Talk:River Shannon/Archive 1

The Shannon is the longest river in...

Regarding the Shannon being the longest river in the British Isles... according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Great_Britain#Longest_rivers_in_the_United_Kingdom the Severn is longer. (Unsigned comment by 195.92.168.173)

The Shannon is not in the United Kingdom, which is a different thing from the British Isles. See British Isles (terminology) --A bit iffy 20:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite follow.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.173 (talk • contribs)

"The Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles." The River Severn is in the "British Isles" and according to the facts provided in an article about the United Kingdom it is longer.

The river as far as Limerick pls the length of the estuary exceed the length of the River Severn. I am unsure how the length of the Severn was defined (with or without the estuary). The Shannon is always listed as the longest river in the British Isles. I hope this helpsDmccabe 01:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dmccabe, are we in very slow edit war? I've just had a look at this talk page and I see that, bizarrely, I made my contribution to the debate exactly a year ago, to the minute! Anyway, should we include Iceland in your list of countries for which the Shannon is longer? I ask because the Þjórsá is a mere 230 km long! --A bit iffy 20:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we are, let's call it a truce:) If I were solo author I'd pop it back to "longest river in the British Isles", but that seems to bring out more rapid edit wars. That wording would convey what I have in mind, but seems to cause offense. The list offends only on the basis of lousy writing! I'll stay out of it for a while (perhaps a year). By all means add Iceland or any other NW European island that makes sense. What would your preference be?Dmccabe And what timing! Did you wait for the clock to tick over before hitting save, or was it fairly random?Dmccabe 02:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the term "British Isles" is the unwitting/unconscious implication that the whole isle of Ireland is in some way part of, or even belongs to, Britain (i.e., the UK). This introduces an unnecessary political dimension to the lengths of rivers - a purely geographical matter. The islands of Great Britain, Ireland and Iceland are quite separate and distinct from each other, and hence comparisons of their respective river lengths are not really meaningful. (I must admit I introduced Iceland because I was being slightly flippant, but it was also to illustrate my point.)--A bit iffy 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As an aside re the timing, I happened to realise about 10 minutes earlier that it was the same date, and then about three minutes earlier I suddenly realised it was just almost the same time so I rushed in my typing and made it just in time, with maybe 20 seconds to spare. (In fact, it now makes me want to look up other edits I've done exactly a year ago, as I'd quite forgotten about my original one above. Also, as it looks like I'd slightly misunderstood the original point that 195.92.168.173 made, so I wonder what other surprises I might find one year on!)--A bit iffy 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any European island with a longer river? I sincerely doubt it. How about "longest river on a European island?" Windyjarhead 16:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

An interesting point - I'm 99.9% sure you're right, though I'm having difficulty coming up with the evidence. If it is the case, and as Europe is regarded as a continent, then I think it might be meaningful to state something like this.--A bit iffy 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

who's there ? what con you tell me about the shanon? how old is it ? what plants grow around it /

---

There are possibly some extra details in the Italian version - it:Shannon (fiume), if someone has time they should check it with babelfish and decrypt. zoney ♣ talk 01:19, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Map

The map looks good. I've resized to half size, although perhaps a new rendition with captions applied to a map of slightly larger than the current resize would be better. zoney ♣ talk 00:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There should be a map highlighting its location in Ireland. The current map gives no context. —ScouterSig 22:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Source

As defined by the article the river does not have Dowra on it. Does the river not have its source at the Shannon Pot, County Cavan? Laurel Bush 16:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Is it Shannon Pot or Cavan Pot? Last time I saw it the pool was signed "Shannon Pot". Laurel Bush 09:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Cromwell?

I've heard the quote 'to Hell or to Connaught before (Junior Cert history yay!) but not attributed to Cromwell. I'm suspicious Indigenius 00:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

River Shannon is very long its 240 miles long WOW!!

River of County X

Should the Shannon appear in the River of category for each county through which it passes? It has a major impact on them all, though on the other hand, it does touch rather many. SeoR (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Standard practice seems to be that a river falls into the "rivers in x" category of every county it passes through or borders so I guess the Shannon should be no different. Sarah777 (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

I see there's still a dispute over the inclusion of British Isles on its own. Perhaps the solution at Lough Neagh, could be applied here? GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I quote Ben W. Bell from that article; "When discussing the largest you wish to use the largest area possible. British Isles is a recognised geographic term (that some people don't like admittedly)...". Therefore there is no argument about the use of the term British Isles here. Only those who deny the reality of the term will object, but they are a tiny minority and their views should not prevail here. CarterBar (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody block that GH's IP account? He's continuing to be disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, the Lough Neagh solution is sensible. "The River Shannon (Sionainn or Sionna in Irish) is, at 386 km (240 miles), the longest river in either Ireland or Great Britain." isn't. There's a whole sea between Ireland and Britain! Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarify, which version of Lough Neagh are we speaking of; I believe CarterBar is agreeing with the inclusion of British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it'll soon be time to request protection for this article. Also, the IP has just breached 3RR. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Question: Can someone find a reference that states it's the longest river in the British Isles? Answer: Only about 100 references. So if we accept that there are references, what is the consensus for *this* article? I believe that a consensus exists to include the term. But I feel double standards at work over the article River Thames frost fairs where the term "British Isles" is used with no reference.... Still, if that's the consensus for the article... --Bardcom (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this illustrates the problem. The second answer in particular :-) [1] --Bardcom (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference from MSN encarta [2] or from an older Folens atlas - [3]

Note - There are also references that don't use the term "British Isles" [4] [5]

I'm happy if editors want to test the consensus for *this* article. Straw poll anyone? --Bardcom (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a general consensus that the term "British Isles" will not be introduced into Irish articles unless the context demands it - it clearly doesn't here. "Longest River in Ireland" is perfectly adequate. The reason for this over-arching agreement is to avoid constant edit-warring and rows. So; no "British Isles" reference here please - and no 'straw poll'. Sarah777 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We've voted on Lisbon, we won't do it again? Where was this general consensus reached? As is brought up on Republic of Ireland every couple of months, how can consensus change if we can't talk about it? I prefer Ben's edit summary from Lough Neagh, to be honest: "When discussing the largest you wish to use the largest area possible. British Isles is a recognised geographic term (that some people don't like admittedly). Largest in Ireland isn't as impressive)." Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This has really gotten heated here; jumpin' junipters, I believe I've made 2-reverts on this article (somebody pinch me). GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No vote on this specific article; it is covered by the general agreement which is designed precisely to avoid rows like this one. Sarah777 (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Point me to the general agreement please Sarah if you will. --John (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about that, as well. TharkunColl (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) It's been proven many times that anyone introducing "British Isles" into Irish articles is going to cause trouble. I wonder if that is the aim? Wotapalaver (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been proven many times that anyone removing "British Isles" from Irish articles is going to cause trouble. I wonder if that is the aim? TharkunColl (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith here. There is a geographical entity - the BI. What is the longest river in that geographical entity? The Shannon. Simple as that. Sarah wrote in an edit summary that we don't describe a mountain as being the highest in both France and Italy. Maybe not (though I haven't looked at the Alps yet!), but then France and Italy don't form a distinct geographical entity. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the "geographical entity" with the name "British Isles" is a political entity, reflecting the claims, aspirations, myths and delusions of British nationalists throughout the centuries. Nothing "geographical" about that name at all, old bean. 86.42.100.185 (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow - those Ancient Greeks were pretty clever then, when they named the islands, to know their history 2000 years in the future. TharkunColl (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So, geography, then. It appears many other articles don't mind including reference to both the "small" territory (i.e., the country or island) that something is in as well as to the largest geographical entity available. E.g.:

• "Mulhacén is the highest mountain in continental Spain and in the Iberian Peninsula."
• "The Tagus (Latin Tagus, Spanish Tajo, Portuguese Tejo, pron. IPA: ['tɛʒʊ], Ancient greek Tàghos, Ταγος) is the longest river on the Iberian Peninsula."
• "The Ganges (IPA: /ˈgænʤiːz/, also Ganga pronunciation (help·info), Devanāgarī: गंगा, IAST: Gaṅgā in most Indian languages) is a major river in the Indian subcontinent flowing east through the eponymous plains of northern India into Bangladesh."
• "Galdhøpiggen is the highest mountain in Norway and Scandinavia, at 2,469 m above sea level." Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the article to halt the ridiculous edit war that was ongoing. Please, let's discuss here the merits of the BI reference in the lead. Once a consensus has been reached I will unprotect. --John (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case you might as well leave it permanently protected because concensus will never be achieved in this article. We've got a small bunch of editors here who are in denial of basic facts. CarterBar (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Carter. You're too kind. Nuclare (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am very sympathetic to Sarah777's argument, and I'm quite certain that British editors do not appreciate the sensitivities. But this is not the place to fight the battle. It is a fact (a regrettable fact, maybe) that "British Isles" has geographical currency with no (intended) political overtones, and it is very widely used. Sorry, Sarah777, but Britain-and-Ireland does make sense as a geographical and biogeographical unit, and I think it does make sense to mention that the Shannon is the longest river in that larger unit, as well as in the smaller unit of Ireland. The problem, then, is what form of words to use. I think the simplest is to accept "British Isles", and let the controversy be confined to the article on British Isles - making sure that the term is wikilinked from the River Shannon article. Or (if that is unacceptable), how about something like "is, at 386 km (240 miles), the longest river in Ireland. It is also longer than any river in Britain"? Hope this helps. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Similarly it is a fact (a regrettable fact, maybe) that "British Isles" is recognized as being problematic, obsolete, offensive, etc. by atlas publishers, dictionary publishers, etc. The problem then, is what form of words to use. Simplest might be - in cases like this - something like "the Shannon is the longest river in Ireland and is also longer than any river in Britain". On that I agree with snalwibma, pretty much. Is it just me or is it odd that anything in Ireland that is more "est" than anything in Britain suddenly becomes the most-est in the "British Isles" rather than being just Ireland. It would not at all surprise me if - for instance - descriptions of Ben Nevis as being the highest mountain in Britain greatly outnumber descriptions of Ben Nevis as being the highest mountain. Google search suggests a 4:1 ratio in favour of Britain. I wonder would pro BI editors insist that people write "Ben Nevis is the highest mountain in Great Britain and is also higher than any mountain in Ireland", or would they find that an unneccesary addition....and if so, why? Wotapalaver (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection Racket

I see the Admin above, having totally ignored warring by British Nationalist editors, steps in to protect the British version as soon as I became involved. Where is the "understanding" that the political term BI wouldn't be introduced into Irish-related articles gone? And where have the Irish Admins gone? Sarah777 (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You tell me Sarah. Where is the "understanding" that the term BI wouldn't be introduced into Irish-related articles? You've been asked several times where this supposed agreement took place. So where is it? See also this. --John (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

John, I've asked Bard/HK for the link; don't know myself, it was 6 months ago. But notwithstanding that and the timeworn Admin joke about "the wrong version" the timing of your intervention concerns me. Not just the protected version. But also that of course. Remember that the old saying about the duck also has a germ of truth. Sarah777 (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need to put understanding in quotes and refer to it as a "supposed" agreement. I wasn't part of that issue, but I certainly recall editors other than Sarah referencing such an agreement, so it exists. Or at least it did. Nuclare (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Rather than focus on punctuation though, I'd like to see some evidence that this agreement exists. If it was made, and if it is being referred to, it should be possible to point to it. --John (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, if I were to adopt the style of my various persecutors during my various trials I'd say that putting "agreement" in brackets is tantamount to suggesting I'm telling fibs. Which would then be deemed to merit a lifelong ban. Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh. So we can take it that there is no actual agreement then? --John (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How about using "both"?

Why is the article locked when references have been found? And aren't the editors supposed to be warned - or is it possible to develop an immunity? I get worried when articles are fully protected, whatever the edit situation it: it should be for the worse case senario in my opinion. Consensus may never happen, but I'm offering a suggestion anyway.

I think the word "indeed" is unencyclopedic, and "Whole of" is not needed. Why not just:

"The River Shannon (Sionainn or Sionna in Irish), at 386 km (240 miles), is the longest river in both Ireland and the British Isles.[1][2]"?

"Both" is not needed, but might be welcomed by some. "is" should come after the comma.

