Jump to content

Talk:River Shannon/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Ptolemy

Hi, the description about it being mapped by Ptolemy is shocking; please could a reference be attached to this? Betaben (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

on the map at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_Texts/Ptolemy/2/1*.html it seems to be called the Duris river by ptolemy. is this true? Betaben (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

bigger scale map

I think a bigger scale map is needed, showing how the river divides major regions of Ireland and provides a route for Viking invasions. At right is an example, which doesn't clearly show the river, but could be modified to do so. The map in the article now is too close up, or should be supplemented. doncram (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC) The paddle steamers just get a mention. Could details of these be added?Downypilt (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Longest river in the British Isles.. yet again

Recently a British editor with a grand total of 40 edits added the whole "longest river in the British Isles" into the intro. There is no problem with the references provided but do we have to say that the longest river in Ireland is also longer than all rivers in a neighbouring country too. That seems a bit pathetic! Isn't it enough to be the longest in Ireland? Its longer than the longest river in Luxembourg too but that is not mentioned. For the record the River Severn is the longest river in Britain but its article fails to mention it is the second longest in the British Isles. Snappy (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree Snappy. Bjmullan (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The way Van Speijk puts it in, it is just POV. His userpage is clear in his standing... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand that comment - it's referenced (the reference coming from an Irish website!) I agree saying the Shannon is the longest river in Ireland and in a neighbouring country would be foolish. The British Isles isn't a neighbouring country, though, it's a geographical term. And many Irish sites (one referenced, more available) also say it's the longest river in the British Isles. Don't let WP:IDONTLIKEIT rule. Other examples where 'biggest/longest' in 'geographical feature' are used:
  • "The Rhine... is one of the most important and longest rivers in Europe."
  • "The River Severn... is the longest river in Great Britain." (Still not a country).
  • "Mulhacén is the highest mountain in continental Spain and in the Iberian Peninsula."
  • "The Tagus (Latin Tagus, Spanish Tajo, Portuguese Tejo, pron. IPA: ['tɛʒʊ], Ancient greek Tàghos, Ταγος) is the longest river on the Iberian Peninsula."
  • "The Ganges (IPA: /ˈgænʤiːz/, also Ganga pronunciation (help·info), Devanāgarī: गंगा, IAST: Gaṅgā in most Indian languages) is a major river in the Indian subcontinent flowing east through the eponymous plains of northern India into Bangladesh."
  • "Galdhøpiggen is the highest mountain in Norway and Scandinavia, at 2,469 m above sea level."

BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh, how do you know I'm British? I noticed that an "editor" with a whole six edits to his name backed out a referenced version to remove mention of British Isles. What's this about neighbouring country? The British Isles are not a neighbouring country of Ireland. As for the mention about the River Severn, that can be easily fixed, but why mention something that's only the second longest? Van Speijk (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
To Night of the Big Wind, let me say "so is yours" (user page, that is). You have to tell us twice that you "live in Ireland" and one of your user boxes put the tricolour over Northern Ireland. If that isn't POV I don't know what is. Closer inspection shows it doesn't. My apologies. Van Speijk (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Even so, I am nor Irish, nor English, nor British but Dutch... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Even the British Isles article doesn't use this wording, from the Geography section: "There are a number of major rivers within the British Isles. The river Severn at 354 km (220 mi) is the longest in Great Britain and the Shannon at 386 km (240 mi) is the longest in Ireland." Snappy (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe put it in that article then. its a valid geographical point. Van Speijk (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm not edit warring any more over it. The change is not sustainable because its a clear POV whereby some editors just don't like it. How disgraceful. Van Speijk (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
You know who Jan van Speyk is? Night of the Big Wind (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I noticed that article and liked the sound of the name, but I'm not from the Netherlands. Van Speijk (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Funny how its usually the ones with the big flags on their user pages who are most bothered by this sort of thing. Anyway, I have attempted a compromise in the intro. It states its the longest river in Ireland first, as this is what the Shannon is most famous first, then it mentions the contentious BI part. Any takers? Snappy (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I've a big flag on my user page. It's not a UK one, though :-) Your compromise edit works for me. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree, but accept. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The "hard won consensus" achieved well over a year ago was to use Ireland for this article and British Isles for Loch Neagh. That worked because there is no question about either statement. Whether the Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles depends on where a river stops and an estuary ends. Depending on that determination the Severn may be longer. I suppose the compromise is a bit like "Derry for the City, Londonderry for the county". Such compromises keep things stable on contentious issues. Mentioning both is just ugly --Snowded TALK 06:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
With or without estuary does not change positions, bevause in that case the Severn will also loose the length of its estuary. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I was not looking far enough in my search for the "hard-won consensus"! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's stick with the consensus as outlined by Snowded. Bjmullan (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with current consensus. Snappy (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How long is the River Shannon? How long is the River Severn? The only person who seems to think the Severn might be longer than the Shannon, on or off WP, appears to be User:Snowded. Based on his OR, we're really going to suppress facts? Fine, but let's not put it down to "consensus" - it's down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because "the term British Isles is controversial in Ireland, where there are objections to its usage due to the association of the word British with Ireland" - plain and simple. Not how an encyclopedia should be written. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool it Batsun. Are you in some form of competition as to how many pipelinks to policy you can put in one sentence? I've defended British Isles on the Loch Neagh. We have two alternatives in both cases both of which are factual statements, so we have one for one and the other for the other. There was an interesting discussion on where rivers stop and estuaries begin last time and we couldn't get definitive sources. It was however a discussion in good temper. I commend you to the same practice.--Snowded TALK 18:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to put the case for inclusion of the disputed fact, and in so doing I will address Wikipedia policy where appropriate. It seems that previous discussions involved some sort of agreement concerning this article and also Lough Neagh. That is no longer relevant. If there's a dispute concerning inclusion of the term at the Lough Neagh article then the talk page of that article is where it should be discussed. There is no relationship between that article and this; each should be addressed from its own perspective. It was stated earlier that we have a stable situation acheived by consensus, and that point was used to support the "no change" argument. Again, whatever the consensus has previously been, and regardless of how long the article has been stable, this cannot be used to counter the argument for inclusion, for the simple reason that this Wikipedia is not in any way stable. It is in a state of flux and will always be so. New consensuses develop, opinions and ideas change, new references emerge, styles continue to develop, and these matters should, and must, be reflected in article content; so we cannot reject change simply because of a previous lack of it. The current debate is a case in point; there is a clear move to rework the consensus, and that is good. So to the matter of the river itself, and its length. If it can be verified that the Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles, and if this fact is relevant to the article, and if its inclusion provides useful information, then it should, without doubt, be included. We cannot allow the view that the term is controversial to have any sway whatsoever in the matter; Wikipedia is not censored. Is the fact verifiable; yes, very easily. A number of high quality references are available. Are there any quality contradictory references stating that "The River Severn is the longest river in the British Isles"? This is not a rhetorical question. If there are some, then let's see them here (if they've already been listed then there's no harm in listing them again). Is the fact relevant? Yes. For any geographical entity we would typically want to know the highest point, the lowest point, the biggest lake, the deepest lake and the longest river. By convention that information at the very least goes in the article about the feature (see Ben Nevis, for example) - it could also go in the article about the geographical entity itself. is the information useful? Yes. This follows the previous argument concerning relevance. Readers will want to know that this river is indeed the longest in the British Isles. It is an interesting, relevant and important fact that the smaller of the two major islands of the British Isles has the largest lake and longest river. There is much precedent in these matters throughout Wikipedia. How about WP:5? Are there any issues there? NPOV? No. We are talking about a fact not a point of view. The other four are generally not relevant here, but maybe firm rules? Maybe it could be argued that regardless of the arguments I offer above we could still exclude this fact? There's no right or wrong here, so let's reiterate another principle of Wikipedia, which is clear; Wikipedia is not censored. I move that the disputed fact should be included in this article. Van Speijk (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
You move it and I oppose it. Whether it is a fact or not (which is disputed) it is irrelevant. Bjmullan (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
You need to put forward reasoned arguments to support your view. Without such arguments your comments are of no consequence and I expect they will be disregarded in any assessment. Van Speijk (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
If I thought for one moment that the British Isles was a geographic term then I would maybe consider the inclusion but as I and many others consider the term British Isles to be a political term (what other reason is the Channel Islands included?) then it not required here. Is that enough reason for my view to be assessed or do your expect they will be disregarded? Bjmullan (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
In other words, your WP:POV should see a fact excluded. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand how some editors wish to exclude it from "Irish" articles for "political" reasons, but it's also well accepted that using "British Isles" in a geographic context is fair usage. It's not as if the fact is being inserted in a gratuitous manner. I wouldn't be as quick to support usage in a geopolitical manner (such as Dublin being the X biggest city in the British Isles), but I really fail to see why there's a problem with using it here or in articles dealing with geographic elements such as rivers, mountains, seas, etc. --HighKing (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no specific policy on how to refer to a geographical location. In this case we have a choice between Ireland and British Isles, putting in both is clumsy. Van Speijk's suggestion that Ireland contains both the largest lake and the longest river could be a possible addition to the Ireland article, but it would have to be a summary statement to count. You can't say that there is no relationship between the two articles, then use something in common to argue for a change on one of them. This is not a matter of censorship, its a choice between two valid geographical terms and not all facts have to, or should be included. As to PoV, its a fact that BI is considered by some to be a political term and I personally feel that is a problem for both those who always want to remove it, but also for those who always want to insert it (Bastun for example). As in the Derry/Londonderry case somethings those choices are influenced by allowing progress over a range of articles. I also note Van Speijk that the flags on your user page and your involvement in the ANI case on the now banned LemonMonday hardly make you a neutral party here --Snowded TALK 10:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Shannon is the longest river in the island Ireland = fact
The Shannon is the longest river in the Anglo-Irish Archipelo/British Isles = fact
The Shannon is not longest river in the continent Europe = fact
The last two are true, but in effect useless because the first statement is already correct. Why on earth the add the name of a group of islands as the island itself already solves the problem? Night of the Big Wind (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

