Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

British Isles template in Geographic Locale

If we're adding the British Isles template into the Geographic Locale (which it really should be) then we shouldn't Easter Egg the title as Britain and Ireland. Thing is, the template isn't about Britain and Ireland, it's about the British Isles and has lots of links and connections to articles outside of Britain and Ireland (Isle of Man, Orkneys etc.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The term Britain itself includes those smaller sections, anyway if you checked the template under Britain and Ireland in the Geoprahic Locale at the bottom of the article you will see those links and connections, you obviously missed that.Sheodred (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No I didn't miss those, hence my referring to the fact the template includes items outside Britain and Ireland. The fact they are in there is why the title is misleading, and it easter eggs to British Isles. Britain is usually used for Great Britain which is the large island, and is obviously the case in this usage as Ireland is an island as well. To mix types of terms otherwise would be incorrect. The fact that the term Britain and Ireland is used, and the template includes items outside the heading, is why it shouldn't be used. Canterbury Tail talk 12:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, pardon me I misinterpreted what you said. But what do you suggest?Should we remove it altogether?Sheodred (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest using the correct name. Simple fact is "Britain and Ireland" does not equal "British Isles" and to suggest otherwise is misleading. If the temp;ate only contained info on Britain and Ireland, then it wouldn't be an issue. Canterbury Tail talk 13:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree and the problem is the introduction on the British Isles is what made Sheodred think "Britain and Ireland" is an alternative name for the British Isles where as what its trying to say is, instead of talking about the British Isles, people just say Britain and Ireland (nothing to do with the British Isles). BritishWatcher (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, i do not think that British Isles should ever be pipelinked Britain and Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats your opinion BW, but I was asking for CanterburyTail's input.Sheodred (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds Shoedred like your suggesting if it ain't piped as "Britain and Ireland" then it should be deleted altogether. I'd suggest depiping. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is better the way it is, piped,I don't see the point in having it removed. Even if the template was under British Isles instead of Britain and Ireland the information listed would still be the exact same, this way we are avoiding any potential edit wars over something trivial. Sheodred (talk]) 12:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying Britain and Ireland is misleading. Isle of Man and Channel Islands are not part of either. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland is one of the accepted forms for British Isles, like it or lump it its fact, take your protests to the people over on the British Isles article if you don't like it,and see if you can persuade them to change their minds.Sheodred (talk]) 12:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not say Britain and Ireland is another term for the British Isles although i accept it misleading makes it sound like that. I will raise this matter on the talk page now though, because for some time i have thought it makes people think what you have just said. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL.Good luck with that buddy, you will need it there.109.78.20.121 (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not need luck, i have your sentence thanks. I have warned before that people read that sentence the way you just have but my concerns have been dismissed. no matter what that article says at present, what it means is "British Isles may be controversial, so some people use the term Britain and Ireland instead. It does not mean they say it as another name for the British Isles, they are just talking about avoiding the term BI by saying something completely different which describes a different area. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

His sentence?You mean my sentence.Sheodred (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You should really signin Shoedred your leaving your IP open for abuse. Also once again your still factless and sourceless. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny you mention me being factless and sourceless as it only seems to be yourself and BritishWatcher that seem to think so.Sheodred (talk])13:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail has just said above it is wrong to suggest Britain and Ireland = British Isles. The two terms are talking about completely different things. One is "a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland and over six thousand smaller islands." The other are two islands or two states. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (I'm !voting because I don't want another "discussion" on this term.) This is nothing new. It has been like that since the template's inception. (The template was re-added yesterday after having been recently removed for some reason I cannot see.)

"Britain and Ireland" is a common synonym to "British Isles" (though some dispute it in the same way that some dispute that the Republic of Ireland can be in the "British" Isles). There no need to change it. Adding "British Isles" to this page would be needlessly provocative to some. What would be the point of it? What is better, to include the template with a common synonym or to start a needless war between nationalists of all ilk simply to lord one person's favoured term another? --RA (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose . Same reasons as RA.Sheodred (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, as we'd rather not have it pipelinked as Britain, Ireland, Channel islands, Isle of Mann & all the other little islands. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Shoedred no-one else has said that you do have sourced facts, your failure to produce any says more than those that don't want to acknowledge it. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Drop the template altogether - if it's so controversial to mention it, or pipelink it to something else (even "archipelago" or "group of islands") then just drop it. --HighKing (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I wouldn't loose any sleep, over its deletion. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Its only controversial because a few editors on here make a fuss about the term British Isles and thanks to what took place during the crusades. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I blame the Pope too. --HighKing (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about "Britiain and Ireland" except where some editors make a fuss :-) I've posted another ref on the BI page that equates the two terms. --RA (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about Britain and Ireland, i simply do not believe Britain and Ireland = a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland and over six thousand smaller islands. And no sources have yet made me think otherwise. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a very big issue that goes way beyond the question of the introduction of the article or a template pipelink. We need more input about if others agree with this view of Britain and Ireland or not, i will create another new section on the British Isles page so we can leave aside the introduction issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to just refer to them as the "Atlantic Archipelago" and create a link from there to the "British Isles" article? Tebibyte (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The country belongs to the Atlantic Archipelago in northwestern Europe, which consists of the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and over six thousand smaller islands.

So you propose an equally controversial minority term that in essence can refer to any archipelago in the Atlantic? Whats the templates proper name? Use that and end the debate as there is no need to pipe it. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there anybody on all those islands, who could create & agree to an undisputable equivelent alternative term for British Isles? so we can use it? When ya think about, why do these islands have to be grouped at all, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Because they are an archepelago of related islands. On your arguement should we consider the Caribbean to be an obsolete name for that group of islands and associated coastlands? Mabuska ^(talk) 20:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Grrr, that's the thing about this topic, both sides of the dispute are equally non-original research. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well we can see evidence that "Britain and Ireland" is emerging as an alternative to "British Isles" while "Great Britain and Ireland" refers to the two main islands without Isle of Man etc. Personally I have always thought that this would allow compromise, using B&I on articles where BI is likely to be controversial. There is little evidence for Atlantic Archipelago--Snowded ^TALK 05:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The AA thing just isn't at all a common name - it belongs to some academic books and journals. Not nearly notable enough for us to use it in high-up points in articles here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Geography again

"The country belongs to a group of islands in northwest Europe which include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland..." Does it? I would say the Republic "belongs" on the island of Ireland. If the reader wants to know where the island "belongs" he or she need only click the link. The remainder of the Geography section in no way depends on the location of the island, making that first sentence pointless as well as meaningless. It should simply be deleted. Scolaire (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I also think editors should stop "taking things to BISE" as though BISE had authority to legislate for articles. It doesn't. It's a talk shop. Decisions on articles should have consensus on the article talk page. I've said this before in relation to Ireland but it still doesn't seem to have sunk in. Scolaire (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right but I think the issue is "to BI or not to BI".

If not delete, how about something like the following:

The Republic of Ireland covers about five-sixths of the island of Ireland (70,280 km² (27,135 sq mi)), one of a group of islands off northwest Europe. The remainder constitutes Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom.

And could not agree more on the BSIE comment.

--RA (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Everybody wishes BISE wasn't necessary, without exception. Also, be aware of this posting although I'm pretty sure BISE has little weight over consensus on individual articles. One upside though - it keeps the messy stuff tucked out of the way! --HighKing (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think TFOWR has a growing emotional investment in BISE. As far as I'm concerned, they are the "limited group of editors, at one place and time" talked about in WP:CONLIMITED.