Using Ireland and BI is certainly better than using just BI. Trying to remove "British Isles" in non-arguable cases like this (it's geographical - thus is relevant - and is correct), when so much attention is now on this issue, is a war that can never be won: the motives will always be a factor now things have got like this. Some people joining in will use Wikipedia as a political debate/playground – which will not help the cause at all. As for public "understandings" of what people are ‘supposed’ to do - I didn't witness anything like that, and I wouldn't want to edit here if that kind of flagrantly 'cliquish' corruption was allowed. Wikipedia is supposed to be for everyone, and there is enough going around that is hidden from sight, without 'in your face' nonsense like that!--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The core of the problem is the definition of British Isles - does it include the island of Ireland? historically yes; today 'disputed'. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed by who? Here yes - but in real life the examples are limited in my opinion, as I'm sure you have read me say many times. Many things are disputed by some, but this term massively in use (perhaps we need a table on the name dispute page, as in Countries of the United Kingdom). What do think of my suggestion anyway? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's editors (with citations backing them up) who argue that the island of Ireland is not a part of the British Isles. I personally am not effected by the BI usage or lack there of. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Flat earth or outdated citations, surely. 'British Isles' as meaning the UK etc and Ireland falls overwhelmingly into WP:COMMONNAME. If it doesn't effect you, why did you call for a page protect? (as per usual). It sounds like you do have a desired consensus, but this isn't it! What do you want to see?--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I called for page protection, so as to end the edit warring. As for what I suggest? see my compromise at British Isles naming dispute (Yep, there's even an article about these disputes). GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is a fork specifically designed to for worst of possible reasons - because a consensus could not be found on the main article. I suggested a merge back, but people still want it so the main BI article won't gett bogged down. (although it clearly is bogged down with the weight put on the 'dispute'). As for your suggestions - to paraphrase Elvis, a little less Chico a little more action. Baby. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Though the above suggestion is very clever, it is fundamentally wrong because it deliberately seeks to mislead our readers, by being ambiguous. ðarkuncoll 23:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's a compromise, it's one I can live with. It's not that ambiguous (and certainly not meant to mislead) - is there anything else that says it better? i.e. that "Ireland" and the "British Isles" are both different and the same? I think that essence is given - and "both" is one of those 'extra' words that adds weight to both sides of a (ensuing) point. And people can always follow a link. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's wrong. It deliberately seeks to phrase the sentence so as to make it uncertain as to whether Ireland is part of the British Isles, or not. This is not how we should be writing an encyclopedia. ðarkuncoll 23:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the "deliberate" bit there (or before). If you disagree then fine - but try not to sound personal. I think it shows that Ireland both is and isn't 'The British Isles'. Which is true (as it is for Wales, England etc): it is in the British Isles, but it is it's own country too (a sovereign one, in this case). If you use logic it cannot be in one but not the other anyway. Would this be deliberately misleading?: "The Millennium stadium, prior to the new Wembley in London, was the biggest stadium in both Wales and the UK"? Of course, we could just use "the UK". But we have a choice - and Wikipedia, being about consensus, is sometimes about compromise. In this example we get to use the word "Wales". In my Shannon suggestion, we get to use "Ireland". Both would make things clearer in a cetain context.---Matt Lewis (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As Ireland is clearly not a British Island this statement is wrong. Reference to "British Isles" in this article is political POV and must be removed. The status quo and previously agreed policy must be adhered to. Sarah777 (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else and that would be called trolling. Perviously agreed policy? Right.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Having read the exchange above I'm amused by the suggestion that the simple statement of the fact that Ireland is not British might be regarded as trolling. What next? - "the Earth isn't flat" = trolling?? I have explained, at length elsewhere in this debate, why the numerical voting strength of British editors over Irish editors cannot be regarded as "consensus" by any known definition of the word. It is simple imposition of British POV on Ireland-related articles based on numerical strength. Nothing else. When so many British editors are in denial of this simple fact one must WP:AGF and conclude that many are unaware of their embedded Nationalist prejudice. And I know that the clear exposition of this problem causes irritation to some folk and brings out the urge to suppress this fact rather than deal with its implications. Very dangerous to WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I was more alluding to your "previously agreed policy" comment. Do you really think that some moment where you had your own way (probably only on the Ireland talk page) is now "policy" for everyone? And also the fact that you are clearly not interested in consensus (esp reading the above), let alone compromise. None of it has anything to do with Wikipedia as a productive force. It's all the negative side of Wikipedia, and we are talking behind a locked page because of it. It's just a term Sarah - you've got to deal with it. This is no place for your 'positive discrimination'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't "just a term". It is a political label that most Irish people find incorrect and/or offensive (not all as we see below but it was ever thus). Sarah777 (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reduce indent) Nobody is claiming Ireland is a British Island. Sarah, people have asked multiple times for you to show where this "previously agreed policy" was agreed... Matt, your suggested edit works for me. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The agreement was here. Please note that I have already provided this link before and am getting a bit fed-up being repeatedly asked for it. Sarah777 (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And check out the British Isles Website and tell me where you'll find the Shannon? Sarah777 (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If you've posted it earlier, I missed it, sorry. That's a link to a talk page. I'm seeing a couple of supports for Sony-youth's proposal and more opposes, the discussion petering off, and SY instead proposing an alternative posted off his user page, which no longer exists. I'm certainly not seeing any WP-wide agreement. As to the link to some Welsh individual's personal hobby site, I just don't see the relevance. (For a hobby, though, its a bit of a waste of a domain name!) There are plenty of sites about Britain and Ireland that include reference to the Shannon as the longest river. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The "British Isles" website is nothing of the sort. It looks like something cobbled together by a bunch of amateurs. As for "the agreement", I see no agreement there whatsoever (but then, I got bored with the debate and didn't study it in depth, so if you can point me to a particular paragraph in that discussion, then fine). To me, it just looked like more of the same, endless discussion, with no hope of resolution. As for the current issue, I favour simply "the Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles". As such, it is automatically the longest river in Ireland. However, in the interests of consensus, perhaps we could accept the inclusion of Ireland in the statement. It would be slightly unencyclopedic to do so, but there are worse things at Wikipedia than that. So maybe it should read "The Shannon is the longest river in Ireland, and the British Isles" - or words to that effect. Remember, the island of Ireland IS part of the British Isles, like it or not. CarterBar (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so dismissive of evidence you don't like C-bar; Wiki itself is a website cobbled together by a bunch of amateurs. However, in the interests of consensus, perhaps we could accept the inclusion of Ireland in the statement. Argee, so long as we don't add the offensive term "British Isles". Sarah777 (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777, I think the evidence is against you. If you look at the article rather than the talk page associated with it, you will see that it is not a Wiki policy Chris55 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Since one of the main objections made by those who oppose the term British Isles appears to be the inclusion of the word British in the phrase, they might be interested to know that the majority of UK citizens also reject the word British - see British people#Demographics. Even in England, less than half (48%) consider themselves "British in any sense", and predictably perhaps, the figures are even lower for Wales and (especially) Scotland. Ironically, only NI has a majority (64%) who consider themselves British. My point is this - when the word British is equally reviled by all, will British Isles become okay again? ðarkuncoll 11:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are extreme polls. You really can 'pick you polls' as far as these ones go: many areas in England are predominantly British, though things are changing there a little. I've never seen England under 50% before. Devolution in Wales just scraped through, having failed in the 70's. Many I speak to in Wales are pragmatically British. But Welsh as well. I can never understand why some people have to feel one or the other. People should see it here on the internationals. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The times, they are a-changing.... --HighKing (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this argument, but why not just say that the Shannon is the longest river in Ireland? Since the folks who dislike the term British Isles clearly have a very low opinion of Britain, then it shouldn't matter to them whether or not the Shannon is longer than any river in Britain. Unless they are trying to score political points, that is... Chris55 (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Poll on "..in both Ireland and the British Isles".

The River Shannon (Sionainn or Sionna in Irish), at 386 km (240 miles), is the longest river in both Ireland and the British Isles.[1][2]

Chat like above can go around in circles, so I'm starting a poll. Please vote, 'comment:', offer alternatives etc.

• support: --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support CarterBar (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Snappy56 (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The River Severn article just says '...is the longest river in Great Britain', no mention of it being the second longest in the British Isles. Why the double standards? Snappy56 (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Presumably, because Great Britain is the largest entity in which it could be said to be the longest river. Having said that, I've no objection to it saying second longest in the BI, and will go and change it forthwith. ðarkuncoll 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

While you are at it, add that it is the 189th longest river in Europe and 78th longest in the EU......Sarah777 (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to create a new article with lists of things in the BI - rivers by length, mountains by height, lakes by area, cities by population, that sort of thing. Might be interesting. ðarkuncoll 17:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose; though of course a vote like this cannot be claimed as "consensus" as I've pointed out over and over. I might live with:

The River Shannon (Sionainn or Sionna in Irish), at 386 km (240 miles), is the longest river in either Ireland or the British Isles. Sarah777 (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: This one is out of the question, since it clearly suggests that Ireland is not part of the BI. CarterBar (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Far from beng 'out of the question' C-bar, it is the only acceptable alternative available right now. Sarah777 (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose; I'd prefer United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: That would be incorrect. The two are not the same. CarterBar (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To my ears at least, the term Britain and Ireland refers to the two states, UK and RoI, and is therefore primarily political in nature. If referring simply to the two islands, it is not a synonym for BI as it leaves out all the smaller ones. ðarkuncoll 17:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Made adjustment (above) GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Which idea was that? I haven't made any suggestions. ðarkuncoll 18:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I got the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland idea, from your 17:53 posting. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Only a tiny stretch runs through the UK, but it originates there, so which of the two states should be listed first? ðarkuncoll 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom would be better, so as not to be confused with United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; it's something to consider. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That sort of makes it sound as if it runs backwards. If we wish to use the state option (which I don't particularly), we need to list them in the correct order, i.e. downstream. ðarkuncoll 18:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

UK and RoI or RoI and UK, I'm honestly happy with either. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep G'day - good suggestion; I'd support that. The problem with C-bar's idea is that it clearly implies Ireland is British. Which is obviously wrong. Of course RoI would pipe as Ireland as per imos. Sarah777 (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No it does not imply Ireland is British! Why should it(?), and herein lies the nub of the problem. Irish Sea does not come with implied Irish ownership, nor does the Indian sub-continent come with implied Indian ownership, so why should the BI imply British owneship? CarterBar (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And in Pakistan the call their territory part of the Indian sub-continent, do they? (Confession: I haven't a clue but I suspect not). In France there is no such thing as the "English Channel". "Irish Sea" dates from a time when the British regarded Ireland as part of the home territory - if someone wants to rename it to the Windscale Glowpool - fire away! Sarah777 (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"No it does not imply Ireland is British! Why should it(?)" Why shouldn't it?, is actually the better question. Geographical names are very, very often used to name the people from within a territory. I don't think "ownership" is necessarily the word, but applying a name "British" to Ireland does *imply* (even if the implication is incorrect) that Ireland is part of British-ness. I come across quite a few people who think that classing Irish people as British is okay "because they are from the British Isles." One can say 'no, they are not," but these people do sort of have a point. "Irish Sea does not come with implied Irish ownership" Again, 'ownership' may not be the right word, but, yes, it in a way it does. The difference is that no one lives in the sea. Identity is not at stake in the naming of seas. People are named based on where they live, not the seas they live next to. Nuclare (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the small islands - are we really worried that someone will think there might be a longer river lurking in Guernsey?Sarah777 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose It has to be Ireland or British Isles as those are the two valid geographical terms. British Isles (as geography) includes Ireland, UK and Ireland makes it political. Ireland is a geographical as well as a political term. If you pipelink to Ireland then its accurate to say its the longest river in Ireland. This is the convention elsewhere, for example Snowdon is the highest mountain in Wales on the Wales page (although it is the highest in England and Wales. There seem to be a range of ideological edit wars going on re the insertion or deletion of "British Isles" which defy common sense. The decision needs to be made in context, here that argues for Ireland which is headed This article is about the island. For the state of the same name, see Republic of Ireland. --Snowded TALK 19:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Poll: Snowded's counter-proposal; just use "Ireland"

Support That works for me. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Support this counter-proposal Chris55 (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What counter proposal do you support? Just using Ireland? I'm a lost on where this is now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Snowded's counter-proposal, it being identical to my original (single) edit that appears to have triggered some of this. Sarah777 (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Snowded's counter-proposal, assuming I understand it correctly to mean just saying "longest in Ireland" and forgetting all about Britain/British Isles. If it is necessary to mention the larger geographical unit that includes both islands, it must be "British Isles", and mentioning "United Kingdom" is quite wrong in this context. But the more I think about it, the less useful it seems to mention anything other than Ireland. The Shannon is the longest river in Ireland. The fact that it is also longer than anything in Western Samoa Portugal Iceland Britain, and almost as long as a river in Chile as well, is irrelevant. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment just to clarify, yes that is the proposal - the longest river in Ireland the pipe link takes it to the geography page which has a disambiguation statement in respect of the political entity. --Snowded TALK 09:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And Everest is the tallest mountain in Nepal. Perfectly true, but it hardly does it justice. ðarkuncoll 09:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You have used that argument several times before. If the Shannon was the longest river in the world possibly it might apply, if the longest in Europe that would be notable. There are also arguments elsewhere over the Severn, which is the longest river in Britain, but depending how you calculate the Estuary might be longer than the Shannon. The sensible geographical unit here is Ireland, and reference the geography page that describes Ireland. --Snowded TALK 09:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that's basically the whole point. Is Ireland the highest order geographical unit worth mentioning, or the British Isles? Here's a little thought experiment. If BI happened to have a name that no one objected to, would it be mentioned here? I think the answer to this must be yes. ðarkuncoll 09:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For a river? the land mass in which it is situated surely and that is Ireland. After that I might take a continent seriously as justifying some higher reference. We also have two separate groups one who want to remove BI from everything and one who want to insert it everywhere. The only way to deal with these two extremes is to make sensible contextual decisions.--Snowded TALK 09:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction: This is simply not true, and is not fair to some honourable editors. I personally don't appreciate being told I am one of "two separate extremes'" here (and I'm searching for a compromise): Like it or not, 'British Isles' IS the commonly used term: and there is NO EVIDENCE at all that people are going around replacing Ireland (etc) with "British Isles". Where is the evidence of this "insertion everywhere"? Unfortunately, we are all here because the opposite is true (for whatever reason, justified or not). There may be extreme editors on either side: but FACTS ARE FACTS. It's all been about when the term "British Isles" is seen as inappropriate, and NOT a case of Ireland being seen as 'inappropriate' with BI a better option. When "British Isles" has been incorrectly used on Wikipedia, it has been accepted by all - the problems arise when people are defending its prior usage against its removal. Like here. At one point it was a 'systematic removal' - hence why it has turned into this drama. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware I made any reference to you Matt. However if you look around the different articles you will see systematic removal and insertion. My point was very simply that we need to make contextual decisions. British Isles is a valid term but it does not mean that it always the correct term. In this case I think that Ireland is a better one and more appropriate. It is the longest river in Ireland, simple as that. --Snowded TALK 13:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But that's just your own opinion on the consequences of Bardcom's initial blitz (and I thought most of them were ironed out?). But it has to be made clear that all the examples of "British Isles" Bardcom (now HighKing) started 'adressing' where put into Wikipedia naturally over time. Even Bardcom didn't suggest they were put in deliberately. Someone else may have suggested it (as a matter of course, to paint a "British nationalist" picture) but there is no evidence at all of BI being deliberately put in place of Ireland. "Systematic insertion" is simply the wrong word to describe the debates where the exisiting "British Isles" term has survived.

Portrayed "six of one and half a dozen of the other" issues tend to get nowhere. But this is a lot clearer than that - and compromises can be, and must be, found. Yes - sometimes one, either or even neither is best. But when both work - it's impossible to now lose 'British Isles', as the whole issue of bias and intent has come so much to the fore. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My experience is different, Yes Bardcom has been on a "mission", there also seem to be a whole group of editors who automatically assume that any removal of BI is a nationalist agenda (and are sensitive to that issue in general). If I make a simple point that Welsh should be treated in the same way as any other foreign language I get screamed at for being a nationalist POV pusher. Sorry I am afraid I do see as six of one and half a dozen of the other. Trying to get any objective discussion is hard. For this article I think the clear geographical context is Ireland which takes you directly to page which is stated as a geography page. --Snowded TALK 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Tharcuncoll wasn't particularly wise inserting it here given the current climate. But I wanted to point out that this took off with Bardcom's actions, and then CarterBar (and me a little) got involved. Someone called Crispness backed up Bardcom and it just spiralled. An insertion of removal of either isn't going to work right now: it's got too intense. We need to find a way to say them both together (which would be useful anyway). And maybe then the Wikiproject idea CarterBar had at the start of all this can take off, and facilitate maybe laying out a guideline for best use of the term (I've seen some interest has been moving this way on Tharcuncolls talk page).

Yep he wants to get something started and I have indicated support. Mercian-Welsh alliance!--Snowded TALK 19:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less reason I see to use "British Isles". There are two pretty large islands off the north-west of Europe (well, three actually) as well as a host of small ones. When Britain owned both of them, there was some point in treating them together, but that hasn't been the case for 85 years, so why are we getting up-tight about it? As has been pointed out, the rivers are pretty short by European standards and the sea trip between England and Ireland is a lot longer than that between Europe and England. I know, I've just done it (in my own boat). Chris55 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we leave Bardcom and his "crusade" out of this? In this article I was the one who reverted attempts to add "British Isles" to the article on the Shannon. And I haven't been "going around" doing that all over the place. The issue here is an attempt to add a random and totally unnecessary "BI" to the article for reasons that I believe are not merely geographical. Sarah777 (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"...is a lot longer than that between Europe and England" Dude, England actually is in Europe. ;-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The term British Isles is the most common name for the island group worldwide, and common practice on WP, as pointed earlier on this talk page, is to talk about longest, biggest, highest, etc., geographical features in terms of the largest geographical unit available. E.g.:

• "Mulhacén is the highest mountain in continental Spain and in the Iberian Peninsula."
• "The Tagus (Latin Tagus, Spanish Tajo, Portuguese Tejo, pron. IPA: ['tɛʒʊ], Ancient greek Tàghos, Ταγος) is the longest river on the Iberian Peninsula."
• "The Ganges (IPA: /ˈgænʤiːz/, also Ganga pronunciation (help·info), Devanāgarī: गंगा, IAST: Gaṅgā in most Indian languages) is a major river in the Indian subcontinent flowing east through the eponymous plains of northern India into Bangladesh."
• "Galdhøpiggen is the highest mountain in Norway and Scandinavia, at 2,469 m above sea level." In short, no reason not to follow that principle here - especially when it can be (and is) referenced, with Irish tourist board websites using the phrase that apparently is so offensive to us Irish. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm not too happy about the manner in which the word was inserted in this article just recently (how as this helped things?), but now it's here I can't justify removing it. We need to find a way of combining 'British Isles' with the place within it, as that most suits articles like this (as is demonstrated in BaStun's examples above). --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: To add to my own earlier proposal: "The River Shannon (Sionainn or Sionna in Irish), at 386 km (240 miles), is the longest river in both Ireland and the enveloping British Isles." 'Encasing' and 'enfolding' are two other words, though 'enveloping' is better I feel. I'd be happy if eveyone used the term "Geographical British Isles" (small or big 'g' - it's actually got a few google hits I notice, but not many), but Wikipedia is no more for inventing terms than it is for un-inventing them (as some people here are clearly trying to do). --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Support the suggestion that Ireland is just used (I'm Irish). I oppose any mention of the British imperialist term "British Isles" on any Irish article. The British do not own Ireland, regardless of British assertions to that effect for centuries, and the overwhelming majority of the people on this island reject outright the suggestion in the term "British Isles" that Ireland belongs to the British. The proposition is absurd- from the dark ages. To claim "British Isles" is not political is, given our history, just making you look silly. 86.42.71.170 (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Bastun and Matt, and WP:CENSOR. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

opposition is one thing, but linking it to WP:CENSOR? As far as I am concerned its simply a matter of the most appropriate geographical term and on balance I go for Ireland (having, remember defended the continuation of the BI article as is without renaming). OK there is a lot of POV flying around here as well but that is kinda normal on all of these pages.--Snowded TALK 17:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes WP:CENSOR. Wikipedia is not censored. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Poll on "..in both Ireland and the (?) British Isles."

