Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/archive 1

Initial discussions
The British Isles being used on these articles is certainly an option, it's known internationally. But, I feel the core of all these disputes is Northern Ireland (surprise, surprise). GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've always felt that language can be used to solve almost anything if there is a will. We need less of a black/white approach here IMO. We could look towards some guidelines for different situations. (Intros, geography-specific articles, British-mainly, Irish-mainly, minor importance etc) I'll say upfront, that as a general supporter of the term, I not sure it's wise to start placing an 'Islands of the BI template' everywhere: we could create a section for that here, and discuss its merits first.
 * Although I personally think the sensitivity re Ireland being part of the BI is exaggerated in the current articles regarding the 'wider world', Wikipedia itself works on consensus (hence all the problems), and we could start by all accepting that it both offends editors on Wikipedia and can offend people outside of Wikipedia. If we all accept this, we could then look at acceptible ways where it can be worked around. Any thoughts? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The main problem - and this crops up all over Wikipedia - is that a small, vocal and politicised minority can distort facts. Ireland is part of the archipelago, and the only recognised name for the archipelago in English is British Isles. Supposed alternatives such as Britain and Ireland mean something different (in this case, referring just to the two main islands). Many Britons hate the idea of being associated with Europe, but would never be so foolish as to deny that they were part of it. ðarkun coll 21:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose a reply to that would be: how often do we say that we are part of Europe? Clearly it is not suitable to mention it all the time - it would be dependent on context. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is this - in any context such as an encyclopedia, when Europe is being described, no Briton ever objects to the British Isles being included as part of it. ðarkun coll 22:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's tough, as citations have been presented for both add & remove the BI term. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know of no citation stating that the term should be removed - merely that some people don't like it. ðarkun coll 22:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What of those Irish government citations? GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They don't deny the term exists, they simply discourage its use. Not very effectively either, since Irish government ministers still use it. The "Irish" government doesn't even represent all of Ireland, but even if it did, governments cannot tell us how language is used. ðarkun coll 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thus back to the 'Northern Ireland' problem. Plus, hiding or removing BI, can be viewed as censurship. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And politically motivated censorship at that, by those who think that the job of Wikipedia is to describe how the world ought to be (in their opinion), rather than how it is. ðarkun coll 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This can be gotten around if we accept certain things. Nobody really wants to disturb NI too much right now, that's for sure. Maybe its not such a problem as can be feared. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Irish gov discourages its use" in the BI introduction is completely non-encyclopedic in my opinion: there is one statement in the 1940's (I think) and another rather weasel-worded one by a 'spokesperson' - I honestly couldn't find any other refs (or policy) on its use by the Irish gov. As it's a geographical term I would never expect it to be official gov language. The line makes it look like they actively disapprove on a wide level. Unfortunately, we had a chance to improve it (by saying exactly what the quote was) but we it wasn't taken up on. The line "The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage its usage".[5]" initially had support, but the end result was a supposed 'proposal' where we simply had a word removed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. One or two of the notes on the BI page are long enough to be articles in their own right (and an article already exists for that purpose), and should be drastically trimmed. ðarkun coll 22:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is always important to note that we are bound by the principles of wikipedia. And a good starting point for them is to recognise that we must pay attention to what reliable sources say, and any facts, uncomfortable as they may be, need to be dealt with by sensitive descriptions and wording (not "politically correct" wordings), rather than omissions, or blunt "that is what the facts say, accept it or else": we need to pay attention to the need to persuade and convince people here when facts are uncomfortable for them. The negotiation needs to pay attention to presentation of the facts, not omission of them.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course. But what if you have a sea of refs going one way, and a just handful giong the other? The problem with the BI intro is that it simply isn't weighted: it affords far too much to the 'dispute'. I was honestly genuinely surprised when I found how little refs there were on a 'dispute', when I first looked for a while ago now (without any prejudice either way in mind). My 'editor's concience' expected better and far far more-available refs to afford it such weight in the Intro. Putting them in bold text and printing them word for word at the bottom of the article does not makes them more plentiful! It rather more covers up the fact that 'the facts' do not "speak for themselves" in this case. And it goes against MOS. But the whole article and its fork goes against MOS. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In those cases, then I would definitely say that discussion involving many people is needed to reach a form of words that tries to pay attention to the inconsistencies in the reliable sources without giving any unfair weighting to any. It shouldn't be something a single editor working alone should do: Although we may sometimes delude ourselves that we could do it alone, it will always be better in these circumstances to welcome a number of different editors with differing initial views, to work towards a compromise solution. An explicit statement about the lack of consistency of the sources, made in the article somewhere, may well be one of the options that arises. Well, that's what I think about it. Or have I mistaken your point here at all?  DDStretch    (talk)  22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't making a point as such - I was saying that the BI article will eventually need attention, as it is very biased in the far-too-explicit way it portrays the 'dispute' (and the way Wikipedia returns to it again and again). The above mentioned poll on the BI Intro happened to be a bit of a farce IMO (even full of misunderstandings), but it can at some point be looked at again. For me, it's an essential element of this - I find the main BI article (and its fork) a bit of a blight on Wikipedia.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in. The problem is that the word "British" in "British Isles" has more than one meaning.  To some it is a geographical description, relating to a number of islands of which Britain is unequivocally the largest - so, it is seen as factually correct and neutral.  But to others, using the word "British" implies some form of ownership, right or suzerainty. It is that second interpretation - which is an equally "valid" interpretation of the word, or at least can't be said to be "invalid" - which is seen as factually incorrect and therefore unacceptable by some people.  The word will, whatever is said or agreed here, retain those two (at least) meanings, and while to some it will remain factually "correct", to others it will continue to be seen as incorrect given that one part of the archipelago does not "own" or have rights over the other. I don't see how discussion here can resolve the issue, I'm afraid.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It will never resolve that wider issue - no. But this is WP, and eventually people get into trouble when the fighting goes on and on. I'm sure some compromises can be made, and who knows what ideas could come up?--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to remember aswell, whatever solutions we come up with? they'll be checked for Wikipedia:OR. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right. That's why I often think we need to seriously attend to just describe that the reliable sources do not agree, and then to describe what the different sources say. It is why I advocated the use of the table of reliable sources in the naming dispute for the different bits of the United Kingdom.  DDStretch    (talk)  23:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We have to be intelligent and creative while avoiding OR. There are never refs for everything. We have to sometimes weigh opposing ref's relative values. Sometimes when a fact that is needed to be made, and it does not have an exact ref, it is very frustrating. It is very often hard to find counter-refs too (ie a ref saying something is not something). As DDStretch seems to say here, sometimes we can do no better than simply describe what we can find. The quicker route of x=y is often desirable (though it is taken to extremes far too often), but sometimes issues are complicated. We certainly need to avoid enforcing equations, like: Ref found = freedom to appropriate word freely into text without even quotes - unless a counter ref can be found to disprove it. The BI article really suffers from that one, IMO.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If I could just make some comments about some of the content of the above discussion:
