Jump to content

Talk:British Isles/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Good Article

Given that we seem to be making more progress than in years, and assuming we can keep the good will going, how about getting a review done and see if we can get the status of this article up? We can then create a special barnstar ..... --Snowded TALK 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit cynical/sceptical about our chances of succeeding, but happy to contribute. An independent review would be a good thing certainly. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Good article? This article is an abomination and an afront to everything that Wikipedia stands for. It is about as far from NPOV as you can get. The concept of verifiability is taken to extremes and as far as the naming controversy goes it is stuffed full of OR, so I would say "Bad article". LevenBoy (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
As ever, the enlightened voice of reason and progress, the moderate language and willingness to work with others pervades your contribution LevenBoy, you are an example to us all. --Snowded TALK 07:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
It is a very good ambition (and one at the back of my mind too) but I think it's premature for the time being. Let's have it as a target, maybe even set a date in the future to work towards, but I think a GA review right now would be a laughing stock. How about doing a 3rd party review? And from that setting dates/targets? --RA (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Just stating it as it is. You must admit this article is hardly NPOV. Anyhow, RA's suggestion of a 3rd party review is a good one. Presumably, RA, you know how to initiate this? BTW, I see user HighKing is at it again, targetting articles containing British Isles. LevenBoy (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I love it when people who have previously deleted references complain that the article doesn't agree with their pre-existing, and apparently unchangeable, point of view. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review should do the trick. --RA (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
As above, unless the editors on this page respect verifiability and references more than their own preconceptions, there's no chance of getting anywhere near good article status. With more weasel words being inserted and references being deleted, there's very little hope. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Geography in the introduction

As above, for a geographical article there is a distinct lack of geographical information in the introduction.

  1. Currently the first paragraph defines the topic. Fine.
  2. We have nothing on context so we need a new paragraph expanding on physical elements (perhaps a chronological structure: borrow from the geology section and move on to glaciations and then the modern day)
  3. Notability should be covered by a second new paragraph, merging human geography (i.e. to follow from the previous paragraph) into something on the general relevance of this island group and its peoples to the rest of the world (culture, language, migrations etc).
  4. Controversies are more than adequately covered already.

This would give us a four-paragraph structure which would comply with the rules. Thoughts? Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your suggestions seem reasonable, provided the lead paragraphs don't get too long. I think there is too much empahsis on the controversy and it's highly POV since no opposing view is offered. LevenBoy (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
That would seem normal. --RA (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This is obviously right and it will be interesting to see what people come up with. At the moment, the controversy section itself also presents a distorted and partisan view of reality, but we can get back to that when we have rebalanced the intro as a whole. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Yo James! I put your edit back. It seems to make sense. I also left a message for you at my talk page. JuanJose (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Another editor has reverted that revert using TW - is that a breach of the 1RR protection for this article? Also, isn't TW supposed to be used for vandalism rather than good-faith edits? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi James. Although Twinkle (TW) is mostly used for reverting vandalism, it can also be used for reverting good faith edits (a button for good faith edits even exists). I only used TW because it was easier to revert to a previous version.
Also, my edit was not in breach of 1RR as JuanJose reverted Snowded's revert, i.e. I was reverting JuanJose's breach of 1RR. --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 11:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
In any case, the previously stable text had a reference and the alteration to the text didn't match the reference. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems clear that the self-denying and doubtless non-existent(!) "faction" will prevent any alteration to the current term debate paragraph to render it less POV, so I've tagged it to indicate that the article editors are not permitting alternative views. I suppose one of you will just delete the tag and make some spurious defence of that, but it is crystal clear to any external and objective viewer that the current para makes a crudely exaggerated case for the dispute, as in numerous other articles of a similarly contested nature. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
If you bother to look at the history you will see that the wording was agreed as a result of an extended discussion between editors of many different views. No view is being excluded as far as I can see, although you seem if anything to be attempting to downgrade the controversy. You would be better occupied addressing the arguments and content issues than issuing a general statement of your own opinion --Snowded TALK 21:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually I am working on new versions of the lead. And for your information I have read back extensively - it's a mess. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion possibly, but if you have read it you should be aware that this is not a simple matter. The current wording is not a mess, doubtless it can be improved but not by removing reference to the controversy, to do so would be a POV position --Snowded TALK 22:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
James, didn't see you post about working on an into. Sorry to step on your toes.
I boldly added two new paras to the lead. I don't expect the are perfect but they are there as a discussion piece. --RA (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, those are interesting - I wasn't certain of the protocol, so am working offline on mine and was then going to offer them up via sandbox, but I suppose this is useful to as we can trade ideas. I was planning to include brief stuff on the integrated modern economies, etc and much similar material to you, especially on climate, surely always the leading topic of conversation across these islands! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
@RA - big step in the right direction! Two points: firstly, the community languages sentence doesn't really fit where it is and might need to say what the languages are. Secondly, the last sentence about 1922 could mention that the war completely failed militarily yet overwhelmingly succeeded politically, resulting in the intervention of the King (and setting a worldwide trend in both decolonization and independence struggle). AJRG (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for starting us off RA. James - I would guess quite a few people were thinking about this but there is no protocol. RA got in there first and now we have to make sure it (a) says what we want it to and (b) make sure it has references.
I think the first new paragraph generally covers off context. I'm tempted to add a bit of geology and I'll try to add references for that section over the weekend if no-one else does. The second new paragraph does not, in my opinion, really tackle 'notability. Why are the British Isles important to people who don't live there? What influence have the peoples of those islands had on the rest of the world? I think we're going the wrong way with the history. However, we have a solid foundation to work with. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to dissent, but the new intro content is a mess. It wanders from geography to history to demographics with nary a ref to be seen. "Relatively low altitudes"? Relative to who? The Netherlands? Lakes are "generally not large"? "Generally"? As for the historical summary, it's hardly a balanced view, is it? Starting at 1066 and all that? Wotapalaver (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The Celtic Church deserves a mention. You could also talk about the megaliths; say that for the Greeks, Cornwall was a source of tin; for the Romans, Wales was a source of Lead and Gold, Hampshire and Kent sources of Iron, and Essex was a bread basket for the Roman Army. Ireland was fleetingly visited by the Romans and partially settled by the Vikings. How much do you want to put in the introduction? AJRG (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Bear in mind that the lead should be fairly general. We don't need specific points, but we should be summarising the article. These are a good start, but I will run a little copy edit --Pretty Green (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there needs to be something in the relevant history section or we'll have an intro which is summarising something that isn't actually in the article itself. A cut down summary should lead into something explaining notability. As for references, Wotapalaver, it's a draft... but if you want to make yourself useful you could go and find some. (Just don't complain if we subsequently delete the text you've found a reference for.) Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Have your cake and eat it?

And now the intro is way too long and covers Britain and Ireland rather than the British Isles. Also, the discussion of Empire is not relevant to a geographical article. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The length is well within the parameters described at WP:LEAD. As for the scope, it's still a work in progress; Feel free to make positive contributions any time. As for imperialism, it is the vector by which English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh influence spread - it is this (more than any one other thing) which makes the islands notable in human geographical terms to the rest of the world. It is entirely relevant. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
User Snowded has chipped in[1] to delete material asserting that the British Empire has no relevance to the notability of the British Isles. Now there is certainly some debate between nationalist and unionists on the nature of the involvement of different parts of the isles, but there is no debate over the fact that it is highly relevant (see [2] pg 114 onwards, or [3] or [4]). One might argue we should cut out the historical information altogether, but then how would we define notability as per WP:LEAD? If we include historical information it needs to be be complete, and cutting out a major episode which brought the isles together as a political entity (surely this is what Snowded and friends have been arguing all along?!) should not be glossed over. Of course if they're surrendering that point I'll quite happily strike out the stuff on the "controversy". Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The POV problem with this article has always been the conflation of a geographical name "British Isles" with politics. The references you give are to the British Empire, not to the British Isles. Remember that they were only a combined political entity for a very short period in their history. In terms of process the material on Empire is the new data and its removal follows WP:BRD. Wiki-Ed you have reverted a revert which is meant to be banned here at the moment --Snowded TALK 06:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
First point: The references I provided conflate British Isles and British Empire; that was the point - they're talking about the effects and controversial elements of the historiography etc. 500 years (or more if one includes Norman invasions of Ireland and the plantations) might be a relatively short period, but it had a significant effect on the islands - as you have acknowledged by inserting references to the famine and clearances. As for BRD, we're working on a new draft and have an ongoing discussion here. Until you came along all the edits were constructive amendments or additions. It's nice that you've now pedalled back on your original assertion and made some constructive contributions, nearly all of which I think are good and move us forward. What's not nice is the fact you resort to wikilawyering when someone reverts a bold edit. Please try to be more co-operative.
Second point: User Snowded's edits have tightened up the wording. There are probably a few more tweaks to be made, but are people generally happy with the structure and flow of the new text? If so we should look for a few references to support bits which might be contended. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I did my best to work a compromise pleased you are broadly happy with it. Not sure I was wikilawyering to be honest more making the point that the article is under a 1RR restriction and you were taking a risk. However alls well that (hopefully) ends well. --Snowded TALK 10:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Third paragraph

I think the sentence "The Norman conquest in the eleventh century swept away Anglo-Saxon and Viking culture" could be improved. How about: "The Norman conquest of England in the eleventh century led to the imposition of a new ruling elite and a gradual transformation of the English language and culture." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I like your version, Ghmyrtle as it sounds more encyclopedic. We should really strive to avoid vague, simplistic terms such as swept away as it makes out like the Normans, in one fell swoop, bulldozed everything in their path!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
OK by me--Snowded TALK 12:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Except that the Normans (Norsemen) were Vikings. Parliament (Thing-vollr/Dingwall/Tynwald) is a Viking tradition familiar from Iceland and the Isle of Man. What was different was what is now called the feudal system. 90.199.165.251 (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Why "Except that.."? That was part of my point, to remove the ref to the Normans "sweeping away" Viking culture. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
This is OK, but we should make it clear that the Normans invaded all the islands; the setnence could imply that it was just England. I've inserted the first half of the sentence.Pretty Green (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Please don't use edit summaries like "as per talk" when you are putting in words different to those under discussion. The word "Norman" needs to be disambiguated, at the very least. The Normans did not occupy (most of) Wales or Ireland in the 11th century - the later conquests are covered in the sentence that follows. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The 'as per talk' referred to my other comments below - sorry for the lack of clarity, had to finish editing quickly. I though the editing procedure on this article was to be bold and edit to quality, rather than discuss wording on here. --94.194.88.189 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

King Canute (King of England 1016–1035, Denmark 1018–1035, Norway 1028–1035) seems to have been missed in all this. Also the intermarriage between the Anglo-Saxon elite and the Vikings that led to William claiming the throne. The Norman conquest was the culmination of the Viking influx, not a separate event. AJRG (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A little Ango-centric? Deserves mention in the body, if we were to describes the events that led to the Norman invasions, but Canute was king of England and came to be so after Danish relations in Ireland were definitively settled. --RA (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Cnut, a Viking, was to be one of England's most successful kings. The protection he lent against Viking raiders – with many of them under his command – restored the prosperity that had been increasingly impaired since the resumption of Viking attacks in the 980s. As well as England itself, he was able to restore the overlordship of earlier English kings over much of the British Isles, while the resources he commanded in England helped him to establish control of the majority of Scandinavia. In July 1017, Cnut wed Emma of Normandy, the widow of Aethelred, and daughter of Richard the Fearless, the first Duke of Normandy. (from Cnut the Great). William I was the grandson of Emma's brother Richard, and the Norman conquest of Ireland under William's great grandson Henry II made good the failure there of Sweyn Forkbeard and Cnut. AJRG (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The Normans ("North men") were certainly descendants of Vikings but they spoke French, adbided by French law, were vassals of the King of France and belonged to the Angevin Empire. They had not been "Viking" since the time of Rollo and had lost connection with Scandinavia. --RA (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Later, certainly. Your view on this is much too slanted towards the Norman invasion of Ireland under Henry II. A quick summary may help. In the eleventh century they were still speaking Old Norse in Bayeux and the mother of Richard II, Duke of Normandy, (970-1026) was a Dane. AJRG (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'd support AJRG's revised wording of "culminating in the Norman conquests in 1066 in England and 1169 in Ireland which", which I don't think is OR. Bill's invasion of Britain was a result of succession debates following the period of intermarriage/power struggles between Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and their descendents - that's why there were so many potential successors around in 1066! The invasion was thus a culmination of this period; I know less about the Irish invasion to comment however. The sentence doesn't imply that Vikings and Normans were the same, but does allow for the fact that they were related. Pretty Green (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. If it is not original thought then it will be supported by reliable sources. I, personally, am dubious that the Vikings had a 400-year master plan that "culminated" in the conquests of 1066 and 1169. I am dubious because of the very idea that anything that could historically be described as "culminated" 400 years after its beginning. But I am dubious too because I would have imagined that if the Vikings did have a plan that would "culminate" in anything that the plan would have put the Vikings in control of these islands ... not the Franks.
In seriousness though, it looks like history being written from a window in the future. Looking back on anything, especially distant events, it is tempting to join dots and see things as "culminating" in something. But history happens forwards, not backwards. Few things "culminate" - nothing with 400-years in between its "start" and its "finish". Consider that there was 100 years between 1066 and 1169. Even tieing those two events together is like joining dots between the Second Anglo-Afghan War and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Sure, weren't the British involved in both? And aren't the Americans British in the same was that the Normans were Vikings? It's all part of a master plan - just like the Anglo-Irish moon landing of 1969 :-) --RA (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Lol. Culminated is definitely the wrong word. The current version [5] is accurate and while one could expand on the Viking origins of the Normans (etc etc), to do so would require a lot of additional text. Let's keep it simple. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess we're taking 'culminating' to have different meanings here. Perhaps 'resulting' or 'leading to' is more straight forward here? I don't think 'culmination' implies intent, but the Viking invasions contributed to the creation of a centralised Anglo-Saxon kingdom - as an attempt to fight the invaders - and then a complex set of relations between Anglo/Viking/Norman (and other?) royal families, which was the primary cause for the succession crisis which lead to the 1066 invasion. I don't see 'culminating' as implying any sort of plan to this though. I do realise that this is rather Whiggish, but I think it's very difficult to write a summary any other way. Pretty Green (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Scandinavia lost control because Harald III of Norway and the Scandinavian nobility were massacred at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. William's subsequent victory at Hastings gave him time to consolidate power before the Scandinavians returned, and he spent several years successfully fighting off his kinsmen. AJRG (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The dots are very alluring but - particularly in the into - I think we should just give the raw facts without "resulting" or "culminating" etc..
I get what you both are saying and I like the "Revenge of the Vikings" story (among others); but 1166 could could equally be attributed to a butterfly flapping its wings in China. There's too many variables and centuries of human activity between the discrete events. --RA (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem then is linking together the Norman conquest of England in the eleventh century and the Norman conquest of Ireland in the twelfth century. In the eleventh century the Normans are clearly Scandinavian but becoming something more, through a combination of military technology and intermarriage. In the twelfth century the Normans become Angevins and by the early thirteenth century they have disappeared entirely. AJRG (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
By the 11th century, the Normans had lost most of their ties with the Vikings. The Duke of Normandy was a vassal of the King of France, and William himself had quite a bit of French ancestry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not so early. It later became convenient to claim that because of the Pagan/Christian conflict. See The Normans in their histories: propaganda, myth and subversion by Emily Albu and From the Vikings to the Normans (Short Oxford History of the British Isles) by Wendy Davies. AJRG (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also The Persistence of Scandinavian Connections in Normandy in the Tenth and Early Eleventh Centuries by LW Breese (Viator, Volume 8 / 1977, pp 47-62). AJRG (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not the only problem, as Jeanne says, but even at that this article is about the entire archipelago not just the English part. We here on this island dealt with the Vikings in 980 and (just in case the message was lost on them) laid it down again in 1014. Those that came in 1169 were a different lot. --RA (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
By then we call them Angevins. Until the early eleventh century the Normans are Scandinavians settled in France, still speaking Old Norse in Bayeux but increasingly assimilating elsewhere. Significantly, they have become Christian and William's invasion plan has the support of both the Pope and the King of Norway. Afterwards the Scandinavians, having been humiliated at Stamford Bridge, are frozen out and the links downplayed. AJRG (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Devolution? Far too much detail on this. Can we trim it back down. We're starting with geological epochs and ending with some very specific comments on domestic political arrangements. Secession should be mentioned, sure, but "devolution" is a long way short of that and much less significant in the scale of this introduction. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The third paragraph is too long, although there is now a good understanding of what needs to be in it. The term Celts is ambiguous - not a bar to using it, but care is needed. The tribes in Roman Gaul showed a spectrum of culture and language from Celtic to Germanic and this is also likely to have been the case in Britain. The Roman Army brought Germanic rather than Celtic auxiliaries to Britain and the lack of linguistically Celtic place names in eastern England, together with very old Frisian elements in Anglo-Saxon, suggests that the inhabitants spoke an early form of Frisian. Connected with this is the reality that none of the invasions (Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking/Norman) replaced more than a tiny proportion of the population, so that the wording needs to avoid implying otherwise. AJRG (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion:
Celts were inhabiting the islands by the time of the Roman Empire, which expanded to control most of Britain. Anglo-Saxons arrived as Roman power waned in the 5th century and from the ninth century Viking invasions followed by more permanent settlements resulted in political change - particularly in England. The subsequent Norman conquest of England in 1066 and the later Angevin conquest of Ireland from 1169 led to the imposition of a new Norman ruling elite.
By the Late Middle Ages, Great Britain was separated into the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, while control in Ireland fluxed between Gaelic kingdoms, Hiberno-Norman lords and the English-dominated Lordship of Ireland. The 1603 Union of the Crowns, Acts of Union 1707 and Acts of Union 1800 consolidated Britain and Ireland into a single political unit, the United Kingdom, with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands remaining as Crown Dependencies.
The expansion of the British Empire and migrations following the Irish Famine and Highland Clearances resulted in the distribution of the islands' population and culture throughout the world and a rapid de-population of Ireland in the second-half of the 19th century. Most of Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom after the Irish War of Independence.
(divided into three for ease of discussion). AJRG (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

