Talk:Ireland/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

British Isles

As was pointed out before a second revert, this contentious issue has previously been debated here with a resulting consensus that it was not constructive to the article. If you wish for that consensus to change, you should make your case here. RashersTierney (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It is factual that the island of Ireland is the second largest of the two main islands of the British Isles. Therefore it is appropriate that this sentence remains. Qwerta369 (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It is factual that the island of Ireland can be seen from space. Yet, the article does not say so. Something merely being a fact is not sufficient criterion for inclusion in any articles on the encyclopedia.

Adding that Ireland is the second-largest of what some call "British" isles adds little to the article. That Britain itself is the largest of these is not considered sufficiently interesting to be stated even in the article on Britain. Adding it here looks like trouble making.

By all means open up a discussion for why you think it benefits the article to add it. But let's keep the article itself stable while you do so? I'm reverting the article to it's previous state for now. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Its also under active discussion here. Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force. Lets not fork the debate. RashersTierney (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Population

Population seems to be way off, from the sources I can find. It states "5,981,448 (as of 2006)" with out a referance. The two referances I can find https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ei.html and http://www.cso.ie/statistics/Population1901-2006.htm put the estimate at nearly 2million lower. Not really that confident about editing, can someone change this or show a trusted source where the original figure came from. Ta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.233.102 (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the island of Ireland (the state named Ireland + Northern Ireland). The statistics you link to are for the state only. That, I assume, makes up the difference. Nuclare (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I modified the population data to show under 6 million based on the two statistics and their reference. NI shows an estimate of 1,75 million while the state shows 4.239 million for the 2006 census which together total to just under 6 million for the whole island. Both have citations. ww2censor (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It is an error to label the "Travellers" an ethnic group. They are not recognized as such72.243.25.170 Cillmore (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)(talk) 21:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Irish" and "Irish Traveller" are distinct boxes that can be ticked on census forms - North and south. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, I do see it on the form. Do not see "Ulster Scots". Is it on the northern form?Cillmore (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Area of Ireland

I don't know if this has been brought up before or not, but the area for the Island of Ireland as stated in this article is highly messed up and contradictory. Firstly we have a seemingly precise area given in the info-box at the start of 81,638.1 square km, this figure is sourced from a UN webpage about islands. Then later in the article it is stated that "The island's area is 84,421 km2", this figure is taken from the official Irish government website. This area is very similar to what you get if you add together the areas for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, i.e. 70,273 + 13,843 = 84,116 square km (though even these figures are slightly contradicted by the government page). And then as if that wasn't enough, this article also has a table of the Provinces of Ireland and lists their areas, but if you add these together you get a new and entirely different figure from the previous ones; Connacht 17,713 + Leinster 19,774 + Munster 24,608 + Ulster 24,481 = 86,576 square km. So, on the extreme small end we have a figure of 81,638.1 square km and at the large end we have 86,576 square km, all in the same article. A difference of nearly 5,000 square km! So... what exactly is the true size of Ireland? --Hibernian (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly there are smaller islands off the Irish coast that are part of the Republic of Ireland or of Northern Ireland but were probably not counted by the UN source as part of the island. But it also makes sense to include their area in the area of the main island, and it appears that the Irish government source has either done just that or referred to the union of the areas of the RoI and NI as the island of Ireland. The results would be very similar. I guess that the smaller islands account for the difference of 2,500–3,000 km² between the infobox value and the value in the text / sum of the two countries' areas. The difference of 500 km² seems relatively marginal to me and my be the result of different ways of measuring. E.g. the real area of Ireland changes considerably every minute, due to the tides, and people may have different ways of dealing with this.

As to the sum of the areas of the provinces: I guess either at least one of them is wrong (perhaps we have the area from before some boundary change), or they are overlapping. E.g. if (I don't know if there is such a case) county X belongs almost completely to one of the states, but a fraction belongs to the other, then the state that owns that fraction may, for most purposes, consider X to be part of a neighbour province and count the area with that, while the first state may count all the area to X while being aware that part of it is exterritorial. Such strange things aren't as rare as one would think, and are often not well known outside their neighbourhood. Hans Adler 20:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought of the possibility of some of the smaller islands messing up the measurement, but that cannot be the case, as there are only a few tiny islands around Ireland, they couldn't be making up the big discrepancy. Achill Island is the largest outlying island, but it is only 148 square km, and all the others are much smaller than that. I wouldn't be complaining as much if it was just a few hundred sqr km out, but the differences here are an order of magnitude greater than that (nearly 5,000 sqr km, that's the size of 2 or 3 extra counties!). As for the sum of the provinces, this really shouldn't be something difficult to get right, the boundaries of them are well established over hundreds of years and their constituent counties have not changed either (except of-course for the administrative changes in Northern Ireland, but that doesn't effect the "traditional" provinces as they are being talked about in this article). We could try adding up the areas of all the 32 Counties of Ireland and see what figure we get from there (I'm sure it would end up different again). As for the possibility of different measuring methods being used, that might be possible, but there surely must be some internationally agreed upon standard method of measuring area. Otherwise, what's the point in listing areas anywhere on Wikipedia? We must stick to one method or all such measurements become meaningless. There must be more information about this from either Ordnance Survey Ireland or the British Ordnance Survey, I'm sure they would not tolerate such inaccurate measurements. --Hibernian (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No doubt there will be more up-to-date figures to be had, but there are 1901 ones on page 916 on Bartholemew's survey gazetteer of the British Isles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The original OSI data, which was the date and reference used, disappeared and is not archived which is why I looked for a new relaible source which I added to both Ireland (with this edit)and Geography of Ireland that I worked on for its featured article review and occasionally check its reference links for functionality and reliability by using the Checklinks toolserver]. At that time I added the current data with its reference but did not check the province data against it. In fact only the population from that table is referenced. Obviously we should reconcile this information and it should add up accurately. What other reliable sources do people have for use to use? ww2censor (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we clearly need new sources for this. As for where to get these sources, I'm not entirely sure, the OSI should be the obvious first look, someone will just have to go looking through their website (or books, or whatever) to find the data. I would suggest that for the moment we should remove the UN figure of 81,638.1 in the info-box and replace it with the Irish government statement of 84,421, as more sources agree with that area and the UN one seems to be an aberration. But that should only be a stopgap measure until really reliable sources can be found. Then there is the matter of defining what we mean by "The Island of Ireland", do we mean just the mainland or do we include all outlying islands as well and where can we get reliable information on that. --Hibernian (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Misleading scentence in Intro

Politically, the sovereign state of the Republic of Ireland is sometimes described as "Ireland".[3] covers five-sixths of the island, with Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom) covering the remaining one-sixth of the land, located in the northeast.

I propose changing this to: Politically, the sovereign state of the Ireland (offically descrition Republic of Ireland) covers five-sixths of the island, with Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom) covering the remaining one-sixth of the island, located in the northeast.

