Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples

This page will discuss classifications of usage according to discussions on specific examples using real articles. Individual articles will be discussed on the Talk page and after agreement, will be classified here.

Stonewalling is not acceptable

This page has been set up for honest and open discussion. If any editor attempts to simply stonewall without discussion or giving reasons, their comments can be summarily deleted. Examples such as "I can't see any reason" when 3 reasons are listed, is an example of stonewalling. Contributing editors should familiarize themselves with the work that has already taken place on the main Task Force page, and try to discuss each of the points above in that context. Sign up on the main Task Force Page if you haven't already done so. --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibilities

Perhaps using BI on the British articles & using an alternative on Irish articles, is a start. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Change in procedures

This task force has a number of problems in its mangement - the changes being made to articles based on the "guidelines" supposedly being developed here are being performed unilaterally, while discussion is ongoing regarding the article in question is still going on, and major contributors to the article are not being informed. What needs to happen, is that when someone thinks that the terms "British Isles" or "Britain and Ireland" (or variations thereof) are being misused they should start a subpage i.e. (using the first on the list as an example) Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples/Planned French Invasion of Britain (1759) outlining their concerns. This page can be copied both here and to the article talk page (using {{Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples/Planned French Invasion of Britain (1759)}}) - this will help notify interested parties and centralise the discussions, which are now being spread across several talk pages. This page should have a clear description of its purpose at the top. Only once the discussion is resolved can any changes be made, and the pages archived.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm happy to try an alternate approach. Þjóðólfr (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why create a subpage? Surely that would only spread the discussion out on even more and more pages. What's wrong with just starting a new thread on the talk page as we are doing? I think however we should notify the talk page of pages being discussed. It is not IMHO fair that a change should be decided here in isolation of editors actually working on the pages in question. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO there's no easy solution to the British Isles usage dispute. PS: Shouldn't all what's going on at this pages talkpage, be occuring here & visa versa? GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The advantage of a subpage is that it can be transcluded anywhere (as I described above). It is the same principle as used for WP:GA subpages - it keeps a review or discussion in one place even if it is spread across numerous talk pages.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There would be too many subpages, too many things too watch. We have made progress in getting them to one place so they can be seen in the round. Based on both good and bad experience over the past few months I have a draft proposal here which I planned to review and revise following comments over the weekend and then post to the examples page. --Snowded ^TALK 09:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Respecting talkpages of articles

We should start considering that what's agreed to on the Specifics Examples page, doesn't mean consensus on the respective article pages. That is: when it's decided here to add/delete/replace British Isles on an article - that 'decision' should get confirmation on the respective article talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there no option for the decision here to be rejected on the article talk page? DuncanHill (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a moderator in the house?

We need a new moderator, the post has been vacant since Black Kite's departure. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Some potential candidates for the role, if there should be a need: Sandstein, Elonka. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, go ask... --HighKing (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh sure, make me do the dirty work. Very well. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for asking, but I have to decline. I don't have the time right now to even do the reading required to even understand this issue. Regards,  Sandstein  00:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to establish some guidelines

When challenged to provide some "legal" framework for his removals of the term British Isles, HighKing has suggested the following pages:

• British Isles
• British Isles naming dispute
• Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force
• WP:BIDRAFT1
• WP:BIDRAFT2

The first two are Wikipedia articles and therefore clearly do not lay down policy. In any case, all they do is illustrate that a small minority of English speakers get upset with the use of the word. The last two are moribund discussion pages that did not reach a conclusion and are in no way binding policy. However, the middle one, a parent page to this one, does contain some useful insights, although it too is non-binding. It contains some unratified "shared principles" that might assist users of this page in deciding when to use the term British Isles. I have listed below those of the prinicples that relate to this discussion page.

1. 'British Isles' is a political, cultural and geographical term but should only be used in connection with geographical features.
2. 'Britain' is a political, cultural and geographical term but should only be used in connection with geographical features.
3. The 'geographical' in all cases is physical geography and not human geography.
4. 'British Isles' is a widely-used term, but it is acknowledged that it has political and cultural legacy aspects which can cause offence.
5. In respect of size and height issues etc, the non-binding preference is to refer to largest geographical unit to which the entity unambiguously belongs. For example, Europe in certain circumstances would take precedence over smaller units. NOTE: an exception here may be to name the Republic of Ireland, or Ireland the island, alongside the British Isles, to help distinguish it from the word 'British' (as pertaining to Britain).
6. In certain situations, the direct 'Republic of Ireland' could be the best term to help differentiate the ROI from any appearance of association with the word 'British' (as pertaining to Britain) in the term 'British Isles'.

In addition, the following are ideas that have emerged from the discussions on the talk page - feel free to add others that occur or that I have missed:

1. British Isles should never be used to refer specifically to any of the political entities that exist or have exisited on the Isles.
2. British Isles is generally acceptable in all physically geographical or maritime contexts.
3. Sources should always be used as the basis for argument and without their corroboration no change should be attempted.
4. "Drive-by" changes by uninvolved editors should be brought here for discussion and reverted if controversial until consensus is established.
5. Where the accuracy of usage is mariginal (i.e. British Isles is correct but could be changed to something else without sacrificing accuracy or vice versa), the original editor's choice should be maintained (as is the case with WP:RETAIN) (although a degree of flexibility is required in the face of major rewrites etc.)

Can people indicate whether they agree or disgree with this summary and why - if we can develop some form of consensus then perhaps we can consider an RfC on this issue to establish a firm and clear set of guidelines on this issue (similar to last year's successful vote on Republic of Ireland).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

One serious omission which is absolutely required IMHO, is the acceptance that British Isles is sometimes/often used incorrectly, and that wanting to fix those cases is not a bad thing. Fmph (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct (I'd assumed that as a basic starting point but neglected to make it clear in the summary).--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Response from MBM

'British Isles' is a political, cultural and geographical term but should only be used in connection with geographical features.

Disagree. If it's all that you say it is, why shouldn't it be used in the other contexts? I agree it's a geogrpahical term, but such terms are not generally restricted to geographical matters. Africa is a geogrpahic term but its use is widespread.

'Britain' is a political, cultural and geographical term but should only be used in connection with geographical features. The 'geographical' in all cases is physical geography and not human geography.

Disagree. See 1.

'British Isles' is a widely-used term, but it is acknowledged that it has political and cultural legacy aspects which can cause offence.

Agree, but only to a small minority, whose view should not be allowed to prevail.

British Isles is generally acceptable in all physical geographical or maritime contexts.

Agree, and I would extend this to human geography.

In respect of size and height issues etc, the non-binding preference is to refer to largest geographical unit to which the entity unambiguously belongs. For example, Europe in certain circumstances would take precedence over smaller units. NOTE: an exception here may be to name the Republic of Ireland, or Ireland the island, alongside the British Isles, to help distinguish it from the word 'British' (as pertaining to Britain).

Totally disagee. Where did this come from? It leaves opent the possibility of inaccuracy. For example, a particular insect is found in France and the British Isles. To state it is found in Europe is far less helpful than to state it is found in the British Isles and France. And the second part is absolutely unacceptable.

Sources should always be used as the basis for argument and without their corroboration no change should be attempted.

Agree.

"Drive-by" changes by uninvolved editors should be brought here for discussion and reverted if controversial until consensus is established.

I agree they should be reverted, but not necessarily brought here. Here's one I'm about to revert (again): Big Dipper. In this case British Isles is so obviously acceptable that it would serve no purpose bringing it here (and I like the phrase "drive-by").

Where the accuracy of usage is mariginal (i.e. British Isles is correct but could be changed to something else without sacrificing accuracy or vice versa), the original editor's choice should be maintained (as is the case with WP:RETAIN) (although a degree of flexibility is required in the face of major rewrites etc.)

Agree.

One serious omission which is absolutely required IMHO, is the acceptance that British Isles is sometimes/often used incorrectly, and that wanting to fix those cases is not a bad thing. Fmph (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with 'sometimes'. Disagree with 'often'.

Other remarks. I really don't see any need for guidelines. As to whether or not British Isles is used should be down to individual editor preference, unless someone can point out that its use is genuinely incorrect. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. In theory I agree with your last point, but the reason I have suggested that we establish guidelines is precisely because the term is being removed in cases where it is correct, simply because other terms exist. This is an attempt to bring some form of rule to the process that should cut down on needless rehashing of the same arguments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Response from GoodDay

The point brought up about British Isles being offensive to some, is irreleveant. It's an argument for deleting/replacing the term, that doesn't score any points with me. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the criteria for a good article is it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Using an offensive term is asking for a content dispute. Therefore it is better to eschew the term or only use it in an historical context. ClemMcGann (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If the term you are referring to is British Isles it is not offensive. Mister Flash (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes it is! (Now we are really heading towards a solution very quickly, aren't we?) Fmph (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggested ToR for New Guidelines

The content below has been moved from JackD's talk page, by request.

I think we may have reached a turning point here. Here's where we can go - I'm prepared to assist with guidelines if we can broadly agree the following (Jackyd101, I hope you don't mind me hijacking your Talk page for this):

1. The guidelines are simple - none of that BIDRAFT1/2 over-the-top complexity.
2. Ireland is not given special consideration.
3. We set a time limit - say three months?
4. During development of guidelines there are no additions or deletions of the term under any cicumstances by those involved here. Obviously this doesn't apply to uninvolved editors.
5. Jackyd101 moderates the discussion and facilitates development of the guidelines. I know you said you didn't want to be involved further, but you would, I think, provide an impartial chairmanship, and you are not an admin. Admins come with an implicit threat of sanction, blocking and all the rest of it. Do you agree to take on the role?
6. Agreed guidelines are deposited in the WP:MOS.
7. Most important; when complete, the guidelines are not used by anyone as an excuse to carry out mass deletions or additions. This is not the case in less controversial areas such as changes to MOS advice on date formats and similar issues, where a bot will trawl the encyclopedia making changes; this one is just too controversial.