@User:Night of the Big Wind - have you read the discussion above? Please see my first comment in this section for the reasons why you would include that <geographical feature> is the longest/biggest/tallest in the <largest geographical area>, with examples. Pretty much the same reason as we describe the Nile as the longest river in the world - not just North Africa; or Everest as the highest mountain in the world - not just the largest in the Himalayas.
I have read the text above, but hardly any discussion because most arguments are ignored. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
@User:Snowded. Putting in both can work, as it did in the short-lived compromise version by User:Snappy, and we can surely come up with an elegant way of stating it. For the record, no, I don't "always want to insert [BI]" - in fact, I think this may well be the only article where I have sought its insertion, bar (possibly!) a couple of occasions where User:HighKing had removed it on the basis it wasn't being used in a geographical sense, and I had disagreed. (I'm open to correction on that). Thanks for spelling my name! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with what you say, Bastun. More specifically in answer to Snowded and the suggested clumsy appearance of using both facts, I don't see it. The temporary compromise looked good, and if there is a problem it is merely one of style, and presumably can easily be addressed. This aspect of usage should not affect the argument about inclusion of the term. Continuing the commentary on Snowded's points; maybe I was misunderstood when mentioning Lough Neagh. I was simply using the information about the Lough to support the need for geographical information in British Isles-related articles. As I said, there is no link between the argument for British Isles usage in Lough Neagh and in River Shannon. They are separate issues and should be dealt with separately. I agree with Snowded that not all facts need to be reported, but the important ones do. It is more important to note that the Shannon is the longest river in Ireland than it is to note that it is the longest river in the British Isles, but the latter is also an important fact and should be made available to the reader. Is British Isles a political term? No, most definitely not (lots of references available). So anyone who considers it so is displaying a POV that is not wanted here. Finally to Snowded; I put forward what I thought were logical arguments in support of the case to include the disputed fact in this article, and you have answered some of them with your own reasoning - thank you. But did you really need to question my motives and comment on my user page? It is my understanding that you are not at liberty to discuss editors in Talk page forums and that you should restrict discussion to the subject in hand. Van Speijk (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I've a feeling that many of the issues relating to terminology in-and-around Irish/British topics are linked. Snowded makes the point of Derry/Londonderry for example, and we also have the point of Ireland/Republic of Ireland. Perhaps its foolish to try to attempt to solve these issues on an article-by-article basis. --HighKing (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
We have two geographical terms, Ireland and British Isles. Its an obvious nonsense to have both as one subsumes the other. Van S[eijk, when you start to deliver lectures about other people taking a POV position its more than legitimate to point out that you have a track record on the other side of that POV. Loch Neagh and this article were linked in the previous compromise and there is no reason why not. Otherwise there is a clear alternative, namely we use "Ireland and Britain" on both articles. How about that?--Snowded TALK 06:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Ireland and Britain is not appropriate. See below for the reason why. As to your continuing antagonistic comments I must point out that I only mentioned another user's POV is response to his attack on my about my number of edits or something like that and I also withdrew some comments when I realised I'd made a mistake. Now I will say no more on this and I won't respond to any further comments which are not directly related to the current subject. Van Speijk (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Then I look forward to you not accusing other editors of having a POV or (as you do) suggesting that arguments you don't like are unreasoned --Snowded TALK 13:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

External advice?

Could it be a good idea to get external advice to solve the dispute about the Shannon? Like the new noticeboard Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly - good idea. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, possibly, if we can't achieve consensus here, so in a final attempt to do so I'll summarise the arguments for inclusion. I think that only if we get reasoned arguments for exclusion will we need to go dispute resolution. Van Speijk (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I've added what I've seen presented above to the reasons to exclude. --HighKing (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Arguments pro and con

Please add reasoned arguments to these lists as appropriate

Arguments to include the term British Isles

  • British Isles is a term widely used and is the largest geographical entity to which the River Shannon can claim being the longest.
  • The term British Isles is wholly geographical (many references). Inclusion of the Channel Islands in a historical anomaly. It makes sense, and there are precedents at Wikipedia, to mention largest, longest and the like in individual articles. See Ben Nevis, Lough Neagh and Muckle Flugga amongst others.
  • The term is controversisal, but Wikipedia is not censored.
  • Ireland and Britain is an unsuitable alternative because it is unclear precisely what is meant - is the Isle of Man included?
  • There is no logical reason why "longest in Ireland" and "longest in the British Isles" cannot be juxtaposed. There is maybe a minor style issue which can be dealt with.
  • The fact of the matter is well referenced and therefore verifiable.
  • So far there are no contradictory references stating that the Shannon is not the longest river in the British Isles, or that the River Severn is the longest.
  • There is no reason why any previous consensus should be carried forward. We are at liberty to develop new consensuses, and should do so, because maintaining older consensuses when there is a clear move to develop new ones will inevitably stifle devlopment of the project.
  • There is no reason why this article should be linked to any other (e.g. Lough Neagh). If it was in the past, as a result of a previous consensus, see the point above.
  • It is relevant, and therefore useful information, that the Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles because the British Isles is a widely recognised geographical entity and it is scientifically important to know where its longest river is located.
  • It is common practice to mention that "X geographical feature" is the "longest/highest/biggest" in "largest geographical area it qualifies for" - e.g., the Iberian Peninsula, Scandinavia, the Indian subcontinent, the world. For multiple examples, see here.
  • Many Irish websites, including state bodies, mention that the Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles, so any "controversy" about stating such seems to be only on Wikipedia.
  • WP:5. If the longest river in the British Isles can't be called the longest river in the British Isles on its own encyclopedia article page, then we are breaching WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.


Arguments to exclude the term British Isles

So far my arguments. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • In much the same way the people argue against the use of "Ireland" as the name of the state because the term is deemed extraterritorial, the term "British Isles" may also be deemed extraterritorial
  • The term "British Isles" is seen by some as a political term, with wide usage to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Including it on articles relating to the Irish state is seen as a throwback to this historical usage, which is resisted.
  • From a scientific standpoint, the British Isles is not truly a geographic archipelago since it includes the Channel Islands, and the term was originally conceived and used as a political term.
  • The River Shannon has a length of 260km plus a 112-km estuary. The Severn has a length of 290km plus some 64km of estuary. Arguably, the River Shannon isn't the longest river in the British Isles at all.
  • Ultimately this is a trivial comparison between two islands - it doesn't educate in any meaningful way, and is therefore cruft. It's not censorship just to decide not to use a term, nor does not using it here suddenly undermine the term. Having a verified source or two is not king of anything. A decent guideline would sort this out.

Arguments to retain the current use of Ireland

  • Ireland is a term widely used and is the most commonly associated with the Shannon.
  • The term British Isles is geographical but also carries political overtones
  • Britain and Ireland is a possible alternative and is now commonly used in Atlases
  • Saying that it is the longest in two geographical entities is clumsy
  • The fact of the matter is well referenced and therefore verifiable.
  • There is no reason why any previous consensus should be carried forward. Neither is there any reason why it should not
  • On controversial issues where there are equally valid and references terms, compromises are necessary
  • For the vast majority of readers Ireland is a more readily understood in this context.
  • The Encyclopædia Britannica defines the Shannon as the longest in Ireland and the Severn as the longest in Britain
  • The Severn is 290km long with an estuary of 40km, The Shannon is 161km long with an estuary of 113km so its mute

Issues with the above Arguments lists

  • Who says 'British Isles' is often used by people who don't accept the independence of Ireland? How many of these people are supposed to exist? Apart from being Wikipedian nonsense really, it is hardly an argument for not using the term. (I'm not sure a 'free for all' is wise here regarding added points)
  • The "political overtones" argument is another very 'Wikipedian' Point of View, and shoulnd't be posed as an argument for not using the term.
  • Various atlases have always used 'Britain and Ireland' as long as I can remember - esp transport ones. Atlases can be functional, geographical and political (all distinctly different). It's not an argument against using British Isles.
  • Regarding 'consensus', the last time I looked at this article 'British Isles' was in use - so I'm not sure the 'last consensus' counts for much.
  • Read any encyclopedia and (should they include the Channel Islands - and some don't) they all give some variation of that the CI's can also be included. The immediate definition is not to include them. Only inclusive dictionaries include the Channel Islands uncategorically. Is Wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopedia or a dictionary?

The biggest argument for not using the term here hasn't been made: (which I've just added to the against list) is what does it add to the article? When you have a sea between two entities (the Irish Sea no less), the comparative size of their rivers hardly signifies much. Significance could be built into a guideline you know, unless people are still into bringing about the new age of Atlantis. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:5. If the longest river in the British Isles can't be called the longest river in the British Isles on its own encyclopedia article page, then we are breaching WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.
That is absolute rubbish - it should just be a 'community' decision based on meaning, notability and weight. That is how Wikipedia is supposed to run - not be an inclusionist war of silly cite vs silly cite, socks v socks, nuts v nuts. Crying "censorship" is probably the most childish thing you can do on Wikipedia (though what a choice of things to pick from). Wikipedia was never meant to be the Devil's Bible - it doesn't have to include everything humanly possible, no matter how many people try their damnedest to make it do so. You know nonsense comments like this really do effect new members - and this is is utterly misleading. It is gaming the system, wikilawyering (badly) and ultimately a just a basic lie: leaving something out of Wikipedia is not an "automatic breach" of anything! Matt Lewis (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"* The term "British Isles" is often misused by people who don't accept the independence of the Republic of Ireland." Who are these people? The only people I'm aware of who don't accept the independence of Ireland are extreme Irish Republicans, and even then it's a case of them not recognising the Dáil.

"* Why use a broader geographical entity like "British Isles" when it is clear the the whole river is only on the island Ireland? The British Isles are completely irrelevant for an article about the River Shannon." Because we do it for every other longest/highest/biggest thing. We don't just say Mount Everest is the highest mountain in the Himalayas, we also say it's the highest in the world.

"* There is no logical reason why "longest in Ireland" and "longest in the British Isles" should be used. It is better to use the smallest geographical entity possible."

"* In much the same way the people argue against the use of "Ireland" as the name of the state because the term is deemed extraterritorial, the term "British Isles" may also be deemed extraterritorial" By whom? Isn't the purpose of an enclopedia to use terms correctly, to educate?

"* The term "British Isles" is seen by some as a political term, with wide usage to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Including it on articles relating to the Irish state is seen as a throwback to this historical usage, which is resisted." By whom? Isn't the purpose of an enclopedia to use terms correctly, to educate?

"* The River Shannon has a length of 260km plus a 112-km estuary. The Severn has a length of 290km plus some 64km of estuary. Arguably, the River Shannon isn't the longest river in the British Isles at all." WP:OR. And incorrect OR at that. How long is the River Shannon? How long is the River Severn?