My reason for this is the version as is currently the case implies that the name of the state is the Republic of Ireland, and that the use of "Ireland" to refer to the state is only a description, whilst the opposite is actually the case. Bh02306069 (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree the old version appeared to imply that. I've rewritten the (now two) sentences again to avoid "Ireland is a part of Ireland" type flows for reading purposes. I'd also remove the bit I've put in parenthesis since the official name for ROI is not "must know" info for the introduction but I know it is seen as **crucial** information that **must** be restated at **every** opportunity by many. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

nd the version proposed above suggests that the name of the state is Republic of Ireland and Ireland is only an occasional description! Thats a nonsense. I suggest that it should be "Politically the sovereign state of Ireland covers five sixths if the island etc.--Snowded ^TALK 09:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The text currently appearing is: "The Republic of Ireland (usually called Ireland, which is its official name also)..." --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Romans referred to Ireland as Hibernia[44] or Scotia". 'Scotia' was a middle ages generalisation of Gaelic speaking people. i.e. it referred to those people both in Scotland and Ireland. The Romans only called Ireland Hibernia and pirates from Ireland raiding Roman controlled Britannia as Scoti. 14:25 4 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.18.37 (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Population?

Population seems to be inconsistent. Article says the population of the island is 6.3 million. However when you add up the populations of the provinces in the box you get 5,966,502. When you add the populations from the estimates on the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland pages you get 6,235,000. Three different figures. Can anyone shed any light? --Limericksham (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nicely spotted. I updated one from the latest estimates from CSO (6.3 million) but didn't look at the provinces table. Probably the other error arises from the same mismatch of different estimates and census figures. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have updated the population figures. Some were wildly off (particularly cities and population densities of the provinces). The principal numbers are for 2008 (the most recent year we have estimate for both jurisdictions). The table of province is for 2006, the last year we have accurate tallies of these (ROI is census, NI is estimate). The cities are 2006 census for the ROI and 2001 census for NI (these are the official urban areas - not bureaucratic "city limits" or fantasy "greater urban" areas). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Informal review

 Doing... At ww2censor's request, I'm going to do an informal GA-style review on this article in preparation for a possible formal GA nom. GA criteria are: writing and formatting, accuracy and verifiability, breadth, neutrality, stability, and images. Stability (at least recently) does not appear to be a problem (and isn't really something this sort of review could address anyway). My concerns regarding this article are as follows:

• Writing and formatting:

• Lead is too long (4 paragraphs is the maximum). This shouldn't be too hard to fix, as that last paragraph is really just a sentence tacked on at the end. The lead also seems to emphasize history. While that is an important segment, the lead should exist as a succinct summary of the entire article.  Done
• Section headings: there are a lot of them, and some of them aren't great. I would suggest merging shorter sections where possible. If necessary, you can do what England did and hide subheadings from the TOC. No headings should start with "The", and they should avoid using "Ireland" where possible. Also, "Literature and the arts" is not a good subheading when others in that section mention "Graphic art" or "Music" - these are arts too. Is there a better title?  Done
• Avoid passive tense and ambiguous sentence construction. "Has been" seems a common problem. Prose in general could use some tightening, and some areas are in need of copy-editing.
• Need consistent (probably British) spelling conventions Done

• Accuracy and verifiability:

• Citation density is lacking in places. I would recommend a minimum of one citation per paragraph; most sections will probably need more. In particular, all opinions and statistics must be cited.
• Web references need access dates and publishers, books and journals need page numbers
• You might want to find a few more independent sources to back up potentially contentious claims - a Government of Ireland website will almost certainly be pro-Irish, and thus should be used only for factual information
• Tertiary sources like encyclopedias should be minimized

• Breadth:

• You might include more detail on law, politics, crime, etymology, and education, and a little bit less emphasis on history. Possibly also include communications, food, tourism...

• Neutrality:

• As noted above, all opinions must be cited properly.
• Look at WP:WTA, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:WEASEL - certain words introduce an editorial bias and should be avoided

• Images:

• The lead image is duplicated in template in the History section  Done
• Physical features map is slightly blurry; can the size be adjusted to fix this?
• Red deer.jpg is tagged as lacking source information, and needs a date
• Should "Stone age" be "Stone Age" in the tomb caption, or should "age" be omitted?  Done
• The title of File:Aughnanure Castle (pixinn.net).jpg suggests that it was taken from the internet - source, date and author should be noted
• "The United States" should be "the United States" in the emigrant caption  Done
• Does the treaty count as an artistic work?
• Is there a source for the population graph?  Done (see talk of image)
• File:KellsFol292rIncipJohn.jpg is tagged for cleanup  Done replaced
• Source for Newgrange? Caption also needs grammar fixed  Done removed and replaced with U2 image in arts section

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria (talk • contribs) 23:21, 6 January 2010

The lede still does not completely summarise the total article and I think the breadth comments are more appropriate to an article about a sovereign state rather then one about an island. I am reviewing the individual images and will suggest some replacements when I have done that. Several images are placed on the left directly under a heading. I find this format very ugly and would prefer to see the first image in any section to be on the right. ww2censor (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC: calling Northern Ireland a "country"

An RFC has been opened inviting comment on how to describe Northern Ireland in that article. All comments are welcome. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that the size of Ireland is listed as 81,638km2, but when you add up The Four Province's you get 86,576? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.32.153 (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

One notable exception to this is Association football (although both associations continued to field international teams under the name "Ireland" until the 1950s). An all-Ireland club football competition, the Setanta Cup, was created in 2005. In addition it may be worth noting that a team "Ireland" representing the entire island competes in what is now the Six Nations Rugby Football tournament (England, Scotland, Wales, France, Italy and Ireland). GeoffreyBH (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

IPA

The IPA is for what version of English? Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit protection requested

Given the enormous increase in non-NPOV edits to this article over yesterday and today, I have requested that it be protected. -- RA (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for the banner about it is there? Isn't this article, as with many others, regularly protected against edits from new or unregistered users? Isn't it uncommon to put a big banner in that case? I know an article or two offhand protected in the same way. They do not have big troll feeding banners announcing the difficulties. ~ R.T.G 18:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Most state related articles come in for this sort of targeting from time to time. This is not a special case. The less overt attention the better 'till things settle again. RashersTierney (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC).