BTW I am not objecting to the existence of BISE, just the presumption of its members that they can make decisions for others. It is free to discuss the British Isles articles, i.e. articles with "British Isles" in the title, as much as it wants, but it has no more business deciding for Ireland than for Jamaica. Scolaire (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

How about something like this:

The Republic of Ireland covers about five-sixths of the island of Ireland (70,280 km² (27,135 sq mi)), one of the British Isles off northwest Europe. The remainder constitutes Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom. LevenBoy (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If not delete, then RA's suggestion is better, but I still say delete. The Geography section of Portugal does not say that it is part of a group of lands and peninsulae known as the Mediterranean Countries, or even, for that matter, that it is on the Iberian peninsula. The Geography section of Illinois does not say that it is on the North American Continent. The information is simply not needed. Scolaire (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be an option to say "...to the west of the island of Great Britain, off northwest Europe." ... ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There are unlimited options, Ghmyrtle, but they are all equally meaningless. The Republic of Ireland is not floating around among any group of islands, it is on a single island. However phrased, the opening sentence is silly. Scolaire (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the opening sentence is poor; that's why I suggested an alternative. For clarity, my alternative suggestion is: "The Republic of Ireland covers about five-sixths of the island of Ireland (70,280 km² (27,135 sq mi)), which is located to the west of the island of Great Britain, off northwest Europe." Nothing about "floating" in a "group of islands" at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I oppose attempts to censor the fact the Republic of Ireland is in the British Isles. Whilst it would be better if we did not have to pipelink BI, that is better than not recognising the fact Ireland is part of a group of islands in North west europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Funny how those you could say are oppossed to the terminology BI don't like BISE. If we didn't have it HighKing would be willy-nilly removing the term BI and LevenBoy willy-nilly adding it. Recently the BISE concluded (or rather TWOFR) to keep the "group of islands" pipe-link of British Isles rather than state British Isles outright. An amendment to the first article quote above i'd suggest would be: "The country belongs to a group of islands off northwest Europe..." - Great Britain really doesn't need mentioned exactly, however the pipe-link will provide the reader the way to find out more about the group of islands being referred to.

RA's suggestion is actually quite good, and the BISE (TFOWR) approved pipe-link gives the user the ability to find out more about the group of islands:

The Republic of Ireland covers about five-sixths of the island of Ireland (70,280 km² (27,135 sq mi)), one of a group of islands off northwest Europe. The remainder constitutes Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom.

Mabuska ^(talk) 10:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of you POV merchants really make me laugh! You'll do anything to avoid "British Isles" appearing in this article, even if it means deleting useful content - such as the despicable suggestion proffered above. You are in denial. Let me give it to you straight; THE ISLAND OF IRELAND IS PART OF THE BRITISH ISLES AND THAT'S A BASIC GEOGRAPHIC FACT. This article is not written to pander to a disgusting minority Irish nationalist view that says otherwise, it's written for a world audience, an audience who are entitled to know that Ireland is part of the British Isles, and if some of you don't like it then tough. LevenBoy (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know how to break it to you, LevenBoy: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT THE ISLAND OF IRELAND. Scolaire (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Last time i checked the Republic of Ireland was on the island of Ireland, making the islands location relevant to the country. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought RoI was on the Island of Ireland, my fault. LevenBoy (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

None of you has made any attempt to answer the fundamental question: why does it have to be in the Republic of Ireland article? What does it have to do with the geography of the Republic? The geography of the Republic has more in common with the geography of Brittany, in continental Europe, than with, say, Highland Scotland or Jersey. And where do we stop? If we have to have it for the Republic do we have to have it for Leinster? For County Carlow? For Carlow town? For Carlow Institute of Technology? What about Beckii Cruel? She's not from Great Britain; surely we have to say that she belongs to the British Isles? Instead of endlessly reformulating the sentence to suit one POV or the other can any of you give me a proper encyclopaedic reason why it must be there? Scolaire (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you oppose saying the Republic of Ireland is in Europe, in that geography section? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)It surely needs to be said that the ROI is located on the island of Ireland. There is then the question of what further needs to be said, in this article, about where the island is located. You could take the view that nothing further needs to be said, or simply that the island is "in the North Atlantic". Or, you may wish to give more information. In that case, is it acceptable to say that the island is "off the coast of Europe", or should it recognise, in some way, that another, larger, island is located between Ireland and the continent of Europe. If the latter, then how is that best summarised? I personally don't have a strong view - I'm just trying to clarify the debate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the rest of the section. Where the island of Ireland is has no bearing on the remainder of the text. It doesn't need to be said - not BI, not Europe, not Eurasia, not Planet Earth. Take out the first sentence, the section doesn't lose anything; it only gains. Scolaire (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, i think its important we go into detail about the Republic of Irelands geographial location. We should not just hope everyone reads the island of Ireland article instead. I see no reason for the removal of the sentence, except to avoid even having a link to the British Isles. Id not object to a slight rewording to change "belongs to" to another term, but at the very least the link to BI needs to remain and we should not change the current wording until there is full agreement. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You think its important we go into detail about the Republic of Irelands geographial location why? I asked for a proper encyclopaedic reason. I'm still waiting. Scolaire (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Heaven forbid we go into detail about the Republic of Irelands geographical location in a section on the Republic of Ireland article marked Geography. Also i note at present we are still hiding the fact the island is part of the British Isles on Ireland, so they can not get their facts from that article either. If you want we can look at other country articles and check if they state the geographical location they are in. I respect that fact you seem to be suggesting we do not even need to mention Europe either, i think that will be very out of line with other articles. But we can do a little research. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, "Heaven forbid" and "hiding the fact...on Ireland" don't rate as proper encyclopaedic reasons with me. If you think something is important, surely you can say in a straightforward and positive way why it is important? That's all I'm asking. As for research, I dit a small bit this morning but you seem to have missed it so I'll repeat it here: The Geography section of Portugal does not say that it is part of a group of lands and peninsulae known as the Mediterranean Countries, or even, for that matter, that it is on the Iberian peninsula. The Geography section of Illinois does not say that it is on the North American Continent. These were the first two places I thought of; I've no reason to believe the majority of articles are different. Scolaire (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly and for comparison, Britannica world describes it's (RoI) geo-location as: "Country, western Europe, occupying the greater part of the island of Ireland west of Great Britain". [1] On the BISE relevance point, I think those who think it's the work of narrow obsessionals supervised by an equally obsessive admin could try taking that to ANI or RFC and judge for themselves the reactions of TFOWR's fellow admins. TFOWR has effectively been delegated to it and the BISE game is the only game in town short of wiki-wide blocks. Anyone feeling otherwise can always take it up on ANI and see what happens. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I do think it's the work of narrow obsessionals supervised by an admin who was bound to start seeing things through that prism eventually, but I see no reason to take it up on ANI because they have every right to obsess and it doesn't harm me at all. What they cannot do - and they need to recognise this - is make decisions on articles outside the narrow BI scope and say "BISE has decreed." Scolaire (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

So a compromise? Simply state that RoI occupies 5/6 of Ireland and leave it at that (I note there is no reference to BI in the UK geography article). Then, add the fact that Ireland is the second largest island in the British Isles in the lead of the Ireland article. You can't say fairer than that. LevenBoy (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise i would be prepared to support stating BI clearly in the introduction of the Ireland article, and leaving it off this one. Although i feel there is justification for both mentioning it in the intro of Ireland and mentioning it in the geography section of this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to a compromise, but (1) why has nobody yet bothered to answer my question? and (2) can editors of one article make an agreement relating to another one? Scolaire (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention (3) if the sentence can be dropped just like that, as part of a compromise, what conceivable justification can there be for saying it is necessary? Scolaire (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

