Talk:Ireland/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 14

Remove Airlann

Who cares what the name is in "Ulster-Scots"? Airlann!! Wow! It's not even a language, it's dialect pushed as a language for a unionist agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Whatever the opinion about it, its officially "part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland." By vote is for keep. --sony-youthpléigh 09:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The point isn't whether it is part of the cultural wealth (which it is, of course), it's whether it is a language and should be referenced as such in the above page. It clearly is not a language but a dialect and should not be called the former. Do other pages have a the name of their country in their various dialects? They don't from what I can see anyway. Take France for example, does that page have France listed in: Acadian French African French Aostan French Belgian French Cajun French Canadian French etc..... whether it be different or not (in this case it probably isn't different, being La France I'd imagine in all. However I am sure that there are countries in which the name of the respective states do differ in their various dialects but are not listed like Airlann is) {unsigned|}}

Minor point, none of the dialects you menioned are dialects spoken in France. But, please sign your posts with ~~~~ --sony-youthpléigh 11:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point none of them are spoken in France your so smart. Shall I be bothered to list the ones that are just for you now. Meridional is one which is spoken within France. How about Spain?

   * Andalusian Spanish
   * Canarian Spanish
   * Churro Spanish
   * Extremaduran
   * Murcian Spanish
   * Northern Spanish

all spoken within Spain. I doubt the page on Spain would have any differences in these dialects listed if they existed. So by your logic of the "cultural wealth" why don't we throw in Oirland for the dubs and their rich dialect or Areland as I've heard it being called. PS I'm not bothered creating an account for the English version of this since I rarely use it except to add to the Irish version, which is what I was doing when I came accross this Airlann rubish.

If there was any official recognition given to these dialects/languages, of course they would be listed on the page on Spain. I think a large part of your confusion is that you assume that when people agree with you that Ulster Scots is a dialect, you assume that you have consensus that it's a dialect of English. Marnanel 14:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So tell me what language it is a Dialect of then, if not English? (please answer this as it's imperative I know right away) And your missing the point calling those Spanish dialects, dialects/languages. They are dialects of the Spanish language just as Ulster Scots is a dialect of English. Also the argument isn't about whether it is listed or not, it's about the fact that the name of Ireland is named in Ulster Scots which is a dialect and the name of any other country on wikipedia dose not have it's name listed in any of it's dialects. If you had read the thing before you wrote this you would have saved yourself "confusion".

Ulster Scots is a dialect of the Scots language. It is the only dialect of Scots spoken in Ireland, and has explicit official recognition from both governments. Any language can be described as a dialect or group of dialects; would you suggest the name "Éire" be removed because it is the name for Ireland in the Munster, Ulster and Connacht dialects of Irish? By the way, please sign your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~--Kwekubo 18:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Scots Language! are you joking me? Why can't you see that the classification of such as a Language is political in nature. You think the granting of status as a language to something that is clearly a dialect by a government is just? Ulster Scots was simply granted language status to appease Unionists in the Good Friday Agreement and to put it on level pegging with Irish, which I believe it dosen't deserve, seeing as when it comes down to it it's a bastardized form of english and nothing more. While Irish is a credible language whose roots and evolution can clearly be traced as far back as Indo European. And so you know, my argument here that Irish is more credible isn't simply because it's older. There are many new languages that have come into existance in the past few hundred years or less even, Tok Pisin for example. The main differnce between these however and Ulster Scots is that they have their own grammatical systems and not just a vocab of bastardized words and an accent. (I created an account just to please you aswell >>>>>>>>Kerronoluain 11:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can really argue that the distinction between what's a language and what's a dialect is a political question. Nevertheless, your (and my) opinion on the matter is irrelevant: what's important is citation of reliable sources. Three very important points in the matter are:
  1. Scots (which is a very different thing from Standard Scottish English-- you might do well to read History of the Scots language) is recognised as a separate language by ISO 639. To say that Scots doesn't have its "own grammatical systems" and is "just a vocab of bastardized words and an accent" just shows your ignorance of the subject.
  2. Ulster Scots is spoken in seven counties of the island (the six currently under British administration and Donegal). It is not confined to the six counties. Even if it was, this article is about the island Ireland and not the state.
  3. the Belfast Agreement, as ratified by both the Irish and British governments, agreed on giving both the Irish language and the Ulster Scots language equal status to the English language. This means that Ulster Scots has some measure of official recognition by both states currently existing on the island. (This is not to say that it's equal to the recognition of Irish given by the Irish constitution, of course.)
Which of these points are in dispute? Marnanel 16:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care what any ISO says, and neither would anyone who had any understanding of the political situation regarding language in the six counties (besides Unionists of course, who regard the Irish language and Scots as weapons of opposing sides in a "cultural war", they believe to be going on). And until any of you school yourselves in what is actually going on there you can throw all your genaralised citations around, but they are completely unapplicable to this situation. It's obvious to me that you have just cited something without any real knowledge of why Ulster Scots has just crept out of the woodwork of late. It's because its "rival" (as Unionists would percieve it), the Irish language, has gained some status. Do you realise that before Irish did gain this, nothing was heard of Ulster Scots, there were no attempts made to revive it?(and therefore it certainly would not have been mentioned on this page in the form of "Airlann") NO? I DIDN'T THINK SO Kerronoluain 10:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed, it is making a mockary of the entire page. Shall we go to the Liverpool page and write "Livapuul" as Scouse-England? Ulster-Scots was created in 1990 and the name of the island derives from it's original Gaelic name - hence why it is there. "Airlann" being there, like I said, makes a mockary of the page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that "Airlann" should be removed. The status of Ulster-Scots was agreed to under the Belfast Agreement so its inclusion in the article has some form of official legitimacy behind it at least. Let me say, as a native Irish speaker and a nationalist that our clamouring to have it removed here will not do us any favours at all I believe. Putting my linguist's hat on, I believe that Ulster Scots/Scots is definitely not a seperate language but a dialect of English. I certainly do not believe that it was invented in 1990 by Orangemen, though. I just think that most unionists couldn't have given two hoots about it until they saw the potential to use it as a political weapon. However, I think it's just about possible that some of the people pushing the dialect are not on some political mission, just as there are Irish speakers who are largely apolitical. However, its inclusion in the article takes nothing from it, I believe. I think it's important not to rise to the bait set by the more extreme unionists and froth at the mouth every time we see the dialect mentioned. Who cares if it's included in the article? Just forget about it and deal with the more sinister partitionist propaganda that is, alas, rife on Wikipedia. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, "Airlann" should be removed. Google it, 591 hits. Now google "irealnd", it gets 48,300 and it's spelled wrong! Point being, Airlann is just a phonetic spelling of a bastardised pronunciation. It is not fit to be included in an encyclopedia. In fact, point it out in Encarta or Britannica, or better yet, have a look for it in the dictionary. Why not do the decent thing and relegate the "term" to a footnote which can be deleted at a later date when no ones looking? --Anthony 00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems the majority of the people in this debate are for the removal of "Airlann" .. will Wikipedia now do the right thing and remove it, or will people continue to be allowed to push their POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Ulster-Scots maybe a dialect and that Ireland is almost never spoken as Airlann. However Ulster-Scots, while it is questionable in its authenticity as a language, is a legitimate culture on this island and I think it is about time that our Unionist and Ulster-Scots cousins feel welcome and a part of this Ireland! There is too many seperatist views and suspecion on both sides of the political opinion in our country and that is why our country is still divided. For this reason I am voting to keep the reference to Airlann, along side Éire and Ireland and I hope that other Nationalists will agree! --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  20:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Parity of esteem. Keep. --Red King 00:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's absolutely legit as a culture, just as is "New York Irish" but the American page does not contain "Amirikah" as in a New York dialect. "Ireland" is the English form of "Éire", so it's perfectly reasonable to have Éire listed, but Airlann serves no historical or meaningful purpose.