Culture in the lead

I'd like to say that in the lead it should state English language, rugby and golf are British culture not regional culture. This is very confusing because how do you define regional culture and what is it anyway? Does this include just the British Isles or Western Europe too? It's a nonesense term because it's never used. Besides, the culture should be called what it's actually called. I don't see the need to wp:weasel word around the word British. It's highly POV to do so. 88.106.120.26 (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You could always go to Limerick on a match day and tell them they are exhibiting British Culture ....--Snowded ^TALK 06:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In what sense is it regional and not British? And by the way, yes they are exhibiting British culture, they're playing a British created game, not a regional created game. That's the point you see I'm trying to make. Australians might speak English but that doesn't make English a product of world culture instead of English culture. English, rugby and golf were in no way, shape or form connected to Ireland in their creation, therefore they are British culture, not regional culture, which implies Ireland co-created them. When South Korean people eat sushi in Seoul are they eating regional food or Japanese food? I'd like to see an answer to that one which is consistent with your argument. If the Seoul article forfeit the word "Japanese" for "regional" when mentioning sushi it would appear to be obvious anti-Japanese sentiment due to historical sensitivities, perhaps like this article with regard to the word "British"? 88.106.120.26 (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to start on this, and I'm not 100% as to its seriousness (brand new IP editors hitting controversial areas with their first edit and all that). If you are seriously arguing that a sport is the culture of its creators alone then a awful lot of Wikipedia articles will have to be changed. The difference between the west-brit inheritance of Leinster Rugby and the rural/working class of Munster (OK I know its a stereotype but we are dealing with basics here) are not British, they are distinctly Irish. Go to the south of France, the hot bed of Rugby. Are you going to tell the residents of Perpignon or Toulouse that they are examples of local British Culture? Please --Snowded ^TALK 07:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

World sports are not defined by the culture that invented or codified them. Football (soccer) would not be considered English in Brazil, South Africa or Russia, for example. The edit is unnecessarily controversial and I am reverting to 'regional'. Daicaregos (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Newly created single purpose IP, reverts without engaging on talk page other than one comment. Feels like vandalism (and deliberately provocative vandalism) to me not a good faith edit.--Snowded ^TALK 08:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, but DONTBITE & AGF can't hurt. Daicaregos (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting cantankerous with the sheer volume of single purpose editors - here and elsewhere! --Snowded ^TALK 09:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I had originally left the "British" piece alone - until it was removed altogether by another editor where-after I restored it to "regional". The influence of Anglic culture shouldn't be swept under the carpet but I'm a bit dubious about "British". Addressing solely the examples given:

• The English language has been spoken in Ireland (and been the official language) since the middle ages, long before the (modern) concept of "British".
• The origins of golf lies outside of these islands (Netherlands?) but even the Scottish game predates the act of Union so again don't count as "British" being simply Scottish (a word that itself refer to a native of Ireland).
• And as Snowded points out, let's consider how "British" the game of rugby is as we watch French and Italy play this weekend. There are many varieties of footballs, rugby is one.

"Regional" is unsatifcatory, I agree, but "British" is incorrect and while we should acknowledge the shared heritage of the peoples of these islands we should avoid the myopia of insularism: as much of our culture is in common with our continental neighbours as with island neighbours. -- RA (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have changed it to read: "A strong indigenous culture exists, as expressed for example through native sports and the Irish language, and exists alongside a regional culture in common with Great Britian, such as the English language, rugby football and golf, and similar to other countries in the north-west of Europe." -- RA (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're seriously trying to say that when Mexicans play baseball they're playing a game that's a part of regional culture not American culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.120.26 (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

None of you can make any fair edits because you're all Britain hating Irish, Welsh and Scots. It says as much on most of your user pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.120.26 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A typical pathetic excuse you make to pass of your anti-British edits is claiming because Scots are originally from Ireland then golf must be part Irish. LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.120.26 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So in what way is Rugby not British then??? I guess baseball is actually British what with the USA having been created by Great Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.120.26 (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way Rannpháirtí Anaithnid aren't you a sock of banned sock master user:MusicInTheHouse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.120.26 (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How, may I ask, does an IP who only began editing today, know about socks and user:MusicInTheHouse? Daicaregos (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't always my IP. My IP randomly changes. I've been editing for sometime. It looks like you already knew they were a sock and don't mind?

If you've been editing "for some time" you will be aware that you are in breach of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and that your edits are borderline trolling. Please stop. Daicaregos (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I've yet to see much which would convince me there's not an "old boys club" of editors who run this article.

So, how do I go about getting a user check on Rannpháirtí anaithnid?

See, it is an old boys club because you wouldn't even tell me. I filled one anyway.

I also remind you that this article is about Ireland the island not Ireland the country. Ireland the island includes a part of the UK, therefore the culture of the part of the island is called British, just as the culture of the rest of the island is called Irish. I see no reason why we should call the culture of Ireland the country Irish but the culture of the UK regional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.120.26 (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Rugby and golf are regional culture sports but hurling and such are entirely Irish? That's what the lead says.

@*.*.120.26, no, I'm not MiTH. I did have another account before this one. You can see my former account listed on my user page. If you feel there is evidence for sock puppetry on my behalf or on behalf of any other user, please take it here. (Adds: I see you have. -- RA (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

Now, can I ask what is the purpose of describing the regional culture that both islands enjoy as being exclusively "British" in providence or nature? To begin with, our shared culture does not begin with British culture. It long predates the United Kingdom. Secondly, the word "British" (in its common and contemporary sense) excludes most of the island of Ireland - that part that is not a part of the United Kingdom. Yet the culture being referred to is one enjoyed by the people of both jurisdictions on the island. Third, our shared culture is not one-way-traffic. It did not originate exclusively with Britain (or the United Kingdom). It is a milieu that has grown over thousands of years that Ireland and Irish culture has contributed to the formation of as much as Britain and the culture(s) of the island of Britain. Rugby is a fine example of that: a game named after a town in England with its international governing body founded in Dublin (and its oldest club too). (That is what I was hinting at with my reference to the Scoti.)

For other regional cultures words exist to describe them: Scandinavian, Iberian, Romance, Slavic and so forth. We are in a sad position where no word exists. (At least no word that we can all agree on. Anglo-Celtic is sometimes used but I think it is too uncommon for our purposes here.) So, we are left, with "regional". I agree that it is unsatisfactory, as I said, but it is not a snipe at the United Kingdom or at Britishness. It does not emphasise our differences. It emphasises what we have in common. -- RA (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

When does something become a culture of that country? Is golf part of the English culture? Sure it is, though they took the game from Scotland. Many say that football was first played in Scotland. If that's true then can we say that football is part of the English culture? Again, of course we can, because they have made it a part of their culture. In the same way the Irish have taken Rugby and golf and made it part of their own culture, Irish culture. As for the Scoti, yes, they were of Irish stock and Gaels and we could just as easily say that golf is a Gaelic (or Celtic) cultural game and not British. Jack forbes (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How can you all possibly be neutral when most of you have anti-English poems or tags on your user pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.120.26 (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominating for GA

I've nominated this] article for good-article. I expect it will be reviewed in the coming weeks. The Ireland article is by far (and consistently) the most-visted article covered by WikiProject Ireland and I feel it is a shame that what should be our flagship article is not even a good article. (It lost its GA status in October 2008.)