1) It is important in the geography section of an article on a country to describe its geographical location. The Republic of Ireland is on the island of Ireland, its in the British Isles and it is in Europe, these 3 things seem rather notable. We can go through country articles and compare if they mention their geographical locations, but i am sure most do. To remove such information certainly would not be a benefit to the reader. 2) No we can not decide one thing here and impose it on another article, however many editors on here are also involved over on that page, and we can make such a proposed compromise there and see how people feel. 3) I think there is absolute justification for both mentioning BI on both articles, and on the Ireland articles introduction. However as wikipedia depends on consensus, i have to accept sometimes attempts at a compromise are required. But simply not mentioning BI on this article and no other change is not a compromise, it is simply censorship. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing to delete a sentence in return for something else is compromise, but agreeing to delete it without a quid pro quo is censorship? I guess I'll have to check my dictionary again! Scolaire (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, did you miss my post on Portugal and Illinois again? I'll post it a third time if you want, but I'd really like you to read it and give me your view. Scolaire (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Compromise is not always the right thing. We should not have to compromise on this matter at all, both articles should clearly mention they are part of the British Isles. But atleast if the Ireland article clearly mentions the island is part of the British Isles the information is available for those reading the island article. At present it is not which makes inclusion on this page more important. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(usual ec with BW) I agree with Scolaire's Portugal/Illinois comparisons. As for "compromises", if they are compromises between POVs, they are nonsense - the only compromises we should be interested in are ones about which portions of sourcing to elevate above others, etc. I'm sure there are heaps of sources that place the RoI in the BI and heaps that don't. So we have a decision to make. The BISE page is useful for discussing that, as is this one. The decision should be about what is notable, NPOV, sourced and typical for WP. I think on the first one, it is actually pretty notable. On the sourcing point, I think there are sources both ways. On NPOV, it seems NPOV either way. On typicality, at the moment, the other main country articles within the BI do not mention in the main infobox or lede contexts that they are parts of the BI. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

An article on a state does not need to include information about it being in North America, although i would think Hawaii makes note of its location. The location of a country in relation to its place in the world is slightly more important. As for Portugal, It mentions , its a country located in southwestern Europe on the Iberian Peninsula. in the first paragraph of the introduction. So should we include its in the British Isles in the introduction here too so we can delete all mentions of ROIs location in the geography section? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkey, Australia and Japan mention their geographical locations in the geography sections. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"An article on a state does not need to include information about it being in North America" - you're very good at stating rules, but less good at saying where these rules come from or what they are based on. I personally think we should not censor the fact that Illinois is in North America just because a commie-liberal clique want to hide the fact. Scolaire (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And didn't we agree that the ROI is a state? Scolaire (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland is a sovereign state, not a state within a sovereign state. The geographical location of Hawaii and Alaska is notable and should be mentioned. I do not see the need for the other states all in North America to state they are in North America, although they should say where abouts (New England/Southern States etc). BritishWatcher (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Still with the "shoulds" and the "I do not sees"! What is the rationale? See, I didn't ask you for your point of view - I already know that. I'm asking, where is the logic? Scolaire (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we should look at island nations that share their island, which is in turn part of a group of related islands to make a fair comparison. See for example:

Haiti (pronounced /ˈheɪti/ ; French Haïti, pronounced [a.iti]; Haitian Creole Ayiti, Haitian Creole pronunciation: [ajiti]), officially the Republic of Haiti ([République d'Haïti] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) Ayiti}}) is a Caribbean country. Along with the Dominican Republic, it occupies the island of Hispaniola, in the Greater Antillean archipelago.

and by contrast

Borneo (Malay: Borneo, Indonesian: Kalimantan) is the third largest island in the world, located north of Australia, at the geographic centre of Maritime Southeast Asia. Politically, the island is divided among three countries: Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia. Approximately 73% of the island is Indonesian territory. The Malaysian states of Sarawak and Sabah (East Malaysia), in the north, occupy about 26% of the island. The sovereign state of Brunei, located on the north coast, comprises about 1% of Borneo's land mass.

So in more precise contexts, typicality rules appear to vary. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, James: we're talking about the Geography section here, not the opening sentence. Scolaire (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

But if we remove information from the geography section, like not allowing it to state the island is in Europe/ part of the British Isles, then it would have to be covered in the lead. The country articles that do not mention their location and instead focus on things like the climate and internal area seem to still state their location in the lead. Portugal being the example you mentioned, which states its in the Iberian peninsula in its introduction, but not the geography section. I think mentioning British Isles in the Geography section of ROI/UK is reasonable and clearly notable, and the articles Great Britain and Ireland should note they are part of the British Isles in their introductions and infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Let's agree a short list of states that are genuine comparators, not nation states or non-nation states embedded within other states, or on continents, as in the case of Illinois and Portugal, but islands with two or more nations that are part of island groups. I raised Haiti and Borneo. Also it could be Dominican Republic and some smaller ones. Any more? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There probably aren't any, and this is just time wasting and stonewalling and pointless "debate" for want of a better word. Do you, or do you not, accept the compromise I've suggested? Regarding editing another article (Ireland), we would need to make a statement on the Talk page explaining what was proposed and see what response was obtained (this statement aimed at no one in particular). LevenBoy (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can not see the compromise being suggested getting accepted sadly even though a mention in the introduction of the Ireland article is totally justified, it will probably be blocked by editors there. If they cant even accept it being in the infobox, opposition to the lead is going to be just as bad. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you reckon it's worth a try though? LevenBoy (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to mention British Isles here or at United Kingdom, whatsoever. Why? The republic doesn't cover any part of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, neither is an 'isle'. --Red King (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Jamesinderbyshire - there are more examples from islands that don't share a land border, for example Montserrat lists the group of islands it belongs too (Leeward Islands) and then lists the next bigger group of islands that it belongs too (Lesser Antilles), and all that in the first sentence of the article. Netherlands Antilles also makes mention of geograhpical group, and its subdivision Bonaire in its lede has several different island groups stated. Guadeloupe, and several other Carribean islands have likewise ledes. Not all do but a good few do. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

...and this article says that Ireland is a state "in northwest Europe" and is located on "the island of Ireland". No more needs to be said. No reader is going to go, "Huh? Were's that?". To which we would answer, "In the British Isles." And they would reply, "Ah! The British Isles! Why didn't you just say so to begin with? Who ever heard of this 'Europe' place? Or this 'island of Ireland'?"

I can never help but feel that if the group was called something else that the desire to located the state and island of Ireland in it would be much less compelling for some. I also cannot help but notice that the editors of the article on the United Kingdom can get by without referring to it. Saying merely that the UK spans "an archipelago" that includes "Great Britain and the northeastern part of the island of Ireland". --RA (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to go back in the history of United Kingdom and see if it used to be there and if so what the stated reason for it's removal was. All too likely it was someone's POV at work if so. On the general point though, all of the articles relating to major chunks of the BI should mention they are part of the BI in the lede, just like for example Anguilla mentions it's part of the Leewards in it's lede. It's really just editor POV that's stopping this, not geographical reality or encyclopedic completeness. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? the lede of articles such as this needs to help the reader locate the country/ North West Europe is not only good enough for that purpose, it is more useful and more commonly understood. --Snowded ^TALK 04:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@James - from a quick look through the archives at Talk:United Kingdom, I can't kind an any meaningful discussion of the term one way or another. It would appear (to me) that it is only on Ireland-related articles that editors are motivated to include it.

As you say, it's likely somebody's POV at work. --RA (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it should be added to the UK article too and it has been proposed, but it does not get the opposition like on Ireland articles. It should be remembered the GB article mentions the BI, but the Ireland article does not at present. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this discussion has moved on to the lead of the article, and that there is consensus that the first sentence in the Geography section is unnecessary as well as messy. I'm deleting it accordingly. Scolaire (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You've jumped the gun. This is not yet agreed so I've reverted. I did suggest a compromise whereby the sentence is removed and the lead of Ireland is adjusted to include British Isles, but your edit just fulfills one part of that with no mention of the other; we should have both elements agreed before either is changed. LevenBoy (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is wrong to link what is going on here with another article. The sentence should be removed from the lede and if people want to change something at Ireland then discuss it at that talk page. Bjmullan (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not in the introduction, it is in the geography section. The sentence should not be removed from this article, there is certainly no clear consensus for that to happen at this stage. If we can not link it with what is decided at Ireland then without doubt the information must remain in this article, otherwise it is censorship. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems like common practice amongst some island articles to make mention of the island group they belong to, on others its not. It can be easily argued as censorship the refusal to add the term for no less a reason (whether you state it or not) because it states "British" and in regards to Ireland thats a huge taboo. Though there is no exact case as to why the term BI needs to be used unless when you say "north-west Europe" you might infer to the ignorant reader that it might be beside Iceland. Stating the island group does help a reader locate places - however we do have a map in the infobox that clearly shows where the Republic of Ireland is located...

