Talk:Politics in the British Isles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

re PROD

Thanks. I've declined the PROD. Politics in the British isles is a subject that is massively studied. More resources are coming, but there is no OR here. --KarlB (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Another makey-up article to follow your makey-up categories. Is there no end to this OR? Geography does NOT equal politics. Snappy (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I regret that you find it to be makey-upey. I've added several references to the article, if you get a chance I recommend you read the essay on the post-nationalist archipelago - it's a very interesting perspective, and it may change your mind about the potential of this page. Rather than delete, perhaps we could have a more fruitful discussion about its contents and name? --KarlB (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Culture section

A word other than "country" is needed here. The status of some of the entities, especially Cornwall, can't be regarded as a country. However, for the moment I'm not sure what the description should be. Van Speijk (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup, good point. Perhaps 'countries and regions'? sorry about that.--KarlB (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

'Countries and regions' does it, thanks. Van Speijk (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Academic perspectives

Dead-end discussion, now continued below

Moved from Talk:Ireland–United Kingdom relations § Academic perspectives I have tagged the section headed "Academic perspectives" as a {{POV-section}}, because far from offering perspectives (plural), it offers only one perspective, "postnationalist" approach advocated by the philosopher Richard Kearney. The sole focus on "postnationalism" not only ignores the significance of the nationalist perspective on Irish history, but it also ignores the huge significance of Ulster Unionism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Yes, the section isn't really relevant to an article about bilateral relations; it is much more relevant in an article about multilateral relations in the archipelago. Thanks! --KarlB (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Regardless of which article it is placed in, it purports to offer a summary of academic perspectives but actually offers only one perspective. It fails WP:NPOV in either context. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC) It's a content fork in any case, so let's discuss in the other article. I've deleted, we can continue the discussion at Politics in the British Isles (where this content was first created...) --KarlB (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Karl, just stop removing it. There is a discussion underway about it here; please discuss it rather than simply removing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC) It's silly to make edits to the same section in two places. I already placed a redirect, so we can have the discussion *there*. Please stop edit warring to maintain duplicate content - there's no point.--KarlB (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC) (cont'd) I've made a few edits, to stub out the content, but more work is needed to fill out scholarship on unionism and nationalism. What sources do you suggest? --KarlB (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Please continue the discussion where it started. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Please continue the discussion where the content started. This is becoming tiresome, and I'm not going to make edits to this same section on two pages. --KarlB (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC) The reason this content focuses on the 'archipelagio' studies framing is that it is the most relevant framing for the current page, which focused on multilateral and archipelago-wide interactions. Although, you have a good point, and perhaps we could link out to sections on irish unionism or Scottish nationalism;etc. Also, how should this be tied into the broader section above on political movements in the Isles?--KarlB (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC) This is ridiculous. You unilaterally tried to moved this discussion from its original place, but rather than actually discussing it here you went ahead and edited it here. Consensus-building is utterly impossible when an editor repeatedly bypasses discussion and just makes unilateral changes, so I give up. This is some form of game-playing, and it's a waste of time, since you just go and ahead and edit while discussion is underway. You have been repeatedly asked to stop editing and start discussing, and since you won't do that, I see no point in trying to continue the discussion, wherever you move it to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC) I'm here, and very much open to discussion, and now there's only one copy of the content, which can only be a good thing. I look forward to your contributions and thoughts on how to improve this section.--KarlB (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC) You may claim that you are open to discussion, but you are demonstrably not open to refraining from making changes until a consensus has been reached. You have continued to edit the content while discussion is underway, so a discussion is pointless because you have repeatedly demonstrated that you will act unilaterally. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Wait, are you suggesting that if a POV tag is placed on something, or a {REFS} tag is placed on something, I can't improve it - or stub out content? If discussion is ongoing, that doesn't mean all editing must stop. Your claim is that the academic section is one-sided. I think it's a good point, I happen to agree. Thus, I've stubbed out additional material, and we should add more. Let's discuss the content. For example, how would you suggest we break it down - first postnationalism, then nationalism, then unionism? or the other way around? What other political philosophies should be added here? thanks! --KarlB (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Comment Since I have already expressed the opinion that this article should be deleted in its entirety, it is absolutely unreasonable to be expected to simultaneously justify the removal of a component section. The WP:ICAN'THEARYOU approach to editing evident here is very disruptive, as it is across a number of related discussions. (If you do choose to reply, you can skip the condescending 'thanks' and 'welcome'). RashersTierney (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Why are we discussing the content of Ireland-United Kingdom relations on a different talk page? This is the problem with content forks. Moved to Talk:Ireland–United Kingdom relations § Academic perspectives --RA (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of content

I do not agree with any of the sections being removed. They all are a part of the politics of the region and removing them makes it seem as if you, RA, are trying to gut the article to make it easier to get a successful merge vote next time. Silverseren^C 23:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, assume good faith. Thanks. --RA (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Work need to be let happen

OK, as stated by many (both keepers and deleters) in the AfD, there are multiple and serous issues with this article as it stands. For one take the section, "Government structure". There is no "government structure" in the British Isles. There is no government of the British Isles. There are, however, several states in the British Isles. And those have governments. If we are serious about writing an article on politics in the British Isles then we need to begin with describing those states and those governments and not attempt to conflate them into one.

User:Silver seren reverted an attempt to do this with the helpful comment, "I do not agree with these changes." Now, I'm sure there's a lot of ill will since the AfD but rather than simply reverting we need to get stuck into improving this article. That will mean stripping out thing that are already treated, or are better treated, elsewhere and treating them here in summary style. Indeed, most of this article, by it's nature, is going to be summaries of other articles.

That will mean a great deal of refactoring to get to the article to a state where (1) it properly describes that it set out to describe and (2) it does so in a way that accords to our policies and guidelines. That's work to be done. But it won't happen if we don't co-operate. --RA (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

And the government structure section discusses the governments in the British Isles and their heads of state. It is not saying that the British Isles is a government. Feel free to change the wording if you think it is insinuating that, but discussing the governments of the region is clearly important to the politics. And you haven't been adding any material at all, just removing huge swaths of the article. Silverseren^C 23:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it does. But it is quite a bizare way of going about describing the politics of the archipelago. A more orthodox way of describing the politics of a region would be to begin by discussing separately states therein. Bundling (a) a mixture of related and unrelated offices from (b) a mixture of related and unrelated states and (c) a mixture of related and unrelated levels of government into a single table is hardly the clearest way to go about describing the topic.

Are you familiar with this subject matter? If I recall from the AfD you had difficulty naming the states. --RA (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think a table is reasonable. Of course, exposition is useful as well, but if you want to compare the different polities, a table is a useful form. If RA thinks the table or headings somehow suggest that there is a single govt of the isles, which is of course an impression we don't want to give to readers, then let's just rename/reword accordingly. --KarlB (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Then why don't you directly replace it with how you think it should be organized, rather than just removing it entirely and not replacing it with anything? If this is too difficult, then why don't we leave the article as it is now alone and work on a draft version. Once that version is up to snuff, then we can replace the current version with it. That would be a much better alternative to gutting the article and taking who knows how long to put new content in. Silverseren^C 23:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I did replace it with something. You just reverted me the first time before I had the chance to do so. Eventually, you reverted wholesale.

Have good faith and give others a little space to develop the article (which may involve stripping it down a little at first). --RA (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Once that version is up to snuff, then we can replace the current version with it." — Because that's just one person writing an article alone, with the intention of pasting over a collaboratively written one. This article just stating off. It hasn't had the best start in life and (as stated by many in the AfD) it's in a poor state to treat its subject matter properly at present. So it needs work. --RA (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we go back to the discussion started at Talk:Anglo-Irish relations and sort consensus on the scope of this article. RA had made the point that including Ireland's relationship with Scotland should best go in Ireland-UK relations; it's a debatable point, because for me there is a certain purity in maintaining the London-Dublin axis, which is the dominant and clearly most politically important relationship in the isles as its own topic, and then let the other relationships gather here. But I'm willing to concede that point, and keep this article focused on:

RoI-Crown dep relations

Multi-lateral relations in the isles

Devolved admin-Crown dep relations

comparative politics / movements /parties/ shared culture/etc

--KarlB (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In terms of improvements to the article, some new sources have come to light since the article was first written. Please recall, since the article was nominated for deletion 1 hour after its creation, it hasn't had much time to develop, and I beg you to look at Ireland-United Kingdom relations 4 years after its creation, to see how good it was (hint - it wasn't - and it only had 1 source).

• Political integration and disintegration in the British Isles; A. H. Birch. Allen & Unwin, 1977.
• Scotland, Ireland, and Northern Ireland: Time for Lateral Thinking; Scottish Affairs, no.24, summer 1998 (relevant quote: "Complementary to this is a need to build a relationship [of Scotland] with the Republic of Ireland, and here we come up against the issue of whether initiatives of this kind come within the terms of reference of the Scottish parliament. Probably not, but this has been overtaken by a more recent event, the Easter Agreement, which should facilitate new sets of relationships among the various countries of these Isles once the provisions under Strand Three are implemented. For the first time it will be legitimate for Scotland to deal directly with both Northern Ireland and Ireland without recourse to London. Although Ireland has had a special relationship with the UK since independence it has had no cause to deal separately with Scotland, until now."