If others could help out in addressing the issues that arise from the review process I would be extremely grateful. -- RA (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought that when an article has been at GA status and been downgraded it could be a good idea to have a look at the previous version that held that GA. I don't mean to say that it should just be reverted to that version but, it may give a good idea as to why it gained it. Jack forbes (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Had never crossed my mind. Quick link. That version is from four years ago, standards have changed dramatically since and I don't think it would pass today but the most striking thing I see is the the simplicity of many of the sections. The depth and treatment we have now is a good thing, I think - better than dumbing it down - but there are some parts, like the geology section and parts of the flora and fauna section, that I don't understand and so cannot copy edit and simplify. I think that probably needs addressing the most.

Something I see in the former GA that appears in this version of the article also is a list of "famous people". Personally I don't like these. I always feel they are fan listings without any substantial context. -- RA (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The article has been developed significantly over the last four years, as have the standards, that reviewing the version which passed GA back is 2006 is unlikely to be very useful as it is very different from today's version, though it may be useful to see its style and coverage. Famous people are mentioned, in moderation, in their appropriate sections. However, being the lead article of the WikiProject this really should be a GA or even better, so good luck. ww2censor (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ireland/GA2

To-do list

I'm currently reviewing this article for GA, and I noticed that the points on the to-do list at the top do not appear to have been carried out. Is there a particular reason for this? Jhbuk (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a few of them are duds but were never removed out of politeness:

• A straight-forward of the Politics of Ireland would probably be impossible. Ireland, as opposed to the Republic of Ireland, isn't a single political entity. The "Politics" of Ireland is thus described in the History section. However an overview of governance on the island is given in the Governance section.
• I'm not sure of how Religions could be addressed further. The influence on religion is described in the History and Culture section and numbers are given in Demographics section.
• "Tourism" is touched on here and there but I'm not sure what a "Tourism" section would look like? Would it be "Places to go and see"?
• "Irish Food" sound like a good section to be and a paragraph at least could be added to the Culture section - any volunteers?
• "Communications" could be added to the economy section in a similar fashion to the road and power network are described - volunteers?

I've taken out "Politics of Ireland" and "Religions" and added notes to the other three. My feeling is that "Religion" should go too. What do others think? --RA (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Update I've done "Food". Any takers for "Communications"? --RA (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Update Noticed the "Places of interest" section. Assume that closes of "Tourism"? Again though, any takers for "Communications"? --RA (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

A maximum of four paragraphs is permitted for the lead of any article. Presently Ireland has five. Please could this be fixed by regulars? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it says: "As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs" and the four paragraph length is specifically just a suggestion. Ireland is such a complex and long article that I think the five paragraphs are justified. ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If this goes to FAC, the FA police will think differently - I've tried myself. Other topics like God, Islam, Evolution, global warming - all way more complex - manage 4- through good editting. As WP:MOS says, consistency promotes professionalism, a standard style, and harmony across our project's pages. I see no reason why this article should be given special treatment. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that FAC can be very tough and that should be our aspiration. If we combine the current paragraph 3 with the first paragraph than the first paragraph will essentially deal with all geographical information and bring us down to four paragraphs. That does not reduce the prose but brings us within the guidelines. Thoughts anyone? ww2censor (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I somehow think that God would be a much less complex concept than Ireland sometimes.

It is early to be thinking of FA given we haven't even passed GA but I agree that it should be the aim this article. Jza, you're very much experienced in these things. Would you mind lending a guiding hand? (It would be beneficial too to have the input of an editor from an unashamedly British perspective that would not be here to push their POV.) --RA (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside view (or pushing a Norwegian POV...) I don't like the new lead with 1 and 3 together. It's a lot less clear than the old version was. The first paragraph of the lead should catch the readers attention and mention the most essential aspects of the article (I haven't read WP:LEAD - this is commons sense& something my teacher tried to learn ages ago). You should ask yourselves: is European Pine Marten one of the most essential aspects of this article? I've never been to Ireland, but my guess is "no".

My suggestion: Cut all paragraphs except the first one: (referring to this version)

• para 2, Cut the last sentence. The Great famine belongs in history/ demography but not in lead.
• para 3,Cut the last sentence (and maybe the second last too). The sentence "The island has lush vegetation, a product of its mild but changeable oceanic climate, which avoids extremes in temperature" sounds like something a travel agency has come up with, but I guess you don't want to tell people that it's raining all the time.
• para 4, This summary of Irish history is waaay toooo loooong for a lead, and still starts in 1169 - some two thousand years (or more) after Ireland was inhabited my humans.
• para 5, Rephrase to "Irish culture has had a significant influence on culture world-wide, particularly in the fields of literature and music." and attach it to the shortened prehistory to present day paragraph 4. Voilà.

Having the best possible article is more important than complying to FA-standards, if there are reasons not to cut these paragraphs (and I guess there might be), leave it as it was before joining 1 and 3. Good luck with the GA improvements, you're doing a great job as far as I can tell. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There is mention of the deforestation of Ireland about 1600. It fails to mention that the forests were cut down by the British for fire wood. Only after the complete deforestation did Brittan turn to coal mining.(Encyclopedia Americana 1916) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.77.166 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 64.30.107.43, 16 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I am doing a report on Ireland, and I found that your over-all population for Ireland has been proven wronf.

64.30.107.43 (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The cited population figures are for the most recent (as I'm aware) official estimates for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (see the refs). What sources are you working from and what year? --RA (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) All the population statistics have citations to verify them and are correct based on census and government estimates. They were checked recently during the Good article nomination. ww2censor (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Can't continue without a new number or source. /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 15:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Other cities include

Why isn't Limerick included on this list? Population 90,757, 3rd biggest city in the Republic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limericksham (talk • contribs) 14:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right and I've fixed it. Bjmullan (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 204.188.164.218, 21 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Information on the causes and relief during the famine are incorrect and misleading.

204.188.164.218 (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

How so? Falcon8765 (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Early cultures

Rocks with cup holes have been found in most countries around the North Sea, indicating some common culture in the stone, bronze, or iron age. These have been found on Ireland as well. Is any info available from archaeologists? St.Trond (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

area rank

Why does the Ireland page include it's area rank as an island but not as a country? It is confusing given that most countries include the area rank for the country. Even Australia, Greenland, Madagascar, etc. include only the country size ranking. The only islands that include island area rank are the ones with more than one country (e.g., New Guinea, Borneo) or that lie entirely within one larger country (e.g., Sumatra, Baffin Island). Perhaps a compromise would be to include both? --Moretz (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the article is about the island of Ireland not the country of Ireland as it states in the hatnote. ww2censor (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The article lists Ireland as the 12th largest Island in the world, but in the linked list, it is shown as the 20th. Correction nessecary or is this mixed up with the issue above?

