Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/archive 3

What terms do we use? (Britain, UK, Ireland, ROI)
I moved my response to Matt to this new section. I reversed the switch of table names this morning on the grounds that we had agreement to that, introducing political terms changes things.

Now we know that British Isles is a geographical term, and is not political. We then have two geographical terms with no overlap, namely Britain and Ireland. The political terms are Ireland (as Eire) and United Kingdom (Britain and Northern Ireland). To have any chance of success this needs to be geographical not political and we should keep to geographical terms and arguments around that. Britain is purely a geographical term as it does not include Northern Ireland. The question of what to call Ireland has been discussed elsewhere and we should not go there. At the moment Ireland is geographical and Republic of Ireland is political although Ireland is used as well.

Lets keep it to geography -- Snowded   TALK  08:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned the terms weren't switched - 'Ireland' in the Subject table always meant the Republic of Ireland to me (as in the Weight table where the ROI is actually linked). I realised this morning, just before I put the suggested guidelines in, that it wasn't linked in the subject table - so I did with a couple of other minor (or so I thought) changes that it needed. I simply can't make sense of it as 'Ireland the island'. Ireland (the island) contains the ROI and NI and shares the same name with the pipe-linked-to-ROI 'country' version of Ireland (which is very much a politicised pipe imo). For me, using ROI is simply practical, like using Britain - both can be political yes, but neither are being politicised here. So they are essentially the best geographical terms we have.


 * Britain includes Northern Ireland, and so does the island of Ireland - so it just isn't logical to use them both. The geographical entity "Great Britain" does not include the Isle of Man, so isn't workable either. It has to be the two countries IMO - Britain and the ROI. No one can misunderstand where their boundries are - and there is no difficult overlap of meaning. They are not ambiguous either. --Matt Lewis (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy to accept the intent on naming Matt, but the actual words were Ireland as the island. Remember we have the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so Britain normally means England, Wales and Scotland.   ROI is not a geographical term, Ireland is political and geographical (but the convention is now established in WIkipedia that the article on Ireland is geographical).  There maybe a case to introduce ROI in some of the rules, but I think therein lies danger.   If you want people to accept British Isles as a valid Geographical term then you have to accept that Ireland is one too.  -- Snowded   TALK  09:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They can all be used as geographical terms in the right context - certainly Ireland (the island) can for sure. My problem with Ireland here is simply that it contains Northern Ireland. So does Britain and trying to write guidelines containing both the terms has been impossible (for me at least) - they simply overlap! The only way I've managed to make sense of it is by using the Republic, simply because it doesn't cross over with Britain - and the word 'British' is the whole issue behind all this, so we have to keep to Britain, I feel (rather than UK). It's the only workable route I've personally seen through it all anyway. I've found it can get very complicated word-wise very quickly, and it's the simplest-to-explain route for me as well. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to go out (in the flipping rain) for a couple of hours - sorry. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not so sure Britain includes Northern Ireland Matt, the term is Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Britain can hardly contain Great Britain! Yes there is confused use, but that is what we are trying to sort out.  Sorry I think its very simply, the arguments you are making for using ROI could be used to argue against using British Isles.  I don't see it as a workable route to use ROI in the way you propose as it politicises the issue.  My firm opinion is that we should only use geographical terms, and should avoid political ones, other than referencing issues of national frontiers if they are appropriate.  Enjoy the rain, I should do some work anyway and we should let other editors in  -- Snowded   TALK  09:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was told by the secretary of an Irish waterways organisation that applications from people from NI nearly always end their address with GB. Technically incorrect and it doesn't find its way into the records but it illustrates the difficulty. It depends on where people are identifying themselves. Chris55 (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like Sony-youth's idea which was used at Lough Neagh. Pipe-link British Isles|Great Britain and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'GB' plate has it's only story - it is a recognised anomaly with Northern Ireland, nothing else. The term 'Great Britain' is certainly wrong for Northern Ireland - 'Great Britain' is simply the larger of the two largest islands (ie England, Scotland and Wales).--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The term Great Britain (the biggest island) does NOT normally mean the same as Britain! Hence "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"! (aka "Britain" is the political/cultural sense). We will have to clearly define Britain in these terms! Northern Ireland IS in Britain in the sense these guidelines are referring to (the commonly used sense)! Northern Ireland citizens hold a "British passport" and the British in NI consider themselves to be British, and they are simply part of Britain in this sense. Would you go up to one in the flesh and tell them they are not? As a British man, 'Britain' is word I use to describe Britain as a 'political/cultural' matter (different from politicised)- as do we all.

