isle of Man is not part of the UK; you have also accepted that Isle of Man has responsibility for its domestic politics; we've already established that Isle of Man now has an independent 'international' character and is empowered to enact certain types of bilateral relationships, including relationships with Ireland on issues with which the UK government does not agree; and here we have the common travel area, which you claim to be solely a bilateral matter, but you've once again been proven wrong. The politics of these isles are messy, and the sharp line which you'd like to draw between sovereign and non-sovereign, or 'international relations' and 'domestic politics' is not so sharp after all. As soon as that line breaks down, away to dust goes your whole argument that this is a fork and can all thus be subsumed under Irish-UK relations...--KarlB (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, the Common Travel Area is mentioned twice in formal agreements: the one I link above and as an annex to the Amsterdam Treaty. On both occasions the agreeing partners were the United Kingdom and Ireland alone.

The Isle of Man is competent for immigration. That does not make it competent for external relations or international agreements. The statement you link to states that, "The Isle of Man, the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Republic of Ireland collectively form a common travel area." Indeed they do. That was agreed by the UK and Ireland. --RA (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Much of the argument that this is a POV fork is fixated on the England-Ireland relationship. What about politics between Northern Ireland and Ireland? Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK? Ireland and Scotland? Ireland and Wales? Are there articles for each of these permutations? Is this really such a fork??? Carrite (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you mean the United Kingdom when you say England. England ceased to be an actor in politics in the year 1707.

As for relationships between Ireland and other parts of the UK, such as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, those are a subset of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. They are sub-national entities. We don't do permutations for the affairs of different parts of countries unless they very notable. Otherwise we would need 50 articles for every United States-XXX relations, thirteen for every Canada-XXX relations, sixteen for every Germany-XXX relations etc.

An example of why we don't is when Karl points to an agreement for a gas pipeline between Scotland, the Isle of Man and Ireland. He cites this as an example of Ireland-Scotland-Isle of Man relations. In fact, this agreement is between Ireland and the United Kingdom. Those are the only two sovereign states in the region. --RA (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, we see the basic misunderstanding which is at the root of this AfD. "England ceased to be an actor in politics in the year 1707" is an all-time classic. Campaign_for_an_English_Parliament for example, I don't want to bother you with others. The main point being, just because something is *not* sovereign does not mean it cannot be an 'actor' in politics; in this case, for those who believe in an 'english' identity, the notion of 'England' is very much alive as a political concept. As to the assertion that these relationships are not notable, it is clear for example that an Ireland-Scotland relations article can and should be created, and I would welcome your help in its development. As I've said before, the Ireland-UK bilateral relationship is clearly the most important and dominant relationship in the Isles. It does not mean however that all other relationships are subservient to that one, and no evidence has been provided to back up any such claim.--KarlB (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Karl, there is a campaign in the UK for an English parliament. And it is just that: a campaign for one. What next, will you want to create England-Scotland relations two non-existing states?

As for whether Ireland-United Kingdom relations covers whatever relations might exist with the UK authorities in Scotland, you do know that Scotland in the United Kingdom, right? --RA (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really quite curious as to your definition of 'relations'. Do you think for example that California and Oregon can't have any relations because they're not sovereign? As you point out, England-Scotland relations, UK-Isle of Man relations, Isle of Man-Scotland relations, Wales-Channel Islands relations etc could *all* be created, and there is enough content for all of those articles, because bilateral relations exist between every possible pairing of countries in the British isles. And yes, I know Scotland is in the UK, but the history of Irish/Scottish relations goes back way before the UK, and as has been stated by the president of Ireland and Chief minister of Scotland, the two countries are now exploring closer bilateral ties - which have a different character than the relationship of Dublin to London. There was just a Scottish-Irish summit about a year ago, with reps from Ireland, Scotland, and Isle of Man. I don't think Londoners were invited... If you don't believe me, why don't you ask any Scottish politician, whether their relationships with Ireland are all just via London. Don't be surprised if they laugh at the question. Scotland is even developing its own international relations and presence: [41] - they are developing a relationship with China! Again, your whole argument rests on sovereignty, and the claim that sovereignty is somehow the core or only determinant of politics, and that relations between countries are determined solely based on their sovereignty. Unfortunately, no scholars or writers or historians agree with you...If you do have any sources that back up your claim, e.g. that all politics in the islands is encompassed by Anglo-Irish relations or UK politics, they would of course be most welcome, but we may be waiting a long time... For more counter-proof, see recent speech by Irish prime minister to Scottish parliament: [42] ; note that in the whole speech, he only mentions 'United Kingdom' once, but he mentions the Scottish-Irish relationships many more times - for example, "In recent years, we have added a political dimension to an already extensive network of Irish-Scottish ties." or "The past two years have seen a notable intensification of Scottish-Irish political dialogue with a series of high-level visits in both directions" -KarlB (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and you are very determined to make a clear distinction bewteen Scotland and the United Kingdom. I wish you well in 2014. In the mean time, Wikipedia is not a platform to hi-jack with nationalist desire of what may be. For now, Scotland a part of the UK. And relations between the Irish authorities and UK authorities, regardless of where they occur in the UK, fall under the remit of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. --RA (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I could care less which way Scots vote. Let them decide, I don't have a dog in the fight. The question is whether Scottish-Irish relations, as framed by the governments of Scotland and Ireland, and by reliable sources sources, is a sufficient topic in its own right. You can try an AfD on Ireland-Scotland relations once it's created, but it will likely fail, because there are reams of material just on that alone.--KarlB (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One other thing I should note is that the definition of the United Kingdom doesn't actually include the Crown Dependencies. This is because the UK is referring to those subnations that are constitutionally bound to each other, while the Crown Dependencies are not constitutionally bound and, in most aspects, act as free agents. This is mentioned here and even stated in our article on the Channel Islands, one of the Crown Dependencies, that they are not a part of the UK. Thus, again, these Crown Dependencies should have nothing to do with the Ireland-United Kingdom relations article. These connections are attempted to be explained another way by RA above, but he merely stated that their foreign relations are enacted by the UK government, which is true. But, besides that and defense, they have no other connections and, since this article in question is about the intergovernmental politics of the region and not outside of the area, this is irrelevant. Silverseren^C 18:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the reference at the top of this section. I'll post it again for your convenience:

In law, the expression 'United Kingdom' refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it does not include the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. For the purposes of international relations, however, the Channel islands and the Isle of Man are represented by the UK government.
…
International law has the primary function of regulating the relations of independent, sovereign states with one another. For this purpose the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the state, with authority to act also for its dependent possessions, such as the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and its surviving overseas territories, such as Gibraltar, none of which is a state at international law. - Anthony Wilfred Bradley; Keith D. Ewing (2007), Constitutional and Administrative Law, vol. Volume 1 (14 ed.), Harlow: Pearson Education, p. 33, 323, ISBN 1405812079 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

"But, besides [their foreign relations] and defense, they [the United Kingdom and the Crown Dependencies] have no other connections and, since this article in question is about the intergovernmental politics of the region and not outside of the area, this is irrelevant." — You do know that Ireland is an independent and sovereign state and not part of the United Kingdom? Relations between Ireland the Crown Dependencies are external relations i.e. the responsibility of the UK. Whether these relations exist inside or outside of the region is irrelevant. The UK represent the Channel Islands in the affairs of the region — for example in the Common Travel Area, in the establishment of the British-Irish Council, in the negotiation of energy agreements for the region, and so on.

For similar reasons, Bermuda is mentioned in the article on United Kingdom–United States relations. --RA (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

procedural question now that this AfD is re-opened, I'm considering making some changes to the article, based on new sources that have come to light. However, I'm concerned that if I do so, as in the past, editors will do a wholesale copy/paste of any changes over into Anglo-Irish relations, edit-war to keep them there, then claim this as further evidence that this article is a content fork, ensuring confusion for new editors who come by this discussion and are pointed to an exact copy in Anglo-Irish relations. The issue is that since this AfD started, the presumed scope of Anglo-Irish relations has expanded to cover all political, cultural, economic, and social ties between any and all of the countries in the British isles, a scope it never had until this article was first created. Does anyone have any recommendations on how to deal with this? --KarlB (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is related to the AfD, discuss article issues on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can understand why we do need an article called "Politic in the British Isles" that is separate from "Politics in the United Kingdom". The British Isles would include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, both of which are outside the United Kingdom. Since they have their own parliaments (and different tax rates to the United Kingdom, at least in the case of the Isle of Man) it would make sense to keep this article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An article on this exists: British Islands. That is the formal legal name (in UK domestic law) for the UK and the Crown Dependencies taken together. As it is being used in the article under discussion, British Isles includes the Republic of Ireland. An article on the politics of the British Islands makes sense — all of the states and territories involved have constitutional links to the UK. A problem with politics in the British Isles is that it throws a random third state into the mix, one that has with no constitutional links to the UK. --RA (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland, the UK and the Crown Dependencies

I've moved this here from User talk:ACEOREVIVED because I think it has some interesting issues worth teasing out. In reply to ACEOREVIVED's comment above:

I think you may be mixing up British Islands with British Isles. An article on the politics of the British Islands makes sense — all of the states and territories involved have constitutional links to the UK. A problem with politics in the British Isles is that it throws a random third state, with no constitutional links to the UK, into the mix: the Republic of Ireland. --RA (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

hehe... yeah, Ireland is a totally random addition; it obviously has no connection whatsoever with the politics of the UK. oh, wait...--KarlB (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
(Sorry for hijakcing your talk page, ACEOREVIVED)

You will accept that Ireland is, unequivocally, not a part of the UK? That they are two separate states entirely. In contrast, the Crown Dependencies are considered part of the UK for certain legal matters, have a constitutional relationship with the UK and the UK is responsible certain matters with respect to their governance, external relation and defence (pedantic distinctions between "the Crown" and the UK aside). Additionally the Parliament at Westminster can, strictly speaking, legislate for them at any time.

In that sense, in comparison to the relationship between the Crown Dependencies and the UK, Ireland is a "random" third state. An article on the politics of the UK and the Crown Dependencies makes sense. Lobbing Ireland into the mix alongside them is a bit bizarre. You might as well have an article on Politics of the United Kingdom as it would be if 1922 never happened. --RA (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
yes, Ireland is not part of the UK. But neither are the crown dependencies. And, we have provided multiple independent bodies of scholarship that look at Ireland, the UK, and the channel islands together, or in various subsets, and study politics, comparative politics, international relations, political movements, political parties, and so on, across the isles. And, of course, we have extant multilateral bodies that have as members almost all of the countries in the isles, notably including Republic of Ireland. So, while you may find it bizarre to consider RoI in a broader context of the archipelago, many other reliable sources do not consider it odd.--KarlB (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's strange to look at the relationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom (inc. the Crown Dependencies) in the context of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. The institutions established by the two states, especially since the 1998 settlement, add a further perspective to that relationship, one that goes beyond realism, but it is still one of international relations. It is that relationship, and the post-1998 settlement, that the relevant books you cite refer to, Karl.
What is strange is to try to write an article that looks at the relationship between Ireland, the UK, its regions and its dependencies outside of the perspective of international relations. Especially one that tries to present a quasi-polity out of them, with Ireland in toe, and that tries to gloss over or blur the pealpolitik of the relationships between them.
The UK, its regions and dependencies are constitutionally linked. They can be looked at as a single polity (indeed they have a name as such, the British Islands). They can all ultimately be governed for and legislated for from London, for example. They share a common court of appeal. They share the same head of state. They are all are represented externally by the Government of the United Kingdom, who also provides their defense. The United Kingdom (whether through "the Crown" or not) is ultimately responsible for their governance.
In contrast, Ireland is a separate state. It hasn't had a constitutional relationship with the UK since the first half of the 20th century. The relationship, outside of international relations, is historical or unrelated to politics. One could just as easily compare England with France or Scotland with Norway as either with Ireland. And people have. --RA (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Politics of the United Kingdom. Simply merge verified information that isn't already in the Politics of the United Kingdom article into it~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your comment. What do you make of the fact that Republic of Ireland and the Crown dependencies, both of which are covered in this article, are both not part of the United Kingdom? --KarlB (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – struck out my merge !vote above, per User:Karl.brown's comment directly above. This topic has received coverage using the term ([43], [44], [45], [46]), and as such the information should be WP:PRESERVED in some manner, rather than blanket deleted. Another option would be to selectively merge to Politics of the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland and Crown dependencies, respectively. Keep for now, then possibly merge, if that's what consensus becomes regarding this article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first three links above, despite their titles, actually refer to the politics of the United Kingdom (inc. the Crown Dependencies). From its blurb, the fourth would appear to do so as well.

This is a particular problem in this discussion: the conflation of the United Kingdom (and/or including its dependencies) with the British Isles, which includes another sovereign state: the Republic of Ireland. --RA (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl, which begs the question, why are you pushing an article that links three supposedly unrelated groups of political entities in the first place? But yes, the Crown Dependencies, although not ordinarily considered part of the UK, could be treated (at least to some extent) in Politics of the United Kingdom. They are constitutionally linked to the United Kingdom and under the responsibility of the UK central government's Department of Justice. Ireland on the other hand has no constitutional links to the UK.