I see the above as a draft Terms of Reference. If others agree maybe Jackyd101 can pick up the reins and adjust or finalise them. Thereafter we can move to the guidelines proper, but personally I'm only prepared to participate if everyone can accept the general direction noted above.

Interested parties sign here:

Mister Flash (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A few questions:

What do you mean by 'special consideration' in #2 above?

What is the time limit for? What must be achieved within that time? And what will happen if it's not?

Why Jackyd101 (talk) to do all the facilitation? S/he is not an admin, and is not really impartial.

So even if the guidelines say that there can be mass deletions/additions, you want us to agree now that it shouldn't happen? Surely we can start with a blank piece of paper rather than with preconditions?

Fmph (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest we move this discussion to the SE page (the article page, not the discussion page) where Jackyd101 started this discussion? Mister Flash, would you move your comments there? --HighKing (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that page is best place for this, not here. --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Done - please continue the discussion here. We should agree the ToR first. Mister Flash (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Answer to Fmph:

What do you mean by 'special consideration' in #2 above?

By this I mean consideration that Irish-related articles should not use the term British Isles. Here's an example; Tearaght Island. This is the most westerly point of Ireland, and also, therefore, of the British Isles, but the latter fact does not appear in the article - and see what happens if you try to include it. I believe guidelines should prevent this sort of - for want of a better word - discrimination. Mister Flash (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If Tearaght is significant in BI terms, then surely Minquiers and Ness Point are as well. Neither mention BI. My personal contention is that the Tearaght's geographic relationship with BI is far less encyclopaedically significant than for instance it's relationship with Ireland, RoI or even Europe. It's not a matter of 'special consideration'. It's a matter of what is encyclopaedic. And BTW the island of Rockall, in County Donegal is further west.Fmph (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The rest of your questions relate to my suggestions. Come up with an alternative if you like, but I sense we may get bogged down before even starting. Mister Flash (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Ummm, so far we have seen emergent guidelines consistently rejected with a blanket refusal to accept changes and a history of attacks on editors rather than dealing with content. On the face of it this looks like a recipe to have yet another round of discussions for three months that will get no where. I'm open to believing that there is a willingness to change, but I would like some evidence. Let me take some examples of possible principles that have been emerging over the last few months:

• Where multiple references are made, the highest level geographical unit should be used (Europe not Continental Europe and BI)
• Lists of geographical names should all be at the same level of abstraction; so if there is a list of countries, then everything should be countries, if its geographical units then geographical
• In the period to the late 19th C BI can be used as a short hand for the Britain and Ireland
• In general BI is a geographical term and should not be removed in those contexts, as a political term it is inadvisable post 1900
• In general Home Nations is more normal use for sporting teams than BI
• Citation language should be used where possible

Now I've chosen ones there that are both pro and anti BI and reflect the body of editor comments. To my mind I'd like some response from the main protagonists. Mediation doesn't work if all parties are not prepared to make some movement. That means High King agreeing that there will be cases where BI is valid, and Flash indicating that there are cases where it won't be. If we do have concrete movement then I agree a mediated process with a moratorium would make sense; but I think we will need a couple of admins with knowledge of the area to handle it. --Snowded ^TALK 12:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Snowded. I'd like to add a little to what guidelines appear to have been emerging:

• In general, references are the best possible guide. Where no references exist, it can be problematic and so guidelines can then assist in making an informed decision. In some cases, multiple references exist and attention should be given to the quality of the references. If multiple references exist of acceptable reliability, then there shouldn't be a debate over usage, let the content creator get on with it.
• If there aren't references available, BI may still be used as a "technical term" for articles with subject matter involving Fauna, geographic features, weather, geology, sailing, shipping, lifeboats, and cartography.
• One unresolved question: Is "British Isles" a "technical" term for religious use for some churches? I suspect it is, but I don't know.

Let's agree what we can all agree on first before starting to disagree/discuss/agree on other areas. For example, I'm not keen on the late 19th C "shorthand" usage and I'd like to understand more from those who believe this is OK usage. --HighKing (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, bogged down already then. Rather than setting a ToR to define a framework for how the guidelines are developed we have Fmph, Snowded and HighKing trying to define them here and now. If we don't get an impartial observer (preferably a non-admin) to organise this then we may as well give up. And Snowded, as for the evidence you require - it's staring you in the face. Mister Flash (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In what sense can my actions be described as trying to define 'them' here and now. I'm not even sure what 'them' refers to. On the contrary, I'd suggest that your attempt is more about trying to define the outcome, rather than define a process for getting a result.

How about these

1. There is no special consideration given to anything other than wikipedia guidelines
2. If there is no obvious consensus in the discussion within 1 month, we try RFC or Arb
3. During development of guidelines, the term {british Isles should not be removed or added to any article, by any signatory to this agreement, under any cicumstances by those involved here.
4. The purpose of the discussion is to develop a section of WP:MOS concerned solely with the use of the term British Isles.

Just my suggestion. Fmph (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I could probably go with this - maybe a minor amendment about level of complexity and also that the guidelines are not used as an excuse for wholesale additions/removals once agreed. However, we've got a problem - see Snowded's responses. Mister Flash (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What's a ToR? GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Terms of Reference. I'm not sure we need them, but if it will help move the process on, I'm happy for us to agree something. Fmph (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

we've been here too many times before I'm afraid. Attempts to create guidelines have resulted in months of discussion without any change, its been a delaying tactic. Its why this page was set up, to create some precedents from which guidelines could be drawn. We are now more or less there, and at that point Flash wants to go back and start again. Sorry I don't believe that and there is no reservoir of respect for a single purpose editor with a long history of personal attacks and a record of stubborn refusal to accept any argument. Not only that attempts made to create a resolution mechanism were rejected by Flash some time ago. Evidence of change would be welcome Flash, but so far I don't see it. --Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, looks like we're back to square one then. Anyway, with users like Clem McGann and Fmph thinking the term to be offensive there's no chance anyway. Unless Snowded, maybe you could withdraw from the issue? Mister Flash (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm prepared to compromise. Are you? Fmph (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That response rather proved my point Flash, you are showing no evidence of being open to change. You got a hard warning on being civil and you then create this attempt at ToR as a response. If it was genuine then you would have responded to the suggestions above, in the absence of that I think this is just a devise to put off a decision and let the heat die down from your most recent warning. --Snowded ^TALK 18:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree ToR if it gets things moving. Those proposed by Fmph above look straight forward. --HighKing (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

That we adopt the following guidelines in determining when BI should be used

• Where multiple references are made, the highest level geographical unit should be used (Europe not Continental Europe and BI)
• Lists of geographical names should all be at the same level of abstraction; so if there is a list of countries, then everything should be countries, if its geographical units then geographical
• In the period to the late 19th C BI can be used as a short hand for the Britain and Ireland
• In general BI is a geographical term and should not be removed in those contexts, as a political term it is inadvisable post 1900
• In general Home Nations is more normal use for sporting teams than BI
• Citation language should be used where possible

Yes I know they need clarification (especially the 19thC one) but in broad terms is this a reasonable direction to go? --Snowded ^TALK 18:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really.

• Multiple references ... unworkable in most/many cases since it doesn't convey the required level of detail.
• To late 19th century - agreed, and also back to antiquity.
• BI a geographical term - agreed, but you don't define what's meant by political. There are possibly 'political' uses where it would be acceptable.
• Home Nations - that's just your preference. I reject it.
• Citation.. don't know what you mean.

So, all in all, a bad show. If you'd take my advice ans set out some higher level objectives (or ToR as some may call them) then we might have a fighting chance, and if we had an arbitrator as well. As it is, we just have you proffering your preferences right up front. Mister Flash (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As a broad direction, yes, I agree this is the way we should proceed. There are some things we'll discuss, sure, but as a generalisation, I don't see anything that any reasonable editor can argue against. --HighKing (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What, Snowded's up-front suggestions, or the overall framework I suggested, and as modified by Fmph (see above)? Mister Flash (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded's summarization of some of the main points that have emerged from discussions on the SE page to date, based on the articles that we've looked at. --HighKing (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, count me out then - which is clearly what Snowded wants anyway. You'll never get guidelines accepted unless representatives from both sides of the debate participate, and so now it's 100% one-sided. And yet again you've commenced a series of provocative reverts. Mister Flash (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're looking for exactly. I've agreed with Snowded that there appears to be some agreement by most participants on some principals on the SE page. They've emerged over time. I don't agree with them all, but I know I can agree with most and hopefully discuss the others. And you don't have to agree with them, we can discuss them. Is there one in particular you'd like to discuss to start with? If we can agree all we can agree up front, it might help things progress. --HighKing (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd get more involved with this SE-page, if the pace was slowed to 1-article at a time, with discussion of that article being at said article's talkpage. Of course notification of said-article would be mentioned here (at SE-page). GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe we're proposing that the pace will be slowed to zero articles at a time, for a period of time while we're discussing/agreeing the MOS. --HighKing (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm reasonably happy with Snowed's suggestions. I think clarification is needed over precedence where 2 or more of those ideas come into conflict. But as a general skeleton around which more detailed rules could be written, I think it's fine. Fmph (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems reasonable but from experience elsewhere (Snowded will know what I'm talking about) a small group of people, working out their own issues in a small corner of the 'pedia and deciding a "consensus" that they are likely to enforce religiously across many articles is a bad idea. We should remember that what we decide here may resolve our issues (mainly nationalistic and almost wholly removed from writing about topics) but may create greater issues for others (who are likely to be focused on the actual work of addressing writing topic for this encyclopedia). Whether to use the phrase British Isles is not the bee-all-and-end-all of the work of this encyclopedia and we should be very careful before making "rules" for others who are more closely involved in the more substantive work of this project.