To say using the "Republic of Ireland" is 'political' and must be therefore be kept out - whereas Britain isn't 'political', and can be kept in - is simply double standards. Britain and ROI are totally analogous - both are legal terms where other terms can be used in their place - specifically, 'Ireland' and the 'United Kingdom'. But Ireland is ambiguous - and that is a BIG problem!!!!! ROI and Britain are also the only terms where there is no ambiguity over what they mean (and we can if needed define 'Britain' as meaning all the UK constituent countries to cover this). Either that or we use the UK in its place. 'There is no way we can split Northern Ireland from the UK because it suits a supposed'' non-political 'geographical' guideline!! I cannot support what looks like a MASSIVE bias towards nationalism.'''! By enforcing the ambiguity of the 'geographical' term 'Ireland', and pretending that we must have 100% pure geographical terms (whatever that is anyway) is simply making things impossible to describe here. It is also clearly political, IMO, so the ill-fitting 'geography only' argument is a pretty clear smokescreen to cover the hiding of the word "Republic" to make Northern Ireland feel as part of Ireland (and hence not the UK) as much as can be possible. By forcing the guideline to use Ireland (the island) instead of the clearly-defined ROI, we are simply breaking logic - as Northern Ireland is in Ireland (the island) AND is commonly known to be in Britain too. How can we forge a guideline out of that? --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Matt. British Citizen is not confined to the UK but extends overseas, so that argument does not stand up.  You cannot split Northern Ireland from the UK (it is a part of the definition of the UK that it includes NI), agreed.  However you are now showing double standards.  You are arguing that the use of Ireland implies in some way that Northern Ireland is one with Eire.  At the same time you are arguing that British Isles is a purely geographical term and its use does not imply that Eire is still a part of the British Empire.  You can't have it both ways.-- Snowded   TALK  15:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have argued neither of those things! Both 'Ireland' and 'British Isles' are problematic terms with double 'meanings' - I've made my thoughts on that very clear!!! It's why we need to avoid all ambiguity. It's what I'm trying to do - nothing else. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well many have. Look Matt, this was going well while you used geographical terms and the whole point of the task force is to work out ambiguities in the way of guidelines.  Introducing political terms opens up the old wounds, makes NPOV arguments inevitable etc. etc.   I think you can use the ROI term in some of the guidelines.  Suggest you rewind to last night and go from there.  -- Snowded   TALK  15:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What was the Regional Guidelne D about, by the way? Is it still needed? I put included it on your original suggestion - can you look at it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was covering off examples like the Thames which can be described in the context of Southern England -- Snowded   TALK  15:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Shall I remove it or do you want to extend it? Nothing sprung to mind to include in it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I still prefer Great Britain and Ireland, as those are the 2 major islands of British Isles (pipelinked to British Isles). GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will freely admit that "Great" has always grated ...-- Snowded  TALK  16:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

e/c I'll think about changing the use of 'Britain' to 'Great Britain' (including the Isle of Man per a footnote, and any other entity that doesn't fit)' and see if Ireland (the island) then makes more sense. I've certainly not made any more ambiguities by using the terms I have - far from it: Opening up any wounds couldn't be less ambiguous. The 'hide the word Republic' people clearly won the fight anyway, so I'm not sure who actually has the unhealed wounds! The main thing is the use of British Isles however, so I'll attempt to slightly re-adjust it all in a way that makes sense to me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The more I think of it, the more I see pipelinking Republic of Ireland to Ireland (on Wikipedia) was a mistake. Cause it now causes us to consider pipelinking Ireland to Ireland (island). It's should've been Republic of Ireland & Ireland or Ireland (state) & Ireland (island). GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it comes back to the point I made some time ago about wikipedia standard naming policy on disambiguation, which would lead to there being separate articles on Ireland (country) (I know I said "state" as the disambiguator before, but it is better as country) and Ireland (island), which would lead to parallel uses for "British Isles" and so on. The existing Ireland forms are redirects, but the basic principle still applies (though I imagine that the underlying target articles may be changeable after some form of repeated consultation.) I think it is worth repeating that point here again, and I think we should be using the disambiguating forms in our discussions here.  DDStretch    (talk)  16:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that, is there any reason why it should not be proposed? Here island of Ireland remains a possible way of handling things.  -- Snowded   TALK  16:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be up to the Irish wikipedians, but I certainly think we should be using the standard wikipedia naming forms to assist us in our discussions here for Ireland, British Isles, Britain, Great Britain, and so on. Whether they would ever get instantiated as articles (even if as only redirects) shouldn't affect the care we take here, and I think we can learn from wikipedia policy about disambiguation here.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For me editing comes first on this one. Rules should sometimes follow the editor. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

break
Due to requests by snowded and Sarah777 I've honestly tried my level best to keep the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland together under the geographical heading of Ireland (or Ireland (island)), but I simply cannot do it no matter how much I try. They are simply two different countries, and it just transpires that we have no choice but to represent that in the structure of the guideline. One is essentially a British country (any semantics and internal divisions aside) and as the whole problem is over the word "British" in "British Isles"! It can't be hidden in the geographical term - it keeps wanting to get out. Using the more restricted 'Great Britain' instead of Britain simply broke down too. The best we can do is be brave, open and honest and try explain every situation wherever we can. And offer as many workable examples as we can, so people have choices to work with.

