Talk:Derry/Archive 2

Getting back
Getting back to the discussion above, is there an agreement that the current reference to state that the city walls are the most complete in the British Isles is, at best, weak. And that the text should be changed to support the multiple other references that arguably form primary source material? --HighKing (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there is no agreement. Your references are dismal, secondary sources, not worth the space they occupy on the screen. The reference I noted is from a comprehensive guidebook written by a noted expert on the subject. It states that the walls are some of the best preserved in the British Isles. That reference can be included in the article with a slight rewording to take account of "preserved" rather than "complete". I will do so. The mention of Chester should be deleted. As for your accusation that I'm only interested in maintaining BI - correct, that is an interest of mine. I wish to maintain it where it makes sense to do so, like here, where it adds useful information. You, on the other hand, have apparently campaigned for months to remove the terminology from as many places as possible. I see this article as just the latest front on what seems almost like a war being waged to get rid of British Isles. LevenBoy (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If the best argument you can come up with is that you believe the references are dismal secondary sources, I think you've already sunk to trying to appeal to ridicule as a tactic, and lost. The references, all five of them, are websites dedicated to Derry, and one is *not* a tourist website.  So while a single "tourist" website reference was good enough for including the article, 5 "tourist" website references are suddenly dismal secondary sources?  Please behave, and act in good faith. Quit your blatent ridicule or your arguments will just lost credibility.  --HighKing (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I could search the internet and find numerous claims that the moon is made of cheese. However it is not, and my ability to reference such material does not warrant its inclusion in a encyclopedia. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information (ie: correct information) not disinformation motivated by political ideology.
 * It is, of course, at best weak. This now tiresome practice of imposing "British Isles" into Irish articles is designed to disrupt the article by imposing the views of British nationalists, people who wouldn't blink an eyelid before blaming the Irish for the massacre on Bloody Sunday. Dunlavin Green (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My objection to the inclusion of the term British Isles is based solely on the fact that the claim is wrong. Either Chester is more complete or Derry is more complete. Including a disclaimer at the end of the British Isles sentence pointing out that the inclusion of the statement is known to be wrong even as it is inserted invalidates your attempt to include it in a encylcopedia in the first place. As it happens Conwy in Wales is the most complete walls in Britian. Derry's are the most complete in Ireland. As both are 100% complete, neither can be more complete than the other! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.178.56 (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the reference. I quote: ".......are the best preserved in the British Isles". This is a verifiable fact from a reputable source, not from some tourist website. We can add that direct quote as a reference in the article. Why should this fact not appear in the article? LevenBoy (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you dismiss tourist websites, but a single "tourist" guidebook is now good enough? Take a closer look at your tourist book - it was written in 1973, 36 years ago!  It's sorely out of date, and we've already seen how some websites used make the same claim and have since changed to just state "Ireland".  Your book even credits a number of other "tourist" guides for it's information, such as The Shell Guides, and even The Irish Tourist Board.  --HighKing (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The point about it being 36 year old - irrelevant. If the walls were the best preserved then, they will be now. You just don't like the term British Isles and you'll stop at nothing to remove it. I've added the reference and amended the text. Please don't start an edit war, especially when referenced material is involved. LevenBoy (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)To date, there are two editors that agree to change the article, and the arguments put forward by LevenBoy appear to be more related to "include British Isles at all costs" than any interest in the quality of the article. I propose to change the article text shortly. @Cantebury Talk - you have participated in keeping this article at a sensible keel, your input and opinion on this would help greatly. --HighKing (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Two - that would be you and the IP then, would it? I seem to recall you mentioning elsewhere that the opinions of IPs are not generally taken into account. And is it not the case that your interests are to remove British Isles at all costs? I've just been looking at some archive stuff about you and your campaign. LevenBoy (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, two. Anon IP's opinions are generally not counted in polls - this is not a poll, it's a discussion.  Hopefully more editors will provide their opinions soon.  And I suppose it's only to be expected that if you can't win an arguement by references and facts, you'll attempt a smear campaign next.  Behave.  --HighKing (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It is natural for somewhere to claim thy have the largest, biggest, longest, heaviest (insert noun here) in the largest possible geographical area. We could claim London is the largest city in southern England, and it would be true, but it doesn't sound as significant as saying it's the largest city in England, UK, British Isles, Western Europe, World etc. With this in mind I believe things should be stated in the largest area possible to highlight their importance and significance. However, these things need to be properly sourced and referenced, our personal viewpoints and opinions have no place on Wikipedia. If reliable references, that the community can consent on, can be produced to state it is the X in the British Isles then the article should state this, as another source saying X in Ireland isn't contradicting that statement, just putting it in a smaller area that is true but not necessarily the whole truth. So what this comes down to is reliability of references. What makes a reliable reference? That is for consensus to decide. So in short, in my opinion, the references saying the best preserved, most complete, in Ireland don't override references saying best, most, in British Isles. They are correct, but it is possible to be more precise if you take my meaning. Canterbury Tail  talk  12:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's exactly my stance on this as well, thank you. The key is "properly sourced and referenced", but weight must also be given to primary sources, and the factual accuracy.  Since there are no reliable references for LevenBoy's self-confessed POV pushing (see above), and since he has also confessed that he's only interested in inserting the term "British Isles" at all costs, then that makes it 3 editors that agree to focus on references and policies which meet WP standards.  I've changed the article.  --HighKing (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have started an unnecessary edit war. LevenBoy (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you know my reference is of good quality. You are now misreprenting my views and accusing me of POV pushing. Are you POV pushing? LevenBoy (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the Google Books reference is a good one. However, whatever happened to the reference from Discover Ireland? The website of the islands official tourist body. Since they cover the whole island I think it's a perfectly valid reference especially since they're saying British Isles. Canterbury Tail  talk  14:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi CT - as it turns out, I wrote to Discover Ireland to ask if they could provide more information - and they quoted their reference as coming from ... wait for it ... Wikipedia, Derryvisitor, and the Magee Campus of the university of Ulster. The last two have since changed their websites to state "Ireland", so that leaves Wikipedia relying on a source that is in turn relying on them.  They have said that they will look to correct the "inaccuracy" website.  Feel free to similarly contact them for independent verification if necessary, or I have no problem if you want to email me.  --HighKing (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it not a good one? Look up details of the author - he's an expert in the subject with many related publications to his name. The book is a substantial publication going into great detail on the history and geography of Ireland. If this is not a good reference I don't know what is. I supppose the problem with the Discover Ireland website is that it will be secondary in nature, written by people who are not experts in the subject. The material is likely to have been sourced from other publications maybe even from Wikipedia. I expect the author isn't even named, so there would be no pedigree. The Google book on the other hand is a primary source, written by an expert who has researched the subject. LevenBoy (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't a good reference because:
 * You say the author is a recognized expert on the subject. The subject of what?  How is he an expert?  Of Ireland?  Of Travelling?  Of writing?
 * The book is completely outdated - it was written in 1973 - that's 36 years ago. That's before the internet.  That's older than most editors here.  There are newer sources which made the claim that have since corrected themselves (maybe because Chester also makes the exact same claims?)
 * The book is not published as a scholarly work that can be relied on. Indeed, it has a disclaimer.
 * Reviews on the back cover point to it being a great travel companion, not a great well researched piece of scholarly work
 * In general though, the weight of one single reference does not overturn or trump the weight of the primary sources. Or indeed I could just as easily produce many other "scholarly" works that don't make the claim.  If this claim was as obvious as it should be for inclusion in an encyclopedic work, I would expect a majority of verifiable references to exist.  They don't.  --HighKing (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)@CT, I expected by now that you would have taken steps to prevent the blatant gaming of the system by LevenBoy to insert "best preserved" as the new "British Isles" text. I'm trying to keep on the right side of what's right and fair on this, but other editors (and especially admins) must also do their bit too! --HighKing (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC) (outdent)@CT, I expected by now that you would have taken steps to prevent the blatant gaming of the system by LevenBoy to insert "best preserved" as the new "British Isles" text. I'm trying to keep on the right side of what's right and fair on this, but other editors (and especially admins) must also do their bit too! --HighKing (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm now compelled to give you both 3RR warnings, and have done so. Tit for tat edit warring, no matter the reason, is disruptive. Canterbury Tail   talk  16:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (conflict)OK, this is definitely not gaming the system. Content dispute - yes, BI issue - yes, but that's all. What are your detailed thoughts on the Google Books reference, and please just don't dismiss it out of hand. LevenBoy (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But it could have been avoided with an earlier intervention on the blatent gaming of the system by LevenBoy by his trying to insert a reference which was still under discussion.  When a discussion is already taking place on Talk, an editor shouldn't try to hijack the article without agreement.  --HighKing (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Above question was for HighKing. LevenBoy (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The article states "one of the finest examples of a Walled City in Europe". How does adding the statement ".... are the best preserved in the British Isles" supercede, improve or agrandise the previous statement which mentions the walled city in the context of Europe. Europe (or indeed the "World" if we could find a reference) is the best claim that can be made for the walls. Why brain damage the claim if not solely to push a POV.