 * Thankun wrote: "a small, vocal and politicised minority" Thankun, if this is inherantly politicized, would you tell me what politics I, for example, am pushing? At Lough Neagh, for example, I suggested starting the article with "Lough Neagh is the largest lake in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole." What politics does that push? Sounds like Unionism to me. Do you think I am a Unionist POV pusher?
 * Thankun also wrote: "Many Britons hate the idea of being associated with Europe, but would never be so foolish as to deny that they were part of it." Difference #1 is that the U.K. is, politically, a part of a union called the 'European' Union. Membership is defined; it has statutory reality. This makes it very different than BI, where the only official, governmental 'union' that exists exactly contiguous with the defined British Isles is quite tellingly NOT called "British Isles". It is very conspicuously called the British-Isles Council instead, even though many British reps talked it up as the 'Council of the British Isles' before its creation. This lack of use gives an officiality to BI-objections that English Europhobes simply don't have (and may partly explain #2). Difference #2 is that, unlike BI, there are no atlas publishers or map makers who have removed "Europe" from any publications or stopped publishing "Europe" maps/atlases. Difference #3 is that, unlike "British," "European" doesn't double as a nationality/identity term for a single state, making Irish objections to BI the far more understandable and sympathetic of the objections (this may also partly explain #2).
 * Matt, your view of the sources has always sort of depressed me. It's as if the Irish have to make total spectacles of themselves on this issue before you will believe it's real. I also hope you don't think that the Wiki BI page and the additional BI references page contain every reference to this issue because they certainly don't. I'm honestly not sure how the spokesman for the Irish embassy to Britain's comments can be described as 'weasel-words'--they seem very straightforward to me.
 * More generally, I would just hope as we begin this project that one of the issues that would be kept in mind is that the term "BI" implicates Ireland in whatever it is being used to describe. From a British perspective this may not matter, but it's use on British subject pages in areas where Irish and British histories/issues vary can, potentially, muddle the Irish side of the story. Nuclare (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Nuclare - the scrolling ref-list does contain every reliable source (I've spent a long time looking for more) - and they trail into 'tracts' after that (of which there are countless on any subject). There are even tracts in the refs given, IMO. They were compiled over a long period too. It is very unfair of you to say I am being unfair to the Irish - if you’ve followed my many arguments, I have always kept asking for newspapers/tv reports etc that hint at this dissent. Instead they use the word. The paucity of refs builds a picture to me - the dissent is there, but is NOT as prevalent as we suggest. Some people are defending the intensity with which Wikipedia portrays the 'dissent' tooth and claw (it is how it still remains) - but they will have to be fairer and pull back on it - it is way too unencyclopedic as it stands.
 * The spokesman comment was classically weaselly in a political way. It's why so many do not want to quote it directly IMO. What does "We would discourage its usage." exactly mean? In what circumstances? It isn't clarified at all. It's hard to Verify too - who was this spokesman? We all know how politicians work - he doesn't sound high up the tree to me. You need a better one, or another one to go with it. We can quote it yes - but not just use its sole existence to suggest the Irish gov discourage the word wholesale. And do you have another example from/of the Irish gov? (apart from the 1940's one). I am discussing WEIGHT here - it is a very serious encyclopaedic matter. Refs are not there to be abused, but fairly used. Every time I tried to work on it in the past, I was either immediately reverted, or there was a blanket refusal of my arguments in Talk. We need to forge a better attitude on the matter.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are newspaper refs that hint at this dissent, and they are not all collected at Wiki. Nuclare (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the European Union, but to Europe as a geographical entity (I'd have said EU if I was talking about it). It is very common in normal speech to refer to Europe as if it's somewhere else, a place to go to or come back from, but the fact remains that no Briton would, in the context of an encyclopedia, deny that they were part of it. Everything you have said above could equally apply to Europe v. Britain, and yes there is no controversy over its use. And saying that there are no good references because the Irish don't want to make a "spectacle" of themselves is hardly encyclopedic - in any case, we know that Irish people, including government ministers, do use the term. ðarkun coll 07:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I KNOW you weren't referring to the European Union. I was referring to it. It is something that officially backs up the fact that Britain is European. It is a member of a 'European Union.' Yes, sometimes people in Britain or Ireland say "going to Europe," but so what? That isn't a response to anything I said. And I never said: "there are no good references because the Irish don't want to make a "spectacle" of themselves." I'm talking about the specific demands Matt seems to sometimes put of the evidence. I also never said Irish people don't use the term. But I'm curious of the most recent usage by an Irish govt offical. Do you know when it is? Nuclare (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My view on the initial scale and remit of the taskforce (DDStretch)
Here are my thoughts: Using and applying here some well-known strategies of problem solving, I think we first need to get an idea of the scale of the issues under discussion, so we need a list of all articles which have used "British Isles", including those which might have already been removed by other editors as part of the previous single-handed attempts to sort out any perceived problem. Once that is done, we probably need to go through them to see if the term "British Isles" has any support from verifiable reliable sources. It seems clear to me that if "British Isles" has been used when there are reliable sources that use the term, then this case is slightly different from the one in which "British Isles" has been used without any reliable sources backing its use up. There are probably finer distinctions that could (not necessarily "should") be made about the reliable sources: for example, (a) whether "British Isles" is used in a geographical sense as opposed to a political sense, and (b) whether the term was used to describe the political state of affairs before Republic of Ireland became independent of the UK. We could even produce a table where the articles are listed, one per row, and the different kinds of use of "British Isles" are distinguished as separate columns, allowing ticks or something similar to describe them, though this may involve too much work. We also must discuss the matter of articles which currently do not have "British Isles" used in them, but which could, because there are reliable sources that could be used and cited to add this fact to them. Note that we need to consider all options, to fill out all possibilities, and so adding the term to articles that currently doesn't have it needs to be definitely considered here. This leads me to think that we can describe the general problem by means of the following table:

Sources table
All articles will fall into one of the four listed cases or cells.

There may be some disagreements about whether some of the four cases should have entries in them or not after due consideration and the work of this taskforce has been completed. So, the table describes the state of affairs at any point in the discussions. Various people's positions which need to be amalgamated together in some way to reach a consensus involves the movement of articles from one cell in the table, or, alternatively, from one Case to another In the end, according to the prevailing viewpoints that are maintained, conceded, and which emerge from the discussions as a consensus view of action that needs to be done, various moves of articles from one case to another may well actually take place. Some viewpoints could be: There may be other possibilities.
 * 1) Some will argue that some or all articles found to be of Case B should be changed so that they become instances of Case A,
 * 2) Some will argue that some or all articles found to be of Case C should be changed so that they become instances of Case D.
 * 3) Some may argue that some or all articles found to be in Case A should still be moved to Case B.

Now, does this decribe the general problem at all?

If it does, or even if it doesn't completely, but it is still useful, can I ask whether the least contentious possibility is "Some will argue that some or all articles found to be of Case C should be changed so that they become instances of Case D.", with the "some or all" becoming simply "all"? If it is, and all are agreed, then perhaps this is the first practical task that could be done. It would involve actively altering and editing articles, because of the need to use reliable sources for contentious claims. The first and third possibilities, of the ones I have given above, need some discussion as if they were both done, some contradictory actions would be required. There will no doubt be other issues that need to be discussed, but I still think that the basic framework I've given above is a useful one from which to hang them. So, any comments on this? DDStretch   (talk)  22:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How about option 4 - some case Ds becoming case Cs? Even without sources that explicitly mention the term, it is still a very useful way of describing the region, and we don't need a source for every single word or term that we use. ðarkun coll 22:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That should be considered, but I think people may well use the wikipedia guideline that states that controversial facts can be challenged, and if they are, should be cited. Now, I'm not sure the objection to your option would succeed, but I think that is an issue that could be discussed in a fairly compact manner so that it doesn't impact on some of the other options. What I'm trying to do is identify separate issues that can be discussed separately so that other issues can be dealt with separately and broken down into discrete units. One other option, of course, is whether all uses of "British Isles" need citations even when they could have them, for similar reasons you give to justify the one you just gave.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons the natural procedure described above has been breaking down is due to weight issues: when is the term most valid? I agree that controversial facts need to be cited. We could agree that all BI usage should be cited. Primarily, it would help prevent it being so easily removed in the future (and many passers-by think twice when they see a cite). So we could use your table to get rid on any uncited terms. What is good about citation (ie a Reliable Source) is that it equals notability to a degree - at least in the sense of: if nobody has bothered calling it BI - then should we? This is not WP by the letter, I accept - but I think it could be wise. Whatever we do will a working arrangement - it will never quite be exact policy, I feel. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, does anybody know where to categorize River Shannon, Lough Neagh etc? GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Subject table
The categories above are to do with referencing - and are a good start. Beyond that we need to categorise by subject in the rows (Irish-heavy? first, British-heavy? second) A 'Neither' would equate to non-use, IMO.

For example,

An African-related article saying "aid workers came from the British Isles" would be wrong: It should say "aid workers came from Britain and Ireland". The African matter would be the main subject, and there is no geographical subtext other than national identity regarding "British Isles", so "Britain and Ireland" would be better in this example.