1) "The River Shannon (Sionainn or Sionna in Irish), at 386 km (240 miles), is the longest river in both Ireland and the enveloping British Isles."

2) "The River Shannon (Sionainn or Sionna in Irish), at 386 km (240 miles), is the longest river in both Ireland and the encompassing British Isles."

3) "The River Shannon (Sionainn or Sionna in Irish), at 386 km (240 miles), is the longest river in both Ireland and the surrounding British Isles."

4) "The River Shannon (Sionainn or Sionna in Irish), at 386 km (240 miles), is the longest river in both Ireland and the wider British Isles."

5) "The River Shannon (Sionainn or Sionna in Irish), at 386 km (240 miles), is the longest river in both Ireland and the geographical British Isles."

Does anyone have an opinion on these? I would accept any of them as a compromise. Maybe others could think of an acceptable qualifier along these lines? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: All 3! The idea for sure, and maybe other (better?) examples too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral: IMHO, it's either British Isles or Ireland; not both. But, I'll support the consensus (whatever it will be). GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you see either term/name being accepted on its own, though? Seriously? On the weight of any poll it would have to be "British Isles". But that would never stop the edit warring. There are lots of examples where both are used in these matters - see Bastun's examples above.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you have an opinion on any if Ireland was removed? ie. "The River Shannon (Sionainn or Sionna in Irish), at 386 km (240 miles), is the longest river in the geographical British Isles." Think of it less in terms of the Shannon too (ie for possible use elsewhere). --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd still remain neutral if Ireland was removed. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I've just added 2 more. I did this because "wider" been used before, and "surrouding" is suitably ambiguous, in its within/without sense (though I know at leaset one editor here wants no ambiguity in the wording). --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment OK Matt, I'll remain neutral. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of Tharkuncol (I should have specified) - he didn't like the word "both" as it was ambiguous (and thus misleading, he thought). The slight ambiguity fits well here though, in my opinion. It could be the only answer. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This is getting silly, there are two geographical terms British Isles and Ireland all the above options represent wordy attempts to avoid the issue. Also I am very sorry guys but the vote on Ireland was running 4 for, 2 against so I don;t see the justification for closing that off and introducing all the options above. --Snowded TALK 03:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been silly for a long time! I'm trying to help progress this on a wider level. This poll doesn't close your one at all - it's mainly asking for views on qualifying words. Because of the nature of the Shannon article - your 'Ireland-only' poll may well get the most support in this particular article. But the simple reason you have more 'supports' than 'opposes' at the moment (4 to 2 as you say) is that the people who want to see 'British Isles' stay in the article have already clearly stated their case! It's all about that term. You are attempting to win on eventual numbers (and you may well with this article) - but it won't solve the underlying problem. And do people have time to debate this over-and-over again on an 'article specific' level? Yes, it would normally be the natural thing to do - but it simply hasn't been working for this term. Look at Bardom/HighKing - he now has a 72 hour block. Some recognised and 'acceptable' guidelines (terminology etc) could save everyone countles hours. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose all those well-meaning but clumsy attempts. Sorry - enveloping, encompassing, surrounding, wider and geographical are all pointless. We either say simply "in Ireland" or "in Ireland and in the British Isles". I prefer the former, because: (a) it is simple and true and indisputable; (b) including the British Isles touches unnecessarily on a sensitive subject; (c) it may not be true that the Shannon is longer than the Severn. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy with either of those here too - but I'm thinking of all those other BI-related articles, and the background of the dispute. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Some people have said that Ireland or the British Isles is better, but from my understanding of English this is short for 'the Shannon is longest river in Ireland or the Shannon is longest river in British Isles' so it doesn't avoid the assumption that the Shannon is in the British Isles. But the BI term is confused anyway. The legal term, British Islands, at least has the force of an act of the British Parliament. Most sources (e.g. BBC) say the British Isles is a geographical unit but then include most of the Channel Isles in the definition, in direct contradiction to that. So I doubt there really is any geographical unit worth talking about. It's a term that is used widely in Britain but less and less worldwide. Even my Times Comprehensive Atlas uses the phrase "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" to describe the page that would have traditionally been BI (and is so described in my somewhat older Britannica Atlas). Chris55 (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely if anyone has said "or" it is sarcastically? (ie because they don't want Ireland to be part of the British Isles). But we are faced with the fact that it is a widely-used greographical term used to include Ireland. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone has proposed "or" and they weren't being sarcastic Chris55 (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. You're still trying to dress the wolf of British imperialism up in the sheep's clothing of rational, intelligent, apolitical discourse. The circle will never be squared. 86.42.71.170 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Support, tentatively. The claim is both notable and verifiable. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose (all five) as the are essentially variants of exactly the same thing. Sarah777 (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, given the obvious issue at the heart of this debate I'd be inclined to describe a poll including only these five near identical options as vexatious. At best. Sarah777 (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

But you don't wish to compromise - some of us do. Some are similar, yes, but I think that 'encompassing', 'surrounding' and 'geographical' all have different slants to them. 'Surrounding' distances Ireland the most I feel (via a suggestion of ambiguity), and 'geographical' makes it more clear it is a geographical term. To me these examples best cover these two facts: 1) the word 'British' in British Isles does give it an element of ambiguity (so this can be suggested). 2) the term is strictly geographical (so it can be clarified). The word 'both' further indicates these two terms are separate things. I'd even accept "the longest river in both Ireland and the surrounding geographical British Isles." if it was likely to meet with consensus. People might not like the wordiness - but it's not actually all that bad: It's just a question of acceptance.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for any reference to the "British Isles" in this article. None whatsoever. Sarah777 (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you say you are willing to compromise, but I don't see much evidence of it. You keep on saying things like "Facts are Facts" but when it comes to names, that just isn't so. Naming is a matter of custom. I can agree that many people in Britain still use the term "British Isles" but the ambiguities in that term should be obvious by now. If it was purely geographical then it might be different, but even today it is stretched to include Crown dependencies that are clearly not part of the same geographical entity (the BBC example). The suggestion that "once it's been added it can't be removed" seems to have little to do with objectivity. I wish we could get this thing resolved as I want to add another section to the article in question! Chris55 (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. It is a fact that it is the longest river in Ireland, and it is also clear that any reader will know what that means. Not everyone (in contrast) is as familiar with the historical use of the term British Isles. It is a matter of what is the best thing in this context and word phrases with multiple references are simply not necessary. --Snowded TALK 08:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We need this geography 'talkforce' (I agree with DDStretch et al that a BI Wikiproject is probably too much). I'm probably trying to do some of its kind of work in my suggestions above: At the moment I can't justify the removal in here - as things are like they are, and it will be considered a precedent, I'm sure. I don't think just removing it will help. But as I've said, I was never altogether happy with it here either (for a couple of reasons - though it may well fit). "

We need this taskforce: and (now so many have professed interest) I recommend proposing it at Wikiproject:Geography, and getting a neutral to open it up. In fact, I may as well do that now: I don’t think it needs more debate, does it? (please debate via this link given below). Esp since Tharcuncoll said he'd be happy with either one. For the sake of clarity (and compromise) I'll suggest 'British Isles usage guideline' as a title (although British Isles as a talkfoce would surely say it all).

The Crown Dependecy thing is no argument for me, or the 'political' one: The term is purely geographical in its commonname use, and including the Channel Islands was an obvious error by a compiler at the BBC: the taskforce will be a good way of sorting a correct definition out.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. All are silly. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(British Isles Taskforce)

Comment: Plase all see: Talk:Terminology of the British Isles#British Isles Terminology Task force, and comment. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

taking a different tack

I tried to get something definative on the relative lengths of the Severn and the Shannon. taking one common source (the On Line Britannica) I get the following:

• Severn: about 180 miles (290 km) long, with the Severn estuary adding some 40 miles (64 km) to its total length.
• Shannon: flowing for about 161 miles (259 km) in a southerly direction to enter the Atlantic Ocean via a 70-mile (113-kilometre) estuary below Limerick city

Now on that basis there is some confusion as to which is the longest river in the British Isles depending on how you count the estuary. That might point to a sensible (and fact based) position in which the Severn is the longest river in Britain and the Shannon is the longest river in Ireland. --Snowded TALK 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly isn't clear to me which is the longest and I'd oppose the Irish making unsubstantiated grandiose claims - (And I'd hate to see edit warring about which is longer!) Sarah777 (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Given the uncertainty, there seems to be a strong case for leaving it at "the longest river in Ireland". And yet... on second thoughts... Given that the Shannon is often claimed to be the longest in the British Isles (insert quote markes if you wish), would it not be remiss of us to fail to mention that aspect? Someone may well come to this article with a vague notion that the Shannon is the longest in these islands, wishing to check it out. I think it might therefore be a good idea to refer to the claims of both Shannon and Severn. Maybe something like "The Shannon ... is the longest river in Ireland. It is often said to be longer than Britain's longest river, the Severn,[ref] though the comparison is complicated by by whether the estuary is included in the length of each river.[ref to Britannica figures quoted by Snowded above]" Something like that would surely provide all the information an enquirer might want, without offending anyone. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Failing to see any confusion here. "...adding some 40 miles to its total length" (my emphasis). Therefore total length = 220 miles for the Severn. By the same token, then, the Shannon's is 231 miles. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the point. It is normal if I recollect ) level geography to measure a river by the length to the highest tidal point. Its contentious. I offer it as additional evidence, the confusion supports a decision for "Ireland" over the "British Isles", however that remains (to my mind) the most logical geography. --Snowded TALK 09:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See List of rivers by length: "The length of a river is actually very hard to calculate. It depends on the identification of the source, the identification of the mouth, and the precise measurement of the river length between source and mouth." Confusing and complicated and contentious is exactly what it is! Hence my bet-hedging suggestion. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Are we clear about the source of the Shannon? I'd always believed it was at the Shannon Pot in County Cavan but I see some here referring to it passing through Northern Ireland. Must get out my map.....

Having stated in the intro that the river flows from the Shannon Pot in the next section the article says: The source of the Shannon is in the Cuilcagh Mountains in south County Fermanagh in Northern Ireland, from where it flows through Shannon Cave, and rises at Shannon Pot in County Cavan. I though "the source" had to be a single place, as implied by the definite article? Sarah777 (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the Shannon Pot a Nationalist Plot????? Sarah777 (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Kleenex

Here you go, lads. Looks like you're going to have to find another Irish article to plaster your beloved and profoundly politically motivated "British Isles" term in. And it was an Irishwoman who defended us all, once again. Constance Markievicz, Maud Gonne & Caoimhe Butterly: you have met your match. You're as feisty as they come, Sarah777. Brilliant heart. Great spirit, boundless energy and witty too. Sláinte an bhradain chugat, croí follain agus gob fluich! 86.42.71.170 (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That really is unhelpful. Address the content not the people, I was tempted to simply reverse the comment out --Snowded TALK 11:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Heck - I don't find anything objectionable in Mr IPs remarks :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - save your Kleenex for another use, over-imaginative 86. The insertion of BI in this article (for whatever daft/procative/retaliatory/genuine reason) does not constitute a "Wikipedia BI imperialism". That is a myth that is simply smokescreening all the attempted BI-removal over the past couple of months. Hopefully, we'll get that talked-about geography taskforce on this, before either type of removal or insertion happens again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

____

The level of desire to have the British element included appears to be directly proportional to the distance the editor lies from the river itself. Most interesting. ____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.36.91 (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps inversely proportional to the desire to eschew politics and just state the facts, maybe? ðarkuncoll 23:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you couldn't resist anything except temptation--thank you for your clearly unintentional yet thoroughly delicious validation of my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.36.91 (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Where are we?

As far as I can see its 5:3 in favour of ireland, and we now have questions over the actual length (see above). We really want this article unblocked and the disputable claim based on inclusion or non-inclusion of tidal waters makes it difficult to support anything other than Ireland

