Talk:Ireland–Isle of Man relations

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

---

Synthesis

This article is a form of synthesis, which is an unacceptable form of original research.

It conflates a set of bilateral technical arrangements (Ireland-IoM, Ireland-Gy, Ireland-Je) into a broader phenomenon of multilateral relations, without any evidence to support this claim. The fact that 3 similar things exist does bot mean that all three are a notable topic, unless there is external evidence of the notability of the combined topic.

The creation of this appears to be WP:POINTy response to the objections to the objections to the same editor's creation of contested British Isles categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not OR. And, this article does not imply multilateral relations; it is simply a container. If three separate articles are needed (about relations of RoI with each state), then this can be done at an appropriate time, but this is not original research, because it does not draw any conclusions. --KarlB (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

for example, see Canada–Caribbean relations for a similar page. This page is certainly thin for now, I will give you that, but it is certainly not original research. --KarlB (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)An article is not a "container". It is a page about a topic which meets wikipedia's criteria for notability.

Unless you can find evidence that "Ireland-Crown dependencies relations" is of itself a notable topic, then it is synthesis and we should not have an article of that title. It may be appropriate cover the same material in other articles, but there should not be a standalone article unless it is about a notable topic.

Finally, please do not remove the tag from the article while the perceived problem is under discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The Canada–Caribbean relations article contains plenty of evidence that relations between Canada the collective Caribbean islands is a notable topic; there are two books on the topic and thee is even a High Commission of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States in Ottawa.

No such evidence is offered here. Merely adding more detail about the various bilateral relationships is not evidence that "Ireland-Crown dependencies relations" is a notable topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)If you think there should be separate topics (e.g. Irish-Manx relations), please feel free, it is reasonable to split out; I welcome your efforts to improve the encyclopedia especially in the area which is poorly covered. Especially the relationship between Ireland and Isle of Man, which is historical and has a lot of depth to it, just need some time to find more sources but perhaps where you are you can find better info. This is a hint, but more meat needed [1] For now I just figured until we get more content, this page can serve as a stub. Not sure why you seem so opposed to this page. --KarlB (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I am opposed to this page because a) I don't like wikipedia being used for synthesis or other forms of WP:OR, and b) because your creation of this page is a blatantly-pointy attempt to create content to justify the existence of some umbrella categories which you have been creating. The fact that it is a stub is irrelevant: what matters is not its length, but the fact taht there is no evidence so far that this page should exist.

Writing articles on notable topics is great, but inventing a topic just to prove a point is not acceptable. The material in this page may be covered in other ways, including that link you just posted here, which relates solely to the IoM.

I have asked for outside input, at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Ireland-Crown_dependencies_relations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. While I appreciate your accusations of the fact that I 'invented' the idea of Ireland having relations with the crown dependencies, I humbly submit that this page was not created for any such purpose. I take from your tone that it makes you mad that this page exists; again, I welcome your contributions, and if you think this page would be better served by having separate pages (e.g. one for external relations with each of the crown dependencies - perhaps starting with isle of Man) that would be great, and I would be glad to help you in building that page out, and then this page could be deleted (or just serve as a link page or something similar) --KarlB (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Karl, again you misunderstand the point.

Ireland has dealings with each of these crown dependencies. That is a verifiable fact, as demonstrated by the references in the article. However, the conflation of the three into a single topic is original research -- just as an article on Relations of Ireland with Angola and Yemen would be WP:OR unless that combination was demonstrably a notable topic as a combination.

Whether and how this material is used is a separate issue. Dmcq's suggestion of moving the material to Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland sounds like a good idea in principle, and I don't think that the existence of something as routine as a tax treaty is enough to require a standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, I'm so glad we've come to consensus on that point. "Ireland has dealings with each of these crown dependencies. That is a verifiable fact". I'm going to move some stuff into the foreign relations article, and leave a stub for the Manx stuff. I'd welcome your additional contributions to this area which is not well covered at this point in the wiki.--KarlB (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(note: at this point, the article was moved to Ireland-Isle of Man relations to address the WP:SYN accusation.

Sigh. That point has not been in dispute. The issue here has been whether there was a notable topic on treating the collectively ... and since we agree that there isn't, the question is whether it can be split into one or more notable standalone topics.

Your move of this page to restrict the scope to IoM merely brings us to the second of the 2 problems. The two issues covered in the current IoM-focused stub belong as brief mentions in other articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Coming from WP:ORN. I don't see anything that wouldn't be better off in Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

By that logic mention of the UK's Tax Information Exchange Agreement with the Isle of Man should also be included at Foreign relations of the United Kingdom as it has effectively an identical agreementwith the UK. RashersTierney (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Let's fix it

BHG, if you're so concerned about this article, rather than spending time on the talk page, I suggest that you spend some time improving the article. Your help in improving this particular article is most welcome, even if for some reason the very idea of it bothers you. I think one area in particular that can be filled out further is the question of economic/banking relationships; how much trade is there between the Ireland/Isle of Man, what sort of issues do the offshore banks cause, etc. I'm sure with your formidable research skills you could be doing something a lot more useful than taking potshots at articles that are in their early phases of development. --KarlB (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Politics of the British Isles

I have removed this article from Category:Politics of the British Isles, because this articles is not about politics; it is about the bilateral inter-governmental relations between a state and another (quasi-)state, which is a matter of international relations.

If you look at other similar articles, such as those in Category:Bilateral relations of Germany, they are categorised as bilateral relations rather than as politics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Since the category in discussion is currently under debate, as to its name and scope, I've returned this to the category Category:Politics of the British Isles. Politics: "The activities of governments concerning the political relations between countries." --KarlB (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The article was created after the category was created, and I have cited a clear reason why it should not be included in a politics category. You disagree, so the correct action is to discuss the disagreement.

The cycle here is WP:BRD. You WP:BOLDly added this article to the category, and I removed it. So at this point we discuss it and try to reach a consensus.

I will therefore remove the category again, and urge you to discuss the issue rather than restoring a contested change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you BOLDLY removed it. The discussion is happening already at CfD as to the scope of this category;, given that, until then, this article should remain. --KarlB (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Karl, you boldly added it. That was what I reverted.

Regardless of what decision CfD makes about the name or existence of the category, you have not yet made any case on why you think that this article belongs in a politics category, when other similar articles are categorised under bilateral relations. Now that another editor has removed the category, would you like to make the case? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The case is simple. Category Ireland-UK relations, which is clearly an important part of politics of the British isles is in that category. This one should be there for the same reason. Discussions at the CfD are *ongoing* as to the proper contents. Bilateral relations are *under* politics. please stop this silliness - it is clearly a useful article, placed in a clearly useful place, in some cases articles can be placed in multiple categories if they fit the unique requirements of that category. Since we don't have a category Category:Irish-Manx relations, then we just stick the article here instead.--KarlB (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ireland–Isle of Man relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022111901/http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/business/new-tax-agreement-marks-new-phase-in-irish-relations-1-1773044 to http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/business/new-tax-agreement-marks-new-phase-in-irish-relations-1-1773044

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)