Where is the resolution on this?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys but, as a northerner, I have clear up something here. Everyone seems to be satisified that Ulster-Scots is *just a dialect* as if it is a fact. It is actually officially recognised as a language by the northern irish assembly and therefore any talk of it being a dialect is merely your OPINION and so has no relevance to a wikipedia article. This 'Ireland' article is about the whole ISLAND and so it should rightfully include translation into Ulster Scots. signed: steveh363 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveh363 (talkcontribs) 00:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


I have made a proposal to move the Republic of Ireland to Ireland See:


Oh ghods, not this again. Can we have an FAQ or something? Marnanel 03:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


I read that the oldest name of Ireland was Ibheriu and only later Eriu. Is this right?

another way the tribe of the Euerni was spelt was Iverni which would expain the origin of that spellingCaomhan27 21:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

uncorrupted Name in article

Gerhard Herm's book titled "The Celts" 

states that the original name the Euerni called the island was Eueriio derived from the name of their tribe this later was corrupted in od irish to Eriu whic is pronounced the same but spelt differently and finally to Eire I would like to see the original name in the aritcle on ireland anyone agreeCaomhan27 21:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


The Wiki British Isles entry correctly states that Ireland is one of the British Isles. For consistency so should the Ireland entry.-- 20:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of the term is disputed in Ireland and is never used by the British and Irish governments when dealing with each other.--padraig 20:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the use of the term to refer to Ireland, Great Britain etc is disputed, but the term itself is not. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. The page is in the Islands of the British Isles cat....I see nothing wrong with mentioning it in the article and briefly mentioning that the use of the term can be contentious. No need to make a big deal out of it. Martin 23:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why your refering to Great Britain, Ireland was never part of it, but the British Isles is, the dispute is even mentioned in the template you refer to.--padraig 23:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times (see here and here for instance). The majority of editors have agreed that it doesn't belong in this article. IrishGuy talk 23:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi anon editor Referencing a statement made on a talkpage (where no consensus exists) as basis for a change is not appropriate. Nor is repeat flouting of 3RR. Please stop including this text based on unilateral arguments on "concistency".
Per comments made by multiple users (Irish and otherwise) over quite some time, consensus in this article has been to apply a representative template and cat, but not to include (in the intro) a term which is disputed (politically and academically) in its application to the island of Ireland.
While it may be applicable in certain historical contexts, it is acknowledged as having problems in its application in a modern context.
Specifically, the "British" adjective in the label (where it reflects that which "pertains to (Great) Britain or its inhabitants") is particularly problematic. Where the term "British" is interpreted in modern usage as "pertaining to Great Britain", the term "The British Isles" may be interpretted as "The islands of (Great) Britain". And while Great Britain and it's islands include England, Scotland, Wales, Wight, Anglesey, Scilly, Hebrides, Orkney, Shetland, and others, it does not include Man, the Chanel Islands, or Ireland.
Therefore (given the ambiguity and asserted problems with the term) it was determined that inclusion of the term had the potential to reflect more inaccuracy or misinterpretation than otherwise. And so consensus was (and has been) to avoid the term in its application at this level. Guliolopez 23:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I have followed this debate with interest. Having checked in my local library all the encyclopaedias, atlases and other reference books on the shelves I find that when referring to the geography of the islands of North West Europe they are all unanimous that Ireland is one of the British Isles. There is no reference that disagrees with this. The British Isles entry in Wikipedia says the same. The Ireland article is the principal entry in Wikipedia on the GEOGRAPHY of the island of Ireland. So it really must show that the island is one of the British Isles. Censura 09:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
"British Isles" is certainly a common phrase for the archipelago, but not the only one, and neither is it necessary to mention it. For what little benefit its inclusion would add to the article, the cost in terms of the trouble it would cause would by far would outwieght it. I would suggest paying a second visit to the reference section and you may come across less clean-cut references such as these. --sony-youthpléigh 09:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia wish to be out of step with every other reference book? It is arrogant and wrong to continue to claim that Ireland is not one of the British Isles. I was inspired to get involved by the following letter in The Spectator editon of 7th July:

Sir: Christopher Howse (Books, 23 June) is quite right in his conclusion about Wikipedia that it is a ‘useful tool, if used with judgment’. As a regular user of, and occasional contributor to, the website I can confirm its value, but would also say that it can be a huge source of irritation. One of the frustrations is that some entries are the jealously guarded preserve of the politically correct. To see what I mean go to the entry on the island of Ireland. Nowhere in this entry does it say that the island of Ireland is one of the ‘British Isles’ — notwithstanding the fact that this is self-evidently true. Your readers might amuse themselves by editing the entry so that its correct geographical descriptor is shown — and then see how long it takes for the ‘anti-all-things-British’ guardians of this entry to change it back again! Censura 10:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I am disappointed that "a regular user of, and occasional contributor to" Wikipedia would deliberately and willful disregared two of the projects guidelines and invite external meatpuppets to deliberately disrupt the project just to make a point. Both are considered highly inappropriate under Wikipedias guidelines. (I recognise that this is likely not anyone here, but the we shouldn't support guideline breaches such as this).
Secondly, it has been a repeated argument that "other sources place Ireland in the British Isles" and so should Wikipedia. As noted above, while the BI label may be correct historically (and therefore may be referenced as such in older reference texts), more recently published texts acknowledge the term as having "issues" when applied to include Ireland - and so they don't. (As noted here). Wikipedia has the power to be the most "up to date" reference of all, and so should likely not be updated to reflect older texts "for consistency". And certainly not where those older texts conflict with modern usage. (As above, the modern use of the adjective "British" reflects an association with Great Britain and the UK. An association which historically could be applied to the island of Ireland. But which is not correct in a modern context. As an example, the The Spectator article linked above associates "British" with the UK.)
So, in short, the answer to the question "Why would Wikipedia wish to be out of step with every other reference book?" is that Wikipedia has the potential to be more up to date than older printed reference books, and reflecting those books "for consistency" nullifies the expressed purpose, power and value of the project. Guliolopez 11:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ho ho ho !!! So to deny that Ireland is one of the British Isles is more "up to date" is it? What nonsense. If that was so then why does the Wiki entry on the British Isles show Ireland as one of them? Is this entry out of date in some way? Of course not. The letter to The Spectator mocked the ludicrous “political correctness” of the refusal to acknowledge that Ireland is indeed one of the British Isles. My objection is also that Wikipedia should be internally consistent and it isn’t on this issue. Laughing stock time I'm afraid! Are some of our Irish contributors so insecure that they cannot acknowledge that in the real world Ireland most emphatically is geographically one of the British Isles. How sad. Censura 12:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Less of the abuse - play the ball, not the man. That Ireland is part of the British Isles is not denied (where does any article say that "Ireland is not part of the British Isles"?) This is a large article in which many "facts" could be included. Why would you like this particular fact included? --sony-youthpléigh 12:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Censura. Giving you, as a relative newcomer (though self-acknowledged WP:SPA/Meatpuppet) the benefit of the doubt I will ignore the tone of your note which is mocking to other contributors. And instead will simply state that I am not asserting that Ireland is or is not covered by the term, but that more recently published texts acknowledge that the application of the term to include Ireland is problematic. And that given that the "value" of its inclusion at this level does not outweigh those problems, consensus has been to avoid the term. This avoidance is not "political correctness", rather an acknowledgement on practical and pragmatic grounds. Beyond that - per Sony and others - the argument on "Consistency" would equally be applied to "Orkney", "Channel Islands", who also don't reference the British Isles. Not because of "political correctness", but (possibly) because there is no need to. (As it is not relevant at the same level). Guliolopez 13:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
And what is wrong with noting in the article that Ireland is commonly covered by the term, but this is regarded as contentious by some, and so other phrases such as "these islands" are often used instead?
A sentence or two that would be factually accurate and acknowledge the current use and disuse of the term is all that is required. "British Isles" is a common enough term; I don't think it's too crazy to opine that there's a case for its inclusion in the article. As I said above, it doesn't have to be a big deal. Martin 23:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Censura, I would like to make the argument that it is not Ireland that is insecure about inclusion within the British Isles, but it is indeed the British who are insecure about Ireland being out of their durastiction. I know you will say that this is just another Nationalist POV, however if you look at evidence snipets i have pointed out below from British media, as I find in Northern Ireland, you will see the inclusion of the whole island of Ireland, together with Great Britain and the term national somewhere along that picture. This is indeed shown in uk weather maps, the BBC's "Great British Quiz" and "Test the Nation" Television Programs, as well as even on UK mobile network websites (O2-UK and T-Mobile UK). Given that the UK currently only owns roughly 17% of the Irish island do you not think that this is abit insulting for the rest of the independent territory? Can you now see that the term "British Isles" might be taken a bit too far to mean national rather than geographical in the minds of some in the UK and see now why the Republic of Ireland and Irish citizens may want the term changed? --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI the word is jurisdiction. This is a straw man argument and I would warrant that I could go off and find numerous pages showing Northern Ireland included in some context that should rightly only include the territory of the Republic. Jooler 08:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This supposed controversy all seems to be a case of POV pushing, born out of a politics and NOTHING to do with geography. Natural historians and geographers from Ireland seem to have little problem with the use of British Isles in reference to the island of Ireland. Jooler 09:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Jooler I cannot but help to feel a sense of a dig in your method of correcting my typo error, however I will ignore it and thank you for pointing that out to me. I have highlighted an example of where the BBC have shown the "British Isles" and the word Nation beside it. This is not my POV but clearly that of the BBC. I understand that some people may be ok with this but the point of me highlighting this issue is to show why nationalists clearly and justifiably have issues with the term. that is why i have put it in the Talk section rather than the main article. It is a discussion for others to include their opinions on this issue. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  17:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed UK manual of style