Specifically:

• "Where multiple references are made, the highest level geographical unit should be used (Europe not Continental Europe and BI)" I think letting the sources decide is a bad idea. Sources should be used to support statements not decide them. An isolated sentence from a source may make sense with respect to that work but may not make sense if used to determine an isolated sentence in this work. More importantly, this guideline places the needs of this Task Force ahead of the needs of topics wherein the word "British Isles" may appear. It presumes that whether we use the phrase "British Isles" or not in an article is more important than the substance of the article itself. We should not be terminating the content of articles and topics we know nothing about solely form the perspective of our little bug bear.
• "Lists of geographical names should all be at the same level of abstraction; so if there is a list of countries, then everything should be countries, if its geographical units then geographical." Seems sound. Don't mix apples and pears.
• "In the period to the late 19th C BI can be used as a short hand for the Britain and Ireland." In any sense? So it was the British Isles that was a participant in the Boer Wars? This sounds like a recipe for disaster and edit warring. It also perpetuates the myth that the term in "ancient" and that it's meaning is timeless. In fact what the ancient Greeks mean by "British Isles" (in reality they never had that word, their word was more like "Britain Islands") was quite different in make up to the "British Isles" today.
• "In general BI is a geographical term and should not be removed in those contexts, as a political term it is inadvisable post 1900." Yes, though 1900 is an aribitary cut off date. 1922 cuts more to the heart of the matter.
• "In general Home Nations is more normal use for sporting teams than BI." "Normal"? Where? Home Nations is a nice turn of phrase and, despite its clear imperial connotations, personally I prefer it over many of the alternatives for British Isles. It should be obvious however that it does not travel well. It is only meaningful only to "us". International readers are likely to scratch their heads if they read that, "the British and Irish Lions is formed by the teams of the Home Nations". Sure, we can link to Home Nations but if they click it - presuming they are reading the article in hypertext form and that the Home Nations article is still linked/available from where they are reading it (which is a poor assumption from the point of view of the project) - we will look quite insular in thinking that everyone should teat "these islands" as "home".
• "Citation language should be used where possible." No. Again. Citations should be used to support statements not determine them as above. We in this Task Force should not be determining how or what references are being used to support statements made in articles we know nothing about. The needs of this Task Force and its participants are a very distant second to the needs of those more closely engaged in the genuine work of writing the 'pedia's content.

So, I'd strip it down to the following:

• In general BI is a geographical term and should not be removed in those contexts, as a political term it is inadvisable post 1922.
• Lists of geographical names should all be at the same level of abstraction; so if there is a list of countries, then everything should be countries, if its geographical units then geographical.

--RA (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be wary of too general a set of guidelines but I agree with the above more precise words in your striped down list, I just don;t think its enough. When I put the list together I went back over the various cases, including those which had admin involvement. In those cases the words used in the citation were generally held to be definative (names of books, etc). Political use of BI pre 1922 includes examples such as French Invasion where the intent (and the citations) indicated that Ireland alone was not the objective, but a landing point to attack the wider British crown. Generally I think Britain and Ireland does a lot better in those circumstances but its not been easy to get agreement to that. Home Nations really applies to a narrow range of sporting articles where all the citation evidence uses those terms not BI. I take the point on understanding outside the islands, and may be Britain and Ireland would satisfy? Oh and I'pretty sure highest geographical unit is in the geography guidelines somewhere, its common sense but I haven't had time to hunt it down --Snowded ^TALK 11:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I also suggest that when we resolve this, it is put to the wider community (naming controversy etc) with examples from the last months of working through cases to get endorsement --Snowded ^TALK 11:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that sources, etc. have been useful in some cases but the guidelines surely are for (almost) all cases? I would feel very uncomfortable dictating how sources be used on articles we know nothing about solely because of a bug bear we here have over a turn of phrase. We are not the centre of the universe or of the encyclopedia. Deciding for others how they should use sources solely to assuage the feelings of a few editors who would otherwise never show an interest in those topics is rather ridiculous when we don't know what the source is, how it is being used, the context it is being used in, or anything about the topic in question - even what it is. It attributes to this task force a role in determining the content of the encyclopedia that is far in excess of what is proportionate to our role on the encyclopedia. Even ArbCom doesn't do that. --RA (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Adds: how to use sources is outlined in policy. We should not go tampering with that, adding little rules and caveats that suit our inconsequential spat. It looses sight of the purpose of the encyclopedia. --RA (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

RA, ideally the guidelines are for (almost) all cases, but there's a lot of exceptions. As Snowded has pointed out, it doesn't appear to be possible to apply one or two simple guidelines for all cases.

I also want to understand when it is ever OK to use the term in a political context. The British Isles article doesn't cover this usage, and it doesn't ever appear to have been used in many references, etc. This is a topic we'll need to cover. The 1922 date might become clearer after discussion.

I believe that any MOS guidelines should start with your point on references and sources.

Can I suggest that we use some of the examples to work our way through developing the guidelines. So, for example:

• In general BI is a geographical term and should not be removed in those contexts

• Look at the article Red Deer? This currently doesn't use the term in the distribution section, but instead uses "United Kingdom and Ireland". But the scientific distribution area for fauna is the British Isles, so should the article use the scientific distribution area for accuracy or use country names? In my opinion, it should be phrased to make it clear that the distribution area is British Isles.
• On the other hand, flora distribution is different. Scientifically, the island of Great Britain and the Isle of Man are grouped as one unit, Ireland as another, and the Channel Islands are grouped with France. So if we look at Alnus glutinosa, the term is being used geographically but not scientifically and not in keeping with the article. Also, neither reference cited on the sentence uses the term British Isles, and the Flora Europaea clearly lists the distribution areas.

So guidelines that state that geographical usage is OK isn't precise enough. --HighKing (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

RA - the whole point is that multiple attempts to create general guidelines failed, so we moved over to going through examples in order to allow guidelines to emerge, which is where we are now. Going back to starting yet another greenfield discussion is unlikely to succeed. We now have a long history of discussion, albeit with a small number of editors which allow us to illustrate guidelines and the exceptions. Moving forwards rather than starting again. --Snowded ^TALK 13:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been in quick and worthwhile exchange of view between myself and HK on my talk page. In essence, my position is to leave it to WP:V to resolve verifiability issues. It is not the role of a MOS entry to determine how sources should be used, particularly one that would affect so many article across so wide a range of topics as this one. If editors feel a source is being used incorrectly, or is being interpreted or cited incorrectly, let them take to that article's talk page and resolve it under WP:V (which in essence is what we had been doing here).

The MOS covers what terms we use here and where, regardless of what terms are used in other publications. Compare with WP:DERRY. (This also avoids the practical problem of where two sources use two different terms or where there is no source, which is the situation in most cases.) --RA (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As a quickie to illustrate why some of us believe that we need to provide more precise and helpful guidelines - take a recent discussion relating to the Canterbury-York dispute article (discussion on Article Talk page). --HighKing (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just waded through that article's talk page and also studied some additional sources in books on the subject. Book-based sources on the British/English church debates of the 12th and 13th centuries strongly supports a case that the Archbishops of England schemed for Rome to acknowledge their primacy over the whole islands, in which many of those sources call the thing they schemed over, "the British Isles". The lengthy dispute in the talk page seems to mainly have been from HighKing and was roundly rejected by local editors of the article. 17:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I've had a quick read through that. And there was nothing "wrong" source-wise about using British Isles as it was used there. In a world where British Isles did not rub people's backs up, no-one would nit-pick about changing it. (I'm being forthright here because, if a MOS entry is to stand up, it needs to withstand criticism like this and not just be enforced by through a tyranny of "consensus".)

It does demonstrate however that if you go to a talk page under WP:V, forgetting anything about a British Isles MOS, people will change it. The MOS doesn't need to cover use of sources because it is already covered more comprehensively (and more appropriately) elsewhere. A MOS could however point to WP:V and remind editors that there are differences between ENG/SCO/IRE/WAL and British Isles. It wouldn't be overstepping the role of a MOS entry (IMHO) to do that and it might square off the issues raised.

So, a slight change in approach but largely in-line with Snowded's proposal (I think):

• The British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Mann, Orkney, Shetland and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use may or may not include the Channel Islands.
• Use of British Isles is not prescribed in any context (i.e. there is no context in which British Isles has to be used).
• Use of British Isles is appropriate in geographic contexts.
• Use of British Isles in political and cultural contexts should be avoided after 1922.
• Don't mix apples and pears (e.g. if content lists countries then everything should be countries, if content lists geographical units then use geographical units).

Some notes could accompanying the MOS reminding users to respect WP:V and differences in terminology, where appropriate, as they occur (and we can give an example of BI vs. ENG/IRE/SCO/WAL). A note should also accompany the MOS advising that warring over use or non-use of British Isles is discouraged. --RA (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll add one more bullet that just came to mind:

• Use of British Isles on articles that relate particularly to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland should (including their geographic features) be avoided, except for where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.