I hope people take my conclusion in good faith, it is genuinely an honest one, and I've given most of my day to it too: without progressing alas. But we need to be brutally honest - these are different countries we are dealing with here. Hide that and it just doesn't fit together.

As for warriors with open wounds... I'm no coward, bring them on! (seriously though, this is a guideline for the future, it says nothing about messing with pre-defined pipes and the like - it simply offers options to people where they might be restricted.)--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Northern Ireland is the core of the problems. NI politically is British (Britain = United Kingdom) & NI geographically is Irish (located on the island of Ireland). GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As Bob Dylan once said, we live in a political world. (ok, not his greatest line). --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Matt I really appreciate the effort you have put in here and I still think you would have been better rewinding to last night and the table as was. I can see how you feel as you do, but I think that is in part because you are making it over complicated. Lets look at the two geographical terms: In effect by trying to use ROI and NI you have taken a position in respect of Ireland (arguing for political boundaries) that has not been accepted by advocates of British Isles (rejecting attempts to separate the political entities). Its a simple question of consistency. The issue we are attempting to resolve is which to choose when both Ireland and British Isles apply, and or circumstances in which Britain and Ireland could be used. -- Snowded  TALK  20:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * British Isles is a valid historical term that includes the UK and Eire so its valid to say that Ben Nevis is the highest mountain the British Isles. It would be censorship to prevent its use.
 * Ireland is a valid historical term that includes Eire and NI so it is valid to say that Carrauntuohill is the highest mountain in Ireland. It would be censorship to prevent its use.


 * Those "political boundries" between ROI and NI simply exist!!!! They are not my (or anyone's) "position" - they simply exist!!! I've no idea what you mean by "advocates of British Isles"? Thankuncoll? Let's keep it real, please. You are talking to me.


 * We are actually doing quite a number of different things here, including appeasing those who are not (at the moment) present - it's not all as simple as you keep saying it is (or want it to be). How is using ROI "inconsistent" regarding me? There is no ambiguity unlike 'Ireland' - and clarity is possibly the most important factor here, imo. Unfortunately, to keep it 'minimalistically' geographical will simply best suite one side (the nationalist side), but to fully recognise all the countries in the structure will only make it fairer for all involved.


 * I'm not happy with lines like 'in Ireland (as an island) the term causes offense' - that is just too political for me. In ROI I'll accept it, but I can't go as far as to include NI in that. It is a British country. I'm actually taking some really heavy politics out of this. To combine ROI and NI is these statements is about as political as it gets. We need to keep the 'dissent' elements (which I find wholly exaggerated anyway) ROI-only. Keep them out of NI - it's British! Certainly for the sake of these flipping guidelines. We can use language to show any subtleties that may arise. Let's just go by the law, society, what we know, and where we live. And you can't deny that to treat the ROI and NI as one singular unit is a nationalists dream! Every time I tried to fit it in it just seemed way too biased towards that. NI is in the UK. That's not POV - it's fact. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt, I would never linken you to Tharky! I am also very happy to agree with you that the ROI and NI both exist and the boundaries are known.  My point (and I don't seem to be able to get this across is that we have two terms BI and Ireland, which are ambiguous, are used in different ways, but are both geographical.  You can't get rid of one and keep the other.  So if you want to not use Ireland as that would involve combining ROI and NI, then you must advocate getting rid of British Isles (as it combines the UK and ROI). Now if you are advocating that radical position please say so, but if you advocate using BI, but not Ireland then I think you are a very difficult place in terms of consistency.  -- Snowded   TALK  21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The only "difficult place" I'm in is called Wikipedia!


 * I had to take a break earlier on - I had been at this all day and suddenly my head really started to spin! Coming back to this - all I can say is that if that has been your point all along I have indeed not gotten it, and I still can't. I am trying to help create a guideline for British Isles. I just can't see it as a trade-off with something else. We have a widely-used term here called "British Isles" that desperately needs a guideline for its Wikipedia usage - so instead of article's getting locked, 3RR abusers can be more easily dealt with by admin, essentially (to be a bit frank about it).