This a proposal for a UK manual of style. This will of course cover the entirity of Ireland during the period 1801-1922 and Northern Ireland since 1922. I don't know how this will effect the current WP:IMOS but input would be welcome: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles). --sony-youthpléigh 14:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

From a quick reading of it it seems to be a small number of editors trying to impose their POV on everyone else, so that they can decide on what is or isn't acceptable to them, one idea is that all people in Northern Ireland are classed as British, totally ignore the reality that anyone born there has the right to either British, Irish or Duel-nationality a right confirmed in the GFA.--padraig 14:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Could not agree more - ... on the plus side (for you) they do seem to agree with you over the flag issue :)) --sony-youthpléigh 14:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, anti-nationalism for the Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland has always been a problem here at Wikipedia, I am totally against POV pushing in all it's form at Wikipedia and this is no exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Could not agree more. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  16:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Celts

This culture, which has influenced literature, farming, navigation and so much of European life, for 4,000 years, and covers places as diverse as Portugal and Asia Minor, would be worthy of its own project. Modern areas still Celtic include Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales. Please weigh in at the proposal Chris 04:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Province's captials

This page lists Dublin, Galway etc as being the capital of their respective province's capitals. Provinces don't have administrative capitals and are cultural/historic entities not political duristictions. This should be amended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:15, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

This might well be true, however take for example, county capitals. Downpatrick is the capital town of County Down yet County Down is not an administrative entity, also the historical capital of Ulster was Emain Macha . Even so, provinces still play a big part in Irish life and are recognised by all people of this island. Take for example provincial rugby teams and Gaelic leagues, these are organised on a provincial basis, thus i believe the inclusion of provinces and capitals to be justified within the article. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  16:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


There is a link to British Isles for archipelago, but it is labelled Britain and Ireland (which is a redirect to Great Britain and Ireland which you may describe as either a completely different article a fork for British Isles. Thus the label is misleading. This is wrong whatever way you look at it. Britain here is ambiguous. Either it should be Great Britain and Ireland (indicating the two major islands, but then with Great Britain and Ireland, some might think it a shortcut to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and there's a not unreasonable argument, that some others might make, that it could be made into a redirect for this); or it should be left as British Isles, or as per George Orwell's Newspeak references should be removed (if your into the whole Stalinist airbrushing from history thing). In any case the sensible course correct is to use British Isles. The Isle of Man is in the Irish Sea and the Isle of Wight is in the English channel, Java and New Guinea are in the Malay Archipelago. Despite and political objections from British euro-sceptics who don't like the label, Great Britain is in Europe and like it or lump it the island of Ireland is a part of the British Isles as our article at British Isles quite clearly and correctly states. If the French invaded or were sold the Isle of Wight, or the Norwegians took over the Shetlands, or Ireland the Isle of Man, wouldn't they still be in the British Isles archipelago? Jooler 10:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Long-standing issue, explained in Britain and Ireland. Piping the link is obviously the most sensible way of looking at it. Different strokes for different folks, Jooler. You say potato, I say potato (you know what I mean). Same information is given whatever term you prefer to use. --sony-youthpléigh 18:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
But that is precisely the point. The piped info is not the same as what it pipes too otherwise there wouldn't be a page for Britain and Ireland linked to one article (Great Britain and Ireland) and a separate page at British Isles. Jooler 21:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
That's what pipes are for. If you browse around you find lost of link to Ireland, Britain, Europe, etc.. The Britain and Ireland page explain the situation. --sony-youthpléigh 21:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
No. They don't explain your insistence of on ignoring geography because of your political point of view. Jooler 21:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
According to you County Kerry IS in the British Isles, but But the island of Ireland isn't Jooler 21:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Ever been to Kerry? Strange place :) --sony-youthpléigh 21:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes I have as it happens, and Galway and Dublin and Leitrim, Longford and Donegal and Cork and and various places in between. Your flippancy and inability to justify having it both ways is noted. Jooler 22:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
No having it both ways, you know what the issue is - I don't need to explain it to you. It will do neither of us any justice to get bogged down in it. I've changed your edit to a kind of "more technically accurate" description: British Islands and Ireland. This is what's used on the Republic of Ireland page. (Great Britain is even more complicated than Britain - does it refer to the island or the union on the island. It certainly could not be expandd to take in IoM of the CI.)
I understand it's an annoyance for British editors. I guess you understand that the other way around is an annoyance for Irish editors. At least peace is kept by agreeing when and where to use which term. It was a hard enough deal to broker having the British Isles template here, if the only cost is not using one term over all others (in a limited number of circumstances), then really, is it too tough a deal to keep? --sony-youthpléigh 22:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It is an annoyance to any person without a political axe to grind that politics impinges on simple geography. The British Isles as an archipelago existed long before the nations that now exist there. Geographers and natural historians and believe it or not a fair number of historians from Ireland have no problem in calling a spade a spade. Jooler 07:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
No political axe to grind either. Believe it or not many geographers, natural historians, etc. from the UK have no problem calling a shovel a shovel. (See here, here or here to cite just three of the most unambigious alternatives). --sony-youthpléigh 08:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
374, 9 and 22 hits respectively. As opposed to 1,860,600 hits for "British Isles" I make that a ratio of approximately 1/4500 or 0.02% for the combined usage of your alternatives. Hardly comparable. One might also note that the first hit here is by Irish Historian Hugh Kearney. And what do we see when we examine your hits Atlantic Archipelago more closely? Multiple references not to the islands off the coast of Europe which dare not speak their name, but to Iceland and the Faroe Islands, or Nova Scotia and the Islands off of Canada or Ascension Island or the Falklands, or the Canaries. And a fair number of hits that have nothing to do with either History, Natural History or Geography, or uses that are merely alliterative allusion. Jooler 12:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
... don't forget that most illuminious of phrases, "British Isles and Ireland." But you're shifting your point. Originally it was that, "Geographers and natural historians and believe it or not a fair number of historians from Ireland have no problem in calling a spade a spade." Mine was that, "Believe it or not many geographers, natural historians, etc. from the UK have no problem calling a shovel a shovel." Now you're doing something about comparing the number of spades and shovels. Spades exist. Shovels exits. Potato, potato! (You still know what I mean.)
(How we got here from your concern that, "piped info is not the same as what it pipes to", I don't know.)--sony-youthpléigh 13:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Operative word being "'many" which I don't think 0.02% can really qualify as. Well done for demonstrating that a marginal view is held by a marginal minority. I can find 28,000 hits for Arabian Gulf which still doesn't warrant its usage in Wikipedia. Jooler 23:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

20 procent of irish people in administration ?

I read in german newspaper, that 20 procent of irish people work in irish administration ? Is that correct ? GLGerman 21:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Either there was a misprint, a misinterpretation somewhere, or the writer of that article should consider a new job. What newspaper was this?
If we assume this "journalist" was talking about "20 percent" in terms of people in the entire workforce, and we take the 2.5 million people who are of "working age" (between 18 and 65 years), that would mean that the suggestion is that 500,000 people work in public and civil service jobs in Ireland!?
I would strongly suggest that this is simply wrong.
According to the Public Appointments Service there are 30,000 civil servants. According to Wikipedia, there are 13800 in the police service (30000+13800=43800), and 10,500 in the Defence Forces (43800+10500=54300). Let's suggest that this "journalist" was including people in State-sponsored bodies (which I would consider inaccurate myself), and add in a generous 25000 to cover these. (54300+25000=79300) Even if we were to DOUBLE that again to account for public jobs in local authorities, the Courts services, the Health Services, and elsewhere, you would only hit a total of ~160,000. We're still off by 340,000 jobs.
In short. No - it's not correct. Guliolopez 23:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
There are two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland:
--sony-youthpléigh 07:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Eueriio -> Ériu -> Éire. Derivation and conflicting assertions.

The current intro states that: The name 'Ireland' originally derives from Eueriio which through Old Irish became corrupted to Ériu and finally (in modern Irish, Éire)... This word, from Proto-Celtic *Īwerjū, which also gave Middle Welsh Iwerd "Irish Sea", originally meant "fatness", in the sense of fertile..

The flow of etymological derivation laid out here is in conflict with ITSELF and several other articles, and (to my view) is somewhat dubious and (given the various theories) should be tempered considerably. Or removed entirely.

The suggestion of the current text is that the Euerni arrived on the island sometime around the 6th century B.C. from Northern Gaul, and named it Eueriio - ostensibly after themselves. And subsequent names were derived from this.

However, the Ériu article states that the Island derives it's name from a goddess of P-Celtic-speakers, who represented the land and sovereignty, and who helped the Gaels conquer Ireland. (As described in the Lebor Gabála). There is no mention here of Ériu being derived from Eueriio.

The Éire article suggests a similar etymological flow to the Ériu one. Again making no overt reference to Gallic/celtic origins in the Euerni.