Also Conwy in Wales has a claim to better preservation/more completeness than even Chester, both of course in Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.178.56 (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm its an interesting debate here. I think this article goes into a bit too much detail in the intro about the walls / fortification, its almost all of the very large 4th paragraph, surely that should be shortened. I think reducing that is far more important than the ongoing campaign to remove British Isles from wikipedia. As for the comment about "one of the finest examples of a walled city in Europe and best preserved... the two things are slightly different. If you can find a source saying its the best preserved in Europe then British Isles should be removed and the two sentences merged into one to talk about Europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the key issue is the quality of the reference. As to whether it's true or not is somewhat immaterial - see WP:V; verifiability comes before truth. I'm not wholeheartedly behind that idea, but that's what we have. With that in mind, I'm still waiting for some genuine criticism of the reference. To me it's an excellent reference from a good authority. As such, it is entirely acceptable to include it in the article. LevenBoy (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I removed the statement about Chester because it wasn't properly at first and it was labelled as vandalism by HighKing, but now it has been removed by someone else! Absolutely ridiculous.--FF3000 (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Best Preserved Europe
Quote:"Derry's walls are some of the best preserved in Europe" Reference: www.bbc.co.uk

Quote:"which are among the best preserved city fortifications in Europe" Reference: The Guardian

Quote:"along Europe's best preserved city walls" Reference: Derry Vistor and Convention Bureau (ie Official Derry Tourist Office) (page 4)

Quote:"Not only is it the only remaining completely walled city in Ireland but it is one of the best-preserved city fortifications in all of Europe." Reference:

Quote:"Derry’s city walls date back to the early 17th century and are some of the best preserved in Europe" Reference:

Google Search "derry walls best preserved british isles" results:3140

Google Search "derry walls best preserved ireland" results:5750

Google Search "derry walls best preserved europe" results:5210

OK, so there are most results for Ireland, but I am happy with Europe, as having seen several other walled cities, I do believe that Derry's walls are an outstanding example in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.178.56 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 3 June 2009


 * I dont like some of those sources most are unreliable, the BBC one is on the part of their site anyone can edit, the guardianholiday one is someone just talking people through their holiday. The Greg Preston one is also just someones point of view. However i think the other two are ok and there certainly seems to be justification to say in Europe rather than the British Isles although i dont like the current sentence, it could probably be worded better but something along those lines is ok with me.
 * And considering there was an edit war on this matter earlier i dont think people should rush in and just change it, its possible its going to be undone when they return. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, try excluding the exact Wikipedia phrase from those searches.... --HighKing (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be added to "reasons why Google hits is bad". Anyway...
 * Google Search derry walls "best preserved" "in the british isles" results:415
 * Google Search derry walls "best preserved" "in the british isles" -wikipedia results:277


 * Google Search derry walls "best preserved" "in Ireland" results:1,940
 * Google Search derry walls "best preserved" "in Ireland" -wikipedia results:1,840


 * Google Search derry walls "best preserved" "in Europe" results:1,930
 * Google Search derry walls "best preserved" "in Europe" -wikipedia results:1,760


 * But when we try to refine and narrow our search to exclude a lot of bad links and terms that only say they're one of the best:
 * Google Search derry walls "best preserved in Europe" -"one of the best preserved" -"amongst the best preserved" -"among the oldest and the best preserved" -"among the best preserved" -"some of the best preserved" results: 0 (zero)
 * And we can end up going round in circles for days... --HighKing (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. I fully agree that that is enough evidence. I'm really starting to think that having "British Isles" on the page is an intentional act by Unionists to refer to Britain on the page as much as they can, which cannot be accepted.--FF3000 (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now added three references that say that Derry has the best preseved walls in Europe. I think that, along with HighKing's evidence from Google should be enough to end this argument.--FF3000 (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont see the need for British Isles to remain there as we can talk about a much larger area Europe in this case. Although i still think that entire paragraph needs rewritting and making smalled, its a huge block of text and looks like it belongs in its own section of the article not in the inro. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * C'mon guys - if we're going to use references, we have to make sure that they meet WP:V. We should give some weight and preference to primary sources, if available.  So what are the primary source for the city wall - or even the city.  Official sources are also good.  And finally, and scholarly works.  And we really should discuss the references here and agree them - otherwise I'll bet that we'll be back arguing the same points in a month.  So to kick it off, can I suggest that we agree the Northern Ireland Environment Agency is a good official source.  Can we agree on a primary source (say the discoverNorthernIreland website or Derryvisitor), and let's also find a "scholarly" source also.  Thanks.  --HighKing (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Er ... hello? Can we try to not have "discussions" in edit summaries on the article, and just do it here first.  --HighKing (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The compromise position offered by User:MisterFlash seems fine. I notice that User:HighKing has reverted it without explanation or comment here. Why is it a problem to have referecnes to both points - that the walls are the best preserved in the British Isles AND that they are the most complete in Europe? Both are now well referenced. Again I say, what is the problem? LevenBoy (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Because of the weakness of the reference (see above), and what now appears to be an illogical POV-pushing desire to include the term "British Isles" at all costs, regardless of whether there is any basis for the term or not. Your reference has been called into question by a number of editors, and so far you have yet to produce any rebuttal of the arguments against the reference. Even the argument of "the widest area possible" fails in light of the references that use the term "Europe". Maybe we can even find a few that state "the world"? But so far, you've flip flopped so many times! You've given up on "the most complete" claim, and you're now trying to insert a "one of the best preserved" claims, for the single self-admitted reason that it includes the term "British Isles"? Even CanterburyTail has told you that the reference is dodgy! Since you haven't bothered to reply above, I'll copy the reasons here again:
 * It isn't a good reference because:
 * You say the author is a recognized expert on the subject. The subject of what?  How is he an expert?  Of Ireland?  Of Travelling?  Of writing?
 * The book is completely outdated - it was written in 1973 - that's 36 years ago.
 * Primary sources that used to make the same claim about the "British Isles" have corrected themselves to now state "Ireland".
 * The book is not published as a scholarly work that can be relied on. Indeed, it has a disclaimer.
 * Reviews on the back cover point to it being a great travel companion, not a great well researched piece of scholarly work
 * In general though, the weight of one single reference does not overturn or trump the weight of the primary sources. Or indeed I could just as easily produce many other "scholarly" works that don't make the claim.  If this claim was as obvious as it should be for inclusion in an encyclopedic work, I would expect a majority of verifiable references to exist.  They don't.  --HighKing (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Look up details of the author. He's a noted expert in Irish history and geogrpahy. The book was revised in 2001, so any inaccuracies would have been corrected. The main point is however, are you saying the statement the author makes is untrue? If it's true there's no reason why it can't be included. The point you make about "correcting" BI to IRE is not valid. Such changes are not corrections, but I'll leave it up to you decide what they are. The only reason you consider it a bad reference is because it contains the dreaded words. And you have a single self-admitted policy of removing British Isles from this encyclopedia. As much as others are trying to retain the term, you are trying to delete it. See British Empire and Military history of the peoples of the British Islands as the most recent examples of this. In the league of scholarly works, the book in question is several divisions above your websites, which are Blue Square Premier League at best.LevenBoy (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked the edit history of this article (too lazy). But we should respect the agreement to not add/remove British Isles from any articles, until we've decided how to use the term (at the BI Taskforce). GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I haven't checked either, but I think the term has been there for some time and is now the target of the deletionists. LevenBoy (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Meh. Even though the fact that the River Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles is undisputed anywhere but on WP, the deletionists managed to get that removed from the Shannon's article... good luck with trying to keep it in here. (Though in this instance I think the completeness or otherwise of Derry's walls is contended enough to play it safe and leave it to "Ireland" in this article). Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 15:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, just so you know, I agreed that the "British Isles" should remain in the River Shannon article. And my position on that hasn't changed.  --HighKing (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that would make people trying to put "Republic of Ireland" into articles "insertionists"? :-) Whatever happened to policies on verifiable referencable sources, proper weight, etc?  Funny that LevenBoy keeps flopping about attacking the editor (in breach of WP:AGF - good job he's not an Irish editor or he'd be blocked by now) instead of addressing the argument.  @Bastun, we may disagree over terminology, but I'm glad we can both agree on what makes a good reference. --HighKing (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The walls in Derry are rarely referred to as the best preserved walls in the "British Isles", as proved by HighKing, and the current layout (at time of writing) with both Europe and British Isles mentioned looks stupid.

