Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-11 British Isles Terminology task force

Who are the involved parties?
(myself) and

What's going on?
This isn't easy to write as I'm exasperated with this. One user in this hard-won 'British Isles' taskforce is making an unreasonable demand, and keeps pursuing it. He is saying that a specific term that I feel we clearly need to underpin a proposed guideline on British Isles (“The Republic of Ireland”) can only be used in a certain way, and if other terms are used in the way he wants them to be used - otherwise her feels it isn't fair. I simply disagree... (I'll let you fill in here). He has given me no reason why using "ROI" will not work - he just says it is unfair and political - and we must be “geographical only”, and focus on the two major Islands of Great Britain and Ireland-the-island). IMO, 'Republic of Ireland' is only political by default - ie it that is a sovereign country. But to use his preferred choice of the island of Ireland instead (which contains both the ROI and the British country Northern Ireland) the way he wants to, is about as political as it gets. I've got to the stage where I've brought the guy's nationalistic views into the equation, as I think he wants to combine NI with ROI as a larger Ireland for political reasons. But I've pretty swiftly come here I think.

In short, the 'dispute' over the term "British Isles" (though largely a Wikipedia phenomenon, IMO), is to do with Republic of Ireland – and not the whole of 'Ireland' - which includes the British country Northern Ireland, of which it simply shouldn’t be said is ant-"British Isles", esp this implicitly, as there is no usable evidence or wisdom for it at all.

I wish for the British Isles usage guidelines to be unambiguous and include all terms equally, but he won’t allow it. He feels the term "British Isles" (a fully recognised term) is intrinsically unfair - therefore concessions must be made the other way. I've worked hard to help create a fair guideline and am worried it could be stonewalled to point of collapsing.

All my points have been laid out a few times in our conversations on the page.

Unfortunately this case requires someone to read quite a lot of text, and to have an awareness of the terms involved. And no unfair bias either way! Basically, I've suddenly found user:Snowded’s particular argumentative style impossible to deal with, and have completely lost AGF with him. He seems to be trying something new again, but as I say, I've completely lost faith with his motives. He's also being far too calm in the way he's winding me up! But I mustn't be personal. I'm actually going to have as much as a break from it as I can. But for someone to properly look at this (it will take a bit of time) and perhaps give input would be appreciated. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
Just look at it - I'm at the point where I've lost faith. Nearly everyone on the opposing side of User:Snowded has simply left the taskforce (for a number of different reasons) - I want to see them come back. We will only do this by forging a fair guideline. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediator notes
Opening case. This might have resolved itself since listing as it's been here for a week. I will look into it.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Very happy for someone else to look at the exchanges. From my perspective I have been trying to get Matt to accept an even handed perspective in respect of two geographical terms and avoid confusing politics with geography in an already sensitive issue. Matt's final implication that other editors have left is slightly dubious (especially the fairly obvious implication of the way he has phrased it), very few are involved in the first place. I had already raised a concern about this discussion with an admin to ask for advise on how to proceed in the face of some pretty aggressive accusations from Matt. Happy for that to switch to mediation.