I really don't think this is necessary, but how about this

... longest river in Ireland in the lede and then the following later in the article: The River Severn and River Shannon both lay claim to the status of longest river in the British Isles. that would then have a referece to the data above. It uses a secondary claim rather than including British Isles in the primary statement and can reference claims on the Irish Tourist Board sites. Same sentence to go in the body of the article on the River Severn. --Snowded TALK 21:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I wonder which is the widest river, the deepest, etc? Anyways, I like this proposal. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think you can toll up the results yet, and it's pretty obvious who hasn't voted yet (and how they would vote too). The above proposal is clever and I would possibly normally back it here. But with the BI terminology taskforce being currently proposed, is effectively 'skirting' the Introducion issue here the best solution? Isn't it just moving the problem further down the page? If it does get significant support I'll add mine too it to help try and see it through, but unfortunately I feel I would be giving a wrong signal to add my support right now. I really do think we need to focus on the wider issue of how to deal with these matters (that are often introductions) on a wider level. The concern of many is not about how to just get 'British Isles' in somewhere - it's about how/when/if to use it with/without Ireland. As an eventual solution for this particular article though, who knows.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support (or else remove reference to the BI entirely). I think this whole argument is disturbing (if not censored and censored and censored}, but if a particular faction (if they have a genuine claim to being "native" - do they?) wish to impoverish articles about Ireland in this fashion, I don't think it's for others to tell them not to do so. The converse must apply, of course, if articles about the major island call them "Part of the British Isles" then outsiders have no business telling them not to. PR^talk 13:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - an extremely sensible suggestion. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland must be included - as must the British Isles. This idea that it might not be the longest river in the latter has only been invented to justify not including the term - and is, of course OR. No one would have ever bothered doing so had not some editors objected for political reasons. My vote - and I don't know where to state it in this confused mess, is for inclusion of both "Ireland" and "British Isles" - but not with weasly wording so as to make it seem that Ireland might not be part of the latter. ðarkuncoll 23:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In fairness to us, "Ireland and the British Isles" just got the article locked, didn't it? We are clearly trying to find workable alternatives. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No. It was those who objected to it, that got the article locked. ðarkuncoll 00:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My point though: it didn't settle and the article has been locked. If you want to vote for it, start a poll yourself - I'd give it my own 'support', but it clearly isn't going to work here, or you (and others) would have tried it. And your first edit removed Ireland anyway! I wasn't exactly a great start, was it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct. My first edit removed Ireland. And having realised this, I immediately put it back. ðarkuncoll 07:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hang on Tharcuncoll - someone changed your original "longest river in the British Isles." (which you had reverted back to once) to "Ireland and the British Isles." - and you changed that to "Ireland, indeed the whole of the British Isles."!!!! And you go on about my 'weaselly wording'!!!! Bloody cheek!! How could British Isles be mentioned if it didn't have Ireland in it? The Shannon is in Ireland. There was no logic in your edit other than to use 'weasel words' to try and get across your own politics. Careful with your brush, mate. Even if it was a daft attempted compromise, it would still make you a hypocrite for your scorning and uncompromising 'facts or nothing' attitude now.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Tharcuncoll your statement above This idea that it might not be the longest river in the latter has only been invented to justify not including the term - and is, of course OR makes a nonsense of your other statements that you are just focused on the facts. It is of course not OR as I am quoting two citations from the same source. The issue (which is open) is if you include the length of the estuary or not. I decided to spend a bit of time checking if we were arguing about nothing and found those facts which at least cast a doubt. The fact that you are not taking those facts seriously and are using words like "invented" and "OR" in respect of cited sources places your edits and position as clear POV in respect of a political position and justify some of the counter arguments that have been made in that respect. Not helpful and it places you in the "British Isles" at all costs camp which is as bad as the "British Isles nowhere and over my dead patriotic body" group. --Snowded TALK 06:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you have bothered looking, otherwise? All my edits are an attempt to avoid political censorship, plain and simple. I don't give a toss about a nationalist agenda, from either side. ðarkuncoll 07:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Why this focus on what it was that prompted the check on the relative lengths of Shannon and Severn? I certainly see no evidence of a nationalist agenda in it. But the fact is that someone has taken the trouble to check, and has established that there is some doubt. Given which, I think Snowded's proposal (just mention Ireland in the lead, refer to Shannon vs. Severn and the British Isles later) is excellent. Furthermore, I don't think it needs to wait for any resolution of the wider British Isles terminology issue. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Snowded for pointing out how unimportant these supposed "longest" arguments are. Certainly my dictionary and encyclopedia both give 180m for the Severn and 161m for the Shannon tho I wouldn't defend those figures. The different figures in Wikipedia are due to long estuaries in both cases where it is entirely arbitrary where the cutoff point is. Just as with the BI case it seems the arguments are about what we remember we were taught at school, not about present day realities. It's certainly another nail in the coffin for BI. But it seems to me that "attempt[s] to avoid political censorship" are themselves political. Chris55 (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Its like we used to say back in the 70s. You can't separate religion and politics, because to do so is to make a political statement! Hopefully we can get to a position where we can agree the appropriate and inappropriate use of British Isles as a geographical term. For the moment I think the case either for Ireland where the facts show that it is without disputation the longest river or for the above variation (which I like but then I thought of it) is now fairly solid. Oh and to Tharkuncoll, yes you and others did prompt me to check the real facts, so thanks for that. --Snowded TALK 09:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Some issues: It appears to me that Tharky is more interested in getting "British Isles" into this article than improving the project. Would you agree with that assessment Thark? Like him I find nationalist pov distasteful when it is allowed distort Wiki articles, but Imperialist POV is 100,000 times worse, to use some typical British understatement (in the style it tends manifest itself these days). I'm still not convinced we have even clearly identified the source of the Shannon, so how can we be definitive about its length if we don't know where it starts? Sarah777 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the 'facts' are starting to support your Tharky hypothesis Sarah! The one clear thing is that the length is disputable. So in Wiki terms we would be wrong (a matter of fact) to list it as the largest river in the British Isles without a lot of qualification that is inappropriate for the lede. On the other hand it is indisputably the longest river in Ireland so that represents the correct wording for the lede. My thought in the above wording was that it would indicate the factual basis of differences between the Severn and the Shannon and would be appropriate given the number of web sites that make the BI claim. So use the body, keep the lede for the industable fact that the Shannon is the longest river in Ireland. Are you happy with that? If we could make that change then the article could be unlocked and the BI debate could move to the taskforce which is being set up. --Snowded TALK 11:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you know my own view is that some folk simply want the term British Isles inserted here under any guise, period. I'd like it omitted as unnecessary, pointy, provocative and contentious, offensive (to name just a few); but I will live with your formulation for now without accepting it as a precedence or a permanent solution and will promise not to revisit the issue until Christmas - so we can all move on and do something more useful (those us us that aren't 100% dedicated to these issues, that is!). Sarah777 (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - OK guys now come on! Can we agree to this?--Snowded TALK 11:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, could we adopt a policy that in future the term British Isles will appear as British Isles (Ugh! Barf). Then I'd be happy to insert it just about anywhere anyone wishes to put it? Sarah777 (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I will have to go and make a coffee and calm down, I wish more people edited with your sense of hunour, tears streaming from eyes! --Snowded TALK 11:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If the identity of the longest river in the BI is genuinely uncertain (and not just OR), then we need to say this in the article. There are certainly those who have always been taught that the Shannon is the longest, so we need to point out that there's actually some dispue about this, depending how they are measured. There - can't say fairer than that! You see, I really am just interested in the facts. ðarkuncoll 12:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop using the OR word - I introduced the data from two citations! --Snowded TALK 12:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The longest river in 'these islands' isn't in dispute! The article being referenced as saying there is a dispute doesn't - it gives an unequivocal total length for the Severn, shorter than the total length of the Shannon. There seems to be no debate about this except on WP:

• [6]
• [7] Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Bastun, you are totally avoiding the Shannon Pot issue. Sarah777 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am - suggestions that the Shannon is a pot user would be a breach of WP:BLP (Biographies of Long Potamics) ;-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps British Isles (along with Irish Sea), should be deleted from all articles? Mind you the articles British Isles and Irish Sea, must remain. PS- 'just kidding about removing the terms from Wikipedia'. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"The River Severn and River Shannon both lay claim to the status of longest river in the British Isles." Do they? I've never seen that anywhere. Surely this would be OR. CarterBar (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think rivers could talk; but if they did be assured the Shannon would never claim to be anything in the "British Isles". And that's the long and the short of it. Sarah777 (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not? The Shannon rises in British territory. It would surely have some allegiance. Anyway, I like the suggestion of taking out reference to BI from the lead, and then mentioning later on that it's the longest river in the BI when taking account of estuary length. This seems to be a possible way to make progress. CarterBar (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It is rather unclear from the article which territory it rises in. We seem to have two versions of that but nonetheless an agreed length, which puzzles me a bit. Sarah777 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of uncertainties about this river! I've just found this: "Traditionally the Shannon rises in the Shannon Pot, a round pond on the slopes of Cuilcagh Mountain in Co Cavan, from which a small trout stream emerges, but there is no visible water support entering the pool. In recent years, however, potholers have discovered what is thought to be the true source of the river much further uphill, where a small stream disappears into a sink-hole. This, in fact, is across the Border in Co Fermanagh. The whole upper part of Cuilcagh Mountain consists of a porous limestone and is full of sink-holes and risers. From the Shannon Pot, the river receives a number of tributaries, some of which are larger than itself, and emerges into the head of Lough Allen." From here. Apologies if this has alreeady been cited. CarterBar (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Batsun is also avoiding the question of inclusion or non inclusion of the Estuary. Carter Bars' variation on my original proposal is acceptable to me. The overall point remains if we ignore the political arguments that it is not factual to say the Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles, other than with the qualification of "Including the length of its estuary" and given that inclusion of tidal waters is controversial it is safer to say that it is the longest river in Ireland. NOW TO A CRITICAL TEST OF POV. Those who have been arguing that it should be in the latest relevant geographic unit (British Isles, but not Europe), have on their own argument to admit that the only uncontroversial fact on that argument is to use Ireland. Insistance of British Isles is I think now an example of stubbornness, or POV. --Snowded TALK 21:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's a dispute over whether or not it's the longest in the British Isles, this fact should also be included. Why on earth shouldn't it be? Why is this information not relevant for the reader? Perhaps, in advocating suppression of this knowledge, you've failed your own critical test of POV? ðarkuncoll 21:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the proposal - the suggestion is the use the unambiguous fact in the lede, and mention to BI longest question in the body of the text. So you might want to withdraw your suggestion that there was any attempt to suppress the knowledge when the opposite is the case. As I said your original alternation of this, when you knew it would provoke and you refusal to shift to the facts indicate to me a very clear POV position. --Snowded TALK 22:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Can you post links to your sources stating that it's not the longest in the BI? I've lost them in all the discussion. ðarkuncoll 22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

See section "Taking a different tack" above. Cites lengths of rivers and lengths of estuaries for both rivers from same source. --Snowded TALK 22:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And gives a "total length" for the Severn which includes its estuary. It also gives the same for the Shannon. Look at the google results above - even the one not seeking "Shannon" returns more results with Shannon as the longest river. Any suggestion that there is a dispute is, as far as I can tell, OR, because I'm not seeing any secondary source stating that there is a dispute. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Anybody plucky enough, to go to the 2 rivers & measure them? GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We then get into one of those interesting debates about what is OR or is not. So we have raw facts on lengths with or without estuaries (a fact) and with a bit of work I can find references to the length of a river not including its tidal reaches. Now but those facts together? Is it OR? I think not. However the real disappointment here (and to my mind proof of POV pushing) is the failure to realise the opportunity to move something forward. I repeat my position. The most logical geographical area is Ireland supported by citation, in addition (but not as a dependency) the question of the length is open to interpretation. The proposal above gives both sides some opportunity to move forward and interetingly has support from people who normally oppose any inclusion of BI. However those wanting BI continue to refuse to budge. Speaks for itself really. I am going to bed. --Snowded TALK 23:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Or, on the other hand, we have the fact that the Shannon is commonly counted as the longest river in the BI; indeed, we have citations from Ireland and abroad stating just that! We also have the Brittannica website stating that the "total length" of the Severn is 220 miles - Brittannica includes the estuary. And including the Shannon's means it is longer! As Ireland is included in the definition of the BI, and as its common practice to mention the largest common geographical area, then excluding mention here is POV-pushing, and censorship. However those wishing to exclude BI refuse to budge. Speaks for itself, really. And I too am going to bed. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but what happens when (if) they build the Severn Barrage? A lot more of the estuary will become almost fresh water and will have to be counted as river! Maybe another 20 miles. So we'd have to rethink:-) Chris55 (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, on WP, we report on it. And if the Severn can then be cited as the longest BI river, then we stop saying the Shannon is. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(indent) You know, in anthropological terms for one or two people, British Isles seems to have become a totem object imbued with significance beyond its normal measure, to be protected at all costs regardless of consequence. --Snowded TALK 03:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC) ...and, while on the anthropological the ritual gathering of rival tribes from time to time to engage in meaningless conflict using obscure language rites indicated by a preceeding WP. Now just which end of the egg should one open first? --Snowded TALK 04:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The "significance", as you call it, is a desire to report the uncensored truth. If you think this can take a back seat to other considerations - such as political correctness - when writing an encyclopedia then I truly despair. ðarkuncoll 08:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I should give up, Snowded. People who think names are facts can never be persuaded. Remember the White Knight? 'The name of the song is called "HADDOCKS' EYES."' 'Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?' Alice said, trying to feel interested. 'No, you don't understand,' the Knight said, looking a little vexed. 'That's what the name is CALLED. The name really IS "THE AGED AGED MAN."' 'Then I ought to have said "That's what the SONG is called"?' Alice corrected herself. 'No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The SONG is called "WAYS AND MEANS": but that's only what it's CALLED, you know!' 'Well, what IS the song, then?' said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered. 'I was coming to that,' the Knight said. 'The song really IS "A-SITTING ON A GATE": and the tune's my own invention.' Chris55 (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just decided that I don't like the word "orange". I think I'll call that colour smerge instead. And I'll get very angry if everyone else continues to call it "orange", and I'll shout and scweam and stomp my feet and call them oppressors. But the rest of the world will still go on calling it "orange". This is how names, or any words in a language, are facts - by usage. ðarkuncoll 13:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Its a fact that the Shannon is longest river in the Ireland, if you include the estuary then it is also the longest in the British Isles, If you include the length to the tidal zone then it is a fact that the Severn is the longest river in the British Isles. I do appreciate the above explanation of your approach to the use of names and facts. it now makes more sense to me although to be fair you have not called anyone an oppressor yet. --Snowded TALK 17:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because I'm probably classed as one of the oppressors myself, for insisting on using the recognised names for things. It is a fact that the Shannon is often classed as the longest river in the BI. Even if there's some genuine dispute about this, it should be mentioned and explained in the article. ðarkuncoll 18:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed it should be mentioned in the article. Please note the above proposal (supported by Sarah) to use Ireland in the lede (a fact) and British Isles in the body. All the right words used somewhere, no one oppressed. --Snowded TALK 18:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the word "oppressed" is beginning to be banded about, I think it appropriate to recall why the Irish started objecting to the use of the term, as I understand it (and I'm talking in general, not about specific persons). It arose after two state visits to Ireland - the first by Reagan, the second by Mikhail Gorbachev - both produced widely quoted remarks (the first by Nancy) assuming that since Ireland was in the British Isles it was governed by Britain or had the Queen as head of state. Now it's hard to imagine a more embarrassing high level gaff. It was only after these incidents that a movement was started to replace the term by "Britain and Ireland". I only mention this because it has not been referred to in all these discussions as far as I can discover, although I expect most people know it. Chris55 (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, I've been pretty free to concede that I find the term "British Isles" a political imposition; not a NPOV geographical term. Reading Bastun above it seems he is almost as anxious to have the term introduced into Irish articles, regardless of the appropriateness, as Thark etc. As someone said above some editors seem to have a lot of emotion invested in imposing this term on Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly though, the emotions come from both sides. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there are just two sides. Some of the use of the term seems to come from Scots who don't like being called British but seem to be happy to live in the British Isles. I'm referring to the many articles about the British Monarchy and Peerage system which now strangely have the term in their titles. Chris55 (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being blocked, I have to say you are being very general in your opinions of Scots. Jack forbes (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Jack, I don't think accusing someone of being "very general" will get you blocked even in the Wiki Police State with its random prowling Admins! Certainly not unless you're an Irish editor :) Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm only half Irish, so only half blocked? Jack forbes (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, my opinion is that as the Shannon is cited as the longest river in the British Isles, it should be included in this article. It should also be included in Lough Neagh, which it is. There are no other geographical features in Ireland that I'm aware of that would merit mention of it. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 01:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK Bastun, reasonable point. Somewhere in the vast discussion above you'll find I have already agreed to what I thought was a formulation that would please everyone and includes such a reference. I've become interested in the length issue in its own right - I never thought there was any ambiguity about it but it would appear there is. Sarah777 (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Then again, one can find citations that list the Shannon as longest using alternatives to BI too. As for 'no other geographical features in Ireland"--I believe the individual mountains of Ireland have BI in their infoboxes, giving their size ranking. The possibilities, you see, are endless. And just for the record BI was put on Lough Neagh about the same day as it was put on here and by the same person. Nuclare (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It is very clear that there is an ideological agenda to introduce the British Isles term, and a brief analysis of comments and statements by the editors involved demonstrates this. I think it is a "anti-ntionalist" position rather than a pro-unionist one (that assuming good faith) given the desire of others to remove it at all costs. What is clear is that attempts to take a reasoned position will generally fail. HOWEVER in this case the intransigence is all from two editors who are rejecting a sensible compromise. --Snowded TALK 07:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"It is very clear that there is an ideological agenda to introduce the British Isles term" Eh, no. I'm here to write an encyclopedia, under WP:5 and ancillary principles such as WP:CENSOR. Common practice is to refer to the largest geographical entity when comparing geographical features. See examples from other articles above. Is the Shannon in the British Isles - much as some people hate the term? Yes! Is it the longest river in that geographical area? Yes! Is this citable? Yes! Including Irish citations! Do I like the term? No! Will I try to edit out terms from WP because of my biases? No! Other editors have declared their biases on this page, and seem determined to impose them on the article (i.e., remove the term, or demote it from the lead to a section apparently challenging the fact that the Shannon is longer than the Severn) - yet somehow I'm being attacked, and they're not. My position is in no way "anti-nationalist", it is pro-WP. Simple as. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly Batsun I think you are summarising the truth as you see it --Snowded TALK 09:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And you're not? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Most certainly, the difference is I am proposing a compromise, supported by facts. I am also happy to acknowledge that no one can be neutral on this issue and that language has political and social significance - hence the need to seek compromise and acknowledge your own preference/bias rather than pretending (and possibly believing) that you are somehow being objective and neutral. I will resist the temptation to give a lecture in 101 linguistics here. --Snowded TALK 10:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Bastun, as it happens, there may be some of the Shannon in the British Isles, the bit between the unknown source and the Pot. But obviously, most of the River doesn't flow through anywhere British. Sarah777 (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And here we are back to PoV again... by the definition of the BI used by most of the world , the whole island of Ireland is in the BI. But that's apparently compromise from you and intransigence from me. *shrug* And of course you're right, most of the River doesn't flow through anywhere British - but then, noone is claiming otherwise. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No Bastun, it seems that yourself and some other folk pushing British pov insist the Shannon flows on a British isle - can't see how you can wriggle out of that, frankly. And don't claim the support of "most of the world" for such pov imposition. Sarah777 (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Becaue British Islands != British Isles. But then you know that. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

How about if referenced

The Shannon being the longest river in the British Isles can be verified with sources, and sources that should be acceptable to both sides.