@Northamerica1000, the content has already been integrated into Ireland-United Kingdom relations. Specific items could be further integrated into other articles. But the subject matter, so far as it exits, is already sufficiently covered by politics of the United Kingdom and Ireland-United Kingdom relations. --RA (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Th conference on "exploring britishness" that you link to does not appear to have the term [47] and appears to be about the small islands around Great Britain, not Ireland or Great Britain itself, i.e dependencies etc. [48]. Another link says "Draft – Do not cite" at the top and does not concern the Republic of Ireland. The source Political Integration and Disintegration in the British Isles appears to be about the History of the british isles. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it deals with the United Kingdom and its dependencies, and the topic of the conference is Britishness i.e. the United Kindgom. This is a persistent problem in this AfD: conflating the politics of the United Kingdom with the purported politics of the archipelago as a whole, which also includes the Republic of Ireland. --RA (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many variables can shape politics. Example: from the lede sentence of [49]: "As issues of nationalism, identity, and what it means to be ‘British’ continue to affect the cultural and political landscape of Britain itself, its impact on the islands that share (or have shared) a cultural heritage with the United Kingdom has become new ground for academics." This can clearly be included in the article as a citation or external link, due to its relevance to the topic. At any rate, just some observations. WP:PRESERVE still seems in order. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confusing Great Britain and it's related smaller islands with the British Isles. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The British Isles (from the Wikipedia article), "are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the islands of Great Britain, Ireland and over six thousand smaller isles. Great Britain (from the Wikipedia article), "is an island situated to the northwest of Continental Europe. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So how are you then equating the "political landscape of Britain" with the political landscape of the British Isles?

In any case, as I've commented below, Britain in the sense used here means the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is one of two sovereign states in the British Isles. Additionally, British (as in "...what it means to be ‘British’...") denotes the United Kingdom. --RA (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...political landscape of Britain..." - Britain is a synonym for the United Kingdom. It is not a synonym for the archipelago that also includes the Republic of Ireland.

With respect to WP:PRESERVE, the citations you link to would make for interesting inclusion in politics of the United Kingdom and related subtopics. Otherwise, the content of the article under discussion already appears in Ireland-United Kingdom relations. --RA (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no actually. Britain (or Great Britain as it is generally used as well) is a geographic term for the whole island (not including the separate island of Ireland or the many other islands in the area). That's why it's British Isles, after all, So, you're right that it's not a synonym for the archipelago, just for the one island, but it doesn't have to do with the UK, which is a political construct. Silverseren^C 16:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the Merriam Webster dictionary above: "Britain: (2) United Kingdom". See also the Collins English Dictionary: "Britain: Great Britain another name for United Kingdom". Also, the Oxford English Dictionary (albeit specifically Great Britain): "Britain: .... The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain...", for which, "Great Britain: ... The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom."

You may also be interested in what DirectGov (a UK government information site) has to say: "'Britain' is used informally, usually meaning the United Kingdom." --RA (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looks like it's more complicated than that. Britain can mean the United Kingdom (a political entity) or Great Britain (a geographic area). So it's simultaneously both. This is why I hate the English language. In related news, this book has a good description on the issue. I think we might have to agree to disagree. You see it as a issue which is already covered by another article on the political entity (UK). I see it as an issue where it is about the geographic region, which is not covered (British Isles). Technically, we're both correct. Silverseren^C 17:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realized what you seem to take as the significance of the link above. It's to a tourist book pertaining to the British Isles! The mere existence of a tourist book on, say, the Mediterranean, does not mean we should have an omnibus conflating the articles on the politics of Spain, the politics of Italy, the politics of Greece, the politics of Morocco, etc. into one hodgepodge article. Your final comment also seems to suggest that you are cannot distinguish between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. --RA (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And, even if it was, as you write, "an issue which is already covered by another article on the political entity (UK)" (actually in this case substantively Ireland-United Kingdom relations), we don't go about creating two article on substantively the same topic but written from different perspectives. That is called a WP:POVFORK. --RA (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~There's no need for us to agree to disagree. We agree. Furthermore, I'm sure you'll agree with me that the island of Britain is wholly contained within the United Kingodm?~~ [Struck because I didn't realise what Silver seren was suggesting we must agree to disagree over.] So, from whatever perspective, the politics of Britain pertains to the politics of the United Kingdom.

So, why then are sources pertaining to the politics of the United Kingdom being used to support a combined article on the politics of the United Kingdom (including its dependencies) and the politics of the Republic of Ireland? Certainly these two sovereign states have much in common and, especially since 1998, co-operate well (including with each others' component parts and dependencies). But, this is covered in Ireland-United Kingdom relations (regardless of how poorly treated aspects of it were before the creation of this new article).