 * e/c The original 'aggressiveness' was in your repetition, unreasonable demand, and continual suggestions that I had cheated by changing the usage tables (I had not cheated at all - and you changed them yourself too). Was it a neutral admin you went to? Or the one with a similar nationalist outlook who you at one point insisted should run taskforce? (no offense at all to DDStretch - but it's true). I'd like you to answer that honestly Snowded. And you've been trying to inflame something between DDStretch and another admin, Jza84, too, who happens to share my 'non-full-independence for British nations' view of the world (pro-Britain if you will). It is curious that you offered DDStretch your email when you contacted him (here) too. What's going on?--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Matt, I reversed your change of a table from Ireland to Republic of Ireland on the grounds that prior consent had been to the text as stated. I never used words such as "cheated" and I made no direct changes.  Your first sentence above has no correspondence with the facts, but if that was your interpretation it might explain your emotional response(s).   I have never insisted that one admin run the task force, I have suggested repeatedly that someone neutral should, and I would add to that someone with less emotional a engagement with it.  I think I suggested DDstretch as one possibility as he is an admin I have some respect for.  I have have also asked him for some advise on how to deal with the issue.  Asking for advise is not to attempt to inflame things and as far as I am aware is encouraged.  My email can be used by anyone from my user page.  Not sure what you are implying here.  -- Snowded   TALK  18:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You implied all over the page that I pulled the rug on people, and kept bringing it up. If you had looked properly ROI was mentioned twice in the Weight table and in my own comments. The two uses of Ireland were not wiki-linked to anything. It should have been obvious they meant the country. It doesn't add up if they don't - as Northern Ireland is in both Ireland-as-Ireland and in Britain too, and certainly is British - though you have started to say that NI is not technically part of Britain, They are officially British, and part of Britain per commonname. But we can just use the 'UK' instead - it's clearly not as good as Britain for this particular matter (British Isles), but I will compromise there. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I simply suggested you reverted what I saw as the previously agreed text Matt, no accusations of cheating, no use of phrases like "pulled the rug".  I have not implied that Northern Ireland citizens are not British (if they choose),  it's the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" remember, and Britain (as a geographical term) normally means England, Wales and Scotland.  British (as in citizenship) is a wider concept that includes Northern Ireland and also members of commonwealth countries.  Politically you have the UK and ROI,  Geographically you have Ireland and British Isles (the latter includes the former, both mix up the politics).  I put most of this in the terms section to clarify exactly this point and both geographical terms and political terms will need to be used in any solution.  -- Snowded   TALK  19:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have clearly stated in the discussion that the political terms (such as Republic of Ireland) are legitimate. However there are two geographical terms that can cause issues. One is Ireland which has been interpreted as a nationalist agenda, the other is British Isles which can be interpreted as a unionist/imperialist agenda. My point has been very simply really. Both terms are valid geographical terms and need to be used (possibly in conjunction with political terms). In attempting to remove one of the (Ireland) and replace with with Republic of Ireland Matt is failing to show consistency and risks any chance of reaching an agreement. Given my track record of defending the continued use of British Isles and the actual edits on the article Matt's accusation of Nationalism if offensive and clear breech of several Wikipedia protocols. My most recent diff was an attempt to clear up any misunderstandings over language, but Matt has not seen fit to respond to that other than with another tirade. Personally I think this could be sorted out directly with a bit of good will. -- Snowded  TALK  17:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have said nothing other than that all terms must be offered, and as much flexibility as possible should be given. I must have said it 15 times over the taskforce page. But we clearly have to frame it in terms of the ROI and Britain (or UK, which I will accept as second best to Britain) - to frame it with Ireland-the-island is to unacceptably muddy the waters. It's super-political to pair it with Northern Ireland in this context, and is ambiguous anyway. It is crazy to say using ROI is jeopardising the guideline!! How?? You have never given me one example! You ENTIRE argument consists of "consistancy" (or "fairlness" depending on how you phrase it). But its a meaningless argument - a complete mind game. And nobody has complained about ROI damning the guideline anyway. ROI is an official commonname, and "British Isles" is a technical commonname. You cannot bargain with them!!! You are also completely dismissing those absent who are very pro-usage of the term, like Tharkuncoll and CarterBar - but the guidelines are for them as much as you. I can only half-blame them for not bothering with it. --Matt Lewis (talk)
 * I have not dismissed anyone Matt. I have argued that to support the use of British Isles you have to support the use of Ireland.  I also put some effort into defining terms to which you have not responded which was an attempt to resolve any confusions.  I am not interested in bargaining with anyone, but in creating something consistent and objective. -- Snowded   TALK  18:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You avoid the issue every time: you have insisted on framing the whole guidelines in terms of the two large islands, rather than ROI and Britain (or UK) - the two salient factors (which can be used geographically with their inherent 'polical' element (ie they are states) merely a default. To force framing in terms of the whole island (which is part UK) is to create a framework that can be easily abused, and is hard to make flexible. It is hugely political. To insist 'ROI' is political beyond simply being a state is hugely political. By insisting on the use of the whole island over ROI in the framework, you are politicising the issue to the maximum degree. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No Matt, I am addressing the issue directly and consistently. The argument you make for removing Ireland argues for removing British Isles as well, reducing everything to the political entities.  To accept one, but reject the other is to take a political position.  I think you are too embedded in your position and approach to see that but I retain hope that you will.  For the moment you have initiated a mediation process, let it run, exchanging the same arguments again and again adds nothing.  I am grateful that this last post was less personal that some of your earlier ones however.  -- Snowded   TALK  14:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Everytime I argue, I focus on how the framework of the guideline needs to be based on contrasting the relevant entities of the ROI and Britain (or the UK). It is expedient, logical and practical. In your response you always suggest that I wish to remove "Ireland" the island from the entire guideline - you are never direct. I have always said the guidelines needs to be as broad and flexible as we can possibly make them. But there's the rub, isn't it? Others want to narrow the guideline as much as they can.