Finally, there is an additional apparent conflict (between the Eueriio derivation and the "other" flow) in the association with the P-Celtic word Īwerjū, which means fertile or fat. This makes sense if it's named after a goddess of the land. It struggles a bit if the derivation is from a people who named the island after themselves.

There is no doubt that "Éire" is derived from a P or Q celtic word of considerable antiquity (given it's early appearances as Ierne in Greek geographical writings with sources as early as the 5th century BC), and the derivation is therefore going to be very complex to explain. However, the wording as laid out in the Ireland article at the moment is:

  • at best in conflict with itself, and other similar articles which discuss the derivation
  • at least troublesome given it's attempt to tie in all the various "theories", and
  • at worst problematic from an Original Research point of view.

Personally I struggle with any derivation theory that relies singularly on an "invasion and suplant" notion, where ONE originating "tribe" colonised and labelled the island. As it does not account for the constant movement of peoples. Even O'Rahilly's historical model doesn't try and pin things down that simply.

Anyway, without getting into too much academic debate about it, I think the "derivation of Ireland" sentences in the intro need a reword. To account for the fact that there are multiple theories. And to acknowledge that they don't all neatly mesh. (As the current flow trys to suggest - instead ending up in a self conflicting mess.)

Thoughts? Guliolopez 12:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

For me the historical evidence is pretty good
many names of countries today are derived from tribes
England (angles) Britain (brytons), belgium (belgae), scotland (scoti) france (franks) etc etc
One main tribe in ireland was the Euerni/Iverni
According to Ptolemy's writings regarding ireland
The territory to the west of the Brigantes is occupied by a people called by Ptolemy the Iverni. Their capital he gives as Ivernis, and in the extreme S.W. of the island he marks the mouth of the riber Iernos, by which the top of Dingle Bay called Castlemaine
Harbour is perhaps intended. The Iverni must have been a nation of considerable importance, as they play a prominent part in the historical period, where they are known as the trnai or Eraind of Munster. It would seem that the Iverni were the first native tribe with whom foreign traders came in contact, as it is from them that the Latin name for the whole island is derived. The earliest form was probably Iveriyo or Iveriyu, genitive Iveryonos, from which come Lat. Iverio, Hiverio (Antonine Itinerary), Hiberio

the spelling Eueriyo or Iveriyo would depend on the pronunciation of the tribes name but either is correct, the authors referenced use Eueriio but maybe iyo and both Iveriyo/Eueriyo should be shown
Hibernia( hibernus that translates as "wintry.")is proported to be derived form Ivernia, which in turn is latinised Ierne. Ierne was the name given to Ireland by Pytheas of Massilia

As recently as the early 20th century, "Ivernia" was used among some in Britain to refer to Hibernia.

this evidence fits together very well Caomhan27 23:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that still doesn't address the WP:OR or the self-contradiction issues. I possibly confused things towards the end of my note above by bringing my own opinion on the subject into it. I confused my opinion on the subject with my opinion on how it should be imparted. (Apologies for that).
To reclarify: the key concern is that the sentences in the intro appear to be self-contradictory. To the extent that a Template:Contradict might be in order. As noted above, the etymological derivation of Ériu from Eueriio is laid out ONLY in that one sentence, by you, and based on your interpretation. Without citation. It is also not consistent with the content of either of the relevant articles themselves. (IE: The Ériu article cites no derivation from Eueriio, and yet this article does).
It should also be pointed out that the one article that supports this derivation reads like WP:OR and WP:SYN in the extreme. (I'll follow-up on that on the relevant talkpage however.)
Comments from other editors? Is there a suggestion on a reword that might convey the possibility of multiple derivations of Ireland? Without "synthesising" an association of Inverni to Eriu to Éire to Ireland? Guliolopez 00:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

None of it is original research or "synthesising" 100% is taken from Herm, Gerhard (2002), The Celts, Ireland: St. Martin's Press, ISBN 0312313438 O'Rahilly, T. F. (1947), Early Irish History and Mythology, US: Medieval Academy of America Volume V14, Page 789 of the Encyclopedia Britannica which i cant get the link to work but will try again, which states and the hibernia article

the rest is from the wikipaedia article on hibernia[[1]] which states

so if anything the tiny eriu article is conflicting with factual hictorical Encyclopedic and authored evidence of two articles so i would agree a rewrite is in order but this does not mean that the goddess story and possibly her original name may not have some baring on the tribes original name and so in effect may also be important the two may not be totally mutally exclusive, but that has to to looked into further Caomhan27 00:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for that. You have highlighted a few things here.
Firstly, you note that the cited source talks about the derivation of "Hibernia". Not the derivation of "Éire". Which confirms to me the WP:OR aspect of "making one theory fit another". If Hibernia derives from Ivernia, then it cannot be stated definitively that Éire derives from Eueriio. This is "A and B, therefore C" stuff and classically WP:SYN.
Secondly, even if the derivation of the Latin and Old Irish terms WERE linked, the source you provide states: "Another possibility is that Hibernia is derived from Ivernia". There is a key qualifier here (the word "possibility") that was missing from how this source text was represented on this page. Again, stretching the boundaries of OR and SYN.
And so, I am back to the dubious nature of an assertion ("Éire derives from Eueriio") the "basis" for which is a source that notes "possible" derivation in an entirely different language family.
I have already tempered the relevant sentence, but stopped short of removing the Eueriio reference (or tempering with a "possible" qualifier) until someone else (not you or I) can have a look at it. Guliolopez 01:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

yes true the encyclopedic source stops at Euerio/Iverio etc

but the authored sources

Herm, Gerhard (2002), The Celts, Ireland: St. Martin's Press, O'Rahilly, T. F. (1947), Early Irish History and Mythology, US: Medieval Academy of America

make the link between Eueriyo/Eueriio -->eriu---> Eire, not me so there is no original reserach,it may need tidying up alright for clarity Caomhan27 01:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the wording is for the discussion of the various etymological theories and the historical speculations underlying them, one important thing is that this should all be discussed in one place rather than scattered or repeated across multiple articles, with consequent difficulty of reading and possibility of contradiction. I further suggest that Ireland is not the best place to put this discussion. In my opinion Éire is the best place. I accept that it is not the case that Modern English Ireland derives directly from Modern Irish Éire; indeed the English form may derive from a non-Gaelic intermediate form. Nevertheless I think the simplest and best thing is for Ireland, Hibernia and Ériu to minimize discussion of these matters and simply have a link {{main|Éire#Etymology}} or the like. jnestorius(talk) 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Native People

I'd say it would be almost impossible to determine who is native to Ireland, hence there should not be a native peoples categorie.

Maybe native cultures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Scots are Indigenous people?

Since when? Ulster Scots are primarily the decendants of people who immigrated to Ireland from Scotland under 400 years ago. Other people came to Ireland too during this period including Flemish, French Huguenot, English, Welsh, Galacians, Cornish, Manx, etc. What makes the Ulster Scots so special? Is it not like saying that Irish Americans are Indigenous Americans? I understand that there is a strong cultural connection between Ireland and Scotland and that people moved over and back between both countries and so on, but doesn't the term "Ulster Scot" itself signify the seperation of Ulster (a part of Ireland) and Scotland? If I'm wrong then I guess we need to add "Irish Scots" as an Indigenous people on the Scotland wiki page—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The older term was Scots-Irish, though south of the border this has been integrated (as Anglo-Irish was throughout the island) since partition. Given the importance of this group to the island of Ireland, and given the history of Ireland, they are a crucial ethno-cultural-something-or-an-other and hardly a "foreign import" but something utterly native to the etho-cultural landscape of Ireland.
As you point out, the history of Ireland and Scotland makes it even more funny to try and say that they are not "native". If Gaelic is "native" (and are all "Irishmen" Gaelic? De Valera the Spannish-American? Yeats the Anglo-Irishman?) then how can anyone from Scotland be said to be not native? It's like saying that Kerrymen are not native to Cork. --sony-youthpléigh 11:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first poster and don't really understand the second. Europeans have transformed North America but they are hardly an Indigenous American grouping. Likewise, what would American history be without mentioning a single European American, but its still doesn't redefine the term Indigenous American. Therefore the whole argument about the importance of Ulster Scots is nonsense if you ask me, with regard to them being Indigenous Irish. Are Polish-Irish Indigenous to Ireland? Will they be in 400 years if they retain this identity? Of course not. What about the Celtic FC supporters in East Glasgow and Western Scotland, many of whom are primarily of Irish extraction, and many of whom are proud to demonstrate their sense of Irishness? They can be defined as a crucial ethno-cultural-something-or-an-other in Scotland, if the same tag can be applied to Ulster Scots in Ireland, can they not? They have their green St. Andrews flag and other such culture artifacts. Their ancestry is traced primarily to immigrants from Ireland two centuries ago. So are they Native Scottish or Native Irish or something else?
Wiki defines Indigenous peoples as "The term indigenous peoples has no universal, standard or fixed definition, but can be used about any ethnic group who inhabit the geographic region with which they have the earliest historical connection." Therefore I think we should follow such a definition, with Ulster Scots having their earliest historical connection in Scotland, not Ireland. Likewise, Irish Americans have their earliest historical connections in Ireland, not America. Hence the fact that they are not Indigenous Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimmer79 (talkcontribs) 17:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Irish-Americans do not have their "earliest historical connections in Ireland", they have them in America. They weren't Irish-Americans when they were in Ireland, they were plain old Irish! Not every ethnic group is indigenous to somewhere. I do feel if the term means "the first known people to inhabit somewhere", "Indigenous people" might be a tad imprecise if we want to include the various groups of people associated with Ireland in a historical context, and I'm sure there's a better alternative. Maybe something like "historical ethnic groups" or some-such. Perhaps a bit verbose, but maybe someone can see what I'm going for and come up with something clearer. If being "imprecise" in this way isn't an issue, we could just leave it as is.