However RA's suggestion is still the best in my opinion:

The Republic of Ireland covers about five-sixths of the island of Ireland (70,280 km2/27,135 sq mi), one of a group of islands off northwest Europe. The remainder constitutes Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom.

Mabuska ^(talk) 11:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Pipelinking "group of islands" to "British Isles" strongly implies that there's something wrong with the term and we must have a euphemism to replace it. This is not the case. LevenBoy (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the piping in this case is better than complete removal, i dont have a problem with changing the wording to avoid saying "Belongs to a group of Islands". BritishWatcher (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The piping was already discussed at BISE and approved. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, TFOWR's ruling on the matter, so we just have his opinion, but worse, it seems that some editors ageed with the pipelinking provided the BI template was altered, but I see no such alteration. LevenBoy (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The republic doesn't cover any part of Great Britain. Therefore, there's no need to mention British Isles (pipelinked or not). GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Two days later and no further discussion. There still has been no attempt to provide a proper encyclopaedic reason for the retention of this sentence in the Geography section of the article. If it can be removed as part of a "compromise", then it cannot be necessary to the article. "We must have mention of the BI in one of the Ireland articles" is no reason at all to have it. I am removing it again. Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In agreement. The BI belongs at Ireland, not this article. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Scolaire.Malke2010 19:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. Bjmullan (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Tebibyte (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay if the term BI belongs in the Ireland article, then how come it isn't in the article at all? Mabuska ^(talk) 12:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many theories for this. 1) I didn't insert it there, 2) No consensus was reached to insert it there (to my knowledge). 3) There's possible political motives for preventing its insertion, but that's merely speculation & can't be proven. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Mabuska, please confine discussion to this article. Scolaire (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire i have kept this discussion to this article. I'm just raising a point in response to GoodDays assertion. Just to raise another point, what encyclopedic reason is there for the removal of this information? Especially when its not on the otehr article? Censorship? I don't like? Both? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the censorship of information has been implemented. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this should be reverted. maybe we give Scolaire a few hours to self revert first? LevenBoy (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Id leave it. The censorship on this article, along with on Ireland and Geography of Ireland highlight there is a serious problem. All 3 need addressing BritishWatcher (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest then? We shouldn't leave this - it's symptomatic of a much wider problem. LevenBoy (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Leave it for the time being, BISE needs to act on these 3 articles to try and get consensus there which can help encourage a change here. But for the time being yes, it is a perfect symbol of censorship and the wider problems faced on wikipedia thanks to the crusades. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher,Mabuska etc (you know who you are) people are getting tired of your protests of not including terms that are highly controversial and unneccessary to articles such as this, you are in no position to be accusing people of impeding the progress of articles, you seem to be fond of throwing words like "censorship" "anti-British" "Irish nationalists" etc (in fact one can say the contrary when referring to some of you).

Some of you are obvious examples of one who goes past British Isles related issus (and other British issues) into other non-British national issues, in particular Irish related issues to push your own brand of POV.You vehemently oppose any attempts by people who hold a genuine interest of the article at heart (not smoke screened political beliefs and agendas) when contributing to the article and cleaning it up. Sheodred (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire i'm only asking for an encyclopedic reason for its removal as your demanding BW to provide an encylopedic reason for its inclusion. Quid pro quo especially on wikipedia in the interests of neutrality and equality on the issue.

Shoedred i raised the term "censorship" as that is what it is. You can rant and rave and add nothing to this discussion if you wish. I don't give two hoots if BW and LevenBoy's wish for BI's inclusion is motiviated by politics or not. The term is justified in a geographic sense - you are confusing the issue of a geographical term with politics. The issue here is that it is censorship the removal of the term when it is justified for use in a geographical sense. The pipe-link was okay as it linked to the BI article, but the removal of the entire thing no doubt because it still contained BI even if pipe-linked offends those who go out of their way to be offended to "smoke screen" their political beliefs and agendas.

I don't give two hoots about personal politics on Wikipedia Shoedred, unlike most of the editors here i keep my personal politics out of Wikipedia and don't try to use this site to advance my own politics. I doubt you will find many political;y motiviated edits in my edit history, in fact check out Rathfriland's edit history and see my removal (more than once) of a load of loyalist content as it was unsourced and dubious as well as posting a request for help in preventing its unsourced addition. I have a "genuine interest" in this article to ensure its neutrality and to prevent it becoming a one-sided piece adhering only to a republican viewpoint. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen your history and I do acknowledge you have but the points I made above still stand in relation to the few others,also on a side note,in case some people did not know, being a republican does not equate to being a nationalist or vice-versa, I am getting sick and tired of people viewing them as the same in Ireland.Sheodred (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Censorship (a.k.a. arbitrary section break)

Mabuska's spot on. I want to build on what he/she said and chip in with some thoughts on censorship.

Wikipedia is not censored: We show pictures of penis. We say the name of Yahweh. We say shit, fuck and cunt. That is what is meant when we say that Wikipedia is not censored. Saying that Wikipedia is not censored is not a license to insist on things that wind people up, just because "it's true".

A month or so ago, some editors (some contributing here) got exercised because "Irish" was listed - supported by reliable sources - as a demonym for someone from Northern Ireland. Many KBs later, someone removed the demonym section altogether rather than have "Irish" there.

Was that censorship? No. Nationality and identity in Northern Ireland is a complex question. Despite being the one who added "Irish" (and the supporting references) to the infobox, I can see value (and neutrality) in removing all of the demonyms. They only wind people up and they don't appropriately tell what is a complex story, which is dealt with in detail further down the article.

It is similar with this article (and other ones) where use of "British Isles" is controversial in relation to the subject matter. The detail can be given in some other way, as it was here ("...a group of islands..."), or just neglected altogether (if it isn't that important). Like removing the demonyms for Northern Ireland, that is not censorship. It shows a greater neutrality (and sensitivity) towards a complex topic rather than a blunt statement of "fact". --RA (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Its a matter of what is the most appropriate geographical locator, in this case I think North Western Europe or similar is far more useful and does not involve the complex history of terms like British Isles. I'm also not 100% sure its necessary to even have a locator, but if so lets be less parochial and stop making accusations of censorship. --Snowded ^TALK 22:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Us going out of our way to avoid mentioning a term simply because some editors find it controversial is censorship in my opinion. I accept that there is less of a case for including BI on this article as its about the country compared to the article on the island. That is why i was prepared to accept the pipelink of BI here on this article, but even that has been undone now and of course BI is not mentioned anywhere on the Ireland article still. Its censorship. And i remember coming across an edit on either this page or the island page, where BI was removed with the edit summary of "removing POV" or something along those lines. Censorship is clear and its tied in with the crusades. It is deemed controversial to state a geographical fact on the island article, despite endless sources continuing to use the term.. it is unacceptable to even be mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You continue to go on about your highly personal view of the motivations etc of other editors and as a result fail to address the point. Please read my comment again and respond to it, rather than to your straw man. --Snowded ^TALK 22:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the sentence in question said in the geography section.. "The country belongs to a group of islands in northwest Europe which include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and over six thousand smaller islands". There is no reason why that had to be removed, and there is no reason why that could not have said "The Country is part of the British Isles in northwest Europe which includes...." But apparently because some editors dislike the term, we are not allowed to mention it here at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The country doesn't "belong" to any group of islands. Far better to state that "The country is located..." - as in, "The country is located in Northwest Europe" --HighKing (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i am not fussed about the wording used, the problem is people here have deleted British Isles and any mention of the fact it is part of a group of islands in the geography section. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't need British Isles mentioned on this article or United Kingdom article. As for the islands? well ya know my views on those. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be if we could all accept that British Isles does not need mentioning on the articles of the political entities in the islands, i.e. Republic of Ireland or United Kingdom or subdivisions such as County Kerry or England - however should mentioned (pipe-linked as "group of islands" for the Ireland article if to save a lot of arguing) in the seperate island articles such as Ireland, Great Britain, Shetlands etc.