The lead is coming along nicely. Snowded's cuts have helped. It is perhaps still a little too long, so I've cut a sentence or two from the geology bit. One further point - the union of the crowns did not result in the Kingdom of Great Britain; that came a hundred years later. Pretty Green (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead isn't coming along nicely. It's unstructured, unbalanced, and inaccurate. Let's take an example. "The 1603 Union of the Crowns, Acts of Union 1707 and Acts of Union 1800 consolidated the isles into a single political unit, the United Kingdom". This isn't correct, is it? IoM and Channel Islands aren't in the UK, are they? Wotapalaver (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but a lead is meant to be a generalised summary. It's not perfect, because guess what - the editors on it aren't perfect. The IoM and Channel Islands account for a small percentage of both population and land. A lead is never going to be able to cover everything in full detail - there is neither the space nor the need to cover every event, every political unit, the difference between Vikings/Normans. Why not edit that sentence if you don't like it? . --Pretty Green (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
It's difficult to make constructive suggestions if people are not respecting facts in the lead. I put in a CN tag on a fact which is, as far as I know and as far as reference tells me, incorrect. The CN tag has been removed. I'll remove the text, which is still incorrect. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure of the dates and the degree of political freedom but, as I understand it, the CIs and the IOM were 100% under the direct legislative jurisdiction of the parliament at London until the mid 20th century (although they had their own legistlatures). I still think that "technically" the London parliament can legislate directly but hasn't done so in half a century. From that perspective, the idea that the 1801 act of union didn't create a single political unit out of the whole archipelago is a bit pedantic: one monarch, one parliament across the entire isles? --RA (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I see the text has already been corrected, but it's still too vague. I'm editing it. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Good! Snowded removed the cn because (as I interpret his edit summary) he thought it was referring to the fact of the union of GB and I. No-one is "not respecting the facts", but people will overlook or forget things! Pretty Green (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

<>I've corrected the text and removed the vague "majority of the isles" and replaced it with the accurate "Britain and Ireland" and clarified the IoM and CI. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added mention of Scotland and Wales to the political history of the UK. No point stopping in 1922. Also re-paragraphed a little to make it more clearly geographical then historical. I think it's about right. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Final Paragraph in lead

I was bold earlier, but I think we can do more. I would like to move all the references into the later section and the reference to the Irish Government non use. Any objections? --Snowded TALK 12:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to get that - do you mean have the text flow, then a single references section at the end of the paragraph? Potentially this might make it more readable and easier to edit. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, can I check - " The Government of Ireland uses "these islands" on occasion avoiding the use of "British Isles"" - do you want this to read "The Government of Ireland uses "these islands", avoiding the use of "British Isles""? --Pretty Green (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I see edits are being made to the fourth paragraph. I've been sitting on a revision of this text for a while following the discussions above about weighting of sources and alternatives. Perhaps now would be a good time to revisit this. At the moment it says (a) that one government occasionally uses one term, (b) an unidentified group prefers another term, and (c) the original term is still commonly employed. I could add (d) and (e) to provide additional fully-sourced contradictory assertions of "more common" or "most favoured" usage of (yet more) alternative terms. Given the divergent and incomplete nature of this summary I propose we move the last two sentences to the relevant section where they can be expanded properly. At the moment it is misleading. The controversey is adequately covered by the first sentence. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I think this means I mostly agree with Snowded. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The current version is making a consequential link between 1922 and the problems with "British Isles" that the references don't support. The facts of 1922 and the fact that the term is controversial need to be treated as independent facts unless there's reference saying otherwise. To link them may be tempting, but the references don't support it. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
And the phrasing of the last part of the paragraph is - to put it mildly - terrible. "The Government of Ireland uses "these islands" on occasion avoiding the use of "British Isles". That's not what the references support, and it's terrible English to boot. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The Eugenics Society ref above just says "the term 'these islands' being widely used instead [of the term British Isles]".
Wiki-Ed, the references support what is said in the article. If you disagree with them, you should contact the respective authors or publishing houses. We go with reliable sources. It is verifiability, not truth that we are interested in.
In general however, can we simply move our attention away from that section of the article and concentrate on the substance. Surely enough space has already been given on this talk page to discussion of that one element of the topic? --RA (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said previously, I wasn't finished. It took some time to find sources to cover all the alternatives you'd decided were not worth mentioning. I've done that now. We have some verification, but the truth is... it looks a bit of a mess. Writers most certainly are NOT unified on terminology. Hopefully this new neutrally weighted summary makes that clear. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not wild about the English or the flow either to be honest, but I thought it was best if those of us on the "Its controversial" side of the fence took on the editing of that section so I took a first stab. Ideally I would take all the Irish Government stuff down to the main body so the paragraph flows better - that would also involve moving on the references. The lede after all should summarise not be a main source. As the the link between 1922 and the controversy, aside from the fact it is self evidence, its actually in most of the citation as to the controversy, maybe it would be more accurate to say "Do to the separation of ROI, but the link to 1922 flows better and is accurate. --Snowded TALK 22:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Let's move it... all those alternative terms which are all referenced. The controversy within the controversy should belong in the section on the controversy. Imho. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
PS. It didn't like references to the last sentence of the paragraph and kept throwing up error messages. I realise it needs them, but someone else will have to figure that out because my eyes are tired. :( Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
That last paragrpah in the lead looks out of place. I agree it should be moved. Hrotovice (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
We do need to keep the high level reference to the controversy in the lede and I suggest the B&I alternative. The greater detail goes into the main body. FAD removing reference to the controversy from the lede is not acceptable. --Snowded TALK 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
(What does FAD mean?) Anyway, I agree that we need to keep the first sentence as per WP:LEAD. However, we cannot cut down the sentence on alternative terms to select one particular term over all the others. That is not neutral and is not supported by the sources, each of which believes its own choice is better than the others, hence my inclusion of their disparaging remarks. We mention none of them or all of them (or at least as broad a range as we can support). Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
FAD=For avoidance of doubt and I would have thought the Atlas choice was a good illustration that could be selected --Snowded TALK 06:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The list of alternatives seems very detailed for the lede. Probably only Britain and Ireland needs to be included. The full list belongs in the body of the article. AJRG (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)} I reverted the detail in the introduction. Like AJRG says, the new text was overly detailed in listing alternatives that could be left to the body. IMHO it also re-introduced weasels words ("some authors" for example) and made unsupported statements ("deprecated" for example). How about we turn our attention to the body with repsects to this element of the topic and when done there we return to the lead to summarise what appears in the body? --RA (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
No, let's not ignore it. See the unsurprising comments below on Snowded's proposal; there will never be full co-operation on this article while it contains OR. The statement on criticism provided some much-needed neutrality and was supported by four sources. You've deleted it. The other fully-referenced examples prove the current text is OR. You've deleted them. As for weasel words: we could say "four sources say this" and "three sources say that" but in the interests of plain English it's better to say "some" in each case. Even if don't accept that argument NOR and NPOV are more important that the MOS. Moreover the absence of qualification is not neutral since it implies that the assertion (that term X is preferred) is widely accepted whereas, of course, it is not. You've refused to accept reason and demanded sources, and now you're refusing to accept the sources. I have to conclude that you're pushing a POV and should step away from this section altogether. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
We don't need so much detail in the lede. For example:
The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to its usage due to the association of the word British with Ireland. As a result, Britain and Ireland may be preferred, although British Isles is still commonly employed.
is quite adequate. AJRG (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
You are proposing weasel words ("may be preferred") to introduce an element of doubt, but not including references to support this contention. (a) It is unclear and (b) unsourced. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This isn't an example of weasel words, it's a summary (because this is the lede). There are multiple references that individual groups of people, and even the Irish Government, prefer alternatives and that a number of organisations are sensitive to this. All of that detail belongs in the article about the controversy. Amongst a number of referenced alternatives, Britain and Ireland has most currency but doesn't begin to approach the usage of "British Isles" except in the historical phrase "Great Britain and Ireland". So "may be preferred" is a shorthand for "is preferred by a significant minority of (referenced) reliable sources". AJRG (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that a "significant minority" prefers a particular term? The examples and references I included - which RA deleted - clearly indicate that there is no preference among reliable sources. The particular problem with "Britain and Ireland" is that very few sources use it as an alternative in this context. The phrase may be used regularly to refer to the two states, but very few sources say it is a preferred equivalent to "British Isles". Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The summary form is less contentious, because any brief but more specific wording is open to this kind of debate. Try, though a Google web search for "britain and ireland" -"great britain" site:.ac.uk for a direct answer to your question. AJRG (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Google doesn't tell you whether the sites it has found are referring to the archipelago or to the two states. (It's normally the latter so its not an equivalent term.) In any case we've had this discussion a number of times (check the archives) and it will keep coming up as long as the text is inaccurate - this summary form is contentious POV synthesis and asserts something which the sources do not support. I've suggested a number of ways to amend it; the current version is not acceptable because it violates all 3 WP core policies. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a Google Books search for "britain and ireland" -"great britain" is more persuasive, or a Google Scholar search for the same? Lots of reliable sources use Britain and Ireland to mean the archipelago, just not as many as use British Isles. If you compare modern academic usage the balance is different, but as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball that needn't concern us yet. What is clear is that Britain and Ireland is a significant minority usage in reliable sources and so we say so. There are many other suggested alternatives but I'm not aware of any with a significant following. Weighing usage in reliable sources is fundamental to Wikipedia - labelling it as OR or POV is unconvincing. AJRG (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said already, read through the archives. I've been talking about weighting for weeks. And do you not see the irony in telling me not to label this as OR in the same paragraph as telling me to perform Google searches? Your contention that "lots of reliable sources use Britain and Ireland to mean the archipelago" is not supported. There are two sources(three if you do a bit of synthesis and use the Guardian). If the term was used by a "significant minority" one would expect a few more right? But no. Why? Presumably because it is impossible to know whether a source is intentionally using it as an equivalent alternative to British Isles unless the source is also discussing this controversy. (See WP:NOR: you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented.) Perhaps you could use Google to try and find some more example to support the case? I'd suggest you probably need 8 for Britain and Ireland to outweigh the others. If you can't find them then we have to contend with four equally weighted alternatives, none of which has precedence over any of the others. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not hard to find:

Geology and environment in Britain and Ireland N. H. Woodcock CRC Press, 1994

The Population History of Britain and Ireland 1500-1750 R. A. Houston Cambridge University Press, 1995

The ferns of Britain and Ireland Christopher Nigel Page Cambridge University Press, 1997

Geological history of Britain and Ireland N. H. Woodcock, Robin A. Strachan Wiley-Blackwell, 2000

Languages in Britain and Ireland Glanville Price Wiley-Blackwell, 2000

The millennium atlas of butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Asher, J., Warren, M., Fox, R., Harding, P., Jeffcoate, G., Jeffcoate, S. Oxford University Press, 2001

The reformation in Britain and Ireland: an introduction Ian Hazlett Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003

Where to Watch Birds in Britain and Ireland David Tipling New Holland Publishers, 2006

The prehistory of Britain and Ireland Richard Bradley Cambridge University Press, 2007

Integrated population monitoring of breeding birds in Britain and Ireland SR Baillie Ibis, 2008

amongst many others. AJRG (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. How many of those sources are talking about this issue and how many are talking about birds, butterflies and ferns? Hazlett is valid (already cited) and Bradley is tenuous (it mentions the controversy but doesn't explain whether it is deliberately using the alternative as an equivalent). The other references you've dug up are not directly related and do not directly support the case - as per WP:NOR. Check the reference RA just found here [6] for an indication of what is needed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
See below. AJRG (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Wiki-Ed, I think we are working of different copies or you are confusing me with a different editor. The above doesn't make sense to me. Can you be explicit about what statements and references you say I deleted and what they supported? --RA (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
In fact, let's just move on from this. There is a whole article to be written. What's there in this short paragraph has been discussed to death. For now, at least, let's just move on. --RA (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
No, you don't get to "move on" when you've got your preferred version fixed on the page because of 1RR. I am talking about this [7] edit where you removed three alternative terms (each with two supporting refs) and a statement indicating that the sources disagreed with one-another (supported by four refs). Maybe it is too much detail for the introduction, but we either discuss alternatives terms (plural) neutrally or we don't discuss them at all (and move the detail to the relevant section in the body of the article).
My preference is to keep the sentence saying there is a controversy and a second sentence saying "there are a number of alternative terms in use" (or words to that effect). Everything else (Gov of Ireland use, named alternatives etc) gets moved. This would still comply with WP:LEAD by mentioning the controversy, but give us more space to cover the alternatives neutrally and fully in the appropriate part of the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
My preference is to stick to reference. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
"is becoming a preferred or favoured description" might be true but is not yet supported by a review of current reliable sources (see above). It is therefore just a point of view and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. AJRG (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The statement is supported explicitly by references that state:
  • "Nowadays, however, 'Britain and Ireland' is the more favored expression…"
  • "…Britain and Ireland' is becoming preferred usage although there is a growing trend amounts some critics to refer to Britain and Ireland as 'the archipelago'."
  • "The preferred description is "Britain and Ireland", which is more politically correct."
--RA (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
These are the points of view of the organisations quoted. Until they reflect a majority of current reliable sources they are no more than that. AJRG (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you the same person who's arguing with me above?! Lol. This is the point I'm making. There are other sources which say their choice of alternative term is "preferred" or "favoured". Who's decided that we should only mention this one? Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The weight of usage in current reliable sources decides. After British Isles, Britain and Ireland is a clear second. No other alternative comes close, though they may deserve a mention in the article on the controversy. AJRG (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Merely counting existing sources doesn't indicate a trend, which is what the references are indicating. Oddly enough, the fact that we're finding new sources probably does indicate a trend... --HighKing (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about that?

Britain and Ireland:

  1. Is “more favoured” (Hazlett: The Reformation in Britain and Ireland: an introduction)
  2. “Becoming preferred” (Davies and Sinfield: British Culture of the Postwar)
  3. A “preferred description” (Morg: How to Do Everything Genealogy)
  4. Is tenuously suggested as an alternative by the Guardian style guide

Atlantic Archipelago:

  1. Was the original alternative term proposed by JA Pocock in 1975 (British history: A plea for a new subject) and still used (e.g. The discovery of islands: essays in British history)
  2. Is favoured and has “merit” (Glenda Norquay: Across the margins: cultural identity and change in the Atlantic archipelago)
  3. Has “taken root in terms of academic conferences and publishing” (Schwyzer and Mealor: Archipelagic identities)
  4. Is “increasingly” used by historians (David Armitage: The British Atlantic World)
  5. Is part of a “growing trend” (Davies and Sinfield: British Culture of the Postwar)
  6. Is “more neutral” (Baker and Maley: British identities and English Renaissance literature)
  7. “Found increasing favour” (Kumar: The making of English national identity)
  8. Is “accurate” (if cumbersome) (Dawson: The politics of religion in the age of Mary, Queen of Scots)

I seem to have found double the number of references and they seem to be equally strident about trends and validity. Fancy that. This is why neutrality is more important than verifiability. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Both neutrality and verifiability are core policy.
Google Scholar Google Books Google Web
"atlantic archipelago" 665 3,420 50,600
"britain and ireland" -"great britain" 22,900 91,000 5,490,000
"british isles" 180,000 918,000 4,900,000
Usual caveats apply, but reliable sources have yet to catch up with the web. AJRG (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
On Wikipedia that's known as original research and would be unacceptable even if your search terms weren't fundamentally flawed. I appreciate you've only just come here, but please read through the archives to familiarise yourself with this debate. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Weighing support in reliable sources is fundamental to Wikipedia, not OR. From the references provided it is clear that some organisations prefer to use terms other than British Isles, and that Britain and Ireland is often used. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources use British Isles. AJRG (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Terms like increasingly and becomming preferred indicate a trend. The point I made earlier is that a simple count of terms, as you have done, don't necessarily disagree with those statements. --HighKing (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Even when referenced, as here, such terms are suspect because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can describe the past and, to some extent, the present but future trends are speculation and should be reported (where relevant) as the points of view of those promoting them. AJRG (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Weighing support is fundamental to Wikipedia, but it cannot be done by carrying out original research on Google. As I pointed out above, the overwhelming majority of the sources using "Britain and Ireland" are talking about birds and bees and ferns. They are not discussing this debate; they are not using the term an an equivalent alternative. The un-supported assumption that they are is speculative synthesis. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Birds and bees and ferns share one important characteristic - they ignore political boundaries. Books and research papers about them use the term Britain and Ireland in a purely geographic sense, without any political connotations. Google counts are widely used on Wikipedia, with caveats because they can be misleading, to get a rough understanding of the currency of different terms. See, for example, the current naming dispute about Kaiser Wilhelm's grandfather. AJRG (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Not the point at all: Are your birds and bees sources saying "Britain" and "Ireland" (as shorthand for two specific islands) or are they saying "Britain and Ireland" (as an inaccurate alternative geographical term for "British Isles")? Does Google answer that question? No. So you don't actually know what they mean because they don't say. You can, of course, assume lots of things, but that's synthesis. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