It also must be remembered that the term "British Isles" is a term which many people dislike.--FF3000 (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It must also be remembered that we have WP:5, which trumps peoples' mere dislike! Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 17:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

People reading Wikipedia mightn't like it, so people's dislike is important. Anyway, the term British Isles has no official standing with either the Irish or British Governments.--FF3000 (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I see anything in the five pillars in support of "British Isles".--FF3000 (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * @LevenBoy, there's not a lot to your rebuttal - please back up your statements if possible - and you ignored most of the points made. You did say the author is a noted expert in Irish history and geography - says who?  He's a writer.  He's also written books in the "Enchanted World" series on "Wizards and Witches" and "The Book of Christmas", but that wouldn't mean he's an expert on "Enchanting" or "Wizards"?  Or St. Nicholas or "Witches".  In fact, I'm finding it difficult to find out any details about this guy - where are you getting your info from?  You say the book was revised in 2001, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it was written 36 years ago, and the "revised" probably refers to fact that they inserted photographs.  --HighKing (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear! I'm inclined not to respond to your demands; they are quite unreasonable, but what the hell! Type "Brendan Lehane" into Google and press the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button. There you will find a list of his publications, which I'm sure you know include a book on Celtic Chritianity as well as several books on Ireland and Dublin, and the books you mention. Quite why you singled out those books I'm not sure. On the same website you'll find a brief biography. As for what "revised" means, that's pure speculation on your part. A book revision will normally look for out-of-date facts and update them - as you well know. Now please provide details of the authors of your preferred references. FF3000 - what in the name of sanity has it got to do with anything here that the term has no official standing with the British or Irish governments; this is a geography article. I've yet to work out whether you are a 'denial' editor ("Ireland is not part of the BI"), or whether, like HighKing, you just don't like the term. Even HK acknowledges its validity in some areas. PS HighKing, why don't you go to River Shannon and mention the fact that the river is the longest in the British Isles? One last point, I take exception to your inference of my nationality. LevenBoy (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. Just keep avoiding the questions.  And resort to appealing to ridicule.  Still waiting for something  .. anything .. to back up anything you've said.  Or is the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button your method of research?  And Oh .. as I've already mentioned previously (please keep up), I did mention that very fact on the River Shannon debate - but I suppose that didn't appear in the first page of results.....  --HighKing (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, hey! The google book was good, but I've got a better one. This reference is from the government, and it's long, so it must be good eh? I've put it in the article and taken out Google books. We don't need loads of these things. So this should be Ok for everyone. You've got mention of Ireland, British Isles and Europe. All sourced, some sources better than others, but all sourced, so let's have no further silliness here. Mister Flash (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As a reference, it's immaculate as far as I'm concerned, but it's still not making a unique claim for the "British Isles" so why is this notable? We've already seen references that make the claim it's the "among the most complete in Europe"?  Europe is still bigger than British Isles...  --HighKing (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! you'll just do anything to get rid of British Isles, I see. Nothing would be good enough for you. Mister Flash (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To LevenBoy, I don't understand what exactly you're trying to say but I'm not a "denial editor". I, just like the vast majority of Irish people, don't like using the term. What angers me about the term, is that some British people actually take pride in using it. It's a term whose use should have been discontinued after the declaration of Ireland as a republic.

And although I don't want to offend other users in anyway, I see that you've had your fair share of edit wars in different articles. --FF3000 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Lough Neagh discussion was fought on the grounds that BIs are bigger than Ireland, so being the biggest in Ireland did not matter. Well, Europe is bigger than BIs, and BI don't matter under the same thesis. Tfz    01:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * HighKing, you say "but it's still not making a unique claim for the British Isles". So what? I notice you don't question the sentence that says "one of the finest examples of a walled city in Europe". Not the finest example, but merely one of them. So if that non-unique claim is not a problem why is the one that remarks "among the most complete in the British Isles" not acceptable? I think "most complete" is more objective than "finest" (whatever "finest" might mean), so "one of the most complete", which is backed up by an immaculate reference, is entirely accpetable for this article. It conveys useful information, namely, if you want to see one of the most complete city walls in the British Isles then get yourself to Derry. I've put it back. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did - check my "C'mon guys" comment, which was made after the "in Europe" references. And as per earlier Talk here (which you were happy to accept at the time by CTail, if's more significant to highlight the biggest area.  Since the "British Isles" claim isn't unique, then the same non-unique claim might as well be made for the largest area.  So stop being disruptive and quit edit warring.  --HighKing (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A British/Irish compromise. Let's allow the British Isles to remain in the content. Either that, or change the article title to Londonderry. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, there's an editor above who basically admitted that the only reason he's arguing, is to get the term "British Isles" into the article. This is an example of the pro-Britist leaning that admins might not realize they actually have.  Put the shoe on the other foot.  If *I* stated that the only reason I was arguing was to *delete* a "British Isles" reference, what do *you* think would be the result?  This article history and discussion here, which we know is watched closely by a number of admins - some who participate - is another example of what Sarah and others have been making examples of for years. --HighKing (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I accept. A sensible compromise. Derry is, after all, a British city. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  22:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Derry is also an Irish city. Funny how something can be British and Irish. LevenBoy (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

HighKing - You'll be telling us next that you are not edit warring. I cannot see the logic of your argument, and with your track record of mass removal of "British Isles" over a long period it's difficult to take you seriously. As the comment above says, nothing would be good enough; no reference would suffice; you will have British Isles out of this article at all costs if you can. There is no problem with the current, sourced, mention of British Isles. The only problem is for editors with your point-of-view who seek to use Wikipedia as a tool for promoting your agenda. MidnightBlue  (Talk)  10:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore - in your haste to get rid of "British Isles" you also reverted an uncontroversial edit that corrected a text duplication and a minor grammar problem. You obviously didn't look at the edits and just reverted on the spot. MidnightBlue  (Talk)  10:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. AGF again.   Probably time I put another warning on your Talk page - you tend to forget this policy a lot.  So when you've something constructive to say about the edits and the references, let me know.  In the meantime, stop editing the article until you've consensus.  As it is, several editors here have all questioned this references, so your edits are bordering on outright vandalism.  --HighKing (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not lose the point. Basically, there are more hits on Google and more references found saying the walls are the most complete in Europe, rather than the BI. Also, for the last time, Europe is a bigger area than the British Isles, a term which doesn't have any official standing and is only used by British people, nobody else.

Therefore, there is no logical, explained reason to say that the city walls are the best in the British Isles. None whatsoever.--FF3000 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for your info, "British Isles" isn't just used by British people. It is used in Ireland by Irish people, including the press, it is used internationally by various sources. It is not just used by British people. If it was there wouldn't be an argument about it. See Talk:British Isles and the related archives for the multitude of sources on the usage of the British Isles outside of the UK, including Ireland. Canterbury Tail   talk  14:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. As an Irish citizen I know well myself that "British Isles" is never used in newspapers, television, radio or any other forms of media in Ireland. I have only ever seen "British Isles" mentioned on BBC sometimes, or books published in Britain.