 * I've cut down the use of the term as much as I can. I've put together as many choices as I can (and may find some more - they include both Ireland and the ROI, as you have seen - and have asked people for more). But I find I am being told I cannot use what is easily the best term to 'disambiguate' with (the "Republic of Ireland") because it is somehow hypocritical of me to use it! And that it cannot be used alongside British Isles! But why? Who says so? I don't even get the logic involved. They are both ambiguous terms yes (and I’ve said this myself), but one does not cancel out the other. It is like you are bargaining with mind games! You said before that the 'geography only' route is actually 'better', but I still don't see how - it seems that 'better in your eyes' was the best term to use! What can we not achieve (or get wrong) with using "Republic of Ireland"? You have merely told me that it is dodgy for me to use it, basically it seems, because it isn’t fair when 'the other side' has to just accept the fact that ‘British Isles’ is used too! Well, 'poo' – it’s a widely used term! A decent guideline with ROI in it will actually help us all! Your negotiations look like an attempt to create and alternative guideline that effectively uses Ireland-as-an-island as a 'political' term for both the ROI and NI (presumably to balance a sense of unfairness) - but it cannot happen, as you cannot bargain with something that doesn’t yet exist. And it's far from 'geographical'. Sorry if I've got that wrong - it's just what it looks like.


 * We have a perfectly usable term in "Republic of Ireland" that can be used when needed instead of the over-used 'pipe-Ireland-to-ROI' solution, or instead of the term Ireland as island (or not - it's all just about options). Using ROI for Ireland is not comparable at all to using 'Britain and Ireland' instead of British Isles - which is a commonly used geographical term for a recognised archipelagos, whereas 'Britain and Ireland' are just two words (and two words I've used in the guidelines too). If anyone doesn't like the officially-used word ‘Republic’, well, they are simply too much of a minority to fairly register on any reasonable scale.


 * The Guideline I want to see here would have no inconsistency at all - everything would be honest and open - no term would be enforced, and the guidelines for use would be as flexible as possible, without over-using the BI term at all (as it clearly has been in the past). We have to find ways it can fit within with all the ROI-heavy issues, in those particular cases where its use cannot be avoided. Please don't say "and NI-heavy" - Northern Ireland is officially and widely 'British' - it is way too politicised to put NI into the position where they object to the term 'British Isles' alongside the ROI 'by default', as they together represent a combined 'Ireland'! It's just wrong. Both terms in question here (BI and ROI) are widely used - you cannot bargain with them as they are here to use, and use per WP:COMMONNAMES. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ireland is a valid geographic term for the island of Ireland - NI + ROI. Eire is strictly merely an Irish (language) translation of Ireland, but is (I think) in practice only applied to the republic.
 * Though in grammatical terms it is not the case, British is the only adjective we have for the UK as well as GB. Similarly, Irish is the only adjective available for Ireland, whether ROI or whole island.  Ambiguity can only be resolved by a DAB link.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt, it is not a question of a trade off or bargaining it is a question of consistency. The primary geographical terms are British Isles,  Ireland and Britain which allows for Britain and Ireland as a sub set of British Isles.  All of these terms are ambiguous in colloquial use but they can be made precise (Ireland is the island of Ireland,  British Isles is the whole of mainland Britain, Ireland and others).  There are then political terms that can be used for further explanation or elaboration such as the UK, ROI, Eire, Great Britain etc).  That appeared to be the position overnight Friday.  However yesterday you changed Ireland (the island) to ROI (political) while keeping the British label as its opposite.  This gives the appearance of a political position.  I repeat: you cannot argue on the one hand that Ireland should be replaced by ROI, but that British Islands should not be replaced by the United Kingdom on the other.  The goal here is to avoid politicisation and I rather resent you suggesting that I am trying to get Ireland imposed as a political term when I have arguing the opposite througout -- Snowded   TALK  05:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Will you stop saying I changed things? ROI was in the Weight table (which you since tried to remove yourself) and word 'Ireland' in the Subject table ALWAYS meant ROI to me - how can it possibly mean the whole island when is is straight-contrasted with 'Britain'?!!