This is because, contributing a lot to the Ireland article, there is a consensus not to add the term there as on other Ireland-heavy articles. A MOS entry should respect that consensus. --RA (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% I understand what you've said above in relation to the Canterbury-York article. You start by saying that there was nothing "wrong" with using "British Isles" in the article, but then you say that WP:V would have pointed to it needing to be changed? (Apologies if I've misunderstood).

This point is also connected with using "British Isles" in political and cultural contexts. In several examples we've seen articles refer to "British Isles" where the references use "Britain and Ireland" or "UK and Ireland" etc. Are you recommending that the MOS should simply refer to WP:V in these cases? What about editors who use "British Isles" as a synonym for "Britain and Ireland"? Is it? --HighKing (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean that if the isles were called something else, it is unlikely that anyone would pull another editor up over changing ENG/SCO/IRL/WAL to that name. However, the isles are not commonly called by another name, you can pull an an editor up for changing ENG/SCO/IRL/WAL to that name, and so go ahead and do it if you like. There is no need for a special MOS entry to do that.

I would be concerned that a specific British Isles entry in the MOS that determined how to use sources would neglect the wider considerations about how a sources should be interpreted and used in support of statements. Leave it to WP:V to enforce WP:V.

"Are you recommending that the MOS should simply refer to WP:V in these cases?" A bye-line referring to WP:V may be worthwhile but the MOS should not determine how to use sources. That should be left to individual articles and WP:V.

"What about editors who use 'British Isles' as a synonym for 'Britain and Ireland'?" If it is not covered by the MOS (i.e. if it is not listed in places where we deem that British Isles should be avoided) and if there is a concern relating to VP:V then take it to the article talk page and work it out in terms of WP:V. There may be a good reason why they changed it, we cannot determine that in advance, or at this distance, across the many topics and article that this MOS will affect, and it's not our place to do so. --RA (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Add: Note however that, in my proposal above, many of the contexts that use "UK and Ireland" would be political or cultural and post 1922 and so British Isles should be avoided in those place (according to my proposal anyway). So, like WP:DERRY, it wouldn't matter what the source says, we wouldn't use British Isles. --RA (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If an article where to use British Isles when in fact the reference said England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland would that not confuse the reader who link to British Isles? The reader may believe that E,S,W and I where the whole of the BI's when it obviously isn't. We should be informing the reader accurately rather than have them try and figure it out for themselves. In this case using England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland would make it very clear to the reader, which I thought was quite important on wikipedia. Jack forbes (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. Take it to the article talk page and raise a concern that a statement made in the article is unsupported by the reference. There may be a good reason for it. Maybe the statement in relation to the IoM and the CIs is so trivial and obvious that it doesn't require a supporting reference. (In a similar vein it is possible to imagine a statement about the British Isles that is accompanied by a reference that only mentions the south-east Munster. The reason being that the statement in relation to all other parts of the British Isles is obvious and absolutely uncontroversial. It is only in respect to south-east Munster that a reference is required.)

Either way, it's covered already by WP:V, and not appropriate to WP:MOS. There are a myriad of issues involved in WP:V and these are often too specific to the articles and topics in question to be determined, unseen and at a distance, by a small group of editors (myself included) who are more concerned with the use or non-use of a single phrase than with the topics of those articles themselves. --RA (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Leaving aside the 1922 stuff for the moment, I haven't disagreed with that you've said in theory, but in practice I've found it hasn't worked. I've come across many instances where editors use BI as a synonym for UK and I or GB&I, etc, as I've pointed out at the Canterbury-York dispute article. It was been taken to the article Talk page, and the matter has not been resolved. Still no references, and nothing to suggest that the use of British Isles is technically correct. Not picking on any editors in particular, but I found this remark to summarize how many other editors treat the term: '"the term is not interchangable with "Britain and Ireland" or "UK and Ireland", etc." has no basis in any established Wikipedia policy or guideline (or for many people, in fact). I have repeatedly suggested that in these cases that as long as the usage is technically correct (as it patently is here. So clearly, pointing out WP:V doesn't help when it comes down to usage like this. I believe the MOS should provide guidelines and clarification as precisely as we can agree, and I believe it should include a statement that "British Isles" is not a short-hand or synonym. --HighKing (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

But the use of BI in Canterbury–York dispute seems to be an issue you yourself created the "dispute" about HighKing - all of the academic sources use the term "British Isles" in connection with the debate, so why is it even an issue, other than in your mind? This is absolutely not a useful exemplar of the need to codify detailed regulations for it's use. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

all of the academic sources use the term "British Isles"... - yet I've asked for references and received none. Note that we're trying to avoid discussing the ins and outs of specific articles here - the only reason it has come up here now, is in relation to the approach of using WP:V on article Talk pages. If you wish to provide references or debate this specific article, please use the Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

But until you went to that page and started a debate, there was no previous need to add refs to what is pretty well-known amongst people who know about the medieval church in these islands. So it is relevant, because you are raising it above as an example of the sort of dispute that can arise, yet you yourself created the dispute! Go figure. I am also adding some refs to the contested entry, not that they are needed. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) People are strange, HK. I suspect they doubt your interest in the topic of the article. I suspect they believe you simply want to remove the term British Isles and are using the reference merely as a pretext to do so.

In any case, WP:V is there. If sources are being used inappropriately take it to the article talk page and work it out with the editors in question. --RA (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Adds: "I believe it should include a statement that 'British Isles' is not a short-hand or synonym." Agree. I wrote above in my proposal that, "Some notes could accompanying the MOS reminding users to respect WP:V and differences in terminology, where appropriate, as they occur (and we can give an example of BI vs. ENG/IRE/SCO/WAL)." --RA (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Be fair, RA. High King is only highlighting instances where the term may not be appropriate. Many editors do bits and pieces to articles without taking a full interest in them. Jack forbes (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am being fair. I think it would be naive of us to think that HKs requests for citations, or for a relatively strict interpretation of WP:V, would be as well-received as requests by others. If HK is encountering problems gaining consensus on article talk pages, I suspect it is because the editors on those articles distrust his motives. In any event, WP:V exists and it is sufficient. --RA (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well folks, looks like we've got bogged down. Not only is the "debate" flailing around aimlessly ('cos we're not applying a high level framework with agreed objectives), but it's also rapidly descended into an argument about a single article. I don't think there's much chance of arriving at guidelines, so I'll maybe just leave you all to it, unless some sort of structure is applied. Any of you lot work in project management per chance? I hope not. Mister Flash (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-focus

OK, like Flash says we've lost focus. Snowded proposed guidelines yesterday. I've built a little on these (assuming this is an iterative process). These didn't receive much criticism above so to restate them:

• The British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use may or may not include the Channel Islands.
• Use of British Isles is not prescribed in any context (i.e. there is no context in which British Isles has to be used).
• Use of British Isles is appropriate in geographic contexts.
• Use of British Isles in political and cultural contexts should be avoided after 1922.
• Use of British Isles on articles that relate particularly to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) should be avoided, except for where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.
• Don't mix apples and pears (e.g. if content lists countries then everything should be countries, if content lists geographical units then use geographical units).

A note should accompany the MOS entry reminding users to respect WP:V and differences in terminology where appropriate. A note should also accompany the MOS advising that warring over use or non-use of British Isles is discouraged.

--RA (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I quite like this. A few trivial points - not sure why Orkney and Shetland get special mention, as their status has long been that they are part of Scotland, altough I suppose for historical usages that would vary; also, is it always true that geographical articles related to the island of Ireland would always not use it (there might be some that do, for example, a general article about the geological structures that run across the archipelago?); and finally perhaps there could be a mention of points like the continental shelf, territorial waters, etc. Marginal things. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(Add) Oh and not to forget scientific contexts - I believe (although I'm no expert) that literature in things like botany and animal studies tends to use "British Isles" as a domain, amongst other things. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

From experience, though not part of any formal MOS, "Great Britain" seems to be used on the wiki to refer to the island, as opposed to the political unit formed by the countries on the island, of Britain. I mentioned Orkney and Shetland separately so because they are not part of the island of "Great Britain", but are part of the political unit of Great Britain. (You might tell from this my personal preference is to use "Great Britain" for the political unit and "Britain" for the island but I'll go with the flow on the wiki.)

"...is it always true that geographical articles related to the island of Ireland would always not use it..." Very safe assumption. Eventually it will be removed by someone. "...there might be some that do, for example, a general article about the geological structures that run across the archipelago?..." I only meant articles that relate particularly to Ireland. If the article is about something that runs across the archipelago then I'd don't mean this restriction to apply.

"...and finally perhaps there could be a mention of points like the continental shelf, territorial waters, etc. Marginal things..." Um, yes, blurry lines. I don't know.

Regarding botany, I'm no expert either. Do other's know from the example we've seen? --RA (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with some of this - I see no reason why BI should be banned if dealing with cultural contexts post 1922 - take each case on its merits. Also, the overall suggestions above are one-sided; whereas it's stated that there's no case where BI must be used, there are plenty where BI mustn't be used. My original proposal was that no special consideration be given to Ireland, yet the suggestion above is that use should be avoided in articles relating to Ireland - even regarding geographic features. I cannot accept this. It flies in the face of what an encyclopedia is all about, namely the imparting of facts and information, and I use again the example of Tearaght Island. Mister Flash (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I knew avoiding it on cultural issues post 1922 wouldn't go down too well with you :-) I added it as an after thought, what do other think? I'm presenting these as discussion, I'm not fixed on them.