That way the geographical name is kept to geographical articles and out of political entity articles. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for Compromise

This keeps going round and round. The fact is, every intermediate school child knows ROI is located on an island that is part of an archipelago named the British Isles. But more importantly, this is an encyclopedia. I've given this a lot of thought and obviously, for political reasons, it is an unfortunate fact that the ROI is on the island that is part of BI, but it is a fact that the geography will always be BI. As to providing a link to BI, maybe provide the link to this page [2].

Here is my suggestion for compromise:

• Mention the BI w/the link to the article above but add in the disclaimer:

"Some people object to the inclusion of the ROI within the British Isles because it seems to suggest that ROI is part of the U.K. which it is not. It is a separate nation-state."

I don't think censorship is the issue here as much as there is a desire to make it clear that ROI is not part of the nation-state of the U.K. and the ROI editors are feeling put upon. But this is an encyclopedia and the physical facts of geography should not be omitted in the interests of political ones.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think its OK to mention it on the island articles under geography, but for the political ones (UK and Ireland) North West Europe is better. --Snowded ^TALK 04:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Variants of the previous text seemed quite amicable. I can't understand the desire behind removing it and stirring this hornets nest (although the precise text needed fixing):

"...one of a group of islands off northwest Europe..."

i.e. (mention the "fact of geography" but omit the name)

Mentioning the "controversy" seems over bearing and distracting from the topic, but would be necessary if the name used by some is included IMHO.

--RA (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy with that --Snowded ^TALK 08:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support this compromise. I still think there is total justification for saying British Isles rather than just piping it to hide it but if saying it in that way is acceptable it will resolve this matter. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose all "compromise" on a dispute that is external to this article, for reasons detailed at length below. Scolaire (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, if you're gonna mentioned 'British Isles' on this article (and United Kingdom article)? then skip the pipe-linking & be direct about it. Otherwise, exclude 'British Isles'. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Scolaire

I am assuming that this was raised on BISE again, because for two days there was practically no comment on my edit, then suddenly all the usual suspects rushed into print within a few hours. Because I didn't log on yesterday I now have to answer a whole days discussion in one post. This is a statement of my personal position:

• POV: While I am not fond of the term "British Isles" I am not repelled by it either. Any edits I make on any article on my watchlist are related to the quality of the article itself, not to a political or any other kind of POV. I made clear in my original post my objections to the sentence. Since then there has been 38 kilobytes / 6,500 words of discussion and nobody has yet addressed those objections, preferring to accuse me of POV-pushing and censorship. The one single argument that is being advanced against my edit is, "I think it's important, therefore there must be a link to the British Isles". This is - necessarily and by definition - POV-pushing.
• Censorship: The sentence I removed had been in the article for a whole two weeks when I first posted. The link - which is what this hoo-ha is really about - had been in the article for six days, and resulted from the choreographed outrage over the editor editing his own edit. What I did, in other words, was to restore the status quo ante, with the agreement of the original editor. Accusations of censorship will not wash.
• Encyclopaedic reason: Mabuska says, "Scolaire i'm only asking for an encyclopedic reason for its removal as your demanding BW to provide an encylopedic reason for its inclusion." With all due respect, this is a lazy question. I have given my reasons time and again. But as I am not lazy, I will give them again: 1. the sentence as is stood ("The country belongs to...") was meaningless; 2. the remainder of the Geography section in no way depends on the location of the island; 3. Stating the location the entity in the Geography section is not standard practice per Portugal and Illinois; 4. Simply to say that it must be stated for the Republic implies that it must also be stated for Leinster, for County Carlow, for Carlow Town, for Carlow Institute of Technology etc., all of which are on the island of Ireland; 5. Likewise, if it must say British Isles and it must say Europe then it must also say Eurasian landmass, Earth, Solar system, Milky Way etc.; 6. the most vocal defenders of the sentence agree that it could be taken out as part of a "compromise", thus demonstrating that it is not necessary for the integrity of that section in this article. I do not need anybody to counter any of the above arguments again, only to provide me with a purely encyclopaedic and compelling reason for the addition of that sentence.
• Compromise: I am totally opposed to any "compromise" between editors who are carrying on a dispute outside this article for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of this article. Realistically, if I made a controversial edit to the Economy, Transport, Education, Healthcare or Culture section of this article, the people making all the noise here would neither notice nor care. None of them have shown the least concern for the quality of this article, but only in whether their term is shoe-horned into the article or not. This comment says it all: "there's 46 more instances of articles linked to BI now than there was this time last month, so while BISE bogs down the BI deletion POV pushers, normal editing goes on apace. How good is that?" Where a dispute exists between bona fide editors on how to improve an article, compromise may be in order; where a dispute is imported into an article by uninvolved editors who want to spread their own little war as wide as possible, "compromise" is plain wrong.

Thank you for your attention. Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine speech, the bottom line is we should provide the reader with notable information. The geography section of this article talks about the island of Ireland, why should the fact the island is part of a group of islands known as the British Isles be hidden? Especially when it is not mentioned on Ireland or Geography of Ireland articles due to clear censorship. The compromise seemed fair, it dealt with the wording which i agree "belongs to" may have concerned some people, it continues to avoid mentioning BI, simply pipelinking it. Yet the reader gets the information it is part of a group of islands. There was no need to remove the text in the first place, it should have been reworded. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You link to your original post. Lets paste it here so we can deal with each part..

"The country belongs to a group of islands in northwest Europe which include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland..." Does it? I would say the Republic "belongs" on the island of[[Ireland]]. If the reader wants to know where the island "belongs" he or she need only click the link. The remainder of the Geography section in no way depends on the location of the island, making that first sentence pointless as well as meaningless. It should simply be deleted."

Republic belongs on the island of Ireland - Many of us agree the wording could have been better, such as the wording shown above in the new compromise.

If the reader wants to know where the island "belongs" he or she need only click the link. - The trouble is due to censorship on the island of Ireland article, at present it completely fails to make this matter clear. Whilst we can not decide something for another article, it does mean your suggestion of making people click the link is invalid, because the link tells them no information about this matter.

The remainder of the Geography section in no way depends on the location of the island, making that first sentence pointless as well as meaningless - Also why should people need to click the link, a single sentence in the geography section does not give this matter undue weight, it provides notable information for the reader about the Republic of Irelands location on an island that is part of a group of islands in north west europe. As we debated before, plenty of geography sections of countries talk about their geographic location, and some mention if they are part of a group of island. There is a lot of geographical data on country articles, some geography sections do not mention this sort of thing at all, but they do mention it in the introduction.

There is no reason not to provide readers with information, it is one line in the geography section. It is not like we are asking this to be put in the introduction here. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please show me where the fact the island is part of a group of islands known as the British Isles is hidden. The Boyne passes near the ancient city of Trim; a small portion of the Burren has been designated as Burren National Park; Ring is a Gaeltacht region on a peninsula in the western half of County Waterford; are these facts also hidden? No, they are simply not stated. And all of them are more relevant to the Geography of the Republic than the fact that the island is part of a group of islands. There was no need to add the text in the first place, it should have been - and was - removed.

And was it really possible for you do digest my entire statement and type a reply in just four minutes? The word "knee-jerk" springs to mind. Scolaire (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is hidden because it has been removed from this article despite being totally justified. Your example is not more notable for the geography of the Republic of Ireland. The fact it is located on an Island which is part of a group of islands in north west europe is far far more notable and relevant to this article. It does not take me long to read through your statement and reply to the important bits. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact is far far more notable and relevant to this article why? The Boyne, the Burren and Ring are objectively notable and relevant to the geography of the Republic. In what does the greater notability and relevance of your fact consist? You cannot tell me. You simply repeat the same unsubstantiated claim like a stuck record. If you can't be bothered to read what I say I'm not going to bother saying anything more. Goodbye. Scolaire (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire wrote: "The Boyne passes near the ancient city of Trim; a small portion of the Burren has been designated as Burren National Park; Ring is a Gaeltacht region on a peninsula in the western half of County Waterford; are these facts also hidden? No, they are simply not stated."