The question "is it a geographical matter?" would have to be asked for each case (ie a column). Regarding examples like the rivers in Ireland, we then need further guidelines on how to phrase regarding Ireland (as the Ireland factor is the root of the problem).--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Added clarity --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a table based on my comment above. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Some good work here, folks. I take it most people would take as a starting point that BI should generally only be used in a geographical context? (There may be the odd exception).  If that's the case, wouldn't Matt's example above of aid workers be one where BI wouldn't be used - the aid (or aid workers) are coming from Ireland or the UK (political entities), not a geographical one?  I'd also recommend against the blanket use of a 'BI' template. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 06:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * NOTE HERE: I've added clarity to my aid worker example - it was supposed to be an example on clear non-use of the BI term! --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the case of aid workers, since they are often subsidised by governments and are essentially political matters, then I agree. However, in terms of population movements - e.g. settlement of the colonies - then British Isles is more appropriate, because it's an essentially geographical issie (specifically, human geography). This is even more true if we're talking about prehistoric times for example. So a sentence such as "the construction of stone circles is almost unique to the British Isles" is the only resonable way of saying it. ðarkun coll 07:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Disputable, New Zealand people talk about being Scottish (South Island in the main) or Irish (Auckland), similar patterns in Australia although not as strong. Boston talks about Irish origins not British.  Pre-historic times you have more of a case, although the BI term is not in play (The Romans clearly split Britain from Ireland).  The role of the Famine in human movements, or enclosure means that the national identity is probably more important -- Snowded   TALK  07:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not just disputable, simply not true that it "is the only reasonable way of saying it". "The construction of stone circles is almost restricted to Britain, Ireland and adjacent islands".  It's a few extra bytes but if it saves hours of pointless argument, what's the problem?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it's an abuse of language - and it also hides the fact that as a geographical entity, the British Isles also have a shared cultural history. ðarkun coll 08:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hardly an abuse of the language if it makes the position clear. The shared cultural history is an interesting one as well, Scotland was closer to France than England for much of its existence. I think this is all part of your sundered brethren argument Tharky, you want to constantly emphasise Britishness at the cost of making progress.  Its all win-loose with your arguments.  -- Snowded   TALK  09:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * British Isles has got nothing to do with "Britishness". Scotland was allied with France, but culturally it was a lot closer to England. There's quite a big difference. ðarkun coll 09:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even that statement does not stand up. The highlands was a unique culture and language very little to match against England, and at the level of the middle classes and aristocracy the French influence was high (look at the architecture).  Its only during the period of active empire that you can say a common culture is present, and part of that arises from systematic and barbaric attempts to wipe out Irish, Scottish & Welsh culture and language.  -- Snowded   TALK  10:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It hardly needs pointing out that the aristocracy of England were also French. And part of Scotland, remember, was annexed from England, and always had English as its language. ðarkun coll 10:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, makes a total nonsense of all this emphasis on the British Isles as having a common and distinct culture doesn't it? Pleased to see you coming round at last. -- Snowded   TALK  10:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Shared cultural history" until 1921, perhaps. But not now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you think so? How about all the TV for example? And the continued free exchange of population? ðarkun coll 09:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are including TV then we should all become transatlantic and forget about BI completely -- Snowded   TALK  09:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Shared culture" to some extent, perhaps about the same extent as UK culture is shared with US culture, Australian, etc etc. But we are talking about independent sovereign states with all that that implies.  The point is that "BI" is, in all cases I can think of, both insensitive and, more important, unnecessary.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you are allowing issues other than linguistic ones cloud your judgement. That's fine for you personally, if you want, but it is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. ðarkun coll 10:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. "Linguistic issues" are not all that is important. In fact, what any of us think we are saying is wholly unimportant.  What readers think they are hearing is all-important.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of an encyclopedia is to educate. If people think British Isles is objectionable in Ireland, it is good that we can disabuse them of such an erroneous notion. ðarkun coll 10:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah so you do have a political agenda then? Given that we established citations around the objectionable aspect in a previous debate.  -- Snowded   TALK  10:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I have a linguistic and factual accuracy agenda. For every citation provided, there is an equal and opposite citation proving that it's used in Ireland. ðarkun coll 11:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of an encyclopaedia is precisely not to "educate" - which implies the "educator" or editor has an agenda. The point of an encyclopaedia is to inform, using referenced information and neutral and unambiguous terminology.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent response to Ghmyrtle) I very much agree with this comment. An encyclopaedia may well do some educating, but that is not its main aim. Education is almost a side-effect to the main one of informing, using referenced material using a neutral and unambiguous terminology so that it is effectively a "fair mirror" of the sum of knowledge about a particular topic. Some of the information may well have to be simplified, and the means by which we describe it needs attention as well, and so we need to pay attention to the inherent problems associated with the abstraction and means of representation that happens when we choose what to include and how to describe it in an actual article. I see this section as broaching the twin issues of abstraction and representation. Both these matters are relevant, even if one is concerned with "linguistic and factual accuracy", and it would be quite wrong to routinely assume or suggest if that one advocate is in favour of accuracy, then those who disagree with that advocate must not be in favour of accuracy. The nature of the disagreement may lie in other matters, and it is again an example of a False Dilemma to cast the situation in these terms. DDStretch   (talk)  14:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Plan of action (based on tables)
What do people think of the broad idea of us a 1) voting for some general principles (like Snowded's below - eg that the term can cause offense), then 2) looking towards a stage-based MOS Guideline with 2.i) a Sources table (like DDstrteches above, to decide if the refs are good enough to proceed), a 2.ii) Subject table (like mine below it, to decide how to proceed) and then 2.iii) create a specific guideline on how best to describe it when it's geographical, and Ireland is heavily involved? --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Vote for general principles

2) Work towards a stage-based MOS Guideline (that could include):

2.i) Sources table

2.ii) Subject table

2.iii) Guidelines for Ireland

To list it. Any thoughts on this?--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm for anything, that'll settle the BI disputes. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a universal "yes" (being an optimistic chap). --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