Irish Government

• http://www.irlgov.ie/debates-00/s5dec/sect2.htm
• http://www.irlgov.ie/debates-00/s9feb/sect3.htm

Comment - nowhere in either of these refs does a member of the Irish Government even use the term. Sarah777 (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - first reference: "The Shannon is a majestic river. It is the longest and largest in the British Isles and, at a time when we are trying to increase tourism numbers, it has huge tourism potential." - Mr J. Cregan. Second reference -: "The Shannon is the largest river in the British Isles." - Mrs Jackman. Dunno if either Seantor was government or opposition at the time, and too tired now to check, but they were Senators of Seanad Éireann, speaking on the record of the house, and noone, government or opposition, challenged them on it. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr John Cregan, Fianna Fáil, which seemed to be the majority in the Seanad according to the Members_of_the_21st_Seanad at the time. Mrs Jackman, Fine Gael, second party. Canterbury Tail talk 01:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that neither were members of the Irish Government. Sarah777 (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of government, but they're still duly elected representatives of the people. Canterbury Tail talk 12:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tourism Ireland (the official Irish government tourism body)

• http://www.discoverireland.com/gb/about-ireland/nature/
• http://www.discoverireland.com/br/ireland-places-to-go/areas-and-cities/ireland-east/highlights/scenery/
• In fact, not just with the Shannon but the Tourism Ireland website and brochures make huge use of the term.

Irish Abroad (a very popular Irish expat website)

• http://www.irishabroad.com/Travel/ireland/shannon/

GoIreland (travel to Ireland site)

• http://www.goireland.com/longford/the-shannon-river-attraction-rivers-id13225.htm

Shannon Fishery Board (this one could be dubious though depending on interpretation)

• http://www.shannon-fishery-board.ie/FAW/faw06/quiz-beginners.htm

And loads of other smaller Ireland based tourism sites. However the sites above more than qualify it to pass Wikipedia's verifiability tests. Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - not at all, they are commercial sites aimed at a British market; if I find six sites that don't use the term, will that prove that term has only a niche application? Sarah777 (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's okay for the official Irish government to use it when they're aiming at a British market for tourism purposes? Isn't that trying to perpetuate it rather than get rid of it which some have said in the past seems to be government policy (despite the fact the government has seemingly said nothing other than it discourages its use)? Canterbury Tail talk 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ben, stop claiming Irish Government credentials for every Tom, Dick and Harry. The Tourist Board is a semi-state and does not represent Irish government policy on anything. Sarah777 (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its charged with implementing government policy on tourism. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

More like to increase tourist revenue - which is the Govt policy. What ads it uses or what it calls some place when persuing a certain market isn't a policy issue. The only Govt intervention I recall is some years back there was a row about the logo. Sarah777 (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Still a government mandated agency using a term which it is claimed isn't used and has no weight. Canterbury Tail talk 12:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

and if referenced

and there are sources for both sides. The first one I checked above didn't use British Isles either, it said Britain and Ireland. One google search produced the items below. This includes CRITICALLY one reference that says the Shannon is the second longest river. I am happy to agree that there are references to the fact that the Shannon is the longest river in the BI. The issue is which is the best term BI or Ireland? My view is that Ireland for the lede and a reference to BI in the text (with citations and a note of the debates on length) is therefore the most accurate. --Snowded TALK 11:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/538586/River-Shannon
• http://au.travel.yahoo.com/great-outdoors/ireland/shannon-river-ireland.html
• http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/ireland/shannon.html
• http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566701/ireland.html (references second largest in BI) (Comment No, it says longest in British Isles, not second largest!) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC) )
• http://www.iol.ie/wmeathtc/acl/shannon.htm (references longest in Ireland AND Britain)
• http://www.ywat.org/knowledgebase/riverbasins/eu-shannon.html
• http://www.planetware.com/ireland/shannon-river-shannon-irl-ro-shan.htm

The first link I posted above does include British Isles. Curiously all the references I placed above are from Ireland, not outside Ireland as all of the ones listed in this section (with the exception of the iol one). And since several are official Irish government sources are as non-biased as this discussion can get. Curiously your iol.ie site also states that it is the longest in the British Isles here, however I discounted that site as not being very official or a reliable source unlike the government ones. Canterbury Tail talk 12:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Irish Minister in the first citation says "The Shannon is the largest and longest river in Great Britain and Ireland" Other than that you have tourist sites and one source you admit is dubious. You are in any even missing the point. There are citations for both BI and Ireland. agreed, the issue is which to use, and how. See above proposal. --Snowded TALK 12:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see, the first minutes covers both sides with the statement "The Shannon is a majestic river. It is the longest and largest in the British Isles and,..." later on. Canterbury Tail talk 12:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't an Irish Minister who uses the term in either reference. Sarah777 (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, has anyone found an Irish govt source in the last, say, three years using BI? I get the sense it's been in the very recent years that BI-removal and avoidance has become more prominent. The sources given here, if I'm reading correctly, seem to be 1998 and 2000. I think the other one that's been produced in the past was 2002. The official tourism site seems to use both BI and alternatives. Here are some "Ireland or Britain"/"Britain or Ireland" pages:

• http://www.discoverireland.ie/tipperary/about/best-of-tipperary.aspx
• http://www.discoverireland.ie/shannon/where-to-go/places-to-see/shannon-callows.aspx
• http://www.tourismirelandinfo.com/mediaroom/home/copyright.html
• http://www.iwai.ie/maps/shannon/guide/1.php3 (Shell Guide to the Shannon)
• http://www.freeworldmaps.net/europe/ireland/map.html
• http://www.eurotravelling.net/ireland/shannon/shannon_history.htm
• http://www.killaloe.ie/khs/killaloe.htm

Nuclare (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the number of sites that obviously specifically avoid using or don't recognise the term, plus those who regard "British Isles" as referring only to the, well, the actual British Isles, this exchange of references is pointless. Proves only that some people use the term to include Ireland. We know that. Sarah777 (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.the-british-isles.com/

Only problem with the above site is that it's a load of rubbish. It an slipshod site if ever there was one. The authors don't even realise that Ireland is one of the British Isles. CarterBar (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This site; the first non-Wiki site thrown up by Google, actually gets it right. Sarah777 (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Howabout we do what was done at Lough Neagh months ago. Pipe-link Britain and Ireland to British Isles for Ireland island articles concerning geography. Just use [British Isles|Britain and Ireland]. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

it currently reads British Isles not Britain and Ireland, may be you should change it? --Snowded TALK 14:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, maybe you should just leave it alone. CarterBar (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it already, with the knowledge that it won't last long. PS- That was a quick response, CarterBar. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So you've already changed it. That didn't take much persuading. I've reverted it in the interests of this issue not being spread unnecessarily to other articles. CarterBar (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My god he did! I was being ironic .... --Snowded TALK 15:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, Carter, this issue had already spread to Lough Neagh. There was a low-level edit war going on. And edit wars had been there in the past. If you consider one week stable, fine, but it had been stable without BI for months. Nuclare (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very impressionable about this BI topic, due to the fact I appreciate both extremist sides views. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So finally are we going for the idea that seems to be emerging; take out ref to BI in the first paragraph and reference the so-called dispute about lengths of rivers within the BI later on. It's not ideal (I don't believe there is a dispute) but it might just keep eveyone happy. CarterBar (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, let's put some extended information in about the source. CarterBar (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever gets the traffic going. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've supported it as a compromise throughout (interestingly on the controversy side, Encarta lists the Severn as the longest and the Shannon as the second longest) --Snowded TALK 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Good old Bill Gates! So, can we move on this - another poll perchance? Not binding of course, but to test current opinion in a more organised way? CarterBar (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Go for it mate, then maybe we can unblock and open up a moderated discussion on the BI useage in general --Snowded TALK 15:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The first list of links above has a note next to the Encarta link saying "(references second largest in BI)". In actual fact, what it actually says is "The principal rivers of Ireland are the Erne and the Shannon, the longest river in the British Isles." Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Batsun is right on the Encarta reference, apologies for that I was scanning too many web sites too quickly and went from Ireland (second largest Island) to Shannon then read British Isles for Britain on the Severn page. Will go and make another pot of coffee, too many time zones in too few days. Other points stand however. --Snowded TALK 17:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

New poll

Essentially a repeat of Snowded's poll above - I also suggest ... longest river in Ireland in the lede and then the following later in the article: The River Severn and River Shannon both lay claim to the status of longest river in the British Isles. That would then have a referece to the data above. It uses a secondary claim rather than including British Isles in the primary statement and can reference claims on the Irish Tourist Board sites. Same sentence to go in the body of the article on the River Severn.

• Support CarterBar (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, makes sense as there's conflicting citations on the subject. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Snowded TALK 15:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support (per suitable refs): Assuming it is seriously disputed in this manner (I haven't fully followed all of the above - but it seems to be), it can't be stated as fact in the first line anyway. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - The River Severn cannot lay claim to longest river in the British Isles as the Shannon is longer. We're not here to redefine the term British Isles in what way we see fit, but to debate on its inclusion. Canterbury Tail talk 16:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Canterbury Tail. There is no dispute that the Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles - this straw man now seems to have lead to misinformation being introduced into the debate by Snowded. Encarta does not claim that the Shannon is the second longest river! What it actually says is "The principal rivers of Ireland are the Erne and the Shannon, the longest river in the British Isles." Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming (as I have been) that there are sufficient verifiable references saying that the River Severn is the longest river in the BI (or even that is disputed), I don't see too much wrong with the proposal. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict3)Regarding Bastun's remarks, the Encarta article commences thus: "Ireland (Irish Éire), country in northwestern Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland, the second largest of the British Isles.". Now I think I might hop over to Ireland and state this, but then again ..." CarterBar (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't assume, go check - so far one of the sites purportedly saying that the Shannon is second longest actually says its the longest. The first such site introduced by Snowded also states a total length for the Severn that is shorter than the Shannon. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose (2 edit conflicts) I have yet to see a reference where the Severn claims to be the longest river in the British Isles. Until I see one, this should be opposed as WP:OR, and without realising it perhaps, youse are all just making stuff up! Forget assuming there's a reference. I have yet to see one. --HighKing (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed to support (per suitable refs). --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Please supply those reliable refs? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I supported to soon - but I've added my proviso now. Lets see what people come up with. I've already polled my suggestions above (that assumed there was no fact-dispute). --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain the Severn is the longest river in the British Isles and that the Shannon is the longest river in Ireland and is longer than the Severn. Sarah777 (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But that is based on the seemingly minority opinion that the British Isles doesn't not include Ireland. Majority usage of it and historical indicates otherwise. I realise some people don't like the term, but this is an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As it is an encyclopedia it is important we don't impose political terms supported by the most numerous nationality. We are supposed to be NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Or is the real Wiki-policy WP:MPOV, where M = majority in a particular linguistic ghetto? Sarah777 (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like this poll has been stalemated. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure how this poll differs from the previous one - so I didn't actually vote this time! Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, what's next on the BI agenda. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well how about some elementary checks to see whether these claims make sense. e.g. what makes the Shannon the winner is the length of the estuary. But if you measure 70 miles on the map from Limerick you find that you get to a point halfway between Kerry Head and Loop Head - the extremities of the land. That is clearly being very generous. If we applied the principle to the Severn you could choose the mid-point of St. Anns Head and Lands End, in which case the length of the estuary would be about 160m.

So let's be a bit more reasonable. On my map, the mouth of the Shannon is marked just outside Kilcredaun Point (near Carrigaholt) which gives a length of about 56m. On my English map, the Severn Estuary is clearly marked out to the mud bank of Flat Holm - roughly between Levernock Pt (near Penarth) and Weston-super-Mare. On this basis the estuary is about 60m. Hence Shannon=217m and Severn=240m. (I can give references.) Chris55 (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

One final point. The source of the Thames is taken by many people [8] as the beginning of the Churn, just south of Cheltenham, which adds a further 14m to the length. If we take the limit of the Thames as the line between Sheerness and Shoeburyness (5 miles before the end of the Port of London authority) we then get a total length of 224m. So there's another longer river. Chris55 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable Chris. You'd have to wonder how such Irish boosterism became mistaken for common knowledge for so long ('scuse pun). Perhaps another example of the "British Isles" syndrome. Sarah777 (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

We have many Irish and international reliable sources saying the Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles. Taking out our maps and picking arbitrary points to measure from is WP:OR. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the Inquisition reckoned stating the Earth was Flat was WP:OR. Mind you, I don't know how you figure any reference stating the Shannon is in British territory is reliable! More Shannon potiness? Sarah777 (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

How about something like this? (later in the article): The Shannon has been described as the longest river in the surrounding British Isles. While the "longest" status is undisputed for Ireland, rivers in Britain like the Severn and the Thames could be seen as longer, depending on how they are measured. If that is a fact, it would be churlish (IMO) to call it 'Original Research', or to demand a specific quote.

If we went for the non-debatable option, saying "Republic of Ireland" would make it a lot easier (eg something like in the first line "..in both the Republic of Ireland and the surrounding British Isles). No one can misunderstand it - which is essentially the fear underneath all this.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Again we seem to be making up things and imposing our opinions on this rather than taking a verifiable world view. The Thames isn't accepted to be the longest in the UK, the Severn is. If we start measuring then that's OR, not Verifiability and published. Canterbury Tail talk 01:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Again you are being decidedly unhelpful! Mentioning the Thames is no stipulation - it can easily be left out. I resent being told I am "making things up" and "imposing opinions", when I am suggesting possible solutions. Do you have nothing positive to say on my suggestion? --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion above sounds good to me Matt. Some folk seem to think that "verifiability" is something God handed to Moses along with the 10 commandments. It is at least as arguable as the length of the Shannon, IMHO. Disregard the Irish chauvinists hereon. Sarah777 (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should start whichever one you favour as a poll? Or something along the same lines. Don't be bothered about too many polls. I need to go to bed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said the Thames was the longest river in Britain. The Churn/Thames could be longer than the Shannon, not the Severn. Chris55 (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I'm about it, we should speak up for the north of England. The Trent is 185m up to Trent Falls, but surely we should count the Humber which adds another 38 miles with a well-defined exit at Spurn Head. So that gives us 223m. In addition, I'm pretty sure the combined drainage area of the Humber tributaries is larger than that of the Shannon, but I haven't worked that out. As with roads, they have a habit of changing the names of rivers in mid-stream up in the north (viz the Yorkshire Ouse). Chris55 (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) (Reply to Sarah777) Sarah, I've never once said the Shannon is in British Territory. Once again - British Isles != British Islands. There is a difference; a pretty vital one. The fact that you seem to be refusing to recognise the definition of British Isles used on WP should not effect this debate. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Heck Bastun, I'm just using English a two-year-old would understand; British (possessive adjective) Isles/Islands/the Island of Ireland (subject of the possession) - what could be clearer? Sarah777 (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So by that logic Ireland lays claim to the Irish Sea then? Well we'd better stop using such an old geographic name for which continued use obviously means that Ireland is trying to claim ownership of the entire sea. Canterbury Tail talk 13:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you could certainly look at it that way, though a sea is obviously not the same as an inhabited place, as I keep repeating whenever this red herring is fished up. But the term was coined by the British so they must be happy with it I guess and I'm not aware of any strong feelings in Britain about its political or cultural implications. By all means change the name if you wish though. Also note that all the other places you mentioned oceans - spot the trend??! Sarah777 (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, it has come to our attention that you may have added whiskey to your coffee. That makes it ours. Please return it immediately. Yours, the Irish government. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Still, the Irish government must own a helluva lot of pubs in the US. Canterbury Tail talk 14:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I suddenly understand why the Irish are credited with such a good sense of humour - it's because of all the Irish jokes! ðarkuncoll 15:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ownership or not, people clearly call their pubs "Irish pubs" because they are trying to associate them with Irishness and as being Irish. They either think the pubs are Irish or want people to think of them as being Irish. Not Irish government owed, mind you, but, perhaps, owned or operated by Irish people. If you want to keep your analogy up, then British Isles must be meant to associate all its islands (including Ireland) with being British. Is that how you see it, Ben? Nuclare (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually no you seem to be missing the point, we were going against that analogy, not for it. Most Irish pubs have nothing to do with Ireland (and I've been in many where mine is the only actual Irish accent in there, and the rest are really awful fakes that only the Americans can manage.) The point was the Irish Sea doesn't imply ownership of the sea by Ireland, just like the British Isles doesn't imply ownership of the area. Similar to Sea of Japan, Indian Ocean, English Channel, Formosa Strait, East China Sea, South China Sea, Mozambique Channel, Norwegian Sea, Gulf of Alaska, Gulf of California, Gulf of Thailand and many other geographicl examples none of which are implying ownership by the country/nation/state mentioned but are just geographic names. Canterbury Tail talk 11:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand precisely your point. You aren't understanding mine. The authenticity of Irish pubs isn't the point. It's about names and naming. No one names their pub an "Irish pub" and then expects others to understand that it isn't being called Irish. YOU may be able to tell that it isn't authentic, by your standards, but the purpose of the name is to imply Irishness. As has been said 14,000 times in these debates, bodies of water are not good analogies. No one lives in them. No one's identity is determined by the body of water they live next to. I agree with you on the ownership issue, but ownership isn't really the point. Nuclare (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