 * You say above "..but they can be made precise (Ireland is the island of Ireland, British Isles is the whole of mainland Britain, Ireland and others)." But you have left out the key word - "Britain" - and you have put in entirely you own qualifier for it, "mainland"!!! How political is that???? Britain is used to mean the United Kingdom, and contains Northern Ireland - but so does the island of Ireland! We need to use the clearest terms for the sake of clarity: so we must use the ROI instead of the whole island to contrast with Britain. To suggest that we can't use ROI together with a Britain containing NI because the difference between them is too political (ie in a 'loaded' way that needs to be avoided), it actually politicising it to the extreme. ROI and NI are two distinct countries - we cannot censor that. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You did change things Matt, you got agreement to a table that said Ireland, and then changed it to say ROI on the grounds that such was your intention. Sorry I agree or disagree to what is written, and if that is changed it is changed.  The goal her is to agree terms.  Yes Britain is sometimes used to mean the UK, or even British Isles (just as England is) it doesn't make it right.  Britain is that big island to the east of Ireland if you don't like "mainland".  You are persistently missing the point about refusing Ireland (which includes NI) while supporting British Isles (which includes the ROI).  You say we can't use Ireland because it is too political, well then the same objection applies to British Isles.  Please STOP AND THINK about this point its key.  Those are the two geographical terms.  You can add the political terms as well for clarification but don't mix apples and oranges.


 * Stop calling me a liar regarding those bloody tables. THE INTRODUCTION STATES "REPUBLIC OF IRELAND". 2 of the 4 "Irelands" in the two tables were "Republic of Ireland" (although you later tried to change those two to Ireland). I simply unified it all - and those Ireland were not linked. When I wrote them I fully meant the ROI. I'm on the verge of taking this to a dispute resolution. You are stonewalling beyond all reason here. You are ignoring my arguments - I am addressing yours. If you are saying Northern Ireland isn't British your nationalism has simply made you lose touch with reality. You only want to use the island of 'Ireland' so you can mix in the Northern Irish. I'm not having it, Snowded. Your 'tit for tat' argument that we cannot use the ROI and the British Isles because it is unfair is utterly childish.--Matt Lewis (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Matt the only change I made on the tables was to REVERT your edit changing Ireland to ROI, after people had commented on the table. So it is the case that you changed it.  As to the rest of your argument please assume Good Faith and stop attributing nonsensical motives (Bordering on abuse).  I am patiently trying to make a case for consistency in the use of terms geographically and politically and doing so with an even hand.  If you can't see it, very well you can't see it but it is going to damage progress.  If you want to take it to dispute resolution please do so.   You might also want to consider the advisability of driving this process when you are not a neutral party -- Snowded   TALK  13:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a either a lie or a mistake - either way it is not true. You reverted my changes to the second two Irelands (which I had changed to ROI, like the first two were, when I realised the inconsistency) back to 'Ireland' - except you linked them to 'Ireland' the island - they were not originally linked anywhere -  then you later went back and changed the earlier two original Republic of Ireland's in the Weight table into Irelands. They were always ROI. the Introduction deals with ROI. You simply didn't follow it properly, then the toys came out of the pram after you saw that in some of the guidelines I used ROI term (along with others I might add). You then littered the whole page with insinuations that I pulled a fast one, and have kept it up continually. I will take this to dispute right now - your reasons why we can't use ROI are just bonkers, they must be stonewalling. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you using "Britain" to mean "UK", I suggest you don't. Use UK instead.  Use Great Britain for the island.  Otherwise it's confusing if "Britain" is different than "Great Britain".  I believe that most people, including me, were getting confused by this.  Some people use Britain to mean the island...  --HighKing (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's drop the usage of Britain. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are that confused (over NI?) I can easily put in UK instead of Britain.. but the British/Britain problem regarding the term "British Isles" is far more clear when the word 'Britain' is used, and also when it made as clear as possible that Britain is part of the island of Ireland (ie NI). Clarity for me is the absolute key. Changing Britain to UK would lose its explicit clarity in other respects, IMO. Currently we are making it clear upfront that NI is part of Britain in an official and 'common' sense (if anyone really is in confused by any ancient semantics here). Also, does anyone actually use the term 'Great Britain' conversationally these days? I can't even remember the last time I actually heard it used.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They gotta be called Great Britain & Ireland when we speak of the 2 major islands in that group. 'GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but I was thinking conversationally. My main point is that clarity is the key - and the easiest route towards that is by using ROI and Britain. A journalist or news reporter (where time/words/clarity are all an issue) would go the same way, I'm sure. They might use 'UK' if the British Isles was not the principle subject - but it is. Or so it seems to me, anyway. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * GoodDay is right here, if you want to avoid the accusation of POV. -- Snowded   TALK  06:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please - GoodDay is merely saying you have to use the term 'Great Britain' when refering to the larger island, and 'Ireland' when referring to the smaller one. For some reason he is just making a blank statement of the bleeding obvious - but he so often does at these intervals. Of course I agree, and we do!!! It is crystal clear in the guideline we have so far. But it doesn't mean we can't use 'Republic of Ireland' as well!! How is it "POV" to use Republic of Ireland as the major disambiguator?? It's just craziness to suggest it is biased to want to use the unambiguous 'ROI' above the totally ambiguous 'Ireland', which is ambiguous in no less than two different ways - in its dual-meaning name (state and island), and that as an island it actually includes a British country in it!!!