On the other-hand, if "indigenous people" has to stay, Ulster-Scots could be removed. If we want to go down that road though, are the Irish even indigenous to Ireland? What does the term "Irish" even mean? The only satisfying definition I can find is "that which is from Ireland", and Ulster-Scots people certainly satisfy this definition. So perhaps Ulster-Scots is nothing more than a subgroup of "Irish", and so should be left as is. And now I'm arguing in circles with myself, so I'll leave it to someone else to make sense of my ramblings! :-) Martin 05:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Martin that "historical ethnic groups" (or wtte) is far better than "indiginous groups", since obviously many people have different takes on the time period of settlement before an ethnic group becomes "indiginous" (hence the objection to Ulster Scots and to 'European' Americans being indiginous to their respective places). On the other hand, I bet there's plenty of 'Ulster-Scots' who consider themselves indiginous. The fact is that classifying an enthic group as indiginous is subjective, and only satisfactory in situations where there is not much objection to a given classification (I think we all agree that Native Americans are indiginous to N America and the 'European' Americans not). This situation is one where conflict arises, so we should drop it, and move to the very good proposal of Martin's. Logoistic 22:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is British Isles a dirty word, here?

Ireland and Great Britain geographically are the British Isles, why is that being omitted? It's not the point- weither the term offends anyone or not- the point is, the term exists. What's next, an Afd on British Isles itself? GoodDay 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That a term is considered offensive or objectionable by some doesn't mean that it should be censored. As for why it's not found here, I would suggest heading over to the British Isles talk page and reviewing some of the endless (and quite frankly soul-destroying) bickering going back several years. Martin 19:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Not just "offensive or objectionable" but an archaic hangover from an earlier time. Look at the atlases kids have in schools; nowhere will you find the term. (Sarah777 20:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC))
It's only offensive if you choose to be offended by it. It's a geographical term not a political one. If the UK was conquered tomorrow and renamed Airstrip One, the island of Great Britain and Ireland would still be part of the island group the British Isles. Can you imagine a Cuban or Venezuelan publisher to removing references to 'the Americas' because some people might be offended by the association to the large unfriendly neighbour? Jooler 21:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
They actually DO remove references to the "Falkland" Islands. As for "It's only offensive if you choose to be offended by it" - nah, one is intrinsically offended for reasons an Arbcom (mindlessly) forbids me from repeating. And the bit of water between England and France ain't no "English" channel in any French "geographical" term. "It's a geographical term not a political one." Sez you; but if Ireland is part of the "British Isles" it is, using joined-up English, clearly a British Island. Which, equally clearly, it ain't. (Sarah777 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC))
1. Who's "they"? 2. I'm not sure what you mean by "intrinsic" here. I would have thought that to be "intrinsically offended" is far more suggestive of a mindless dogmatic attitude than one might attribute an ArbCom decision. 3. They also call the Channel Islands fr:Îles Anglo-Normandes. 4. Clearly not. You're conflating geographic and political entities. 'British Isles' no more means "a British (political sense) Island " than 'Irish Sea' means "an Irish (political sense) sea. Jooler 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm in. Here's a taste of literature on the subject:
  • Simon Partridge: "It also challenges a burgeoning Anglo-Saxon-Cornish-Welsh British (British being derived from the Brythonic Prydein under Tudor influence) hegemony of the 16th century which felt free to name these isles 'British'."
  • Nicholas Canny: "When I refer to the composite monachy ruled over by James VI and I and by King Charles I, it is always described as Britain and Ireland, and I deliberately avoid the politically loaded phrase 'the British Isles' not least because this was not a normal usage in the political discourse of the time."
  • Bronwen Walter: "A refusal to sever ties incorporating the whole island of Ireland into the British state is unthinkingly demonstrated in naming and mapping behaviour. This is most obvious in continued reference to 'the British Isles'."
And before you go deciding again that references you don't like must be from 'Irish Republician POV pushers' or other such like, these three are: a London-based pro-"British" political analyst, an Irish history prof, and a British social science prof. There are of course more, but that just sample. --sony-youthpléigh 00:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you're trying to prove here. Jooler 07:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You wrote: "You're conflating geographic and political entities. 'British Isles' no more means "a British (political sense) Island " than 'Irish Sea' means "an Irish (political sense) sea." On the contrary. This is dealt with extensively in the literature and accepted to be a fact. --sony-youthpléigh 08:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. You've lost me. What is "dealt with extensively"? and what have the three references you've put up here got to do with it? Jooler 12:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as far as the meaning of the term "British" as used in "British Isles" goes, Ireland is totally British. The word "British" comes from the word "Pritani", which was the name for the Celtic inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland (see Cruithne (people)). In this context, "Britain" is not synonymous with "United Kingdom". "Great Britain" is so called because it is the largest of the British islands. If the islands weren't British, the largest would hardly be named so. The term "British Isles" does not denote ownership by Britain anymore than "Irish Sea" denotes ownership by Ireland.
A Google search for "British Isles" brings up 14,400,000 hits, so it's perhaps not as archaic and unused as you imagine. However, regardless of the rights and wrongs of doing so, some people do not like the term, so if it was used in the article, this should of course be mentioned. Martin 22:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As I promised not to involve myself in this discussion, and in order to save space without irrelevant commentry, I've replied on your talk page. --sony-youthpléigh 00:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There is an article British Isles naming dispute. I don't know that there's a specific Wikipedia policy about when it's acceptable to use this particular term, but there is a policy of using the local variety of English which in this article would be Irish English, where the term "British Isles" is avoided. jnestorius(talk) 23:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
By a small minority. Jooler 23:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
And I guess in the KKK article, we should call black people "n*ggers", huh? That's the term they use, isn't it? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. This doesn't concern a regional difference in English. Martin 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to question the existence, extent, or reasonableness of the alleged contemporary Irish antipathy to the phrase "British Isles", then I think you need to take this discussion to Talk:British Isles naming dispute. Come back here when you establish a consensus there. jnestorius(talk) 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
But that's the point: the "reasonableness" is totally irrelevant. Wikipedia should show all points of view fairly, it should not decide on one over the other. Great Britain and Ireland are often referred to as the British Isles. Some people don't like this. Surely it's not beyond our powers to note these two facts in the article? Martin 00:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought the question was "Why is British Isles a dirty word, here?". I quite agree that the current phrasing of the intro para is crap. It is wilful blindness to refuse to state the bald geographic fact that Ireland is part of [an island group also including Great Britain] to the northeast of [mainland Europe]. What words are used to express this may be tricky; nevertheless, it is an essential fact and must be mentioned explicitly in the intro rather than being danced around as at present. jnestorius(talk) 00:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Alternative phrasing is fine, if it's though necessary. But the willfulness to push one phrase over another, despite knowing that's problematic and unwelcome, is obnoxious. --sony-youthpléigh 00:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Which is why a term used 99.8% of the time is more appropriate than any other. Jooler 00:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
"99.8%" - do you have a source for this, or are you just making that number up? --sony-youthpléigh 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I'm making it up. No actually I'm not. I was using the stats posted above in the previous discussion. Although actually it should be 99.98%. Jooler 01:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I do not consider myself a European. Every single attempt, successful or otherwise, to undermine British sovereignty has come from Europe - the Romans, the Catholic Church, the Normans, Napoleon, Hitler, the Common Market - the list is endless. I find European culture completely alien, with its cafe bars, hairy armpits, frogs legs, beer kellers, its bull fighting, Jew gassing, horse eating, garlic smelling philosophies such as fascism, communism, corporate state-ism, nihilism, positivism and any-other-ism you care to mention, and its insistence on speaking a whole bunch of different yet equally incomprehensible languages such as French, German, Italian, Spanish, etc. etc. etc. Europe is a large landmass situated directly to our east that has interfered in the affairs of this island for centuries, distorting and perverting our own development. I find its comedy risible, its food disgusting, and its attempts at popular music appalling. There is nothing about Europe that I can think of right now that I like. And yet, even though the very word "Europe" conjures up all these negative feelings, I am not so insular, stupid or politically motivated as to try and claim that the UK is not, in fact, part of the European continent. TharkunColl 07:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Any how many people from Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh would say they these countries are not part of the Indian subcontinent. Jooler 07:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Jooler: "Any how many people from Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh would say they these countries are not part of the Indian subcontinent." - I don't know. But, the Pakistan article doesn't mention it. The Sri Lanka article says that it is "separated from the Indian subcontinent by the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Strait." And, the Bangladsh article only mention is obliquely. In any case, what relevance would does have? The phrase you insist on inserting is known to be problematic in relation to Ireland, known to be best practice to avoid in relation to Ireland, and known to be inflammatory by our readers. Other phrases exist. What do you have against them? Or is it just that you want the word "British" in there come hell or high water? It sounds as if you are less interested in having "facts" in there, than you are about having "your word for the facts" in there.
Thark: "Every single attempt, successful or otherwise, to undermine British sovereignty has come from Europe ..." - You live on an island in Europe. Everyone around you from Europe. Where do you imagine that any attempt to undermine British sovereignty would come from? Mars? If you mean "Europe" as in "the continent", then that's every one of your neighbours bar one. It is that one singular neighbor that you are convinced has it in for old Blighty now. How about you drop the paranoia?
But let's run with this. Suppose the word Europe was commonly accepted to be problematic in relation to the United Kingdom. It inflamed readers of the United Kingdom article. Published material discussed the semantic problems with the term and suggested alternative phrasings. Thankfully, the same fact could be expressed using a different phrasings. Wouldn't common sense and NPOV be to use the alternative phrasing? What's more the point? To say Europe, or to explain that the United Kingdom is in Europe? Now, suppose some overtly European editors appeared on the UK talk page insisting that the word EUROPE be included in the UK article despite the known-issues with the term and despite other phrasings being capable of expressing the same thing. Wouldn't you think that they were just being a dick. --sony-youthpléigh 08:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't insist on anything other than a commonsense reality check. Yes Ireland is an island in the island group known as the British Isles like it or lump it, and all the and venom and bluster that that might be put in to arguing otherwise doesn't change that, the supposed substitute phrases have negligible usage and acceptance, are mere politically motivated euphemisms, and have all but zero acceptance in academic fields such as geography and natural history. Jooler 12:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
That's precisely my point. The word "Europe" does indeed have many negative connotations for a large number of British people - yet they are not so foolish as to make an issue over nomenclature. Whilst the linguistic warriors of the PC brigade argue over words, actual errosions of sovereignty slip through unnoticed. And my European analogy was very much deliberate, since I strongly suspect that there are many in Ireland who would say that all attempts to erode their sovereignty have come from Britain. Well where else would such attempts have come from, given geography? In fact, of course, they would be mistaken, as the EU has eroded Irish sovereignty just as much as it has the UK's - more so, since they have relinquished their currency - and now that all their lavish subsidies (paid for by the UK, among others) have been diverted to Eastern Europe, the Irish might start to regret this. TharkunColl 11:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Time out, people. We are drifting waaay off the point. jnestorius(talk) 11:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Jooler - "the supposed substitute phrases have negligible usage" - I asked you already not to make things up, Jooler. For example here is what literature has to say on the matter: "At the outset, it should be stated that while the expression 'The British Isles' is evidentially still commonly employed, its intermittent use throughout this work is only in the geographical sense, in so far as that is acceptable. Since the early twentieth century, that nomenclature has been regarded by some as increasingly less usable. ... 'Britain and Ireland' is the more favoured expression, though there are problems with that too. ... There is no consensus on the matter, inevitably. It is unlikely that the ultimate in non-partisanship that has recently appeared, the (East) 'Atlantic Archipelago' will have appeal beyond captious scholars." (Ian Hazlettm, 2003, The Reformation in Britain and Ireland: An Introduction, Continuum: London)
You could read the same conclusion by consulating an atlas. See here or here for maps of "Britain and Ireland", now including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
Thark - yes, your politics are known to us all, thank you very much. --sony-youthpléigh 13:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sony , re the maps, so what? I can find plenty of maps that show England, Scotland and Wales and don't mention Great Britain. That doesn't mean that one is an acceptable or common substitute for the other. "Great Britain an Ireland" are two islands in the British Isles, but the island group is more than these two islands. You could NOT have proved my point any stronger than by selecting that particular quote. The selected highlights! - "use throughout this work is only in the geographical sense'" (thus the term is used in the very context that this discussion is focusing upon) - the ultimate in non-partisanship that has recently appeared, the (East) 'Atlantic Archipelago' will have [little] appeal beyond captious scholars 20:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Earlier in the discussion, somebody mentioned the Irish Sea; Interesting, how there's few complaints there (I know, that's another article). GoodDay 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess calling a bit of the ocean "Irish" isn't as daft or offensive as calling soverign Irish territory "British". But if you feel that in articles about Blackpool and Liverpool you want to call it "the sea between Ireland and Britain" I'd certainly wouldn't try to force the issue. (Sarah777 23:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
Who is there to complain? No one lives in the Irish Sea. Being *next* to something (the British in relation to the Irish Sea) is not analogous to being treated as *in* or *part of* something (the Irish in relation to "British Isles.") Nuclare 02:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Please remember that "British" is a Celtic word that was appropriated by the Stuart Dynasty. The English resisted being called "British" for a hundred years. When I say British, I mean English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh. And there is nothing you can do do stop me identifying with those four nations as my own. TharkunColl 23:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well Jooler, you having been wrong on what Latin Americans might call parts of Latin America and what Ceylonese and Pakistanis might call their bits of Asia you now say: "zero acceptance in academic fields such as geography"; wrong again, as a quick look at the geography texts of Irish school kids will show you. (Sarah777 23:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