"* The term British Isles is geographical but also carries political overtones" So what if it does (for some)? Isn't the purpose of an enclopedia to use terms correctly, to educate?

"* The fact of the matter is well referenced and therefore verifiable." This was said in repect of using Ireland. The same applies to British Isles.

"* On controversial issues where there are equally valid and references terms, compromises are necessary" Or, you can be enclopedic, and include both. Which is what you're supposed to do - WP:5 again.

"*The Encyclopædia Britannica defines the Shannon as the longest in Ireland and the Severn as the longest in Britain" So EB is censored? WP is WP:NOTCENSORED.

"* The Severn is 290km long with an estuary of 40km, The Shannon is 161km long with an estuary of 113km so its mute" Both have mouths, but may still be mute. But regarding the lengths, it's WP:OR. And incorrect OR at that. How long is the River Shannon? How long is the River Severn? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Three times you repeat above "Isn't the purpose of an enclopedia to use terms correctly, to educate?"! The main argument for not using 'British Isles' in this article is that it doesn't really say anything meaningful: It's quite a trivial comparison. Look, I often support using the term - but arguments based on 'correct use', censorship and education here are utterly ridiculous. You really need a talk page warning as you are quoting the '5 pillars' and really abusing them. To claim that Britannica is censored because they don't use the term here is madness too. It always ends up with the two nutcase extremes of 'always include the term Vs always defile the term' fighting each other doesn't it. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Normally people calculate the length of a river from its spring to the main waterbody where it ends. Often a river does not reach the sea, but ends in another river or a lake. A river does not end on the place where the estuary begins, both flows through the estuary to its end. Discounting the estuary is a creative interpretation of the facts, it even could be a plain falsification. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Woah. Admittedly, I'm British, but I really don't see the controversy here. The term "British Isles" is not conversial except to a small group of Irish ultra-nationalists who dislike inclusion in anything with the word "British" in it (or at least, I'm yet to be persuaded of any other group). Yes, Wikipedia's had discussions over the word before, but not over whether it includes Ireland. Since the River is indisputably the longest river in Ireland and the longest river in the British Isles, why not say both? People say "we go with the biggest achievement" but this is really a substitute for what's most notable about the river. For Irish people, and I don't know, I think they'd say it was the longest river in Ireland (country) or 'on' Ireland (island). We could say all three. It really doesn't make any difference. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This looks like an attempt to reformat to "in Ireland and the British Isles". How can you say both of them when Ireland (the country) is part of the British Isles? Surely you are not saying that hasn't been discussed?! It's a simple fact. And there really is no need to say every thing that is 'indisputable' - Wikipedia would fill up the internet if we did that. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I think saying both is perfectly reasonable. We can say that Tokyo is the largest city in Japan, and is the largest city in the world. The word "indisputable" is an attempt to clarify that the facts. I'm struggling to understand the point of contention. Is that anyone believes that the Shannon is not the longest river in the British Isles? If they equate the British Isles with the United Kingdom, and wish to alter Wikipedia to reflect that, they're simply wrong. Wikipedia's settled that issue comprehensively. The term "British Isles" may be controversial, but it doesn't mean anything else. We can use the term "Britain and Ireland" if preferred - the name is different but the concept is the same. I was under the impression that the argument, was, in fact, over whether the primary definition of the Shannon (for lead purposes) was over whether we should say that it's the longest river in Ireland or the British Isles. The secondary point is whether you can have both, and as I say, I see no reason why not. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Comparing the biggest rivers between two neighbouring islands is not remotely comparable to Tokyo being the largest city in both Japan and the world. It's not notable in the same way: it's a factoid rendered slightly aburd by the fact that the British Isles is an archipelago. It being the biggest in Ireland is enough in this instance. Matt Lewis (talk)
So you're primary bone of contention is that being the longest river in the British Isles isn't an achievement, because they're a seemingly arbitrary group of islands. However, I dispute this. We have the largest/longest/biggest/highest in Europe, which is a similarly arbitrary part of the Euro-Asian-African land mass. Yes, we pick out two countries to form the British Isles, but Europe, similarly, picks out countries from a larger set just the same. Have I summarised your view correctly? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think BI is comparable to other 'groups' here no, esp regarding rivers in different islands. It's not meaningful information. I don't think it serves any purpose to beigin an article with comparisons like these either, whatever other articls might do. And nobody talks of the Shannon as the biggest river in the British Isles - or possibly even Ireland - why would they? It's not the Nile is it. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
But terms such as Scandinavia and the Iberian Peninsula are used as geographical entities in other articles that mention ggeographical features, surely the British Isles falls into this category?Aprhys (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

How to Proceed

We are getting some good lists developed and hopefully at this point we can stick just to building them, but how to proceed? Should we say 24 hrs to allow any further points to be listed, and then pair off the for's and against's? Any that can't be paired could be set to one side for further review. Some could be abandoned (I can see one argument that is totally illogical). Then we could comment on individual pairings. Finally we may have to go to the dispute resolution. This is just a proposal. Are there any other remarks? Van Speijk (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

We've collected a large amount of material now and although it would be good to allow some more time for others to contribute, maybe before the debate becomes unmanageable, we should now start to organise all the points made. In the UK it's late now so if anyone else would like to take it on, go ahead. Van Speijk (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
We have time. No rush needed. Better slow and good, then quick and dodgy. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Dispute resolution has been set up as an alternative to ANI. This discussion is a very very long way away from that. In practice the current text is factually correct and has stood for some time. Making a drama our of that would be a mistake. Looking through the various comments of different editors (Matt your final point is solid, I should have thought of that one) there is, at this time, no consensus for change.--Snowded TALK 06:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to do both? That is, to say that it is "the longest river in Ireland, and also longer than any river anywhere in the British Isles"? I think our readers benefit from knowing both which island it is on, and also that it is the longest river on any of the Atlantic islands. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is perfectly possible to do both, and if you check the history, you'll see it was a copromise that briefly survived. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
"I think our readers benefit from knowing both which island it is on, and also that it is the longest river on any of the Atlantic islands."
You know it looks for all the world like you are saying the readers will "benefit" from this factoid purely to give you a chance to revise the name of the islands here. How will they benefit? I'm not anti-BI but I don't see any point in over-using any language on Wikipedia: it's simply bad form. And in this area form matters. The (neutral) question we have to ask is; is this fact useful to anyone? Comparing rivers of neighbouring islands? Not really. The fact that there is a sea inbetween makes it a little absurd imo. Sadly, it looks like this has now got people so polarised due to the wider inclusion/exclusion issue, that I can't see much chance of a conclusive article-level resolution now. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You keep saying you're not anti-BI but that's irrelevant - either you accept that BI is a geograpical term, or you don't. If others also regard it as a political term, that's also irrelevant. We're not trying to compare the length of rivers on neighbouring islands ("Britain and Ireland") - we're comparing the length of rivers in one geographical entity ("the British Isles"). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Stop pigeon-holing people. Obviously I keep stating that "I'm not anti-BI, but...' as the whole cross-wiki stink has clearly polorised people. I'm not using it to make a point within my arguments. Obviously I see British Isles as a geographical term, and that has nothing to do with "acceptance". I simply don't see how it is necessary to compare rivers between two neighbouring islands. It's not educational in my view, it's just cruft. Ireland is enough here. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

General Point

The Wikipedia community has suffered a set of sock puppets and disruptive editors on BI issues over the years and is loosing tolerance. We now have an "new" editor who made a dozen edits, mostly on this article a year ago and remerged this month with evident knowledge of wikipedia processes, again acting as an SPA with this article as a target. As a community of editors associated with this whole issue we really should not be disrupting stable compromises. Its all energy thrown away. WP:AGF does not require other editors to ignore the self evident. --Snowded TALK 14:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If you know that Van Speijk is a sockpuppet, why don't you ask for a suckpuppet investigation? Night of the Big Wind (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Well there is an outside possibility that a SPA account who has been dormant for some time and who activates after a whole set of editors with the same point of view have been indefed, is not a sock. Also the style is not clear yet but I may ask a couple of editors who are better at this than I am to take a look. --Snowded TALK 06:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please sign your edits.

The discussion is becoming a big mess because most people don't sign their edits. Please do that a.s.a.p. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You just inserted about 10 comments between each of Batsun's above without signing any of them! The nearest signature is now mine! (And for some reason you inserted a paragraph break within my comment - please don't do that again). Who has to tidy that up? Me again. People are quick to call up others in here, but pretty lazy when it comes to their own actions/comments imo. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I can see now they are Bastun's you have reformatted - why mess around like this? I'm adding his signature now. Please leave my full parags alone in future. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, Night of the Big Wind, that took me ages. I've restored Bastun's original formatting and simply signed for him. I'm sure I speak for him when I say this - don't fuck with people's formatting again. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm American

and a mix of English, Irish, German, Italian, etc. Total mutt. I think Ireland makes more sense. Is where the river is. Could care less about the "sensitivity" of the term BI. Just think it is wandering out of the way, to discuss the river in the context of the isles vice the island.TCO (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. People are at sea here, and it down to focusing on the wider issues surrounding the term - not simply the article at hand. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
YEah...like I am totally cool with being politically incorrect to the Irish on some other article that actually is about the the British Isles. But this is a river in Ireland. We don't normally think of longest in a group like that. Perfidious Albion needs to be tamed. And Australia belongs to England, just like Scotland does. Never had a war and shot people in the head like at Lexington and Concorde to become free. TCO (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I am an Aussie

I also could not give a f**k about the term British Isles, fighting about it already had one long term editor blocked and a lot of time spent working on a way to get her back. So here is my thinking, you list what makes the river sound the most significant :

  • Is it the longest on the planet - NO
  • Is it the longest in the hemisphere - NO
  • Is it the longest in the continent - NO
  • Is it the longest in the archipelago - YES
  • Is it the longest in the Island - YES


so in this case the largest (by size) entity is the archipelago - so the lead should read :

The River Shannon ... is the longest river in the British Isles .....

As the archipelago is the more significant entity than the island and the attempt to suppress that fact is pure and simple trying to be politicly correct and avoid saying the name. Mtking (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have little problem with the term too, but realistically - is it really 'notable' that the River Shannon is larger than the ones in the island next to it? The problem with your check-list is that an archipelago is surrounded by water. I find it a bit of an absurd point to make, as the sea completely drowns the significance. It turns it into a factoid to me, and I can't imagine anyone benefitting "educationally" by reading it. On a wider level, I think it's important for Wikipedia to lose all the less notable facts, as these are often where various problems lie (and probably constitute about 80% of encyclopedia too, as WP works like bacteria). I don't particlularly like the idea that I am being "politically correct" tbh - that attitude doesn't bode well for guideline production, and is a little similar to the "Wikipedia is not censored!" argument. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Use Both?