I think it's worth writing a Ireland-Scotland relations article, but until then such content can be placed here or in the ireland-UK article.

• The Impact of a Scottish Referendum on Ethnoregionalist Movements in the British Isles; Britt Cartrite;

analyzes the impact of the Scottish national party's referendum on political movements in the Crown dependencies; thus this analysis is really about how "domestic" politics in one portion of the isles affects domestic politics in another portion of the isles; could be used to fill out section on comparative political movements (find citable copy first)

• Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development; Michael Hechter; Transaction Publishers, 1999: "This book presents the social basis of ethnic identity, and examines changes in the strength of ethnic solidarity in the United Kingdom in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In addition to its value as a case study, the work also has important comparative implications, for it suggests that internal colonialism of the kind experienced in the British Isles has its analogues in the histories of other industrial societies. Hechter examines the unexpected persistence of ethnicity in the politics of industrial societies by focusing on the British Isles. Why do many of the inhabitants of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland continue to maintain an ethnic identity opposed to England?

Can be used to fill out section on identity and its relation to politics in the british isles

• recent conference: Identity and the 'Other British Isles "As issues of nationalism, identity, and what it means to be ‘British’ continue to affect the cultural and political landscape of Britain itself, its impact on the islands that share (or have shared) a cultural heritage with the United Kingdom has become new ground for academics.

Look through papers presented at this conference for material that could help in understanding politics of identity in the british isles

• The persistence of regionalism in the British Isles, 1885-1966; Michael Hechter;

comparative politics looking at regionalism across the british isles; could be used to fill out section on comparative political movements

• The Cornish paradox: ethnoregionalism in a hybrid territory; Deacon, Bernard; 2003 -

makes comparisons between ethnic nationalism in Cornwall and that of "Isle of Man"; more material to fill out section on comparative political movements.--KarlB (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you read any of these books? On Unionism in the United Kingdom you filled the Further reading section with books which, by your own admission, you have not read, but merely thought would be relevant based on their titles. Citing books based on what you think they are about is extremely poor form.

And, without wanting to repeat the arguments of the AfD, many of the citations above, even at face value, seem to to do with the politics of the United Kingdom. That is a cause for concern. The United Kingdom is by far the largest state in the archipelago, but it is not the archipelago. It's politics are not the politics of the archipelago. --RA (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

RA, I'm a little sick of you going about nitpicking on which papers I've read and which books I haven't - have *you* read them? If not, please drop it. The sources above are potential links for research; they are not relevant merely based on their title; several of the papers I *have* read. And no, they aren't based on politics of the United Kingdom. As far as I can tell, almost every one references either Ireland or the Crown dependencies.--KarlB (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I may or may not have read them. I'm not citing them. You are. Citing references that you have not read to support arguments that you don't know they support is tantamount to fictitious references. "As far as I can tell..." — If you read them then you could tell. Stop citing sources when you don't know their contents. --RA (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over

Since it appears that we will now have this article, we might as well make a fist of it. The current version however is irreparably skewed IMO and I cannot imagine any means to improve the article that doesn't involve pulling out entire sections and starting over.

I've made an outline of what I think is a sensible approach to describing the politics of the region here. It includes scope to immediately describe both the institutional politics and the major themes than are important to understanding the politics of the region.

As an aside, I'd like to suss out what others think about a page move to Politics of the British Isles. Politics in the British Isles sounds so absurdly contextless. While of course the archipelago is a geographic entity, the intention of this article is surely to talk about the politics "of" it and not disconnect politics that merely take place "in" it. --RA (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• I concur with every single aspect of this suggestion.—S Marshall T/C 23:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I would prefer that the article was simply blown up, and the debris bulldozed.
    Before considering RA's suggestions, I have asked the closer to explain the reasoning behind this perverse and unexplained AFD closure. I await an answer, but would not rule out a return to WP:DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, I see, starting a new section that is essentially trying to fundamentally change an article you personally disagree with and then notifying people that you know will agree with you. Why am I not surprised? Seriously, you kept telling me to assume good faith, but your every action is completely belaying any attempt I can make in that regard. Silverseren^C 00:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is really quite incredible. This article is basically the same article that RA copy-pasted into Ireland-UK relations a few days back, that Snappy and others edit-warred to *keep* there - and now the same content has suddenly become irreparably skewed?? And we have BHG wanting to blow it up and bulldoze the debris - where she recently cited Wikipedia:DEMOLISH in another discussion. As for of or in, I don't care that much; in was chosen to underline that the British isles is not a government entity, but a geographic container. RA, your outline closely mirrors the existing article; why not just focus on improving it. I'm going to start by moving over some of the great work you've done in Ireland-UK relations and putting it back here where it belongs. --KarlB (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Please do not remove from Ireland-UK relations material which relates to the relations between Ireland and the UK+its dependencies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  I have just reverted one such removal. The material concerned is unbalanced and needs revisison, but it should simply be removed to another location. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• "This article is basically the same article that RA copy-pasted into Ireland-UK relations a few days back..." — Let's compare. Not much of a straight-copy-and-paste after all? The content was WP:TNT'd. That's what's being suggested here too.
• "RA, your outline closely mirrors the existing article; why not just focus on improving it." — I'm glad you can see something you like in it. TNTing an article is improving it. It doesn't mean we need to toss out all of the content. A lot of it can be re-worked back in. But by re-working it back in we can tease out and resolve the issues that are currently endemic to this article. --RA (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page?

One solution may be to reconfigure this page as a disambiguation page, without substantive content, but simply linking to other pages on Ireland–United Kingdom relations, Devolution in the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies, and so on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• I suggested that at the AfD, but it didn't get much takeup.—S Marshall T/C 09:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• That's another solution. It could also be used as a stop-gap while a substantially new article was developed on a sub page. --RA (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Revert, revert, revert...

Ah, look is there any chance of trying to improve this article without being reverted on sight? The substantial and endemic problems with the article are more than adequately described above. We cannot take each and every one to the talk page and discuss each and every edit. There are simply too many of them. --RA (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

At this point, it is extremely inappropriate to be removing content from the article during the deletion review. You should make a draft article and apply the changes to that, as i've said before. Silverseren^C 19:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

RA, I and I'm sure other editors would welcome every good faith effort to improve this article. However, given that both you and BHG are currently deeply engaged in a DRV discussion, with both of you having voted to delete/blow up/explode/bulldoze the article, it's clearly quite impossible for either of you to neutrally improve the article, especially when your purported improvements look a lot like knee-capping, drive-by-tagging, and WP:TNT. BHG might as well tag every sentence in the article with {{This sentence annoys me}}, but everyone's time would be much more productively used if you simply chose to desist from editing this article while the DRV is ongoing, since most of your edits have been rather drastic deletions and arbitrary icing of content (for example, removing a culture section - why again? It was you who built *up* the culture section in Ireland-United Kingdom relations#Culture. Please don't say culture doesn't have anything to do with politics or international relations, because it will just make me sad - even wikipedia has an article on the subject: Nationalism_and_sport). Once the DRV passes, I'm going to accept whatever the outcome is, and I hope you do too, and then we'll get back to improving the encyclopedia. If the article survives, then we should continue the discussion about restructuring/improving at that point, but for now I don't see how you can simultaneously argue on one page that the article should be iced, while then purporting to improve it on another page.--KarlB (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Karl, saying that I (or anyone else) cannot neutrally improve this article because we !voted to delete it is like saying that you cannot neutrally improve it because you !voted to keep it.

No, it's not the same thing at all. You have stated that you want it to be nuked from orbit, and are actively participating in a discussion to ensure exactly that. Your edit pattern here has mostly consisted of mass removal of properly sourced content, in the middle of a DRV. RA, as has been pointed out to you elsewhere, you are way too close to this issue. Let the DRV run its course, then based on the outcome, come back and help. Until then, it's hard for me to believe that you can neutrally do anything to this article. It will all be over in a few days - the article's not going anywhere.--KarlB (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible to argue on one page that an article should be deleted while still working to improve it on another. Many people who contribute to Wikipedia are committed to the larger project aims of Wikipedia. That means our reasons for saying any given article should be deleted or kept may be determined by factors to do with the best interest of the project — and not out of any attempt to destroy or ruin the article. In this case, my main reason (stated many times now) for saying this article should be deleted are project reasons: content forks are not in the interest of the project. No less, out of the same motives (a commitment to the project), if the article is to remain then I want it to be a good article. Thus, I will simultaneous argue it should be deleted and try to improve it.

Regarding the culture section, the title of this article is "Politics in the British Isles". And, I'm sorry to make you sad, but culture is not politics. It does however fit under the more broader theme of "relations". --RA (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

sigh. IR is part of politics of the region, and one of the topics covered by this article. comparative domestic politics, and shared culture, is also within the scope of this topic.--KarlB (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. If IR is part of the politics of the region, then an article of politics should briefly summarise the IR article, rather than attempting to duplicate it from a different POV. See Wikipedia:Summary style. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead section

I restored the revert here. The title of the article is "politics in the British Isles", but the original lead only spoke about "relations". "Politics" is more than political relations - the entities described in this article have functional domestic competencies that are much more significant. (And that is before we even begin speaking about the fact that all but three of the eight major entities in the region have no competency for international relations and one of the three that does has limited competency.)