When most two-year-olds make mistakes that are pointed out to them, they don't deliberately keep making the mistake. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious, Bastun, as to why you personally don't like the term (you stated that above) and prefer alternatives (you stated that on "BI")? I realize personal opinion isn't what Wiki is about, but I'm just curious. I agree that ownership isn't the issue, but ownership doesn't have to be the issue for there to be objections to labeling Ireland geographically with 'British.' Nuclare (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Irish Sea is a red herring. Nobody lives in it. And Bastun, your logic chip continues to misfunction! If something is done deliberately, it isn't a mistake. More basic English. Remember, some folk are still illiterate at 40, and some can read at 18 months. The phrase "deliberate mistake" is an oxymoron.Sarah777 (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Question to Bastun

A nights sleep and a pot of coffee later. Bastun, can you point me to the Wikipedia policy which says we have to reference the largest geographical unit? --Snowded TALK 05:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was a policy, merely common practice. See debate earlier on page, including examples. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK that makes it clear, so it is not a requirement to use a "higher level" geographical term, the question is which is the most appropriate. Thanks. --Snowded TALK 09:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Now Let's Make Sure E V E R Y T H I N G "Flows" nice!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames

Come on, you can't start editing other pages which have sensible bounded statements to make a point here. --Snowded TALK 08:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agreed! But that wasn't me, it was an American anon IP.[9] Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool gizmo Bastun - it sez I'm located in Dublin! Sarah777 (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

But if someone added a reference to [The Thames] claim to be the most voluminous in the British Isles then by the reasoning Bastun/Tharky apply here it have to remain in place? Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It is cool - I got it from one of the links on the template when you click on an anon IP's "username". I don't know "voluminous" means in relation to rivers - total volume? No idea how that could be measured. But if something is reliably sourced, without reliably sourced counter-claims, then yes, it would remain. "Verifiability, not truth", and all that. But noone has supplied a RS saying the Severn is longer than the Shannon. "Homemade" websites like www.the-british-isles.com don't count. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be the flow, measured in litres per time period. Like X billion litres per annum. The River Amazon is the most voluminous in the Portuguese Empire. And also in the world. Its average discharge is 219,000m³/s - I'm not sure what that is in l/annum. Sarah777 (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

6,906,384,000,000,000?. Lucian Sunday (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't argue with that Lucian. Sarah777 (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Portugese Empire? Has anyone told Brazil? That's a lot of raw material for Guinness - has anyone told Diageo? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Howabout we settle on the Shannon being longer then the Severn. Truly, this lengthy argument (which branched off of the BI dispute, but in connection with it) has become LAME. Let's get back to the main topic (BI usage). GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's lame alright. It's going nowhere, and that will never change. Why don't we all just move on to another subject? CarterBar (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

River Thames

My my my my my, how QUICKLY the Thames update became unacceptable to some.... If the Shannon is part of BI, BI entities should be updated to include Ireland......... This is what it is. Pure and unabashed hypocrisy.

Well your edits to the River Thames were pure and unabashed stupidity. CarterBar (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Talk sense to a fool and he calls YOU foolish." Watch your tone cowboy.Keynote1 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are being consistent here folks. If we must mention that the Shannon is longer than the Thames/Severn (allegedly) in the Shannon article it seems we should mention that the Severn and Thames are shorter than the Shannon in their articles. I think the IP above makes a very important point. Interesting how this became "lame" once possible implications for some British rivers start to loom into view. Sarah777 (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting? How you mean? GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I tried to add something very similar to the Severn article (i.e. that it was the second longest in the BI), but it was removed. As for the Thames, yes indeed - it stinks like an open sewer anyway in London so I don't care what people do with it. ðarkuncoll 14:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit

As the protecting admin, I have stayed out of the debates on this page, though I have been following them. Another editor has proposed replacing the entire River Shannon#Geography section text with By tradition the Shannon is said to rise in the Shannon Pot, a small pool on the slopes of Cuilcagh Mountain in Co Cavan, from where the young river appears as a small trout stream. However, there is no visible replenishment of the pool. In recent years, potholers have discovered what is now thought to be the actual source of the river further uphill, where a small stream disappears into a sink-hole. This point is in Co Fermanagh, Northern Ireland. The upper part of Cuilcagh Mountain consists of porous limestone rock containing sink-holes and risers. From the Shannon Pot, the river subsumes a number of tributaries, some of which are longer than itself, before replenishing Lough Allen at its head. Reference -The Shannon Guide

The Shannon runs through or between 13 of Ireland's counties. Lakes on the Shannon include Lough Allen, Lough Ree and Lough Derg. Tributaries include the rivers Inny, Suck and Brosna.

I am not sure about "the river subsumes a number of tributaries, some of which are longer than itself", which seems contradictory. Any other thoughts? --John (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"longer" should read "larger", meaning having greater flow. CarterBar (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added to Shannon Pot#Hydrology; there have been proper studies of the area hydrology and I do not think the above is actually correct. Lucian Sunday (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A brief reading of your reference indicates that the above proposed edit is correct. I'll check it in more detail. CarterBar (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Reads very well John; avoids the "longest" argument and with the suggestion that the Shannon may actually rise in the UK it would make a secondary reference (as in Snowded's suggestion) more palatable to those who find referring to the RoI as "British" (in any sense) offensive. You are heading for a solution acceptable to reasonable editors. Sarah777 (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Technical point: it is possible (and common) for a tributary to be longer than the main channel, or so it seems from various rivers I recall seeing on maps of Africa and S America - maybe a volume issue or maybe that the length of the relative branches were unknown when they were first mapped and named. Are there any riverine specialists out there who could reference some definitions? If the water feeding the Pot isn't called "The Shannon" do they form part of it? Is there some hydrological complexity at the head of the Severn or Thames we need to know about? Maybe we should add the distance (multiplied by say, 1.5 to allow for meander) from the catchment boundary to the traditional source to the traditional length. Who would have ever imagined riverology could be so complicated? Sarah777 (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

More problems - see List of rivers by length:

The length of a river is actually very hard to calculate. It depends on the identification of the source, the identification of the mouth, and the precise measurement of the river length between source and mouth. As a result, the length measurements of many rivers are only approximations. In particular, there has for long been disagreement as to whether the Amazon or the Nile is the world's longest river. But such uncertainty provides an opportunity to solve the BI problem I think. Sarah777 (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to find something definitive on how you measure the length for a week now and the best I can get is "mouth" which is ambiguous. I think the uncertainty does provide a solution here which is to use the unambiguous geographical term Ireland, with the secondary text. I remain surprised that this is being rejected, especially for a term British Isles which is historical in nature while still in use. World wide I think it is pretty clear that people would find Ireland easier to understand. Having said that we have the same debates going on all over the place with the same editors. The latest I found is New Zealand European where "British and Irish" was at one point replaced with "British" on the grounds "All Irish were British in the 19th century - there is no need to single them out". I'd be interested to see the editor maintain that in some of the pubs in Auckland and its not accurate anyway! --Snowded TALK 06:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem in Britain at least is that the measures are very often based on custom rather than any geographical definition. For instance the Thames is measured out to the line between Havengore Creek and Warden Point because this was the limit of the Port of London (until 1964). The Severn is measured to the Avon estuary simply because Bristol took over administration at this point. Similarly, the Churn has always had a different name locally to the Thames. In lists of longest rivers you will see different positions taken on tributaries - see the discussion of Mississippi-Missouri-Jefferson in List of rivers by length, which attempts a compromise that some would disagree with. I'm happy with the proposed changes to the Geography section but I thought that most disagreement was in the main section so I'd like to see John's suggestions for that. Chris55 (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Obviously it makes little sense to have comparative lists where River A is defined by Local Authority boundaries and River B is a geographical entity. It's like including some oranges in a list of the world's juiciest apples! Sarah777 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Its the point several of us have been making about context. There are citations for the Shannon being the longest river in Ireland and in the British Isles. However it is without any shadow of doubt the longest river in Ireland (but not necessarily the British Isles) so that is the appropriate label. Its also more likely to be understood overseas without having to give a history lesson. On the other other the largest lake in the British Isles, is in Northern Ireland and is indisputably the largest so there I think I would favour "British Isles, and in the the island of Ireland". --Snowded TALK 18:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Pot holes

Article in the Irish Times today tells us that some Polish potholer has discovered the deepest hole in "Ireland or Britain" in County Clare. Even the "paper of record" is getting it right these days! Sarah777 (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the paper of record is indeed being balanced, evidently swapping between the terms. ;-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read those links Bastun?! The term is always either a quote, often qualified, is about the dodgy nature of the term or is an unedited recycling of such as the PA. No instance of the IT using the term itself as if it is a simple geographical description. (I've only checked the first page - it was enough to confirm that the IT, unlike yourself, doesn't regard the term as suitable for polite use in Ireland). And I think "letters to the editor" don't count as an indication of the IT attitude! Taking your entire first page of references:

• Ms Abbott, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme....this is a matter decided by the British Parliament. I think it is not unreasonable that the British Parliament should say that all citizens in the British Isles should have the same rights. - and this a quote from the PA. Clearly demonstrates that BI is very much a British term I'd say.
• The Irish enthusiastically supported the European project because it offered the opportunity to escape our previous humiliating status as a semi-independent part of the British Isles. - from a letter to the editor.
• Bernard Darwin's 'Golf Courses of the British Isles (1910)' could go for up to €1,000. - indeed.
• Irish people, partly through mythology and nationalism, see Irish music as uniquely, anciently Irish, which of course it is, but Ireland is part of the British Isles.... says Hall. Hall, we are told was born in Kent in 1935, his only Irish connection a great-grandmother who came to Marylebone after the Famine to work as a dairy maid.
• Cricket : Ireland will play a one-day international against Australia when the world champions embark on a tour of British Isles and Ireland over the next two years. - showing the importance of reading links before posting them!!
• Sales director Simon Hunter said the competition from overseas had made it increasingly difficult to manufacture in Northern Ireland. He said the Derry factory remained the largest of its type in the British Isles...... - Derry is in Britain legally, ain't it?
• "IN ANY PLAY" wrote Stewart Parker, "ancestral voices prophesy and bicker, and the ghosts of your own time and birthplace wrestle and dance". The "ancestral wraiths at my elbow", he continued, included "the usual Belfast motley crew" who had bequeathed to him "two islands (the 'British Isles'), two Irelands, two Ulsters, two men fighting over a field". - love the brackets and 'quotes' around the offensive term; like a decontamination chamber!
• UK: About 100 people have claimed they were abused at Haut de la Garenne since the 1960s, prompting one of biggest such investigations ever seen in the British Isles. - article from and about the UK. (The next reference is from the same item).
• The failure of Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern to condemn China's aggression in Tibet is disgraceful. Mr Ahern is quoted as saying that John Gormley's reference to Tibet as a country was a "slip of the tongue". I find this as insulting as referring to Ireland as part of the "British Isles". - from a letter to the editor.

Now, I've gone through the entire first page of the references in that link Bastun. If this were a football match the current score would be 10 - 0; to me:) Sarah777 (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

At least two goals diallowed, though - don't see why the second one is being discounted, and last time I checked, Derry was very much on the island of Ireland, while being part of the United Kingdom - Britain is this whole other island, somewhat to the east of us. Way too drunk to debate any of the others apart from the really obvious. goodnight and good luck ;-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Although it isn't in quotation marks, in the Derry one, it sounds like they are repeating the words of an individual. Btw, if you follow the Britain link that you provided, you will notice that it most certainly does not define Britain as just "this whole other island." So either you are wrong or Wiki is wrong. Much as it doesn't tend to be the 'Irish' way of using the term, the word Britain is certainly used to mean things other than Ireland's neighboring island. Nuclare (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Granted, I've been known to be wrong on many occasions. But then that article does also point out that it may refer to "the British Islands (the UK and the Crown Dependencies). This is not the same as the British Isles.", so Sarah's been wrong, too. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 07:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK - I'll go for 9 - 0 with one disallowed :) Are you saying you were "posting under the influence"?? Tut Tut young man. Sarah777 (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

As soon as a certain editor noticed the page protection is lifted, she's started removing referenced material without consensus to do so - the discussion above seems to have petered out without resolution. Sarah, please stop and discuss here. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And Sarah, for your info, reverting vandalism (as in, removal of referenced material because of a PoV clearly indicated in the edit summary) by anon IPs does not count as a revert under WP:3RR. You, however, are now on three reverts. Consider this your warning.

John, if you're about, I'd recommend re-protecting. (And no, I don't care which version gets protected). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't "notice the protection was lifted" until I spotted you edit-warring with an IP (who was not, as John reminded me recently in a different case, "vandalising" anything). Sarah777 (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And John, if you do re-protect I'd find it incredible were you to wait until someone restores the disputed version to do so. Twice would be hard to put down to mere chance. Sarah777 (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I really doubt John sits there refreshing his watchlist 24/7. But whereas I can say protect whatever version you find when you get here, with you its obviously a pro-British agenda if the version you don't like gets protected. That and similar comments from you on my talk page today are something you actually agreed to stop making after your last block. Please stop. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agreed no such thing. And to repeat: if I had clearly and blatantly breached 3RR some Admin would have blocked me within 10 minutes. Sarah777 (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We need you both at the Taskforce (concerning British Isles uage); not here, locking horns. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I've semi-protected the article as an anon IP address, previously blocked for being unduly inflammatory, seems to have tried to begin an edit-war by remoaving text and using an inflammatory edit-summary in so doing.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even a controversy?

The river is in Ireland. There is strong objection to the term "British Isles" in Ireland. The local usage should take precedent.

The Mississippi River is in the United States, therefore it is titled "Mississippi River", in accordance with American usage, and not the British usage, which would be "the River Mississippi".