<> If I exclude all pages which include the word "macaroni" when searching for the term "British Isles" I get 5.6 million hits. [8] Wotapalaver (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to be wary, particularly with the Google Web results, but it provides a sense of scale. Google Books and Google Scholar give a better assessment of usage in reliable sources. Atlantic Archipelago is covered by the BBC here. AJRG (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
They give absolutely no useful assessment if the search terms are wrong. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Since you haven't offered a correction, I'll assume that you get a broadly similar ranking. An index search at a good library would produce another set of figures, equally suspect in detail but also providing a rough sense of scale. AJRG (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no way to correct it. Google or an index search is not a reliable source. It might be useful to us if it could indicate a trend, but the problem is that the terms you are conducting searches on have different meanings. Unless they say otherwise we can only assume that they mean "Britain" and "Ireland" when they say "Britain and Ireland". We cannot assume that they mean the "British Isles" (i.e. Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and all 6000 islands in the group) because they do not mention them or this controversy. The fact that only 3 sources do so is far more telling. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This controversy doesn't even register in most quarters, so expecting many references to it in published literature is over-optimistic. AJRG (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes I know, that's part of the point of this discussion. The controversy is assigned undue weight on Wikipedia and within that controversy (which we do have to mention as a minority perspective as per WP:LEAD) there is a further debate over which alternative is most popular. With so few valid sources available it is very difficult to assess weighting properly, but it is clear that there is a debate and this is not even mentioned. This is not neutral. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE absolutely doesn't apply to the use of the word "increasingly" or descriptions like "is becoming", since they are supported by verifiable and reputable references and are not contradicted by anything except OR. Conversely, phrases like that inserted by AJRG are classic weasel words. The new insertion "is for many" is hard core weasel. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
It's an opinion. A referenced opinion, to be sure, but just an opinion. Only some people share it, and the comment is made in that context. Most people still use British Isles, don't even know about the controversy, and possibly wouldn't care if they did. The words increasingly a preferred description only apply to a minority. So Wikipedia needs to use words that reflect the importance of the issue to those who care, but also give due weight to the indifference of the vast majority of reliable sources. AJRG (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE certainly applies. The assertion is contradicted by more sources than it is supported by: They're listed above. Try reading them Wotapalaver, putting the telescope to the blind eye just makes you look foolish. However, the use of weasel words to ensure the assertion is neutrally weighted indicates that there is a problem with that assertion, and, that it should be removed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You have a point, but it's more important to be helpful to the reader. There has to be a form of words that respects the quote from the New York Times given above: ... of the British Isles -- that is, if Ireland be considered a part of those Isles, an admission that no Irishman would make. whilst still recognising that the vast majority of English speakers hold a different opinion. AJRG (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:LEAD simply says significant controversies should be mentioned. This would be covered by the first sentence. The rest of the material could quite happily sit in the body of the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
How would you reword it? AJRG (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Two options: (1) Keep the first and second sentences and mention a selection of alternative terms in the third sentence (as I did here [9]) to provide neutral and verified coverage. (2) Keep the first sentence. Move the second sentence to the "Alternative names and descriptions" section. Change the third sentence to read: "As a result alternative terms are used, although British Isles is still commonly employed." (New text in italics.) Support with appropriate sources and move specific alternative terms to the "Alternative names and descriptions" section and provide historiographical coverage. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
(1) is too heavy for the lede. (2) would need to quote the New York Times from 1942 or an earlier reference to establish the timescale of the controversy. AJRG (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
(2) Could mention the timescales, but using a quote from 1942 and stating that the controversy dates to 1942 would be synthesis. In any case, if we're keeping it light it does not need to be said in the intro - it's the kind of detail that belongs in the main body of the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting the controversy dates to 1942 - it's just an early reference. The Balfour Declaration of 1926 advised that King George V's title should be changed to reflect the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922, clear evidence of earlier sensitivity to terminology, and the London Declaration of 1949 renamed the 'British Commonwealth' to the 'Commonwealth of Nations', a change relevant to this controversy. There's no way this kind of detail can be accommodated in the lede, and I wasn't proposing that it should be. AJRG (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

<>There were references from Irish govt papers in the - IIRC - 20's which said that the term "British Isles" was unacceptable. I think the references were deleted a long time go, quelle surprise. Meantime, the weasel words in the lead are still unacceptable. "is for many" has to go. If we need to include that terms like "the Atlantic Archipelago" are also preferred then that's possible, but the referenced and visible fact that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming preferred cannot continue to have weasel words around it. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay... Well, let's see how that looks: I'll make the edit. NB, the sentence on the Irish government does not flow so I've moved it as per the discussions above. (Third sentence begins "As a result..." but alternative names have not been developed in response to government action as is implied.) Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I've made two changes to the last edit:
  • I resotred the position of the Government of Ireland as it is noteworthy that a government would have a position on the issue and that their embassy in London would "monitor" use of the term. There doesn't seem to be much reason to remove it from the intro.
  • I've flipped around "Atlantic Archipelago" and "Britain and Ireland" because the refs say that "Atlantic Archipelago" does not enjoy use outside of scholarly context, whereas no such rider is attached to the references for "Britain and Ireland".
--RA (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Presumably you didn't read my post above. Correct the sense of the paragraph: Alternative terms were not introduced "as a result" of some members of the Government of Ireland's beliefs (which is extraneous detail for the introduction anyway). Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
This has got out of hand again. The present version gives undue weight to the views of a small but vociferous minority. There are about 600 million English speakers in the world, and only four and a half of them live in the Republic of Ireland. Even assuming that all 80 million Irish people worldwide share this point of view, it is still a minority viewpoint. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources still use British Isles, and the small minority that don't mostly use Britain and Ireland. Even in academia, Atlantic Archipelago is hardly used, because it's completely ambiguous - the Canary Islands, the Cape Verde islands, São Tomé and the Azores all qualify for the title. If partisan sources claim non-existent support for their points of view, we don't have to believe them. AJRG (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The coverage of the controversy assigns undue weight to a minority view point. Agreed. However, the coverage of alternative names within that controversy is as neutral as I can make it in the face of determined efforts to gloss over it. Your observations about the absurdity of various alternative terms is, unfortunately, irrelevant since the sources use them. The sources also pour scorn on one-another, but again, a certain group don't want that issue covered. Quelle surprise? Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I would make a distinction between the usage of terms in reliable sources (on the one hand) and the pontifications of the very few reliable sources that cover the controversy (on the other). A very little research demonstrates how divorced from reality they are. AJRG (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Wiki-Ed, your interpretation of the popularaity of "Atlantic Archepelago" is bogus and based on three references which only show it's favoured by those authors. I reverted your change and you have now reverted my change and therefore broken the 1RR rule. I'm not fiddling, I'm reverting for further discussion, so I'll revert again, and I suggest you don't re-revert but try to justify here how you come to your strange conclusion. Hrotovice (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I count 4 references, which is one more than supports the other alternative, and exactly the same argument applies to them. Note also that the wording quotes directly from the sources - my "interpretation" has nothing to do with what they say. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the relevant policies on verifiability and neutrality and next time you decide to chip do so before the edits are made - this discussion has been going on for a week. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The number of references might warrant a place in the body of the article, but the low number of reliable sources actually using the term suggests that it doesn't warrant a mention in the lede. AJRG (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Quite. I'd never heard of Atlantic Archipelago until I came to Wikipedia. It's minority usage at best so should not qualify as a term used in an article introduction. Hrotovice (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Since "Atlantic Archipelago" has more reliable sources referencing it (4) than "Britain and Ireland" (3) perhaps we should move both of them to the Alternative Names section. Why don't you try that line of argument with RA and Wotapalaver? This is a compromise. It balances the paragraph by placing (admittedly) verifiable but controversial assertions in context. By removing it your breaking both WP:NPOV and WP:VER. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Less than half a percent of reliable sources use Atlantic Archipelago - including it in the lede is clear POV. Perhaps 10 percent of reliable sources use Britain and Ireland, and more than 20 percent of newly published ones. Hard to see how WP:NPOV and WP:LEDE would allow its exclusion. AJRG (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You're using Google again? We just had this discussion. There are 3 RS using "Britain and Ireland". Not 10%. Not 3%. Three. I've quoted WP:NOR already, I'll do so again: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." Figures from Google do not directly support the case. You are assuming that using two words together in the title or content of a published work means the author is intentionally using an alternative term to "British Isles". This is synthesis and your use of Google illustrates exactly why we have well defined core policies like WP:NOR. Unless you can supply a significant number of directly related reliable references the material will go back in. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Weighing support in reliable sources is not OR. Britain and Ireland is a sideshow because the exact numbers don't matter - the National Geographic Atlas of the World is enough to support its inclusion in the lede. The Google figures for Atlantic Archipelago exaggerate its use for all of the reasons you give - making the true figure even less than half a percent and any suggestion of its inclusion pure POV. AJRG (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see much of a weighting problem. It is only a brief sentence and doesn't (grossly) over state what the references support. So long as we stick to what is said in the references in question, it's fine. They say Atlantic Archipelago has taken root among a limited number of scholar/scholarly contexts but not among the wider public. So long as that comes out in the text and it is not put in such as way as to suggest the phrase is more widely used than the references say then there is no great problem IMHO. --RA (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It has so little support that it doesn't even warrant that. AJRG (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
User:AJRG, you are not "weighing support" you are conducting original research. I've been quite patient trying to explain to you why sources dealing with birds and bees are not directly relevant and do not "count" towards any sort of weighting argument; I'm not quite clear what part you don't understand.
RA - yes, we can and should stick to what the sources say, hence my insistence on the insertion of some sort of caveat to the current assertion which, although it quotes directly from certain sources, does not represent the full picture neutrally. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
@Wiki-Ed - World-famous in Killarney (because O'Flaherty said so) doesn't amount to an argument. AJRG (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia core policies disagree. Let's pretend we have a subject. There are 30 directly relevant reliable sources: 20 assert one thing, 4 assert something else, 3 assert something different, and the other three support a range of views. A third of the sources dispute the majority. That's significant enough to demand a mention. However, they don't all agree so we cannot say they offer a common alternative view. We cover the most well-supported alternatives and pass over the rest. Now, let's pretend that a new editor appears and says "Google says there are actually 23456789 sources which use these words so you must reflect this". However, the sources are not directly relevant to the subject or the debate. We don't know what the authors mean so we ignore those 23456789 sources and stick with the original 30 that we know are dealing with the subject and the debate. That is how Wikipedia works and why Google is not used for writing articles. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
If you were arguing this at British Isles naming dispute you might have a point. This article isn't about the detail of the controversy. AJRG (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but since other editors want to include this detail we must ensure that they do it neutrally. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Wiki-Ed @ 16:34 - that's a fair point about "as a result", but it is reason to clarify what it is "as a result" of not to remove a notable section. For example, what it is "as a result" of could be made explicit or the sentence about the Government of Ireland could be moved to the end of the paragraph. Why do you not think it is notable enough to put in the introduction that the Government of Ireland has a position on use of the term? --RA (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I see the sentence on the government of Ireland perspective as an obstacle to plain English; it's not necessary in the introduction given that we only need to mention the controversy (as per WP:LEAD), not go into any detail on who supports it etc. I've tried various attempts to edit the paragraph so that it reads correctly and would have sorted out those three words. However, I keep getting reverted and it still reads badly. Since you won't accept my edits I'm inviting you to make the change. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you start with The term British is controversial in relation to Ireland it will read better. AJRG (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It might read better but it's not true. LevenBoy (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
We can agree to disagree about that (I might point to the Balfour Declaration of 1926) but Wikipedia doesn't try to determine truth. the Republic of Ireland might be more acceptable, perhaps. AJRG (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
So you are saying that the mere word "British" is controversial in Ireland? LevenBoy (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
When applied to the island of Ireland, and most especially to the Republic, yes. AJRG (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Well yes. Some Irish can't accept that Northern Ireland is British, I know that, but you've twisted your argument around somewhat. The word in itself is not controversial so yor suggested edit would not read well. LevenBoy (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You're reading a difference in meaning between When applied to and in relation to which wasn't intended. I'm not precious about the wording - my point was that British Isles is controversial because British is, so that the current wording is clumsy. Better would be something like:
The term British is controversial when applied to the Republic of Ireland. The Government of Ireland does not use the term British Isles and its embassy in London discourages its use. AJRG (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I get your drift. I wonder though, when is the word British ever applied to the RoI? Within the phrase "British Isles" it is only being ascociated with, not applied to, to the island of Ireland. LevenBoy (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
My original preference was to use Ireland (as a deliberate ambiguity) rather than the Republic of Ireland. Any association at all is apparently a casus belli for a true Irishman... AJRG (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not used by Irish government

Just to mention about the not used by the Irish government and sources for it. Since the old links that where buried back in the archives where linked to have been moved to a separate site. Search results on debates. I note though that many of the debates are unavailable. Separate to that I notice the irlgov.ie has removed many other references to the term that existed previously, though it's possible they've been moved to separate sites like the debates as they evolve their e-governance policies. Canterbury Tail talk 21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to see that the Irish Government, which "does not use the term", can be seen using the term as recently as February this year. Oops. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Plus to have an official stance against a term, you must indeed use the term thereby giving it validity. Otherwise if it is not valid just ignore it and not use it. Canterbury Tail talk 23:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, as often previously pointed out on the chat page, members of the Irish parliament have indeed used the term "British Isles", and quite a few have also often used it in a way that excludes Ireland. Of course the examples where the usage was "non standard" were disliked and attacked by various editors. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for new lede

The current lede is poor. Long winded and political. Can I suggest the lede is drastically shortened so as to briefly describe the term. All of the rest can be moved to other paragraphs. I suggest the following for the new lede (with appropriate citations):

The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and over six thousand smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ireland. The British Isles also include two crown dependencies of the United Kingdom: the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands.

All the rest, the geology, history, etc ()including whether the strict definition of the Channel islands belonging to the archipelago, and the naming controversy, can all get airplay further in further sections within the article. --HighKing (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This would simplify things greatly so it would get my vote if - as per your suggested text - everything was migrated to relevant sections. However, I think you face an uphill struggle, particularly since we inserted all the new text to comply with WP:LEAD. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
PS: may be worth putting to a vote? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The introduction should summarise the article. A single paragraph listing the islands/states contained in the archipelago does not suffice in doing that. --RA (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm open to suggestions as to how to summarize it further. What else needs to be in the lede? --HighKing (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina doesn't suffer from using a shorter lede. --HighKing (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
And yes - *everything* should be migrated to a relevant section. --HighKing (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to test Pending Changes on this article

Currently this article is under a "don't revert a revert rule". What constitutes a "revert of a revert" is hard to know and when "consensus" exists about a "revert of a revert" is similarly hard to judge. Wikipedia:Pending changes is currently being tested across the wiki. I suggest we add this page to the trial and means to answering those questions and testing the system (regardless of our attitudes towards it).

Placing this page under the Pending Changes trial would have the effect of locking the public-facing version of the article to a consensus version of the article. We could continue to edit it and normally these edits would be auto-accepted and immediately become the public-facing version of the article. However, if disagreement arose over an edit, that edit could "unaccepted" via the History tab. Once a version was "unaccepted", the public-facing version of the page would be locked at the version immediately before the "unaccepted" version until someone explicitly accepted a later version. Then that would become the accepted version.

I think doing this would take some pressure off the editing process since it would allow us to edit the article liberally with less immediate pressure about what version was "live". And for the duration of the trial we could drop the "don't revert a revert rule" (and associated edit notice).

The current trial of Pending Changes is only for two months. This page (for all the troubles that it gives to us) could give valuable insight into the usefulness or otherwise of Pending Changes beyond areas of vandalism to BLP to areas, like this article, where N/POV is highly fought over.

What say ye? --RA (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How does the bit "until someone explicitly accepted a later version" work? Someone who? We have a number of single-purpose accounts here who would find this feature quite easy and convenient. At the moment there is the vague threat of a block being given to them if they start getting trigger-happy on the revert button. Does this actually help with that issue? (I like the idea in principle, but I'm just not sure it will change things.) Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
SPAs, IPs etc. couldn't approve/unapprove a version. Only editors in the "Reviewer" users group can explicitly approve/unapprove a version. During the trial, membership of the "Reviewer" group is awarded liberally to established editors (just ask for it).
Normally edits would be "auto-approved" as follows:
  • Level 1: Edits by "auto-approved" (>4 days and >100 edits) editors are automatically approved, all others pend approval by a "Reviewer".
  • Level 2: Edits by a "Reviewers" are automatically approved, all others pend approval by a "Reviewer".
(The standard during the trial seems to be Level 1.)
A version can be "unapproved" as follows:
  • Members of the "Reviewer" group can unapprove a version of the article.
Once a version has been unapproved (or if there are version pending approval):
  • No edits are "auto-approved" until a member of the "Reviwer" group explicitly approves a version (which can be "unapproved" again by another member of the Reviewer group).
At any given time, the public-facing version of the article is the last "approved" version. Meanwhile, we can continue to work on the "unapproved" version with a mind to getting a consensus on that.
It does however shift edit warring onto the theatre of approving/unapproving version. I suggest we shirt the "don't revert a revert" rule onto something like "don't approve an unapproval", and "one approval per 24hrs" (which applies to the entire article and not just individual editors).
I don't think we have anything to lose by trialling it. --RA (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree - good idea (It's so crazy it just might work). The biggest benefit being that the article itself is stable. --HighKing (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you would say that wouldn't you, being a reviewer yourself. I totally reject this idea, it being just an excuse to limit the influence of the "so-called" SPAs and other editors who some here find an annoyance because they can't get their way. Pending changes is aimed at vandalism not at content disputes, where its introduction, especially on an article such as this, would create a two-tier editing community. LevenBoy (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe the benefits of having a stable article outweighs any whining. And all editors would freely contribute as before, the only difference being that a consensus would be necessary to change the stable article. BTW, what exactly is your relationship with Mister Flash and MidnightBlueMan? --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I think its a good idea, and yes I am a reviewer, might be worth thinking why you are not LevinBoy ... --Snowded TALK 12:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Simply because I haven't applied, but I may yet do so. LevenBoy (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea. Bjmullan (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure whether it would be a good idea. The way I see it, it would just give users who have reviewer rights advantage over users who don't in edit wars. --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 16:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. While I may not agree with you on a wide range of edits, you are right on this point. It just gives the reviewers the opportunity to pull rank on everyone else. This is not what pending changes is designed for. LevenBoy (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
During the trial, at least, that right is given out liberally ... but would you be willing to give it a try? We could abandon it if it wasn't working or if it as being gamed or abused. And it would be at most for two months (the length of the trial). At the end of the trial, no matter what, we could sit down and see if it worked. --RA (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I would say not, because fundamentally this is not what pending changes is about. It's aimed at vandalism and BLP issues. LevenBoy (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with LevenBoy's and Footfanatic3000's concerns. Mabuska (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I still think it's a good idea and I'm not a reviewer. This article needs some stability and reducing IP and SPA edits would be a great thing in my opinion. Bjmullan (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Permanent semi-protection would take care of the IPs & SPAs. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with GoodDay, permanent semi-protection would prevent IPs and SPAs from editing. Also @Bjmullan, I think it's a bad idea even though I do have reviewer rights, as many decisions made by the reviewers could be based on political motivation rather than preventing vandalism, which is what pending changes is designed to do. --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 23:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with GoodDay - permenant semi-protection to prevent IPs and SPAs. Mabuska (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Sir GoodDay -- Permenant Semi-Protection of the British Isles article is a VERY GOOD idea. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
How exactly would that solve the problem of SPA's? --HighKing (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
SPAs tend to be newly created accounts. Semi-Protection won't stop'em all, but it'll stop some. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It will also stop anyone new to Wikipedia or anyone who doesn't have an account.
I oppose permanent semi-protecting the page. There's not even a reason to temporarily semi-protect right now. The problems with this page lie with auto-confirmed users wrangling over the content. Semi-protecting is not going to solve that. Even the sock-puppets we've seen in the past would not have been stopped by semi-protecting the page. Semi-protecting the page is not going to solve that. --RA (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