By way of comparison, we wouldn't combine politics of Austria and politics of Germany to create some hodgepodge of the two. Regardless of the shared language, culture and political history, including having several times formed a unified state, we treat the two in Austria–Germany relations and not as an omnibus of politics of Austria + politics of Germany. Why is it any different here? --RA (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sidenote: perhaps some of this information could also be merged to improve some of Wikipedia's portals The general nature of the topic encompasses a wide range of subtopics. Here's some relevant portals below:

Portals:
United Kingdom
England
Scotland
Ireland
Wales
Celts

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please would the closer disregard the British Isles naming dispute crap in this AfD. They're called the British Isles, and hilarious though it is how butthurt people get about that, we can't allow the pointy disruption to affect our encyclopaedia. The British Isles is the correct name and Wikipedia deals with the world as it is, not as certain Irish Nationalists wish it was.
Having said that, I'm distinctly unimpressed with the current content and I wouldn't object to the whole thing being nuked from orbit (it's the only way to be sure!) Of course, only a complete idiot would turn a plausible search term into a redlink, so after any deletion an immediate disambiguation page should be created. Just in case the closer is the kind of person who finds a word in bold helpful, mine is:-
Delete and disambiguate between Politics of the United Kingdom, Politics of the Republic of Ireland, Demography and politics of Northern Ireland, or Ireland–United Kingdom relations.—S Marshall T/C 19:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. As the original creator of the article, I of course agree that the content could be improved, but please note it was only extant for one hour before being proposed for AfD. As I continued to improve the article during the AfD process, all of my edits were copy/pasted into Anglo-Irish relations and then used to defend a charge of content-fork, so I of course was discouraged from contributing further until the AfD was finished; hence, I'd ask that you don't judge the current content *too* harshly. In addition, please look at this: [50], that is the Ireland-UK relations article 4 YEARS after its creation, and it only has 1 reference! While I appreciate your suggestion to merge the content back to those pages (which are already linked to/listed from this page), I respectfully submit that the scope of this page is different than all of them; it is not meant to capture the details of domestic politics in those countries, nor to outline the complex Anglo-Irish relationship (which as has been pointed out, already has it's own page). Instead, this page was to be a survey/comparative politics page, and to focus on the *other* relationships, both bilateral and multilateral, that are currently going on in the British Isles (similar to Politics of Europe or Politics of the Caribbean. I have stated elsewhere that the Anglo-Irish/Dublin-London axis is clearly the dominant one, and it is normal that we should have an article on that. However, there is more to this story than Ireland-UK bilateral relations, and that is what this page was intended to cover. I've provided multiple sources that show that this topic is notable (there is even a whole book on the subject called "politics of the British Isles"), so I'm wondering if you might reconsider, or at least provide further reasoning behind your delete !vote. --KarlB (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nominating for AfD after a mere hour is not normally appropriate behaviour, and I do have a certain amount of sympathy with you. It's hard to make good faith contributions to Wikipedia when you've inadvertently run into a battlezone in one of the most problematic areas of Wikipolitics. Closer: If this content is deleted then anything that has been moved to Ireland-United Kingdom relations will need to be checked; a history merge may be needed to ensure that Karl.brown and anyone else who has contributed to this article receives credit for their work (and see also the Terms of Use).
Karl.brown, if you want to work on this article and develop it in peace, there are ways to do this. You can ask the closer to userfy or incubate the material (depending on whether you'd rather work on it yourself or in collaboration with others). It would no longer be published in Wikipedia's mainspace, and no longer indexed by search engines, but it would give you a full chance with no time limit or deadline to build the article. Once you have content that you feel is fully-developed and you feel ready, you could then ask the community to re-assess. How's that?—S Marshall T/C 22:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the merge, Karl (and other minor contributors) was credited when the content was added.

With respect to how the nomination happened so quickly, that is because Karl came to create this article immediately on the back of a number of heated discussions to do with Category:Foo of the British Isles that he created. One of those was Category:Politics of the British Isles, which has descended into such a mess that I don't know how it can ever be closed. It is hardly wise to march out in the middle a heated discussion on Category:Politics of the British Isles to go and create a mainspace article on Politics in the British Isles. So, Karl is hardly faultless if this article got nominated for deletion so soon after its creation. (Incidentally, I'm supportive of Category:Politics of the British Isles now that a number of POV issues have been sorted out. This article, however, is unredeemable and recreates some of the same POV issues that were at issue with Category:Politics of the British Isles.)