 * TO use 'Republic of Ireland' in the framework is not to "remove" Ireland (the island), as you keep saying - the whole problem with the terminology was always about problems with the ROI v's the UK, RE "British Isles": that is the main equation. To say that to simply choose not to frame the guideline using term "Ireland" (the island) means that we therefore must not use the term "British Isles" is a con trick, a bias, and a mind game. It's why I've brought this to MEDCAB - you are being utterly unreasonable. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt, if you both to read the section I wrote on terms you will see the argument there is to broaden as far as possible. If you want to talk about ROI paired with the UK, that is fine, its a position based on the political entities (in which of course the boundaries are clear).  My argument is simply that the geographical terms Ireland and British Isles are also in play, and one cannot be abandoned if the other is maintained.  I think (as stated so many times I am getting bored with it) that the political terms can be used to clarify some issues in cases and protocols.  However the whole prior debate on British Isles and the justification for its retention was that it was a GEOGRAPHICAL term with no political implications or claims.  I supported that position, and support the same position in respect of Ireland, it is a geographical term with no political implications or claims.
 * Your abusive language is now getting out of hand by the way. "con trick" being the latest.  I beginning to think by the way that you are tilting at windmills, but have allowed yourself to get so locked into a highly emotional response (a polite description at the range of insults and personal invective you have thrown here, nor just against me) that you probably can't withdraw from a combative position.  When my attempts to remain calm in response results in you suggesting I am being calm to provoke you (an earlier comment) its a clear sign of lock in pattern entrainment.
 * I suggest you engage with the content. If you want to carry on laying into me here feel free.  If its goes to far I may respond, otherwise my position stands.  -- Snowded   TALK  17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am continuing to engage with the content (you don't have to 'suggest' it), and will look at your new "terms" at some point soon. Your input lost priority for me after I'd had enough of your prior arguments and lost faith - you pushed things beyond fairness, as far as I'm concerned, so I opened this (which I told you about, and you said you would welcome). We are in a clear provocation/blame cycle I would agree with that. You leave a Don Quixote reference in your editnote (he was 'mad' if anyone doesn't know) and accuse me of being stuck in an abusive pattern! My arguments are not imagined monsters (the windmills-as-giants that you reference). As for my take on your sudden exacting calmness - I'm either wrong or right: it doesn't equal "pattern entrainment" - that's just more fancy footwork by you. You did suddenly get very calm - but you did not relinquish your grip, and you used this 'calmness' as a rhetorical devise to contrast against the way I was becoming frustrating my arguments. But lets not go there. Your insistence that explaining this guideline in terms of the 'ROI' would mean there has to be restrictions on using 'British Isles' (and your repeated 'either/or' arguments surrounding it) are highly subjective, abstract and value-based points of view at best. I am not being a 'Don Quixote' to point that out. You are not on solid ground with your arguments at all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(indent) I love "calmness as a rhetorical devise, you might like to try it!. No further comment Matt, you're locked in a position here and there is nothing new in your above paragraph.   -- Snowded   TALK  22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I also interpret the current impasse in much the same way as outlined by Snowded. I have no knowledge of other debates that Matt refers to. There is a simple line that can be drawn between geographic terms and political terms, and mixing geographic and political terms should be avoided. The Task Force has already accepted the British Isles is a geographic term - it should therefore be possible to move forward and agree on which articles and under what circumstances it is acceptable to use "British Isles". For all other articles, if it's a political article or a geopolitical article, etc, etc, then use the agreed political terms. It should not be necessary (perhaps desirable, but not necessary) to also attempt to address the Ireland/RoI debate in this task force. --HighKing (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So speaks the man who, as Bardcom, went around removing so many uses of "British Isles" on Wikipedua that articles ended up getting locked and we have got to here. You cannot simplify this to what suits just you. IT MUST SUITE US ALL. Or it simply won;t end up a usable guideline, and this will be a waste of time. It is possible, but you must reliquish the tight hold you want of it. In writing so much of what we currently have, I've been through masses of possibilites. They don;t add up unless we are honest and open. The problem with the term British Isles is all with ROI - we cannot hide that by enforcing a geography-only island-of-Ireland. Especially an Ireland that is also home to a British country called Northern Ireland!! It's how we initially frame it that counts. YOu want to use 'other terms' for anything non-geographical. YOur own suggestions are consequently too consorious on the use of British Isles. That simply wont be accepted.