I don't have time at the minute to carry out a detailed analysis of the points so far raised, as I would have liked to do, but I can see a consensus emerging, including the important point that it includes hitherto non-involved editors, that both descriptions should be used. Maybe then, we look at that argument here are debate it, with reasoned arguments rather than POV.

The proposition:

The Shannon is the longest river in Ireland and in the British Isles. Formatted or arranged as appropriate, with the mention of Ireland first, maybe even mention of British Isles demoted to a lower section.

For

Makes perfect sense. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Against

  • Ireland (whether you mean the island or the country) is part of the British Isles. There is no argument against that fact, so it is utterly absurd for Wikipedia to even suggest that Ireland is somehow separate from it. Years ago people suggested using "Ireland and the wider British Isles" in this article (etc). But why bother? To just use Ireland is enough in this instance, as comparing rivers between two islands isn't necessary or useful. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Van Speijk (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  • It is a geographical entity. The argument about country above is invalid as in this context Ireland means the whole of Ireland including Northern Ireland, do they want to stick in a political flavour and stick in Republic of Ireland? Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
What would be your preference, Dmcq? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
c/e What 'argument about country above'? It is people like you who are crow-barring in the politics by complaining about it at times like this, when it simply isn't there. The geographical "whole of Ireland including Northern Ireland" (as you put it) is still situated within the British Isles! As the word 'Ireland' has two meanings, the net effect is double-ambiguity too. It is actually recommended to use "the island of Ireland" in these kind of situations. "Ireland and British Isles" is still a double-up though, whichever way you look at it. Wikipedia is supposed to be lean and meaningful.
On that note, the best question to ask here surely is; what does comparing the two islands of Ireland and Great Britain regarding a river's size offer the reader? I just don't get the 'educational' argument - it's seems to me that it is simply a 'factoid', and one that is decidedly wiki-composed. Factiods, trivia etc are against general editing style guidelines. The comparisons to Tokyo etc do not work.
Once again I will add that I'm not normally against using the term 'British Isles' in articles - but I am against article cruft, especially when it uses British Isles unnecessarily (simply because A; if it's unnecessary then it is not needed, and B; it causes havoc - which is pointless when it is also not needed in the article.). Queue all the horseshit about "No Censorship!!" and "We Must Never Give In!!". Matt Lewis (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
No personal attacks please. Cut out any 'people like you' stuff. Dmcq (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You used the word "they" about me in a perjorative and political way: I simply reversed it (ie using "you"), because I didn't even mention politics. As it happens we agree on the term not being notable here. But maybe a little faith? Matt Lewis (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Well the first couple of sentences should describe the Shannon rather than its relation to other rivers so it should be as specific as possible, so Ireland would be my preference for the first sentence. I don't think the 'longest' in the first sentence is so important but it fits in without much bother and gives extra information. As to the relationship with the British Isles that isn't first level information about the river but something found by comparison with other things and is only important for pub quizzes so if it is to go in it should not be in the first sentence. Dmcq (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@Matt. Once again - noone is saying we should compare the relative lengths of rivers in two islands. What we are saying is to compare the relative lengths of rivers in the one geographical entity - the British Isles. Regarding the educational merit of it's inclusion - yes, it is a relevant fact that it's the longest river in the British Isles. Saying something is the biggest/longest/highest in X geographical area may be a mere "factoid" or "cruft" to you, but it's done for many other geogrpahical features in many other articles. There is nothing to stop us saying it's "...the longest river on Ireland and, indeed, the wider British Isles", just as we say ""Galdhøpiggen is the highest mountain in Norway and Scandinavia, at 2,469 m above sea level." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Matt has it right when he talks about "article cruft". --Snowded TALK 18:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
One of ye will be removing the "cruft" from the Galdhøpiggen, Mulhacén, Tagus and countless other articles, then? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not keen on sticking British Isles into the very first sentence as it doesn't seem of much importance to me but if it is to go in then certainly not with the 'wider' in! It is just the British Isles. It seems peculiar to put something like that into the lead as an important thing and yet have no mention of it in the rest of the article but I guess it is just one of those factoids that many people think is important to stick up front. I just think it is akin to putting something like Ireland looks like a dog if you look at it sideways up in the lead. Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't have to go in the first sentence. Could fit in well elsewhere. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't have to go anywhere. Irrelevant trivial. Bjmullan (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
@Bastun, this isn't something I'm going to lose any sleep over, and I may have (a few years ago now) actually come up with the 'Ireland and wider British Isles' idea myself - but until the Celtic Atlantis rises from the sea and saves the world, the British Isles - when it comes to comparing the size of rivers - are essentially Great Britain and Ireland. It doesn't matter if we label them the 'British Isles' or not - it's the comparison itself that isn't needed here, however it is phrased. Certainly not in the introduction, and probably not anywhere else in the article. Scandinavia is obviously more involved than the British Isles, and your insistance that that the IRE/GB comparison is genuinely educational is pretty silly in my opinion, as it is simply not meaningful to compare rivers across a single sea. It's not the same as other vastly more meaningful comparisons. It's like a poor man's Guinness Book of Records fact, 1 euro in Euroland. It's almost farcical it should be so argued for in a way: Wikipedia isn't the Bumper Book of Comparisons. And anything can, in theory, be called 'educational'. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed first paragraph

The River Shannon (Irish: Abha na Sionainne / an tSionainn / an tSionna) is a river in Ireland that divides the west of Republic of Ireland (principally the province of Connacht) from the east and south (Leinster and most of Munster). County Clare, being west of the Shannon but part of the province of Munster, is the major exception. The river represents a major physical barrier between east and west, with fewer than twenty crossing-points between Limerick city in the south and the village of Dowra in the north. It is the longest river in Ireland at 386 km (240 miles).


Ok, I've made it clearer that the river doesn't run in Northern Ireland (this wasn't clear at all, as all the references were to Ireland the island), and have moved the "longest in.." line to the bottom of the paragraph. The article shouldn't kick off with a "longest in" line - it's poor style, whatever any other article out there may or may not do. If it is ok to people, perhaps they could back it. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

With that I'd probably just say the island of Ireland at the top or just say Ireland since it is in a geographical context. The last line could say the British Isles as it has already been established it is in Ireland, it gets round that problem quite neatly I think. Dmcq (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Disagree on your POV re style, Matt. Agree with Dmcq on including BI later, or even later in the article. "Republic of Ireland" shouldn't be used as it's against WP:IMOS - there is no need for disambiguation here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, it should state its the longest as most longest-river articles do, and imho there is nothing wrong with this style. Secondly it should mention the island of Ireland as it is a river and should relate to a geographical entity. Snappy (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I hope people aren't scanning the proposal too fast! I've underlined the first line.. is a river in Ireland that divides the west of Republic of Ireland.. so it does mention the geographical region first, and therefore does need the Republic title too. As for the idea that it must begin with a comparative size, I just don't have an answer for that. I find it truly silly. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Then go remove it from every other longest river/highest mountain article and see if consensus agrees with you. To be honest, Matt, that proposed intro is one of the most tortuous sentences I've seen on WP. There is no need to include RoI at all, as per Snappy above. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh but there is, as last night I spent a good 5-10 mins trying to get it clear in my own mind did the river run through NI or was it just the ROI - so it should go in the lead.
It might be worth taking a moment to reflect on what this is, it is an encyclopaedia entry for a river, it needs to be aimed at readers who have never been to Ireland, think of the Year 9 schoolgirl in Springfield, Idaho set a school project on Rivers, it needs to be clear without extra work what country the river is in ! Mtking (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, this 9-year-old American (Wiki's target audience? - figures) would know, from the article, that the river flows through two states; the UK and Ireland. Referring to places called "Northern Ireland" and the "RoI" isn't going to help her, is it? It will totally confuse her, in fact. Sarah777 (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Who are you to say that 'Republic of Ireland' and 'Northern Ireland' will confuse people - they are two countries in Ireland, not highbrow literary theories. You just don't want those two names in the article - only one name interests you clearly and that is "Ireland" (though you've had me fooled on that one in the past). I had to look outside of Wikipedia to check if the Shannon ran into Northern Ireland or not: I didn't have a clue from the article, and there is no indication from the introduction at all. You shouldn't be here anyway Sarah (if I understood anything about your unblock - and I'm not sure I did) - and provocative comments like this were (I thought) supposed to be the reason. You need to adjust you watchlist, and just keep away. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Rubbish. They are not "two countries in Ireland". There is "Ireland" - an island and/or a country. NI and the RoI are not "countries" in the same category at all; one is a country; the other part of a country. As for why I'm here - are you saying I should take the River Shannon off my watchlist? Where would that stop? This isn't "troubles related"; not Ireland v Britain; not part of any naming dispute. It is about the wording of an article on the Shannon and your implied threats are unacceptable. I expected better from you. Sarah777 (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
As for where the article says the river flows through both Ireland and the UK; "Further sinks that source the pot include Pollboy and, through Shannon Cave, Pollahune in Cavan and Polltulyard and Tullyrrakeeragh in County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland." It's in the article. Sarah777 (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Please don't expect anything from me Sarah. I've no idea what the terms of you unblock are (nor does anyone it seems), so don't go on about 'implied threats' to me: you've been making careless actual mistake after careless mistake across WP since you've been back. And you've never kept off the subjects of BI or UK/IRE either. It's not just the girl's age here - the River Shannon does not run through Northern Ireland, and thus is not in Rivers_in_Northern_Ireland#In_Northern_Ireland for example. Wikipedia makes it look like it does (by virtue of the ever-encompassing 'Ireland'), which obviously isn't right. That teenage girl would be as unclear as me and MntKing (and who knows who else).
And if I want to call NI a "country" - no politics here just easy linguistic freedom - I can (and I used it just like my government does before you argue) - but whether the UK or NI is the country here doesn't make any difference: the Shannon is a ROI-only river. Just take a step back please: you know full-well what upsets people and doesn't re BI and UK/IRE, and (as far as I know) you are not in the same contributing position as the rest of us. If you are then it's different - but we just don't know do we? Matt Lewis (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Slag off my prose - I know, I know. The worse you've ever seen - I hear it all the time when I make a decent suggestion in this area. The brackets are in the article already - I simply kept the county stuff there. How do you explain NI if you don't use ROI? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Snappy, about four editors accepted me including the above - why did you revert it? I don't understand the benefit at all. Right now, the article is seriously confusing regarding Northern Ireland. I had to go off-wiki to find out about the River Shannon. Not untypically for Wikipedia, it's like Northern Ireland doesn't exist (apart from when it's 'educational' to bring up the Troubles of course). And what's with all the 'Geography Only Here' nonsense - the intro is full of Irish counties! They were not riven by God, they were made by man. People go on and on about "educational" value - but doesn't that mean being intelligible too? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
We are still in the middle of a discussion. Your prose is seriously confused. You don't mention the major important fact about the river, and the one we having this discussion in the first place, that its the longest in the island of Ireland until the end of the first paragraph which is way too late. Agree with Bastun here, every longest/biggest/highest river/mountain/lake article does it this way, so until you change all of them, lets stick to current Wikipedia usage/style. The second sentence start with geographic entity (Ireland) then switches to political (RoI) then back to geographic again (provinces). The next sentence (not yours as it is in the current lead) about Clare is a boring barely relevant factoid which has no place in the lead. If we all work together, we can do better than this! Snappy (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You say that I missed out the "major important fact" until it was "way to late" - ie the end of the first parag? Sorry, that is just - what? I had to look outside of Wikipedia to see if the Shannon ran into Northern Ireland. Do you think that is clever? There is NOTHING WRONG with naming a country next to an island - it obviously has to be done here - and in what warped universe is it somehow a crime? It's just beyond reality. And you really do believe that the Irish 'provinces' are "geographical" don't you? You call me "seriously confused" - I say that it is no wonder people run from this topic screaming. Ireland exists in an entire world of its own on Wikipedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I am pretty content with the current version; I took some overlinking out earlier without realizing there was (yet again) a maelstrom of controversy on how to word the geopolitical aspects of this river flowing through John Bull's Other Island. For anybody feeling really clever, why would it be particularly lame to emphasize the nation state aspect on this article? Minor barnstar for a correct answer. --John (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you room with Deacon of Pnepotism by any chance? The last thing we need here is a high admin!
Yes, a number of people clearly now agree that the 'current version' is fine regarding not using British Isles, but the article (and introduction especially) gives the impression the river flows over all of the island of Ireland - and hence runs in Northern Ireland. Apparently there are a number of underground sinks (they are like caves, not rivers) that can feed the ROI Shannon source - one of them is under NI. I know from my own reading that water flow is not an exact science - sometimes that sink could be dry, or not even send water in that direction. So that actual river doesn't run through NI at all: the Shannon's source, where the river starts and flows from, is in the ROI. Our Ever-Edukational Wikipedia makes it look like it's one of the Northern Irish rivers, but it is not in any realistic sense. I wonder sometimes if some people would stretch anything just to use that single word "Ireland" above anything else. (You taking the link out of it's first instance in the article was pretty potty btw. How are general readers supposed to know which 'Ireland' it is?) Matt Lewis (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no point in mixing the geographical and national bits in one sentence in the first paragraph when the article is about a river. Just mentioning Ireland and pointing to island of Ireland is best. That it runs wholly within the Republic of Ireland is better left as another whole sentence when describing the course of the river. The problem with the current lead is that it doesn't mention the British Isles and a lot of people seem to think that is important. The proposed lead mentions that without making a hash of where the river is in the first sentence. Dmcq (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could stick that other sentence on it being a ROI-only river in? Right now the article gives the impression that the Shannon runs through Northern Ireland. I'm unhappy that the sometimes-wise idea of keeping geography and nation apart regarding IRE/UK issues is turning into a Wiki-wide 'philosophy' surrouding the area. Ony on Wikipedia, as sane people no-doubt say. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It no more gives that impression than that it flows though Waterford. How about the following alteration.