1RR Restriction

Since no one can agree what the 1RR restriction means, and no one is enforcing it anymore (since one side or the other attacks anyone who tries to enforce it), I've removed the edit notice. Enjoy people. Canterbury Tail talk 11:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think thats a pity but understand. I verged on taking this off my watchlist for some times as its mind numbing, but it needs to be a good article, and its not going to be with free editing ... --Snowded TALK 12:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to say that, for me, the 1RR restriction discourages me from contributing to this article. This is only a personal view but who would want to edit an article that could land you with a block for no good reason? I also feel that it is open to gaming. A strict adherence to WP:V IMHO would be more worthwhile and might take some of the tedium out of the discussion here. --RA (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
More contentious is the correct weight to give to different reliable sources, and how that should be determined. AJRG (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
A lot of it is behaviour issues, SPA accounts unwilling to engage, in those circumstances forcing talk page discussion is more important. Also we are getting to the point where SPAs look like sleepers or new socks and that needs more drastic action. --Snowded TALK 18:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
It's probably unnecessary if we can get the Pending Changes bit assigned to this article. If not though, we'll need the 1RR. BTW, can anyone point me to the last time any action over 1RR was actually taken? --HighKing (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

Pending changes is not designed for edit warring and will only serve to further disrupt this article. The IRR should be replaced and violations reported. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps both should occur, keep the 1RR & report violations. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The name of the two sovereign states

This sentence is wrong: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland." It should read: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom and Ireland." Republic of Ireland is not the name of a sovereign state in the British Isles. The name of the state is Ireland. It can be described as Republic of Ireland, but this is merely descriptive, it is not the name of the state. Does anybody object to my correcting this? Qwerta369 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:IRE-IRL. Republic of Ireland is fine and more than appropriate in this context. --RA (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
IMO, this is a good example of where to use the correct name of "Ireland", piplinked naturally to the article on the state. It is the very first mention of the state, so we should use the correct name. This was previously discussed, and this was the stable version until April this year, when an anon IP edit warrior decided to change it. I've restored to using the correct names. --HighKing (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. When discussing the island in the same context, it's better to say "Republic of Ireland". The official name of the state is "Ireland". We all know that; but there is no need to depart from common sense or clarity in writing to beat that home. This is not the place for it. --RA (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm behind the times here, why has Republic of Ireland been pipelinked again? GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, GoodDay. Discussion is below. --RA (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

An Idea

I have the "credentials" of being not being knowledgable or opinionated on this topic, (Just yesterday I learned that the world did not end at the shores of the USA  :-) ) and of hopefully being good at proposing a good course for situations like this. This is a contentious issue outside of / bigger than Wikipedia. There are probably two things at work here, first the objective of folks on both sides of the issue on what gets into the article, second, this provides a "boxing ring" for the opposing parties to joust with each other, even for those for whom the article content is secondary. Wikipedia does not currently have the structure or tools to guide, resolve or evolve a resolution to this mess. The net result is that, in 2013, you will have spent another about 2,000 hours of your valuable lives to result in an unstable article that looks just like it does today. Life is too short for that.

On the mechanistic side, the mechanics of handling this with just article wording, and a transient talk page (where, for an active talk page, everything disappears from sight a few days after it was written) is not enough structure to get something like this worked out.

My idea would be to set up a structured sub-page (meeting place) of this article to set the direction on strategic issues. This would provide the main (editable) sub-article space for longer lived summaries and decisions, and its talk page for ongoing discussion per the normal talk page mechanics. A core theme would be to decide on the generalities of what to say to ACCURATELY REFLECT THE CURRENT SITUATION in the contentious areas. Once decided, the article wording would follow that decision. Possibly this could be done in a way where folks could have fun being fellow human beings even if / separate from them being and remaining absolute opponents on the issue. The two can co-exist, I've done it. We might all get famous for creating the structure for solving one of Wikipedia's toughest and most prevalent problems. My initial proposal is to give it a 2 month trial. If this is desired by many on both sides of the issue, I would volunteer to be the housekeeper / moderator. If lots of folks from both sides of the issue (please excuse my ignorance and identify yourselves) would respond by saying "yes", I would be humbly honored to do it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think you have a chance of success, carry on! AJRG (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested in Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force. --RA (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear North8000, you really should reconsider that offer, Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear to Tread ClemMcGann (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice from everyone. I really thought that this might work, it would fully recognize the reality that we would not settle the real-world underlying dispute here. It looks like not many folks are interested in this, so I'll kind of "sign off" here on this idea....if interest arises later, I'm always available at my user page. Life is too short for the pain and man-hours of the current course. May the wind be at your back in your efforts to resolve this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It was kind of you to offer. It was wise of you to reconsider. It is not a 'real world dispute'. It may have been once. These disputes are rarely encountered in the real world, in my experience. ClemMcGann (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It was also brave of them to offer. A shame really, fresh eyes on this is probably what it needed. That, or speedy deleting every article that has a British Isles terminology dispute. :) Jack forbes (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
In my slow and vague awakening, I was assuming that there are folks that want to emphasize / highlight current separateness to the extent that they would prefer to see any term that "combines" disappear / never be used, and also folks that feel the opposite, and that the same dispute exists outside of Wikipedia. And that a Wikipedia effort would need to be realistic that difference of opinion that substantially exists outside of Wikipedia can't be resolved in Wikipedia, but that maybe some common and more fun ground could be found anyway. North8000 (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
BTW my initial introduction to this article was when I mentioned British Isles as roots for some folk music in an article that I authored, and, as I and others interpreted it, someone threatened to Wiki-Lawyer my article on it's other unrelated weaknesses if I did not remove the term, and it led back to this article.North8000 (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Folk music of British North America, I assume? ;) ClemMcGann (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it too late to rejoin? 1776 was just a little tantrum that we had....didn't really mean it. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
You will be required to renounce baseball and play cricket instead ;) 109.76.123.65 (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
A small price to pay. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to edit war and change the lede

There appears to be a couple of editors attempting to change the lede through edit warring, without testing consensus for such a change, in relation to using "Republic of Ireland" rather than "Ireland". Currently no consensus exists for making such a change. The MOS regarding usage states to use "Republic of Ireland" if confusion may arise when the island is also being discussed:

  • In other places prefer use of [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use [[Republic of Ireland]] (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland").

In the context of the lede for this article, I believe it is valid to use the (full) formal names of the entities being discussed, and to use the correct names when first encountered. Note that I've no objection to using "Republic of Ireland" in subsequent places throughout the article if disambiguation is required, just not in the lede on first usage. The lede using full names was agreed previously in 2009 and a consensus ws achieved. If people are not happy, please discuss and let's retest consensus. --HighKing (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The stable version which I restored a day or so ago uses the proper name of the states - United Kingdom and Ireland. This has been debated before in WIkipedia and it is agreed (as per the UN, the EU and the UK) that the name of the state is IRELAND. Wikipedia uses ROI as an article name to distinguish from the island if Ireland, but it is not the name of the state. There is no danger of confusion here and the proper name should be used with a pipelink. --Snowded TALK 03:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
If we are going to use the proper and official name of Ireland, then why don't we use the proper and official name of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Using ROI/UK will instantly afford the reader the knowledge that we are talking about two independent states with the ROI only encompassing that part of the island of Ireland under its jurisdiction. Likewise, using Ireland/UKGBNI would also afford the same visibility as Northern Ireland would be included in the name for the UK - i.e. it can not be part of both Ireland and the UK. Otherwise, if we use Ireland/United Kingdom we are are using the official name for Ireland but the Common name for the UK - which in my opinion is a bit off and inconsistent. --MacTire02 (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. We should certainly use the full title in the lede when we first encounter those entities. And that way, there is no risk of "confusion" when bandying common names about. --HighKing (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean about a "stable" version. "Republic of Ireland" has been used since April 19 without a problem until you changed it a few days ago. The consensus in 2009 was during the WP:IECOLL process, when discussion of these matters was put on hold. Since then we have an approach, advocated by ArbCom, to decide when to use Ireland and when the use Republic of Ireland.
A small bit of common sense would not go amiss here. The first sentence uses Ireland to mean the island. The second sentence uses Ireland to mean the state. What we all agreed - and what ArbCom as "enjoined" us to - was that (see WP:IRE-IRL):

In other places prefer use of [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use [[Republic of Ireland]]...

Clearly this is one of those times where the island of Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise (i.e in the first sentence uses Ireland to mean the island, the second use Ireland to mean the state).
I'll remind editors that ArbCom has said that it wants no more wrangling over this. From the ArbCom notice:

... the Committee takes notes of the existence of a de facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of the Ireland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.

I suggest we get an uninvolved third party to adjudicate between what appears in the article and what appear in the MOS and has been been said by ArbCom. --RA (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. AJRG (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The sentence concerned is not about the island of Ireland, it is about the two states that occupy the British Isles. The proper names for those states are the UK and Ireland (although if someone wants to use the long for of UK of GB and NI then I have no objections. It has been agreed that ROI will be used for the article name, but that the proper name for the country is Ireland. I am really surprised that this is an issue. --Snowded TALK 10:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
As am I. Particularly since, ArbCom has told us not to rehash it. The MOS entry is straight forward: the island is being discussed in the same context, the article is not about the state or politics (indeed if anything it is about the island), so use [[Republic of Ireland]]. What's the problem? --RA (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The Arbcom ruling certainly doesn't state that we always use "Republic of Ireland" everywhere, and doesn't state that the name of the state is "Republic of Ireland". The problems of "confusion" are largely manufactured (and you've contributed to that) in this case. Simply using the correct and proper names for the entities being discussed, especially when first encountered, *is* common sense, and accurate, and encyclopedic. The current lede using the full names was discussed and agreed by consensus in April 2009. In contrast, *your* change was not discussed, not agreed, and doesn't have consensus. I've no objections to using "Republic of Ireland" in other parts of the article where necessary, but not in the lede where we are explicitly stating that the British Isles has two soveriegn states located there, and then go on to name them. --HighKing (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Per the ArbCom ruling, stop re-hasing this debate.
The ArbCom ruling, the MOS entry and the two versions of the lead are there for everyone to see.
Now, would you be OK with getting an outside view to adjudicate based on the ArbCom ruling, the MOS entry and the two versions of the article? The debate itself is not to be re-hashed, per the ArbCom ruling. --RA (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The lede is still confusing, mentioning "Ireland" with two different meanings in two adjoining sentences. I did, a while ago, amend[10] the second sentence to read There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and republic of Ireland., but that was deemed as "step toeing around it"[11]. Bazza (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with RA's interpretation of the ArbCom ruling - using the same name for the geographical island and the political state in the same section is confusing. However, using the full name of the UK (i.e. by including NI) would make it clear that the state of Ireland does not incorporate the whole of the island of Ireland, which seems to be the issue here. It might be seen as "toeing" around the issue, but it might be a viable compromise. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
One possibility that might lessen confusion would be to change the order around and use a comma to separate them more clearly, thus: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: Ireland, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I am happy with that as a solution although I don't think its necessary as there is no danger of confusion whichever way round we put it. The Arbcom ruling relates to the article name and says explicitly that the remedies do not apply to the use of the term in other articles. The manual of style issue is settled by the issue of "confusion" --Snowded TALK 14:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The arbitration ruling was two-part. Part one dealt with the article names. Ruling two was as follows:

While the related matter of how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (such as articles) is not directly covered by the aforementioned remedies, the Committee takes notes of the existence of a de facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of the Ireland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.

Clearly there is an basic issue of clarity in writing when we use the two "Irelands" in such close proximity to each other. You can dress it up with commas but what's the point? It is a needless problem that can be circumvented very easily. Apart from a few die-hards that will not allow this matter to rest, no-one has any issue with the occasional adroit use of the phrase Republic of Ireland. Simply respect the consensus at the manual of style and stop dragging this issue back up. --RA (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Footstamping tantrum aside, etc, who exactly is confused? You? If it's purely a proximity issue, that can be solved easily. If you look closely at the IMOS, it also states An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating states, politics or governance) and this article would certainly fall under that category, as opposed to the clause you highlighted that uses an example of (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland"). Finally, as an encyclopedia, we must be conscious of the need for clarification (using disambiguation), and the danger of miseducation by calling entities by their incorrect name, and than trying to argue that it's the Common Name or some other ludricious self-fulfilling argument. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. In what way do the two states form a major component of the topic? It's about geography, geology and historical timescales counted in millennia. The states (both very recent creations) each have their own topics, as they should. AJRG (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The Republic of Ireland refers to the independent country that covers five-sixths of the Island of Ireland. The other one-six of the Island of Ireland is covered by the Province of Northern Ireland which forms apart of the independent country whose long-form Name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Government of Great Britain steadfastly used the term Republic of Ireland until 1998, when it signed the Good Friday Agreement. This (i.e., the Good Friday Agreement 1998) was the first time when refering to the Irish State, that Government of Great Britain used just Ireland.
The usage of just Ireland for both the Republic of Ireland and the Island of Ireland is a linguistic trick that the Republican-Irish have been trying to get accepted since 1937. They have never accepted the Partition of Ireland and the Anglo-Irish Treaty of Dec.6 1921. The Republican-Irish reject the word British, whose meaning is simply a catch-all term to refer to English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish, collectively.
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed its a minor question It should simply reference the two states by their proper name and move on. RA, I have no idea why this has become such an issue for you. The phrase respects the manual of style. --Snowded TALK 18:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone considered using [Ireland|island of Ireland]? That would avoid potential confusion. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
"It should simply reference the two states by their proper name and move on" Why? This article is about the isles, not the states. What's the need for giving the two states by their proper names? It's a needless mouthful. Just say "United Kingdom" and move on. As for "Ireland": in first sentence we use the word to mean one thing, in the second sentence we use the same word to mean something else. This is fine for those of us who already know this topic inside-out but for someone who doesn't already know the ins-and-outs ... have some mercy on them!
Why not initially keep the vocabulary to "Ireland", "Great Britain", "United Kingdom" and "Republic of Ireland" and build it up from there? KISS, you know? Hitting people in the first two lines with an eight-word name for one thing and then calling two other things by the same name ... not the best path to take if effective communication is the aim, IMHO. --RA (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The article may be about the geographical entity, but that sentence is about the states. Your argument for keeping things simple is one for "the UK and Ireland". Very few people who don't know the ins and outs of the subject would be remotely confused by the use of Ireland as it confirms with the use by all international bodies. Those of us who do know the ins and outs remain concerned at constant attempts to use pre GFA language when its not necessary. --Snowded TALK 21:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with RA that using the word "Ireland" to describe two different entities, of different areas, in adjoining sentences, is likely to confuse a good proportion of readers. See WP:EASTEREGG: "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on. Also remember there are people who print the articles." So, another suggestion: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom, and Ireland (often described as the Republic of Ireland)." Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I would support changing it to Republic of Ireland, or using your example of Ireland (often described as the Republic of Ireland)." A change is needed to avoid confusion for the reader. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
We should avoid confusing less familiar readers, folks. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
We should also avoid inaccurate data and using names which are at best a description and at worst offensive. I would accept Ghmyrtle's suggestion with "often" replaced by "also". Another option is to move the whole of those sentences to the end of the lede with the controversy section where we could get a form of words that might be clearer all round. --Snowded TALK 00:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not the descriptive offends anybody, is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Or, using the wording in the Ireland article, "..Ireland (described as the Republic of Ireland).." I'd be content with either that or Snowded's wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
For a country that prides itself on being a republic i have still yet to understand why people would be offended by the term Republic of Ireland. You would think they would wear that title with pride. We here love saying the United KINGDOM. :) Fine with "also" rather than "often" though and seems like a good compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM: "...bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I was simply responding to the claim that Republic of Ireland is "at worst offensive". Throughout the whole Ireland naming dispute, no real evidence at all was provided to back up the claim use of the term is offensive. The whole thing is at the heart of the problem about if Republic of Ireland can be used and i offered a comparison with the United Kingdom. I also did point out i support the compromise wording suggested so the post did contain a view on improving the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"We should also avoid inaccurate data and using names which are at best a description and at worst offensive." This is part of that same trot that believed that RoI was a "British imposition" (1949, anyone?). As for avoiding "inaccurate data" and so on - why do editors fret over having to call the Irish state, Ireland, for "accuracy"? We rarely call states by their formal names (even in this article, the absence of Bailiwick of Jersey or Bailiwick of Guernsey doesn't seem to spark such ire). For those interested in correcting genuine inaccuracies, their time might be spent correcting true errors in the article; such as the one I corrected yesterday that said there were two crown dependencies in the Isles (there are in fact three) and listed the Channel Islands one of them (it is in fact two grouped together).
A little bit of clarity in both our writing style and in what counts as an "inaccuracy" would not go amiss. --RA (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
RA you know perfectly well that the name of the state was a source of contention between the UK and Irish Governments and was resolved (in favour of Ireland) in the GFA. As far as I know there have been no such disputes about the Balliwick of either of the two channel islands. --Snowded TALK 09:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there a consensus for moving forward with: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom, and Ireland (described as the Republic of Ireland)." - either with or without the word "also" ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
That proposal is acceptable. Hopefully, all present will accept it. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I am fine with the (described as the Republic of Ireland)" bit however i would still want to see the full UK title in the article, not just United Kingdom, it must state United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in that intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Please give a reason, not simply an opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Because just saying United Kingdom and then saying Ireland is going to make some people think Ireland is talking about the whole of Ireland. The fact Northern Ireland is part of the UK must be in that introduction and the easiest way of doing it is to use the full formal title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, this is what it has said for a very long time and i totally oppose the idea we shrink it down to just United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) Disclaimer: It is not my intent to lump people together with anyone they don't want to be associated with, nor to make assumptions about anyone's motivations or lack of good faith, nor to draw battle lines where they do not and should not exist. That said, it seems to me that, as a general principle, one group of editors would like to see the UK's full title used and/or would like to see the ROI referred to as "The Republic of Ireland", whereas the other group would like to see each state described as "The United Kingdom" and "Ireland". (Confusingly, if one were forced to put the label "republican" on one of these groups, it would be the latter). Of course there are political subtexts here - should Wikipedia make clear that one state extends over the two largest islands in the group, or should it imply that the islands themselves are the natural division? To me, it seems that a compromise is in order. Traditionally on Wikipedia we often use the principle of self-identification in borderline cases, and perhaps we should use the name of each state that's preferred by those who identify with that state. At the risk of putting words in anyone's mouth, that would seem to point towards "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "Ireland" as the compromise. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
If it'll stop the bickering, cool. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) Hard to know where to start with that. I'm trying to inch towards a more readable encyclopedia for the general reader - WP:MOS: "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." Including the words "..of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.." does not help to achieve that, IMHO. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The it's offensive argument, is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Its not bickering GoodDay. You can't ignore the history and the symbolism of words especially in Ireland. Until the GFA the UK government used ROI in the main for historical reasons, post the GFA they fell in line with the UN, EU etc. etc and the name of the state is now without dispute Ireland. Using a historical form (which produced intergovernmental conflict) is wrong in fact and POV in nature. SheffieldSteel is suggesting using the full OFFICIAL names of each state, doing so is factually correct and it avoids any risk (if there ever was any) of confusion,--Snowded TALK 18:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, for the longest time you would not admit to the Good Friday Agreement 1998 being the source of the change in usage of the term Republic of Ireland to just Ireland by the Government of Great Britain. (You can check the record that you and I debated this, and you always frustratingly denighed and dodged the issue). The reason that I always pushed for the usage of the term Republic of Ireland is that it explicitly recognises (in the English language) the Partition of the Island of Ireland per the Anglo-Irish Treaty, Dec. 6 1921. In contrast, the usage of the term of just Ireland is ambigous and implicitly ignores the Partition of the Island of Ireland. Just what symbolism of the present usage of just Ireland, by the Government of Great Britain, that (you seem to strongly feel) this represents ... God only knows. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Using the full name of the UK sounds unnecessarily long-winded to me. Doesn't the ISO 3166-2 standard use 'United Kingdom' and 'Ireland'? [12] --Pondle (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Since this is first use in the article, help the reader: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (better known as the United Kingdom or the UK) and Ireland (also known as the Republic of Ireland)." AJRG (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
If that length of sentence is deemed necessary (and my view is that the best would be Pondle's suggestion so I am not wild about it), then "also known" would need to read "also described" to conform with the citation. --Snowded TALK 19:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The UK article also has commonly known rather than better known, so:

"There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom or the UK) and Ireland (also described as the Republic of Ireland)." AJRG (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Although I do think it's long-winded, I wouldn't oppose that wording if it moves us forward. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
We do not need "(commonly known as the United Kingdom or the UK)". I would rather we just leave it as saying United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland although id be ok with it saying (commonly known as the United Kingdom) if it makes saying (described as Republic of Ireland) for Ireland ok. But i cant support any change to that introduction which fails to highlight that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and not the state called Ireland, the easiest way to do that without having a sentence or two on it is to use the full formal title of the UK. It doesnt really take up that much space. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I oppose that as it can be condensed quite simply as the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Mabuska (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Going by the Wiki Manual of Style: Use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland. This section here as already pointed out above:
As the state of Ireland is being mentioned alongside the UK and Northern Ireland a clear distinction must be provided. Also as the state is being discussed along with the island in the same paragraph a clear distinction must be provided to avoid confusing the reader; thus Republic of Ireland should be used. Some might prefer to just use Ireland but some poor bloke from Botswana or Timbuktu mightn't know the difference or understand the context. Why a few people can't accept "Republic of Ireland" explicitly stated in the text.
To Snowded, this comment by you:
It makes no difference of they use Ireland for the state. The United Kingdom uses Londonderry as the official name for the city but Wikipedia uses the unofficial Derry. You mightn't get confused by the use of Ireland on its own but using it twice in the same paragraph in two different contexts is silly and confusing for those who don't know. Mabuska (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
We should help the reader to understand both the geography and the controversy. So:
"There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom) and Ireland (also described as the Republic of Ireland)." AJRG (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
That looks good, full support for that. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Great idea AJRG ... I support that. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
"RA you know perfectly well that the name of the state was a source of contention between the UK and Irish Governments and was resolved (in favour of Ireland) in the GFA." — Actually, no, I am not aware of that, Snowded! You might indicate where in the GFA that is stated?
This myth is another example of the kind of trot that fuels this debate on Wikipedia. It is true that since the GFA both governments more regularly call each other by their preferred diplomatic names but there is no provision to that effect in the GFA. Both the Government of the UK and the Government of Ireland still refer to the Irish state as the "Republic of Ireland" for clarity where it is useful to do so for clarity. For example, see here for an example of how the island and Irish state are described on the website of the Government of Ireland (dating from about a decade after the GFA): "The Republic of Ireland occupies 70,282 sq. km. of the island of Ireland which has a total area of 84,421 sq. km."
That is the kind of clarity in our writing that we should be aiming for. Are we really going to dance around certain words and introduce unnecessary complexity based on the ill-conceived notions of two editors? --RA (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the agreement to use the official name of each state was made at the same time as the British-Irish Agreement, as explained here. AJRG (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
"the agreement"? What agreement? Can you link to this "agreement" or call it by some name?
In reality - just to be clear - both governments more regularly call each other by their preferred formal names since that time of the GFA, as I explain above; but there is no formal "agreement" to that effect and both governments continue to refer to each other and themselves as the "Republic of Ireland" and the "United Kingdom" where it is practical to do so.
The link you point to is on the ball and does not say what you purport it to say. If I am incorrect please quote to me where it says what you say it does. Indeed, the advice of that website is, "The advice stands: in many contexts it is safe and uncontentious to refer to the Republic simply as 'Ireland'. Where the possibility of ambiguity exists, use 'the Republic of Ireland'." Sound advice. Advice we should surely follow. --RA (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the quote from the Comhairle website, a third of the way down the page. The formal agreement is confirmed here and officially here, though it doesn't appear to have a name. AJRG (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
AJRG, thanks for the clarification about what you meant. (Although I have to say that I have never heard of this "Comhairle" website.) The use of "Govt. of Ireland" and "Govt. of UKGBNI" was more a change in practice rather than an "agreement". It was certainly not something that was "resolved (in favour of Ireland) in the GFA". Both governments still refer to each other and themselves as "United Kingdom" and "Republic of Ireland" where that is more practical. Like the link you provide advises, that vocabulary is normal practice where ambiguity may exist. -RA (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Lord Dubs, who at the time was Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, describes it (in the reference given above) as an agreed terminology - in which both governments gave ground. AJRG (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure. That is not in dispute. Please read over what I wrote. --RA (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I did - several times - and I have done so again. The spin doesn't contribute anything. Each government takes care to formally acknowledge the preferred title of the other. Once that's established, convenience and clarity apply. AJRG (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is now very definately re-hashing the debate that ArbCom enjoins us not to. I'm not going to continue it.
Note that in this instance we are not talking about the governments, we are referring to the states. The MOS is that the titles of offices etc. should be given by their official names (i.e. Government of Ireland not Government of the Republic of Ireland). The MOS is that there are times when the state should be called Republic of Ireland to distinguish it from the island of Ireland and/or Northern Ireland. --RA (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
You are continuing it... In this case, though, the issue has nothing to do with WP:IRE-IRL. If the full formal name of the UK is used, being both geographically informative and diplomatically correct, then the same courtesy should be afforded to the Irish state. AJRG (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Point of fact: the wording before the recent change was "United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland". It was changed to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in the same edit that changed it to "Ireland". The MOS entry on this matter came about as a result of a very long (several years) and torturous discussion on this matter that was the subject of an eventual ArbCom case. It is a sensible approach that has consensus and I encourage you to abide by it. --RA (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I've disputed any of that, nor do I personally have any vested interest here. This is a geographical article and the full name of the UK is geographically relevant. Our purpose should be to inform the reader and the current version does so, if somewhat inelegantly. AJRG (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
We can change it back to what it said originally for the time being if the change AJRG made is unacceptable, but we need the full UK title. It needs to say United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, otherwise the status of Northern Ireland will not be as clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
What's there now is better than that. It is at least clearer by making the point (implicitly) that the article is using the diplomatic names for the states. Though if editors are determined that only the full diplomatic names of the two states are necessary (I'll add the name for Jersey and Guernsey also) then I think there is probably a better way of saying it. --RA (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
RA, all of those was gone through on the naming debate - the extradition row, the House of Lords statement etc. etc. (post GFA as the implications of the language of the agreement were worked out). I think the final form here is clumsy, the names of the states are UK and Ireland and a pipelink handles any issues, but if this has to be it fine, it will never make good article status. --Snowded TALK 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Snowded, we have gone though all of this before. It has been resolved and the consensus can be see at WP:IRL-IRE. It was yourself and HK that brought it up again this time around and that refuse to accept that consensus. Above, you recycle the same weary errors of fact that we had to endure during the "debate" before. What does any of it have to do with this article? Please, stop needlessly politicing otherwise innocuous and useful vocabulary. Even the two governments involved are not so bothered about it. --RA (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Well said. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Clarity swings both ways, and we're only talking about the first occurrence in the lede. After that, we can dab all we like. --HighKing (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland is more than suffice and is simple as well without adding in bracketed information. Ireland in the island context and Ireland in a country context ibn the same paragraph is confusing for not-in-the-know people. If people want the common name of the Republic of Ireland, i.e. Ireland, they can find that out by clicking the link. Mabuska (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But wrong in fact, the same of the state is not RoI it is Ireland --Snowded TALK 22:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
And? Derry is wrong in fact as its legally and officially Londonderry. Wikipedia doesn't work on truth as i've been told in the past. The Republic of Ireland is a common enough term to refer to that country and would clearly distinct it from the island in the paragraph. Its also common usage on Wikipedia when Northern Ireland or the island of Ireland is mentioned in the same context. That principle should work here as they are both being discussed in the same paragraph. Stating Ireland as a country without having Northern Ireland explicitly declared alongside it could make not-in-the-knows think the whole island is a country - and thats wrong in fact. Mabuska (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Derry is the name used by the elected council of that city, hence its use with Londonderry being used for the county. --Snowded TALK 10:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Snowded, we all know the name of the state. How long did we spend painfully going over this ground at WP:IECOLL? The resolution is described at WP:IRL-IRE. Please respect the consensus and, per the ArbCom notice, stop needlessly re-hashing it. --RA (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry RA but your above statement is nonsense. Mabuska made a statement which is wrong in fact, there is no common name of the RoI, there is an official name for which ROI is used as a description. This has nothing to do with the Arbcom resolution which is far narrower in its meaning that your attempted use. As long as people make that error I will correct it. I can see no consensus that I am failing to respect. You are starting to get a WP:OWN problem about this which I suggest you moderate. --Snowded TALK 07:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I asked for a request for clarification. --RA (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I really think we need the full United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The first sentence states the fact there are two islands, Great Britain and Ireland if we simply go on to say United Kingdom and Ireland or Republic of Ireland it will confuse some people about the status of Northern Ireland. It must be made very clear that Northern Ireland is part of the UK< the easiest way to do this without having sentences more of details is with the full UK title, it does not take up much room. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
How about stating the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and (Republic of) Ireland?? Mabuska (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
How about using and respecting the proper name of the state? --Snowded TALK 10:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hah since when does Wikipedia respect the proper names of places? If your going to go on that basis then why not open up Pandora's Box for the Londonderry/Derry (city not county) dispute?? Londonderry is the official and legal name given to it by the state it belongs to (the United Kingdom). Derry is unofficial other than as Derry City Council. Should we not respect its proper name? Seeing as obviously we don't, why should the state of Ireland get special treatment? Especially when Republic of Ireland is commonly used by media, news, amongst other things. And in this case would help distinguish it from the island of Ireland which is being described in the same paragraph opening up a bag of confusion for people none-the-wiser. Think of them before your own view. Mabuska (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no Pandoras Box. The elected council call it Derry and there is a long standing convention to use Derry for the city and Londonderry for the country (see my earlier response on this). As previously stated I don't think there is any risk of confusion, especially with the full UK name which includes Northern Ireland. Common use in the world is Ireland as is official use. --Snowded TALK 11:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the council call it in documents as officially its still Londonderry, and so it doesn't matter about the conventions on Wikipedia as it still flies in the face of "respecting the proper name" arguement you supply. The MOS conventions stated about Ireland place names should be used and not your personal opinion. Republic of Ireland to distinguish from the island of Ireland should be enforced here as both are mentioned in the same opening paragraph. Or should we just ignore the conventions? Mabuska (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The point is that the name is disputed, as was the ROI/Ireland so there is a compromise solution. If ROI/Ireland was still disputed by the UK then we would need to note both but it is not. MOS conventions are being followed if we use Ireland here as there is no danger of confusion. We should not perpetuate old disputes. --Snowded TALK 22:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Snowded do you think it is sometimes acceptable with good reasons to use Republic of Ireland in the article text? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It use should be depreciated given its history and alternatives found where Ireland causes confusion (which is rare) --Snowded TALK 08:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't go quite that far. The Government of Ireland isn't afraid to use the term,1234 albeit rarely. It is, after all, an official description of the Irish state, just not the formal name. AJRG (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

I've asked for a peer review of the article. The request can be seen here: Wikipedia:Peer review/British Isles/archive1. It might give us some focus in developing the article further. --RA (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Information prioritisation in the introduction

Hi, I’ve just looked at how this Wikipedia entry is developing and the content appears nicely factual and well referenced. As the single Wikipedia entry covering the subject directly and in its entirety however, I did find the prioritisation of information in the introductory piece odd - by which I mean the order of its presentation. For what must constitute a clear majority of Wikipedia users, I think the controversial (for some) nature of the term is of greater research relevance than the oldest rocks being 2,700 million years old. I think the delicate political sensitivities should be in the very first paragraph, but for tonight in the interests of avoiding another great wording debate I haven’t changed a word and simply moved one paragraph one step up. Pconlon 11:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I moved it back. Article is about British Isles not about how some Irish don't like it. JuanJose (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
It's about the subject term in all it's glory! Your comment on Irish opinion is remarkably ignorant - the controversy point is well documented and very relevant. Are we going to see-saw back and forth on this until one of us expires? I'm just in my 30s...how old are you?! Pconlon 00:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
150. JuanJose (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
That's nice. How can you reasonably argue that detailed geological text (on rock age) should be placed above text indicating that one of the two governments in the area described is entirely opposed to the term's use? Approach the Wikipedia entry objectively as the vast majority of users do and you'll see the validity of my point. Whether you are personally an avid geologist or selective observer of history and politics - I imagine the latter - I don't see how you can argue against it. Incidentally, that the UK has a rather larger population and thus wins any opinion vote is not a valid argument as you well know. The point would be cast-iron even if the population of the Republic was 150. Pconlon 07:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is about geography. Political controversy - indeed any controversy - belongs at the bottom of the introduction, as per WP:LEAD. We reached a consensus on the structure of the section. Wiki-Ed (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and come to think of it, your final point is utterly wrong. Wikipedia covers different perspectives in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. If the population of Ireland was 150 (and assuming all of those people were avid writers of reliable sources which held a consistent line) their views would not hold sufficient weight to merit inclusion given the vast numbers of other sources that argue against that view, as per WP:UNDUE. Wiki-Ed (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Where in WP:LEAD does it state that? Though i think the way it is now (as of Wiki-Eds revert) is good enough and gets the politics out of the way giving the reader a quick identification of the political units on the islands. The political controversies about the terminology should either be at the end of indeed even in its own section titled along the lines of "Political controversy". Mabuska (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Second paragraph of WP:LEAD: It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. We've used exactly that format: definition, context, notability, controversy and I see no reason to divert from it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose such a controversial change and it was rightly reverted. The geographical location and details are more important than the "political dispute" which has always seemed more like a wikipedia dispute than anything serious in the real world. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully thats the issue sorted. The second paragraph from WP:LEAD clearly makes it clear the manual of style to be used - why should it be changed. Mabuska (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Also please note this article is about the British Isles. The article over the controversy and naming dispute can be found over here. Since it has it's own article, please leave any significant discussion on that topic to the relevant article. Canterbury Tail talk 11:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