Anyway, getting back to the point, Europe is a bigger entity than the BI. The users who want BI to be mentioned, Canterbury, want the "Britishness" of Derry City emphasized. The "1RR" is a good idea.--FF3000 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not the place for this discussion, but just as a quick illustration check out these results, and that is just RTE. It is used in Ireland, this has been proved on the British Isles talk pages on many many occasions, just not often. Canterbury Tail   talk  14:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The BI-Taskforce hasn't been closed. Perhaps, this would be a good time to return there? I've a Northern Ireland idea, which might help. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see that you've found some times that it has been used by RTE, but I suppose every term has to be used at least a few times by every media group. I most certainly have never heard it being used in the Irish media though. --FF3000 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice: I've restarted the BI-Taskforce. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What BI taskforce? FF3000 (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See my contributions. They'll lead ya right to it. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look like too bad a place. At first I thought that was going to be a WikiProject in favour of using British Isles, but resolving disputes seems to be its' main aim. FF3000 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a great place to iron out things. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

1RR on City Walls edits
Okay, this is really getting silly now, all these reverts and accusations of vandalism. I am imposing a 1RR on any edits to do with the City Walls in this article for a period of 1 week from today (ending midnight 14 June.) Discuss edits on this page, don't edit war. Only edit with consensus. Anyone breaking the 1 revert restriction will get a 24 hour block for the first offense, and a longer one for following offenses. Canterbury Tail  talk  14:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Great idea CT. Come on guys, control your emotions. I don't want to see any of yas getting blocked over British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call - it's what I suggested a couple of days ago. But just to clarify how it works please because there's a couple of editors here that "hijack" articles by making edits either while the article is still being discussed, or even while there's clearly no consensus.  So, what happens if:
 * Editor1 makes an edit
 * Editor2 reverts
 * Can Editor1 revert the revert and still be seen as OK? Cos if so, then this restriction just encourages editors to "get their retaliation in first".  Can we agree that if an edit is reverted, it stays reverted until consensus is reached?  That way, we won't see the "protracted edit warring" that has been so prevalent on this article, where rather than breaching 3RR on a single day, it just gets spread over a number of days instead.  This would result in a more stable editing environment all round.  --HighKing (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah hah, you're speaking of tag teaming? GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What the heck do you mean by tag teaming? --FF3000 (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking of any behaviour where the "discussion" takes place in the edit descriptions on the article, and not here where it belongs. I'm speaking of editors making an edit to with the the city walls which hasn't been discussed, or has been and doesn't have consensus.  I'm speaking of editors that carefully spread out their reverts so that they maximize 3 per day.  And yes, I'm also talking about tag-teaming where applicable.  The best restriction on the "city walls" editing would be to leave the article in a stable state, agree here what it should say, and then edit it.  CT might be able to suggest a stable state for the "city walls" text which reflects a state before the current edit warring began (I suggest the original British Isles reference using discoverireland).  --HighKing (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In a nut shell, tag teaming is a potential method for the majority disputing editors to out 1RR the minority disputing editors. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha! 1:0 to HighKing and followers. Mister Flash (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Okay, lets make it simpler. No edits to the city walls, and mentions of British Isles for the above listed period with the same penalties. This will encourage discussion on the topic (hopefully), as it's a silly point to get blocked over. Canterbury Tail  talk  19:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying we can't discuss the points here or are you saying that talk page is fine, but no editing the article with the above restrictions. Just to be crystal...  --HighKing (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the article, no edits. In the talk pages yes you can discuss. But everyone, assume good faith and comment on the article and references with NO reference to the other editors unless you are discussing directly a point or reference they have brought up. There are too many comments flying around accusing others of motivations, saying they're pushing an agenda and otherwise. No personal attacks, no comments about the editors, only the content and how to improve the article. This endless bickering is getting out of control. I don't want to have to hand out blocks, but my tolerance for it all is starting to reach the end point rapidly. Many people on this page have said things that they should really have gotten a short term block for, and if it continues they will do. Be civil, assume good faith and work toward improving the article not attacking each other. Canterbury Tail   talk  01:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The vote
Vote on the inclusion of references with regard to the Walls of Derry

Option 1 - Reference to Europe and British Isles Option 2 - References to Europe only
 * 1) Support. But get better quality references for Europe. LevenBoy (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. This seems good. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Makes every reasonable person happy. Mister Flash (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. A very good compromise position. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. A mention of both is the only fair way this is going to be resolved by the look of things. There are sources for both so its not misleading or incorrect to mention both. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Option 3 - Reference to BI only

No. There can't be a vote on this issue. It's mainly about notability and references, not voting. Voting is good in some cases, but not this time. FF3000 (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Vote is fine. It collects opinion. You're abstaining. Mister Flash (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever the Adminstrators decide, is fine by me. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)This is a joke, right? Or is the preceding paragraph your genuine attempt at a neutral intro to the issue? Nah .. This is a joke, right? Cos we don't vote on Wikipedia, we decide by consensus - and you've also pretty much invalidated any NPOV with that intro. The more I read it .... seriously, this is a joke, right? --HighKing (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Another abstainer eh! And an ill-mannered one at that! Mister Flash (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the fact that there is nothing ill-mannered in my response, please take a look at WP:AGF and please don't resort to name-calling - it's considered to be in breach of that policy. It's best to keep your comments on the edits and not on the editor.  --HighKing (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha, ha, ha. I can scarcely credit it! Over the last few days you've been banging on about appealing to ridicule and generally insulting other users with your sarcasm, and then we see your comments (and edit summaries) here. Well blow me down! Mister Flash (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This lunacy will be stopped soon hopefully (I've told Canterbury about it). --FF3000 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Canterbury - yes he can vote or abstain as well. What's up matey, afraid of it going against you? As for HighKing and his derogatory remarks (see WP:CIVIL), you'd have thought he had enough intelligence not to be swayed by the POV from LevenBoy. Mister Flash (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Perhaps if the preceding paragraph is struck out, and the poll (not vote) is presented correctly, more editors would be happier to participate. As it is, this poll should be closed as being invalid and not introducing the topic neutrally. --HighKing (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But this is in a section on its own. The POV bit before is just a continuation of the argument. Look at the last comment as well - "Like all Wikipedia votes this is indicative only." That's right. We know. So what't the problem. Call it a poll or vote, who cares. So stike out the bit you had in mind and leave a message on the LevenBoy's talk page explaining what and why you've done it, in a civil tone mind you. Then let's go for the vote/poll and see what we get. Mister Flash (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not good form for another editor to do it and I'm not sure if my edits would be welcomed. --HighKing (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. Stick an abstain option there then? Mister Flash (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Really it just doesn't matter what result comes up from this ridiculous vote. I'm not going to submit a vote, but I'd like to make the point that there is no logical, explained reason that "British Isles" should be mentioned on the page. No user has put forward a good reason yet, but instead goes off on a tangent. Europe is a bigger entity than the "British Isles", and is a term which doesn't offend anyone.

Please give me, instead of blabbering on about "compromises" and the lot, a good reason why it is better to say that Derry has the best city walls in the "British Isles", rather than "Europe". --FF3000 (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate the EU. The whole concept offends me, and I'm specially offended when reference is made to Europe which could just as easily be made to the country. But, that's not an argument for taking out mention of Europe, not at Wikipedia anyway. Mister Flash (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you. The "EU" doesn't offend any country in particular anyway, so I'm still looking for a reason. --FF3000 (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck. I hope you find one. Mister Flash (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And I probably won't, because there is no logical reason! Just activists who want to enhance the "Britishness" of Derry. --FF3000 (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And why should the Britishness of Derry not be enhanced (not that this does in any way)! Derry is, first and foremost, a British city. You are missing the point though. "British" Isles does not mean the isles owned by Britain, its a mere name, just like the Irish Sea. Mister Flash (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Derry has a predominant Catholic population, and therefore would not be much of a British city. Anyway, I'm not really so sure if you could understand what the British have done to Ireland over the years. I know that Britain is different nowadays, and wouldn't conquer another country, but Ireland would have been a very different place today if it weren't for the likes of Cromwell and the Black and Tans launching their reigns of terror on Ireland.

Anyway, to summarise what Britain has done, the USA gained full freedom from the UK. So did India. Ireland still however, is only five sixths free.

Therefore, whether it's a geographical term or not, we in Ireland consider the term offensive, and anyone who mentions the term here is frowned at (or well actually, slightly more than frowned at). --FF3000 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Expletive deleted. Mister Flash (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Under my latest proposal at the BI-Taskforce, British Isles would be allowed in the content. Why? 'cause Derry is located within the United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The general principle that "emerged" on Loch Neigh and the River Shannon was that the first is the largest in the British Isles and the former the longest in Ireland. On the basis that the walls were not built in the last 100 years that would seem to be appropriate in this case.   I am pretty sure they are not the best preserved in Europe (Carcassonne for example has always impressed me) but the citable fact that it is one of the best preserved in Europe is notable.  -- Snowded  TALK 05:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to GoodDay, Derry is also located within Europe. I already have three references to back up the point. You still haven't actually given me a proper reason why it is better to mention "British Isles" rather than "Europe". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footyfanatic3000 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See which reference option, I've supported above. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

AT User:HighKing's request I'm deleting the section above, variously described as "POV". So vote in the poll if you want to, or don't, but in any event I'll take is as indicative of current thinking on the issue. LevenBoy (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't know what you mean by reference option, but as I said stop going off on a tangent and give a good reason why it is better to use "British Isles". My reasons that Europe is better are:


 * 1. Europe is a bigger entity, and would therefore be more notable.
 * 2. "Europe" is a term used everywhere, and doesn't cause offense to any country.
 * 3. "Europe" having the best city walls in Europe gets more results on Google rather than British Isles (a more minor reason).