You have to accept that it is a little difficult to think of places where it must be used? I appreciate your issue with non-use on ROI/Ireland-specific topics (except NI-specific topics) but we also have to have a bit of realism. There already is a consensus to avoid use of the term on Ireland-related articles. Any MOS should reflect consensus, not wrestle with it. --RA (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as we tackle an article at a time (at that article's talkpage, with a note on the SE page), I'm basically content with any MoS set up. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought this was a attempt to build an actual MOS entry. Not guidelines solely for this page? --RA (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Another GoodDay edit conflict ... Yep, I've gotta admit, it's difficult to think where it must be used. I guess this applies to most terms! I'm not sure there's a consensus about non-use for Ireland-related topics. It's just that when anyone tries such a use it's very quickly blagged away by the dislikers (again, see Tearaght Island). We shouldn't pander to this type of thing. If it was stated in the MoS, or elsewhere, that such use is acceptable then it would be an argument against those who seek to delete it. Mister Flash (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"It's just that when anyone tries such a use it's very quickly blagged away..." Rightly or wrongly, I think you can take that as an expression the consensus?

"If it was stated in the MoS, or elsewhere, that such use is acceptable then it would be an argument against those who seek to delete it." Except that on this wiki we work on the basis of consensus. The MOS arises from consensus - it is not a stick to beat people with. One way around it might be to develop an alternative vocabalory for Ireland-related articles. "British Isles", in reality, isn't going to stick, but if we could agree on "UK and Ireland" or something else (which I know people say is not equivalent) it would at least enable the same information to be conveyed and side-step disagreement over terms.--RA (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland|Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Stating that its valid for geographical descriptions (where other areas are listed in like manner) covers a substantial number of articles. I think the idea is that once the guidelines are agreed, then any change should be notified here and a link placed on the talk page so that interested editors are able to take part. --Snowded ^TALK 05:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Flash on this. There's no reason why Ireland-related topics should be exempted if usage is geographic and correct. The "Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles" is fine in my book, as this is notable. I think it sometimes gets silly when used for unimportant stuff like "Mount X is the 12th highest peak in the British Isles", but for longest/highest/etc geographic features, it's fine. --HighKing (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

On a related point, Britain and Ireland is used on a lot of Atlases and several flora and fauna books. Great is an addition from the Restoration so again has some time bounding. --Snowded ^TALK 05:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

@Snowded, the the scientific distribution unit for Fauna is oftern "British Isles", but the scientific distribution unit for Flora is not - it is (Britain and Isle of Man; Ireland; France and Channel Islands). This can easily be seen in Flora Europanae for example, which is online and used on many articles as a reference. --HighKing (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet see for example Ecological Flora of the British Isles [1], New Flora of the British Isles [2] and of course the important Interactive Flora of the British Isles [3]. I only raise these because we should be careful about using results from a debate which is essentially motivated by political and cultural concerns and mapping those results across into fields we are unaware of, such as scientific ones, where such terms may have entirely different meaning and context. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We should also be mindful to not label participants as being motivated by political and cultural concerns. That usually ends up in an unhelpful and unsatisfactorily unproductive argument. Most of your comments to date on this page have been similarly pointed. Please stop.

As to your three references:

• The Ecological Flora of the British Isles website has been constructed from a wide variety of sources by Dr Helen Peat and Professor Alastair Fitter at the University of York, with financial support from the British Ecological Society and the Natural Environment Research Council. If you read further, you'll see that they use the term "British Isles" to refer to the "UK". The website actually states The data comprises information on taxonomy (family, genus, specific name, authority, and vernacular name, together with a synonomy), a suite of over 130 ecological and morphological characteristics, vice-county distribution in Britain, European distribution by country, mycorrhizal associations, phytophagous insects and fungal diseases. There's nothing to stop people setting up websites for their own areas of interest of course, but this doesn't automatically define a new scientific distribution area.
• A book entitled New Flora of the British Isles is just that - a book. It's not unusual either - there are lots of books written about Flora with "British Isles" in the title. But it doesn't mean that the British Isles is a scientific distribution area. Similarly, lots of books have been written about "British" flora, or "Irish" flora, etc. This book itself borrows heavily from the "New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora" and the "Flora of Great Britain and Ireland".
• Not sure why you've described Interactive Flora of the British Isles as important. It's simply the interactive CD-ROM of the book you've already mentioned.

From the wider scientific community point of view, Flora Europanae represents the scientific distribution areas for Flora. Note:- For Fauna, the British Isles *is* considered a distribution area. --HighKing (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet higher up the article HighKing uses the phrase "This point is also connected with using "British Isles" in political and cultural contexts" - apparently this is fine for HighKing but not for others. I stand corrected! Also, please provide the reference to support your general assertion that "British Isles" is never used as a scientific domain term for flora. And also why books by scientific experts in that field are not evidence for this. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

James. If you take the time to carefully read what I said earlier, it was in relation to the miquoting of references, as what happened in the Canterbury-York dispute article. And since this topic can bring out the emotional worst in editors, can you calm down and stop personalizing this as James_against_evil_HighKing? --HighKing (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's also consider the case of the Botanical Society of the British Isles (BSBI), which is open to membership in both the UK and Ireland. The BSBI Atlas [4] is a key feature of the organisation. To quote from the BSBI Atlas page: "The BSBI Distribution Maps Scheme was launched in 1950, and is one of the world’s longest-running natural history distribution mapping projects. It is constantly updated and improved by the BSBI’s networks of volunteers, county recorders and referees, and it is always in use by scientists, conservationists and governmental bodies for determining the abundance, range and changes in the distribution of vascular plants and charophytes in the British Isles." Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

James, it's pretty easy to create a website or title a book with "British Isles". But it doesn't change the fact that the European Scientific community a very well-defined geographical groupings for distribution of flora. Since most of the flora article are technical, are you suggesting we should adopt different distributions? --HighKing (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I spent a bit of time on this researching, as it obviously matters if a style guide is to be issued for use of "British Isles" that it incorporates some basic understanding of the implications in various fields such as scientific ones. The BSBI is not just someone "easily creating a website" to paraphrase your comment, it's one of the leading and best-established body of flora specialists in these islands. It can't just be discounted as an example. Neither can we just switch focus to EU or world bodies just because some bodies residing in these islands do not match preconceptions. The usages are out there. I can find many others if needed! Hopefully they aren't needed as the point is made. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

@GD - Yes, but pipe linked to British Isles where necessary.

Just needed to make sure we understand, 'United Kingdom & Republic of Ireland' is political. Great Britain & Ireland is geographically. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

@Snowded - Britain and Ireland sounds fine to me as a "MOS alternative" if/where British Isles is to be avoided in some contexts. Sounds fairly standard real-world alternative.

Trialling a MOS entry on this page would be a good idea but ultimately we want to get away from this page and back into the real world, don't we? So my focus is on reaching consensus on a actual MOS entry. --RA (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

MOS would be good, but I'd settle for a statement similar to the one which resolved the Derry/Londonderry issue. --Snowded ^TALK 09:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Political and/or Cultural geo unit

Time to discuss

• Use of British Isles in political and cultural contexts should be avoided after 1922.

What is the basis for saying that "British Isles" is a term describing a political unit? Similarly what is the basis as a cultural unit. Finally, why post 1922 (and why not pre 1801 also) --HighKing (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying it's used in a "political context" is not the same as saying it's established in the sources as a "political entity", surely? I haven't seen many arguments that BI is an established political entity as opposed to a well-known descriptor and geo-entity. Maybe there are some? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with James here. I did not mean that "British Isles" is a political unit but that we should avoid it in political contexts. Again, this is the difference between WP:V and a WP:MOS.

For example, this source has the sentences: "This [the British-Irish Council] has also been described as the 'council of the isles'. Representatives from all over the British Isles meet twice a year." While that would provide a very reliable source to support a statement that in an article that said the British-Irish Council met twice a year or had also been described as the 'council of the isles', we would avoid using the term "British Isles" in contexts relating to politics post 1922. Instead we would use an alternative phrasing.

I mean the same in cultural contexts. Again by example, this source contains the sentence: "It [BSkyB] is a commercial satellite network, available principally to viewers in the British Isles, although audiences anywhere within the European ASTRA satellite system footprint can receive it." As with the last example, this is a reliable source to support a statement that BSkyB is a large commercial satellite network or that is is available to audiences within the European ASTRA satellite system but, since I'm proposing that we would avoid the term British Isles in cultural contexts post 1922, we would avoid using the term "British Isles" in this context. Instead we would use alternative phrasing.

In writing this I'm presuming that we are not rehashing arguments for or against the British Isles, which we are all familiar with (but share a variety of opinions about).

(In either example, should references be required to show the geographical domain being referred to other sources can easily be found. For example in the case of the British-Irish Council and in the case of BSkyB). --RA (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying we should cherry-pick sources to ensure they avoid using "British Isles"? I find such an idea totally outrageous. All I can say is that if some organisations are using British Isles in a cultural, or even politcal, context, then who are we at Wikipedia to argue against it? I think these proposed "guidelines" are a waste of time and will cause yet more trouble. I do not support them. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It might be helpful to clarify this point RA - are you talking about avoiding the phrase BI within articles, avoiding using sources that mention BI or avoiding using text derived from sources that contains BI? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about avoiding the phrase (in a limited set of circumstances) - certainly not cherry picking sources.

In the same way, regardless of what a source says, on this encyclopedia we call the county, County Londonderry, and the city, Derry. (See WP:DERRY.) It is merely a matter of style and unrelated to verifiability.

By the same score, I proposing that "British Isles" be appropriate in geographic and other contexts, regardless of what vocabalory is used in supporting source (so longs as the requirements of WP:V are adhered to.) --RA (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How many arguments have there so far been along the lines of the "the source does not say British Isles"? If this goes ahead there will be just as many where it's argued "the source does not say Britan and Ireland" ... This particular proposal is surely a non-starter. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question: many arguments. And I think it is a deeply flawed approach. Participants here have been rewriting articles they know little about by examining sources, not from the perspective of the topics in question, but from the perspective of whether the sources use the phrase "British Isles" or not and amending articles accordingly. That is a very limited perspective and not one that is paramount to this project or serve the goal of building content well.