The River Shannon (Irish: Abha na Sionainne / an tSionainn / an tSionna) is a river in Ireland. It is the longest river in the British Isles at 386 km (240 miles). It flows from Cavan to Limerick city and divides the west of the Republic of Ireland from the east and south. The river represents a major physical barrier with fewer than twenty crossing-points between Limerick city in the south and the village of Dowra in the north.

Dmcq (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I can support the suggestion above, except there is evidence that the source of the river is in County Fermanagh in Northern Ireland, so maybe that needs separate discussion. On the point about stating the river being the longest in the British Isles, fine, because that single phrase conveys two pieces of information, the second being that the river is also the longest in Ireland. But, in an attempt to move to a consensus my suggestion is that British Isles be replaced with Ireland in the first para, but in the Geogrpahy section we make mention of the fact that the river is the longest in the British Isles. This immediately overcomes the problem of "clunkiness" which is a concern of some editors. Unfortunately I have no answer to the suggestion that this piece of information is "cruft", other than to say it isn't - so there we have two POVs. Two POVs that should be disregarded. All we can do is look to the policies for guidance. One policy talks about verifiability. The fact at issue is easily verified, so that negates the argument about whether this river or the River Severn is the longest. Would any other editors be interested in this compromise? Van Speijk (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This is how potty the area is - you (an SPA I notice) want the Shannon to cover all-Ireland (and hence part of the UK), so you can argue for British Isles! That's been very clear, and I think Snowded is right to be suspicious. One of the possible underground feeder-wells happens to be under Northern Ireland, not the river's source. The river starts with its source in the republic, and only runs in the republic. It doesn't run into or through Northern Ireland. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It is true that a part of the catchment area of the Shannon Pot in in county Fermanagh. But is it already a stream there? That is a bit of a tricky question. Shannon Cave does not give a clear answer on that. It is clear that the River Shannon flows on the surface in the Republic of Ireland. Next I prefer the use of the phrase "on the island Ireland" to prevent confusion that the use of "in Ireland" can cause. And I am aware that this can make you puke, my dear Van Speijk, but what about the use of Anglo-Irish archipelo? It is a redirect to British Isles and avoides the unpopular use of that phrase. It is not a new word due to it use by the Irish diplomacy. As far as I know, it is in use for just a few decades contrary to the use of "British Isles". Night of the Big Wind (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Night, I can't recall using the word "puke" anywhere, but correct me if I'm wrong. Just a point about the Atlantic Archipelago, I don't think it's a well-used term at all. It has very few Google hits - just a couple of pages I think. Also, you spelled your new redirect page wrong, but I'm not sure how to sort that out. Another point is that you mention "British Isles" is unpopular. I would dispute that assertion. Yes, some people don't like the words, but the vast majority of people probably don't care and have no view on it. But, these points are not relevant to the Shannon debate, maybe only tangentially, so I'll leave it now. Van Speijk (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
You didn't use the word "puke", as far as I know. But I have the idea that it could be a personal response on the term Anglo-Irish Archipelo (typo corrected). A Google check on both terms (BI/AIA) does not look very fair considering the time both terms are used: 800 years/30 years. But time will tell... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Van Speijk's proposal to mention longest in Ireland in intro and longest in BI further on in the article. Snappy (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Dmcq gets the barnstar. If this was about a political institution or even man-made infrastructure, there would be more point in discussing the political boundaries that the river flows through. As the river predates human habitation of the island, it is the insistence on this being a "RoI river", a "NI river" or a "BI river" which is "potty". The river predates all these human constructs, and may well outlast them all too. It's OK therefore to just say "Ireland" on that basis, and as I already said there's no need to link the term, as this is a widely-understood country name and there are plenty of other geographical links to find "which Ireland" the river is in. This whole argument, and the vehemence that people feel over assigning a river a nationality, is slightly lame, though at least it's been fairly civil so far. At least arguing about whether U2 are really an Irish band has a nice pub-brawl feeling to it. Do you think the fish or the ducks care which "sovereign" nation they are in? I will take no admin actions on this article as I have edited it, but I would take a dim view of anyone I see prolonging this debate unnecessarily or edit-warring over this minor matter. Let's move on to better things... --John (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
John, what is, and what isn't, minor is highly subjective. Clearly a lot of people here don't consider it minor. I do agree with you, however, that the river should be divorced from political institutions if possible, which is why both Ireland and British Isles are acceptable terms to be used here. One more consideration is notability. Is the fact that the Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles notable? Yes. Do one of several possible Google searches and you'll get hundereds of thousnads of results. I just searched for "British Isles" "Shannon" "Longest" and got over 200,000. Is it notable for any component of a geographic entity to be endowed with its status as highest, biggest, longest, deepest and so on within that entity? Yes. There are many examples, of which I noted some earlier, so I see no reason why this should not apply to the Shannon. Van Speijk (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

John - yesterday you completely removed the first link from 'Ireland'. I'm sorry, but you are just clueless. Your comment here is offensive (to me), patronising (to everyone imo), politically-correct nonsense. The word Ireland is a rock AND a state. The over-arching policy on Wikipedia now for all IRELAND NAME matters is that State (and Northern Ireland in particular) is to be deliberately avoided, even when it is naturally needed and provides disambiguation and meaning. As I always say at these times, Ireland is simply a 'Special Case' on Wikipedia. But lets be intelligent here: how can it be "lame" to simply mention them both? With the WORD "Ireland", disambiguation is obviously often needed. Like here at River Shannon, where we are obliged to show that the river doesn't flow in NI. Because John (whether you like it or not) - NI is a human place where human beings live and visit etc, and people like me are interested in that kind of irritating shit. And also (whether you like it or not), NI is not automatically-covered by the term 'Ireland' - which is the very issue here isn't it? I find this 'WP:IRELAND-NEVER-STATE' censorship utterly dreadful on a mumber of counts, and it inherently suites the 'all-Ireland' supporters, not just the lazy and cynical administrator class. But I'm not allowed to include 'politics' like that, am I? Because STATE is political, and thus NEVER allowed to be mentioned when deciding how best to use the words 'Ireland', 'British Isles' etc. It's a total farce.