See the section "Proposal for new lede" above. It would simplify a lot of the article, and remove a lot of squabbling. --HighKing (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To address comments above I would say three things:
Firstly, that a Wikipedia article about anything should include ALL its aspects (appropriately weighted of course) - a general overview article on the BI term is just that. Therefore JuanJose, with everything else, the article IS about how ‘some’ Irish object to it. BritishWatcher, what you wish to explain away as little more than a ‘Wikipedia dispute’ is very well referenced here as being much much more than that!
Secondly, it is not reasonable application of Wikipedia rules to say that consistent and well documented perspectives of a relatively small minority do not merit inclusion – were that the case, a large grouping (e.g. Indonesia) could delete any opinions of a much smaller grouping (e.g. East Timor) it didn’t like. Wiki-Ed, you should know better than to argue that!
Thirdly, I would say that ‘notable controversies’ are a key component of context – nowhere I am aware of it being Wikipedia-specified that mention of controversy should be swept away to last place - Wiki-Ed ‘exactly that format’ you speak of isn’t Wikipedia-specified.
Pconlon 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It is explained in the "Wikipedia-specified" guidance on the introduction to an article. In a nutshell: The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. Most readers would expect the introduction to a geographical article to provide geographical context, not opinions on the etymology. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Wiki-Ed, your message above (from 27 June) regarding the format you 'see no reason to divert from' is that this format is official Wikipedia practice - i.e. 'definition, context, notability, controversy'. Nowhere that I can see is it specified that controversy (where it does occur) should only be mentioned after all else has been covered. My conclusion is that it is not Wikipedia-specified and is therefore only your interpretation. My interpretation is that significant referenced controversy (as occurs here) is a key integral part of context.
It is clear that one of the two sovereign nations in the geographic location covered by the term in question officially avoids the term. This rather transcends mere opinions on etymology. It strikes me as strange that the identity of people inhabiting this region 2000+ years ago (and less than 1 million in number) merits mention in detail before the identities (and opinions on where they live) of the 70 million resident there today. If the daily practice of the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants on one of the two major islands concerned is to use the term 'Britain and Ireland' in conscious avoidance of 'British Isles', then that in my opinion should be referenced in the very first paragraph of the introduction. Pconlon 10:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It is specified in the MOS guidance which I have linked to (twice). The italics are quotes from that page. The rest is your interpretation and opinion. Even if it is shared by the "overwhelming majority of the inhabitants on one of the two major islands" it is still a tiny minority (i.e. less than 7% of the total population of the area). For the vast majority of readers this is a geographical topic and that is why the article focuses on geographical information first and foremost. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Pconlon, I reject your assertion that the "overwhelming majority" use the term Britain and Ireland in a conscious avoidance of the term British Isles. I believe that the opposite is true ... i.e., the "overwhelming majority" use the term British Isles. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, i oppose Pconlons proposal and conclusions on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Would it not be better to remove reference to this "controversy" from the lead section? If it has to be anywhere it should be in the section on nomenclature. LIke BW I don't believe there's a real controversy anyway, apart from in Wikipedia. Hrotovice (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence. (WP:LEAD) AJRG (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
including any notable controversies. This "controversy" is not notable. In fact, there are a few people and organisations who don't like using British Isles, and don't do so. That is not a controversy. If there was a controversy there would be some sort of campaign against use of the term; I see no campaign, apart from here. Hrotovice (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
There are reliable sources for the controversy going all the way back to a book review in the New York Times of Aug 9, 1942 (page BR1), and before that the Balfour Declaration of 1926 which advised a change to the title of George V, so it is unquestionably notable. It doesn't need to be given undue weight, but it does need to be in the lede. AJRG (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with AJRG (and some nice research there by the way, kudos to you) --Snowded TALK 21:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
So where's the campaign against the term? Acknowledged some people/institutions don't like it, some (not many) don't use it, but where is the campaign?. The controversy doesn't exist! Do a Google search for "British Isles controversy" - exactly! Hrotovice (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
There's no reason why you should necessarily understand the wider context, so I'll try to explain it. Once upon a time the British Empire went round stamping the word British on anything it could lay its hands on, so when decolonization brought the empire to an end, it at first became the British Commonwealth. A campaign by the Irish Free State was taken up by other Commonwealth members resulting in the recommendation of the Balfour Declaration of 1926 that the British and Irish crowns should be separated and the London Declaration of 1949 which removed the word British from the title of the Commonwealth of Nations. AJRG (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
101 logic, most campaigns will be associated with a controversy but not all controversies have campaigns. If you check out all the references you will see that the question of its controversy if firmly established and the increasing use of alternative terms. Wikipedia works from sources not a personal view that a campaign is necessary to establish controversy. --Snowded TALK 22:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The sources relate to individuals or institutions who don't use or don't like the term, and that's it. No cotroversy, just a bunch of losers mouthing off about it. Hrotovice (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
@ Snowded - coming from someone who is unable to contest the evidence of usage of the term Republic of Ireland by that same state despite your adamance that they don't! British Isles is still the most commonly used term, no need to change this. Topic is about prioritisation, and according to Wiki standards, controversies are at the ass-end, and as this is a controversy it belongs at the ass-end. British Isles is common usage not the multitude of Anglophobic variants that haven't caught on. Mabuska (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(tired sigh) ROI is a description not a name as you should know. You should really tone your arguments down a bit - accusing the publishers of several major atlases of anglophobia is a bit silly isn't it? --Snowded TALK 23:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Good Friday Agreement 1998 did not ban or renounce the term Republic of Ireland. The Government of Great Britain can, at any time it wishes, start using the Republic of Ireland term again. All it will take is an elected Government with the guts to do so. Perhaps the latest Prime Minister, the Right Honourable David Cameron, will do so. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see a major atlas not use the term British Isles. What other reason is there for changing the historical name for the islands other than anglophobia? Mabuska (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
See, for example, Philip's Road Atlas Britain and Ireland and National Geographic's Britain and Ireland Political Map. The motivation is not anglophobia, but anti-imperialism. The irony in this case is that it was the Greeks who called these islands British. AJRG (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no. The Greeks (and the Romans who followed) referred to the land by the inhabitants. They used terms like "Islands of the Prettanic", etc. A long time afterwards, the idea of "ownership" (and dominions and empires) crept in, regardless of the inhabitants. It's a long-standing myth that the Greeks and Romans names these islands. --HighKing (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The Greeks used both the 'p' and the 'b' form of the name (modern Greek has Βρετανικά νησιά). Educated Romans spoke Greek and transliterated the name Britanniae. In the ninth century Nennius (in the preface to the Historia Brittonum) has insulae Britanniae. You can argue that the correct translation should be Britannic Isles or Isles of the Britons, but that doesn't change much. AJRG (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Whilst i accept the fact a map or two may no longer use the term British Isles, to claim it is anti imperialism is nonsense. Its just a small number of individuals with political motivations who cause trouble which results in a map maker changing their actions. Im considering starting a campaign to reclaim the Irish sea, im having nightmares at the Irish imperialism which lay claims to some British waters. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Imperialism and nationalism: The Home Rule struggle and border creation in Ireland, 1885–1925 AJRG (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
What about one form the father of the atlas? Gerardus Mercator’s atlas makes reference to "Anglia, Scotia et Hibernia" and not BI. [13] Bjmullan (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
And? He also makes reference to the "Oceanus Britannicus" rather than the "English Channel". That map of his is about the geo-political entities of the islands. Just because he omitted "British Isles" diesnn't mean he never used it - note how he fails to even use any alternative name for the islands? So is that source being taken out of context - possibly. Read British_Isles#Etymology and you'll see the islands have been referred to along the lines of Britannia or whatever long before that. Mabuska (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Umm that guy died in 1594, according to the article the earliest citation of the phrase "Brytish Iles" is dated 1577 in a work by John Dee. So we should not be shocked it does not appear in that one. Some modern atlas's do not mention British Isles but the term is still widely used and no single other term has taken its place. I dont know why all you guys are going over and over this again. Having the fact there is a controversy about the term in the 4th paragraph of the introduction seems reasonable, it certainly should not be moved up to the third, second or first though. Part of the wording of the paragraph talking about the controversy may need changing, but thats another debate. Can we please just all accept there is absolutely no consensus for moving information on the controversy higher up in the intro? Then we can move on to something else. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
"Anglia, Scotia et Hibernia" (are the countries which) sit on-top of the "Insulae Britanniae" (the Islands). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
You beat me to it - [proves he used the term British Isles. Mabuska (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, if the source does show that maybe that also needs adding to the article? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
LoL. Nice one. Made me laugh. --HighKing (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Give it a rest. This isn't a forum. There is some controversy and we mention it in passing even though (or perhaps because) it is difficult to be sure how notable it is in relative terms. Giving it more prominence would be wrong, but glossing over it entirely would also be wrong. That is all. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah there isn't a concensus to move the controversy up (against the conventions in place) so lets just let it rest. Mabuska (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please enough with all these reverts

Can we stop the edit warring going on, i dont want new restrictions imposed on this page which always adds complications and ruins the friendly environment we all operate in. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good point, but we can't have some editors, whatever side they are on, deciding for themselves what, and what doesn't, appear on this page. Unless it a direct personal attack or something as serious we should err on the side of acceptance. Hrotovice (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Armchair made a direct personal attack on Snowded. This isn't about censorship, it's about protecting Wikipedia. I agree with Wiki-Ed that Snowded's comment can go too. Comment on content, not on the contributor. AJRG (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
So there is a bit of guilt on both sides. Best for all to move on i think. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not about guilt. Can we agree that neither comment makes a positive contribution to Wikipedia and remove them both, per Wiki-Ed. Then we can move on. AJRG (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Id support both bits being removed provided someone else is not going to revert it again. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Leave it and move on. Talk about the article itself instead. Hrotovice (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Go and read WP:CENSOR. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed. Armchair's comment violates WP:NPA and must go. Snowded's comment was unnecessary and can go too. AJRG (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
That is talking about articles, I guess. It doesn't specifically mention talk pages, but hey, give it a rest. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Hrotovice (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPA Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Upholding a policy whose purpose is to protect Wikipedia doesn't qualify as making a mountain out of a molehill. AJRG (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Having just woken up (9 hour time diff with the UK at the moment) and missed all the above, I have no objections if people want to remove that comment if they think it was unhelpful. To set the context, it follows a comment which was a direct personal attack, together with a general accusation of "anglophobia" against editors on one side of this argument; before that we have Hrotovice saying " just a bunch of losers mouthing off about it". I do think that the point I made is an issue for the WIkipedia and one which affects many pages, that said it may be more appropriate for another forum on another occasion rather than the particulars of this article. --Snowded TALK 20:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Still commonly employed"

The current edit claims that the term "British Isles" is "still commonly employed" and cites a source which says precisely this. Now, how come this is acceptable when we had numerous sources claiming that "many" people objected to the term but all the British nationalists here got the well supported "many" removed because, they contended, it was a subjective opinion/they didn't like it. Yet this edit is fine .... 109.76.150.165 (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The source backs the wording. I do not see the problem. The issue of "many objecting to the term" is a completely separate matter.  :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course it is still commonly employed. Just do a google search. A few politically motivated academics writing for audiences of a few dozen or hundreds can't change the English language on their own. The way the article is currently written gives far too much weight to their point of view - they may have written lots of articles using the new term, but then they are paid to churn out articles, which hardly anyone will read. Their preferred term is itself ludicrous, as this isn't the only, or even the biggest archipelago in the Atlantic. Wimstead (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I do tend to think the emphasis given to "Atlantic Archipelago" is excessive - I suspect few readers will have ever encountered the term before reading it here and might wonder if did not apply to something off South America or the Antarctic. The fact that some academics discussed using it in the 70s is hardly notable. Other alternate phrases like "these islands" are far more widespread, if alternatives need to be defined in the intro. The former bias of a large part of the intro towards what is essentially a minority view (eg, that "British Isles" should be expunged) is however now less prominent than it was and well done to those making it less so. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this; I don't see why Atlantic archipalego deserves a particular mention. Why not "... and whilst other terms have emerged, British Isles is still commonly employed." --Pretty Green (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems well referenced in Academic circles. --HighKing (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It has more references than any other alternative (note: most are quite recent, not 1970s). Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree "Atlantic Archipelago" position in the introduction is questionable and perhaps should be removed to help shorten the paragraph. I think mentioning "Britain and Ireland as an alternative is enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the lede is waaaayyy too long and should be considerably shortened. Much of the material in the lede is not a summary, which is what is should be. Also, the reference to back up the statement that the "British Isles is still commonly employed" is poor as it is not the main point, and does not qualify the statement. It would be far better to highlight the difference between historical usage where it was often used the way "UK" is used today, and current usage where it is only used in geographic contexts. These points are totally missed from the current lede. --HighKing (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Most of the sources used to support the other statements in that paragrah state that "British Isles" is still commonly used, or use it despite asserting certain alternatives are preferable. Interestingly, however, none of them support the assertion User:Highking has just made, which is probably why we don't say that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
You're right, scratch the idea about evolving usage. But I still maintain the lede should be a lot shorter. Does anyone else agree? --HighKing (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and the stuff about devolved assemblies belongs in the UK article, not here. AJRG (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Reference 17 admits ..... 'Atlantic Archipelago' is intended to do the work of including without excluding, and while it seems to have taken root in terms of academic conferences and publishing, I don't see it catching on in popular discourse or official political circles, at least not in a hurry. I rest my case M'Lud. This is marginal stuff - hardly worthy of the main introduction. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the 3rd paragraph covering the shared political history of the islands is useful to the reader. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd say it's all useful. But what about if it is moved to a section within the article as opposed to the lede. Nobody is suggesting to delete anything. Just shorten the lede (i.e. the 1st para) and move everything else into the article. --HighKing (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I would still like to point out yet again, with regards to the name, that the name issue has it's own article, British Isles naming dispute, and details should go there. It shouldn't get more than a passing mention in this article. Canterbury Tail talk 12:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Eh? --HighKing (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Gone Canadian HighKing? :) Just saying the name dispute has it's own article, so it shouldn't be covered in detail in this article. Should be mentioned here and linked, but not covered in great detail or large volume. Canterbury Tail talk 15:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry - although I've Canadian relations :-) Yeah, I agree. The naming dispute doesn't need to be covered here. I realize that my previous comment might have been seen as a type of "dispute creep", where more and more .. dispute stuff .. gets added to the article. In my perfect article, the lede would contain a single para, stating as fact it's a group of islands, etc, and everything else gets it's own section. The current lede is a lot of Meh. --HighKing (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I would go with this if the dispute para is also taken down to the text - the core of the argument-causing is the attempt to make that paragraph tilt one way and the other. At least, until there is consensus behind renaming it "Atlantic Archipelago"! Joke. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added the bit about the embassy officials back in because it makes an important point. The officials are monitoring the media. The "discourages use" is inaccurate and potentially incorrect, since "discourages" is an "active" action, whereas mere "monitoring" is passive. Pedantic? Perhaps. But better than being inaccurate. --HighKing (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In case there is some confusion, the reason we include "Atlantic Archipelago" is to offset the suggestion that "Britain and Ireland" is the only viable alternative and is in common use. This is patently false. There are only a handful of sources stating directly that "British Isles" = "Britain and Ireland", and half of them don't use that term in their own writing. There are at least twice as many sources making use of "Atlantic Archipelago". Of course both terms are ridiculed by other scholars, and rightly so, but the text (as it was) suggested there was some sort of consensus among the relatively small group of authors who are rocking the boat. In reality there is not and I've included a different alternative term to bring a bit of neutrality to the paragraph. (Naturally I wouldn't shed a tear if the paragraph was removed from the intro altogether, but I think we are obliged to mention it as per WP:LEAD. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You say in your latest edit comment Wiki-Ed that the "increasingly favoured" phrase is direct from the reference (as if we are all just helpless relayers of what sources say around this article - yeah, right) but the source goes on to say that it is favoured amongst supporters of the new British History, a term which is much narrower. It would be silly, but if you are insistent that this must be in, then we must further extend the bloated intro with contradictory statements pointing out the utter absurdity of Atlantic Archipelago as worthy of such note. It is simply not notable enough to be in the lede and it has been seized on here by the anti-British Isles (usage throughout Wikipedia thereof) camp, sources or no sources. I've already identified plenty of material that critiques it btw. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a shame you've decided to show up now after an extensive debate over whether we should be relying directly on limited sources to support dubious statements. For example, there are three or four sources asserting that "Britain and Ireland" is "becoming preferred". Half of the sources used to support it don't use that term (they use "British Isles") so whether it's weasel words or violation of NPOV it shouldn't be here. But it is and you didn't argue against it at the time.
Consequently, since other editors won't budge on their interpretation of their sources, I've included another alternative with more sources using exactly the same line of fallacious logic. They can't remove one without the other and the paragraph look a bit silly to most readers, but that's the point: one verifiable absurdity undermines the other verifiable absurdity, thus proving why we should not be mindlessly relaying what sources say. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Discourages its use"

I've tagged the lede paragraph as the statement "and its embassy in London discourages its use" is unsupported by the provided reference. I tried to fix this, but it got reverted as a "controversial change". LoL. Can someone explain how it's controversial exactly?  :-) --HighKing (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Brits don't like it/ it's a popish plot/ it undermines the realm? Otherwise known as: it does not subscribe to the myths which underpin the modern invention of "Britishness" and the "British" nation? There are references, my dear boy, and there are Paddy references. Next we'll be referencing the fact that "many" Irish object to the term "British Isles". And we can't have that here on Britipedia. 109.78.46.48 (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added a quotation from the existing reference to highlight where the reference supports the statement. --RA (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks RA. That's fine. --HighKing (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
No bother. I'm of the opinion that all refs should come with quotes for the reason that it is not alway obvious to other editors where or how they support a statement (and other reasons also). --RA (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Inevitable will happen if controversy is hidden away

People, to share my experience of watching this page over a number of years, if anyone tries to move proper mention of the naming controversy out of the introduction and place it elsewhere (while deluding themselves that it doesn’t really exist) then that will inevitably cause past (edit warring) history to reoccur.