The comment that the re-written lead "just repeats things that are said further down" doesn't make much of an argument since the introduction is supposed to summarise the article (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section).

Finally, the fact that we are still supposedly have to "agree on the scope of this article vs Ireland-UK" belies again suspicion that this article was created as a POV fork. It's title is "Politics in the British Isles" and so that is its scope. --RA (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Broadly I agree, though I've removed the (somewhat provocative) reference to England, Scotland and Wales as "former" countries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops! - ... what I meant by "former country" was that England, Scotland and Wales were formerly independent countries.

I didn't mean the reference to England provocatively. I can imagine it is something we will have to approach sensitively but it is something we would have to broach. Maybe not something for the lead though of this article though. --RA (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Fork question

RA, per this competency issue, you keep on harping on it, I've pointed you to tons of political science literature that studies international relations in the context of non-sovereign entities, I've demonstrated using the case of Scotland (which is much *less* autonomous than the Isle of Man) as an entity that is actively engaging in bilateral relations with many countries including China, France, Ireland etc, and yet you still want to trot out this competency IR lawyering. How about this - what if we just agree to use the terms formal bilateral relations to refer to sovereign state-to-state relations, and then bilateral relations or relations to describe everything else. That matches how the literature often talks about this, and will allow us to get past this issue of competency, which just gums up the works; it makes it seem like we could *not* talk about Ireland-Scotland or Ireland-Isle of Man relations because in theory, they can't exist (the problem is, in practice, they DO).

RE: POV fork, I do hope we can stop talking about that; you saw the closer's statement, that was his read of the consensus; that argument did not hold up. In any case, in order to ensure that this doesn't continue to be called a POV fork, we need to agree on what belongs where. I proposed something way above, perhaps you could take a look and comment?

Finally, re: British-Irish relations, I'd really prefer that the 1st paragraph of the bilateral relations section be focused on that (vs calling it main for relations. It's weird that we don't really mention anything at all for now - could you compose a paragraph, to head bilateral relations, which outlines this particular relationship, which we all agree is the most important one (even if we don't agree that it's not the only one) --KarlB (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Karl, some coded arrangements of words which we agree among ourselves to mean X and another coded arrangement that we agree means Y is of little assistance to a reader. We can talk about co-operation between Ireland and the UK authorities in Scotland. That's no problem at all. Just don't over-inflate it to give a misleading impression that Scotland has a function for international relations or is separate from the UK.

Regarding the POV fork issue, the closer didn't actually make a statement either way on wether the article is a fork or not. I can't find your proposal above. In practice, however, the article is still dominated by discussion of United Kingdom-Ireland relations as opposed to the broader topic of the "politics of the British Isles". That can be dealt with very easily by following summary style. If that was the case then, as far as I'd be concerned, the major question of POV forking will be dealt with.

After that, the question merely falls on whether this is a meaningful topic for an encyclopedia entry at all. And whether it can actually be anything other than a POV fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. But, I'm willing to give that the benefit of the doubt. --RA (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to use coded words. I'm just trying to break the deadlock, whereby you continue to insist, in spite of evidence, that these entities are incapable of bilateral relations. I'm suggesting that if we say they are capable of bilateral relations (vs formal bilateral relations), perhaps you will accept that. But I also must point out that the difference between formal and informal bilateral relations is getting fuzzier and fuzzier - just read the literature on what's going on in the islands right now.--KarlB (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Crown dependencies

Resolved; first line changed to dependencies of the British crown

For some reason, RA insists on changing Crown dependencies to dependencies of the UK. This is contrary to WP:COMMONNAME; e.g. the name these entities are usually called. A few google searches will illustrate this: dependencies of the UK: 5 hits dependencies of the United Kingdom: 4 hits Crown dependencies: 4650 hits The same results will obtain if you look at the Isle of Man website for example. It is true that sometimes they are called Crown dependencies of the United Kingdom, but much more frequently they are called simply Crown dependencies or British crown dependencies - the article is at Crown dependencies. I believe RA is trying to continue to make the point that they are part of the UK somehow, but that argument is over and we should just use the proper term. --KarlB (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC) WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, not the content of an article. (And citing it is ironic since you are proposing to move this article to Politics in the Atlantic Archipelaogo.) Instead, I'd simply point you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." In particular, see Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and the section on why it is "particularly important for the first section (the 'lead' section, above the table of contents) to be accessible to a broad readership". Describing these states as the "Crown dependencies" or "dependencies of the British Crown" is technically correct (and common in literature on it) but for someone unfamiliar with the subject that is overly technical and perplexing jargon (at least initially). A far simpler way to describe these states is as "dependencies of the UK", which is also technically correct, and verifiable (which I have done), and has the advantage of being easily understandable to someone unfamiliar with the subject. I've no issue with them being called the Crown Dependencies or being described as "dependencies of the British Crown" later in the article (or even in the lead itself), once the meaning of these terms has been explained. --RA (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC) But we don't use that language to describe them anywhere else. Nor do the CDs themselves. I really don't think this is a confusion issue; the first time that I can see anyone started changing this language was when the issue of POV fork came up. The purpose of this change is not to be clear, it is to promote a POV. As for Atlantic archipelago, please don't throw rocks at my idea. WP:IAR also sometimes applies, and with the constant drama around this article and the categories, I honestly don't give a **** about the name; it's the concept which is important - so if renaming would attract less drama then we should do so. It doesn't matter, consensus will likely not come, but at least the Irish can't say I didn't try...--KarlB (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Whether you saw before it or not, you are hardly going to argue that "dependencies of the British Crown" is less jargon-ish and more accessible than "dependencies of the UK". If you question the accuracy of the latter way of putting it, I cited a UK parliamentary report on the Crown Dependencies that says they are just that. I know you've argued before that the CD's are not dependencies of the UK. The UK itself contradicts you on that. So, in the first instance, stick with the simpler way of putting things (even if it is not the way you are used to hearing it). Not everyone is familiar with UK-centiric terminology. Later on then, we can introduce more complex jargon as we go along. KISS. --RA (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC) If you want me to overwhelm you with 200 sources that call them crown dependencies I will but frankly it's not worth it, you can google as well as I can... Crown dependencies is not jargon-y, and anyone clicking the link can figure out what it means. We've decided to put the article there, so yes wp:commonname does apply - b/c we're linking to the article title; in this case, there is no good reason not to use the article title except to somehow promote the idea that the CDs are technically part of the UK when it comes to IR -but as you now understand, the scope of this article is beyond IR anyway, so it's a moot point. I accept that sometimes the UK calls them that, but it's really just sloppiness - and much more frequently, they *dont* call them that. Any government with thousands of employees will generate a given string given enough time. But it's not constitutionally correct, and the UK *does* have dependent territories [1] - term used until recently- that are *not* crown dependencies, so it is actually confusing language.--KarlB (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Karl, seriously, Wikipedia:Article titles (i.e. WP:COMMONNAME) does not apply to the way we describe things in the body of articles. I've linked instead to the relevant sections of the MOS. Now, OK, so you don't like "dependencies of the UK" for some reason. Neither am I pleased with using jargon in the first line (particularly when enough misleading language appears throughout the article). And you didn't like them being described as "non-sovereign states" either. So what do you propose? How about we split the difference and go with, "... and the three Crown dependencies of the United Kingdom, Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man." (usage). --RA (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Any objection to the above? Or to restoring "...and [[Crown dependencies|three non-soveriegn states]], ..."? --RA (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I'm unfortunately not ok with that compromise. I added some better references, which are pretty clear. One quote that may be of use is this one: "Government officials must never state or imply that the Crown Dependencies are part of the United Kingdom, or Great Britain or England or act on that assumption". Again, I think the risk of confusion with the UK overseas territories (to which Dependencies of the United Kingdom currently redirects - and in usage out on the web, UK dependencies/british dependencies has tons of hits that are not the CDs: [2]), plus the fact that we don't want to suggest or imply that somehow they are part of the uk, plus the fact that almost everywhere else in wikipedia we are fine with just calling them CDs, means there is no reason to all of a sudden change that in a lead just to promote a particular POV. RA, I just want you to realize that the first time anyone in the history of wikipedia has gone around changing 'crown dependency' to 'dependency of the UK', as far as I can tell, is you, during this debate. Even in wikipedia, of 11 instances of "dependencies of the United kingdom", only half refer to the CDs. It's confusing language, and the CD language is clear and clickable and referenced and footnoted and all that other stuff.--KarlB (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Well, look it, if half the references to "dependencies of the UK" on Wikipedia refer to the CDs then its hardly just me. I've also linked to 500-odd examples of that usage in verifiable sources so don't try and say I'm making it up or its just a wiki thing. Anyway, I also asked about "...and [[Crown dependencies|three non-soveriegn states]], ...", which I know you reverted as well, but you can hardly pick issues with that. It's really is just the first line, I'm bothered about. Just until we have an opportunity to explain the term, which happens in the third paragraph. And it's for no other reason than WP:EXPLAINLEAD. --RA (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC) No, I don't think you're making it up, but it is a sloppy wording and is generally avoided in texts that are trying to be precise. I also don't see why we have to emphasize in the very first line that they are non-sovereign -we explain their relationship to the UK, in the lead, a few lines down. If you really really really want to show in the very first sentence that they are somehow connected to the UK, one could say "british crown dependencies". --KarlB (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC) It's not about emphasising (or de-emphasising) anything in the first line. It's just a matter of not using a word that someone unfamiliar with the topic will not understand. What are "Crown dependencies"? What "Crown"? We don't need to bamboozle a reader in the first line with terms that are widely known in the UK but unfathomable to anyone else. "British Crown dependencies" is better, but still needlessly complicated. --RA (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Your change to dependencies of the british crown is fine. Thanks! --KarlB (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