The question of verifiability is different to the vocabulary we use. --RA (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you - it is a flawed approach and has caused no end of problems, but it will be very difficult to change people's attitudes on this one. I still don't agree with the notion of avoiding the phrase under certain cicumstances. Its use is either valid or it isn't. There should be no - "it's valid but we'll avoid it". MidnightBlue (Talk) 09:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that. You can appreciate too that there are (real world) stylistic issues with the phrase and that many (real world) publications also avoid it too, whether in some circumstances or all. And some that do use it preface their use with a kind of "apologia". --RA (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think, RA, if it's strictly just about avoiding using the term in articles, and we use the exclusion "Use of British Isles in political and cultural contexts should be avoided after 1922." as suggested by yourself, we are going to need to tighten up the exclusion terms a lot. Leaving it as vague as "political and cultural contexts" would I think open the door to widespread abuse, with endless references back to this MoS to justify removal in perfectly well-referenced and reasonable sources. Seriously, we will need to be very much tighter, scientific terminology (raised by me above) being just one of many cases where it would be a nonsense. I would suggest it bve more by way of an advisory with a list of examples than a rulebook. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea behind this whole page was to create examples that could be used and referenced. The simple compromise of "Use BI for geography but B&I" for politics has always failed to get agreement which I think is a pity as its the neatest solution. --Snowded ^TALK 11:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. bright-line rules are good. It's why WP:LDERRY works. OK, this might be a bit maximal but what about no use in contexts post 1922 (save for geography-related articles, which we could treat as "timeless")? By this I mean that we could mix-and-match even within the same article, so an article might talk about printing in the "British Isles" in the 1860s but in the "UK and Ireland" in the 1950s.

Run-of-the-mill requirements about WP:V always apply: so where editors write "British Isles" whereas WP:V only supports "Great Britain", take it to the article talk page and work it out with the editors there in terms of WP:V in the usual way (i.e. not merely in terms of what the vocabalory of what the reference uses). --RA (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd go along with that, but with the qualification that citations should take some precedence. --Snowded ^TALK 12:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? AFAIC, WP:V takes precedence over everything. I go with warning editors to be mindful of the differences in terminology (about the region in general) and there is good reason to do so. People do act carelessly with all of the terminology of the region and it does cause vexation and inaccuracy (even to the degree that inaccurate sentences are accompanied by references that do not support them). I would like to make sure that when an editors says "British Isles" they mean "British Isles" but if a reference saying something like, "Rocks are found in all pats of Great Britain and Ireland", is being used to support a statement that says, "Rocks are found in the British Isles", or, "Rocks are found in most parts of the British Isles", then that passes WP:V. --RA (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that example and as you say its a bright line. Lets go with it and see what happens. The Football Clubs issue though - how do we deal with that? Same principle? --Snowded ^TALK 12:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Football Clubs issue"? --RA (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Its the same as the debate over Norther Irish v Irish, a lots of the debates have been over footballers who have been the first in the Home Nations to do something, or the first game outside of the Home Nations. Most of the references use Home Nations, but BI has been used. --Snowded ^TALK 13:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's leave that to sort itself. --RA (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Go with it? Where - back to the drawing board I suggest. It's unworkable. MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well generally you and Flash have made any attempt at a solution unworkable by naysaying and reverting. Maybe its time to move on? --Snowded ^TALK 13:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you live with a solution like this, MBM, if it was accepted by the community at large? --RA (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly could not support some kind of blanket "post an arbitrary date" exclusion if it was designed either to trigger a wave of moves (which surely it would) and a wave of badly-motivated and often silly removals (which it would). Since this discussion is meant to be about specific examples, it would be useful to have some on the earlier idea of Snowded's about a simple political/geographical divide before we try to rush ahead. The "rocks are found across B & I" one seems like one we wouldn't use as it's surely geographical - so in that context, "rocks are found across the BI" would be accepted, yes? I would like to see what this group of editors think are "political" articles. To take some examples, which of these articles would you deem "political" and/or "post-1922" and which "geographic"? Which would have to be moved right away under your scheme?

Winston Churchill

Genetic history of the British Isles

List of endangered species in the British Isles

Lists of monarchs in the British Isles

British people

British and Irish Lions

Invasive species in the British Isles

Category:Islands of the British Isles

Category:Former countries in the British Isles

Category:Lists of insects in the British Isles

Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

od Its hardly an arbitrary date if you know your 20C history. As to your examples - why is there an issue? British People is only applicable to the UK, not so sure on list of monarchs as that has always been the UK, its just that what was in the UK has changed over time. Would you expand on what is the problem in each article? --Snowded ^TALK 17:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

To take just one example then to make it really easy, one at a time. First. Would the editors here regard Genetic history of the British Isles as at all political then? I'm just trying to get a feel for what you think would be in or out on a very basic level. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And to check a simple in-article-text example, take a look at Irish People which includes the sentence "This led to writers, such as Stephen Oppenheimer and Brian Sykes, to conclude that the majority of Irish people (and indeed all natives of the British Isles) primarily descend from an "Iberian refugium" population bottleneck dating back to the last ice age.[17][18]" - that throwaway remark about the British isles would stay or go? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Geographical use, if the citation supports British Isles its fine. However as I remember it Oppenheimer and Sykes used limited samples, did they take any in Ireland? --Snowded ^TALK 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be great to have yes or no to simple examples. If we can't manage that, what hope is there that a proposed global MoS will work? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You start with a long list (but no explanation of why there is an issue), you then come up with one example to which I give a clear answer. Let me spell it out, if the reference to Oppenheimer and Sykes (i) covers Ireland and (ii) uses the phrase British Isles then there is no question that the term is valid. If the reference does not specifically mention British Isles, but does include Ireland, then BI is a reasonable phrase as (i) the genetic history is before 1922 and (ii) its a geographic/scientific use. --Snowded ^TALK 18:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but you were not giving a clear answer - "Geographical use, if the citation supports British Isles its fine" is not a clear yes/no answer to my question, would you move it, yes or no? From my perspective, it looks like whenever it gets really specific, there are no specific answers and that leads to suspicion about the outcome of this proposal. After all, if such experts as yourselves cannot give specific answers, what is to stop it opening up bunfights everywhere? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(sigh) it means that one would check the reference, as this is not possible to do on line it would mean popping into a library or getting another editor to confirm the material. Depending on the result of that check the answer would be clear based on the criteria I laid out above. We are talking about guidelines aren't we? I spelt out my call on those. --Snowded ^TALK 18:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying if the genetic history referred to a period after 1922 then BI would not be OK? It looks like an AND to me - before 1922 AND scientific/geo. I suggest it should be OR - before 1922 OR scientific/geo. Also, this business of scurrying off to find references for a matter that in many cases is incidental to the subject - it's a waste of time isn't it? MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No its geographic/scientific so if properly referenced its fine. I made the point that it was pre 1922 anyway, but that was an aside, apologies if it confused things --Snowded ^TALK 20:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That's what's in my mind too MB - I suspect it's actually more wide-ranging than just "political" and "post-1922". I also choose Genetic History because it is an example of something that I think can go either way - it is in onse sense historic but has political implications. It really is a complete minefield. However, I would in principle be prepared to go along with Political and Post-1922 if we can spell out using some examples what the limits are. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that is one down and there are the best part of a hundred examples above. Any more?--Snowded ^TALK 20:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are exaggerating for effect - I make it about 32 distinct existing articles that have been mentioned, plus some examples from outside WP. I don't know how many we need to discuss, but I think it's getting there, at least in clarifying what the problem is. There still seems to be quite a lot of vagueness about how this would apply in practise and that's what concerns. If it's too general, there will be a fresh round of edit wars seeking justification from the MoS. I am not even going on to the question of why exactly the BI ceased to exist after 1922. To many, it did not. I know it did to a segment of opinion but then again, is that a reason to delete it from WP? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles exists, here and now, and that's a fact. Yes, it's a geographic entity with no political meaning, but that shouldn't exclude its use fom just about any article, political or otherwise, if the context is good. That's the problem I have with these proposed guidelines. Some editors would have it that if the article is about sport, for example, then you shouldn't use the phrase, but there ane many cases when its use in a sport article, or a political article for that matter, would be perfectly valid, post 1922 or not. Some examples to illustrate this point have been provided above by RA. You can talk geography in just about any article, whatever the subject, if the context is there. So if you can talk geography what's the problem with using a geographic phrase - provided it is used correctly? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There are archives as well James and those of us who have lived with issue for several years could point you to others. RA made a good link to the resolution on the Derry/Londonderry issues, sometimes to manage conflict you draw lines. The geography/politics is a good one as is 1922. Its not as if people are proposing using inaccurate terms after all. Also guys you need get concrete, the above two comments are general when we were getting specific. Find a case(s) you think would be controversial under those guidelines and lets go through it --Snowded ^TALK 04:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sure there are others, as it's clearly a great bone of contention amongst some rather dedicated editors. I was clearly just talking about this article, as I assume Snowded was. To try another specific example, suppose some foolhardy editor decided to have a bash at Politics of the British Isles. I'm sure sources could be found. In fact, I'm sure sources could be located with effort for Current Use of the Term British Isles in Ireland. However, to stick with the first, would that be classed as political or geographical under this scheme? Let's assume as a default for this hypothesis that all refs in the article are properly sourced and agreed. Would the position under this MoS proposal be that it could not be called that, could not exist or could exist but only as separate articles? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The argument there would be that Politics of the United Kingdom could included the whole of Ireland up to 1922 if it included history. If its all current then two articles make more sense, the aforementioned and Politics of the Republic of Ireland or possible Politics or Ireland given the long history. BI makes no sense in this context . That one is very straight forward. --Snowded ^TALK 09:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I find that quite an interesting answer, because it seems to be more about the politics of Wikipedia than a real-world phenomenon. In the real world, there is an active debate about the politics of the British Isles, which could be admirably covered in an NPOV article with suitable references and material. Yet here in WP there would apparently be a problem about calling it exactly what it is. Unless there is a call to some higher moral point here, for example, that "British Isles" is racist or nationalist? Would that be the justification? If so, a lot of other articles will have to go! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A simple search and review of Google Scholar will show you that its far more common to talk about British or Irish History or both than British Isles. Material on the politics of the British Isles tends to cover the period from the 12th to the 20th Century. That aside, United Kingdom is a more accurate title, the fact that the size of that Kingdom was reduced in 1922 would be noted in any history. Wikipedia already has well developed articles in this space so there is not need for another one to parallel them. I'm continuing to assume good faith but its not clear if you think that guidelines are possible, or if just wish for article by article warfare as has existed in the past. You have not addressed the Derry/Londonderry point, in fact you seem to be studiously avoiding it. --Snowded ^TALK 10:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been away and I'm just catching up now. I'm in broad agreement with what has been proposed, although I'm not a fan of referring to "British Isles" in a political context in any circumstance without a citation since it propagates a much older use of the term that it now out of use (except perhaps with a few members of the British public). Pre-1922, it is far more common to see individual Kingdoms being referred to, or the UK. --HighKing (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there any resources which use the term in a political context, historical or otherwise? Or was it more vernacular than official? What do other editors think? --HighKing (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Restart