When I argued for the Ireland disamiguation page move (which did happen - too early - for a short while), I constantly argued that Ireland was people-first - it's just a rock otherwise - without any Goddamn name. God didn't call the rock "Ireland", people did. Don't anyone (admin especially) dare infer that I'm being 'over-political' when I try and disambiguate this area fairly. I find the 'NEVER-STATE' philosophy that has developed in this area utterly controlling, and with all the inherent ambiguity surrounding the name Ireland (not to mention British Isles) it doesn't hel Wikipedia as an encyclopedia AT ALL. Constantly, meaning is lost, and the sad irony is that underneath it all lack of meaning is usually down to politics, even if that is politically-correct politics. God didn't name the rock Ireland, people did: and the name it has been given covers the island and just ONE of the states upon it. I'm sorry - admin like you and Deacon John, you just wander in an out with sarcastic comments. Don't you ever suggest that I am being 'lame' here again. You clearly don't know the area at all, and as an admin you need to keep above that kind of crass talk. Whatever you think goes for cool in adminship these days, you are a mop and you are a bucket - you (or all people here) - should not take sides in that way anyway. And the philosphy is actually anti-meaning - and hence anti-Wikipedia - that's what really gets me. But of course 'Ireland' really is a 'special case'. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

First, sorry that I offended you by calling this dispute lame; but that's honestly how I see it. My "side" is clearly and concisely describing the location of a river on an island, without descending into crass and asinine political commentary on an article about a river. Tell me, why do you think "Ireland really is a special case"? --John (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, given you edit note, I'm happy to be 'Lame'. In the kingdom of the legless, the man with a limp is king. I've answered your question in the section below. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Matt, I think you need to calm down on this issue. You're telling users (John, Deacon somebody, who I don't know and haven't even seen on this article, and Sarah777) that they can't edit here - in two cases because they're admins. Really? There's a wall of text above where you verge on ranting and personal attacks. And you keep insisting "longest river in BI" is "useless cruft" and can't be included, while also demanding we include your proposed additions where we're apparently meant to prove a negative? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I can't quite follow all of that, but it's nice to see you actually sticking up for Sarah in this instance Bastun. I have calmed down, although if you take out the CAPS (where else can you go on Wikipedia?) you will find that it was more than a rant. I don't 'wall of text' either - that's a really cheap shot, especially as I'm providing much-needed arguments here. It's wasn't overly-verbose repetition lacking in paragraphs, and it was also to John. Perhaps you will prefer my calmer follow-up in the section below. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Dmcq's proposal, and Van Speijk's proposal also works. It might, in fact, be a better compromise, mentioning longest river in Ireland in the lead and longest in BI later in the article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Dmcq and the above. Ireland (unlinked) in the lede, then all the details, including BI, later in the article. --John (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

So - leaving aside the person who's named three people he thinks shouldn't be editing this article and who is now repeating himself in his own section - there is emerging consensus, I think, from me, John, Dmcq, and Van Speijk: Ireland in the lead, BI and other details later in the article. Anyone else agree with that? Or anyone else have a particular problem with it? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Bastun I for one can see no emerging consensus for any change. And as detailed below I have a big problem with that. Bjmullan (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I presume you mean "detailed above" - below is Matt repeating Matt. Is it fair to summarise your objection as seeing inclusion of "longest river in BI" as "irrelevant and trivial"? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop being a wind-up Bastun - I've not said three people should not edit this article! If you know what Sarah can and can't edit perhaps you could enlighten me? I'd rather she could edit everything than that the semi-ambiguity of her general editing/commenting since her block. People simply need to know where they stand in these cases. It's why I was originally critical of the mentorship thing - it's too fuzzy, and the mentor can just end up a constant apologiser for the same old. So why do it? I've seen that happen elsewhere where the person seemed to exist oddly outside of policy, and got even worse in certain ways (his ego especially). It wasn't envisaged that way, it just happened. I'd actually rather it was a time-served block, back to normal, then the next time (should it happen) is the next time. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple Ireland (linking to ROI) proposal

I've made this (Bjmullan's suggestion) a new sub-section... Matt Lewis (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I still see no reason to include the BI information in the lede or the article. If we want to include some trivia why not state that it's the longest river on any European island. People who go on about geographic terms like to use the largest area. My suggestion:

The River Shannon (Irish: Abha na Sionainne / an tSionainn / an tSionna) is the longest river in Ireland at 386 km (240 miles).[1][2][3] It divides the west of the country - principally the province of Connacht - from Leinster and most of Munster in the east and south. The river represents a major physical barrier between east and west, with fewer than twenty crossing-points between the village of Dowra in the north and Limerick city in the south, where the river flows into the Atlantic Ocean.