Nateo3399 (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Religion

I strongly object to the lack of section on religion. Given Catholicism is nearly inseparable from Ireland, this seems particularly odd. I realize this page is about the island, but given the inclusion of other "people-specific" sections, religion belongs on this page. Why is this not present? Ostromark (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 147.134.166.210 (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.134.166.210 (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Flag

Hey,

I live in Australia and have seen many different national flags but what is the official one

Mgt98 08:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the island, not the sovereign state, which is here. For the flag of the sovereign state, we have an article on Flag of Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Republic of Ireland, which covers five sixths of the island of Ireland (which this article is about), uses a tricolour of green, white and orange. The island of Ireland has no flag, though there are many symbols used to represent it often carrying political or cultural connotation. --RA (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet another example that supports the view that the article at Ireland should be a disambig, leading to Ireland (island) and Ireland (state). Unfortunately dogma overruled common sense. --Red King (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately dogma overruled common sense? I think it was the opposite :). The outcome was the right one and thankfully will remain locked in place for another year at least. Isnt it wonderful to know we dont have to worry about these sorts of things for such a long time? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So which one would be used for sporting teams Mgt98 00:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends. If you mean the Irish International Rules team or Republic of Ireland national football team (= soccer) then it is the Flag of Ireland. If it is the Ireland national rugby union team team (which is all island) then it is the IRFU (or four provinces) flag – see Ireland national rugby union team#Flags and anthems. I don't know what it is for Cricket or field hockey, but it won't be the tricolour as these are also all-island sports. The flag of the Provinces of Ireland would be a safe bet for these and Rugby too. I think. --Red King (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Flag

Can we please change this articles name to the 'Island of Ireland' and can we change the name of the page Republic of Ireland to just 'Ireland' threr are a lot of republics in the world which don't have wikipedia pages that start with republic of ... --rctycoplay (talk) 00.56, 29 July 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC).

Yes but all republics in the world do not share their name with an island they do not happen to fully occupy. The island of Ireland is entitled to the primary position, its the island that has a history prior to the 20th century and is about all of the people of Ireland rather than those living in one sovereign state, which chose to use the same name as the island. The positions of the articles were voted on by the community and endorsed by the Arbitration Committee. This article is not allowed to be moved until 2011 at the earliest. If you look at the top of this talk page you will see a note about the Ireland collaboration project and Arbcoms ruling. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in mixing up Famines

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

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

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

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

Tax

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

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

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

Proposed addition of British Isles

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

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

---

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

Request for comments on one of the proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"United Kingdom"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Link Please!

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

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

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

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

British Isles template in Geographic Locale

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

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

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

Failure of this article to mention the British Isles

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concrete proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trying to get a more lasting consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK. Chill, relax and be tollerant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

!vote

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

Proposal 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal 2

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

Anyway ....

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

1. Davies, Alistair; Sinfield, Alan (2000), British Culture of the Postwar: An Introduction to Literature and Society, 1945-1999, Routledge, p. 9, ISBN 0415128110, Many of the Irish dislike the 'British' in 'British Isles', while the Welsh and Scottish are not keen on 'Great Britain'. … In response to these difficulties, 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming preferred usage although there is a growing trend amounts some critics to refer to Britain and Ireland as 'the archipelago'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Proposal 3

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps something like:

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

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

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

References, including extended quotations, are given above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article still fails to inform people of the British Isles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I propose the following change to the proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closure, consensus and other considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political development?

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

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

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

Use of British Isles

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

TFOWR 20:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One editor 86.44.17.238 seems to be trying to change the term British isles to British and Irish Isles on the penny whistle page. I have reverted that edit and asked they post here for concent before editing the article again. Kamcau (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

City population stats

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scotia Maior

= Ireland Böri (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've a feeling you're trying to tell us something here, but you need to expand a lot. Scolaire (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No mention of it in the article! see Scoti article (also Scotia Minor = Scotland) Böri (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Scoti article has no mention of Scotia Major or Scotia Minor. The Scoti were a people. The land was referred to as Éire by themselves and Hibernia by others. Do you have a reliable source for Scotia Major? I for one haven't seen the name before. Scolaire (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I mean: This article and Scoti article have no mention of Scotia Maior. I found Scotia article now... Here it says: It originally was used as a name for Ireland, as when Isidore of Seville in 580 CE says "Scotia and Hibernia are the same country" (Isidore, lib. xii. c. 6)", but the connotation is still ethnic. This is how it is used, for instance, by King Robert I of Scotland and Domhnall Ua Néill during the Scottish Wars of Independence, when Ireland was called Scotia Maior, and Scotland Scotia Minor. Böri (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, there's an article. The sources aren't great, though. The most recent book was published in 1927. I'm not disputing the truth of what you say. I'm asking, is it notable enough for inclusion, and can it be properly sourced? Scolaire (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

This is very confusing. So just for clarity. From my interpretation of the manual of style, should it say 'Republic of Ireland' in the infobox under 'Countries' rather than just Ireland?Afterlife10 (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, 'cuz the name of the country is Ireland. RoI, is just a descriptive. Anyways, it's linked to Republic of Ireland, so no probs. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well for the uninformed reader, if you don't click on the link, and going on the infobox, Ireland is made up of 2 countries, United Kingdon and Ireland? urgh(Tim Allen 'Home Improvement' grunt) followed by head scratching.Afterlife10 (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Many editors would disagree with removing the pipe-link (i.e. [Republic of Ireland|Ireland]). GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I can imagine. But if the current format is not in line with the manual of style, could it not be changed to [Republic of Ireland|Republic of Ireland], would certainly remove any confusion? Afterlife10 (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to pipe-link, if you were showing Republic of Ireland. Recommend you seek a consensus here, before doing so. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The page is locked anyway. Ill try and set up a survey if I can figure out how. I wonder how many people look at the infobox and think Belfast is the largest city in the UK? Afterlife10 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Before you do any of that, there's an SPI matter to clear up. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland would be great in the perfect world for disambiguators to prevent the endless confusion and arguements over whether something sounds as if its referring to the island or the state. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ironic thing is that "Republic of Ireland" is the official description of the Irish state as defined by them themselves. Its a term used all the time for clarity in the press and news and other places, even FIFA, and even by the Irish government itself on some official documents. Its not like its some British invented term or something lol. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to depart this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I had nothing more to add anyways, just having some light-hearted banter. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't that freedom, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a genuine consensus here for change. The current format is confusing so it seems best to have 'Republic of Ireland' under country or, change the heading to 'State' and change 'region' to 'Country - Northern Ireland'.Afterlife10 (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This section is a discussion between you and one other editor that disagrees with you, with a little "light-hearted banter" from a third. How do you work out that "there is a genuine consensus here for change"? Scolaire (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Scolaire, As far as I can see there are 2 other editors that agree with me. maybe count your fingers again...or better yet, join the discussion. Given that there are probably a large number of user's watching this page, I would guess that if they had a legitimate objection that they would raise it here? What is your point of view on the matter?Afterlife10 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Afterlife there are too few editors here to form any sort of concensus on something that really is a major issue for some. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, why does terminology always cause such issues in the...group of islands with an emotionally charged name. Is their a genuine issue with countries? Then change it to states. That would also solve the Ireland is a country too... sigh. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If only the republic had taken a differant name, oh well. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You couldn't imagine them taking any other name despite the fact the UK never recognised that name for decades. Though i am surprised they did take it taking into account the fact i thought they'd have waited for the whole of Ireland to be independabnt as one state before using it.Mabuska ^(talk) 20:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It was likely derived from the desire to re-unite the island. By naming the republic Ireland, one can sorta pretend the island is whole. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe they couldn't wait for reunification to declare an independant Ireland of some sort. Still it has left a big problem on Wikipedia on how to balance the issue, and whilst the IMOS is quite useful in when to use either term, the problem is that it fails to help properly in certain instances when it is confusing such as the discussion currently about the "League of Ireland" being stated as the national league of Ireland. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Either way it is very confusing as it standsAfterlife10 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I have two proposed change which I would like to raise on the talk page. Firstly I would like to revert the edit made by Afterlife10. Despite not achieving consensus above, the user changed the country name from 'Ireland' to 'ROI'. I think it should be reverted back to the consensus version.