To use RA's examples above, can we agree that we agree the following?

• The British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use may or may not include the Channel Islands.
• Use of British Isles is not prescribed in any context (i.e. there is no context in which British Isles has to be used).
• Use of British Isles is appropriate in geographic contexts.
• Don't mix apples and pears (e.g. if content lists countries then everything should be countries, if content lists geographical units then use geographical units).

I'll also add (if it's not overkill)

• Use of British Isles is appropriate in certain (scientific) contexts related to Geography such as distribution of Fauna, geology, weather patterns, and archeology.

A note should accompany the MOS entry reminding users to respect WP:V and differences in terminology where appropriate. A note should also accompany the MOS advising that warring over use or non-use of British Isles is discouraged.

We appear to still require some discussion around

• Use of British Isles in political and cultural contexts should be avoided after 1922.

• Use of British Isles on articles that relate particularly to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) should be avoided, except for where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.

We were making progress on the first point, but the discussion petered out. If, as RA says, we need to start somewhere, and sometimes drawing lines (as in the Derry/Londonderry) is how best it can be achieved, can we break out the discussions on those last two points and try to agree where the line might be? --HighKing (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WRT the geo-distributions (fauna, flora, weather, etc) we need to be clear we should use the largest grouping, i.e. Europe in preference to Continental Europe and British Isles. Fmph (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a guideline proposed previously to state that "The largest relevant geographical region is preferred". I believe the objective with MOS guidelines is to cover 90%+ of all cases. We can consider adding this in too. --HighKing (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Diagree. Each case on its merits. SOmetimes it is necessary to clarify smaller geographic areas. Mister Flash (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if you need somewhere to try and iron out the last two rules you need look no further than Ulster. I am unwilling to get into an edit war with Mister Flash on the BI/B+I and think that this is the place to settle the best way forward for this and hopefully other Irish articles. So what are people's thoughts? Bjmullan (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to be very careful. There are a few twitchy admin fingers hovering over the Block button and I've fallen foul myself. But you are right - this is the right place to resolve the main issues. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by the "Ulster" article - care to elaborate? --HighKing (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The article on the province of Ulster has for a long time used the term B+I when describing the size of Lough Neagh. Recently Mister Flash (who never edited the article before) inserted BI. I have removed this edit twice but he has reinstated both times, using the excuse "easier on the eye" for the change on the last edit summary. This is a difficult one as Lough Neagh is a geographically item and Ulster involves both NI + ROI. Bjmullan (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Does MF have any medical proof that his addition is "easier on the eye"? GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm writing a thesis on it. My research indicates this to be the case, but it's OR so I can't tell you any morer about it. Mister Flash (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

GD, that's funny :-) --HighKing (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Normally I'd say to take it to SE page, but geographical usage such as this is fine. Unless the consensus on that specific article says otherwise (as happened with the River Shannon article), then I'd say leave it as British Isles. If you want to test if the consensus is otherwise, take it up on the Talk page. And I'm surprised at the amount of edit warring that has taken place on the article (even admins involved!) without anything happening on the Talk page! --HighKing (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't mix apples and pears

(Moved from above) Disagree. There are many examples of where lists mix countries and other entities. To me this is jut an excuse for limiting use. Mister Flash (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide examples? --HighKing (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be any logical argument to this objection. Do others agree? If so, can we include this? --HighKing (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The obvious example for me is "America" which could mean the USA, or one or other of the two continents, or both continents taken together. I'm sure there are plenty of others.... but that doesn't make them right. As an encyclopaedia it's our role to be accurate wherever we can, so despite there being usages to the contrary I still think the principle of not mixing apples & pears is sound. waggers (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of British Isles in political and cultural contexts should be avoided after 1922

(moved from above) Disagree. Why single out BI? You may just as well say Scandinavia should be avoided after some arbitrary date relating to the indpependence of Sweden or something. Mister Flash (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've no probs with this. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Its hardly an arbitrary date. Also it is only with respect to political contexts. --RA (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

@RA, the question I have relates to using BI in any political or cultural contexts regardless of the era. The term was never used officially as such. --HighKing (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC

Im english, i live in england, and we call these isle the British Isle. My family has in fact lived here a thousand years, It is discriminatory and racist to attempt to eradicate my culture and history in this way. Any attempts to remove the phrase British Isle will meet with an edit war.

Just so you're all clear on this.82.21.207.51 (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

An edit war? those are usually met with blocks. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Political

I agree that in all but perhaps highly unusual circumstances it should not be used. The only reason right now I can think where it could be used is say if the sentence described the change from before to after, but that's unlikely. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think this is fine for political contexts but the wording needs toning down or some qualification at least - usually when "British Isles" is used in political contexts it's usually referring to the British Islands or the British Islands plus Ireland. waggers (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Cultural

It is worth noting that much of modern British and Irish culture stems from the same root; there are of course differences across different parts of the British Isles (not just Ireland) but to deny that there are (yes, even today) shared cultural elements across the British Isles - or to pretend that there was a shared culture in 1921 but suddenly not in 1923 - is just silly IMHO. The situation isn't that clear cut. waggers (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is denying there's shared cultural elements across the British Isles, or even trying to suppress mentioning this where applicable. Perhaps a discussion with specific examples would quickly weed out the areas worth focusing on? --HighKing (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I ran into the problem with Britain and Ireland when I was editing the article on New Romanticism. Had I just said it was a fashion and music movement in the British Isles, nothing would have been said. Once Ireland was specified, a bunch of editors wanted sources that said it was popular in Ireland as well as Britain. Normally fads and trends in Britain occur simultaneously in Ireland. Top of the Pops is as slavishly viewed in Dublin as it is in London and Sheffield.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Irish related articles

(moved from above) Disagree. It would only encourage anti British POV. It's a valid term and if some people in Ireland don't like it then there's not a lot we can do about it. Mister Flash (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Depends on which part of Ireland. If Northern Ireland, I've no probs with addition of British Isles. If Republic, I've no probs with deletion of British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That was pretty much my suggestion: if "Republic of Ireland" or "island of Ireland" then avoided, if "Northern Ireland" the no need to avoid. --RA (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The island of Ireland? it can be both ways for me. I'll go along with the majority opinon on it. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Like the Ulster article below, the guidelines are there to influence discussions and help reach consensus. I don't see our discussion of where to use "British Isles" as anti-British POV, and I've yet to see any evidence of such, despite protestations by MF and MBM. I believe this addition to the guidelines is agreeable to most. --HighKing (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Geographic contexts

As far as I can see, the proposition that "use of British Isles is appropriate in geographic contexts" has not been challenged here, but it has been challenged at Ben Nevis, albeit only by one registered editor and by an evident SPA. I am still open to persuasion, but I would like to express my support for this proposition. Geographically, there are many lines of sight between mountains of Great Britain and Ireland, but none between mountains of the British Isles and continental Europe. I also suggest that the geography, and perhaps history and culture also, of Scotland and Ireland have more in common with each other than with England. See also the ancient map at British_Isles#History, which long pre-dates the United Kingdom, where the word "Britannica" is clearly shown on the island of Ireland. However, I support the case in favour of a distinction between geographical features on Great Britain and those on Ireland; I don't want to challenge the status quo at River Shannon. Viewfinder (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There's another point, above, about Ireland-related topics. It's related, I believe, to what you've said here. What do you think? --HighKing (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Aye. The River Shannon situation would be caught by the guideline to avoid the term in articles that relate particularly to the Republic of Ireland and island of Ireland (including geographic contexts). --RA (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What about Ulster? There's a dispute there currently regarding Lough Neagh. --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There was an agreement a long time ago that the River Shannon was the longest in Ireland, and Lough Neagh was the largest lake in the British Isles. It solved a lot of edit wars at the time. --Snowded ^TALK 23:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with that since the consensus on individual articles can override MOS guidelines in any case. --HighKing (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Historical use