history

History looks great but I think it's now a bit too long. Do you think we could trim a wee bit? --KarlB (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right. The section could be drastically reduced. The article is about politics, so only that history that has a direct bearing on present day politics should be included. That would probably exclude all history prior to - say 1700? Northern Arrow (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've done a quick copy-edit, but one fundamental problem is that the linked article on History of the British Isles is simply dire and needs to be expanded. Re the scope of the section in this article, I think a summary of the history of the islands is necessary, as background, but it should be as brief as possible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's too long. It need condensing. And I just stopped at 1603! I would stress tho that history in this article should focus on political history (e.g. institutions, powers, development, origins), which is the significance of Magna Carta, a common law, the parliamentary tradition, etc. --RA (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Politics in the British Isles → Politics in the Atlantic archipelago – Given the drama around this article, including a fair amount of drama just about the name of the article, I suggest we rename. The best name I can think of for now is Politics in the Atlantic archipelago, since that term Atlantic Archipelago is slowly gaining currency in academia (see google scholar search, even if it remains a bit obscure outside of that. We could keep the original title as a redirect. International relations in ... is less ideal, because the article is and will continue to be beyond just international relations, and go into the realm of comparative politics; there are a a ton of papers looking at comparative politics in the isles especially looking at different political movements, which are *not* part of international relations but do fit in the broader rubric of politics.

• Support Just to get rid of the drama surrounding the term and Atlantic archipelago is just as accurate anyways. Silverseren^C 00:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The term is not at all accurate. It could apply just as much to the Falkland Islands as it does to the British Isles. Maybe Northeast Atlantic Archipelago would be more accurate, but that's not what the islands are called. Northern Arrow (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Couldn't give a fig about the name. The approach to the subject matter and the duplication of topic is much more troubling form the perspective of the project. I would oppose a new name involving the term Atlantic archipelago as a violation of Wikipedia:Article titles.
  As for "International relations in...", it's painful to have to repeat this to someone so determined to write an article on the politics of the region, but you do know that there are only two states with competency for international relations in the region, right? Ireland and the United Kingdom.
  About comparative politics, please remember: Wikipedia:No original research. That includes WP:SYNTHESIS. --RA (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Finally, the fact that you are still thinking about a name for this article further suggests that you haven't put much thought into this. That is visible from the content and why people like User:S Marshall said it needs to be nuked from orbit. --RA (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (since this has now become a formal proposal). It's evidient that even the article creator isn't quite sure what this article is supposed to be about, but what ever it is about the common terms are British Isles, Britain and Ireland, United Kingdom and Ireland or similar. Atlantic Archipelago is an obscure term from a fringe perspective in academia. It doesn't belong in an article title on Wikipedia. --RA (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

Wait, just to be clear, this is the same content about which you said [3] "I've added effectively all of this article to Ireland-United Kingdom relations. All of it is good stuff IMO and is a great addition to that article.". Also, I'm *not* still thinking about a name; the scope of this article has always been clear to me, I'm simply recognizing that this name attracts drama like moths to a flame, so a rename (keeping same topic) will likely attract less drama. As to your statement "there are only two states with competency for international relations in the region", I'm just curious as to what exactly this means - what do you mean by competency?. I know you've harped on it again and again, but I still don't understand what relation your POV has to do with reality. For example, do you think the crown dependencies cannot come together, discuss things, and then develop a shared approach for relations with the UK government? Have you ever read any of the dispatches of the British Irish council? Or do you think that the devolved administration of Scotland and Ireland cannot have discussions and agree on joint projects together? You should read how the politicians in the region talk about these things - they don't seem to see sovereignty or lack thereof as a barrier to having political relations with other parts of the isles. I don't want to have the AfD discussion again, it's closed, so let's just move on and focus on improving this and other articles.--KarlB (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, re: the assertion that this is a obscure term from a fringe perspective, it has over 2000 hits in Google books [4]. While certainly less common than British Isles, it has the advantage of not causing drama, and is not obscure; normally I would not propose this, but the AfD changed my mind.--KarlB (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"I'm just curious as to what exactly this means - what do you mean by competency [for international relations]?" — "International relations" is a reserved matter in devolution to Scotland ([5]) and an exempted matter for devolution to Northern Ireland ([6]). It is not listed among the matters devolved to Wales ([7]). Regarding the competencies of Crown dependencies for international relations see here:

"The UK Government is responsible for defence and international representation of the Crown Dependencies. In certain circumstances, the Crown Dependencies may be authorised to conclude their own international agreements by a process of entrustment. … However, being responsible for the Crown Dependencies’ international representation is not limited to simply entering international agreements; it should be read to include any international or external relations whether or not they result in some internationally binding agreement."

--RA (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, that is the legal position, but if you read any of the other links I've copiously provided, the facts on the ground are quite different. For example, re: Scotland, please read the following speech, especially this line: [8]

"Although the Dublin-London axis remains critical for us, we recognise the significant new element that has been introduced by the constitutional transformation that has occurred since 1998 on this side of the Irish sea. It was with feelings of warmth and gratification that people in Ireland greeted the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament on 12 May 1999. We welcome greatly the prospect of greater diversity and relations between these islands with, in particular, a distinctive and significant Scottish input. In response to the new political reality of a devolved Britain, we moved quickly to establish consulates general in Edinburgh and Cardiff, which are staffed by professional diplomats. That was intended to give a clear signal of our desire to build productive links with the new Administrations in our Celtic neighbours."

That is the head of the Irish government, speaking to the devolved government in Scotland, talking about Irish-Scottish relations - so your assertions that Scotland doesn't have competency for such relations just seem silly. Now whether you want to call them international relations or just 'relations between a state and a devolved administration' is just pedantic; the fact of the matter is, there *are* relations between these govs. Perhaps it's best to put Ireland-Scotland relations as a sub-section of Ireland-UK relations, but that doesn't change the fact that those relations exist nor that they are different than London-Dublin, as explained by your own prime minister above.--KarlB (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"…so your assertions that Scotland doesn't have competency for such relations just seem silly." —Karl, that's the constitution of the United Kingdom that you are saying is silly. I know this might sound a little "out there" to you but it might assist in writing an article on the politics of the archipelago if we do so initially from the stand point of constitutional reality. The levy duvvy and aspirational stuff can come later. For a general reader on this topic it is unhelpful in the extreme if we begin talking about the supposed international relations of Scotland, but neglect to mention that actually, under law, the Scottish parliament does not have the competency to act in that area. --RA (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I realize this isn't your area of expertise, but I honestly think you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to convince me; if you want to argue about Scotland's capacity for international relations, you'd best take it up with them. This is their international framework: [9], and this is their website, whose title is International relations: Scotland's international framework. I'm sure your constitutional arguments will be useful for their government as they continue building out relationships with other countries. Anyway, this whole argument is getting boring...--KarlB (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've struck the comment about Atlantic Archipelago being a term from a fringe perspective in academia. It not fringe as we would mean it here (WP:FRINGE). But let's look the term up in a dictionary. Is it in the Oxford English Dictionary? Nope. Chambers, maybe? Nope. Websters, must have it? Nope. So yes, it's obscure.