Secondly in the disambiguation sentence above the article it should read 'For the sovereign state of the same name, see ...' in order to quell confusion for readers who are unsure why they landed on the island page when they were looking for the country of that name. WikiPearah (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks quite possibly like a sockpuppet. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Though i agree about the "of the same name" bit and will add it in. If its wrong then someone revert it. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, a newbie wouldn't be this knowledgeable. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Mabuska is referring to the username. Say it out loud and see if it sounds familiar ;-) Scolaire (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually i'm not lol. New account, with one edit, and very knowledgable seemingly about how things should be etc. Feels like a sock. Though i don't think the name is familiar. Care to share Scolaire??? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Wikipéire? At least the thought crossed my mind. RashersTierney (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm not editing, just engaging in discussion. After a year out (based on some higher wiki proposal forget what it's called by now) and considering my previous record I'd know better than to do jump in to old behaviour. I was just popping by and making a recommendation. Care to discuss the edits? I could easily have just remained an ip if I wanted to do the edits myself; just wanted to discuss them first given previous events!WikiPearah (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Technically your editing an talk page ;-), though by engaging in discussion your looking to get an article edited. Hmm if you are User:Wikipéire then this new account could be subject to getting blocked, unless you have gotten approval to make a return under a new moniker or the block had a timespan which it has passed. In fact just checking that user page, its under autoblock set to indefinite?!?!

Anyways your second suggestion is correct i think so i put it back in.

In regards to your first suggestion i think the IMoS in regards to what name to use come into play. The segment is about disambiguation, and as Ireland is being described as an island and state, then RoI should be used. Though does "the sovereign state of the same name", not suffice as informing the reader its called Ireland even if it does link to RoI? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It does indeed, it solves the problem of explaining the article name situation to the reader quite succinctly. Regarding the IMOS point, I guess that makes sense, I only raised the point as I felt discussion above showed consensus against change to the way it is now. Finally regarding the status of that old Wikipéire account and this one, I'm none the wiser really. I've been off Wikipedia for quite a while now so 2008 feels like ancient history to me. I'm not really looking to edit again, just saw this page randomly and those two things jumped out at me. Problem solved anyway. Thanks Mabuska.WikiPearah (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, i'm glad it sorts the issue out. Though despite the fact i've been active since 2006/7 and stayed away from discussions or even beyond a couple of select articles for a couple of years, i never came across you till now - which is why i didn't recognise the name even when Scolaire pointed it out that i should be familar to me. Whther it was random you looking at this page or not is another question ;-) lol Mabuska ^(talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Full protection ???

Why is the page protected ? I'm logged, but I can't edit anything.--Ghosthammer (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Page is semi-protected due to persistent disruptive editing. RashersTierney (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ireland also had links to German Intelligence

The implication of this statement from the context is that the state had relations with German Intelligence, and that this is referenced in the following citation. Could we please have a quotation from the reference which makes this claim. RashersTierney (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have very strong doubts that this is correct. The sentence was added in this edit almost exactly a year ago. The account seems to have trouble expressing themselves clearly and made a total of two edits to Wikipedia. I think it may be worth checking the article for other nonsense that may have crept in with these two edits. Hans Adler 16:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That year-old edit was quite a mouthful! Amazing this part wasn't queried before. If it hadn't been recently removed and re-inserted it probably wouldn't have come to my attention. Your re-write seems to have resolved the issue. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Some further editing of that para, ending was a bit speculative. Brocach (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It definately would be good for someone to check the reference out as the page numbers for it is given as well. I revferted the edit in the belief that what was there was in the source. Though as the edit as said above was done by an editor with only two edits and one who had possible trouble expressing themselves, i can now see the problems with it and agree to original Brocach's rewording of it which i had reverted.

I will state however that i have reverted Brocach's latest change as what was there was sourced (same source as above), and Brocach had removed the source and added speculative original research that wasn't sourced. Everything must be sourced to provide verifiabilty and reliablity. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Cripes... you think that it is 'speculative original research' to indicate that during the Emergency the Irish Free State feared Allied invasion as well as Axis invasion... it is WP policy that not every statement of bald uncontested historical fact needs to be garlanded with 'sources' such as articles in obscure journals. The entirety of Irish foreign and military policy from partition until at least the 1960s was posited on the rational belief that one or more other states, Germany featuring only for a few years in the very short list, would consider invading it for strategic reasons. But no time to direct you to, and wait for you to thumb through, history primers so I've reworded neutrally. Brocach (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You need sources Brocach - you claim they feared Allied invasion, do you have evidence? If so add it. Though i will state... feared Allied invasion when they helped the Allies? Look into the secret ways that the Free State aided Allied planes during the war with discreet numbered land markers amongst other subtle methods to help them. I furhter explained the problem with your edits at your talk page. You can bring it here if you wish or keep it there. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So what exactly does your source state Brocach out of curiousity? Does it just source the fear of Allied invasion or the whole of it? If not the whole of it, i think what isn't backed up your source should be reverted until the below source query is sorted. We need to know what the actual source states before edits are made to it, otherwise the source being used may no longer be relevant and should be deleted. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have responded at my talk page but as this concerns content of this page will do so here also. Carroll's book, which is the reference I added, and every other history of Ireland in that period makes it plain that the state was wary of invasion from both sides. Plucking one literally at random from my shelves, Mary Bromage's De Valera biography, p146 - "Though the Irish people had been accustomed... to the fear that they might be overrun by the Germans, new fears arose lest the British reoccupy Irish territory." Nothing in my edit departs from documented historical fact, and while I could cite many other sources for it, it is only a modest edit to a daft passage speculating about what would 'certainly' have happened if a German invasion that didn't happen had happened with the involvement several divisions that Germany didn't have. Any one of the edits that you had reverted would be better than that. Brocach (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem in the source you plucked randomly from your shelf... it states "new fears arose lest the British reoccupy Irish territory". That does not entirely equate to either "Allies" or to "both sides". The Allies included more than just the UK, and the UK wasn't the only side on their side in the war. If you used that as a source you'd have to state fear of UK occupation instead. Intersting you never provided a quote from the source you used. The more sources you add to it the better Brocach - verfiability and reliability on no matter how small or daft it is is one of the key foundations of Wikipedia. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Brocach that your inability to provide a direct quote from the source you claim shows that you are inventing it up as you go along. specially when what you have provided above fails to meet exactly what your trying to say in the article. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Source query

I think there is an actual proper place for this, but it'll do here for now.