 * I'm sorry, it is just wild to say that using Republic of Ireland is "POV". The Republic of Ireland simply exists. Northern Ireland simply exists - and it is British. it is not 'POV' to address that. it is 'POV' to hide it. To use the two islands in the way you suggest is about as subtle as drawing lines through Africa.


 * Just because the archipelago has two big islands in it doesn't mean we must only reference by them. The ENTIRE problem with the term 'British Isles' is that it includes a country called 'Republic of Ireland' that is not British. We can simply state that and address it easily - VIA USING IT! The 'island of Ireland' is both Irish and British! It a hundred times more complicated to fairly use as the primary disambiguator than the unambiguous ROI is. And if you use 'island of Ireland' as "simply" as you want to do, you will simply bundle the British country Northern Ireland in with the Irish identity that implicit in the use of "Ireland". And that really IS POV.


 * It is playing 'tit-for-tat' to say that because the term 'British Isles' also has a "dual identity" issue like Ireland, we cannot be allowed to 'cop out' and use ROI while BI has to exist! Using ROI is not avoiding using 'Ireland' - it is simply using the sensible way. We can also use other terms than BI - "Britain and Ireland" features in the guidelines too. It is almost stonewalling a fair guideline to keep this up, and I can only understand it in nationalistic terms. It doesn't make sense to me any other way. If I find people are gathering behind this viewpoint I'll be out of here quicker than Carl Lewis in a drug testing clinic. --Matt Lewis (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Of course you can use ROI Matt, as I have said several times. Just as we can use UK. However if you are going to use British Isles, then you have to allow Ireland. Equally if you try and remove Ireland you will simply make a case for getting rid of British Isles (Is that your intention?)-- Snowded  TALK  13:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

British Isles, not Ireland, Terminology Task Force!
I'm back from hols, and I'm surprised at the way this conversation, which was to be about the term "British Isles", now appears to be wholly concerned with Ireland/RoI.

Can we return to the shared principals section above first. I propose that we should ditch 8,9,10,and 11 as they are not part of this task force and are trying to deal with "Ireland" terminology. The first principal of: should only state
 * 1) The guideline must deal with sources and subjects, and address usage for Ireland specifically.
 * 1) The guideline must deal with sources and subjects, and address usage of the term "British Isles" specifically.

I would then like to propose a number of new principals: 8. Consensus for individual articles may overrule general MOS guidelines, but are not encouraged. 9. Articles may occasionally cite references that use the term "British Isles" in a way that is not in line with the MOS guidelines. In these cases it is best to directly quote the reference that includes the term "British Isles" where possible. In cases where multiple references exist that use the term British Isles, but also use alternative terms such as Britain or UK, (or if there is a question whether the term British Isles is being used as a synonym for Britain, etc) then use the alternative terms. 10. Flora and Fauna: In general, the scientific community uses the term "British Isles" when discussing the distribution of Fauna. In general, the scientific community uses "Great Britain" and "Ireland" when discussing the distribution of Flora.

--HighKing (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Your back from hols and want to ignore what has gone before? With your edit history on this subject! A major part of this issue is when to use BI and when to use Ireland or other terms. Please engage with the whole process not just the bit that interests you. -- Snowded  TALK  15:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * sigh*. Back to adult conversation I see.  Who's ignoring anything?  Your response is not helpful, is designed to be inflammarory, does not comment on anything I've said, explains nothing, and attempts to attribute throughts or ideas to my post that are not mine.  My proposal is that we seperate the "British Isles" terminology task force job from the Ireland/RoI job.  Please engage with all opinions, in good faith, and not try to alienate or antagonise others that might have newer of different opinions.  That way we'll all get along.  --HighKing (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And btw, my edit history probably probably makes me *more* qualified, not less, than you, to understand the wide range of articles this term applies to, and to have an opinion on the issues we are likely to face. Bringing it up as you have just looks like a clumsy attempt to try to devalue my contribution and opinions.  I advise you to AGF, and be inclusive. --HighKing (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you come back from holiday and blithely say "lets dismiss ..." without any explanation, then go on to dismiss consideration of the use of Ireland again without explanation. I think my response was adult and mild.  Given the edit wars that have resulted from your (and other people's) search and create or search and destroy missions on British Isles I then a more judicious approach would be advisable.  -- Snowded   TALK  06:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's tricky to seperate them, as one effects the other. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi GoodDay, I believe that some simple guidelines can very easily separate them. Is there any article in particular you have in mind where you believe it is tricky?  Let's have some specifics on the table... --HighKing (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's impossible to fully 'compartmentalise' a subject like this - that includes the BI term, the ROI 'rules' (which I find clumsy and inhibiting to me in this particular matter), and your edit-run as Bardcom too - which was the initial 'force' that has lead to this guideline! Looking through the various articles is interesting. The guideline as it stands would have backed you up a few times I've noticed. In one or two, BI survived where, at we have it at this moment, it would have to be removed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ..which, incidentally, even as a general supporter of the BI term, I would approve. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm always happy to discuss specific edits. In general I think you might find that BI survived where references backed up the assertion (usually found subsequently).  I'm less in favour of a general "let's be sensitive to Ireland-heavy" articles guidelines. Much less.  Wikipedia shouldn't be political, just accurate.  --HighKing (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But do you think we should move away from 'physical geography'-only then, when it is sensitive to the ROI? As Tharkuncoll pointed out, there is 'human geography' too. The irony here is that it is simply a ‘politics-minded’ move to focus on geography only - and I'm happy to do it as long as we can represent the parts of the BI using the clearest way (ie by their unambiguous country names - which is political merely by default, and not politicised by default - like disallowing them is). If we address this by ignoring the politics, then the underlying politics will simply flood in!! That is the irony, I afraid: BI is simply a political issue to many of the people involved. We can't artificially remove that.