PART 1) Shared principles
NOTE: these have been re-made below in there own section. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) We need a MOS (Manual of Style) Guideline page people can always refer to.
 * 2) The guideline must deal with sources and subjects, and address usage for Ireland specifically.
 * 3) British Isles is a geographical term and should only be used in connection with geographical features.
 * 4) Britain is also a geographical term.
 * 5) Ireland is also a geographical term.
 * 6) The 'geographical' in all cases is physical geography and not human geography.
 * 7) 'British Isles' is a widely-used term, but it is acknowledged that it has political and cultural legacy aspects which can cause offence. (This was resolved on the BI talk some time ago).
 * 8) In respect of size and height issues etc, the non-binding preference is to refer to largest geographical unit to which the entity unambiguously belongs. For example, Europe in certain circumstances would take precedence over the British Isles.
 * 9) WP:Weight is a key issue, and consideration should be given to the use of the article in question. Given equally weighted citations, one decision criteria could be the 'cognitive load' placed on the reader (ie the amount they need to know about history to understand the words in use).

NOTE: these have been re-made below in there own section. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is compiled from DDstretch, myself and Snowded's suggestions. Please comment on (or add to) the above. We can poll when we've ironed it out. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's acceptable to me. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like the "physical geography not human geography" thing, nor "British Isles is a geographical term and should only be used in connection with geographical features." BI is not a purely physical geographical term (two words: Channel Islands).  As for limiting its use to "geographical features" only - isn't this a form of censorship?  I see no reason to limit the use of the term if a reliable source uses it - whether that's in relation to a geographical feature or any other. Waggers (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Britain" is also a political term. The British establishment has always played on this. If it were purely geographical, the Falklands would not be British, and nor would the Hebrides.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We are defining the boundries of a guideline remember (not defining the entities as such) - that Britain is also a political term is stated more clearly in the revised list below. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Some proposed principles
I think it is worth picking up on Bastun's point here and attempting to see what is agreed and not agreed, together with some general principles before we looking at specific applications. There are also related issues of racial origin which have emerged recently but while that is a related issue, it is not relevant here. So let me attempt a few: -- Snowded  TALK  07:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * British Isles is a geographical term and should only be used in connection with geographical features
 * Britain is also a geographical term
 * Ireland is also a geographical term
 * While still a valid term it has to be acknowledged that it has political and cultural legacy aspects wich can cause offence (we resolved this on the page itself some time ago)
 * In respect of longest/highest etc. the preference but not the requirement is to refer to largest geographical unit to which the entity unambiguously belongs.  So Europe would for example take precedence over BI
 * Weight is a key issue and consideration should be given to the use of the page in question. Given equal citation one decision criteria could be the cognitive load placed on the reader (ie the amount they need to know about history to understand the words in use.


 * We must remember that geography refers to human geography just as much as physical geography. So anything to do with the human population of the BI would also be included in any geographical usage. ðarkun coll 07:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am less sure of that, and it is a far more sensitive issue. The rules differ in practical use and one might argue the case for the de aggregation having preference over aggregation.  If you have support for this from other editors then I strongly suggest it is handled as a separate discussion.  Do I gather that you agree with the above principles otherwise?  -- Snowded   TALK  07:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed my 'Subject category' table above to use the words 'physical geography' ('human' is just one of a number of branches - 'physical' is the classical one). --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable sources"
It needs to be recognised that, until 1921, "British Isles" was a convenient shorthand for a political entity as well as a geographical entity. That situation does not now apply, but many later sources, however "reliable" in their own context, may have failed to consider the wider cultural implications of continuing to use the term after 1921. We don't know, but it is likely in many cases. The sources may well be "reliable" in providing information, but should not necessarily be taken as "reliable" in their consideration of whether their terminology is appropriately value-neutral. Hence, in this context, they should not be relied upon in helping to determine to whether the term "BI" is appropriate at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And that, I'm afraid, is OR. ðarkun coll 08:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is a prima facie assumption. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In general terms I find the above ideas listed by Snowded useful, but a different tack follows. First of all let me try to be clear about my own biases. I am a Scot and therefore also a Brit. Before logging on to this fair organ it had escaped my attention that "British Isles" was offensive to anyone - although the reason is obvious. I don't find it offensive personally. It is a nuisance when considering a geographical subject such as Ben Nevis to have to wonder whether it is appropriate to call it the highest mountain in the UK or the British Isles, when both are clearly true. The latter could be preferred as the old fellow is a geographical rather than a political phenomenon and there is no easy way to describe that part of the archipelago which includes GB and all its attendant islands. On the other hand I am aware that the term is offensive to some (perhaps most, I don't know) Irish editors, whose good opinion I would prefer to enlist. I wonder therefore if we can cut the Gordian knot here and use the existing principles behind Manual of Style?