Bjmullan (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. If people want to find a way comparing it to the Thames (or any river in NI, or elsewhere) they can do so somewhere within the article. The only thing I would add is "of the country" in the text - it's harmless and it helps. (I've taken the liberty of giving this proposal an indent, and have added "of the country" - please just delete if you don't like it.) It's no surprise that 'X is bigger than Y' stuff occasionally invites trouble. I agree that is it silly just to assume that these articles have to begin with comparison, mainly just because others do. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles is not trivia. It ranks with similar data such as the highest mountain and deepest lake in the archipelago. Having said that, the suggestion from Bjmullan is fine for the opening, excpet I would say Ireland and not Republic of Ireland. On the subject of the geogrpahy section, here's my proposal for the first sentence: The Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles. By tradition it is said to rise in the Shannon Pot, a small .. etc. Van Speijk (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
We cannot give the impression it runs through Northern Ireland - people will simply expect it to be there if we do. People won't allow me to put in something like "It only runs in the Republic of Ireland" as that constitutes cross-use and seems rarely allowed now, and they won't let me use Ireland twice linking to the different articles, as that is bad form too. So if we use (or mean John - now that you've removed its wikilink?) Ireland as island, we have to add "The river doesn't run in Northern Ireland" - which is a real bandage line.
We really should use Ireland the country here - and why on earth not? Countries are where people live. People fish on rivers etc. Why should anyone be embarrassed about the ROI and NI? Being a "Lamer", countries and people are far more important to me than massive chunks of rock. Call me a 'people person' for my sins. Administrators must learn to respect sovereignty (why Ireland is always a 'special case' John). I know that stops Ireland being the romantic dream of all-Ireland, and I know that it messes with the 'British' in British Isles, but really you just cannot win them all - either side.
Eventual guidelines will have to say that at least ROI and the UK should be involved for the term to be used - if things are actually going to work. Anyone who says that "politics" (meaning people and the world we all actually live in) can't be mixed with "geography" in these matters simply live in an intentionally blinkered world. Otherwise they are deliberately working around sovereignty - which is totally unacceptable.
OK, at the moment John has removed the wikilink from Ireland in "The River Shannon is the longest river in Ireland" per 'WP:OVERLINK' (now rendering it WP:UNDERLINK of course). The intro then details provinces (ROI ones obviously) to explain where it runs. Assuming 'in Ireland" is supposed to just mean the island (it can't mean both John - sorry mate), it is actually mixing geography and politics in a way that suggests that the Republic of Ireland is really meant. Is that what you intended John? If so, why not give it a link to the country? If you mean the island (as you must per your NO-POLITICS! comments) - then don't you think it's a bit wrong to detail all those provinces (ROI-only of course, as secretly it only runs there) in a way that makes them appear part of an island? An all-Irish island perhaps? If you mention a countries provinces you simply have to mention the country first. Those 'traditional' provinces are NOT magical mythical places. Ireland must NOT be a special case. You've asked for an explanation on that - you now have one.
I'm going to have to edit it - it's intolerable at the moment, as a no-linked Ireland just makes it worse. Does anywhere else have a no-linked Ireland like this? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Reverted. All three provinces mentioned are in the Republic of Ireland, therefore there is no need to use the disambiguator description "Republic of" - per IMOS. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
So you are saying that the second (unlinked) instance of "Ireland" is the Republic? You left first instance linking to the island (ie the link I put back in, as the island was clearly what John wanted when he took the link out). This is really silly now. IMOS says use "Republic of Ireland" when you need to doesn't it? We need to here, at least while the first instance links to the rock! If the first one means the island, the second one must too - but you can't have provinces belonging to the rock. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I just had a look at Lough Neagh and it doesn't mention anything about being biggest in the British Isles in the lead. It does say it is in Northern Ireland. It looks like one way round the problem to me. If the Shannon article starts off saying biggest and giving the length then it should say Ireland meaning the island, putting in British Isles right at the start is just plain silly. If you take out anything about being the longest then I think it is probably okay to say Republic of Ireland and leave the bit about being the biggest in the British Isles or whatever to the geography section. So how about simply starting 'The River Shannon (Irish: Abha na Sionainne / an tSionainn / an tSionna) is a 386 km (240 miles) long river in the Republic of Ireland.' The geography section can then say it is the longest river in the British Isles. Dmcq (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Disagree, the most salient fact about this river is that is it the longest one in the island of Ireland. That fact has to go in the lead. Snappy (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I support that as well. It does make sense to have that important point in the first sentence. But we seem to be mixing up several issues here. They are the idea to mention that the river is the longest in the British Isles, the source of the river, and whether to refer to the island of Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. These last two should maybe be taken out of this debate and addressed separately. I do think we have a consensus to include my suggested opening sentence in the Geography section; The Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles ..etc. There are two main objections to this; trivia and cruft. Both of these arguments are easily countered, so maybe we could proceed with my suggestion? Van Speijk (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Well if its so easy to counter them do, as far as I can see "trivia" and "cruff" accurately summarise the problem; you do not have agreement to proceed with your suggestion.--Snowded TALK 20:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I have explained above how these arguments don't stand up. To reiterate, the disputed statement is equivalent to that of the highset point in the British Isles, for instance (mentioned at Ben Nevis, and that is not regarded as trivia. As to what's cruft is just an individual's POV and has no place here. So, I don't see any reasoned arguments as to why the phrase cannot be placed in the Geography section. Van Speijk (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely Dmcq - if the River Thames was bigger than the Shannon, there is just no way it would be introduced as the "longest river in the British Isles". The Thames article doesn't open with it being the longest in England either - why should it? I honestly don't see how a river's size is its 'most salient' fact. Do rivers primarily exist to be the biggest? The idea that the most important thing about the Shannon is that it's the biggest river on the island (or indeed the British Isles) seems entirely subjective to me. Rivers used to be the givers of life, and some of them have an incredibly involved story and history. Typically the History section is all about military events, but I expect that it could be full of all other kinds of detail. If there turns out to be consensus for the non-vital mention of British Isles to go lower-down in the article - and there is a decent textual way to do so (ie it not expressed as a factoid) - then so be it, but I'd personally be inclinded to move the size detail down with it too.
Regardless of anything else, whether we use "Ireland" as island or state for the first instance of the word, we simply have to then 'disambiguate' where the provinces are concerned. I find that Wikipedia effectively saying that they are part of Ireland the island intollerable in an encyclopedic sense. If you really want to mess-up mixing geography and politics, that's the way to do it. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Nicely put Matt. The most important aspect of the Shannon is the barrier that it places across the country. The start and end points are also of interest as well (the reason I added the Atlantic Ocean). Add "my daddy is bigger than your daddy" is just trivial. Bjmullan (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
"if the River Thames was bigger than the Shannon, there is just no way it would be introduced as the 'longest river in the British Isles'." Really, Matt?! What about the highest mountain in the British Isles? What do we have? Oh, look - "Ben Nevis (Scottish Gaelic: Beinn Nibheis, pronounced [peˈɲivəʃ]) is the highest mountain in the British Isles." Odd, that. Is there some sort of different guideline for rivers, as opposed to mountains, that I'm not aware of. And of course the Thames article mentions "The Thames is the second longest river in the United Kingdom and the longest river entirely in England." in it's first post-lede section. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The first post-intro section is fine if that's the one where it best fits. I'm surprised you don't want to change it to "second longest river in Great Britain" though! If you think my comment deserves a "?!" based on Ben Nevis then what can I say? Personally I find the Ben Nevis opening just looks silly, and Great Britain or United Kingdom would be better anyway, as it's usually compared to Mount Snowdon in Wales. The WP:My Daddy stance looks really silly now people are pointing it out. Actually, regarding mountains, few people in the UK have heard of Ireland's Carrauntoohil, lovely though I'm sure the wee thing is. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Anyway we also have the example of Lough Neagh which is the biggest lake in the British Isles and there's no mention of that in the lead. So that negates the Ben Nevis argument. Dmcq (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The compromise being suggested - and it's a good one - is to not mention the BI in the first paragraph but move it to the Geography section. This information is widely available elsewhere and easily verified. It is relevant to the subject of the river, as in the Lough Neagh, Ben Nevis and other articles. I have not yet seen any reasonable argument to exclude this information. If such a reasonable argument exists, let us see it here. I think this debate is becoming stale now and it needs some administrator intervention. There is a clear consensus here, when strength of arguments are taken into account. Van Speijk (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Look, some people want BI in the first sentence or in the lead, some don't want it mentioned at all in the article. Van Speijk's proposal is a sensible compromise. Nobody gets exactly what they want but I think most people can live with it. Snappy (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree also. --HighKing (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree. The encyclopaedia should talk about the river first. It is not a quick look up for answers to pub quiz questions but they can find the information. Dmcq (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Look, few seem to be arguing against at least trying BI lower down (though it will be interesting to see who can write it into a proper paragraph - I see that no one is exactly jumping to the no-so-simple task). The actual arguments re educational/cruft and when/where are important on a wider level, especially in terms of a future guideline.
The really important issue here is really over Ireland disam. I'll propose something for that (per Imos - which is few properly understand alas) tonight. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I would also support the proposal by Snappy and would also be really keen to see it written in a contextual manner. Bjmullan (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Reading the above debate we do seem to have a consensus that mention should be made as to the Shannon's status of being the longest river in the British Isles, but as some have pointed out, since mention is already made in paragraph 1 that it's the longest river in Ireland it could be difficult to word it. The suggestion was to put this fact in the geography section, but I must confess I'm struggling with that. It just doesn't seem to fit well. What about putting it in the Economics section, as this: Despite having a length of 386 km (240 miles), and being the longest river in the British Isles, the Shannon rises only 76 m (256 feet) above sea level, so the river is easily navigable, with only a few locks along its length. There is a hydroelectric generation plant at Ardnacrusha belonging to the ESB. Compare this with the current paragrpah in the article. Any thoughts on this? Van Speijk (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a bad idea. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Does it? Would you care to expand on that? Your comment as it stands is of little use. Van Speijk (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced about the necessity of mentioning that it is the longest river in the British Isles. It is already mentioned to be the longest river on the island Ireland. That should be enough, as it is the truth. Mentioning it as being the longest in the British Isles is controversial, and can easily be avoided by not mentioning it. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
We already have a reasonable consensus that it should be mentioned (see above). It just reamins now how to do it. The arguments about whether or not it is controversial have been done to death. Yes, for some people it is controversial, but as mentioned earlier Wikipedia is not censored. So do you have any suggestions how we might incorporate this geographic fact into the article. I've noted that I find it difficult to put it in the Geography section, hence my current suggestion, but do you have any other ideas - apart from leaving it out altogther? Van Speijk (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't want another fight over it, so maybe you can put it down under "Trivia". Night of the Big Wind (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
We are not supposed to have trivia sections. Anyway, I'd argue it isn't trivia. But please, even if you don't agree with the principle of putting it in at all, what do you think about the Economics section as a possible position? Van Speijk (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I think John's comment stands, this is perpetuating a trivial discussion --Snowded TALK 14:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Which comment is that? We do have some agreement above, so this section is just about trying to place the information at a suitable location. Van Speijk (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Its far from clear that there is agreement, and the warning from John is clear. I suggest you find it --Snowded TALK 15:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)--Snowded TALK 15:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The following users who have entered into the debate have agreed to compromise; Dmcq, Bastun, Snappy, HighKing, Bjmullan and me. The compromise being that the fact should not be included in the first paragraph but elsewhere. I know some of these editors are generally not in favour of "British Isles" as a term, but nevertheless they have discussed the matter constructively. While this is not a voting situation what we have is a reasonable consensus involving participants from both sides of the wider debate, and there are always going to be people in disagrement. Therefore it is time to move on and agree where precisely we include the information. I've made a suggestion, what is your view on it? Van Speijk (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Prepared to put it with it for a quiet life more like. Sorry I don't think SPAs such as yourself should be indulged on issues like this. We have a stable article which you disrupt on a "tokenist" issue and then propose a compromise, it does wikipedia no good --Snowded TALK 20:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Does this mean that you will take no further part in the discussions? Van Speijk (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Any views on the above proposal for inclusion in the Economics section, or should we attempt to alter the wording in the Geography section, which I suppose is the natural place to include the fact? Van Speijk (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons stated --Snowded TALK 05:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
My compromise on this POV-issue is a trivia section. Nothing more. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to make it clear my agreement on the addition of the term BI is based on someone coming up with a contextual setting for it. I can't but maybe someone else can. Just doing my daddy is bigger than yours doesn't work for me. Bjmullan (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand that. Do you have any more thoughts on it? I'm finding it difficult to put it the Geography section and make it read well, even though that's where it best belongs. I mentioned about the Econonomics section, but BI is not an economic unit, so ideally we should use the Geography section, but without repeating the fact about it being the longest river in Ireland. Any suggestions? Van Speijk (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
No further comments after more than two weeks, so I propose the following: The geography section should commence - The Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles. By tradition it is said to rise in the Shannon Pot, a small .... Van Speijk (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, unnecessary addition --Snowded TALK 19:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
There was a consensus above to include it. The issue now is how and where. You do not explain your opposition. You have failed to offer any reasoned argument for exclusion and your only riposte is, in effect, that you don't like it. Van Speijk (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I've added it to the Geography section. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you (and well worded). I hope we can now close this. I'll look at the counties as well. Van Speijk (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see there was some willingness (but by no means universal) to included it somewhere if agreement could be reached on a location. In the actual discussion you have one opposed, one willing to include it in trivia, and two of you happy to put it wherever. Van Speijk has his own views on what is or is not a reasoned argument, but that is irrelevant. Please indicate how you count a consensus, otherwise peer WP:BRD it goes. --Snowded TALK 07:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In favour of inclusion in geography section: Dmcq, Bastun, Snappy, HighKing, Bjmullan and Van Speijk. Matt Lewis also seems to have withdrawn his opposition. In favour of inclusion in a trivia section: Night of the Big Wind. Opposed to inclusion: You. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I've no probs with having "...longest in the British Isles", mentioned in this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
To put it into perspective: I am opposed to inclusion, but as a compromise I will tolerate it in a trivia section. Night of the Big Wind talk 17:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:Trivia, such sections are not allowed, the info is integrated into the main text. Snappy (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
What I read in the link you give is that they are allowed, but should be avoided if possible. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I do not think it worth while to include this trivia. For one thing "British Isles" is an outdated term deriving from a colonial period which is not unnaturally resented by many Irish people and has little value as a geographical term. Second the method of calculating the length of a river is arbitrary and it's easy to make the case that the Severn is longer than the Shannon. So why keep repeating an old school-book saw? Chris55 (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear on this, I am firmly of the opinion that when we get compromises on BI issues they should be sustained. We have Derry for the city, Londonderry for the country. We had Ireland for the Shannon, BI for Loch Neagh. The need to keep to those compromises is particularly true when we get SPAs such as Van Speijk whose role is disruptive as best, Ok they often end up being socks or run socks but its tiresome. In this case its also disputable (Severn v Shannon based on how you count esturaies) as well as unnecessary. I realise that editors may be seduced by the "lets compromise" argument, but we have already compromised, and now we have an SPA (with some support) seeking to compromise the compromise. To my mind this should not be encouraged.