If you want to call London the biggest city in the British Isles, by all means, be my guest. One should not, however, force this term into articles on Irish topics. Without irony, I suggest that to do so would be nothing short of semantic imperialism. Windyjarhead (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look through the history of this. I actually agree that this one should be Ireland not British Isles, but there is no consensus for that. There is also a task force on the use of British Isles on pages such as this. I'm not optimistic on that, but hopefully it will produce something which will gain consensus. In the meantime there is no agreement to either Ireland or British Isles, arguments have been made for both. Under those circumstances the article should not be changed. --Snowded TALK 00:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I see you have reverted to Ireland only. OK that was the position before Tharky inserted British Isles (you might want to look at the latest on that article by the way) so I can see the argument and its the position I support. However I don't think its helpful to assert one or other option until there is some form of agreement I don't have the energy to change it back however. --Snowded TALK 01:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

An Irishman does not need "consensus" from a British person regarding the names of Irish places. You are all a bit (wilfully) slow on the issue of curtailing your traditional claims to lands and peoples beyond Britain. Those days are gone. 86.42.109.173 (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've protected this again. This time the protection is indefinite. Sort this out here and I will unprotect. --John (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the debates on other pages about the term "British Isles." The facts break down thusly:

-The term "British Isles" exists, and has existed in the English language for a very long time.

-The term is generally understood to include Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and many minor islands closely associated with these larger islands.

-The Irish generally resent having the word "British" used in any way to describe Ireland.

This is simplifying, of course, but those are the basics. That being said, I have a hard time seeing why some editors insist on inserting this term into this article. The river exist solely within the topography of the island of Ireland. The fact that an adjacent, but geographically distinct neighboring island does not contain a longer river is a bit of trivia that is about as useless as they come.

Shoud wikipedia also mentioned that Queen Elizabeth II is the oldest female head of state in the British Isles? (President McAleese is younger.)

The point is that the assertion that the River Shannon is the "longest river in the British Isles" may very well be true; but it is also irrelevant, not mention offensive.

Given the choice between (a)including a mariginally (at best) useful fact about this river, while offending the inhabitants of the island the river exists on and (b) excluding this fact, leaving an entirely accurate and benign article about a river, devoid of politics, the choice is clear.Windyjarhead (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You have missed out an important factor in your list:

- 'British Isles' is also a term used in various sciences such as geography, geology, archaeology and natural history.

So it's not just an "old term" - it's an in-use 'technical' term too. A guideline is currently being proposed at WP:BRITISHISLES, which for a 'Republic of Ireland-heavy' case in terms of weight like this one, a choice of solutions is recommended (including wording solutions, and using the UK). According to the current proposal: as a river is a geographical feature, it cannot be argued that it is the "wrong term". There are other arguments not to use it however, and the guideline suggests that other editor's concerns must be respected in the case of ROI. It must be framed in terms of other Wikipedia editors - a significant contemporary dissent on a wider level has not been conclusively proved at all. Wikipedia does have a number of editors who object to the term though. In the case of this article, Wikipedia also has a number of editors who wish to see it included in the introduction.

In the case of River Shannon, If anyone really doesn't like it, I would personally move it down the sections - as it seems like it's not a totally 'clear cut' matter here anyway, and that could be explained.

Incidentally, the guideline as it stands would suggest not using your 'Queen Elizabeth' example for 3 different reasons: the term 'British Isles' is (presumably) not a notable factor in the matter in itself, it is only a two-person comparison, and it's not a 'technical' use of the word. You would simply compare the two people in this case. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Windyjarhead - to whom is the term offensive? A number of WP editors, a couple of anon IPs, and an unknown number of people living on the island of Ireland. There is another unknown number of people on the island who either like and use the term, or who may not like it but don't really see a problem with its use. The perfect example of this is in the first two references on the page, where Irish websites refer to the Shannon as being the longest in the British Isles. So an argument that it cannot or should not be used lest it offend us Irish is false (and is a hell of a premise to build an encyclopedia on, anyway). Sorry to Sarah reverted while this whole issue was under discussion at the new project page - but at least there'll be no complaints from that quarter that the wrong version got protected :-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The version that is consistent with common usage amongst the vast majority of the non-British population on the island got protected. I will not, as you correctly surmise, be complaining about that happy circumstance. I note your preference for describing our country as "British" Bastun; thankfully it is a view of a tiny minority of Irish people. Sarah777 (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And I note your obtuseness in refusing to accept that there is a difference between the terms British Isles and British Islands - or at the very least, refusing to accept that even though you might insist on the two being interchangeable, you're in a tiny minority and know very well that I don't for one minute accept that they're the same. You know damn well I don't think our country is British. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a great believer in the "duck test" Bastun. In relation to what am I in a tiny minority? Sarah777 (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You know I have been meaning to ask this for some time, but WHY are people so insistent on using British Isles? OK its a valid geographical term (and I have defended it as such), but then so is Ireland so we have citations for both. There is no wikipedia rule requiring something to be referenced against the largest geographical area. I am pretty sure that asked "Where is the River Shannon" most people would reply Ireland. I am also sure that a reasonable percentage if told the River Shannon was in the British Isles, would think it was somewhere in the UK. It's getting very difficult to believe that there is not a political (or possibly an anti-political) agenda here. --Snowded TALK 23:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol!! You've now reached the same conclusion I did two years ago!! Sarah777 (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying not to, but its become increasingly difficult. --Snowded TALK 23:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL! This is all game playing. Snowded - you keep asking that question as if it's the first time - and I've told you a few times the history of this, starting with Bardcom's BI-removal rampage and ending up with Tharkuncoll's anarchic ego. Where was the BI-insertion before Tharkuncoll at River Shannon? Tell me - where? Why all these games? Can't you just get back to the guideline and behave like an honest editor, and just help fashion a reasonable non-censorous guideline --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt please abide by WP:NPA. You are driving the guideline and you have not welcomed disagreement. Just look at the language you are using here. I suggest (but I don't expect) an apology for suggesting dishonesty. --Snowded TALK 01:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The "unwelcomed disagreement" was only with one unbending, censorious position that is fracturing the guideline structurally and will hold things back. It wasn't so much the disagreement that was unwelcome, it was the repeating nature of it, and what it was doing to an already long page - so it got taken elsewhere. I've added and supported plenty of people's suggestions to the guideline, and the guidelines within it could hardly be more flexible as it stands. It's the actual flexibility that is the problem though - some people want it, some people don't. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Your view Matt and you didn't get much support. As I have said, rather than continue the conflict I've left the ownership to you to see what you come up with. I note the absence of an apology and the fact that you can't see that your own position was and is unbending. Its a pity really, all that energy and lots of good editing work, but lots of NPA and ownership issues when you edit. --Snowded TALK 01:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The old plumb with stone approach I see. I don't use any sly methods to undermine people I'll tell you that - I am honest and upfront about how I feel about things. I didn't expect any passing vocal support in that MEDCAB between you and I, and your actual arguments had nothing added to them by the few others who came in. And where were all the other side of the 'argument' at the time? Where they are now in fact - off in disgust! We should all be embarrassed about that - and if anyone thinks it 'clears a way', they are wrong. And you are completely kidding yourself if you think the MEDCAB reflected well enough on you for you to link to it! Not everyone only headcounts in this place.

A fair guideline will go through despite all your attempts to prejudice the proceedings, I promise you. As for ownership issues - If I wasn't determined to keep the guideline open, uncensored and on-track, it would be made something so censorious (and lets be honest - anti-Britain) by you and Sarah, that it wouldn’t have a cat's chance in hell of becoming a Wikipedia guideline. Why would I want to waste my time? It's not a game to me, I assure you, and it's simple issues of fairness and openness that I am addressing for the benefit of Wikipedia - unlike you I am not actually promoting anything but those principles.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Matt please assume good faith, this "I am perfect, open and honest, everyone else playing games, promoting a point of view" line gets tedious. You even accused poor old DDstretch of nationalist conspiracies by email at one point. I was hoping for an open guideline based on geographical terms, you are taking a different line. It may work, I wish you well. However this idea that everyone on "the other side" has left in disgust is not supported by the evidence. You are the driver of the task force with comments from a few other editors. Lots of editors from both "sides" (your phrase by the way) and neutrals are not present. They are probably standing back to see what happens like I am. You don't leave much space for dissent you know. Now please try and stop throwing around insults, you are in clear breach of WP:NPA, but then that is your style and I'm happy to live with it. I just don't let it provoke me any more. --Snowded TALK 03:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

When have I said "everyone else is playing games"? You keep deflecting my comments by saying I am universally "like this to everybody" in some way: Can I say that that is getting just a little tedious to me? I must admit I have a particular distaste for extreme forms of anti-British nationalisism (pushing it on Wikiedia is extreme in my eyes), but it doesn't go beyond that - you really shouldn't be suggesting it does. Incorrectly defining my own comments as 'Personal Attacks' when you write lines like that one yourself is a bit rich to say the very least! You clearly haven't read WP:NPA - it's for real attacks - it does not just mean the opposite of AGF (!) - so you shouldn't be misleading people with it. Regarding DDStretch, I simply asked you both (in a joint question) if you had emailed each other before, after I noticed you reminding him that he had your email. Knowing both your backgrounds I was just a bit curious. "Poor old DDStretch" indeed! I think I said "Have you two emailed each other?" - I'm sure he managed to keep on his chair. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I just used your own words Matt, and the link is there for people who want to check for themselves on your other accusations. I look forward to the "real attack" when it comes if your language and accusations today are not one. I find your phrase "extreme forms of anti-British nationalism" curious to say the least but your language and approach is between you and your conscious. I have a book to write, and its late at night even in California which is my temporary abode until I return to the British Isles (oops) at the end of the week. Your words speak for themselves, barring some new calumny you should feel free to have the last word. --Snowded TALK 04:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Because its a valid geographical term in widespread use, just like Scandinavia, the Iberian Peninsula, the Indian subcontinent, and so on. WHY are people so insistent on removing it? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Scandanavia and Iberia don't imply ownership by any country. Indian sub-continent is not used in Pakistan because it is a politically loaded phrase. As is British Isles. We (most Irish folk) insist on removing it because Ireland isn't British, very simple really - have you not been told that a hundred times? And the duck thingy: your Trojan efforts to defend the description of Ireland as "British" are noted; again. Sarah777 (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

On the evidence of the last month or so more people are inserting it than removing it. When I gave the example of Snowdon is the highest mountain in Wales as a case where BI was not used, shortly thereafter the article was changed to reference BI, as have been many others. --Snowded TALK 00:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That came about after studying Sarah's example of Carauntoohill in the guideline! I've left that Irish mountain in peace, but as a Welshman I'm entitled to change my own. It had nothing to do with you! Did you notice how Carauntoohill was left unchanged? Have you actually read the latest guideline incarnation? --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am watching it Matt, it was not possible to collaborate at this stage given that you are (I think) confusing geography and politics and have determined a linguistic structure to which you will brook no opposition. However I bear your efforts good will; if you can come up with something that resolves the issues I will support it, and when proposals become tangible I will re-engage. I note the comments on Snowdon. (post edit conflict) I think its a pity by the way that you edited your original reasonable statement above to something far more aggressive, but that is the Matt we all know and love --Snowded TALK 01:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What did I change it to? I thought my change made it less direct! --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The numerical thing is explained by the fact that so many Irish editors have been blocked, banned or excluded from "British/Irish" articles that most of those remaining are afraid to get involved. Ask User:Vintagekits, for example, if he thinks Ireland is a British isle. He will not be permitted to reply. Bardcom/HighKong was blocked and threatened. Ditto Domer48. And so on. Sarah777 (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That is nonsense - the "Irish" cabal on Wikipedia (for want of a better word) has been astonishingly strong. You seem personally to have survived countless things. You simply cannot have it all your own way, all the time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to describe a group of productive editors as a "cabal"; I have been seriously warned by the Wiki Powers-that-be against using language like that to describe the British Nationalist cabal here. Consistency please. As for "getting everything I want all the time" - you joke? Ireland is still insultingly saddled with a description, "Republic of I"; the utterly offensive political phrase "British Isles" pollutes hundreds of Irish articles. But there are limits to what we will take and the constant banning and blocking of Irish editors reflects the increasing anger at the abandonment of any notion of "consensus" and the naked imposition of British POV through strength of numbers. It is YOU who need to familiarise yourself with the ideas of consensus, compromise and WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Productive? I'd love to see the combined "production" of all the editors involved! I bet most of the them are single-mindedly on their task in hand, and scarcely edit outside of it. People who break the rules generally get punished. This cabal simply gets away with a lot more than 'British editors'- not less. It's all-to-easy to denigrate the British on Wikipedia compared to nearly all other identities. Probably on Muslims are lower on the scale. If there has been a lot of blocks etc for the 'Irish cabal' - it simply shows how many times they have crossed the line! It doesn't equate to unfairness! --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's remain calm, folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, no people in the recorded history of humanity have claimed a right to rule over as many people as the British have claimed. That certain British people get offended when the natives shout "Stop!" to these fanatical (and claiming Crossmaglen, Galway, Mumbai and Lisdoonvarna as "British" truly is fanatical) claims to other peoples and other lands says far more about those British mentalities than anything else. Yours sincerely, an Irishman. 86.42.109.173 (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The embodiment of bigotry: to equate all the negative traits of an identity present and past - and to subsume it into the whole of the society. I call it "racism" (per 'common name', if I may). Yours sincerely, someone who was born, raised into, and is living a British identity. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't feed the anon-IP trolls. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:03, 17 August

Oh, the term "British Isles" is meant to be a positive British claim to Ireland and the Irish people in 2008 (or 1628)? How, well, how very British of you. I am afraid that I am "racist" against any people who claim ownership of Ireland and that my home is one of their "British Isles". 86.42.109.173 (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend folks, we iron out an agreement at the BI taskforce. An agreement which will settle things at this article. And if we can't? then adopt my deal. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

G'Day - I have outlined my objections to your "deal" previously. Its a bit like saying I'll stop trying to insert "UFOs are proven fact" into Wiki is you refrain from saying "the sun rises in the East". Sarah777 (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not perfect, but it's better then editors getting blocked & articles getting locked. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And how convenient for you to dismiss Irish objections to this politically-charged British nationalist term as "trolling". Once British massacres of the Irish people were dismissed on the grounds of Irish "barbarousness", and the British continued what they were doing. The terms and fora have changed, but the tactics are the same. 86.42.109.173 (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't really claim WP:NPOV

Productive? I'd love to see the combined "production" of all the editors involved! I bet most of the them are single-mindedly on their task in hand, and scarcely edit outside of it. People who break the rules generally get punished. This cabal simply gets away with a lot more than 'British editors'- not less. It's all-to-easy to denigrate the British on Wikipedia compared to nearly all other identities. Probably on Muslims are lower on the scale. If there has been a lot of blocks etc for the 'Irish cabal' - it simply shows how many times they have crossed the line! It doesn't equate to unfairness! --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I think you should recuse yourself from further involvement in this issue; obviously you cannot see your British POV is clouding your judgment. As I said - if I said things like that the blockers and banners would be piling in here. Sarah777 (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahem - then why quote it in full in its own shiny new paragraph? You get away with plenty, admit it! You say at very least as much as I did above all the time. No sob stories please. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I don't think you are neutral on this issue. Please realise that. Sarah777 (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not neutral, but I'm bang in the middle. Outside of a bias your own way, you simply won't get better than that. The guideline I can help you get is the simply the best you will be able to get. Otherwise it won't be an actual guideline, but a silly 'deal' or something. My kind of guideline will fairly cover your dispute as much as possible. You see, I recognise that it doesn't matter so much what people think in the 'wider world' - what editors on Wikipedia think is what really matters on Wikipedia: it is all consensus-lead. How many others properly understand that? It means I concede more to you and you comrades here than I ever would anywhere else. And this table I'm making will be blow to your cause too. For some reason there just aren't that many 'dissent' refs at all out there (which surprised me myself I must admit) - for contemporary society there are almost none.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wha? I don't have any "comrades" here. I'm strictly solo. Sarah777 (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean it only in the sense of those who share your view, who you often stand next to. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Current version is acceptable

The current version (as of 21-Aug-08) is acceptable and it should stay this way. The intro states that the Shannon is the longest river in Ireland and the two footnotes both mention that fact that is it the longest in the British Isles. I see no reason to put the whole British Isles thing into the intro sentence, it's clearly unnecessary.