Stating that Derry is in the UK isn't good enough as it is also in Europe (just incase you didn't happen to realise). Now instead of giving riddle-like responses, and without carrying on about compromises about the name of this article, give a good reason why "British Isles" is a better term to use in this encyclopedia rather than "Europe". --FF3000 (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you responding to me? GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And in response to LevenBoy, the content of Wikipedia isn't decided by a few users voting on the issue. I'm not taking part in the vote either. FF3000 (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my response above your latest comment was to you. --FF3000 (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of British Isles, isn't going to destroy Wikipedia. However, I'm not pushing it on anyone (I haven't been editing warring). I just feel that since Derry is located within the United Kingdom, we can use it. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, now, we put what is best in this encyclopedia. "British Isles" is acceptable in some cases, but in this article, for my above stated reasons, it is better to mention "Europe" in this article. And while Derry may also be located within the UK, it's also located within Europe. The article now is fine as it is, as it doesn't contain any term, such as the BI, which is generally disliked by any country or group of people, especially seeing as Derry is predominantely Republican. FF3000 (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Include or exclude whatever ya like. I've no control over any of it. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The consensus so far seems to favour option 1. This is an interesting poll in the way it's been framed. It's clearly designed to smoke out those unwilling to compromise. Such people have no choice but to complain about, and refuse to participate, in the poll. A vote for options 2 or 3 demonstrates an unwillingness to compromise, so people of that mindset have little option but to complain - as they have done! Well, if you don't vote, your opinion, biased or not, won't be considered when the issue is revisited. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  20:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, MidnightBlueMan, but the content of Wikipedia isn't decided by a few users voting on it. Read my comments above. It is based on notability and providing a good encyclopedia for research and that won't offend anyone. The vote above isn't a "compromise" either. All you want is for British Isles to be mentioned in the article. You don't care about whether Europe is mentioned or not, so there is no "compromise" in the vote. It is completely pro-British Isles.

I have listed three reasons why it is better to mention Europe in this article above. Not one good reason has been submitted yet as to why British Isles is a good term to use, and stating that it is within the UK isn't good enough as Derry also happens to be within Europe. Once again also, the response above once again goes off on a tangent, trying to avoid the point. FF3000 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All you want is for British Isles to be removed. Not only from here, but from the whole encyclopedia. You don't seem to understand what constitutes a reference. You say "and that won't offend anyone". Just where did you get that from? You have listed reasons why Europe is "better". Unfortunately your reasons don't make sense.  MidnightBlue   (Talk)  22:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course they make sense, and you know well that they do! What I was saying about it not offending anyone was that Europe is a fine term, unlike British Isles which is disliked by Irish people and NI nationalists (and for that matter, the majority of Derry's population). As I also said above, Europe is also a bigger entity than "British Isles", which makes it more notable. I don't know what all of you love about the term "British Isles", but the article is currently fine without it. And I will repeat, for the umpteenth time, not one good reason has been submitted yet as to why it is better to use BI rather than Europe. --FF3000 (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe one should look at why the population of Londonderry is predominantly Roman Catholic. Could it have something to do with the IRA thugs who harassed protestant families out of their homes over many years and who continue to attempt to do so at the staunchly Loyalist Fountain Estate within the walled city. And, btw there are many British and proud Roman Catholics, you have to look at the bigger picture and not your own narrowmindedness.--De Unionist (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Derry has always been predominantely Republican. Look at the election results for Derry City Council. The DUP and the UUP clearly lag behind Sinn Féin and the SDLP. Coleraine is an example of a dour loyalist town, but Derry is a much nicer place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footyfanatic3000 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither the time or the place a chara.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion
The "British Isles" references is subjective and may just cause more hassle and drama. So how about this -

Vote on the inclusion of references with regard to the Walls of Derry

Option 1 - Reference to Europe, United Kingdom and Ireland Option 2 - Reference to Europe and British Isles Option 3 - References to Europe only
 * 1) Support. Most objective. Most descriptive. Least subjective. Least POV - least likely to cause further hassle and drama.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. This is a decent balance, as this article is about a UK city. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Option 4 - Reference to BI only
 * 1) Support. This would be another option, for same reason of Option 2. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference to the British Isles is perfectly correct. This is the recognised worldwide geographic term for the cluster of islands which includes Ireland, Great Britain, the Isle of Man and the Scottish Isles. Any other terminolgy is just nonsense. Nobody wants to bring the wider reference to Europe into such an article. --De Unionist (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually its not a "recognised worldwide geographic term", its predominantly a British one. Have a read of the British Isles naming dispute article if you are unaware of the issues that it may create. As for "Nobody wants to bring the wider reference to Europe into such an article" - from what I have read above pretty much every editor that has !voted wants to include Europe.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The term "British Isles" is only commonly used in Britain. I've never heard anyone else mention it. I'm sorry, but the content of Wikipedia isn't decided by voting. FF3000 (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've prefer to 'balance' stuff. As long as this article is called Derry? we use British Isles in it's content. If we disregard BI? then change the article to Londonderry. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So by that logic we shouldnt use British Isles in the County Londonderry article? Using E, UK and I shows that its the most complete in all three separate entities and avoids need to use the ambiguous term.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Scrap the article title for term idea. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Derry is located within the UK (another reason to use BI). Where's Londonderry county located? GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Its located in Northern Ireland, Ireland, the UK, Yerp and the world. Mibees we use them all! ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think my proposal at the BI-Taskforce should apply here. If the place is in what is now the United Kingdom, we use British Isles. If it's in the republic? we don't use it. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But having just read the the BI-Taskforce page, it says to use the biggest applicable area, which in this case would be Europe. Qaziphone (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's also located within Europe. Anyway if Derry had it's way, it would be in the Republic. I have no problem with you plastering your beloved British Isles all over articles like Coleraine and Antrim, as they are dour Unionist backdrops, but not Derry.

I would agree to a compromise if towns in NI with a nationalist majority, like Derry and Newry, plus the Republic, would be excluded from the term. FF3000 (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer my idea (naturally). Also, it's not my beloved BI. That term has been nothing but a headache for Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I said beloved because you seem to want to make up any kind of excuse to get it on Wikipedia. Honestly, though, it is also giving me a headache at this stage. I'm sick and tired of this debate.--FF3000 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well leave it then! And as to your suggestion of using British Isles or otherwise according to the religious/political makeup of the population - you are joking aren't you? MidnightBlue   (Talk)  17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The term British Isles is perfectly correct when considering the geographic region and any reputable worldwide atlas will corroborate this. --De Unionist (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's just a voiciferous minority in Ireland who object to its use. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Careful friend, I was censored for telling someone they were narrow-minded when they were narrow-minded!! --De Unionist (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually thats not fair, nor is it true! The majority in Ireland wouldnt use the term BI, on the flip side one could say that voiciferous minority in Britain want to enforce its use.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Folens don't agree see here. BigDunc  Talk 17:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Shall we apply my idea, to this & other related articles? GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. I know from being an Irish citizen that British Isles is NEVER used in everyday conversation. If anyone uses that term in Ireland they are frowned at. FF3000 (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The BI term won't be used in the republic based articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By Irish I also mean Republicans. If a compromise would be made where the usage of BI would be barred from Republic of Ireland articles and areas where there is a nationalist majority, but allowed on other UK articles, I would accept it. One question I want to ask all of you though is what do you like so much about the term? I hope it's not to annoy Irish people and republicans. FF3000 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As much as I find the BI term more bother then it's worth, I must push for having it on Northern Ireland based articles (for already stated reasons). However, If Wikipedia all agreed to ban the term from all articles, I'd support that. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Here you are, pushing for British Isles to be included in this article, and then you say you would support a total ban on it across Wikipedia. The reason that I'm trying to put forward a compromise which would bar it on areas of NI that Republicans are dominant is to prevent disputes in the future. It would be allowed in Unionist areas, so the chances of dipute wouldn't be as big. --FF3000 (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Political persuation lines are tougher to determine, then a international borders. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The communities of NI are actually quite clear. Take a look at. It's from 1991 I know, but it doesn't change much over the years. FF3000 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dividing British Isles usage along those lines is asking for more disputes. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not. It will reduce the chance of further disputes and if such a compromise is accepted at the BI taskforce and the collaboration, it could largely finish off disputes over the usage of BI in town articles. FF3000 (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please accept this proposal GoodDay. It would give us a strategy that we could work around to end all BI-related disputes. I would even be happy to join the BI taskforce to implement the new policies. It is fair to both Nationalists and Loyalists. FF3000 (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You should bring your proposals to the Taskforce. Everyone is welcomed there. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I just did. Thanks anyway. FF3000 (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * FF3000, your suggestion is one of the most bizarre I've come across. The chance of it being adopted is zilch. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  20:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Any user who has any sense of fairness and want to sort out this problem would accept it. This is a fair, unbiased proposal which would be a great attempt to end this ongoing dispute. All you want is to keep the flame going. Unless a compromise is reached like the one I have proposed, this dispute will go on forever. And if you think this is bad, GoodDay has tabled a proposal where the term would be completely banned from Wikipedia. Although I would personally be in favour of this, I know that the opposition would be strong.