— Bang on. I'm reminded of a qote from Pi, where the protagonist becomes obsessed with the number 216:

“ Hold on. You have to slow down. You're losing it. You have to take a breath. Listen to yourself. You're connecting a computer bug I had with a computer bug you might have had and some religious hogwash. You want to find the number 216 in the world, you will be able to find it everywhere. 216 steps from a mere street corner to your front door. 216 seconds you spend riding on the elevator. When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere. ”

For those concerned with use of the use or non-use of the term British Isles, the question of its use has become the number 216. It can be seen everywhere. In reality, the decision not to use of the term is not solely a question of "censorship". It can simply mean that there is no occasion to use it or that another choice of words are better. (And similarly for occasions to use it.) --RA (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As you appear concerned about my limited response Scolaire i will add to it for each section.

POV/Censorship - I am glad you admit you have a dislike for the term, this sort of dislike is always important to admit and be open about. I am glad all edits you make are to improve articles, i happen to think that is what those of us who are requesting this information be added are doing. We believe that it is notable information and that Irelands position on the island of Ireland which is part of a group of islands known as the British Isles in North West Europe is a notable fact for this article. I have replied to your original post which you mentioned above in detail. You claim others have accused you of censorship and POV pushing, then go on to say by definition what those of us supporting inclusion are doing is POV pushing. Just for the record, i have not accused you of POV pushing and when i talk of censorship it is not about the actions of a single editor, it is about the collective outcome. It also does not simply apply to the fact this sentence was removed after two weeks, i believe that censorship has been going on for years on wikipedia over this matter, this of course started during the crusades. I remember seeing a diff, i cant remember if it was for this article or the island one, but BI was removed with an edit summary claiming it was POV. It is not POV to say the Republic of Ireland and Ireland are within the British Isles... i hope we can all agree on that. AS mentioned earlier the censorship does not just apply to this article, the fact that there is now no mention of British Isles on Ireland , Republic of Ireland and Geography of Ireland, and the BI templates have been forced to use incorrect pipelinking. It looks like censorship to avoid upsetting a few editors who dislike the term to me,

Encyclopaedic reason - You say you have given reasons, but we too have given reasons, needless to say we disagree on these matters which is why there is a dispute.

1) We agree on the sentence, it should have been improved not removed. The compromise above deals with this matter and is not meaningless, it is clear and notable.

2) The Geography section continues to mention the island of Ireland size, there is no reason why the location of the island should not be mentioned. The location of an island is pretty notable in geography terms as far as im concerned, i am sorry you disagree.

3) It is true that some country articles avoid mentioning their location in the geography section, however they deal with the matter clearly in the introduction still. So for example when you first mentioned portugal you pointed out its geography section did not mention the Iberian peninsula, the big difference is it does get mentioned in the introduction of the article. Suggesting it be in the geography section rather than the introduction of this article seemed reasonable. Illinois is a complete irrelevance, it is a state not a country. However the geographical location of Hawaii being the only state not on the continent of North America is notable, but why would dozens of state articles all need to say they are in north America?

4) no it doesnt.

5) it should mention North west Europe yes, but of course none of those other things are needed. 4+5 were very strange comments by the way and obviously not accurate.

6) It was a compromise we all knew would be rejected, it is simply to test reactions. However if the island of Ireland article did mention the British Isles in the introduction, it would mean your comment about "they can click a link" would be accurate and so yes, it would weaken the case for inclusion although like i said at the time, i believe its justified here and there.

We have explained why it belongs in this article, you simply reject it.

Compromise' - Many of us are members of the British Isles taskforce, a group of people who have come together in the interests of wikipedia to try and resolve a long running dispute, which started with the crusades. However even if the taskforce did not exist, i believe all of us would have this page on our watchlist and many of us would comment anyway. So it is not like we have arrived to impose something agreed in another location on the people here... many of us would consider ourselves "the people" here. I am hurt that you think we would not take an interest in other matters relating to this article, but we all do have many other articles on our lists. I dedicated a long period of my time last year to trying to help resolve the naming issue. I did not have to spend that time helping, there were other matters that needed my attention. Quality of the article is very important, i spent some time above debating the issue of the introduction which previously failed to explain the ROI term (sadly it still fails to) although it atleast mentions the Republic of Ireland Act. I spent hours arguing that the introduction should mention a very important Act in Irelands history, an act that broke ties with the British monarchy an institution i love. If all i ever did was push POV surely i would want that fact hidden, it was ironic that Republicans were against its inclusion in that debate, i have still not figured out why exactly. As for levenboys comments, the BISE page is to deal with the massive instances of removal of British Isles with no justification, i support the project and it has helped. We now debate each issue and usually does help avoid edit wars, this is a very positive development and something that should be celebrated. Of course the British Isle is a widely used and known term, it will naturally be added to articles by many uninvolved editors who do not know there is a wikipedia dispute about it. They are allowed to add it, just as long as those of us involved are not going around adding it to many articles ourselves.

I hope this response to your statement will give you confidence that i read it all and digested it. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't bother saying anything else; I've changed my mind. Just a few short observations and then I'm gone:

I didn't say I have a dislike for the term - I said I'm neither fond of it nor repelled by it. Not the same thing.

I'm interested that you say removal of the sentence "was a compromise we all knew would be rejected." That was news to me. This sort of Machiavellian strategy is always important to admit and be open about. Can I take it the same is true of Malke's "compromise"? Don't answer that, I won't be reading it.

I had to laugh when you said the dispute goes back to the Crusades. I didn't become a user until well into this century, but I can well believe it's true.

Goodbye, and have a good day. Scolaire (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not fond of the term sounded to me like you had a dislike for it, even if you are not repelled by it like some editors clearly are but i am sorry if i misrepresented your position. When i say i am not fond of something i usually say it as a modest way of saying i have a dislike for it - (eg, i am not fond of Chinese food, which actually means i cant stand it).

As for the previous compromise, i was prepared to support it but it was one i knew would be rejected, for a start because we can not really agree on something here and implement it on another page where there would still likely be some hostility. I thought others would know it would be a nonstarter too, but may be it was just me. The proposal above though is very different, it is reasonable and only about this one article. It is a compromise that addresses concerns of both sides. As for the crusades, im talking about the ones that took place on wikipeda this century, which started years before i arrived here too. Anyway thanks for the comments BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You can't fight The Troubles all over again on Wikipedia. If they had never happened, ROI would still be on an island that is part of the archipelago known as the British Isles. It's in every encyclopedia and geography book out there. A simple mention that some people object to the term is edifying to the reader. A compromise such as this is not a nonstarter, it's the truth with a caveat.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I'd prefer having 'British Isles' excluded from this article & the United Kingdom article. However, if it's to be included? skip the pipe-linking & be direct about. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Right i've noticed fors and againsts for many things here, however i'd like to conduct a simple straw poll on points/solutions already raised. Can we agree or disagree with the following (to all as a whole, or to a certain point, you decide):

1. Leave the term British Isles out of political entity articles such the Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom, Kerry, and Wales etc.
2. Use the term British Isles in the geographical island articles such as Ireland, Great Britain, Sheltands etc. This means that this will be given that you'd agree for its usage on the Ireland article.
3. However that leaves an open question as to how to solve the link to the British Isles article question in a political entities geography section such as in this article. A reader should be allowed to wiki-link to the article to find out more about the islands. Obviously this is contentious for the Republic of Ireland article, so should the pipe-link group of islands be used? BISE has already guidelined the pipe-link as acceptable, and whilst many editors don't like to think of BISE as a binding thing of any sorts thats why i stated "guidelined" not "decreed".

Mabuska ^(talk) 20:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A simple straw poll on these matters here will simply lead to the same blocking tactics as happened over the infobox on Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't to block anything but to see whether we can find ground to which we can agree on and sort out so that we can wittle the issue down. I think most of the above is agreeable to for most editors however its better to see whether people agree with the points above or not rather than the same rehashing of arguements. I could assume your votes but i'd like you to state it yourself. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

1] If United Kingdom article mentions British Isles? then it should be mentioned here. If not there? then not here. 2] If Great Britain, Isle of Mann etc have BI mentioned? then Ireland should have it mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

By "blocking tactics" I presume BW means the failure to reach a consensus on that page?