Does anyone have access to the following source:

Hull, Mark:The Irish Interlude: German Intelligence in Ireland, 1939–1943, Journal of Military History, Vol. 66, No. 3 (Jul, 2002), pp. 695–717.

We need to clarify whether the following is speculative editing by the editor or whether or not the source actually uses this wording in the following statement that Brocach has contention with:

“ With a regular army of only slightly over seven thousand men at the start of the war, and hopelessly devoid of modern weapons, a determined German attack with even just a few divisions would have meant certain occupation. ”

The terms "hopelessly devoid" and "have meant certain occupation" could be taken as speculative or weasel wording however may actually be in the source. If its in the source i propose we get the exerpt from the source and alter the statement to a quote. If its not then i propose we use Brocach's rewording to get rid any speculation/weasel-wording. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone with access to JSTOR, certainly any post-grad student, should be able search it from this link. Regrettably my 'subscription' has long since expired :- ( RashersTierney (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have access to the Journal but that is not the point - the statement is beyond question speculative, it doesn't belong here. Brocach (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks RashersTierney.

So you claim Brocach, just as you've claimed several other things over the last couple of months without providing a single source to back you up. No offence Brocach i'd rather have an uninvolved editor check out the resource and declare that its pure speculation and provide what is actually written in the source. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As no-one, 'uninvolved' or otherwise, has taken up the invitation to clarify whether or not the 'source' of the speculation speculates in exactly the way suggested; as it doesn't matter whether the source speculates in that way; and as one 'source's mere speculation has no more value than anyone else's mere speculation, may I take it that no-one objects to the replacement of the speculative passage? Brocach (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Brocach you've failed up above to provide a direct quote from a source to back up the fear of Allied occupation, so i still doubt your sourcing. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland a country?

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

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

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

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

Indeed such comments about other editors and their motives, could lead to your block, Dmol, if Brocach chooses to report you on appropriate notice board (though, personally, I hope Brocach would not waste his time). Please assume good faith and try to be civil . This is the Wiki way. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

While I personally agree that 'region' is probaby a much more politically neutral and sensitive term, I'm afraid that the lead to the Northern Ireland article provides the answer, complete with two citations: "Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom.[3][4] Situated in the north-east of the island of Ireland, it shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west. At the time of the 2001 UK Census, its population was 1,685,000, constituting about 30% of the island's total population and about 3% of the population of the United Kingdom." - therefore, I'm afraid, as long as the status quo established by the citations in the NI article are valid, it should be referred to as a 'constituent country'. I suppose the bottom line on this has to be whatever relevant Acts of Parliament have to say on the matter. (On a personal note, I don't necessarily agree personally with what I just said, but the rules are the rules - not perfect, but the rules nonetheless) Gabhala (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that Wikipedia itself could be cited as an authority for this purpose, since all other WP articles - the Northern Ireland one more than most - are susceptible to political editing. But if that is the way to go, please look at the earliest versions of Northern Ireland where you will see it described as "a part" or "a region" of the UK - "country" came in much later. Brocach (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The point here is that such politically sensitive topics need extensive discussion that cannot possibly be repeated in every single location where they are relevant. The natural locus for discussions about the extent to which Northern Ireland is a "country" is the article Northern Ireland. If you are unhappy with the way that article handles the matter, the proper thing is to try and get that article changed first, then come here. If we discuss this here, sooner or later the same editors will participate as would be the case if we started over there, and the outcome will be the same.

On the merits: My impression from many Wikipedia discussions about this topic is that:

• Northern Ireland does not have any of the typical properties of a country.
• In the internal setup of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland is now taking the place that used to be taken by Ireland. In political texts that talk about the "constituent countries" of the UK, "Ireland" was simply replaced by "Northern Ireland". This makes NI equivalent to a "country" in a very specific context. Maybe similar things hold for the treatment of NI in some sports contexts.
• Unusually for today's UK, there seem to be few if any separatist NI nationalists who would insist on NI being a country. The various nationalists in NI stress either NI's character as a part of Ireland or its character as a part of the UK.
• So far every single editor who pushed for calling NI a country self-identified as an English, Welsh or Scottish separatist.

"Country" is just a word. In borderline cases we can't use a word without making it clear which technical meaning we intend. In this particular case it's appropriate to refer to NI explicitly as a "constituent country of the UK" or as "one of the four countries of the UK", because that's crucial for understanding its role in the UK. It is not appropriate to refer to NI as a "country" or a "country". The NI article currently deals with this unusual situation just fine, and if you want to change its approach you really should go to Talk:Northern Ireland. Hans Adler 09:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hans, we have had words about this before, but you have got to STOP making assertions about the motivations of other editors on a content issue. It is getting really tiresome. --Snowded ^TALK 11:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hans does bring up many good and valid points. Its too easy to make assumptions about editors on Wikipedia but when you see an editors edit history over a period of time you do get general gists of what they are about and their motivations. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Several of the points are good and valid, but the "every single editor ..." one is not. The basic rule of wikipedia is to address content issues not people's motivations. If you think that others are not addressing content issues but are working from a political or POV position then you raise an RfC (and risk the possibility that your own behaviour will be looked at). You don't speculate or suggest motivations over multiple pages as Hans is doing. --Snowded ^TALK 12:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Since we've got Ireland (which is a sovereign country) & Northern Ireland (which is a country within the UK & thus non-sovereign), we should use constituent country as Northern Ireland's descriptive. This way, nobody will mistake NI as sovereign. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Part of the trouble appears to be the use of the single term "country" when, in the instance of Northern Ireland, "constituent country" is the proper term. There are four constituent countries making up the United Kingdom and simply Northern Ireland is one of those constituent countries whether we dislike the term of not that's a fact. ww2censor (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ww2censor that Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom. But if it is a constituent country it follows that it is a country in the first place, and it must be correct to refer to it as such. Same goes for England, Wales and Scotland. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously. Also, as of this writing, my landlord is trying to find out why he is being denied a seat in the House of Lords. Maybe you would like to support him in this endeavour. Hans Adler 20:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What Northern Ireland is is not straight forward and, as reliable sources support, the choice of terms (in different context) can convey different perspectives on NI, sometimes quite extreme perspectives. We need to choose our words wisely and do so with the topic we are describing in mind (and our politics behind us).