I do believe that there is a strong chance of this proposal going ahead. Sometimes on Wikipedia though you have to consider what other users want, rather than being wrapped up in your own selfish proposals. FF3000 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The terminology 'The British Isles' has been used for centuries and is a recognised worldwide geographical description. It has no political significance and anyone who attempts to derive one is sad. --De Unionist (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

People in Ireland don't like the term as it includes the heading "British" referring to Ireland. Although British people and Irish unionists can't understand it, Britain has caused Ireland untold amounts of trouble in the past, and whose repercussions clearly remain today. FF3000 (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But not all people in Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So you speak for the people of Ireland, don't make me laugh. If it wasn't for Great Britain and its influence the people of Ireland would still be running around like ancient Celts. Ireland has much to thank Great Britain for and especially for the English language which you yourself are expert at and is the mother tongue of Ireland now too. --De Unionist (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The British caused the deaths of six million Irish people. They tortured people for speaking Irish and being Catholics in the penal laws that lasted over a hundred years. Finally, after the cruelty of hundreds of years, in the 1920s freedom was gained from Britain. Much later after America got their independence from that island of greedy rulers. Up until very recently, blatant racism was practised in the North against Catholics, who were beaten to death by the likes of the RUC simply because of protesting against human rights. Housing and jobs of Protestants were far superior than that of Catholics.

And as for you saying that we'd be running around like a bunch of Celts, the infrastructure in NI is now dire compared to the republic. Every time I drive on across the border, the road suddenly narrows. You go from a nice, wide road with a hard shoulder to a narrow, bendy road. A classic example is the N2/A5 Dublin to Derry road. As you pass from the republic into the North the first thing you see is a big "road narrowing" sign. While England's and Ireland's roads and infrastructure improved greatly, the North has remained a neglected secondary land of the UK. All of this and you still have people pointlessly campaigning for the union. FF3000 (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps the billions pumped into the Republic of Ireland from the European Union has helped a bit, at the same time as the United Kingdom is the second biggest net contributor to the EU budget. Ohh then ofcourse theres the fact we only finished paying off debts from World War 2 a couple of years ago, remember that war? Where the UK fought against Nazi Germany which was occupying most of Europe, except the countries that decided to sit back and do nothing letting others fight. It also doesnt help when you have terrorists trying to blow people or things up in Northern Ireland but moving on ... BritishWatcher (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, of course we couldn't go into WW2. We had a population of only about 2 and a half million, and we were a weak country who couldn't afford anything. We only had freedom for 20 years at this point and we didn't want to lose it again, this time to the Nazis. Anyway, the IRA terrorists were only a minority force in NI, but you have to remember, the RUC were also terrible, and they were government-backed! They seriously injured people and in some instances killed peaceful protestors. So without doubt the other side also had its' fair share of terrorism. FF3000 (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway lets move on, last night was too heated. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're gonna cause problems with some of those comments, DU. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hes gonna start a damn riot, i think nows a good time for me to go to bed before the fireworks start. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * English culture owes much to the French, as in French/Normans, and English language is half French too. Many of the influences in England come from Europe, like France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and of course Ireland. Welcome to the new world Da! Tfz     21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tfz, now we know who to blame for all of Englands actions. Those Europeans influenced us to do all those bad things. Im going to sleep better tonight now knowing we are not to blame. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't really be bothered to read all of the above, but would like to point out that it was the Catholic Church - that the Irish still seem to like so much - that gave the English Crown in the person of Henry II the job of bringing Ireland into the civilised world. Before that the Irish had been raiding British shores, kidnapping people to use as slaves for example (e.g. St Patrick), since the 4th century. ðarkun coll 23:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Loved the way you skipped 800 years of history to bolster your point! I think I said this somewhere here before, I am somewhat Welsh, English, and Irish, and I have no problem with the truth about these local matters. Ireland was Protestant long before England was, and England's Henry II put an end to all of that, although it was a different form of Protestantism to the "Reformation kind". I think the Irish brought Christianity to Britain, Columba, Lindisfarne and all of that, so we have a "quid pro quo" here. That time chopping off of hands, even for the most minor of incursions was the norm, and banned under Brehon Law, so forget the lectures. Modern civilisation came from the Italians and Middle East, all you have to do is walk around those places to realise that, or read some old texts, but that's OR perhaps. Tfz     23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Visitor Information Link
I saw that the link for visitor information for Derry takes you to a page you cannot access, and the correct link needs changing to: www.derryvisitor.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.177.152 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Importance level
To answer the incivil anon who keeps coming in and making attacks, the Derry article is rated as can be seen at the top.

Wikiproject cities: Low importance. This is an importance level assigned by Wikiproject Cities, and nothing at all to do with Northern Ireland. This is it's ranking in importance within that project for ALL cities in the world. When taken globally Derry is insignificant. Belfast more so as the capital, seat of government and many other things.

Wikiproject UK-Geography: Mid importance. On this Wikiproject they've decided it's of mid importance for all geographic articles in all of UK.

Wikiproject Northern Ireland: Top importance. The NI Wikiproject has decided it is top importance.

Wikiproject Ireland: High-importance. That wikiproject has decided it is of high importance.

None of these projects are people on this page, if you wish to complain to someone on the various projects about the ranking then go ahead, but this isn't the page to do it on. Visit the projects and they will explain. It is high or above in the Ireland and NI related ones, mid in context of the entire UK, and low in context with the entire world's cities. Canterbury Tail  talk  12:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To the IP editor, you can join the project and change the rating yourself if you like. As for the rating, it's clearly wrong. See an example of a city of mid importance - Barrow, Alaska; yeah, I fell off my chair laughing. Mister Flash (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As pointed out by Mister Flash, the rating system seems to lack consistency, subjectivity and credibility.


 * Derry globally insignificant? The 105 day siege of Derry (fought by armies from 5 European Coutries), a historic role in the global shirt industry (which is even mentioned by Karl Marx in "Das Kapital"), a major port from before the famine (which populated the USA), during the subsequent steam ship era and during World War II where it was the scene of the surrender of the Nazi U-Boat Atlantic fleet, landing place of Amelia Earhart (and Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic Voyager), home of two Nobel prize winners, birthplace of the Troubles, 400 year old City Walls (still complete) and the pre-historic ring fort at Grainan of Aileagh. How's that for starters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.190.128 (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Importance levels are set by the various Wikiprojects, not by the article. If you have a grievance then take it to the relevant Wikiproject. Canterbury Tail   talk  17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Join the debate about the city's importance level to "Wikiproject Ireland" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland. Currently the city is of just "High Importance" while Belfast is of "Top Importance". Do you agree? Do you disagree? Please contribute at the previous link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.137.66 (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Opening of discussion for semi-protection of both city and county page
The vandalism regarding the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute is getting out of control. There seems to be at least one incident per day on either the Derry or County Londonderry page, and therefore a semi-protection of both pages, either temporary or permanent, needs to be looked at. In some cases this vandalism lasts hours before being discovered, and a semi-protection would more or less prevent all vandals from editing the pages. -- Footyfanatic3000 ( talk  ·  contribs )  15:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, can we have it semi-protected without a time limit. It has been going on for a year and is hugely time consuming  -- Snowded  TALK  16:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a bad idea, if there is consensus it can be semi-protected indefinitely. I think it's getting to the stage where it should be. Canterbury Tail   talk  16:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm up for a semi-protection without time limit as well on both County and City. Bjmullan (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree too. It's lunacy to allow this level of disruptive destabilization of the article.  --HighKing (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also up for it, the amount of needless mentions of Derry on my watch list is just a joke! --NorthernCounties (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree -- One more vote for indefinite protection here. Fattonyni (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This article has been indefinitely semi-protected. Canterbury Tail  talk  20:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not often I agree to indef semi protection but in this case CT good work. BigDunc  21:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming and pertinence of talk page
The article states the following:

"According to the city's Royal Charter of 10 April 1662 the official name is Londonderry and, as stated in a recent High Court decision in January 2007,"

I which case surely the town should be called 'Londonderry' if this is the official term. As far as I am aware, the name Derry is used for the football teams, airport etc as well as by Republican sympathisers etc and is a recognised name, but the name Londonderry is officially correct. All articles should reflect officialdom without bias.