With regard to userfication, following the first (aborted) deletion of this article, two editors (myself and BHG) were working with Karl on a new version of the article in his user space (albeit that we had just started). The re-listing of the AfD put the kibosh on that, but I (and I imagine BHG) would still be happy to help with that, if Karl wants. --RA (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that both sides have replied, let's pay attention to Sandstein when he said I ask all who have already participated in the debate above, especially those who have done so at great length, to refrain from continuing to do so, so as to allow others to offer their opinion.
What I would like the closer to take from my participation in this AfD are two simple points: (1) Certain people from the Republic of Ireland object to the term "British Isles". The fact that they're extremely vocal doesn't change the reality, though. The correct common use term for these islands is and has always been "The British Isles". And (2) I do not think this content has encyclopaedic value but I do think a disambiguation page should occupy this space.
Having read around the subject some more I see that Karl.brown already has a copy of this article in his userspace, under the truly bizarre title of User:Karl.brown/Politics in the atlantic archipelago (which is like calling North America "South Canada"). There is no need to incubate or userfy any further copies.—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, it was userfied at my request; I renamed it as 'Atlantic archipelago' because that's a word used by historians (starting with J. G. A. Pocock) in place of the British Isles; my thought was, if the word is the problem, just rename. As to RA's assertion that the creation of this article was problematic, I actually created it *based* on things that came out of the discussion at CfD; at first I thought a category would be sufficient, but after looking at the content and the multiple sources it seemed reasonable to create an article which captured a number of elements which were not at the time present anywhere. That those elements have now been copied into Ireland-UK relations was secondary to the creation of the article. The *other* article that RA speaks of is indeed in progress, but would be more focused on expanding the thoughts of the academic perspectives section of this article, which will be on either (a) the 'archipelagic' perspective in scholarship of the isles - what is it, where did it come from, where is it going or (b) the idea of post-nationalism, especially as espoused by Richard Kearney and other scholars. I am very happy to work with other editors like RA and BHG on this new article in userspace until we are comfortable, but I also feel that it is a different article with a different purpose than the present one.--KarlB (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, if you based it on things that came out of the CfD discussion then you weren't listening very well. Precicely the problems with that exist with article were raised. For example (diff):

"Category:Nordic politics provides a good example for what this category could be. (I was going to suggest it but you beat me to it!) It's clear in it's focus and is not just a POV catch-all for anything to do with 'politics' that just happens to take place in 'Scandinavia'. A reason for that, I believe, is because it doesn't focus on a 'some random thing' in 'some random place' but on a single specific and identifiable 'thing': Nordic politics. One could imagine an article on Nordic politics. What would an article on politics of the British Isles be about? (Contrast with History of the British Isles, which has a clear focus.)"

I can see now that you were offered WP:BEANS by this comment but it raises the exact issues about creating the article that you then did. --RA (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Question "Is this an encyclopedic topic ?" The answer to that is clearly is yes given the debate over the name and history of the Isles it is obvious that the politics and relationships of the elements are of somewhat importance. Question "Is it a content fork" Well I can't find an article on exactly the same subject so finally "Would the content be better of merged" possibly to British Isles but that would probably be best dealt with at the two talk pages. Mt king^(edits) 03:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The answer to that is clearly is yes given the debate over the name.." —Indeed: British Isles naming dispute.

"… and history of the Isles …" — Indeed: History of the British Isles.

"…it is obvious that the politics and relationships of the elements are of somewhat importance." — Indeed: Ireland-United Kingdom relations. (Remember, now, there are only two sovereign states in the region.)

"Well I can't find an article on exactly the same subject so finally…" — See, Ireland-United Kingdom relations, which includes a summary of the political history of the British Isles (including a survey of the contemporary political landscape of the Isles) in its background section as well as a summary of the "naming dispute" as a minor point of contention in the relationship.

"Would the content be better of merged" — It already is. See, Ireland-United Kingdom relations. --RA (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the creation of this article was doubtlessly well intentioned, but as it is, it is nothing but a POV fork that inappropriately mixes political relations between the sovereign nation of the United Kingdom, its various dependencies and possessions in close geographic proximity, and the sovereign nation of the Republic of Ireland, using the POV and politically loaded term "British Isles". Most of the potential content of this article could be much better incorporated at Ireland–United Kingdom relations and Politics of the United Kingdom. Alternatively, the article could be reduced in scope to exclude the independent and non-British state of the Republic of Ireland, but still include the various miscellaneous entities in the region, this would also be legitimate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep - The unique political relationship that exists within the British Isles (or British and Irish Isles, whatever) creates a situation that warrants an article like this. What with political parties that are all-Ireland, combined with weird mixes of politics between the two countries, their citizenship arrangements and so forth warrant such an article. Just because an article includes “British Isles” shouldn’t mean it is anathema. There is no agreed upon substitute, as we are all aware, and yet still, there is a unique regional “grouping” that is the British Isles, with its unique history of union, interference and so forth. Yes, there is no one “political entity”, but the entities that do exist closely interact, as could be detailed here. Maybe a title change is in order, but I still believe the article could be valuable with some refurbishment. RGloucester (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is covered in Ireland-United Kingdom relations (or, from a historical perspective, in History of the British Isles). A specific problem here is one of WP:CONTENTFORK. As interesting as the topic is, we don't need two article that treat the subject. --RA (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, can that article include the Crown Dependencies? And furthermore, even if we accept that it includes those, what about subnational entities, like the devolved governments? As these gain more power, they have begun to cultivate their own relationships with Ireland, and even with other subnational devolved entities…putting it under that title excludes these, because it only refers to the UK govt. I’d recommend something, and I don’t know if you can do this, but maybe use “British and Irish Isles” instead? Or "Politics in Britain and Ireland”? Either way, I think, that this “type” of article has a place. RGloucester (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About the devolved administrations, first, they are unquestionable part of the United Kingdom. Relations between Ireland and whatever part of the United Kingdom, fit under Ireland-United Kingdom relations. Relations between parts of the United Kingdom and other parts of the United Kingdom fit under the internal politics of the United Kingdom.