Also, changing the title of the page doesn't address the substantive concerns about the article by both sides in the AfD. --RA (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The islands are simply not known as the "Atlantic Archipelago", apart from in some academic circles, and even there, usage is spasmodic. The proposed name would simply add confusion to the situation. Northern Arrow (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Atlantic Archipelago is clearly not the most recognisable term, so that alone would contradict WP:TITLE.--SabreBD (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• comment To all of those voting !oppose, I simply ask that you consider WP:IAR in this case. I agree AA is less common than BI. However, it also doesn't cause offense the way BI seems to.--KarlB (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and other comments - admitted by the proposer to be "certainly less common than British Isles". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as a made up name that most people in the British Isles would not recognise or think it was somewhere in America. MilborneOne (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • thanks for your vote - however, it's not made up - it's widely used in academia: see +2000 hits in google books. Also if you have other suggestions, I also welcome them.--KarlB (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • comment a lot of the google references are circular to the same books and others are descriptive so they really show a little used name compared with the common and long used name British Isles (which has over a 4 million ghits). MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Of course, I agree it is less common - but look at Google scholar, there are many many papers using this term. I'm just thinking WP:IAR may apply here; many academics now attempt to use AA or other terms to avoid the BI term, and especially in an article about politics, I'm afraid this is just going to attract more drama than it's worth; AA will allow us to focus on the content without being distracted by people attacking the article for its title.--KarlB (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
        • I have only ever come across this term on Wikipedia. It is made up nonsense by these "academics". Karl, you should stop wasting everyone's time and withdraw this move suggestion. Northern Arrow (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Please WP:AGF; I'm honestly not trying to waste anyone's time. I don't know what you mean by made up, but it was coined by J. G. A. Pocock in 1970s, so it's not something invented by wikipedia in any case.--KarlB (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Well it's made up nonsense by Pocock, and since he made it up in the 1970s you'd think by now people would know what it meant. I bet if you asked 100 random people what it meant you'd get 99 of them saying they'd never heard of it. Wikipedia is not here to promote fringe baloney like this. I expect the suggestion is at odds with several policies. Northern Arrow (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It is rather disingenuous for you to assert that Atlantic Archipelago is made up. This book alone explains a great deal about the term and its relationship within the region. Silverseren^C 19:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you please expand on how the book "explains a great deal about the term and its relationship within the region", preferably with an extended quotation. I'm getting the feeling that a number of participants here (as well as in related discussion) are citing books based on their titles and without knowledge of their contents. --RA (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed name, which is an obscure term rarely used in the sources. Rename to Ireland-United Kingdom relations, since that is what this article is about. That article already exists, so in effect that means "merge". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it's already been pointed oput to you elsewhere, but in case not, your favoured title excludes Isle of man and the rest of them, so it wouldn't work. Northern Arrow (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That is simply wrong is a point of fact. The United Kingdom government is responsible for the defence and international relations of the Islands, so Ireland-United Kingdom relations does include the Isle of Man and the rest of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

What a tricky !vote! Wow. Through sheer cleverness, you almost turned this into a merge discussion - or wait, did you try to turn it back into an AfD discussion? In any case, now that the point you just made above (for the umpteenth time) has been noted for the record, you don't need to repeat it anymore...--KarlB (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• strong oppose has nothing to do with the Azores (an Atlantic archipelago), Greenland & related islands (an Atlantic archipelago), the Atlantic portion of the Canadian Artic Archipelago, the Bahamas (an Atlantic archipelago) etc. This is highly biased, claiming that the British Isles are the only island chain in the entire Atlantic Ocean. Europe is not the entire world, thinking that Europe is the entire world is wrong. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Off topic sections

Karl, before you go much further with additions to these sections, I just want to point out that "Immigration and emigration" and "Culture" are not relevant to a general article on politics in the British Isles. The section, "Citizenship and citizens rights", is also arguably not entirely relevant. Or at least far more relevent to the article on Ireland-United Kingdom relations. --RA (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree... if you don't think immigration or culture is relevant to politics, I don't know how I can change your mind... I'm not thinking of a massive exposition here, just really some summary information; for example population figures are useful to understand relative 'weight' of these countries. And citizenship/etc is of course quite relevant; especially since we're talking about who can vote for what...--KarlB (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that "Politics...." is a very misleading title for an article which is - and should be - essentially about constitutional interrelationships. Migration and culture are not relevant to such an article. I've tagged those sections accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Citizenship" too is a matter for states, not archipelagos. Where there is reciprocal recognition arrangements with respect to citizen rights, that's a matter for relations between states. It is not a section of it's own in this article. --RA (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

that's fine; in this case, we could just summarize briefly the relevant material, and link to Ireland-UK relations if that's where the main content should live. It doesn't mean it is distracting or off-topic here. --KarlB (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Next steps

The first thing I'd like to do is now get rid of the remaining tags. I'd like to improve the article so we can remove the remaining tags. There is one at the top claiming the article is misleading, but it's not clear to how exactly RA wants to address that. There are also POV tags on Politics_in_the_British_Isles#Political movements and Politics_in_the_British_Isles#Scholarship of identity and politics in the British Isles. Can someone help in expanding those sections accordingly? I think both sections could bear being expanded to give some more exposition on both key political movements (unionism and nationalism to start with), and scholarship.

I've also found a comparative study, which may be of use in expanding the devolution section: From the abstract: [10] "In seeking a better understanding of these differences, examination of the administrative arrangements of small communities or micro states can offer fascinating comparative insights into the workings of larger states, especially those with whom they enjoy a direct relationship...this article seeks to explore developments in the Isle of Man, specifically its civil service. In so doing, the article aims to broaden our understanding of the changing governance not only of the Isle of Man, but also of the UK and beyond." I think I can get at my library, but if anyone else has access to full text please send a link. --KarlB (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is very sad that your concern is to "get rid of the remaining tags", rather than to address the fundamental problems with this article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Get rid of tags for me == address the "problems" with the article. They're the same thing. If *you* want to help, please help by providing some of the content you've requested. Thanks! --KarlB (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

POV sections

I have just tagged several sections of this article as {{POV-section}}, or other problem tags.

I will add notes below expanding on the problems I fouund. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

POV and misleading descriptions of different powers, functions, bodies, agreements and relationships is endemic throughout the article. I cannot see any way to address it discretely in any one section. A fundamental premise of the article as it is written as present appears to be to push the kind of (false and misleading) impressions described below. It is not limited to these sections also however. And that is what makes it so difficult to address and rectify without resorting to WP:TNT. --RA (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Specific examples? Northern Arrow (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There lots of examples below, but if you want another one, the "Devolution and independence" section implies that devolution in Scotland and Wales was part of a process which involved Ireland. It also confuses the dates of the referendums.

This sort of blurring of distinctions occurs throughout the article, in order to distort the facts and support the postnationalist perspective which KarlB has been pushing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No dates, other than "1997" are given, and maybe it's just me, but I don't see any problem with that section that a bit of copy editing wouldn't put right. Please tell me precisely what's wrong with it, or maybe you could rewrite it - here to start with? Northern Arrow (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with it is that it conflates separate processes.

As to a rewrite, the whole thing needs a rewrite, and it would be much better to start from scratch rather than to tinker with this whole POV-pushing framework. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the "Devolution and independence" section is another example. The impression is to link the secession of Ireland with devolution in other parts of the UK nearly a hundred years later. This is a trait I've noticed in Karl's contributions across several articles. For example, he has tried to link the 1604 Union of the Crowns with the 1707 Acts of Union as part of some sort of on-going process. You can run through the whole article top to bottom and you find these things in virtually every sentence. The entire article (as it is currently written) is premised on these kinds of historical fallacies. It's a mix of SYN, OR and whishful thinking — and it parallels reality — but that is what makes it especially insidious and misleading. --RA (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Again I say, put your version here then. It's only a short section, so let's see your re-write of devolution and independence within the context of the British Isles. Northern Arrow (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

But the problem is not just that section. It's the section above it too. And the one below. And ... well ... every section is the same. The whole thing is so problematic that it is easier (and better) to just Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. This is not the same as delete (though it is a reason why so many people wanted it deleted). --RA (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No! The only reason why "some" people want it deleted is because the title contains the words "British Isles". Simples. Northern Arrow (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Only we're not talking about deleting it. We're talking about re-writing it. The AfD is over. Come out of the trenches and let's start working. --RA (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait, ok, let's clarify your claim here. You are trying to say that the secession of Ireland in 1922 has *nothing* to do with devolution 90 years later? As you know, history is just one damn thing after another. I believe the first devolved government in the UK was the NI Parliament, which started in...wait for it...1921. In addition, you may or may not be aware that the success of Ireland's secession was an inspiration to other parts of the UK - for example, Wales formed their nationalist movement shortly afterwards (in 1925), and several sources attest that Ireland's secession was an important factor: [11] and [12] "As nationalists fighting for the freedom of our people we are living in exciting times. The nature of the British State is rapidly changing. My great friend Angus McNeil, the SNP MP for the Western Isles often reminds me that the current British state is a modern creation, barely ninety years old since the Irish free state was declared in 1921. All the Celtic nations are in different stages of their political development. Irish independence was one of the key factors which led to the creation of my party in 1925 ? a dedicated party committed to creating a national future for my country. The SNP followed in 1934 and Mebyon Kernow in 1951." So RA, this is not *me* who is making these links; nor is it *me* who is making a link between 1604 union of the crowns and 1707 acts of union; just read any contemporary book about unionism and you'll see that exact linkage being drawn... Do you think that Scottish devolution just sprung out of the head of the prime minister in 1998, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the SNP, which traces its roots back to... 1922? Scottish_independence#Scottish_home_rule. One damn thing after another, indeed. To state that Ireland's secession does not still resonate with other nationalist movements in the isles is the real wishful thinking, and to *not* mention it would be rather lame (I'm of course not saying it's the only factor, but an important one nonetheless)--KarlB (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Specific examples to the sections listed by BHG are below. Almost every section is the same, however.

Take the "Government structure" section for another example. Aside from the fact that there is no "government structure" — because there is no government of the British Isles to have a structure, — the table conflates sovereign states, dependencies, sub-national administrations, and geographic regions and presents them all seemingly as comparable and equal in some ways. Of course, a quick reply is to say that there is nothing in the table that is factually wrong (in a strict sense there is, ex: England doesn't have a head of state, the UK does). But the more substantive problem is the impression. What is it trying to say? And why are we starting of with a list of the titles of heads of state and head of government? And why are we mixing apples and pears? It's barmy.