I think it is credible to suggest that "British Isles" is not Irish English. It is however both English English and Scottish English. According to MOS "an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." Thus, it is correct to say that Ben Nevis is the highest mountain in the British Isles, and if my Irish friends don't like it, they can campaign to have Scottish English usage changed by lobbying the media and the Government. On the other hand the River Shannon should not be described as the longest river in the British Isles, and if my English friends don't like that they have the same recourse to off-Wiki action. Some difficulties will of course remain, such as usage in Northern Ireland (about which I know very little) and on articles which refer to both the UK and Ireland. In the latter case MOS encourages us to use "words that are common to all varieties of English", which I interpret as meaning that rather than egregiously using "British Isles" at every possible opportunity, we only use it with due sensitivity when the text requires it. Ben  Mac  Dui  08:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * An interesting suggestion - but the truth is that British Isles is used in Irish English. It has been used, for example, by Irish government ministers and MPs. This is not a dialect issue. ðarkun coll 09:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) But what happens when Irish reliable sources seem curiously unoffended and use "British Isles" without any problem - see Talk:River Shannon for examples. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 09:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Some may not be offended. Others are. It is not a "national" issue, it is a sensitivity issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And it is not just "offensive to Irish readers". It is seen as insensitive (if not directly offensive) as well as unnecessary by some (many? - don't know, "OR") British readers as well, and I would guess ("OR") by others elsewhere in the world.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside from the insensitive issue, I also think its very confusing. Most people outside of the UK & Ireland, think of the geographical entities Britain and Ireland, the British Isles is frequently used to mean Britain.  Ireland as a whole has clear recognition world wide.  I defended the continuation of the British Isles as an article because it is a valid historical term, still in current use but fading.  That has to be a part of the discussion about when it should or should not be used.  -- Snowded   TALK  13:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree, but to be clear the logic of what I am suggesting is that the use of the term in articles about Ireland would in effect be up to WikiProject Ireland to sort out. If they believe it should be used, it's used. If they don't it isn't. I don't believe we are likely to find any kind of lasting solution if editors attempt to enforce the use of a term on a project whose members find it offensive. Indeed, I wonder why anyone would wish to. Ben   Mac  Dui  13:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving it to WikiProject Ireland would make a lot of sense, but I somehow think you will not get agreement from those on a mission to preserve BI in active use and "educate" the world accordingly -- Snowded   TALK  14:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That may well be so, but if the logic of the above is followed, then any such mission would be in breach of WP:MOS and could be safely reverted, just as users of English English may safely assume that attempts to use US spellings or expressions on (excuse me) British articles may be reverted with insouciance. Ben   Mac  Dui  15:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Examples of official use in Ireland
These are from British Isles naming dispute. There are far more there. ðarkun coll 11:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * I wonder, does the BI term get this much attention, on the Irish-language Wikipedia? PS - is there such a Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * http://ga.wikipedia.org/ is the answer to the second question. As to the first, I don't know. Ben   Mac  Dui  15:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no link to the Gaelic Wikipedia (look for Gaeilge on the left) from the British Isles page, so perhaps they've censored it completely. ðarkun coll 15:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Try, just try for a few days to accept that if people disagree with your favourite words/concepts it does not mean they are censoring, and that other people who also disagree with you are as concerned about facts. I think the WIki word for it is Good faith.  -- Snowded   TALK  15:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (e/c to TharkunColl) Alternatively, they may just have not got round to writing it and/or translating it yet, because they have been doing other things first. No need to assume censorship is the only explanation for the absence.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I brought up the Irish Wikipedia (which in no way should effect this Wikipedia)? I was curious as to how they handle the British Isles situation. Perhaps they might've had some cool solutions that we could've adopted. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe - but notwithstanding the above, I think they're more likely just to have ignored it. Still, to be fair to them, perhaps the Irish Gaelic version of British Isles - Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha - really isn't the most common way of referring to the islands in Gaelic, in which case they are perfectly justified not to have an article on it. However this, of course, is the English Wikipedia. ðarkun coll 15:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(Republic of) Ireland
I've noticed the reason most often raised for wanting to hide or delete British Isles on Wikipedia is because it's an offensive term. Well, I assume UKers (particularly of Northern Ireland) find it offensive when the Republic of Ireland is hidden on Wikipedia, under the word Ireland. Which is more offensive? the River Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles or Dublin is the capital of Ireland. Something to consider folks. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This could be a bit of a battle, but the word 'Republic' simply has to come back. 'Ireland' can include the Northern Irish! We ultimately may need lines like "..in the Republic of Ireland and the surrounding British Isles." in certain Irish-heavy geographical articles too (IMO, anyway). As GoodDay suggests, it seems the height of hypocrisy to favour piping Ireland to the ROI, and then go after BI as being political and unfair! I don't personally care how the 'pipe to ROI' decision came about - it was clearly the wrong one, and can be reversed.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Should we have to cater to people's sensibilities? What about those who find neither offensive? Should we change the article on Theory of Evolution to avoid offending creationists? Or amend Intelligent design so as to not offend those who subscribe to the former? Strange way to write an encyclopedia. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 20:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Should we have to cater to people's sensibilities?" Yes! What has Intelligent Design have to do with this? (ROI-as-pipe is the exact opposite if you ask me).--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We can trade-off. Hide British Isles? can't hide Republic of Ireland or vise-versa. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The 'Compromise' in your heading? (I've just changed it to avoid conflict with other matters by the way - hope you don't mind). ROI has to return - it's as simple as that, as far as I'm concerned.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

less provocation please
It may have escaped your notice but the political entity is under the name of Republic of Ireland, its not unusual (and would be good practice) to talk about "The island of Ireland" when referencing the geographical entity. You're wrong about the most common reason for wanting to reduce the use of British Isles as well. Yes it causes offence, although I cam coming to the believe that the manner of its imposition and the the language of those imposing it causes most of the problems. I think its use should be reduced as it is increasingly archaic, inappropriate in several cases and confusing to people overseas. In addition you are now happily breaking some of your own historical arguments, using political rather than geographical terms. Pursue that line and its proof positive of a political agenda which I beginning to suspect in some cases anyway. Bastun, the comparison with Creationism is uncalled for and provocative, bordering on insulting. I suggest you with drawn it. I also suggest this idea is abandoned and we try and go back to a structured discussion (as per Matt's original suggestion. -- Snowded  TALK  21:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm seeking a simple trade-off. Hide British Isles, Show Republic of Ireland or the otherway. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wasn't it only Tharkuncoll with the River Shannon, and then suggestively with the Islands of the BI template, who started to put the BI term into articles? Up until then it was all about Bardcom (as was) taking them out of older articles, and the mixed 'rights and wrongs' of that getting debated (with decidedly mixed success) on each Talk page in turn?