The Crown Dependencies are, just that: dependencies of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is responsible for their external relations (as well as the UK Department of Justice being responsible for ensuring their overall good governance). So, for example, an agreement to run a gas pipe line between Scotland, the Isle of Man and Ireland is an agreement between the UK and Ireland (and not between Scotland, the Isle of Man and Ireland). It is Ireland-United Kingdom relations.

The British-Irish Council is a practical example of all this. It involves the three devolved administrations of the UK, the three of the Crown Dependencies of the UK, as well as the Ireland and the UK sovereign governments. Good. But who signs the agreements: Ireland and the UK. And how does the UK describe these agreements: bilateral. It is Ireland-United Kingdom relations.

This article forks Ireland-United Kingdom relations in a way that pushes a POV that over overplays the position of the regions and dependencies of the UK, downplays the position of the two sovereign states, and blurs the distinction between the United Kingdom and Ireland. That is a valid perspective on Ireland-United Kingdom relations (as well as on the internal politics of the United Kingdom) but it is a perspective (viz. a POV) on the topic, not a new topic of itself.

A better approach may be to have an article on the perspective itself e.g. Postnationalist politics in the British Isles. --RA (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between de facto and de jure. RA is focusing on de jure, whereas for practical purposes, (a) every scholar writing about the British-Irish council calls it multilateral (b) the crown dependencies are not part of the UK, their internal politics and political parties are also not part of UK politics, and their external relationships with devolved administrations of the UK and RoI is *not* part of the UK government nor is it fully mediated by/controlled by/subsumed by the Dublin-London axis. In fact, ample evidence has been provided that the crown dependencies have their own international identity [51], form relationships with other countries independent of London, and act in a de facto manner that does not suggest they are simply following orders from London. This is a fuzzy area of international law, and an evolving relationship, but to simplify by saying "pshaw Isle of Man international relations are effectively part of UK international relations" is oversimplification in the extreme and does not befit an encyclopedia that wishes to be accurate. When all 3 crown dependencies come together in a multilateral fashion to discuss relations with UK, is that just internal UK politics? (when everyone goes out of their way to state that they are *not* part of the UK!) I think not. The whole sovereignty argument also doesn't hold water; we have politics between California and Oregon, and no-one goes on about how neither California nor Oregon are sovereign. No evidence has been provided anywhere to illustrate that all international relations are subsumed by sovereignty, nor that sovereign entities cannot have relationships with non-sovereign entities that are not worthy of note. I have noted on several occasions that the Dublin-London axis is clearly the most important, and merits a large and complex article just for itself. But that is not the totality of relationships in the archipelago, and highlighting those relationships separate from Anglo-Irish relations is not POV, it is simply more complete coverage.--KarlB (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, I'm talking de facto as well as de jure. This is further demonstrated by the document that you link to.

Let's look again at the in-and-out of the Crown Dependencies' relationship with the UK:

In law, the expression 'United Kingdom' refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it does not include the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. For the purposes of international relations, however, the Channel islands and the Isle of Man are represented by the UK government.
…
International law has the primary function of regulating the relations of independent, sovereign states with one another. For this purpose the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the state, with authority to act also for its dependent possessions, such as the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and its surviving overseas territories, such as Gibraltar, none of which is a state at international law. - Anthony Wilfred Bradley; Keith D. Ewing (2007), Constitutional and Administrative Law, vol. Volume 1 (14 ed.), Harlow: Pearson Education, p. 33, 323, ISBN 1405812079 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

So, the Crown Dependencies, for the purposes of UK domestic law are not (normally) considered part of the UK. For international law, however, they are (de jure).

Now, how about de facto? Well, let's take Scotland as an example. Scotland has an international identity that is seperate from the UK, for sure. Kilts, bag pipes, what have you. But Scotland, itself, is not seperate from the UK. Scotland is part of the UK. Relations between Scotland and Ireland are relations between Ireland and a part of the UK. They are Ireland-United Kingdom relations. It doesn't matter if it is the UK central government or a town council in Durham. Scotland is part of the UK. No amount of identity can change that fact. The referendum in 2014 may change it but, for now, Scotland is part of the UK. Fact.