Different sources use different terms for NI and none of those terms are definitive. Even the same source (e.g. the UK government) use different terms. (FWIW the NI Executive and UK govt. appears to prefer province in practice but that does not necessarily mean that that term would be appropriate in any given context either.) WRT England, Scotland and Wales, "country" (or "constituent country") is usually unproblematic but WRT to Northern Ireland it is as problematic as "region" or "province" would for describing England, Scotland or Wales. One size does not fit all.

WRT to use of the term "country" in relation this article there are so many instances of things called "country" in this region that any use of the word "country" is bound to be troublesome. The subject of this article (the island of Ireland) is commonly called a "country". It contains a sovereign state, the Republic of Ireland, that is also commonly called a "country". The remainder of the island is part of the United Kingdom, another thing that is commonly called a "country". The United Kingdom is made up of four constituent parts, which are also commonly called "country". One of those constituent parts, Northern Ireland, is described in this article.

It is conceivable that the dab link could be altered to read:

"This article is about the country in Europe. For the country of the same name, see Republic of Ireland. For the country of the United Kingdom, see Northern Ireland."

Citations could be readily found to support each use of the term "country" above. I hope it demonstrates that citations alone are not enough. We need to consider the words we used with respect to the topic that we are describing. For that reason, the word "country" (whether referring to Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, or Northern Ireland) should be approached with caution (and common sense) in this article.

The current text ("constituent part") is a good way of avoiding confusing (and charged) terms. It is unnecessary to replace it with "country" and doing so reduced the clarity of the dab link. --RA (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the infobox going to be corrected to show Country-Northern Ireland? To say region would be better used to say Ireland is a region of the British Isles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.83.156 (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ill admit that I have not read the full train of comments but it seems that most of the sources provided about don't seem to carry any sort of official opinion. not sure if this has been covered but here is a British Government website http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/uk_countries.asp. Here Northern Ireland is a country. How can you trust the neutrality of sources written by authors of unknown motive. For example you could never trust a source from Micheal Moore on the topic of George Bush as it would be biased and anti-bush so how can we trust the sources provided above. We can't! here is another link http://www.visitbritain.com/en/About-Britain/. Not a government website granted, but it a useful link on the european union website http://europa.eu/about-eu/member-countries/countries/member-states/unitedkingdom/index_en.htm.Homebirdni (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

On the infobox i think it best to state region for the time-being seeing as the header for that section states "Country" and we don't want to confuse readers by having the UK listed as a country and then NI also listed as one without making it clear it is a country within a country. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Mabuska that Region is best in this context. "Country" should not be used of Northern Ireland as it is a politically loaded term within Northern Ireland and several neutral alternatives, such as "region", are available. Brocach (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Constituent country is another alternative, but region will do. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well could United Kingdom not be removed and it just say Northern Ireland. I assure you that to say region is by no means neutral. From what I have seen here and on other pages, there seems to be a push to have Northern Ireland and anything British either removed or demeaned and in this case demote Northern Ireland from a country to a region. Watch this space....Northern Ireland to be termed a borough of Europe within 6 months.

Mabuska, you say it will do for now. what are you waiting for exactly?

I am pretty sure if Ireland was described as a region of the British Isles, there would be uproar. I guess neutrality only seeks to appease one side of the argument.09:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homebirdni (talk • contribs)

Please confine the discussion to improvement of the article. Provocative statements like the above don't help. Scolaire (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Scolaire, i don't see Homebirdni's statement as being provocative but having basis. According to the list of sources for NI's status, country is the overwhelmingly used term for Northern Ireland. I would of suggested Constituent country, but i think it might be too long for the infobox. We could however amend the United Kingdom part to state United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) Mabuska ^(talk) 23:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about the statement, "I guess neutrality only seeks to appease one side of the argument." Can you honestly say, Mabuska, that you don't see anything provocative about that? Never mind whether you think he might have a point; is it aimed at consensus-building? Scolaire (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite hilarious to find a statement like "neutrality only seeks to appease one side of the argument" here - obvious not everyone 'gets' what NPOV actually means. Those of us who value NPOV must continue to promote neutral terminology, or where context demands a particular usage that is controversial, to identify it as such and give alternatives. 'Country' is always controversial in relation to Northern Ireland - terms such as region or part (of the UK) are not politically loaded. The list of sources referred to by Mabuska (see here) doesn't as alleged show "overwhelming" preference for 'country' but gives about 30 for and a dozen against - enough to establish only that the usage is indeed controversial. Brocach (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah i see now what you mean Scolaire. Yes it is provocative and such talk should be avoided Homebirdni as it only increases tensions.

Brocach because there are several sources that use different terms that doesn't make it controversial. You have failed upon multiple asking by me, Snowded, and others to provide a reliable source for your stance and claims. You've only provided synthesis and original research. Also roughly a 3:1 ratio, or around 75% is pretty overwhelming no matter how you see it.

Back to the topic at hand, how about amending it to what i suggested: United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), leaving out the region bit below it. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Another option: Delete the region section & simply leave United Kingdom in there. The infobox calls for the sovereign countries covering the island of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Country" certainly applies to the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland is certainly a "region" of the UK. The info box is fine. Brocach (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the correct forum for this discussion, but for what it's worth here is my two cents on this tedious discussion relating to Northern Ireland. The argument I hear is that Scotland is a country, England is a country, Wales is a country, ergo Northern Ireland is a country. My response to that is as follows: Scotland is popularly referred to as a country even though its boundaries do not coincide with those of an independent sovereign state, and there is nothing controversial about this. England is popularly referred to as a country even though its boundaries do not coincide with those of an independent sovereign state, and there is nothing controversial about this. Wales is popularly referred to as a country even though its boundaries do not coincide with those of an independent sovereign state, and there is nothing controversial about this. Northern Ireland, on the other hand, is referred to as a country, a province, a state, a statelet, and probably a lot of other names, all of which are hugely controversial. Ireland (the entire island) is popularly referred to as a country even though its boundaries do not coincide with those of a sovereign state. This may be controversial for some, but nonetheless there are people who consider the whole island to be a 'country' even if not in the strict political sense of the word, just like Scotland isn't. So if you're one of these people who insists on saying that the island of Ireland is not a country because it isn't a sovereign state, then I'm afraid you'll have to apply the same standard to Northern Ireland and stop referring to that entity as a country too. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as Ireland the island isn't a political entity of anykind (anymore), whereas Northern Ireland is a political entity, that comparison is a non-runner and what applies to one can't be applied to the other. Rather i think you mean there are people who refer to the island as a nation which is not the same as a country.Mabuska ^(talk) 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)