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Matt, you're reverting to old behaviour habits of insulting anyone who holds a different opinion (ad hominen attacks). Don't.  You're also attributing motivation to me that is untrue.  I don't have a tight hold, or want a tight hold, on anything to do with British Isles. My editing has never resulted in an article getting locked either.  Your rant above shows that you are unwilling to separate the geographical from the political.  Several editors have pulled you up on this single point.  Either come up with an argument (and telling me that Tharky wouldn't like it isn't an argument) or compromise to move past it.  Listen to what the other editors are saying.  We're not fighting you, or disagreeing to raise your blood pressure, or treating this like a sport or a game.  --HighKing (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your knee-jerk accusations for all "ad hominem" attacks over disagreements with your BI-reversals eventually got you into trouble. How can you be so rude as to call it "old behaviour" by me! You have never once thought about people returning the favour, have you? Time and again, you have been personal with people who disagreed with you - and you do it via your calculated "ad hominem" accusation templates, laying down one after the other. It's appalling. You changed you name from Bardcom to 'HighKing' as soon as you got in trouble for it all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This process is rapidly breaking down in direct correlation with the number of people you insult, and the more personal the insults get. Please read the definition of ad hominen. I do not engage in ad hominen attacks.  Never have - go find one.  In contrast, think of your own contributions (after you've read the essay).  Your crude attempt to attribute a shameful or underhand motive to my name change is laughable - you should try to get your kicks somewhere else.  I reiterate my suggestion to you, for your benefit, that you step back from this debate for a period of time to cool off.  I was becoming a "Matt Lewis" fan at the start of this process for the calm, measured, reasonable, cool-headed postings, and posted this in appreciation.  Guess the aliens were still close by, eh?  --HighKing (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll leave the above to stand by itself - it sums you up and the way you work perfectly. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since my name has been mentioned here, I would like to express my strong objection to being labelled a "nationalist" in this debate, since it differs significantly to my own personal views and the actions and opinions about this dispute that I have been offering. My concerns have been solely to try to interpret this matter in terms of wikipedia policy concerning the need for verification by means of reliable sources and attention to ambiguous terms that can be disambiguated using standard forms of naming. I think the mislabelling of myself has come about by the interpretation of my comments which have been informed by policy and guidelines, as suggested just now, and the need to pay attention to the views of others who express a view. The leap to assuming I have nationalist views has then happened because of the error of making assumptions about any underlying motives I might have, when what I have interpreted as wikipedia policy to recommend goes against the point of view of someone who self-identified as someone who is not a nationalist. Thus, the mislabelling arises from a fallacy of the excluded middle. The assumptions about motives have infected this whole area, and the problem has just highlighted how difficult it will be to try to reach a solution whilst such speculations and labelling of other editors on the basis of these presumed motives carries on. I largely withdrew from the discussions a day or so ago, since I felt I had said all I have to say on the matter: that attention to what reliable sources say, coupled by a need to provide reliable sources will largely solve the dispute about naming, so long as care is taken to identify and carefully distinguish in our discussions and in the written material in articles the different ways in which terms like British Isles are meant and used in the reliable sources we choose to use. Along with this, there is a corresponding need to review on exactly the same basis, the use of the various terms that have been used in articles on wikiepdia about Ireland, in all senses of the word. I am in no danger of having any problem opening up between myself and Jza84 over this: as long-standing editors of wikipedia who have worked together in many instances in the past, we both surely recognise that differences of opinion will sometimes arise between different editors, and that the way to resolve them if they need resolution is in reasoned discussions, exploring common ground and reaching together towards a solution that is best for wikipedia. In that respect, we will expect to "win some and lose some", but actually winning or losing is of little consequence to us as individuals, as the main aim we both share is to improve upon what is present in wikipedia, and a difference of opinion on how to write about something will explore and test a variety of possibilities which will then likely lead to an improvement anyway in content. So, please, I would appreciate not being labelled misleadingly as a "nationalist" here when all I am trying to do is to apply the existing guidelines and policies of wikipedia, which I still maintain should be our prime objective here in order to see how far that can go in resolving this current dispute.  