The intent, throughout the article from what I can determine, is to push a POV which Karl it appears finds interesting (the idea of post-nationalism and archipelagist perspectives on the politics of the region). I've stated I share this POV (or academic perspective) but we don't write articles from our own POVs or POVs that we find interesting. We write them from a neutral point of view. And like it or not that means accepting that we live in a world of sovereign states then later give commentary on minor POVs on the subject.

The whole article just needs to be re-written beginning from the perspective of neutral point of view and then we can introduce the concepts of post-nationalism and archipelagism later on. --RA (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I made the section title plural, and for me that does it. There is no problem with listing sovereign states and so on in the same table. The Government status column clarifies the matter. The section is not trying to say anything. It is providing information, full stop. Northern Arrow (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately you pluralised the wrong word. It is the governments that are plural. But it hightlights the difficulty in simply tweaking the article. WP:TNT really is the only way. --RA (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hairsplitting. I read it as "The Government structures in the British Isles" meaning several governments, and if anyone was in doubt, the table immediately below the title makes it all clear. But if you can imporve it, please do. You could try "Governments in the British Isles" or something. Northern Arrow (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh ... I wouldn't mind so much having this discussion if issue with the title of the section it had been the substantive point that I was making. --RA (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Bilateral relations

This section refers to "the various countries in the archipelago, including between Ireland and the devolved governments of the United Kingdom". This implies that there are othjer countries in the archipelago.
The section also refers to "bilateral relations" without referencing, and gives undue weight to the low level of relations between Ireland the devolved administrations and crown dependencies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait, weren't you the one who, in a recent discussion, mooted the idea that Ireland (the island) was a country? Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Procedural_comment "It depends on which of many set of contested definition you use. By a broad definition of "country", Ireland is a country of 32 counties, with countrywide structures for its major religions, its major sports, and many other issues. It is not currently a nation-state; the nation-state of Ireland covers a smaller area." And now you're nit-picking around whether Isle of Man is a country? Or whether two such countries can have bilateral relations? I don't think it gives undue weight; especially given there is a whole article on Ireland-UK relations; a few sentences about other relations is *not* undue weight. By the way, I'd suggest you look up what bilateral means. It does not only mean relations between two sovereign states --KarlB (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, "country" is a diffuse word who meaning depends on which of many set of contested definition you use. So using the word "country" to include both a sovereign state (Ireland) and an island which does not have control of its own international relations is blurring a significant distinction.

Where exactly are your sources for describing the crown dependencies as "countries"?

That section implies that the "bilateral relations" with the CDs are of something approaching the same weight as the IRL-UK or IRL-NI relations, which is simply not true. Ireland has no permanent diplomatic or consular mission in Wales, Jersey, Isle of Man, or Guernsey. This section is boosterism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

um, unlike Ireland (the island), they have their own country code, their own country prefix, they have a country page on the CIA world factbook, oodles of papers and books and other sources refer to them as countries, their own government, flag, control over domestic matters, etc. If you're so concerned about making sure people know Ireland is sovereign, why not have a big flashing box at the top, so no-one misses it, then let the rest of us go back to improving the encyclopedia. this trivial and nitpicky tagging is tiring. Why don't you spend your time fixing it instead?--KarlB (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Karl, I would be happy to fix this blatantly POV-pushing article in the best way possible, which is by removing it entirely. As RA noted above, "POV and misleading descriptions of different powers, functions, bodies, agreements and relationships is endemic throughout the article". Since deletion has not happened yet, it is necessary to start identifying some of the many different ways in which you have distorted reality in order to promote your postnationalist perspective. That gives us a basis for moving forward to coverage of these issues with some respext for reality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hold on. I think I've just hit a hat trick here. BHG accuses me (often) of promoting a post-nationalist perspective. Night of the Big Wind has accused me of promoting a pro-British/Anti-irish POV. Others have accused me of promoting the idea of an independent Scotland. I'm sure someone somewhere accused me of promoting the Isle of Man way too much. I think the only thing I haven't yet done is been accused of being pro-Irish, and since a good deal of my blood is Irish I should get on that right away. Do you think it's possible to be all of those at once? Am I a union-jack-waving-unionist Brit, covering the wiki with instances of the British Isles and making it all seem like one big country under the British flag? Or perhaps I am a rabid ethno-regional nationalist and promoter of devolution, independence, and sovereignty for all in the isles, including my friends in Cornwall and the Shetlands and even Sark! - and emphasizing that these dinky, crippled little statelets can actually have an international presence apart from London? Or am I an acolyte of Richard Kearney, envisioning a new archipelago free of national boundaries, acting as a beacon for the world and the harbinger of a post-nationalist future? It's really quite curious, as I think none of you really know where I stand... it's called the land of NPOV. You should come visit sometime - the water's warm :)--KarlB (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The words "country" and "nation" also refer to England, Scotland, Wales and (according to some sources) Northern Ireland. They do not refer only to sovereign states. So, there are indeed several countries in the archipelago. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Our own articles on the subjects even say that. Silverseren^C 07:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Straw man. England, Scotland, Wales are indeed countries (by one meaning of that term), and I have not disputed that fact. However, the term is not routinely applied to the Crown Dependencies. My concern here is that the vague word "country" is being used to refer to at least three different types of entity, which have widely differing competencies in the context being discussed.

For example, Scotland and Wales have been described as countries for centuries, but from 1707 to 1999 Scotland did not have any mechanism for acting as such in the context of international relations (the Scottish Office didn't exist until 1885). Wales had simply been abolished in the 16th century, and no specifically Welsh political institutions until the Welsh Office was established in 1965, and even that was only an arm of the UK central govt.

In this context, the use of the word "country" implies an entity with the power to conduct its own international relations. That is not the case with Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, or the Isle of Man ... so more precise terminology is needed to avoid misleading readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not what is stated. Bilateral relations = relations with two sides. As opposed to multilateral relations. Read the following article very carefully: [13] - you will notice a few things - first of all, they call Scotland a country - in the context of relations with China! Now read this one: [14] and esp this quote: "Scotland and China have a foundation of deep and long-standing bilateral links upon which to build an even stronger relationship in the future." This is from a govt of Scotland website, not some wonky postnationalist blog. You'll also note they (and the Chinese) are still careful in their language - obviously recognizing that Scotland is part of UK - but they are not afraid to use the words bilateral or country. Again, I think it's perfectly reasonable to clean up and state somewhere at the top that treaties and formal international treaties between the states can only be technically formed between London/Dublin (except for tax agreements which CDs can do on their own), but that plenty of informal and trade/economic/cultural/scientific/academic bilateral exchanges exist and continue to occur between the countries in the isles. Wikipedia is not an intergovernmental organization, and we go by sources, and the sources say these bilateral relations are proliferating - bilateral relations are not only between sovereign states!--KarlB (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Like virtually everywhere else in the article the issue here is weasel words. The effect is to diminish the role of the UK central govenment. So, for example, one sentence ends by talking about "[bilateral relations] between Ireland and the devolved governments of the United Kingdom." It then continues to talk about the Good Friday Agreement, the North/South Ministerial Council, as an example of bilateral relations between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Nowhere is stated the UK central government's role in these (or how they relate to the constitution and governance of the United Kingdom). The implication is that these are arrangements entered into by the Northern Ireland as some kind of statelet that can act autonomously in matters of international relations. The implication continues for the Crown Dependencies, Scotland and Wales.

In reality, international relations is a reserved matter in devolution to Scotland ([15]) and an excepted matter in devolution to Northern Ireland ([16]) and is is not listed among the matters devolved to Wales ([17]). Regarding the Crown dependencies, the UK is responsible for their international representation, which is "not limited to simply entering international agreements; it should be read to include any international or external relations whether or not they result in some internationally binding agreement." ([18]).

As with virtually every other section, a reader of this section will come away with an very misleading impression of the reality of "bi-lateral" relations in the archipelago and of the powers and competencies of the non-sovereign parts and dependencies of the United Kingdom. --RA (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You keep on harping on this, but the evidence is against you. International relations is not just signing of treaties. Does the government of Isle of Man have a relationship with the governments of Ireland and Scotland? Yes. Do they collaborate on issues that may at times go against those of the UK government? Yes. Do the three crown dependencies work together, outside the auspices of the UK central government, in order to develop a shared approach? Yes. Are the devolved administrations of the UK developing bilateral contacts with other countries? Yes! (google Scotland-China to see for example what's been happening recently on that front). International law and signing of treaties is one thing, but if you think that is the same thing as international relations, I can only recommend you go back to your reading and come back when you've learned a bit more - international relations is much broader, and non-sovereign entities can and regularly do engage in international relations. In any case, this article is about more than just international relations; it is also about comparative domestic politics, as many of the sources are actually focused on that. For domestic matters, at least we agree, isle of man is NOT part of the UK. so once again, you've painted yourself into a corner, and can't now get out.--KarlB (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Karl, let me quote the Government of the United Kingdom to you one more time. I hope this time you might read it:

The UK Government is responsible for defence and international representation of the Crown Dependencies. In certain circumstances, the Crown Dependencies may be authorised to conclude their own international agreements ... within the terms of Letters of Entrustment issued to their Governments under the signature of the appropriate UK Minister.
However, being responsible for the Crown Dependencies’ international representation is not limited to simply entering international agreements; it should be read to include any international or external relations whether or not they result in some internationally binding agreement. — "Background briefing on the Crown Dependencies: Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |autor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Now, that does not mean that there is anything to prevent someone living on the Isle of Man or anywhere else picking up the phone and calling someone in Ireland. But, to present the Crown Dependencies as having autonomy for international relations is blatantly and explictly contradicted by reliable sources. --RA (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this tag; these relations are widely described as bilateral. If you want to add the tag again, please propose changes to the wording that would be satisfactory, and provide some evidence that the word bilateral cannot be used to describe relations between non-sovereign governments. read this first though: "10. In addition to the structures provided for under this agreement, it will be open to two or more members to develop bilateral or multilateral arrangements between them." [19]--KarlB (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC

Not clear what is misleading here. Again, unless you can demonstrate that only sovereign entities can have bilateral relationships, please stop tagging this section or propose improved wording. Tagging without a pathway to no-tag is not helpful. And don't say "the only solution is the blow it up".--KarlB (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Karl, you asked what was misleading about the bilateral relations section. What is misleading is that it appears that the devolved administrations and the crown dependences are engaged in international relations with Ireland (for example talking about Irish consulate in Edinburgh and Cardiff). As you know, with the exception of Northern Ireland's participation in various cross-border bodies, none of the devolved administrations have competence for international relations (references above).