As far as the poll is concerned: (3) the Republic of Ireland is not an island. A reader is just as entitled to wiki-link to Nigeria, where missionaries have gone from the Republic, or to a thousand other articles, as to link to an archipelago of which the Reublic is not a constiuent island. But it can't wiki-link to everything it might. Tuscany does not have the word "Mediterranean" in it, or a pipe-link to the Med. Is it hidden? Is it censored? Is there tearing of hair on the talk page? If everybody else is going to say the same thing over and over parrot-like, then so will I: give me a purely encyclopaedic and compelling reason to link from the Republic of Ireland to the British Isles. Failing that, let it go.

I agree with 1; 2 does not concern this article and should not be raised on this talk page. Scolaire (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for the sake of it Scolaire, do you agree or not to 2? We don't have to discuss it here, it's just to see what the overall opinions are on the above. Also i'm not looking for the same rehashing of arguements either, by agreeing to point one you don't have to repeat the need for an encyclopedic reason - that is documented above and is given by what point 1 states. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, forgive my lack of precision. My argument re encyclopaedic reason related to question 3, not question 1. In Q3 you did indeed rehash some old points. I have numbered my argument now, so hopefully that makes it clear.

I decline to answer your question above, on a matter of principle. Consensus for edits to one or more articles should not be sought on another article's talk page. Scolaire (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire's is correct on point #2, it belongs at Ireland & Great Britain talkpages. As for #3? do away with pipelinking, if one's gonna link to the British Isles article, then do so directly. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough GoodDay on your points - i see the UK article just mentions and wikilinks to an archepelago without direct reference to the British Isles piped or not. The only three instances of BI in UK are to do with a Ben Nevis and population arrival. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if BI isn't linked there, it shouldn't be linked here. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

But the UK article clearly mentions the archipelago in the introduction of the article, it simply does not state its the British Isles.. theres justification for saying it. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever's at UK, should be allowed here. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the UK article, its mentions an archipelago in the introduction but does not say what one. I doubt there would be the same sort of opposition to mentioning it on that page as here, so it should be added. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats for another place BW. I agree with 1, 2, and am open about 3 just for the record. Isle of Man makes mention of BI but only its geography section, but as that article serves both the island and country - it can be stated as being used for the island and not the country. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Does 1 mean leave out of the introduction of political entities like this article? Coz point 3 contradicts point 1. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well well well. It turns out the British Isles was mentioned in the introduction of the United Kingdom article for some time. It got removed on several occasions, including in 2007 in this edit [3] . The user responsible for its removal on that occasion has an incredible contributions history, how i wish i was around during the times of the crusades. His 3rd edit on wikipedia was to remove British Isles and replace it with Britain and Ireland. He then made a huge number of contributions to British Isles articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna lay down on the floor, so as to prevent injury from fainting. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It was also removed in 2006 by an IP [4] which also has an interesting contribution history. Of course the IP could have been used by completely different people, but i can not help but highlight an edit by the exact same IP in December 2005.

"If I heard an Irishman use the expression "British Isles" I really would have no choice but to wonder just how warm his bedclothes were in 1916. Nobody here uses it! It's just another product of British claims to this country. Oddly enough that sort of thing doesn't go down to well with the natives. Similarly nobody uses the term "Éire" in the partitionist sense that the British, and they alone, use it. Béal Féirste and Doire are in Éire in precisely the same way that Belfast and Derry are in Ireland."

Considering the large number of edits, mostly relating to Ireland articles, id say its probably the same editor on most of those occasions. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

British Isles was in the UK article introduction at at the start and end of 2005 (not looked throughout the year.) It appears it first got added to the article in May 2004 [5]. So basically British Isles was in the UK introduction for a considerable period of time, but clearly it got removed a few times and ended up being a permanent removal. (not sure if that previous users removal was the last time British Isles was stated, but their edit history shows they had a major dislike for the term British Isles and removed it from the UK introduction. I think that editor highlights the crusades perfectly. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

@BW, on the one hand you make a case for inclusion. On the other, when a straw poll is called to test consensus, you are against it. Either you accept apparent consensus as it is, and move on. Or you test consensus, accept the result, and move on. Any alternative means you're simply arguing for the sake of it. If you insist on poking a nest with a stick, a wandering admin may judge your actions as systematically disruptive. Your choice. --HighKing (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I want us to debate the inclusion of BI on this article, i simply do not think a straw poll will resolve the matter properly the way debate and trying to reach some form of compromise that all sides can accept would. It is not disruptive to debate these matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but at least indicate where you're at relative to the three terms proposed by Mabuska. It helps debate to first know what is already agreed on.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i do not believe 1 because i think BI is notable for this article in the geography section. I agree strongly with 2, it should be mentioned on geography article, in the introduction of such articles in my opinion. On 3 i am prepared to support a pipelink to hide British Isles being added to the geography section of this article as some seem to think its too controversial. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Mabuska:

1. Leave the term British Isles out of political entity articles such the Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom, Kerry, and Wales etc.
2. Use the term British Isles in the geographical island articles such as Ireland, Great Britain, Sheltands etc. This means that this will be given that you'd agree for its usage on the Ireland article.
3. However that leaves an open question as to how to solve the link to the British Isles article question in a political entities geography section such as in this article. A reader should be allowed to wiki-link to the article to find out more about the islands. Obviously this is contentious for the Republic of Ireland article, so should the pipe-link group of islands be used? BISE has already guidelined the pipe-link as acceptable, and whilst many editors don't like to think of BISE as a binding thing of any sorts thats why i stated "guidelined" not "decreed". (—Preceding unsigned comment added by Malke 2010 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 9 September 2010)

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No link. It might be easier to reach a compromise with no link.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Random break

I broadly agree with this. IN response to BW above, there has to be a limit to amount of interminable debates in which the same arguments are constantly reiterated. --Snowded ^TALK 07:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a limit. If its a lost cause or i am a lone voice then that is where my personal limit kicks in, but i have no problem debating these matters for many hours. You agreed with a compromise suggested above by RA, id go along with that wording and this matter would be resolved if it won support. Then the only other thing relating to this article (connected with British Isles) is what we do about that pipelink in the BI template which is still problematic. "...one of a group of islands off northwest Europe..."" is short, makes note of the fact the island is part of a group of islands and it does not show British Isles, just links to it. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You have no problem debating the same matter for many hours? Great! Let's do it again, then: the Republic of Ireland is not an island. A reader is just as entitled to wiki-link to Nigeria, where missionaries have gone from the Republic, or to a thousand other articles, as to link to an archipelago of which the Reublic is not a constiuent island. But it can't wiki-link to everything it might. Tuscany does not have the word "Mediterranean" in it, or a pipe-link to the Med. Is it hidden? Is it censored? Is there tearing of hair on the talk page? If everybody else is going to say the same thing over and over parrot-like, then so will I: give me a purely encyclopaedic and compelling reason to link from the Republic of Ireland to the British Isles. If I keep parrotting that, will you eventually give me a straight answer? Scolaire (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The republic of Ireland is not an island, this is very true, however the article mentions this country is on the island of Ireland, why should it not mention the island is part of a group of islands? We are talking about a single sentence in the geography section. lol @ Nigeria, as far as im aware the ROI is not part of a geographical location with nigeria, it is however within the British Isles. Tuscany is a region not a country, as i explained previously about the American state, the two things are very different. As for the hidden/cenorship, as i have shown above with the example of the United Kingdom, it is blatantly clear that efforts have been made to remove the term British Isles from wikipedia by some editors. The censorship issue is far more important on the island article, where it is certainly needed, but sadly there was no real reason to remove the sentence from this article, although it should have been reworded. When we take into account the fact Ireland and Geography of Ireland completely fails to mention British Isles, and now this one does too, it looks like censorship to me. The geographical location of the Republic of Ireland is notable for this article.. that is the encyclopaedic reason for inclusion. The Republic of Ireland is on the island of Ireland which is part of a group of islands known as the British Isles in North West Europe. I can find you plenty of sources stating the Republic of Ireland is in the British Isles if thats what you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BritishWatcher (talk • contribs) Revision as of 10:49, 9 September 2010