 * Whatever happens with the wider use of ROI, I would be unhappy to be told I cannot use it in a suggestion here, because it has already been 'ruled against'. I certainly think we should right now pursue the structured approach, but I've got plans to suggest 'ROI' for any (hopefully eventual) guidelines, and I hope I won't be scuppered by any prior 'ruling' when I do that. Perhaps we should carry on and wait and see.. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We need to get engaged in a step by step process and hold back from jumping in with "solutions" especially some of the provocation above. You were right originally Matt in suggesting the three steps. What is needed is for someone NEUTRAL to drive this. -- Snowded  TALK  22:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * At least we've got this RoI/BI thingy mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Somebody neutral? Who'd ya have in mind, Snowded? GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

An admin who understands the issues - Keeper is one, DDstretch another (although he might not be seen as neutral and will want to contribute) -- Snowded   TALK  22:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is going to have to be fully collaborative now it's started, I think. I thought of going to Keeper to start it up, but he's got too involved with the UK now I feel to be seen as fully unconnected. I'm a bit admin-wary anyway - this should be down to us (with admins as editors and nothing else). Besides, nobody would even step in just to get the thing going! I don't mind pushing things along when needed (and I know others will too). As for myself, I may not be neutral but I am completely in the middle on this. I like the "island of Ireland" example... but we should now step back a bit I agree. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Matt, it's up to us (involved parties) to figure these problems out. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course we have to figure it out, it just needs someone to guide the process -- Snowded  TALK  22:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm content with whoever ya'll can find fo the task. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be some sort of suggestion here that it's possible to buy off British editors with some other sort of political deal. So the underlying assumption, I presume, is that it's the British editors who are the ones that need to be appeased - indeed that it's they who are the problem. ðarkun coll 23:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually (IMHO) both British & Irish editors want something the other is unwilling to give. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Problem here: if some folk want to extend the debate around a so-called "geographical" term, like the "British" Isles (with no official recognition) to the name of the state legally and commonly called Ireland, then they are looking for war, not a solution. The "Republic of Ireland" is already a weaselly compromise between the name of the country, simply Ireland, and a dab. No way is the agreed compromise going to be re-visited; unless it is to move the article Republic of Ireland to Ireland where is should be as per the convention of every other state on the planet. Sarah777 (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What about the fact that Northern Ireland is in Ireland and Britain though? The clear irony here is that using 'Ireland' makes the Northern Irish look inclusively Irish, when so many in NI are naturally British. Hence the direct comparison with the BI complaint - the British could easily take offence. I expect in some vote sometime some of them did. I think we should at least bring back ROI where BI is concerned - it makes a whole lot of sense to disambiguate with it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not following you here, Matt. I agree the two 'Ireland's can create problems if not carefully worded, but how does using Ireland for the state make the Northern Irish look just Irish? Nuclare (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As you well know, it's in the same way that 'British Isles' makes the Irish seem British to those ignorant of the situation. You are right - we have to be careful. Isn't this why we are here? GoodDay is right to say it should not be one rule for some, and another of others. It makes no difference to me that Ireland is a state, whereas British Isles is just a commonly used geographical term - this is not Top Trumps. In fact, the fact that Ireland is a state, may mean the British in Northern Ireland feel specifically hard done by Ireland losing the 'Republic'! I'm not saying they are - I'm just pointing out the clear irony here.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, what makes the Northern Irish seem Irish is their being from an island called Ireland. If they aren't disputing the name "Ireland" for the island, than how is the state responsible for their association with "Irishness," regardless of what it (the state) is called? THAT's the way British Isles associates Britishness with all of Ireland. Geographical names are very readily seen as identity terms. That's the issue, even though so many keep trying to make this purely political. I'm not an opponent of 'Republic of Ireland' use. There are times when it needs to be used. Absolutely. But there is something wrong with the analogy being made here...???... Nuclare (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We are talking about Ireland being piped to the Republic - the name of the state! This little chat is all about that. I'm not sure if you're just trying to catch me out, but you're certainly missing my point. I've already said I favour the "island of Ireland" to make clear the fact that the island is called 'Ireland'. If Ireland piped to a disambiguation page (for example) it would be a little different wouldn't it? But it is piped to the ROI. Even with a disambiguation page involved, the comparison is clear - both terms (Ireland and BI) have double meanings. The irony is clear too: the 'BI side' is being told the term is unacceptable, while the 'Ireland side' saying it, are smoking a pipe! And, specifically, at times when they could easily disambiguate by either using 'Republic', or a disam page. And clearly any dissenters have to shut up. I'm not even saying the situations are equal - but it's still "one rule for some and another for others" with some people, as I said.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood what you were talking about, but your claim of hypocrisy depends upon them being analogous situations, and I'm not convinced they are. Nuclare (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Snowded: What provocation have I offered? I'm being told on article pages that the BI term is offensive and therefore shouldn't be used - I don't see the difference. If I've caused offense to you by mentioning Creationism - apologies. On another note, you've mentioned a few times that the term BI is falling out of use and is seen as increasingly archaic. Granted, it does seem to be less used in Ireland, and we even have one example - a schoolbook publisher removing the term from its Irish atlas editions following one complaint, while continuing to use it in its UK editions. But apart from that, I've seen no evidence of lessened useage presented. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 09:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's more than Folens. In fact, I thought I recall you agreeing with the idea that publications (beyond Folens) were decreasing usage back at ye olde British Isles page debates. Maybe not. To collect all the evidence together on that issue would be a pain in the behind, but maybe it's something that should be done--not for the sake of OR but just to collect evidence of usage or lack of usage. Hmmm... Nuclare (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sounds familiar - no time to go check the page now, but I think I'd said that if similar/more examples could be found then reference should definitely be made to it in the body of the article. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 12:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Arb Break - Ireland (the state) etc