In part, a root problem here (throughout the article) is the preponderance of the article on relations between different administrations, and a neglect to describe functions and powers of those administrations, including ironically relative to each other. That allows for misleading. I'm happy to leave the tag of the particular section because the issue is actually relevant to the entire article. --RA (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

But this is not a treatise on international law; this is an article documenting what the sources say. The sources say, bilateral relationships exist between these entities. That is what they are called, by almost any source you can find. So while you may find it misleading, and it may ruffle the feathers of the realists, the fact of the matter is, these entities *do* have competence as you call it to discuss matters, to come to agreement, to jointly develop policies, to push for domestic legislation, etc. They may not have the ability to formalize a commitment between two states via a treaty in the way Dublin and London can, but that's about the *only* power they don't have - and that is *not* what bilateral means. Did you actually read any of the sources? Do you think Scotland is not engaging in relations with Ireland? What do you call it when the prime minister of Ireland addresses the Scottish parliament and says "In response to the new political reality of a devolved Britain, we moved quickly to establish consulates general in Edinburgh and Cardiff, which are staffed by professional diplomats. That was intended to give a clear signal of our desire to build productive links with the new Administrations in our Celtic neighbours." and "The past two years have seen a notable intensification of Scottish-Irish political dialogue with a series of high-level visits in both directions." [20]? My next target is to write articles on Scotland-Ireland relations and Scotland-China relations... why? Because they EXIST, and 3rd party sources TALK ABOUT THEM. Scotland-China is especially interesting right now... If you want to have a whole section somewhere detailing the things that *cannot* be done as part of these bilateral/multilateral arrangements, please go for it - it would help the article, and would put your mind at ease - but you may have trouble finding sources, I haven't found any that talk in detail about how Ireland-Scotland or Ireland-Isle of man relations are crippled because one entity isn't sovereign.--KarlB (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Karl, misleading isn't about what is true or what is verifiable. It's about the impression being given in the things that are stated, the way they are stated and the thing that are unstated. In this case, someone ignorant of the politics of the region would reasonably come away thinking Scotland, for example, has powers that it does not.

What I find particularly difficult about the articles and categories you have created in this areas is that, while I share your perspective on many of these things, you repeatedly over state the facts and neglect to mention contradictory (and more orthodox) realities. That is what is misleading. Not factually incorrect. Or unverifiable. But misleading. --RA (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

read this: Functionalism_in_international_relations and Neofunctionalism; Scotland's powers are much more determined by practice, e.g. what does the UK allow them to get away with; in any case, it's not our job to document what Scotland is or isn't allowed to do (that could be perhaps in a different article on Constitutional aspects of UK devolution); it's our job in this article to document what they *do* do, what they *do* say, and what other sources say about it. Don't you think the UK government is annoyed that Scotland is courting China? I bet you a pint of warm stout that they are. But if they're saying something, they haven't said anything publicly. Scotland (and the CDs) will continue to do things that ruffle the feathers of realists until they get swatted by the UK government - but you can see they're pushing the envelope...all this China stuff, Scotland-France stuff (restoring the Auld alliance - the fact that they use that term should give you an indication of the msg they're sending to London...); even the Irish-Scottish stuff, really started in 1998; after Scotland was devolved -- as you know, they weren't given international relations -- but Scotland went ahead and started engaging in international relations anyway! In any case, if you're so concerned about misleading people, then create a section about realism and sovereignty and its application to intra-state relations in the british isles, you could even give some great examples like the UK parliament legislating about what the Manx could do re: radio back in 1960s with the pirate ships, etc. - because there are times when this has been tested - You've done the research already, so just write it up, source it, and then we won't have to worry about people being confused, we can just stick that as an early section: warning - there are non-orthodox relationships below between entities which aren't sovereign I just don't know why you're so obsessed with sovereignty. Do you think the Isle of Man is obsessed with sovereignty? They have every chance to push for it, and the UK would let them go - but they don't *want* it. Even Scotland probably won't take it if offered - my money is on devo-max. Sovereignty is not all it's cracked up to be, and plenty of entities do plenty of things without that in their back pocket. We haven't even talked about the local/municipal governments, which don't give a flying f* about their lack of sovereignty; they are busy building links between eachother, signing trade deals, joint environmental programmes, joint infrastructure projects - and none of this stuff ever touches London. In any case, thanks for striking your vote at DRV. I do hope this article isn't iced. Perhaps you might suggest a better rename, since my proposal isn't gonna fly...--KarlB (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's another very good article, on defacto vs dejure autonomy, and the balance Isle of Man has w.r.t. sovereignty, and challenges they may have with UK's entry into the EU/eurozone: [21] --KarlB (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And here is a very nice article on Jersey's relationship with the EU, [22] - detailing the complex relationship, the issue of supra-national entities, and a nice history of the decisions around EU engagement; and please read page 3 of this article [23] on recrafting sovereignty: "scholars have recently begun to examine new forms of variegated or shared sovereignty that characterise the creative governance arrangements of decentralising multi-level states such as the UK, India, Spain and Russia. Whilst these studies are most advanced in the area of constitutional legal theory (see MacCormick 1999; Walker 2002, 2008), political science is only just beginning to move beyond the limited perspective of uncritically taking the state for granted as the main unit of analysis (Keating 2005; Jeffery 2008). Instead, governance may take place at the substate and supranational levels." (and other interesting comments on autonomy for island states and different shades of sovereignty); I know you and BHG think for some reason that I'm a big fan of postnationalism, but I'm actually not - I find it interesting, but it's not the theory I would subscribe to; as the Hepburn paper shows, there are lots of people besides Kearny who are looking at political science and governance beyond the sovereign state, and the British isles is ground zero for this sort of stuff; postnationalism is just one approach, there are plenty of others. But we can't write this article if we assume that sovereign states are the only thing that matters.--KarlB (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And those will make for great discussion pieces in this article, Politics of the United Kingdom and Ireland-United Kingdom relations. They are significant perspectives and important points to be made. However, you are confusing writing about a perspective, which is good, with writing from a perspective, which is bad. We write only from a neutral point of view, and we keep our enthusiasm for one POV or another at bay. --RA (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Realism != NPOV. Too much literature from too many different IR theories + way too much evidence to suggest that sovereignty is the only thing that counts in IR. The real NPOV is what I'm proposing - don't get hung up on sovereignty, follow the sources, follow what scotland says, follow the words they use and the behavior they exhibit. If anyone is stuck in POV, it's you with your realism. --KarlB (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Membership in intergovernmental organizations

Misleading section falsely implies that Ireland is one of 5 sovereign states in the area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of "countries" to refer to crown dependencies tagged as {{weasel-inline}}. The head article on Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man describe them as Crown Dependencies, rather than as countries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There are intergovernmental links between, for example, Wales and Scotland. One example referenced here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The workings of the UK Joint Ministerial Committee is a matter for domestic politics of the United Kingdom. --RA (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This section is a joke. Of course, UN, EU and Commonwealth membership for the three Crown Depenencies is going to be "Not a member". Only sovereign states are members of those organisations. The applicable sovereign state is the United Kingdom. So, for example, UN issues apply to Crown Dependencies through the United Nations Act 1946, which is an act of the United Kingdom.

The result in this section, like everywhere else in the article, is to conflate and equate their role and powers of these places (and others) somehow with the two sovereign states of the region. --RA (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Any talk of the crown dependencies not being countries is just silliness. The UK govt regularly refers to them as countries in various lists, etc: [24] They aren't sovereign countries or by some measures independent countries, but they're certainly a lot more of a country than the island of Ireland...