One misinformed soul above, Hrotovice, came up with the following comment: ‘Would it not be better to remove reference to this "controversy" from the lead section?...I don't believe there's a real controversy anyway, apart from in Wikipedia…This "controversy" is not notable.’ It is actually very noticeable indeed given that it is official Irish Government policy (as is so clearly referenced - read them...it's the stuff encyclopedias are made of!).

Despite what ArmchairVexillologistDonLives and BritishWatcher may believe (and/or say), the majority of people in Ireland (alone) do use the term ‘Britain and Ireland’ in conscious avoidance of the term ‘British Isles’ and it is ridiculous to hide this. I appreciate that, for some, even a sworn statement of the fact signed by every person in the presence of a judge wouldn’t convince them. I do not try to change the opinions of those dead set against it in the face of all reason (and evidence) and I’m sure some of these folk will unfairly belittle or rubbish what I say. I do however wish to caution all contributors that this is a boomerang that will keep returning destructively if it is thrown elsewhere. Exhaustive details of the controversy can (and I agree should) be confined to the separate ‘British Isles naming dispute’ article. To reduce however what modest reference there currently is in the INTRODUCTION to the main article – which must include every aspect as an encyclopedic entry should (not pretending to just be historical, geographic, natural or whatever) – will soon enough kick off dispute round #whatever-high-number-we-are-up-to-now.

Why does the discussion section of this article fill so many archive folders? – you all must know why… Pconlon 10:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned, sure, but there are very few sources agreeing with your assertion that "Britain and Ireland" is deliberately used by millions of Irish people as a direct alternative to "British Isles" (and not just the two main islands as one might think from the wording). That's why the paragraph says what it does: neutrality. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I have never ever disputed the fact many people may use "Britain and Ireland" The trouble is it does not have the same use as British isles. If i say "Britain and Ireland" i may be talking about the two islands Great Britain and Ireland, or i would be talking about two countries United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (sometimes simply called Britain) and theRepublic of Ireland. Never would i be talking about the geographical area that makes up the British Isles and i think that applies to most people who use "Britain and Ireland".
Oh and there is a long archive because some have tried to undermine and remove British isles from the history books and wikipedia.BritishWatcher (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully, the attempts to remove BI were accuracy based, not politically based. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
They were not accuracy-based, they were pursuing a Wikipedia-based dispute which (as stated repeatedly before by many contributors) has a relatively marginal existence in the real world. It is doubtless true that a strand of opinion in Ireland and the Irish Government get exercized about it, but the majority of people everywhere in the World continue to make use of the term. Having it removed from a few Atlas pages and some academics debating alternatives does not alter this. This is a classic case of the weaknesses in the way Wikipedia operates, in that it gives far too much space to those who fiercely believe in a minority position to game, manouvre, rehearse and block against simple common sense. Thus we have an encyclopedia riddled with lede paras that give undue weight to minority positions. In a way it's no big deal, since any casual visitor browsing this page will immediately see the minority pressure at work on that para, but it will confuse some and that's a shame. Apart from that, this is just a game and will continue to be so unless there is some major change in the way Wikipedia is run. Nice try though Pconlon. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If the government most affected by the misuse of the term is concerned then I think its significant, and your "a few Atlas Pages" really fails to get the point. --Snowded TALK 06:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be foolish not to accept that point Snowded, or at least, to accept that the Irish Government show official concern, but with respect, this is clearly about lede status. The term is used in multiple languages and around the world. Continually trying to get it edited out of Wikipedia is POV-pushing. Continually trying to extend and magnify the significance of it as a debating point in a lede para in this article is POV-pushing. The other side, removing the debate altogether, would also be POV-pushing. It's about emphasis. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we are agreed there - its a sentence in the lede and a more substantive section later --Snowded TALK 07:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There's been one or two other editors that agree the lede is too long and would benefit from being shortened. Not sure if that adds up to consensus though. But if it does, as a framework for a new lede, can I suggest that we keep the first paragraph in it's entirity, and add to it a short one-liner that simply states "The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[6][10] where there are objections to its usage due to the association of the word British with Ireland" or something similar. The middle two paragraphs get moved down to new sections on "History" and "Civilisation" or something relevant. Thoughts? --HighKing (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the inclusion of the controversy being added to the first paragraph. If we are going to shorten the introduction then the focus needs to be mostly on the second and third paragraphs to see where it can be slimmed down. A full final paragraph in the introduction on the dispute is more than fair. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It would probably get more attention in a paragraph on its own, but I don't really care about formatting at this stage. I agree that there's a ton of scope to shorten the 2nd and 3rd paras. Perhaps to the point where we actually don't need them at all? Maybe? I'd also suggest we only need a sentence for the 4th para, but if others want to give it a paragraph... At this stage, I'm really only sounding out, in a general way, if there's consensus to shorten and move text. --HighKing (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you perhaps explain why you want it shortened? The structure and length are appropriate for an article of this size and scope. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure. The main reason is that its too long, which makes it very uninviting to read. And it's not a summary - for example there's a lot detail that is only mentioned in the lede. I've no other motives or axes to grind or anything like that. Just too long is all, and doesn't make me want to read it. --HighKing (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like a fairly average-length intro for a subject of this type to me. The only reason it says things which are not mentioned in the body of the article is because someone deleted a section of the article. Something about the concept of shared history being political. Know anything about that? Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"Despite what ArmchairVexillologistDonLives and BritishWatcher may believe (and/or say), the majority of people in Ireland (alone) do use the term ‘Britain and Ireland’ in conscious avoidance of the term ‘British Isles’ and it is ridiculous to hide this." - so the opinion of an island of around 6-7 million people outweighs the opinion of an island with nearly 60 million people? Convention states controversies should be stuck at the end of the lede. For a fuller detailing of the controvery a link can be provided to article that goes into this inane controversy. I suggest we stick to that convention and ignore the POV. There is no concensus for change and there won't be so why continuely argue about it? Mabuska (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
A real logical error there Mabuska, a controversy is a controversy not a vote --Snowded TALK 11:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Well said Snowded. I also concur with HighKing…the introduction 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are rather too long and detail-heavy for an introduction. The controversy exists, is significant and so it is right & proper that we include direct mention of it in the intro. I would like this to be included in or just after the first paragraph – it was on this point that I originally chimed in. If though the consensus of reasonable contributors is to place it below reduced versions of the second and third paragraphs, I can go with that. Let’s get the emphasis right as many of us have stated.
Can some contributors please give up the ‘I don't believe there's a real controversy anyway’ line. It is more than a mere ‘strand of opinion’ in Ireland I assure you. The Irish state was established with the rejection of British control, interference and association as a founding principle, let’s not forget this in maintaining a reasonable perspective. What is being argued for here is POV-including (where significant and properly referenced) rather than POV-pushing. The democratically elected Government of Ireland is fairly representing the majority of citizens in its stated position. Should be included. Pconlon 19:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Another logical error? This article is about a geographical area, not political control. The name of the geographical entity is not a result of the poltical control, although some editors have got themselves very excited trying to argue that it is. Controversy over the political control (which is well documented) has been extended to the (pre-existing) name, but it should not be assumed that it excites the same level of debate (which is nowhere near as well documented). Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Well if you removed all material relating to politics you might have a point but not otherwise and the etymology is not that clear anyway. How about moving on? The obvious thing that needs to happen is that all the detail moves down into the etymology at summary level with the reference to the naming dispute article for the detail. The lede then needs a single sentence without references that summarises. How about that? --Snowded TALK 21:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
So anything about votes Snowded? I said concensus which is totally different. There is no agreement between all of us here to change the status and placement of the controversy statement. Wikipedia isn't democracy after all. Wiki-Ed made it clear that the convention is for controversies to be at the end of the lede in terms of importance. Wiki has its own conventions for a reason. Mabuska (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to reaffirm my position i oppose alterations to the first paragraph and moving anything relating to the controversy being moved higher up into the introduction, it should remain in the final paragraph of the introduction. Political history is justified in the intro in paragraph 2 or 3, but i would support if those paragraphs could be slimmed down somehow to help make the introduction a reasonable size. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As Snowded has said above somewhere, in agreement with me, the issue is one of emphasis - but just cutting out the quite interesting stuff about other points of interest to do with these islands as a gaming move doesn't hack it for me. We need to either leave things the way they are and quit fighting over it, or else have a grown-up discussion about moving the less significant parts of the controversy stuff (now glaringly just the rather obscure Atlantic Archipelago stuff) down to the article text and maybe slim the other stuff a bit. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
You know, we're not proposing to cut anything out, but moving out of the lede. And you know, saying it's a gaming move is not a nice comment. Gaming in what way? The suggestion is merely to make the lede smaller, and to follow MOS to actually summarize the article rather than discuss stuff that isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. So behave. --HighKing (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I would support slimming the 4th paragraph. I just oppose any of its text or content being moved into the 1st, 2nd or 3rd paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, so a discussion about slashing the lede, especially the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs (and the 4th has already been cut down from what it used be) and moving to new sections has now turned into a discussion about just "slimming the 4th". Nationalists eh. --HighKing (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Right. So when you said above HighKing that "there's a ton of scope to shorten the 2nd and 3rd paras", but somehow, the fourth para is all fine, you are being utterly objective and have no axe to grind. When you are accusatory to me for saying that's "gaming" and yet you reserve the right to make pejorative remarks as immediately above - that's all fine too, obviously. Plenty of chance of reasoned objectivity with this going on. Have you considered taking up blogging instead of Wikipedia? More on your wavelength I would suggest. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be really nice if you veered away from personal comments and smart-alecry.I started this with the suggestion Just shorten the lede (i.e. the 1st para) and move everything else into the article. and followed up with The naming dispute doesn't need to be covered here. I realize that my previous comment might have been seen as a type of "dispute creep", where more and more .. dispute stuff .. gets added to the article. In my perfect article, the lede would contain a single para, stating as fact it's a group of islands, etc, and everything else gets it's own section.. Comments and discussions happened in between and at least I'm trying to reach a compromise. I'd still prefer to move *everything* except a *short* intro below. But I suspect the Peer Review makes this less likely now. --HighKing (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a couple of problems with that 4th paragraph. I do not think "Atlantic Archipelago" belongs there and i am not sure when that got added. But there is also a problem with the sentence on "Britain and Ireland" The sentence fails to make clear that it is about a different term and not an alternative name for the "British Isles".
If we say "Britain and Ireland" we are not talking about the same subject as this article covers. We are simply using a completely different term to talk about a different thing in an attempt to avoid using this term and talking about what this term is about. Although i do not even accept that people are using Britain and Ireland to avoid using British isles, it simply makes sense in some scenarios when talking about two sovereign states to say Britain and Ireland or when talking about two islands (Great) Britain and Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this thread on my talk page, although I was avoiding I have lost appetite for discussion about the rights or wrongs of the "controversy". The feedback from the peer review was that the lead required to be more reflective of the article as a whole, not that it needed to be shortened. Given that we only have a lead for something less than a month now that is hardly surprising.

My 2 euro cents would be:

  • Leave the last para alone. It finally has some balance to it and is well reff'ed. It is always going to be there and what is there right now it he best I have ever after three and a half year of writing on this article. The Atlantic Archipelago stuff, even though it's obscure, is not even half a sentence. It isn't going to bring the article down on top of itself for undue weight.
  • I'd suggest taking out the history para and using it as a guide for a (lacking) History section. The summarising it in the lead.
  • We don't need all of the detail about highest peak and lowest valey. Mean day time temperature on a cold day in June etc. Are they in the body? If not move them down. Simply saying, "It's wet and it's got some mountains" is enough for the lead.
  • Some stuff glossing over plant and wild life and general geography/geology is needed
  • Transport and culture also missing
  • Some quick demographic stuff too: Who lives here? How of them are there? What languages do they speak?

In general, I agree with the peer review. The size is fine, the focus is too narrow and too deep. Higher and lighter would be better. Save the nitty gritty for the body. --RA (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree totally with RA. The peer review looks fine to me as well, and should be used as the basis for a revised lead - particularly so as to shorten the 2nd and 3rd paras and ensure that they summarise the main body of the article, per WP:LEAD. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Good summary and I also agree up to a point. But this article doesn't need "Transport" and "Culture" - we'll only end up duplicating content from UK and Ireland articles. Where do we find a balance? --HighKing (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Where is the peer review? My view is that the paragraphs are generally a little too long and all that rubbish about the controversy should be removed, especially that boloney about "Atlantic Archipelago", for heavens sake. The non-existent controversy gets ample mention elsewhere in the article and it has its own article (a unique treatise on the subject - there's nothing elsewhere in print that comes up to it) and it has no place in the lead section. Hrotovice (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Another ommission from the article is anything about economy - the B.I has many economic structures and trends, for example, the tendancy for the North and West to be economically depressed and proximity to London and Europe to be the driver of that; the effects of the current recession, crisis in markets, banks, etc; the close integration of the economies of Ireland and the UK despite the Eurozone and so forth. Most Irish trade going through or to/from the UK. All of this deserves a mention. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is not about the UK, or Ireland. I'd be wary of too much detail which really only duplicates UK and Ireland articles. --HighKing (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The British Isles has economic issues and there are pan-British-Isles economic phenomena. Where better to describe them. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously. I just haven't seen sources that describe British Isles economic phenomena, as opposed to UK or Ireland, etc. I've no doubt that's only because we haven't looked yet though. --HighKing (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't need specific sources saying "the British Isles is this or that", it just needs a general explanation based on sources of different pan-BI economic issues - the BI exists as an entity and does not need to be seperately proven phrasically every single time it is referred to. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
There was one book on the economic history of the British Isles. Many decades ago but it highlights that economics can be talked about when covering the British Isles. [14] The focus on the economic issues should be on modern day though, but the shared economic history does need to be mentioned and can help provide useful information. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
James you're right there. There is definitely scope for discussing economic issues - even historical ones such as the trade war between the two countries in the thirties, discussing cross-border trade, the history of trade involving Irish food and agri-products being sold to Britain and British steel, coal and other products being sold to Ireland, as well as the balance of trade between the two countries. Also we could look at discussing the proliferation of Irish businesses in the UK and British ones in Ireland. I know some of this is covered under the respective countries' article pages but those pages also deal with European and Worldwide business. There is also the currency issue where the Irish punt was pegged with the British pound. I'm sure there is much more to add. --MacTire02 (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks MacTire02, I feel excited about this and will work on a section. I would also refer to the inter-ownership of Irish and UK financial institutions, mass use of Ireland and UK banks by customers, heavy reliance on UK finance of Celtic Tiger, etc. Lots to chew over. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to it too. --HighKing (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sounds exciting. Some alarm bells are ringing already though:
"...for example, the tendancy for the North and West to be economically depressed and proximity to London and Europe to be the driver of that;..." – James, you do know that there are two major islands in the group and that the island you are talking extends for a good three or four hundred miles beyond Carlisle?
Of course RA - I was thinking of the tendancy for the Atlantic coasts to be poorer than the Eastern-facing coasts - surely this is as true of Ireland as it is for Wales and, in fact, even England, for example, Cornwall and Western Cumbria. The phenomenon is surely worthy of mention, as are the systematic attempts of both governments and the EU to counter the phenomenon with different types of regional aid. So please don't over-react - I was intending a properly balanced and objective section. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
"Most Irish trade going through or to/from the UK. All of this deserves a mention." – Common misconception, even in Ireland. We import more from the UK that from anywhere else (about 30% of imports) but the UK only accounts for about 15% of our exports. We export more to Belgium that to the UK. Eurozone is our most important trading partners. --RA (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
"Most Irish trade going through or to/from the UK". The key is in the wording. It does not say that most irish trade is to the UK exclusively. However a lot of irish trade to the continent and beyond goes through the UK. I have first-hand experience of delivering goods from Ireland to Belgium and we drove through the UK to deliver those items. The same can be said for most of Ireland's exports being shipped from Dublin to Holyhead and from there those trucks move to Dover and finally on to Europe. --MacTire02 (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see what percentage of Ireland's exports and imports are sent by road via Holyhead, etc - I suspect it's quite a high percentage but there are probably some sources out there to cross-check. Of course, transit country is different to final destination and export / import relationships are defined by the latter in official stats. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I was also aware of this and intended to briefly list key import and export stats. Maybe it would also be interesting to look briefly at how Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland look as separate trading entities and their foreign trade relationships, which are complex and interesting. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Change of subject - history - I've been thinking about this, but seeing as someone else has suggested the same thing I've gone ahead and move the info in the intro about history to the history section with a view to trimming the paragraph in the introduction somehow. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

History

I have started a very quick history section. I don't expect it to be perfect - I virtually ignore Scotland altogether. But it is there for us to work on. --RA (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of phrase "British Isles" in English Wikipedia - straw poll

There has been a discussion for some time at Wikipedia:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force on the use of the phrase "British Isles".

A straw poll has now been called on the outcome of this project, please make your views known. The proposal being polled is shown below. Please vote here.

The straw poll is issued against a background of a number of editors systematically deleting all usage of "British Isles" throughout the site. The manual of style proposal attempts to set some rules to mediate this process.

  • The British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use on Wikipedia may or may not include the Channel Islands.
  • Use of British Isles is not prescribed in any context (i.e. there is no context in which British Isles has to be used).
  • Use of British Isles is appropriate in geographic contexts and (scientific) contexts related to geography such as distribution of flora and fauna, geology, weather patterns and archeology.
  • Don't mix "apples" and "pears" (e.g. if content lists states then list states, if content lists geographical units then list geographical units).
  • Use of British Isles in political contexts should be avoided after 1922.
  • Use of British Isles on articles that relate particularly to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) should be avoided except where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.