 * If we use the BI term purely per WP:COMMONNAMES, the Channel Islands and colloquial usage will come into play (in fact anything that has a decent citation can be attempted by people). And certain non-geographical ROI-heavy articles could fill up with "British Isles", if certain editors wished for that to be the case. And the edit warring will simply continue...


 * Having looked at the guideline possibilities in depth, I think we are going to have to highlight showing sensitivity towards the ROI, per the situation with Wikipedia editors, and the continual struggles for 'consensus' now leading to locked articles. Wikipedia is a unique consensus-driven place, with its own brand of encyclopedic style, and its own rules: we need to append to these rules with some useable Wikipedia-related guidelines here.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was speaking generally, seeing as Ireland has to be a part of the British Isles. As for guidelines? you're free to bring up any suggestions you wish. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For flora and fauna that are widespread, I do not see why use of British Isles, Great Britain, or Ireland (as appropriate) should be offensive to any one. As I said above, the British Isles are so called because Great Britain is the largest island, not for imperialistic reasons.  If a quotation uses BI in a different way from the guideline, that may need to be explained in the text.  The important thing is to use precise terms correctly according to their strict definition, and not to say British Isles when you mean Great Britain or British when you mean English (or vice versa), however much those elsewhere may be sloppy in their speech or writing.  Is it not time to close this debate, and produce a short agreed (or semi-agreed) guideline, with this debate being archived?  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter, I agree with you. I used the example of flora and fauna to illustrate that the term "British Isles" can be correct or not correct, depending on usage within a area of expertise (and this takes precendence over any offence taken by the term).  The assumption that the term "British Isles" is offensive does not apply to everyone (Irish or otherwise), and while the guidelines should make some allowances for sensitivities, the main thrust should be towards usage and accuracy.  --HighKing (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the term "British Isles" is offensive to a significant number of editors on Wikipedia. It is why we are here. If we want a guideline that is actually accepted and used, then we must recognise that. I don't see any point at all in pushing something through that just suits any one particular one party. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there something in what I suggested that you are responding to in particular? Is there something in what I suggested that you don't see the point of?  C'mon - give me a hint here... --HighKing (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I primarily responded to Peterkingiron above, and then made a more general comment - follow the indents (and the comments - he wants to close the debate!). --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies Matt, I understand now. If you get a chance to comment on my post that started this section, especially the points on the guidelines, that'd be great.  --HighKing (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made a combined comment with this edit to you a bit above - I've been on and off up until now today in very short spurts - almost one comment at a time! --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources table revisited
I've amended the Sources table to make it less strict on demanding sources. As I was adding a new paragraph on sources to the Introduction to the suggested guideline I realised that we were surely being too strict in the table. In purely technical cases (geology, natural history, etc) people surely don't need to provide sources just to use the term? We must remember that it is a recognised technical term, as well as one that's use can be contentious on Wikipedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been adding new lines on sources to some guidelines. These can be complicated. When is one source acceptible, and when are more needed? Sometimes a source can 'pass' the use of the term in cases where an editor could not use it without one (per the actual guideline, not just any restriction on needing a source) - though I think that is fine in certain circumstances. We need a note under the sources table that brings in weight and notability I feel. I'm beginning to have more sympathy with Tharkuncoll and his view of the tables (though he didn't, unfortunately, clarify what his issues were). We can be strict to a degree, but we should never suggest the term is some kind of rude word that can only be read from a doctor's note.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