I think the best than can be said is that the term "British Isles" is not used very much in Hiberno-English, but is freely used in all other dialects of English. Let us remember that Hiberno-English is a proper, independent dialect and that no other dialect has the right to impose on it in any way at all. Conversely, Hiberno-English has no right to impose its views on any other dialect. TharkunColl 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"You having been wrong on what Latin Americans might call parts of Latin America...." - wha? - how do you work that out? Jooler
By reading what you wrote Jooler(Sarah777 23:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
And that's wrong in some way? You're not being very clear. Jooler 23:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Clarity is my middle name Jooler (Sarah777 23:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
Okay obviously I'm as thick as pig shit because I haven't got the faintest idea WTF you're on about. Please humour me. Jooler 23:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't let the POV pushers get to you. They cannot tell either us, or the rest of the world, how to use the English language. I think it's their attempts to do so that offend me the most - that and their constant accusations of "British nationalism" (whatever that is). TharkunColl 23:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thark doesn't know what British Nationalism is! Obviously no point telling you how to use the English language!(Sarah777 01:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC))
My point, of course, is that there is no such thing. There is English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish nationalism (and possibly Scots-Irish), but "British" nationalism is a bit of a confusion of language. When analysed, "British" nationalism, even if it calls itself that, turns out to be English nationalism (or perhaps Scots-Irish in NI). The reason for this is simple - the term "British" does not refer to a nation, but a collection of nations. TharkunColl 08:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thark, no-one can force you to use the English language in a different way, but (a) people can ask you politely to change the way you use the English language and (b) others can change the way they use the English language whether you like it or not. Until a major text references the way you use the English language we'll have to take your word on your preferences on usage, but it's not relevant for WP. You can continue to use the term "British Isles" in conversation or your own writing as much as you like. However, it's very widely referenced by major texts that the term "British Isles" is no longer generally accepted within Ireland, which fact is reflected in atlases, textbooks, etc. That fact IS relevant for WP. It's also widely referenced that the term "British" was (as you put it) adopted by the Stuarts as a political project. The fact that the English resisted the term "British" for a century is interesting, as is the fact that the Irish mostly resisted it then and now. Hughsheehy 10:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thark, I'll run with with your Hiberno-English argument. Please see the Wikipedia guidelines onnational varieties of English: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. ... Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternate terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia." That should clear this whole mess up. --sony-youthpléigh 12:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I agree that there is not a cat in hell's chance of getting the phrase British Isles to stick in this particular article about Ireland. But what about international articles that use the phrase? International articles do not tend to use Hiberno-English - they usually use American English or British English, in which the phrase British Isles is the standard designation for the islands. TharkunColl 12:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
....if we're to split dialects of English (which on first reaction seems extreme), we should then also note that OUP, CUP, Routledge, etc.,etc., have all published texts in British-English and American-English which have commented about how "British Isles" is controversial, disliked, out-of-date, etc. Therefore, if we were to follow the logic of splitting dialects of English we'd not use "British Isles" at all in Ireland based articles and would footnote use of "British Isles" in all other articles. This seems a rather wide-ranging proposal from Sony and Thark. Hughsheehy 12:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
International use is as international use. I saw you and Sarah wrangle over the issue on "Megalithic Culture ..." British Isles is appropriate there, IMHO. I would ask however for a little sensitivity on all sides. Issues with the term are dealt with in literature, and they are real. A reference you might enjoy Thark is this one, which argues against the term from a British (in the sense you take from that word) nationalist perspective. Objections to it are not driven by wild-eyed terrorists, neither is its use a sign of imperialist jingoism. Different strokes, different folks.
The only thing I would say is that for Ireland-related articles, it should be avoided, without any intention of implying offense. On all other articles, it would seem quite right.
Would you object to a link to the dispute in the infobox of other islands in the group? Jooler's argument from before has convinced me to use British Isles in the infobox here but to link to the dispute. If nothing else, it could be an exchange of peace offerings for all sides. --sony-youthpléigh 13:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The Irish related articles shouldn't be given special treatment. Again, the it's offensive argument is a weak argument. Internationally, British Isles is a recognized geographical term, just like Irish Sea (which the British don't like) or English Channel (which the French don't like). Why make exceptions for the Irish only. GoodDay 15:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a minor point, but I know of no British person who objects to "Irish Sea". Such linguistic objections are just plain stupid. The term "Irish Sea" has been brought into arguments like this simply to illustrate this point. TharkunColl 15:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, if Irish Sea is acceptable, British Isles should be equally exceptable; because both are internationally recognized terms. GoodDay 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Again, Thark, Goodday, I also know of no-one who objects to the term "Irish Sea", but my personal knowledge is irrelevant. The point is that I know of no reputable reference that says the term "Irish Sea" is disliked, avoided, etc. by any number of people and no-one else is providing any such references either. Similarly, you may view objections to the term "British Isles" as something that is just as stupid as objecting to the term "Irish Sea"...but your view is IRRELEVANT. What is relevant is verifiable reference, which has been produced ad nauseam to demonstrate that many people DO regard the term "British Isles" as objectionable, to be avoided, etc. Similarly, as I mentioned to GoodDay recently, you may (or may not) view the existence of God as a nonsensical idea, but the verifiable fact is that many people DO believe in God and your personal belief on the existence (or not) of God is NOT grounds to go editing articles to say that people shouldn't (or should) believe in God. Same with British Isles. Your personal knowledge or opinion is NOT relevant. Hughsheehy 16:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm neither pro-British or pro-Irish. I'm just annoyed with the it offends the Irish reasoning, for dancing around the word British. I'm just unconfortable with the 'double standard'. GoodDay 16:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
PS- what the Irish want is 'irrelevant, too. GoodDay 16:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Gooday, no-one is arguing to give Irish articles "special treatment," just that we should follow Wikipedia guidelines on national varieties of English. Again guidelines are:

"An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. ... Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternate terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia."

If you do not agree with this consensus, please take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.
As for "what the Irish want is 'irrelevant" - please read what is meant by a neutral point of view and remember, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is 'absolute and non-negotiable.'" --sony-youthpléigh 16:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikpedia is supposed to be NPOV, not Irish PoV concerning edits. Honestly, I'm simply amazed as to how a 'small minority' controls these British/Irish related articles -Simply amazed-. GoodDay 17:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
People are always amazed whent their POV isn't truth. --sony-youthpléigh 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The truth or Irish truth? Anyways, you guys win. GoodDay 17:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
If Irish Pov prevents the addition of British Isles? Then it's only fair to change Irish Sea to Manx Sea. Afterall 'Manx Sea' is NPOV (see proposals below). GoodDay 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Perhaps you should defer to, and respect, the Irish Government's view on this matter as described here. The term is an old fashioned imperialistic one that needs be banished along with other trapping of the empire that are long gone. Or do some of you still yearn for the British Empire;s existence? ww2censor 16:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously expecting us to believe that views of political government constitute an example of the neutral point of view. That's crazy talk! Clearly the government of Ireland is politically biased towards Irish interests.--feline1 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
And, of course, you have a neutral point of view. Enough said! ww2censor 16:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Damn right I do! Parity of derision for all! :)--feline1 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

removal of "republic of"

Is clearly misleading. Even a brief read of the opening lines of Republic of Ireland tells you that. Ireland is an island, not a state.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not misleading in this case. The introduction to the article, the infobox, complete with the terms administration and flag of the country clearly differentiate the state from the island. I agree the term Republic of Ireland is needed in some cases but this is not one of them. Describing the political states in the infobox is the place where the official name should be put. Also what has the Republic of Ireland page got to do with the Ireland page? They are completely different pages! How is Ireland not a state? 'Ireland' is the name of the state, maybe it's just our political point of view disagrees with that.Wikipéire (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to wait for someone else to chip in before I respond. You have broken WP:3RR.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipeire is completely correct if not a bit over eager in his/her edits. Ireland should be the term used as it is the official one. In an box where they are defining the different states it is extremely obvious that it is not the island. To suggest that someone could be confused is crazy.Melvo (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless somebody can proove, the Irish Republic covers the entire island? The 'Republic of Ireland' should be shown. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as I'm apolitical on this topic? I'll be requesting 'full page protection', if the edit warring continues. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The infobox for Taiwan (the island) states the administration as Republic of China, even though the state is most commonly known as Taiwan or Chinese Taipei. Consistency seems in order here. I don't know what the harm would be of adding two words. But ofcourse, I'm neutral. Grsz11 (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be because the "Republic of China" is the official and legal name for the state. In exactly the same way, "Ireland" is the official and legal name of one of the two states on the island of Ireland. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe, Wikipeire has obliterated 3RR. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about an Island. One of the states on that Island takes that name for itself. By enlarge, the rest of the world chooses to clarify this by naming the state "Republic of Ireland". Bertie Ahern recently described it as such in the Dail[2]. It is appropriate to describe it as such here.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the world? What about the UN[1], the EU [2], the US government [3] and the Australian government? [4] Only the British and Fifa refer to it as the Rep. of Ireland. That is hardly the rest of the world considering all my sources which clearly declare Ireland. It should be reverted back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvo (talkcontribs) 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed,apart fromthe United Kingdom (and by extension Crown Colonies, Dependencies etc.), the rest of the world uses Ireland. Which leads to the irony of the Queen of Canada appointing Ambassadors to Ireland [3] while her counter-part in the United Kingdom appoints them to the Republic. Perhaps they should get together for a chat about it some time. ;O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Good luck everyone. IMHO, the dispute on this topic? has become sorta petty. Therefore I depart, but again - I'm not convinced by the crowd that prefers 'just Ireland'. Why? The Irish Republic doesn't control the entire island. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, GoodDay. The Irish Republic ceased to exist in 1922. As can be seen here, the state of Ireland is named just that - Ireland - in the current Constitution, and may be described as the Republic of Ireland, following the eneacment of the Republic of Ireland Act. It is nothing to do with "control of the whole island" - in fact, the citizenship of the Republic of Ireland voted overwhelmingly to renounce the territorial claim over the whole island in a referendum which amended Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. You can read more about that in the second link above. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should redirect Republic of Ireland to Ireland (country), instead of the other way around, since it's clearly outrageous to name the country by it's full name. Grsz11 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Do I detect sarcasm? Full name? The only official name is Ireland!!!! The Republic.... is not the name at all, its a description like, 'the Republic of France'. And anyway Ireland (state) would be the page title as country is a very vague term. (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
My apologies everyone, if I caused confusion. When I say 'Irish Republic'? I mean it as short-hand for 'Republic of Ireland'. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[4] plenty of instances of republic of ireland. Including the UN[5] and the EU[6]. Like I said, the rest of the worldTraditional unionist (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Jumpin' Junipers. Just when I was certain? Bastun whips out the Republic's Constitution. Now, I can't decide. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Economic War

The section which deals with Ireland's economy contains a few inaccuracies. The Economic War with Britain wasn't started due to Fianna Fail's policy of protectionism, it was started because of Fianna Fail's refusal to continue paying land annuities to Britain, daing back to the land acts of the 18th and early 19th century. De Valera withheld the annuties, which totalled well over 3 million pounds a year, and the British responded by by placing tariffs on Irish exports of livestock. De Valera in turn imposed duties on British coal. Lazarus89 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rugby Union "Flag of Ireland"