Historically, the Shannon was the longest river in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until from 1801 to 1922, then since the Shannon was no longer in the political territory of the UK, some people started using the geographic term of British Isles. The problem is that British Isles isn't a neutral term like Scandinavia or Iberia, it's politically loaded today and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. It's use therefore should be restricted to articles where it is necessary and should not be added willy nilly to articles like this one where it really has no business. Snappy56 (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This amounts to an admission that your PoV (that being what this is) should take precedence over anyone else's dissenting PoV, and that WP should be censored of facts. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Bastun, was any of what Snaapy wrote untrue or inaccurate? Windyjarhead (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Its pure PoV. Was anything I said untrue or inaccurate? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviouly, what I wrote above is my opinion, and no I don't think it should take precedence over anyone else's. The fact is, and this is fact not opinion, the term British Isles is not used in Ireland (Republic of), it is not used on Irish television or radio, or Irish newspapers, it is not taught in schools, and official Government of Ireland policy is to discourage its use. I know Wikipedia don't following Irish Government (or any government) policy but should we ignore it completely? The term is used in Britain, people using it are unaware of its political connatations and think it is a purely geograhpic term. They are unaware that in Ireland it is a loaded term. That is why *I* think the term shouldn't be used in this article. Snappy56 (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The actual fact is, the above is opinion - and demonstrably incorrect. The term is used in Ireland, including television, radio, newspapers and the Oireachtas. Folens removed it from their (Irish edition) of school atlases - dunno about other publishers. A spokesman for the Irish embassy in London has said "we would discourage its useage (sic)". Here's 52,000+ examples of it being used in Ireland: [10]. And not all of those hits are debates about use of the term or reports of WP's edit wars on it. ;-) So - while not as popular as alternative terms such as "Ireland and Britain" or "Britain and Ireland" - it is used. Personally - I think whether or not the term is used in this article should be part of a policy decided upon by the taskforce thingy that's been set up. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The real fact is that is it not used in Ireland (RoI), I've lived here all my life (which is quite a length of time), and the only time it is used is when people are complaining about the way the term is used by British people. It is most certainly not used in schools, newspapers, television or radio (unless you are talking about the British media available in Ireland). Google searches are of course unreliable, and not having the time to look though 50,000 results, I did look at the top 10, 4 of which were about Ireland "leaving" the British Isles. I agree the BI taskforce will have the final say on the issue. My own preference is for North West European Archipelago! Snappy56 (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"The real fact is that is it not used in Ireland (RoI)..." "I did look at the top 10, 4 of which were about Ireland "leaving" the British Isles." One of these sentences is not like the other... The latter means means 6 out of 10 weren't talking about "leaving" the BI. Those 50k+ results were from Irish websites. If only 1%, let alone 60%, are using the term, then it clearly and demonstrably is used. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You maths is laughable and flawed. I had a quick look through the top 100 results, and around 50% are of the "British people should stop using this term" variety, most of the rest are for Irish websites selling British books/CDs with the word British Isles in the title. This is why Google search results are crude and unreliable and shouldn't be bandied about in a "I type in this in and get 50K results, this proves I'm right" manner. Previously, you mentioned the term was used in the Oireachtas, the result I found was this one from 2005: The term 'British Isles' has no official status and is not a recognised term "in any legal or inter-governmental sense", Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern has said. Responding to a written Dail question last week from Sinn Fein's Caoimhghin O Caolain, Ahern said that the government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use "this term". I repeat my previous assertion, that I was born here (Ireland - EU member state of same name), lived here all my (fairly lengthy) life and the term British Isles is not used here (can't speak for certain D4 circles though ;-) ). Isles of the North Atlantic would (IONA) also be acceptable. Snappy56 (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact is - the British Isles & Republic of Ireland disputes are quite likely unsolvable. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Chin up! They can be manageable. Very few 'solutions' exist in this world, outside of the course of 'time' anyway (which will surely solve this one eventually). We have to let the river run its own course, of course. And simply explain the flow.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, quite poetic! Snappy56 (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The current version is the status quo and cannot be changed without consensus. There is no consensus for change; despite the evident strong desire (noted again) of some to introduce the offensive phrase "British Isles" into Irish articles. Let the hare sit; protected if need be. Sarah777 (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Current version is NOT acceptable! I see Irish Supremacy has resulted in British Isles being removed from this article's introduction yet again. It is a fact that the River Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles and to leave this important information out is not remotely acceptable and hardly maintains a neutral point of view. The fact that the Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles, is more important than it being the longest river in Ireland, which is just one of many islands within the British Isles.

Shouldn't Wikipedia aim to be consistent? For example, the Ben Nevis article mentions that it's the tallest mountain in the British Isles, which it undoubtedly is, so why can't the article about the longest river in the British Isles simply mention this important and undisputable fact?

I'm not sure how "British Isles" could ever be geniunely considered an offensive term, or ever be taken seriously, when it has no political context and has only ever had a geographical one, but I can certainly understand that those claiming to find it "offensive" certainly do have an political agenda that they aggressively try to promote on Ireland related articles such as this one.

Just because these people claim to be "offended" by the term "British Isles" is no reason to allow their anti-neuteral point of view to be tolerated at Wikipedia. Even though their claims to be offended are both illogical and petty and that they either fail to understand the correct meaning of the term "British Isles", or arrogantly dismiss it out of hand, the fact is no one has the right to not be offended.

The vast majority of people the world over have long accepted the term "British Isles" and have no problem with its use. It would be extremely inappropriate to allow the tiny minority of revisionist zealots who claim to find the term "offensive" to censor Ireland articles in favor of their politically motivated bias. Their claim to be "offended" is a very convenient excuse to attempt to get their own point of view added to articles, something which must not be allowed to happen. We should stick to the facts and not bow down to Irish attacks against neutrality:

1.) The Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles, this is a fact and is important information that cannont be ignored and Wikipedia is not supposed to allow censorship or a particular point of view to be expressed, which is what the anti-British Isles fanatics are attempting.

2.) Mentioning British Isles is more important than mentioning Ireland as Ireland is just one of many islands within the British Isles. Ireland is subordinate to British Isles, but then so is Great Britain.

3) The British Isles only has a geographical context. There has never been a United Kingdom that contained the whole of the British Isles and even when all of Ireland was part of the UK, the countries name was still not "British Isles". It is simply not a political term and never has been.

4) This is an article about a geographical feature, a river, within the British Isles, a geographical term, so the use British Isles is highly appropriate, especially as this is the longest river within the British Isles.

5) Those that claim to be "offended" are likely just pretending as a means to faciliate massaging article's to their point of view. They have a political agenda that violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy that they are anxcious to see implemented regardless. To allow their clear politically motivated bias to be inserted into articles just because of feigning offense to an innocent term like "British Isles" cannont be accepted. We must see through this petty and rediculous scam. Even if they are "offended" by the term, is that the problem of the sane? They have no right to not be offended and Wikipedia does not exist as a vehicle to wet nurse them and their insecurities about the world around them. Christopedia (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That set of comments has a pretty strong political statement or two in its own right. Some of the language assumes bad faith. Yes there are two extreme positions (BI should be everywhere with a unionist subtext, no BI should be removed from everywhere with a nationalist sub text) but there are also legitimate points of view that to say the Shannon is the longest river in Ireland is perfectly clear and avoids issues about where you determine a river stops (the Severn also has claims to reference an earlier discussion). There is also confusion between British Isles and the UK in common use, its a term that has a history. The issue for me is the most appropriate geographical reference least likely to cause confusion and on those grounds Ireland as it for the lede. I would be happy to reference BI in the main text (along with some other notes) as proposed many moons ago. There is also a task force in play on this at the moment. In the mean time please avoid inflammatory language. --Snowded TALK 06:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just pretending to be offended? Christopedia, are you even being serious? Alright, let me put this one to bed. I am Irish. To call Ireland a British Isle offends me. I'm not pretending.

Beleive it or not, I'm not British, I've never been British and I don't want to be British. You have the gall to call my view arrogant whilst insisting on applying the name of your nationality to my country? I don't even know where to begin explaining how miserably your logic fails to convince.

If you want to have a serious discussion, please do so, by all means. I stand ready. Be warned, I am not ignorant, nor illiterate, nor unintelligent. However, if all you are prepared to discuss are your presumptions of what motivates me, please seek your entertainment elsewhere. Windyjarhead (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, Windy, such basal stem thinking (and spelling) is way too common on Wiki. It seems beyond the belief of some British editors that Irish people can genuinely offended by being described at part of the entity that engaged in repeated cultural and physical genocide on this island. Truly amazing. Sarah777 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The post by Christopedia is pretty nauseating. Anyone who objects to the term British Isles are either Irish Supremacists, revisionist zealots or liars who are pretending to be offending. Nice respect for a contrary point of view there! Unfortunately, he (I'm assuming he) starts from a flawed premise, that the term BI is solely geographic and non offensive. The edit wars on this article, the exchanges on this talk page and the existence of a working group to discuss the use of the term are blindingly, glaringly, obvious clues that the term BI is contentious. Still, the post did provide a hilarious LOL moment! This little gem - "The vast majority of people the world over have long accepted the term "British Isles" and have no problem with its use." - You know what the vast majority of the world thinks, do you? Really?! The "vast majority", wow, would you care to share any references, citations, studies, research (non-original) or statistics you have to back that up? Yeah, I didn't think so. In future, speak for yourself and yourself alone and leave the "vast majority of the world" out of it. Besides I think that the "vast majority of the world" doesn't give a flying whatever about the use of the BI term! Snappy56 (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Who other than some Irish nationalists have a problem or don't accept the term "British Isles"? I do think the opposition to the uses term is from a tiny vocal minority and is blown up out of all proportion. The term "British Isles" really is not political. I wouldn't say Ireland was a British isle, or that citizens of the Republic of Ireland were British, but Ireland is part of the British Isles. If you say that the River Shannon is the longest in the British Isles than that automatically includes longest in Ireland. I would say that Ireland, the island is both geographically and politically both Irish and British, don't you think? Seeing as part is in the United Kingdom and part is in the separate and sovereign Irish Republic. I still think most reasonable people in Ireland could careless about the term. Christopedia (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Insisting on British Isles in all cases can be a nauseating as insisting on removing it all the time. Ireland is a valid geographical term and commonly understood. If you include the whole estuary then the Shannon is also the longest in the British Isles. If you don't it isn't. Also for a lot of people British Isles is synonymous with the UK, while they understand Ireland. In this case, but not all I think Ireland is a better term than British Isles. For Loch Neigh I think I would favour British Isles (it is in the UK, and is clearly the largest lake). The Shannon is 99% not in the UK, but is clearly Irish in character and history so a better term. We need more editors to stop taking hard line positions to include or exclude BI as a term and be more flexible. My vote - to stay as Ireland.

I certainly wouldn't insist on BI in all cases, but this is clearly one where it should be used - the Shannon (geograpical term) is the longest river in the British Isles (geographical term)! BI is also a valid geographical term and commonly understood. We shouldn't be writing an encyclopedia to cater for the ignorant, because they might not understand the terms being used - maybe they'll learn something? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland is a valid geographical term as well Batsun, and its the longest river in Ireland. I don't think people in the world who confuse British Isles with the UK are ignorant. You probably have to live in Britain or Ireland to even understand the issues. If they know how the British Isles is used, then they will know that Ireland can be considered part of it, if they don't then they know its the longest river in Ireland. --Snowded TALK 09:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Snappy56's comment of 24th August: Er, no. Even if it were only a handful of sites using the term (other than to sell books/CDs), then de facto the term is used in Ireland. And your search of the Oireachtas appears to be somewhat flawed. I get many results, which, once false positives are taken out, include uses by Fianna Fáil senators (October 07, April 08) and TDs (Jan 06) - where the term is being used as meaning Ireland and Britain. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So the term is used in Ireland but only by a tiny unrepresentative minority, the "vast majority" of people (to coin a phrase) don't use it all. And please stop with the google searches to try and prove your point, it's just tiresome, as is this debate! Snappy56 (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - the "tiny unrepresentative minority" seems to include elected politicians from the state's largest political party - Fianna Fáil, the Republican Party... And yes, it is indeed tiresome to point out facts and have them dismissed as not true. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you must move/live in very different circles to me but as I've said before I rarely come across this term in normal everyday life or in the Irish media. Your insistence that BI is a valid geographical term, is at odds with many editors here and the official Government of Ireland policy (documented above). If BI was only a geographical term, why is there a Wikipedia working group to discuss its usage, edit warring and this increasingly pointless discussion? Does anyone really care that the longest river in this island is longer than the longest river in the neighbouring island? Smacks of post colonial inferiority complex to me. ;-) And why the insistence on British Isles when a perfectly reasonable compromise like Britain and Ireland would do instead? I give up, I'm outta here. (slam) Snappy56 (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, what you said before was that the term "is not used in Ireland". You're now admitting it is used - if rarely (I happen to agree with you there!). Government policy doesn't cover geography. And as demonstrated, government policy doesn't appear to cover FF senators and TDs (but then, that's not new...). AFAICR, the Dept of Education essentially said "Not our problem" when a teacher (?) complained to them about Folens using the BI term in its atlas and told the complainant to get in touch with the publishers directly. To me, what smacks of a post-colonial inferiority complex is the drive by a vocal minority to expunge the term from every Irish-related article. I rarely if ever use the term myself in everyday life (I prefer Ireland and Britain or Britain and Ireland), but if it does get used - meh! Big deal! I don't think it as a conspiracy to undermine sovereign Ireland, put us down, offend us, somehow claim our territory or subsume us back into the union, the way some people on here seem to take it. Britain and Ireland, though, isn't a geographical term - its two different islands! I'd rather just say the Shannon is the longest river in Ireland than the longest in B & I - though my preference would still be to use the worldwide common name for the island group. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I love the phrase post-colonial inferiority complex as it is usually uttered by folk who wish we still were a colony! However, despite the evidence Bastun I'm assuming good faith and reckon that your siding with the British pov lobby on this issue is simple post-colonial naivety. Sarah777 (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jumpin' Junipers. Will somebody get me a shovel large enough, so I can bury that river? I'll gladly suffer the wrath of enviromentalist. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

For decades De Valera infamously promised to drain (channalise) the Shannon and was much chided for his faiilure to do so. It is probably as well he didn't ever get around to doing it as the levees would likely be over-topped in recent years with who knows what consequences. But his repeated promises and repeated failure to deliver on them led for a while to grandiose pre-election promises being known in Ireland as being akin to "draining the Shannon". Should someone not work this piece of social history into the article rather than trying to work the offensive name "British Isles" into it? Sarah777 (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am withdrawing all objections to "British Isles" being excluded from the article's opening paragraph, provided the term remains in the opening paragraph of Lough Neagh's article. Lough Neagh is in the United Kingdom part of the island, the River Shannon is not, so I think this is an acceptable compromise and I hope other editors would agree.

Personally I know that the term "British Isles" is not political, includes Ireland and is not supposed to insinuate that Ireland is part of the UK, but others, especially those from outside of the British Isles, could quite easily be confused by the term and believe it does, so care must be taken when using the term. Christopedia (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that represents the sort of common sense that we need in application of the term. I agree with you. --Snowded TALK 11:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a sensible suggestion. Though I still disagree with your assertion that "British Isles" is not political, maybe to you but not to many people in Ireland. Snappy56 (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I find that compromise acceptable. The term, as snappy said, is political. Everything to do with the relationship between Britain & Ireland is political, from rugby matches to rivers, absolutely evrything is political. Sorry, a millenium of bad blood can't be erased overnight. Windyjarhead (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing here what look like the green shoots of agreement a few days ago, and also seeing the lengthy full protection of the article, I have lifted the protection. Please make good use of the freely editable article now. Splash - tk 19:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let the river flow again. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)