UK instead of Britain?
I've explained my position many times now: 'Republic of Ireland' has to be used - it is the fulcrum, the centre of the issue, the entire reason we are here. But I suppose 'UK' can be used instead of 'Britain'. As someone here is arguing that Northern Ireland isn't really in Britain (even though we have stated clearly that we mean Britain in the common political/cultural use), I am willing to accept using 'the UK' in Britain's place. I have to say that I do not think it is best for the guideline, which is all about the "British Isles" - and what better word is there to use than "Britain" to explain the situation in the island of Ireland? The island is two countries, and is part Irish and part British. The linguistic connection of Britain/British is something we shouldn't really toss aside - but the guideline will still work with 'UK' instead. --Matt Lewis (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Terms
I think that is simple. The first two terms are controversial in that BI gives rise to accusations of imperialism and/or unionism; while Ireland seems to give rise to accusations of nationalism. If one is in play both are in play. Political terms can also be used as geographical terms Our task here is to define terms (linking to other wikipedia sources and citations) and provide guidelines for consistent use. The dispute in Shannon (now edit war again I see) is between longest River in Ireland or British Isles (the two controversial geographical terms) and this is similar in other pages. If we can agree on the terms then progress can be made. I think by the way that "Britain and Ireland" is unambiguous and offers a resolution path but I just park that idea for the moment. What I am trying to do here is get rid of some of the heat, and go back to basics. I also think we should go back and agree in principles as per earlier suggestions before jumping into cases. -- Snowded  TALK  13:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * British Isles, geographical term covering the political groups of the UK and Ireland (ROI) and other territories
 * Ireland, geographical term covering two political entities
 * United Kingdom (UK), political term covering England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
 * Great Britain, political term covering England, Wales and Scotland
 * Northern Ireland, political term covering the country/province etc which is a part of the UK
 * Ireland (Republic of Ireland) covering the state also known as Eire
 * Britain, technically England, Wales and Scotland but colloquially used for UK and sometimes (I have not seen evidence for this but summarising the above discussion) British Isles.


 * "If one is in play both are in play." What does that mean? Your language is just not the stuff of a reasonable, sensible guideline. We must use all the available terms without any censorship, or WIkipedia will be severely abused. We have to set the Republic of Ireland against Britain (or the UK) - as ROI is the where the problem lies - not 'Ireland the island'. I'm not letting you use 'Ireland' to make it sound like the term is 'disputed' in Northern Island, when there is NOT EVEN ANY REAL LIFE EVIDENCE it is so disputed in ROI!! Nobody ever found a non-'bookish' reference, and they ran dry pretty fast. Northern Ireland is British whether you like it or not, Snowded. I'm not having Wikipedia abused, so I'm posting a dispute. I'll make your feelings on dissolving Britain clear there too. You cannot attack me for being pro-British - because Britain exists! So be careful of bigotry - I don't like it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No Matt. If "British Isles" must be used, regardless of any issues or objections, because it is the most common name of the group of islands - then "Ireland" must be used, regardless of any issues or objections, because it is the most common name of the state. One absolute or none. You choose. Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * the language is reasonable Matt and my above edit one to which you could have responded rationally. I offered it by way of clarification, assuming good faith I went with it on the basis that there could be a misunderstanding.  I'm sorry you chose not to take the opportunity.  Nothing I have said in this exchange says that Britain should be dissolved and I pretty clearly state that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK.  You can (as I say above, and have said several times) contrast the UK with the ROI as two political entities.  In my experience and on the citations Ireland as a geographical term is accepted in Northern Ireland which is why I was (and remain) surprised that you should argue its use indicates a republican agenda.  There are also geographical terms (BI and Ireland) both of which have legitimacy (my point overall).   Good idea to post a dispute as it might bring some objectivity into this.  In the meantime I can see no evidence that I have abused Wikipedia, although I have had the temerity  to disagree with Matt.  Your various accusations above break several Wikipedia protocols by the way.  -- Snowded   TALK  15:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd point out that tremendous progress *has* already been made. It's a highly emotive subject for a lot of editors, and a difficult one to break down into bite-sized achievable chunks.  But it's also OK to go away and think about things, positions, whatever, and then return to the discussion.  It'll probably still be here in any case.....both of you are the most active contributers, but I've no doubt there are many dozens of editors watching the progress and agreeing with most of the points in silence.  From experience, many will only get involved when the discussions falter, or when they vehemently disagree.  Your contributions *are* noted and *are* valued.  --HighKing (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points -- Snowded  TALK  17:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)