On the matter of the consensus, I think the statement by Bastun is dubious. None of the editors listed took part in the discussion on inclusion, and in the main while they were prepared to consider a compromise, other than Snappy, we don't see much in the way of positive acceptance. If they all come here and confirm they want the latest change, otherwise it is not accepted --Snowded TALK 08:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If consensus can never change, you'll be opposing the re-opening of the Ireland naming question come September, then? You're rehashing the same arguments from the debate above and prior ones. No reliable source I've seen lists the Severn as longer than the Shannon - you and Chris55 appear to be the only ones saying so, and it's OR. Until it's demonstrated otherwise, Van Speijk's opinion is as valid as yours - please stop engaging in personal attacks. All of those mentioned did indeed take part in the debate. Chris55 can certainly be added to your name as an "oppose" and from what he's said, so can Night of the Big Wind. That's three. Dmcq, Snappy, HighKing, Bjmullan, Van Speijk, Matt Lewis, GoodDay and I favour it's inclusion in the Geography section - that's eight. Seven if Bjmullan doesn't think the wording works. But likely FactController can be added to the list too. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The way the Encyclopedia Britannia gives the shorter length of the river and mentions the length of the Estuary. It also uses Ireland and does not use British Isles. This is not one where the position is clear in respect of BI, but it is clear for Ireland. Sources differ and it rests on whether you include the estury length or not and so far no one has produced an authoritative source on that question. I've asked the geography guys if there is a formal position on the estuary/river length issue so lets leave the dispute tag until we have some third party views who are not wrapped up in the politics
If you want to be naive about SPA accounts like Van Speijk feel free but you have been around these pages long enough to know how these accounts emerge; I had thought better of you. I am sure Dmcq, Snappy, HighKing, Bjmullan & Matt Lewis have this page on watch so lets see if they participate --Snowded TALK 12:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I have checked my Encyclopedia Britannia, 15th edition 1983:
Unless something went horrible wrong at school in Holland I would say that 239 mile (161 mile river plus 70 mile estuary) is more then 180 mile (according to my EB the river including the estuary). Night of the Big Wind talk 14:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Even sources in River Severn give it no more then 220 mile.[4] And if you have to protect cities of flooding, it is more then likely that you have done your homework properly! Night of the Big Wind talk 14:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Snowded, believe me, I completely understand the compromise that was hashed out, and I'm up to speed on most "British Isles" topics. But I don't support the (what I see as nationalistic) view that the term "British Isles" should be removed from all things related to Ireland. In this article, the term is being used correctly in a geographic context, and is referenced. I'm fine with its inclusion. --HighKing (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
As you well know I am happy with BI where its an appropriate as a geographic term. In this case I think its geographical accuracy is at least dubious and its insertion a nationalist driven one --Snowded TALK 16:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Snowded, they have already participated, and made their view reasonably clear (possible exception being Bjmullan who included a caveat), and don't need to do so again just because you seem to be refusing to acknowledge their earlier participation.
You've again put a "disputed" tag on two references that say the river is the longest in the BI. Can you provide references saying the Severn is? If you can't, I'm removing it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The length of the rivers is not into dispute. The statement about the British Isles is. Night of the Big Wind talk 15:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Bastun, I have sought clarification on the geography notice board. Lets see what they come up with and also wait for all involved editors to comment. If the view is that estuary length's are definitely a part of the river's length and the balance of opinion is for the inclusion I will accept that view --Snowded TALK 16:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This article has some useful information - List_of_rivers_by_length, and it implies that to come up with a precise definition of river length would be OR or synthesis. Consequently all we have to go on are sources, which in Wikipedia is all we need. There are many sources stating that The Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles, but few, if any, contradicting it. Have we got a high quality reference stating that the River Severn is the longest river in the British Isles? I think the "dubious" tag is serving no useful purpose, but let's see if there are any views from the Geo project. How long do we give it? Van Speijk (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
At least that article makes clear that the estuary is included in the length of a river. But more important, it gives indirectly a definition of the source of a river: In this article, length means the length of the longest continuous river channel in a given river system, regardless of name. In this case the river is a "continuous river channel" from the Shannon Pot. Night of the Big Wind talk 00:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Once again, involved editors have already commented; as nobody on the Geography project has responded after a week, I'm removing the 'dubious' tag. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Counties

The article says the Shannon flows through or between 11 counties, but only 10 are listed in the infobox: Cavan, Leitrim, Roscommon, Longford, Offaly, Westmeath, Galway, Clare, Tipperary, Limerick. Do we have a missing county, or is the article text overstating it by one? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Could the missing county be Fermanagh? Maybe it's missing because of the uncertainty in some quarters about precisely where the river rises. Van Speijk (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that County Kerry is missing as it is lying on the southside of the Shannon Estuary. Roughly from Tarbert, County Kerry to Ballybunion. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry for trampling on the lead in the thoughtless way that I just did. I hadn't read the discussion before I edited. I did try to revert my own edit after looking at the talkpage, but User:Snowded had beaten me to it. I'll tread more carefully in future. I'm still trying to understand the reluctance to include that fact in the lead though. FactController (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

Does the river run through only the Republic of Ireland or does it also run through Northern Ireland ? This point is not clear.Mtking (edits) 23:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

On the surface it only runs through the Republic of Ireland. It is debatable if the river also runs through Northern Ireland. Many say no, due to it not running on the surface. Many say yes, due to springs and underground streams being connected with the Shannon Pot. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Normally the River source is counted as the starting point of a river, but geopolitical reasons prevented consensus about that. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Well F**k geopolitical reasons, lets make it clear for non British Isles readers. Mtking (edits) 22:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Added a maintenance tag to highlight the issue. Mtking (edits) 00:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't start shouting at me! I'm happy enough that it is quiet again. We had some wild battles here between the Fenian Republic of Ireland and the disgruntled and kicked out "British". Night of the Big Wind talk 10:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
In your opinion. The Geography section deals with this from the last time it was raised. Don't template the article just because you don't like it. --HighKing (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What on earth must...

... we do with this: Shannon River Basin: Furthest Source? Night of the Big Wind talk 18:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be deleted as WP:Original research. It doesn't matter if somebody discovers something like that, it has to be published first. Wikipedia does noyt publish things before other people, it is an encyclopaedia not a research journal. Dmcq (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This was just stuck into this article. I don't mind having something that people agree is true in with a citation needed if people think it really is worth mentioning. However sticking things in with citations which refer to very long web pages or whole books which I then look through and say nothing of the sort that I can see is just totally wrong and wastes peoples' time. Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant... :-(

It looks like johnny-shannon-has-longer-tributaries-fl1nn is back, this time disguised as Longwallker. He now tries it by using a self-published news-article. Night of the Big Wind talk 07:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look and the book referred to seems an okay source. I'd prefer not to refer to that web site with the excerpt as it is chock full of advertisements, there's a full copy on the web somewhere or they can buy a copy if they want to. Dmcq (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
You have seen his second attempt. In his first attempt he also added this as source... Night of the Big Wind talk 15:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

240 Miles?

johnny-shannon-has-longer-tributaries-f1nn wonders how the length of the Shannon (240 mls) was obtained? The references 1, 2, 3 give the differing lengths of 231 miles, 173 miles & 213 miles!

In the Hydrographical Map of the British Isles which can be accessed by the url:- http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~34233~1171148:A-hydrographical-map-of-the-British, the Shannon's measurement is 225 miles. The Severn's is 220 miles with the Thames at 215 miles. By my own measurements (whatever thats worth!) the Shannon's 225 miles estimate is accurate.

Now, if we look at Wiki's own article on the Thames, by using the "Seven Springs" source (Churn River), this would increase the Thames Basin's length to 229 miles - 4 miles longer than the Shannon (Shannon Pot source)!

I hope that you can see why my "discovery" of a further (even longer) source of the Shannon Basin might be deemed to be significant!

Incidently, these findings would indicate that the Thames and NOT the Severn is the longest river basin in the island of Great Britain! - Could I add this to the Thames Wiki Article!?!

Sorry for all the bother I seem to be causing! Johnnyf1nn (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I can see your point but we simply can't put it in without a reliable secondary source. Why can't you write a short paper for Irish Geography for instance? Stick in a photo or two and make certain all your facts are right and you have citations. A small article like that would be well above the verifiability bar for supporting the flag waving you seem to want to do ;-) Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
OOps sorry see your point. Yes I wonder where the 240miles came from, it isn't supported by the sources. The 231 and 213 sound like anagrams of each other. I think the Encyclopaedia Britannica is probably the most reliable of the three so I'll put in 231 for the moment. There was someone here wanting to put a higher figure in from a different source and whilst it looks okay it really isn't up to Wikipedia to do research but I'm sure some geographical magazine would print it if they submitted it with their workings out. Dmcq (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
In fact I'll put in the figure of 224 miles 360.5km from the Irish Ordinance Survey. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources which use 240. Fmph (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
How reliable are they compared to Ordnance Survey Ireland? We sghould use the most reliable sources available. Dmcq (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Very reliable by our normal standards. Sources very often differ. We need to be sure we are comparing like with like. How is the length of a river defined. Is an estuary part of it? etc etc etc Fmph (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Not a clue where that 240 mile is coming from. The 231 mile (161 mile river + 60 mile estuarium) is conform my paper Encyclopeadia Brittanica. Night of the Big Wind talk 16:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Well if we know where Encyclopaedia Britannica got it from that would be good as it is considered a tertiary source - but for things like this I'd normally consider it pretty good The Ordnance Survey though is a very good primary source and primary sources are fine for straightforward facts. Dmcq (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not too bothered about the difference between 240 en 231 miles. Perhaps the 231 miles is measured over the headrace canal, what is lightly shorter then the river bed, as far as I know. See here. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm not too concerned provided the source is a very reliable one. And the Ordnance Survey is a very reliable source for geographical detail about Ireland and trumps Encyclopaedia Britannica which is a tertiary source unless we can find something better which was used by the Encyclopaedia Britannica. We certainly can't work out the figures for ourselves. The 231 figure might have something backing it up but there was no citation for 240 miles that I could see, it just seems to have somehow got in without citation. Dmcq (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Split River Shannon navigation

During a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Lock (River Shannon)) it was mentioned that the navigation may be independently notable and should be split from this article. Are there any objections? Op47 (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I object. I do not see any reason for a split. The article is not too long and with proper linking to related articles, like the locks you mentioned, there is not much chance that the article will become unhandy long. At best, you could think of a "List of locks in the River Shannon", but a split is unnecessary. The Banner talk 13:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The split has not been proposed on size grounds. Op47 (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand that, as I can clearly see that this is another attempt to get rid of separate articles about the locks in the Shannon. The Banner talk 20:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any support, so I have removed the template out of the article. The Banner talk 12:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:River Shannon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article says the river is 386 km (240 miles) long, but Encyclopedia Britannica says the length is 161 miles (259 km). That is a very large difference!

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/538586/River-Shannon Here is an article, that claims that by using a different source, the Shannon River system is 20 miles longer (260 ml)!

http://www.posterwall.com/blog_attachment.php?attachmentid=3481&d=1309807022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyf1nn (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 22:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Lough Boyle?!?!

I wonder if a better map showing the course of the River Shannon could be used? The map used shows a 'Lough Boyle' which should be 'Lough Key'. There is a 'Lough Boyle' in County Donegal.Johnnyf1nn (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica
  2. ^ Environmental Geology Volume 27, Number 2, 110-112, DOI: 10.1007/BF01061681
  3. ^ Discover Ireland
  4. ^ "Frankwell Flood Alleviation Scheme, Shrewsbury" (PDF). UK Environment Agency. Retrieved 2010-03-13.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:River_Shannon/Archive_2&oldid=1255623134"