Reading the paper this morning this got my attention, though I've seen it a thousand times before. The Irish Rugby team is commonly represented by the tricolour symbol/flag, not the IRFU "Flag of Ireland". Should any and every all-Ireland institution involving flagcruft require the Wiki-use of the tricolour rather than dual flags or synthesised nonsense that is unknown outside a tiny group? I'm thinking here of the arguments that maintain Ireland is part of the "British" Isles regardless of any legal issues or any consideration of it's repugnance to most of the inhabitants of the island. As the tricolour is the symbol the most commonly represents Ireland (the Island/Country) should we not follow Wiki-policy in this regard? Sarah777 (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no common all-island flag/symbol. Each institution/organisation needs to be examined on its own and the appropriate symbol used for each case. For example, the tricolour is appropriate for the GAA, the flag of St. Patrick for the Church of Ireland, the four-provinces flag for the Irish Hockey Association, a green field and shamrock for the Irish Cricket Union, etc. This is current practice and verifiable. --sony-youthpléigh 10:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Re-read what I said please. I said the tricolour was "the most commonly used" to represent Ireland the island; as "British Isles" is claimed to be the most common description of these islands. I did not say that there is any "common all-island flag/symbol". Sarah777 (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Eh? Geographical entities - Ireland, the island - don't have a flag, let alone a most commonly used one! BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Info box color

Hello Ireland! Question: How did you get the info box to that very striking shade of green? I would like to propose a simular look for Wales info box but with red. Any help you may offer would be greatly appreciated!Drachenfyre (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. All Template:Infobox Islands have green backgrounds. Just happens to be a little more "appropriate" here. (The Wales article uses Template:Infobox Country which doesn't have configurable colours, so - if I take from your note that you want to apply a custom colour - you may have your work cut-out.) Guliolopez (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Humm... do you think it would be hard to have a spcific template created to allow color like this? Who would I ask to creat the template?Drachenfyre (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're deadset on it, you could open a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Country and propose configurable colours. However, I'm personally unsure about it. The Country infobox background is currently neutral to ensure concistency between pages. As well as to (possibly) avoid any partisan weirdness or association with colours. (Imagine for example a hypothetical conflict where one group of editors wanted to make (for example) the background for the Ukraine infobox a shade of Orange, while others want to make it Blue & Yellow. Or similar. Not every country has an "agreed national colour". It's probably best to keep it neutral/consistent.) Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Guliolopez. I did visit the info box country and Wikid77 has been working with Wales to create a very professional looking template. Visit Wales to see his results.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Another proposal

I have numerous concerns about the current proposal for a guideline for the use of the term British Isles and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --sony-youthpléigh 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ireland, my mother & I say "thank you".

Eh, hi. My mother insisted on me getting out on the web and posting her, and mine, respect and thanks to the Republic of Ireland for voting such a powerful "no" on the EU-treaty on some open site where some Irish people are sure to see it, and wikipedia was the site that's open for the general public that I could come to think of... So: Thank you, Ireland. - Sweden. (On a sidenote, I would like to see a notion of this decissive vote in the article.) (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. A couple of quick things. (1) Talk pages are for discussing changes to articles, not really for general posts related to a topic. I appreciate that you're doing both, but please be aware of what talk pages are about. (2) With regard to the request to include the result of the vote in the relevant article. Firstly, this isn't the relevant article. This is the article about the island of Ireland. Not the state. Secondly, a note will probably be added in due course to the relevant article. But probably not until the vote count is complete. And - while it should reflect the realities of the vote result - POV terminology like "decisive" should be avoided. (Current indications are about 53% No to 47% Yes. Which is not really the "landslide" some commentators are making out. Guliolopez (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT culture section

A "LGBT culture" section was added recently. I have moved it under the general "culture" heading. However, frankly, I don't think there is any value to the text. The content is very very weak. It points out simply (and quite randomly) that there are "gay scenes in towns X, Y and Z". This seems pointless and arbitrary in the extreme. In particular given that, if it is notable that - for example - Sligo has a "gay scene" shouldn't that be mentioned in the Sligo article? Apologies for the flippancy, but the current text is more than a little silly, and akin to sticking a label on a map (near Ennis and Strabane) that says: "Here be gay people!".

Anyway, (back to seriousness) the only value I can see for the inclusion of this text is by way of intro/lead-in to the main LGBT culture in Ireland article. And readers could be directed to the fact that there is such an article by adding a simple link to the "see also" section. If someone feels that there is an innate value in this text (that I'm not seeing), then please let me know. Otherwise I'll probably convert to a "see also" link or similar. Guliolopez (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Usage of British Isles in this article

I could understand this usage being a problem at Republic of Ireland; but not here. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And why would that be? BigDuncTalk 16:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

'Cause the RoI is political; where's this article is geographical. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This is an article about a geographical entity, one of the two main islands of the British Isles, and this should be noted. TharkunColl (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Is that so, then why has a geographical article got sections on
  • Political geography
  • All-island institutions
  • History
  • History since partition
  • Irish Independence: The Irish Free State, Éire, Ireland
  • Northern Ireland
  • Science

This proves it is not just a geographical article.BigDuncTalk 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be under the impression that a geographical entity cannot have a history, or a culture, or political activities. TharkunColl (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
No I am not I am pointing out your spurious argument that this is a geographical article when clearly it is not. But this one is Geography of Ireland. BigDuncTalk 16:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The it's offensive argument, doesn't appeal to me (but that's just me). GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the term is used in Ireland by Irish government ministers, members of parliament, and all sorts of other institutions, it can't be all that offensive. TharkunColl (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
So have you resigned yourself to the fact that this is not a geographical article? BigDuncTalk 16:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed your disruptive edits TharkunColl, inserting British Isles POV, edit-warring and altercations back in April and May on this same topic with User:Bardcom. I don't see the need to start it again on different pages like this one. There is really no necessity to add this additional British Isles description here, that belongs on the British Isles page, if all it will do is start an edit-war and offend people unnecessarily. TharkunColl, if you would cool your heels a bit you might perceive that just because you can add something does not always mean it is necessary to add it. ww2censor (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It's an article about a geographical enity, rather than a political entity. TharkunColl (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
No matter what, why create trouble where there is none. Some things are best left well enough alone and TharkunColl, with your previous British Isles altercations, you are no doubt well aware of that. ww2censor (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Couple of points - its irrelevant what the Irish government think or that the term is offensive to some on the island. And Ireland is the second largest of the islands in the British Isles. But it doesn't need to be in the lead. Why not compromise - leave it out of the lede, but change "Shannon is the longest river in Ireland" to " the British Isles". BastunBaStun not BaTsun 20:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Shannon is the longest river in Ireland and as this is an article about Ireland not the BI it should stay the way it is. BigDuncTalk 20:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Everest is the tallest mountain in Nepal. Perfectly true, but it doesn't exactly do it justice. TharkunColl (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer having British Isles in this article, as it's in the Great Britain article. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Given that the consensus on Wikipedia is that the term "British Isles" is a valid geographical term, there is no reason why this article should form a different consensus. --Bardcom (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that argument is valid Bardcom. The very fact that there is a British Isles naming dispute article is representative of the difficulty in gaining consensus on the use of the term. Both in this project and in the real world.
The fact that many people (and by corollary Wikipedia readers) link the term "British" with the UK lends to confusion. I appreciate the "it's a geographic term" argument - but many people will not recognise the distinction. And so, adding the term in this context lends more to confusion than to clarity.
If the entire point of this article is to give people more clarity or understanding on the concept of "the island of Ireland", then deliberately including a disputed/confusing/ambiguous/"offensive" term is counter productive. Per Ww2censor, I say just leave it be. Including the term is more trouble than it's worth. Both for the reader. And for the editor. Guliolopez (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If we remove the BI term here? then it should be removed from Great Britain, as BI covers both islands. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

British Isles is an historical term which needed qualifying on that page (which is geographical) and we achieved consensus at some effort on that basis. However in the case of Ireland, historically the geographical and political link is there until the 1920s when we get the creation of Northern Ireland from six counties of Ulster. Given that Ireland has continuity as a subject (geographical or political) adding in references to the British Isles is unnecessary (other than an historical note of the conquest and incorporation then separation). [User:TharkunColl|TharkunColl]] edit and the reference to Everest and Nepal seem to miss the point. This is an article about Ireland, attempting to insert BI references looks very like a political move masquerading as a geographical edit. --Snowded (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the points raised above by Snowded. BigDuncTalk 13:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Snowdeds last sentence states the matter clearly in its basic essence and we should just leave it out. Inclusion leads not just to confusion for readers or editors with little knowledge of the subject but also to likely edit wars. Do we really need more of those here? I don't think so. ww2censor (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think British Isles should be in this article; however, if it's gonna cause edit warring, then forget it. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

given that this discussion is not concluded I have reversed TharkunColl assumptive close pending agreement here. --Snowded (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Spanish article

Please, could you put the link to the spanish article [[es:Isla de Irlanda]]? Thanks.-- (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)