More repetition and more accusations, the counter position to yours is that North West Europe is the most appropriate geographical locator for a political entity. You say nothing new above and I think you are just trying to wear us down by constantly making the same point again and again and again on multiple articles. --Snowded ^TALK 09:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not my fault some people refuse to accept certain points i have made already and there for have to repeat them. My comment below includes something fresh as an example. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, if you just say the same things then lack of response indicates a refusal to feed your need for repetitive posts not a willingness to accept any changes. If you say something new I will respond. --Snowded ^TALK 10:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

BW, all I can answer to your post is "216". Does "lol @ Nigeria" mean that the geographical location of the island of Ireland is the only criterion for wiki-linking from this article? If so, that is a truly bizarre assertion. Once again, the answer you give to my question, "why should we link?" is "why should we not mention it?". Answering a question with a question. This has been the pattern throughout. "The geographical location of the Republic of Ireland is notable for this article" is not an encyclopaedic reason; "The geographical location of the Republic of Ireland is notable for this article because..." is an encyclopaedic reason, and that is what I am still waiting for. Take your time. Scolaire (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"The geographical location of the Republic of Ireland is notable for this article because." Ummm i am not sure exactly how to answer that question. Of course the geographical location of the country is important for this article. Every country article mentions its geographical location be it in the geography section or the introduction itself. This country's geographical location has a major impact on the country's history and status today. For example it is a member of the European Union because it is in Europe, but it is not in the Schengen Area because it is part of the Common Travel Area like the rest of the British Isles. That is only the case because of its geographical location. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're not sure exactly how to answer that question. Is that not what I've been saying all along? If you can't say why it's notable, then you can't justify adding it. Certainly, you can't say "it is important because of course it is important". Every country article mentions its geographical location, and so does this. It is in Ireland. --Scolaire (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It might be more correct to say that the common travel agreement with the UK prevented Ireland from entering the Schengen, they did however enter the Euro unlike the UK and that is more significant. Whatever its still irrelevant to the main argument and smacks of desperation - for most readers North West Europe is an easier to to understand and more appropriate locator for a political entity.--Snowded ^TALK 10:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly correct to say Ireland has not joined the schengen zone because it is part of the Common travel area with the UK. The reason why that is the case is because of the Republic of Irelands geographical location within the British Isles. If it was in some other part of north west europe such an area would make no sense. No one is saying the North west Europe should not be stated in the introduction, or in the geography section. But ive still yet to see what is wrong with "a group of islands in North West Europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason why that is the case is because of the Republic of Irelands geographical location within the British Isles - eh .... no. More to do with the fact that Irish people were once British citizens and part of the UK, and it was a matter of convenience at the time that has continued since. But if you have a reference I'd love to be corrected .... --HighKing (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how to answer it because the question was so odd. Of course the geographical location of the Republic of Ireland is notable for this article and it is partly covered with the exception of mentioning the island of Ireland is part of a group of islands known as the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a cup of tea and then read the question again. It is not odd. We establish the notability of something by giving a reason for its notability. "Of course it's notable" is not a reason. In what does the notability consist? If you can't answer that then you can't say it's notable. As I say, there's no rush. Scolaire (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i found it odd because you implied no geographical information is notable for this article. Do you think it is notable to say the Republic of Ireland is on an island and is in Europe? Both are bits of geographical information which your question was asking me to defend. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You really don't have a problem debating the same matter for many hours, do you? My question didn't ask you to defend anything - read it again. It asks you to make a statement, the simplest of all statements: why is the fact that that a country is on an island that is in a group of islands that lie off a continental mass more notable than the fact that a town is in a county that is in a province that is in a country that is on an island that is in a group of islands that lie off a continental mass? Which verse of This Is the House That Jack Built do we stop at? Where is the notability guideline that establishes that? What is the source for that guideline? Scolaire (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As i said before, all country articles state their geographical location, it is rather important tot he subject. Are you saying that the Republic of Ireland article would be fine if it did not mention ROI is on the island of Ireland and in europe? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"As i said before" says it all --Snowded ^TALK 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it such an urgent thing, to have British Isles (pipelinked or not) mentioned in this article (and United Kingdom article) anyways? The inclusion argument should be at Ireland, Great Britain, Isle of Mann & Channel Islands. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with GoodDay.

I also think there is an overall concensus to leave British Isles out of political entity articles such as Republic of Ireland. I don't think there is an overall concensus for its inclusion on the Ireland island article but that debate belongs there not here.

In response to your remark about point 3 BW, yes it is contradicting, i worded it badly. I meant to say "in the geography section of political entities". Mabuska ^(talk) 20:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Its inclusion is being blocked because editors dislike the term or think some peoples dislike for the term justifies exclusion to avoid controversy. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no urgency, but geographic location of countries are notable for the country article. Scolaire above seems to be suggesting no information on its location at all is needed. If we mention the island of Ireland and we mention Europe, why should we not mention the island of ireland is located in a group of islands in north west europe. As for the UK article, British Isles was in the article introduction for a couple of years before its removal by clearly involved editors in BI matters. A single line in the geography section of both is hardly unreasonable, it is more notable information for the reader. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no use for it in this article & United Kingdom. As for Great Britain & Ireland? that's another matter (which should be discussed at those talkpages). GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If, as Mabuska says and as appears to me to be the case, there is an overall consensus to leave the sentence out, and if we all recognise and respect the fact that BritishWatcher disagrees, can we please declare the discussion closed? At 92 kilobytes this section is equivalent to three archived talk pages. There is nothing to be gained by prolonging the agony. Scolaire (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire asked me yesterday to close this; I declined on the grounds that I'd been involved in the general discussion at WT:BISE, and I punted the issue to WP:AN. Thinking about it, I have not commented on "Republic of Ireland" - if there are no objections I'll close this tonight (UTC) if someone else hasn't already done so, and if there are no objections before hand. TFOWR 10:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You're involved owing to your involvement at BISE (both in general and with specific relation to this page) and because of your involvement in making related changes to this page based on discussions (in which you were a participant) at BISE that you believed reflected "consensus". Whether you are conscious of it or not, you are not neutral on this subject.

I feel it would be better if someone else closed this discussion or if it was just left to close by itself. --RA (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

...which is precisely why I, too, would have preferred it if someone else closed this. I do believe, however, that consensus here is fairly clear, and that I could close it accurately. However, I'm more than happy to leave the discussion hanging. I posted at WP:AN - if you want to chase that up it might help. TFOWR 11:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok close as Dont include. I look forward to seeing those who have argued that this article is on the country not the island to support its inclusion on the Ireland article which is all about the island or at the very least not oppose its inclusion. I also do not see the fact that it is not included on this article as a reason to keep it off the United Kingdom article, where there has been no local opposition as in this case. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it was not on the UK article was some sort of valid reason for saying it was not needed here, but to argue the reverse would be absurd. I, for one, will not be joining any discussion about inclusion in UK (having cast my !vote on BISE as a sort of civic duty), but if I did I wouldn't dream of citing ROI as a reason. Scolaire (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry BW i'll be standing firm for its inclusion in the grographical articles as after all it is geographical term. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, I asked you to formally close the poll at Talk:Ireland#Request for comments on one of the proposals, which was an actual support/oppose type poll and which ended on 19 August. That is the one that you raised at AN. Like RA, I would be happy for the discussion on this page to die a natural death. All I meant in my request above was for people to say "Okay, we'll stop talking now." Scolaire (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha - that makes sense. Well, I'm happy for the above to die any kind of death, but I'm also happy for it to die without my assistance ;-) TFOWR 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)