DDStretch    (talk)  23:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you are not in fact on the nationalist side - I honestly thought your were. You said to me once that this taskforce a matter which might be impossible to be NPOV on. I noticed Snowded always supports your involvement, and I think that demanding a reference for each use of the term British Isles is censorious, and against the ethos of Wikipedia. It as a widely used technical term. Must we use the OED to prove its existence when we using it in a correct and technical way? It is a demanding stipulation that narrows the scope of the guidelines from the outset. And you have bullied people from the guideline the stipulation - sorry, but you have. Same goes for Snowded's framework demands - they are too constricting - and I think for a purpose. I am simply pro-Wikipedia here. We MUST approach this is a fair and non-censorious way. I've got nothing against you in person DD, but I'm tired of the often underhand politics here. I'm pretty much the only person open about things. Maybe Sarah777 is (from the other side), I don't know. I'm not accusing you of intentional bias (I happen to think you are a decent admin) - I just got the strong picture over the last month or so that you are decidedly on the nationalist side, and I feel it has come through here. I not sure I like the idea of you exchanging emails with Snowded either - apologies too if nothing serious has gone on in that capacity. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh. (a) The point about referencing "British Isles" is that it is clearly a contentious term to some editors. Since contentious material that is likely to be challanged can be, and then this requires it to be referenced, I was merely pointing out that unless something remarkable happens, we will always be in the position of having to provide a reference after a challenge to the term. Personally, I think too much challenging is being done (see Frodsham and its talk page for an early example which I thought was being too particular, even though it was within the rules of wikipedia), but I am accepting the reality in attempting to sidestep future unnecessary disputes by simply adding the reference when the information is added to the article, thus avoiding problems associated with other editors trying to find or find again a source which they had forgotten about or had never even read before, given that the original editor who added the term may no longer be editing at that point. WE are not adding the reference to prove that it exists, we are adding the reference to justify using it in the context or article (more prcisely, in the sentence in the article) it is being used with on wikipedia. (b) "And you have bullied people from the guideline the stipulation" I don't know what you mean here, but it is quite a serious charge, and I ask you to explain it in detail, or withdraw it. (c) "I not sure I like the idea of you exchanging emails with Snowded either - apologies too if nothing serious has gone on in that capacity." I can exchange emails with anyone I like, thank you. But you must have been meaning that you do not like the idea of me exchanging email with Snowded about this matter. For the record, I have not. I did exchange some email some time ago on an unrelated matter concerning some sockpuppet suspicions, but that was completely unrelated. (d) I do not intend to take part in the taskforce any more, given the response this seems to be attracting from you. My only aim was to apply the principles of wikipedia in order to try to resolve the matter. Since this seems to be unsuccessful, I see no reason to continue with my involvement, since my time is far better spent elsewhere, and I will no longer have the relevant taskforce pages on my watchlist. I would, however, like to see the justification for the bullying accusation here, or else a withdrawal of it.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * RE the bullying - when I was trying to mediate with Tharkuncoll after he was complaining about the boxes (with some validity too), you used more boxes to make your point. You did it in a clear "take the piss" way. He has not been back since. I know that to bully Tharkuncoll is almost a contradiction in terms(!) but I wasn't impressed with your attitude at that point. We need people from Tharkcolls side of the argument to be present: where the hell are they? I am constantly speaking on their behalf, even though I am more in the middle than from any extreme here. I don't think you have been welcoming to all sides of the argument at all. And I regret to say that, I really do. I could do without your "sigh" as well - I've put a huge amount of work into trying to make this work for all parties involved: it simply won't be accepted as a final MOS guidelines if all sides cannot fairly use it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was not "taking the piss" at all. I was pointing out the ultimately inconsistent position TharkunColl's extremist and ultimately uncollaborative stance led to. I think it was important to do so, as in the past I have found that when such problems have been pointed out to people, changes in their commitments and stances have often resulted that have helped them and the wider context in which they were making such statements. The fact that he hasn't been back is his own choice, and may not even be important, given his stated position and attitude which was that he would carry on regardless of what was decided at the taskforce, though it could be that he is in the process of reflecting upon what was argued, or he could just be busy doing other things or even be on holiday, and so we shouldn't prejudge the matter. I think the sigh is also justified here, though I apologise and withdraw it since you find it unacceptable. You seem at the moment and to me to be potentially alienating many people who have contributred to the taskforce: please, Matt, take a step back, wait a while until some distance is put between your latest additions here, and look at what you have been writing and saying about other contributors. We all have periods of time when what we say or do is something we later think we could have done better, or which we have later on regretted. I am suggesting that this latest round of responses from you to others may be one of these. As I said, I have no desire to contribute to this taskforce anymore, given that I consider my time is better spent elsewhere.