I might also ask how a discussion like this started without Wikiproj Ireland members being notified. It is fascinating to read all the non-Irish editors above debating this in the absence of nearly the whole Irish editorial community. Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Only by a few hours. It started so quickly I didn't get a chance to notify them at first - but expressly logged on later to do it. How about that? And nobody has since come, so don't try for too much milliage. You can always help you know. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Invite whomever you like. By the way, both you & Tharky have turned down my BI/RoI suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is quite a big problem here - though it has nothing at all to do with the BI issue. The state based in Dublin claims the name "Ireland" for itself, when in fact it only represents part of the island. ðarkun coll 23:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The state based in Dublin is called "Ireland" and is legally recognised as such by the entire world as such, including by the UK. So, no problem there. It is also the WP:common name of the state. Yet it isn't the name of the Wiki-article! Yet the so-called "British" Isles have no such universal recognition and it is the Wiki-title of these islands. Proof positive of my contention that "consensus" on Wiki is merely the dictatorship of the more numerous political entity. Slam dunk. Sarah777 (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * e/c. Irish policy isn't the problem - it's how we at WP are currently representing it. We should use the 'Republic' term to disambiguate. I do agree this is something we need to look at re-representing (if only in some artcles). But perhaps later? Lets stick first to what we can more easily agree on. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If what I read above is correct, the article name for the state might be better as Ireland (state) and any article about the island might then be Ireland (island), though there would be no need to have Ireland as a disambiguation page if a note at the top of each article would suffice, and so the article named Ireland could quite legitimately be redirected to Ireland (state) . One might even have Ireland (disambiguation) , to help with the disambiguation, but that would probably be too much and unjustified. Since I have no knowledge of previous discussions that might have led up to the current naming and use scheme for the state and the island, I may be going over old ground, or rehashing points that have been previously discarded as not being a good solution, but on the face of it, it appears that what I have suggested above would have been a standard wikipedia solution, using a standard form for the different meanings assobiated with the name "Ireland". Now, I imagine that the worldwide association of the state with the name "Ireland" means that the formal naming of articles and redirections could be dispensed with, and this is how the present solution has emerged. However, this may again be because I don't know the previous discussions or basis for the present actual naming schemes. Turning to article(s) about "British Isles", the same approach could be used, and we should learn from it: British Isles (geographical) , and British Isles (political) could be created to cover and discuss the relevant material of each. British Isles (disambiguation) would be the formal disambiguation page between the two, and British Isles should point to the disambiguation page in this case, because of the amount of ambiguity and the problems surrounding its ambiguous status is causing in many cases and articles. It could be argued that this redirect is unnecessary, and that British Isles should merely contain the disambiguation material. This would seem to be completely in conformance with wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to go some way to solve the ambiguous nature of the name.   DDStretch    (talk)  08:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ddstretch - this gets debated and polled about every six weeks to six months on Talk:Republic of Ireland (its in several of the archives and the current page) - there has been no consensus for a change from the current names of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland pages, and I *think* there might be a six-month moratorium on reopening the debate there. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 09:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that. However, if you read again, my message was not so much a recommendation about the Ireland issue, but more using what may have happened there, interpreted in the light of existing wikipedia policy, and then applying the underlying issues to the case of British Isles, where, as I said, we can learn something of how to deal with a term that has two distinct meanings using existing wikipedia policies and guidelines. I readily admitted I had not followed any of the debate in detail about Ireland, but that is not necessary to grasp the suggestions I was making about British Isles.  DDStretch    (talk)  09:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Bastun, only if the piping arrangements are protected by the same moratorium. Obviously if the piping is revisited then the case for calling the article about the state by its legal and common name becomes unanswerable and urgent. Sarah777 (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps people could comment on the Shared principles section above? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK Matt - they are complete and utter nonsense. Ireland is is the name of a country! A rather important fact now that you have chosen to highlight the issue. Sarah777 (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What has Ireland as a country got to do with the Shared principles section? --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC) (don't worry - I've seen below) --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No issue at all with the piping arrangements. The agreement is to pipe links so they read 'Ireland', unless there's an obvious need for disambiguation, yes? Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 11:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At the moment for sure. We are overstepping ourselves anyway. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bastun, I don't think any reasonable reader would accuse me of breaching WP:AGF if I take "at the moment for sure" as a statement of intent which must, inevitable, temper ones attitude to the current attempts at reaching a compromise. (And I think you should recognise that in the "Ireland" case those of us on the side of the angels have refrained from raising the issue again ever since the piping arrangement was agreed). Sarah777 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are addressing me here (not Bastun): I just meant we shouldn't deal with it right now. A few people have suggested we could look again at the pipe. We are attempting an important guidelines here, so do need to go over everything. Nothing will happen without consensus so you don't have to question my intent (though I would like them looked at). Lets see what people come up with for the guidelines for Ireland? Looking at the pipe (even only in certain circumsances) might genuinely help both sides here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)