The reason this section is useful is that (a) the membership in different organizations is not uniform (b) the crown dependencies are not involved with the IGOs in the same way as say Scotland might be; they aren't simply rolled in as a part of the UK, but rather they are brought in in bits and pieces; see Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union#The_Channel_Islands_and_the_Isle_of_Man. For example, Isle of Man has certain NATO agreements extended to it, while Ireland is not a member at all. If it would make you happy, we can state at the top of every section that Ireland and UK are the only sovereign nations, but I think since we've already said it at the beginning of the article, that should be sufficient. --KarlB (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Karl, membership of the UN, NATO, the Commonwealth of Nations, the European Union, etc. is limited to sovereign states. The Crown Dependencies are not sovereign states. It is the UK that is a member of these organizations and the benefit of UK membership is extended (to a greater or lesser extent) to the Crown Dependencies as dependencies of the UK.

It is important to state that the UK's membership of certain organisations is not always extended fully to the Crown Dependencies. But suggesting that the Crown Dependencies can be members of these bodies in their own right is misleading. This article is supposedly about the politics of the region but it is full, top-to-bottom, with ill-conceived and misleading notions like this. It needs to get real.

With respect to the word country, we need to be careful in use of the word in this article, as the word has many meanings, particularly in this region and it is not always clear which meaning should be taken in any given context. --RA (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I reworded to make it more clear re: membership/affiliation/etc. These are trivial little tweaks, not at all worthy of a big discussion, and certainly not grounds for TNT. re: country, please just drop that, I promise you it is not going to get you anywhere. As I said before, we state now probably 3 or 4 times in the article that there are only two sovereign states, since that seems really important for you guys. After that, we can freely use the word country - wikipedia uses country to refer to the crown dependencies all the time (for example, in xxx by country categories). I've already pointed out that the UK government and journalists and the CIA and all sorts of other people refer to them as countries. The status of the various countries in the isles w.r.t membership/affiliation/etc of different IGOs *is* relevant - for both political and economic reasons - see this article for example [25] "The Isle of Man is in an excellent position to offer a unique service to Chinese businesses, boasting both a zero corporate tax rate and access to the European VAT network, Chinese businesses can employ Isle of Man companies as the perfect hub for trading with Europe" - Isle of Man is playing its cards very carefully - if they wanted to become fuller members of the EU (like Scotland is via UK) they could push for it, but they are not doing so, on purpose, in order to retain certain advantages.--KarlB (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Karl, you're missing (or avoiding) the point. The Crown Dependencies cannot become members of the European Union (or of NATO or the UN or any other of these organizations). No more than Scotland can (whether "via the UK" or otherwise). Only the UK and Ireland can be members. That's what's misleading about the table. And that kind of misleading way of describing things is endemic to the entire article. "Tweaking" text here and there cannot resolve it. Whole sections need to be re-written from scratch. --RA (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right, that's why I renamed it; they cannot be members, but they can (and do) have a special relationship with these IGOs which is not the same as other parts of the UK; and they *could* for example push to become part of the EEA (for example, British Antarctic Territory is part of the EEA) under the auspices of the UK but they haven't done so; the Channel islands are part of the VAT area but Isle of Man is not; there are lots of these little wonky differences, we don't need to document all of them but they are important for business and political reasons. For example, you might be surprised to discover that Scotland has it's own representation in Brussels, and an office of their government devoted to bilateral relations with other european countries: [26]. Yes they're part of the UK, but they're also not sitting around waiting for instructions from London. In any case, I'm happy for your suggestions on how to reformat the table to capture this appropriately; I'm not an expert at wiki-formatting. --KarlB (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Renaming it doesn't really do much to resolve the issue though. Like everywhere else, for someone ignorant of the subject, it's easy to come away with a misleading impression. TBH that's a major issue I have with the use of tables throughout the article. All of the information in these tables is true. And if you know what the situation is to begin with, you know what to make of it (even if it looks askew). But for someone ignorant of the subject, the tables give a misleading impression of reality (like in this case, where someone might imagine the Crown Dependencies joining the EU in their own right).

To be honest, I think that trend towards mis-representation is intentional. While you don't anywhere state that the sub-national entities of the UK or the Crown dependencies are independent, you want the reader to think of them as such. That's not how things are. And in fact, like many POV pushers, I think your argument would be more strongly stated if it were stated neutrally and left to the reader to decide. --RA (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Political movements

Mentions Irish nationalism as a minor issue amongst other nationalisms, rather as the ideology of one side of the major centuries-long conflict in the islands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a good point. If you'd like to expand the section on Irish nationalism, but with an eye towards its relation with other nationalisms in the isles that would be useful here (noting that we already have articles on irish nationalism etc so don't need to replicate here, rather bring in what is useful/relevant in the context of this article). --KarlB (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Joint projects

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

reworded- removed large-scale and a number --KarlB (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Asserts that "A number of large-scale joint projects amongst the various countries in the Isles have been undertaken". I have tagged the word "number" as {{weasel-inline}}, because this vague terminology gives the impression that these nascent projects are of major significance. No evidence is offered to support this impression.

The phrase "large-scale" is also dubious. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Like throughout the article the issue here is again the use of weasel words to diminish the role of the UK central government (and other actors) and to plump up the supposed role of subnational entities in the UK. The impression, as nearly everywhere else in the article, is to give to them a greater sense of competency and powers for international relations than actually exist. So, for example, the supposed deal between the Crown Dependencies and Ireland is in fact on the back of a UK-Ireland deal to join their energy networks. Discussion of the ISLES project, for example, neglects to mention that this is in fact an EU programme.

The final sentence is an fine example of the misleading impression throughout the article, "In 2004, a natural gas interconnection agreement was signed, linking Ireland with Scotland via the Isle of Man." Yes, indeed there was an agreement to run a gas pipe line between those places. However, the agreement was between Ireland and the United Kingdom, and not between Scotland, Ireland and Isle of Man is as the impression given.

Finally, the supposed "Irish Sea Region" project doesn't exist. I'd be tempted to say its inclusions here is a WP:HOAX, but extreme wishful thinking on the part of Karl is a more likely reason. --RA (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You guys are so petty. I've changed the wording. Why do you want to waste 1000 characters of chitchat, instead of simply making a minor copy edit to remove the so-called weasel words?? And the irish sea region platform is a hoax? Really? [27], [28], [29]. Apparently you guys need to learn how to use Google. The ISLES program is *FUNDED* by the EU, but it is IMPLEMENTED by the various regional governments. If you want to mention it is funded by the EU, please do so. And if you think the Isle of Man and Scotland were not consulted and part of the discussion on the natural gas agreement, then you really don't understand how intergovernmental relations in the isles work. If you'd like to clarify that this natural gas agreement was signed by the states of UK and Ireland, please do so.--KarlB (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Karl, the issue is again that you are overstating things. I'm sure Scotland and the Isle of Man were consulted. I'm sure the local authorities were the the pipeline will make land fall were consulted too. I'm sure the gas utilities were consulted. And the marine authorities. But to present an agreement signed between Ireland and the United Kingdom as being between an example of a joing project between Scotland, Ireland and the Isle of Man (or as being Scottish-Irish or Manx-Irish relations) is extremely misleading, verging on simply lying.

Similarly with the "Irish Sea Region", which I am satisfied now exists in some for (whether informally or as a proposal, I cannot determine from the documents you link to). What it appears to be, or wants to be, is as a platform for co-operation between different stake holders in matters to do with the Irish Sea, from universities departments to city councils to marine authorities. That's a noble endeavour but to present it as an "intergovernmental body" alongside the British–Irish Intergovernmental Conference is OTT. --RA (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Why so many words for such a tiny little problem? I simply added some text to explain that the agreement itself was signed by Ireland and the UK. can you imagine if every article in wikipedia was subjected to this sort of pedantry? If there's something that needs to be reworded, just suggest a rewording for crying out loud. And I'm quite sure those involved with the irish sea region platform will be most pleased that you have accepted the existence of this project. You're right, it isn't at the same level of a purely intergovernmental body, but local, regional and national governments are and continue to be deeply involved in the discussions, with academic and NGO partners added as well. Again, the solution is not to throw rocks at it, but to research it more, clarify with footnotes, reword the column headings, etc. Again, allow me to point out that this article has never been extant for more than a few hours without some sort of delete tag at the top of it, so please try to give it a chance. --KarlB (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If every wikipkedia article was written with the same level of POV-pushing, they would all need this much scrutiny. Luckily, most of them are not. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to improve the article, do so. drive-by-tagging followed by accusations of POV pushing on the talk page isn't getting you anywhere. It just makes you look petty.--KarlB (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

BHG is hardly engaged in drive-by tagging. She is here on the talk page outlining issues with the article and explaining why she tagged what. Others are contributing here, including providing criticism, to improve the article. Imagining that as "throwing rocks" at the article is overly sensitive and does not assume good faith. --RA (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scholarship of identity and politics in the British Isles

Tagged as {{POV-section}}. Blatantly biased towards one strand of scholarship, as noted at Ireland–United Kingdom_relations#Academic_perspectives and at Talk:Ireland–United Kingdom relations#Academic_perspectives. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, what other strands of scholarship are there? Let's get those sources down and add them and their viewpoints into the section. Let's fix the article right up. Silverseren^C 07:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to add a bit about Irish nationalism, and nationalism in general. And unionism. I'd say those are the two most dominant areas of scholarship; of course, we already have large articles about both of those, which are already linked, but I'm happy to bring in some of the content here if it will call off the POV tags.--KarlB (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)