Please do not remove this suggestion, this is not a general discussion page and I am not making a general discussion. The apparant comprimise which has existed is not beyond question. If its general nattering you wish to get rid of perhaps you should take a look at the lists of entries derbating the merits/ drawbacks of the union. We'll all live in a federal Europe soon so at least that will put an end to it. Mtaylor848 (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Example of the above

''People in Ireland don't like the term as it includes the heading "British" referring to Ireland. Although British people and Irish unionists can't understand it, Britain has caused Ireland untold amounts of trouble in the past, and whose repercussions clearly remain today.''

''But not all people in Ireland. ''

''So you speak for the people of Ireland, don't make me laugh. If it wasn't for Great Britain and its influence the people of Ireland would still be running around like ancient Celts. Ireland has much to thank Great Britain for and especially for the English language which you yourself are expert at and is the mother tongue of Ireland now too. ''

''The British caused the deaths of six million Irish people. They tortured people for speaking Irish and being Catholics in the penal laws that lasted over a hundred years....''

This is not a page to discuss the moral nicities of British imperialism. Mtaylor848 (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * lol @ moral nicities of British imperialism. Great phrase :) BritishWatcher (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "All articles should reflect officialdom..."
 * Untrue. I think that you should have another read through WP:COMMONNAME. If all articles reflected officialdom the Rome page would be titled Roma, the Munich page would be titled München, etc. This compromise came about through consensus after page upon page of pointless, endless debate. Don't restart the debate. We all have better things to be doing here on Wikipedia. Thank you FF3000  ·   talk  14:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're referring to WP:COMMONNAME, why isn't the Carrickfergus article called Carrick? Why isn't the United Kingdom article called UK?  Why isn't the Newcastle upon Tyne article called Newcastle?  This policy is used as a hypocritical excuse and reflects the political bias of the majority of Wikipedia's users.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.224.5 (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there were acres of debate about the name issue - I read through it in detail and the overwhelming consensus, even among those who were obviously nationalist, was that the name should be changed to Londonderry at the top of this entry. Yet it remains incorrectly as Derry. What the hell are we talking about compromise for anway? Does Wikipedia publish facts or does it just cobble together what some people feel should be facts - a sort of wishful thinkers' version of reality? This discussion should be re-opened until this article is altered to reflect the truth. After all, Derry City Council have just spent thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money to prove in court that the name of the city definitely is Londonderry... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.105.169 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way when you say that Derry is most common, is that among the English or Irish speaking Irish population?? The fact that this page isn't at it's official name is a mockery. Rome isn't at Roma because that's its OFFICIAL ENGLISH NAME (funny how this is english wikipedia). Some recent renaming of cities such as Pietersburg to Polokwane in South Africa have caused alot of debate because this page isn't at it's OFFICIAL ENGLISH NAME! While looking through my 3 School atlases that my school (in essex) uses, they all say Londonderry, with absalutley no reference to Derry.Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Rome isn't an official name at all. In any language. It's just the COMMONNAME. Footyfanatic3000  ( talk  ·  contribs )  15:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In respect of your linguistic query, "Derry" is English and not a word in Irish at all, the Irish is "Doire" as the article says. So the fact is that Derry is indeed used when speaking English. In respect of official names, if you believe that wikipedia rules should be altered to use these over any other versions why don't you go and change the Australia page to Commonwealth of Australia, Mexico to United Mexican States, San Marino to The Most Serene Republic of San Marino, Brunei page to the Nation of Brunei, the Abode of Peace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luachair (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your above suggestions are just stupid. Why don't we just move this article to 'City of Derry'. Oh wait, no we can't because that's not it's official name. Yes, Derry is English, but so is Londonderry. And let's look at this from a demographical point of view. If we are assuming that all N.Irish protestants use Londonderry and all N. Irish Catholics use Derry, then 45% of the nation will use Londonderry and 40% Derry (See Religion in Northern Ireland for reference). Luachair you are just making excuses for leaving the article at Derry. Why don't we just call everything by it's most common name? We could move Birmingham to Birmingam? London to Lunden? I'm starting to sound like you with my excuses now. Should we just move Elizabeth II to The Queen or something because I doubt anyone calls her by her first name. Or wait? What's her official name? Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed for common name
I added a citation needed tag for the "Despite the official name, the city is more usually known as simply Derry" sentence. I see Snowded has removed it. There is no inline citation for this. Other sources are provided later in the paragraph, but I'm not sure any of these actually state that Derry is the more common name. Do they? As per WP:COMMONNAME, reliable sources must be provided to determine the common name. Stu  ’Bout ye!  11:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think it's not properly sourced, and want it to be sourced, it's a reasonable thing to ask for. Especially considering Common Name is the reason it's at Derry not Londonderry. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't see it in any of the sources provided. As it's a controversial point, I think the cn tag should go back in. I'm not going to reinsert it. If you read this Snowded, would you consider self-reverting? Stu   ’Bout ye!  12:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this statement needs to be sourced. From a brief reading of the sources provided later on, they provide instances of the city being called Derry but do not say that it is commonly referred to as such, and there's an important difference. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely needs a citation. And I think removing a citation request can be considered as vandalism. Mooretwin (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What about page 12 of the University of Ulster Style Guide? Or Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 83, No. 3  (2001), pp. 121-130. Or even this very old book dating published in 1835 A journey throughout Ireland during the spring, summer, and autumn of 1834 By Henry David Inglis?  --HighKing (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the Geografiska Annaler article states "The city of Derry/Londonderry is commonly called Derry among the Catholic community, and Londonderry by the Protestant community", which is useful but doesn't really prove the point about it generally being called Derry by all. The Inglis source is better from that point of view, but a bit old! I can't currently access the UU style guide for some reason. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look back to through the history then the convention is that the city takes the common name of Derry, while the county is Londonderry. That reflects the elections in each area and has been a fair compromise over the years.  The common name is different in the different communities, although I have have seen Derry used without inhibition in several protestant communities.  So the citation will support different common names.  -- Snowded  TALK  14:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The UU style guide says (not sure this is a reliable source by the way): "Londonderry is the official name of the city and county commonly called Derry in the North West. We are aware of the sensitivities associated with both. Londonderry should be used on official stationery and in the formal writing of the University’s address for the Magee and Coleraine campuses. The BBC offers the advice that Londonderry should be used in the first mention and Londonderry or Derry interchangeably thereafter. For our purposes either Derry or Londonderry should be used depending on the context and media used. There are political sensitivities so we should be conscious of the audience for whom we are writing so the terminology should be varied according to the audience." That, to me, doesn't say Derry is more common. Neither does Geografiska Annaler as Larry points out. The Inglis source certainly deserves a closer look. On first appearance, it seems to be an early travel guide though. Again, is this a reliable source? Dave, as no source is currently provided in the article, would you revert to reinsert the tag? Stu  ’Bout ye!  14:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is getting boring and laborious to watch! And I think the need for a source is pointless given Derry's prominent history. I doubt the local council would change its name if it wasn't in the interest of the locality, aswell as the airport and the Derry visitor website...--NorthernCounties (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Boring maybem but WP:V and WP:RS are non-negotiable. Stu   ’Bout ye!  15:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it is possible to get a source for this, seeing as each website would just give their own opinion on the matter. Anyway as NorthernCounties has pointed out, Derry is the name that the residents that the residents of the city would want, seeing as Derry City is predominantely republican. That at least proves that Derry is the common name among the city's residents, seeing as some Unionists also occasionally use "Derry". Footyfanatic3000  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 15:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it took me approx 4 mins to get those 3 sources, perhaps you could also look yourself? It's normally expected that an editor will look for references before putting in a tag.
 * As to the suitability of the references. If you check the policy regarding reliable sources, you'll find that all of the references I've mentioned qualify as reliable sources.  The UU style guide is an offical publication of the university, the Inglis source states it is commonly called Derry by the Catholic community and also breaks down the population between Catholic and Protestant in 1991 showing a 5:1 ratio.  The inclusion of the book, which also qualifies as a reliable reference for this subject matter, is to show that it was commonly called Derry over 150 years ago, so it's not a recent phenomenon.
 * But another 4 minutes searching for "commonly called Derry" turns up the following lots more. Again, it would be better if you spent some time also looking yourself too before placing tags in articles:
 * A Record of the Seawright Family By James A. Searight 2009
 * Guide through Ireland By James Fraser 1838, another older volume to show it's not a recent name in common use
 * It worthwhile to search on books.google.com sometimes with variations of the phrase e.g. "commonly called Derry", "usually called Derry", "as Derry", etc. Takes a few minutes but can save time on discussions like these.  --HighKing (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose the sources actually look OK, and maybe they should be added now (to avoid this discussion dragging on). Footyfanatic3000  ( talk  ·  contribs )  15:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have looked, but haven't found any suitable reliable sources yet. Including the three you initially provided.
 * The UU source simply says that the city is commonly called Derry. You could says the same about Londonderry, it's commonly called that as well. It doesn't state that Derry is more common. The Geografiska Annaler source only says that it is more common among catholics. The Inglis source is debatable, as it's a travel guide and very old. Haven't had a chance to look at the two new ones yet. Stu   ’Bout ye!  16:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To repeat, you can find sources that say Derry and Londonderry are the common name. So like may things on irish articles there are choices.  The long standing agreement is to use Derry for the city, Londonderry for the county.  This is also linked to the elected council's position.  Nothing is ever clean and easy in these matters but this has been a stable position for some time (despite the various IP vandals who turn up every week).  I don;t see any case above to change the consensus position. -- Snowded  TALK  16:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between arguing that the article should be named Derry as a result of an agreement and the statement that "Despite the official name, the city is more usually known as simply Derry". The latter needs a reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, any proposed amendment to the current agreement would be made at the IMOS. Stu   ’Bout ye!  16:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's take this one stage at a time. I added the cn tag as this article currently states "the city is more usually known as simply Derry". This is a controversial point which needs to be cited, and currently isn't. From the sources provided above, I see none which explicitly support this view and comply with RS. Stu   ’Bout ye!  16:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