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is important for me to say here that I've read through everything I've written about this - and am happy with it all. Nothing is factually incorrect, and I regret none of the honesty either (why should I? I'm not the only one here who has a rhetorical style - at least mine is open and clear). I still stand in the same position, so why should I step back? It is as clear as a bell to me: I am defending the creation of a fair, open and honest guideline. No biased side will 'get a lead' if I can help it: and it will only eventually work if both sides accept it anyway. It's a fantasy for anyone to believe they can craft this guideline to more suite their own bias or politics: it is simply not going to happen whichever position those viewpoints come from. This guideline must somehow suit us all.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately on the point of it having to suit us all, you are wrong. What is needed, and what will be the final outcome, is a consensus. And those that disagree with the consensus will just have to put up it. No one has a veto.Crispness (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean suiting 'both parties', not necessarily every maverick individual (though they should be listened to). Too many people who are generally 'pro' the use of the BI term are currently missing from the taskforce. But they will certainly turn up at the final hour (hopefully a lot sooner) and have their say in the consensus, if you want to put it that way. I don't think this can ever be just a first-past-the-post headcount. If it's not a very convincing consensus it simply won't get into MOS.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that its more than one user. Personally I'm with Snowded on this. And that the reason that only one user is actively making the point is quite likely to be that the project is poorly structured and has ownership issues. And that Matt loses any assumption of good faith too quickly. Crispness (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see I've just opened an opportunity for people from one side (most of those present in the taskforce) to merely consolidate their position! To say you are "with Snowded on this" is meaningless. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt, it was surely inevitable that the people involved in the deliberations at the Taskforce would end up here?! I was a bit disappointed that you brought the issue here (though I'll willingly admit that I'm with Snowded and HighKing on the substantive issue re "Ireland"). I have no idea why you appear to have been "abandoned" by the "other side" at the Taskforce - I must say I didn't detect any great hostility to the idea when it was mooted but you are in a difficult position trying to combine the roles of Chairman and also representative for the absent editors. I've no problem declaring that I'm an Irish nationalist (and I feel there are many other Nationalists on both sides here who tactically won't declare what is obvious) -  but I would be equally firm that my arguments stand on their merits and on the need for logic and consistency and my solutions are fully compliant with the requirements of WP:NPOV. Where their are conflicting views NPOV cannot be achieved by totalitarianism. If "British Isles" is the 'most common name' of the island group and that trumps all other considerations then as "Ireland" is the common name of the country that too should trump all concerns about whether some folk in Northern Ireland might object or your concerns about the motives of other editors. You can't have it both ways. Sarah777 (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was invitable that 'Nationalist' supporters would step in, but I don't regret it. As I have that "chairman's" eye on the page size (more "janitor" than "chairman" really), I was starting to despair - at least this has kept it from carrying on on the main page. I feel that if I don't represent Tharkuncoll etc now it will only come back and bite us later. I just don't see why the guideline can't "have it both ways" (as you put it) - I'm not gaining anything personally - but Wikipedia will gain a clear, unambiguous and (hopefully) usable guideline. If the island of Ireland was called "Roger" I'm sure you would be perfectly happy with the ROI being the principle 'disambiguator' against Britain (or the UK). It's all the bloody ambiguity that I'm trying to remove. And apart from GoodDay recently, I'm not having much help - you're right. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm closing this (I've been asked if it's still open). I see it as just a policy/guideline issue now (on what Wikipedia allows regarding ROI-use and 'geography' articles), so this isn't perhaps the best place place if it comes up again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)