"But that [relations between Ireland central government and UK central government] is not the totality of relationships in the archipelago, and highlighting those relationships separate from Anglo-Irish relations is not POV, it is simply more complete coverage." - Indeed. However, rather than developing the Ireland-United Kingdom relations article to reflect the totality of those relations (i.e. WP:NPOV), you went ahead and created a new article just to push one point of view (POV) on the topic. That is a POV fork. --RA (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Self-invented POV-article. The British Isles don't have any politics or international relationsships. The is the realm of states, not islands. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: User talk:Night of the Big Wind !voted earlier also. --RA (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If he voted earlier, then this vote is invalid and distracting and should be struck (which I have just done). Silverseren^C 20:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this is a good and justified article that just needs improvement. Considering the history of the British Isles it is surely impossible to deny that there is notable political aspect to the relationship of all parts of the British Isles? Therefore an article on the politics on the British Isles seems very valid and should not be deleted through blatant censorship to rid wikipedia of the British Isles. I see there is a Politics of Europe. If people go and get that one deleted it would seem more justifiable to have this one deleted. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. However, that doesn't address the issue that we already have an article on this topic (see WP:POVFORK).

While you were looking at Politics of Europe, did you notice that there are more than two sovereign states in Europe? If there were more than two sovereign states in the British Isles, an article on the subject would be more than just another way of treating British-Irish relations. (Think about it this way: if there was just one sovereign state in the archipelago, say the United Kingdom, would we have a duplicate article on politics of the United Kingdom rephrased as "politics of the British Isles"?)

The Scottish independence referendum in 2014 may change that. For now, however, there are just two sovereign states in the region. So Ireland-United Kingdom relations covers it amply.

It is not, as you write here, a "crusade to remove British isles". --RA (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should be reviewed in AfD on their own merits on a case by case basis (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS), so no there is no implication on other articles. Also whether Politics of Europe would survive AfD is unknown, but irrelevant to this AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close now, please?

The AfD was relisted, partly to allow other editors to offer their opinion and partly because the original discussion was closed after only two days. It has now had the regulation seven days on top of the original two, and a number of new editors have !voted, but a couple of editors, who were asked to refrain from continuing to do so, are still trying to out-do each other with TLDRs. Will somebody please take a deep breath and close the discussion? Scolaire (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to ask at WP:AN. Probably get a quicker response that way. Silverseren^C 09:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might get good to ask Sandstein as he appears familiar with the AfD but I don't think made any judgements on it? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Scolaire (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
+<!--Template:Afd top
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result was  '''Keep''', without prejudice to any further discussion on scope of content, renaming, or relationship to other articles.  I declared below that I would not detail my reasoning, but I will make one single point.  I have recognised in this assessment that, in the context of politics, the term ''British Isles'' can be interpreted with the POV of pro-British, or even anti-Irish.  I have seen no evidence that the article was written with this POV, nor was it the intention of the author, although several contributors to this debate on both sides clearly ''did'' have a POV regarding this.  It is hard to hold it against KarlB for using this term when there is no widely recognised neutral alternative (I had not even heard of Atlantic Archipelago until today): at least, none has been suggested during this discussion.  I also apologise for being British - I had not realised that this could be an issue when I began this close and have made every effort not to allow my nationality to sway my judgement. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning</font>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<font style="color:#4840a0">Spark'''</font>]]''' 18:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2012 May 30}}</noinclude>
-{{Closing}}
 This debate is taking some time to close.  It will be a lengthy process to read all the material on this page and referenced debates and give them due consideration.  It may take up to 24 hours to close. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning</font>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<font style="color:#4840a0">Spark'''</font>]]''' 01:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 It is my normal practice on closing controversial debates to give details of my reasoning and assessment of the arguments.  I have been keeping copious notes for that purpose.  I have just made the decision not to give any such assessment in this case: to do so would invite wall-of-text disputation on my talk page, and, judging by the previous close, accusations of super-voting.  The close is merely going to give the result after my assessment is complete. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning</font>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<font style="color:#4840a0">Spark'''</font>]]''' 10:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 ===[[Politics in the British Isles]]===
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}}
 :{{la|Politics in the British Isles}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 25#{{anchorencode:Politics in the British Isles}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{•}} <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Politics_in_the_British_Isles Stats]</span>)
 {{see also|Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Category:Politics_of_the_British_Isles}}
@@ Line 480: / Line 484: @@
 :::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=prev&oldid=497531227 Done].  [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire|talk]]) 10:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>