How about this - "This newspaper, along with the vast majority of its citizens, believe the name of the city to be Derry - it is the most commonly used name for the city, both locally and across the world", from the Derry Journal? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the only credible source so far. It would have to be qualified as the Journal is a nationalist publication. Something like "The common name for the city is often debated. A 2009 article in the nationalist Derry Journal stated that ......" This would attribute the claim to the source, rather than baldly stating Derry is the most common name. Stu   ’Bout ye!  16:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's not the most neutral of sources. Ireland for Dummies says "Derry is the more commonly used name now", although I don't know whether that should be considered a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think its important to note that the Derry Journal is owned by Johnston Press, who also owns the Londonderry Sentinel, Both may serve their distinct niches in the city but I think it adds more reliability to what the Derry Journal has published in relation to the city name when this is taken into account. --NorthernCounties (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (break)There's been four of five references quoted which support the statement that the city is more usually known as Derry. Yet Cordless Larry writes them all off as unsuitable.  Can we have definitive reasons please, why the references are unsuitable according to *policy*.  Finally, Stu and Cordless Larry state that the Derry Journal is not a neutral source and is a nationalist publication.  Can you point to policy please, as to why this reference is unsuitable.  --HighKing (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm not saying the sources contradict policy, I'm saying that they don't support the statement. See the quotes pulled from them above. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)@Larry - I wouldn't say it's the most neutral of sources, but it's the most accurate so far, as it says "most commonly used". None of the other sources are so exact. Stu   ’Bout ye!  19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think we should use the Derry Journal and Ireland for Dummies sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me to use both. Canterbury Tail   talk  20:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the two sources. Please feel free to qualify them if you feel it is necessary. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict, again!)@HighKing - My reply at 16.03 states why I feel the first three sources are unsuitable. To expand, the UU source simply says that the city is commonly called Derry. You could says the same about Londonderry, it's commonly called that as well. It doesn't state that Derry is more common. It's also an internal style guide. Seems a very odd source to use in an encyclopedia. The Geografiska Annaler source only says that it is more common among catholics. The Inglis source is debatable, as it's a travel guide and very old.
 * On the second two, the Seawright book is a genealogical history of an American family. What makes the author an expert on Irish place names and attitudes of Irish people? Has he conducted research into it? Also, the source only says "commonly called Derry", not "more/most commonly called Derry". The city is also commonly called Londonderry. The last source is, again, an old travel guide. And I can't see where the issue is mentioned in the book? What page is it on? Stu   ’Bout ye!  19:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks guys. I understand better why you're questioning the sources, and I perhaps misunderstood the objective.  I was looking for sources that merely states the city is "commonly called Derry" (like the UU source, which being of published academic origin, is a very good reference).  I was *not* looking for sources that said "more call it Derry than Londonderry", or "also commonly called Londonderry" etc.
 * Certainly, there are approximations with the statement in the article as it currently stands. It doesn't reflect how different communities refer to the city, which I believe is at the bottom of this discussion.  The Name section should also be expanded some more to relate how the city came to be called Londonderry in the first place - royal charter why?
 * I wouldn't have a problem if that paragraph was changed to highlight that the local Catholic community which is the majority of residents refers to the city in everyday life as "Derry" while the local protestant community refers to the city as Londonderry. This Catholic/Protestant naming is also reflected throughout Northern Ireland.  Or something along those lines.  --HighKing (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it can be sourced, it may also be worth making the point that using the name "Derry" does not necessarily mean that the user doesn't recognise that the actual name of the city is "Londonderry". Many people, in casual conversation, refer to Derry, but would use Londonderry for any official usage. Mooretwin (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily Mooretwin. Londonderry is only used for formal purposes within the Unionist community. Footyfanatic3000 (alt) (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (This is User:Footyfanatic3000)
 * Well, (1) that's not true, since government, Royal Mail, various official bodies, media, etc., use it; as do people from outside Northern Ireland; and (2) the unionist community contains many people, therefore my comment is necessarily true even aside from (1). Mooretwin (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mooretwin give it a rest, yes a United Kingdom Government which Unionists are obviously in favour off... and the royal mail... of yes the monarchy of the UK... Mooretwin you know the politics here, let this go! Nothing is being achieved!--NorthernCounties (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? You made a comment suggesting that my contribution was incorrect. I explained why it's true. My response had nothing to do with politics. Mooretwin (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is one easy way to settle this. How about at the start of an article, Londonderry - cited as "Derry", is indicated as being in County Londonderry. So in the format: "Derry, County Londonderry" for the initial usage only, and on any details panel. This gives respect to both the Ulster-Scots Protestant, Hiberno-Catholic usages and traditions, and may help remove what is at the moment, the sectarian shibboleth permeating many articles regarding Ulster on wikipedia, and creating a great amount of disagreement. This does not result in a major change to the style guide - it does however grant recognition that another term exists in articles where it would be to cumbersome to explain in detail?

This would seem in keeping with the spirit of the peace process. It would also seem in keeping with the Good Friday Agreement, which does explicitly recognise NI as being a part of the UK. I might also point out NorthernCounties, but the population of NI is still a Protestant majority, and a Unionist majority. The United Kingdom does not keep Northern Ireland in the Union against the collective will of its population. Your comment regarding Unionists, is political itself.

AndySCO (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Am I the first person to say this? 45% of N.I is Protestant and 40% is Catholic (see N.I demographics section for source). Therefore if we assume that Pr. use Londonderry and Cath. use Derry, then doesn't that solve the question? By the way the remaning 15% were either no relgion/agnostic/not stated/other religions. Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that helps. What is the basis for presuming that all Protestants use Londonderry and all Catholics Derry? And the population figures for Northern Ireland as a whole differ a lot from those of Derry, so which would we go with? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)