Editors should respect verifiability and differences in terminology that appear in reliable sources where appropriate. Edit warring over use or non-use of British Isles is discouraged.

WHERE TO VOTE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesinderbyshire (talk • contribs) 06:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy and we do not decide things by voting. Consensus, policy and strength of argument rather than numbers determine how we edit the project. Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's a straw poll, as the title suggests. One can vote in a straw poll - the result is not binding. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Eh hello? What's with the systematically deleting all usage of "British Isles" throughout the site? --HighKing (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Not a vote, just a way to work towards consensus by gauging the degree of consensus at an iteration. --RA (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The whole issue feels like blatant attempts to remove any reference of "British" in anything to do with Ireland. Mabuska (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


Controversy now removed to the 4th paragraph

It won't last. The British nationalist agenda of this article gets worse each week. How long before they try to remove the controversy entirely from this article? Almost 40 archives of resistance on this discussion forum, the official rejection of the term by the democratically-elected government of Ireland and the term's abandonment by numerous international organisations and our British nationalist friends are still trying to contend that the controversy is not at the heart of this article's title. You'd have to be blind not to see the political agenda which has hijacked this article. Dunlavin Green (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
BW, you might want to look at some of your many statements about the motivations of people who you think are attempting to remove BI from all articles. The tone etc. is almost identical to that from Dunlavin Green from the opposing political perspective. Motes and Motes come to mind. --Snowded TALK 23:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
He was not just attacking me, so mentioning assuming good faith was valid. I was not complaining about it. I found his little rant and the one that followed rather amusing. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
As I found your near identical statements in other contexts. Come on BW you are an honest editor, some self-awareness might help avoid provocation --Snowded TALK 00:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There is only one person trying to provoke something in this section and that is Dunlavin with his original rant against British editors and then the Butcher's Apron comment. Especially as this whole section was completely pointless. He obviously had not read WP:Lead correctly if he thinks the controversy must be mentioned in the first paragraph. An IP editor inserted something that was unacceptable to the first sentence and would need consensus, i undid the edit. Then this section on the talk page was started, i have no clue why. I just wanna go to bed, im not after a fight with anyone on anything at this time of night. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Was your above rant in response to my removal of the totally unacceptable IP addition to the first sentence? If that is the case i do not understand the section heading you have given this. The controversy nonsense has been in the fourth paragraph for ages, it absolutely has no place in the first paragraph, and certainly not the first sentence. That sort of alteration will be undone immediately. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
As if to prove my point, the above is from a guy with the name 'BritishWatcher' who has the Butcher's Apron flying on his User Page. If that's not a statement of this user's British jingoism then nothing is. The removal of Irish objections to the fourth paragraph has not existed for "ages" as you claim and is merely a reflection of British numerical strength at whatever point you and your fellow John Bulls chose to have a "vote" on the issue. The term is widely rejected in Ireland and, no matter what you people do, Irish people will accordingly continue to come here and point this out. This article is going nowhere. Your present pyrrhic victory is simply that. Dunlavin Green (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh and you can really talk with your name and contents of your userpage. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Wiki's own lede conventions state that controversies must be at the end of the lede. Seeing as that is where it is at (and has been for a while) then there is no reason for complaint. Mabuska (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Please stop lying. Wikipedia convention states, explicitly, precisely the opposite. Here is an extract from Wikipedia's "lede convention": 'The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies (my emphasis)' and 'Introductory text. As explained in more detail at Wikipedia:Lead section#Introductory text, all but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"). The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies (my emphasis), and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more.' This can be found here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section. Dunlavin Green (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My comment is based on those guidelines as pointed out by Wiki-Ed here:

Seeing as the controversy is in the lede and in the order given here. Mabuska (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am going on the actual policy as linked by me above, not on what a British Wikipedia editor with a long history on this article claims it is. And that policy is unequivocal about what the introductory text of the lede should include: it should include the controversy. Verbatim (once again): 'The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies (my emphasis)' Source (again): http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section. Not for the first time, this article is in breach of Wikipedia policy as it tries to fulfil a political motivation. Dunlavin Green (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Which is why there is a WHOLE 4th paragraph in the introduction on this little controversy. I do not understand what you are getting worked up about. It was not about to be removed from the introduction. Nowhere in any guideline or policy does it say we must mention it in the first sentence of first paragraph. If you have got a link saying otherwise, let us now. Otherwise let us all go and get some sleep ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I think thats the point, the policy says in the following order in its sentence..
1) define the topic
2) establish context
3) explain why the subject is interesting or notable
4) summarize the most important points including any notable controversies
Thats all they meant, following that order of things, where controversies is the final thing mentioned, not the first. WP:LEAD does not apply just to the first paragraph, it applies to the whole introduction. Again, why are you getting worked up? Nothing is being violated, except by yourself perhaps with your lack of assuming good faith among other things. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Reading the whole policy carefully, it doesn't say a word about which paragraph any controversies should be in. So that is presumably up to the article editors to decide. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't say what paragraph as who knows how many paragraphs one of the other points will use ;-)
It works where it is now. The British Isles are summarized, and then the naming is discussed after. Although personally, the lede seems to dwell too long on the history section. That could be cut down. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
It does work well the way it currently is, however i do agree that the history section of the lede can be greatly reduced including the geological history. The lede is only meant to highlight the key issues and topics that are to fully detailed throughout the rest of the article or via wiki-links. Problem is condensing the information given without leaving out notable. Mabuska (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Move the rocks section to geology, just leave a couple of summarizing sentences, and check the history section covers what is in the lede, and summarize that too I guess. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
RA was doing excellent work on the article content a few weeks ago, and I hope he'll get back to it when other commitments allow. I agree that the 2nd and 3rd paras should be shorter, and that any text in there now, which is not in the main body of the text, should be (if ref'd, obviously) moved into the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be clear consensus for some trimming of paragraph 2 and 3 the trouble is deciding which bits get the chop. I would support the removal of "Scotland and Wales both voted for devolution within the UK in 1998, leading to the creation of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly in 1999. Devolution of government for Northern Ireland also took place in 1999 following the Belfast Agreement of 1998, although devolution was suspended between 2002 and 2007 due to ongoing security and political problems."
Internal devolution within the UK is not really needed. If we removed that then the following paragraph would flow well after the mention of partition of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. AJRG (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
So do I, too much politics for a geography article --Snowded TALK 11:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I would go with that as well - the devolution material can go down. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed on the devolution bits though Northern Irelands devolution problems are really a matter for the Northern Ireland article on something. In fact the overall devolution issue is more suitable for the United Kingdom article. Obviously we could add the approriate See Also links to the Government section. Reducing the geological section will definately be hardest though. Mabuska (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed that sentence about devolution, if anyone objects to it and reverts it we can discuss it more. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cutting down lede paragraph 3 into something more streamlined

How about we cut out some of the historical political stuff which can be expanded upon in the article itself and linked to and more on the influx of different peoples? This is the current:


This is a proposed change culled mostly from a paragraph in the lede over at British people with additions. It does largely gloss over political entities though and covers essentially immigration, cross-breeding, and emigration - key elements in the history and development of the islands.


Its not perfect but a possible start? Mabuska (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Much better. You're sig. got lost, so I've added it back. AJRG (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Good work. My initial suggestion below. Huguenots and (especially) Palatines are a bit obscure, and I think we should also try to avoid confusion between the history of the islands as a whole (this article) and that of its constituent countries (other articles).:
Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I got stuck on the first sentence when I started looking at this last week. What I would like to do is tweak the second paragraph and then include something in the first sentence of the third referring to earlier periods of colonisation which would tie it closely to the information on geography and ice ages. The source I was looking at was this news article [15] and the associated journal entry. I don't think we need to include the speculative bits, but the first sentences could read something like:
Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I like it, my only slight quibble is with this line -

migrations following the Irish Famine, Highland Clearances and religious persecution resulted in the distribuation of the islands' population and culture around the world.

This gives a lot of weight to 'forced' emigration from Ireland and Scotland - and yes, that's certainly important. But remember that 2.35 million emigrants left England and Wales between 1861 and 1900, and 14 per cent of those came from the West of England, which was one of the most important emigration regions. (cited from Dudley Baines (1991), "Emigration from Europe 1815-1930") Economic conditions were amongst the biggest 'push' factors for emigration from Britain in the 1770s, around 1801, 1815-20 and in the 1880s.--Pondle (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Pondle is there a particular expression or event that might be used to describe this? What about "economic downturns"? BTW I think this is a big improvement on the current para. Bjmullan (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
A reference to "economic migration" from England and Wales would do it for me.--Pondle (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Pondle, the population of Ireland halved in the latter half of the 19th century. It is a demography that is unparalleled anywhere in the world. In the past, when people talked about Ireland they talked about a populous country, almost as densely populated as England. Contrast that with today. Today, the population of the island of Ireland has just returned to what it was at the time of the Act of Union. Think about that: Ireland lost two centuries worth of people.
Over the same period, the population of England has increased five fold. Wales grew five fold in the 19th century. Scotland grew three fold in the same century. England grew from 30 million to 50 million over the course of the 20th century, whereas the population of Scotland and Wales have increased little 1901.
Demographic data for the UK (including all of Ireland) can be seen here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/fom2005/01_fopm_population.pdf
--RA (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There are lots of (former) countries that have been completely depopulated and have never recovered, notable today only because of the ruins in the middle of jungles or deserts. But anyway I don't think that's the point: no-one is disputing that Ireland is less populous than it could be. I think Pondle simply wants to improve the breadth of coverage. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Does it compare in significance to the topic? The rapid de-population of Ireland in the latter half of the 19th century completely changed the demographic picture the archipelago. We went from the population of both islands being proportionate to each other to 90% of the (remaining) population being on one. That in the course of 50 years one of the two major islands in the archipelago emptied out of people is surely a little more note-wothy than saying that people immigrated from England and Wales to the New World - sure, people did that everywhere in Europe. --RA (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
RA, I'm not trying to belittle the Irish emigration experience. But as the line is currently written, it looks (to me) like the Irish Famine and the Highland Clearances are being described as the main factors responsible for "spreading the population and culture of the British Isles around the world". That's not true. The demographer Campbell Gibson concluded that in 1990, 49 per cent of the US population descended primarily from the settler and black population of 1790, 51 per cent from immigrants after that date. And the settler population of the US in 1790 was 60 per cent English and 80 per cent British. And according to Dudley Baines, emigration from Britain between 1815 and 1930 totalled 11.4m compared to 7.3m from Ireland. Obviously the migration rate per head of population was much higher for Ireland, but do you see why I think that economic migration from England and Wales was just as significant is "spreading the islands population and culture around the world"?--Pondle (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I wasn't looking at the "spreading the population and culture of the British Isles around the world" but the comparison of demographic change in Ireland against emigration from England to the New World. The statement that the migrations from Ireland and Scotland "resulted in the distribuation of the islands' population and culture around the world" is in fact misleading. The major factor resulting in the spreading of the "culture of the British Isles" (viz. English culture) around the world was of course primarily the empire, not the migration of people. English is not an official language in countries from Botswana to Zimbabwe because people from these parts emigrated there. It is because we did tours of duty there. (Something we Irish like to wash our hands of whereas in fact we formed half of the army at the time.) --RA (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "The population of the British Isles are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century." - This kind of gives the impression that there was just a mess of unspecified "tribes" (or somthing like it) before the the 11th century. What about the Scots, Picts, Briton of classical times? The Anglo-Saxons. The Norse. England, Scotland and Ireland existed as definite kingdoms at the time (although that shouldn't be confused with "peoples" exactly). The Normans didn't suddenly bring order to it all. Order very definitely existed before.
  • "Prehistoric, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended under the Normans..." - It was hardly the Normans that did the blending. If "blending" even happened. Consider that "Scot"-land is named after people from Ireland. Modern Scotland is a blending of "Scots" and Picts that predates the Norman invasions. Blending a plenty before they every arrived.
  • "Conquest and union of other parts of the islands facilitated migration, cultural and linguistic exchange, and intermarriage between the people of the different states in the islands during the Middle Ages, early modern period and beyond." - Whoa! So much here I can't even think of where to begin asking for a reference. Let's start with "linguistic exchange", just for the heck of it!
  • "...immigration by people from the Commonwealth..." - Very GB centric. Can the same the said for the other major island?

--RA (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand why you removed mention of the development of the UK. Or the succession of Ireland from it and the complicated devolution in the UK. Surely these are important to the political/cultural/ethnic make up of the islands today? --RA (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Also (also), feedback from the peer review was that, "The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. It ideally should neglect no major parts of the article, and it should not include important material that is not mentioned in the main text. About half of the existing lead is devoted to history, but the article has no history section. The lead does not mention "Etymology", "Transport", or "Culture". In short, it's not a summary of the article. WP:LEAD has details." --RA (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we can sensibly reduce this paragraph and maintain neutrality. It took several editors quite a while to put it together and balance it: taking one part out (as BW has done) will invariably lead to arguments. There is an argument for removing political history entirely and leaving it to the body of the article (in violation of WP:LEAD), but there is no argument for snipping bits of text out to the extent that the paragraph become imbalanced (in violation of WP:NPOV). Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I did say it wasn't perfect and did say that much of it is culled from another article and that it was only a possible start. Don't start shouting about stuff being left out as it is only a possible suggestion that others can work with.

The mention of French Hugenots and German Palatines is not specific to England only. They also settled in Ireland, Scotland and more. In fact the Huguenots were instrumental in the creation of the Irish linen trade which was a major economic factor for the north of Ireland.

On RAs points:

  • "The population of the British Isles are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century." - This kind of gives the impression that there was just a mess of unspecified "tribes" (or somthing like it) before the the 11th century. What about the Scots, Picts, Briton of classical times? The Anglo-Saxons. The Norse. England, Scotland and Ireland existed as definite kingdoms at the time (although that shouldn't be confused with "peoples" exactly). The Normans didn't suddenly bring order to it all. Order very definitely existed before.

There was a varied ethnic stock. Its hardly stating there was a mess of "tribes". Before the 11th century there was lots of migrations of peoples within the islands and from outside - Romans conquered and settled and along with them their slaves. Gaels settled in Cornwall, the Isle of Man, Wales, and western Scotland. The Norse settled England, northern Scotland and the Scottish Isles and the Isle of Man and Ireland. Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc settled parts of England and expanded into Briton territory and as far as Lothian, Scotland. Picts are alleged to have settled in northern Ireland as Cruithin or something. People of Celtic culture are noted as having migrated into Great Britain and Ireland such as the Belgae. The Britons still existed in Anglo-Saxon territory though their actual territory shrunk to present-day Cornwall and Wales, and the northern part of the kingdom of Strathclyde which became part of Scotland.

There might of been kingdoms prior to the 11th century but they weren't toally united cohesive units - they mostly consisted of rival over-kingdoms and minor-kingdoms that were continually subject to invading peoples. The kingdom of England was only created in the 10th century. The kingdom of Scotland was only created in the 9th century (and even then excluded the Western Isles and the Shetlands etc. until later). Wales was never a kingdom of its own though only in the 11th century did they recognise a single ruler over their remaining territory. The kingdom of Ireland didn't exist until the 16th century unless you count the High-Kings who only claimed lordship over the whole island but most of them hardly held authority over the whole island and were subject to continual usurption attempts, with the over-kingdoms and minor-kingdoms still subject to interwarring and invasions of Vikings. <- if you have a problem with any of those statements then please change their related Wiki articles.

The Normans when they came settled in England, Wales, and Scotland and after the 11th century, Ireland. There might of existed kingdoms before them but it wasn't until the advance of the Normans that the people of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland became more unified even though they consisted of different groups of people, but their gradual assimilation with each other lead to them becoming nations of distinctive but related culture and language.

  • "Prehistoric, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended under the Normans..." - It was hardly the Normans that did the blending. If "blending" even happened. Consider that "Scot"-land is named after people from Ireland. Modern Scotland is a blending of "Scots" and Picts that predates the Norman invasions. Blending a plenty before they every arrived.
The blending sentence is copy from the article i stated, its not my work. Though modern Scotland is not the simple blending of Scots and Picts. Modern Scotland is actually a blending of Scots, Picts, Britons, Norse, Anglo-Saxons and Normans. And many of its most notable Scottish rulers had joint heritage such as the Norman ancestry of the Stewarts and the Gael-Norman heritage of Robert the Bruce. Scotland may be named after the Irish Scots however its identity was formed by the combination of its people in opposition to the Normans even though many Norman familys themselves settled in Scotland and became Scottish septs in their own right. Just as many Hiberno-Norman families became "more Irish than the Irish themselves" but in the form of the "Old English" many would unite with the native Irish in opposition to Englands attempts to enforce Protestant control over their Catholism.
  • "Conquest and union of other parts of the islands facilitated migration, cultural and linguistic exchange, and intermarriage between the people of the different states in the islands during the Middle Ages, early modern period and beyond." - Whoa! So much here I can't even think of where to begin asking for a reference. Let's start with "linguistic exchange", just for the heck of it!
  • "...immigration by people from the Commonwealth..." - Very GB centric. Can the same the said for the other major island?
Whilst i agree Commonwealth immigration is more centered on GB maybe we could just state that its centered more on that island. Linguistics in the British Isles are very related. Gaelic has influenced Welsh, Cornish, Manx and Scots-Gaelic and to a lesser extent Ulster-Scots. The Norse have influenced Manx and Norn. Old-English has influenced the Scots language, which is the central basis of Ulster-Scots. Norman-French has influenced English. There are many words in all languages that are borrowed from the languages of other peoples in the islands. I'd call that linguistic exchange wouldn't you say?

Personally i can't be bothered going on any more about it as i was only suggesting a possible way of condensing it down, though i do have sources for most of the comments i've made above. Just whether i can bothered going through all my history books for them is another matter. I'll let you guys settle on what to include. Mabuska (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Isles/Archive_37&oldid=1136301526"