Apart from discussions about use post 1922, there's also reference that the term was not widely used before (IIRC) at least 1700, giving the term a historical window of accurate uncontroversial use of only a couple of hundred years. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll on MOS entry

I've opened a straw poll on the MOS entry here --RA (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, BISE

It's been 1 year ago today, that this page was created. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We celebrated BISE's first birthday. After much "feasting", we resolved that two editors, including an admin, were banned from BISE. Per WP:IAR I'm going to quietly forget about that... Collapsing this section to aid page use and navigation, and to hide my shame... TFOWR 12:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has done a tally of all the cases we have covered here to see how many removals/insertions there has been? Speaking of birthdays, i see last week marked the 1 year anniversary of the Ireland naming dispute poll, forgot to mark it with a drink at the time. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Based on an in-depth analysis (well, a quick glance at any rate) I would say that the score at the moment is approximately 50-50, with both sides roughly equally annoyed, frustrated and reversed. (joking, honestly) The umpire is, remarkably, not showing signs of excessive desire to depart Wikipedia just yet. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC) 50-50? that means this page is working fine. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC) If only it was, but we had best not calculate it :) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC) I'd prefer to see the process move from cricket to kilikiti. Specifically, I'd like to see more singing, dancing and feasting. And I like to see issues raised being forfeited if the proposer fails to provide enough food for everyone participating... ;-) TFOWR 15:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC) So long as it doesn't include the sacrifice of selected victims, I'm all in favour. We could also have pillow and bun fights. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC) I was thinking may be we could tie it into "Good deeds". So for example, before someone is allowed to raise a new case.. they must make like 100 improvements to wikipedia. That could be vandalism fighting, disam fixing, grammar fixing, dead link fixing etc. That way the whole community benefits from our actions here. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC) BW that's not a bad idea, it would help to keep the SPA at bay. I also think people who get blocked (even for a couple of hours) should never be allow to edit here again ;-) Bjmullan (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC) I see one small (or not so small...) problem with that idea... ;-) TFOWR 18:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Ha! And you are now in charge of us? Shouldn't we have been warned? :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC) I feel in good company now! lol. I still have a cleaner record than TFOWR :)BritishWatcher (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC) I can't tell, was the second block accidental? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC) It was. The first one had me banged to rights, though. TFOWR 18:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC) I know we are getting off topic, but as this is meant to be a party. Whats the biggest error uve made as an admin? Any accidental indef blocks? lol BritishWatcher (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC) A few things spring to mind... I've blocked two editors for edit warring, without warning - both of them promised to stop, so I unblocked them, but that wasn't my finest hour. Another one was a request at WP:RFPP in which - when I re-read what I'd written - it looked like I'd suggested that a particular admin would edit through full protection (which really wasn't what I'd meant). There is also the issue of an indef block which was then modified to a two week block when ANI reviewed it... TFOWR 19:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia cake anyone? An indef moved to a two week? No idea what you're on about ;) I like it how BW was blocked post resolving the issue he was blocked for, no doubt a great shock. Out of curiosity, what does being blocked look like? I've got to be more careful about my reverts from now on! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC) I purposely stopped after my second revert but it wasnt enough. lol. I am going to impose a 1RR on myself from now on to make sure that never happens again. You go to edit a page and this white box saying unable to edit and explaining how to request unblock :(. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC) No big accidental misclicks then? they aint soo bad. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Not yet... I'm still holding out for "deleting the main page", and blocking myself is something I've also got to looked forward ;-) TFOWR 19:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC) So that's it I don't want to see either BW or TFOW edit here for a least 3 months! The will teach the pair of you ;-) BTW Happy Birthday & lets hope we can all work together (after your ban) on this project. Bjmullan (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC) If you block yourself, can you alert anyone to it, or are you prevented from kicking up a fuss? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC) (I'm not sure that I allowed to post here anymore!) I believe that if I block myself I can then unblock myself. I also believe I can unblock myself whoever blocks me - but I'd be de-sysopped two minutes later. :-( TFOWR 20:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC) I need solid experimental proof. Please block yourself now for, say, an indef period. If we don't hear anything about it, we will then have confirmation that it is ungettable-out-of, which will comfort the need for knowledge that brings many of us to this place. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Uh, a little help here, please... TFOWR's left sock 20:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC) OK, all good - apparently I just blocked myself for a few minutes... ;-) TFOWR 20:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Is somebody saying something? Hello? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Walked into that one - but - I was already banned! The most recent block changes nothing - nothing! TFOWR 20:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Lovely party anyway. And being serious for a moment, thanks for all your help TFOWR, it's been invaluable. Off to watch The Special Relationship (BBC2) now with Martin Sheen reprising his Blair role yet again. Have a good evening. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Im watching that too, it seems somewhat imaginative. One little thing i just noticed was they had a speech playing in the background of a scene around the time of Kosovo with william hague speaking about the president of Europe, yet he only made that speech a couple of years ago following the constitution/lisbon treaty. Rather odd film, this is the sort of thing id expect to see on Channel 4. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

All quiet on the western front

Am I the only one to notice that things have been quiet and civil for the last few days? I wonder why... Bjmullan (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Its amazing how much time it frees up. lol BritishWatcher (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is HK these days? Anyway, I believe I can now hear the sound of one hand clapping. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm still here.  :-) --HighKing (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I like it, time to figure out if life outside this page has a purpose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it's been days since the last case was presented. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm planning on closing out a few tomorrow, which I would imagine will cause some... "less-than-quietness". In the meantime I've been doing this thing I used to do, called "editing articles" ;-) It's been good to get back to basics. Black Watch (play) could use some love if anyone's really bored... TFOWR 16:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Reason I mention the play, and not one of the other articles I've been fiddling with, is it could do with a more global worldview - it's a play about a Scottish regiment, with a history in Ireland and elsewhere. The play's mostly about Iraq, but there are some interesting perspectives in the press on performances in Ireland. I figure editors here could give it a more rounded treatment. TFOWR 16:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I reckoned with all the drama over the past week, there was no point in stretching people too thinly here at BISE. But if you guys are asking for some more usage to review, I'm happy to throw a couple more here after TFWOR has closed off a couple. I believe James had posed a question about Usage earlier - I intend to reply and I hope others will also. It's the key to getting some understanding and agreement on lots of other articles also. --HighKing (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the reminder HK, I will be returning to that before too long has passed hopefully! What was the "drama over the last week", did I miss some important battle someplace? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope you all enjoyed the quiet period. It's amazing how much can be done if you are a SPA.... Bjmullan (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Transclusion

Whatever happen to the idea of transcluding the discussions onto their respective article talkpages? This idea was to help comfort those who claimed BISE was usurping those talkkpages functions. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Its very messy with extended discussions. The template notification is I think a better way of handling that --Snowded ^TALK 15:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It was also mostly considered for those discussions that crossed over multiple talkpages. TFOWR 15:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Okie double Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's just a shame that the template is used so late and inconsistently. If it were used better, it would be easier to assume good faith of the taskforce. DuncanHill (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I plain disagree. There's no such thing as "late" or "inconsistent" since there's no hard and fast rule for when to use the template. It would be easier, for sure, to assume good faith of the commentators, if they actually raised a finger to help, rather than chip in from the sidelines with negative comments. --HighKing (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't want outside editors contributing to the discussions until you've decided that there needs to be a !vote - if you did you'd get off your arse and invite them, by mentioning your discussions on the article talk pages. I am trying to help - but it's clear that this taskforce doesn't want outside help. I note your lack of gratitude for resolving the Geevor issue, where not one of you could be bothered to read the guidelines linked from the article talk page before deciding to have your "discussion" here (Actually, not quite fair - BritishWatcher already knew about the guideline, but has a marked tendency to ignore it). Why the hell should I bother to try to help when the taskforce appears to be too lazy to help itself? If you templated sooner you might get more people involved. But you don't want more people involved do you? DuncanHill (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the strict rules we have is adherence to WP:CIVIL. Don't comment on other editors, stick with content. But I would like to point out that there's a difference between a lack of gratitude and a lack of expressions of gratitude. --HighKing (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone Duncan - I have repeatedly advocated that we do need declarations at local pages. My view is that if this is an issue, which it obviously is, we should auto-template every time an issue is brought up unless and only unless the article is covered by a pre-existing consensus policy, eg, fauna articles, so far. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• I was told this some weeks ago. Sadly, it was only words, and deeds did not follow. DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's been subject to some discussion subsequently - it would get boringly silly to have to do it repeatedly, for example, to a zillion stubs on the same insect family. I think maybe we should have a commitment to do it either on the actual article page or the relevant project page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I certainly won't be believing anything HighKing says about how this taskforce operates from now on. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am lazy, when it comes to transclusion. That's why I depened on others for that task. DH, you'd be the perfect bloke, to keep this part of BISE functioning smoothly. We need ya. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd have to spend six weeks at least tidying up and archiving the various discussions/polls/proposals/guidelines that the taskforce has scattered about over various project and project talk pages first - and by then I'd have poked my eyeballs out with a dirty stick to relieve the agony. There's a proposal on what I think is the task force's front page to archive some discussions because they were old and cluttering up the page. That was in 2008 and it hasn't been done yet. I honestly cannot find my way around here! DuncanHill (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Then the confusion over transclusion will continue. What other alternative is there? GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm absolutely serious - it is impossible to navigate this taskforce. There is no central index of subpages (which have inconsistent titles, so are hard to find), discussions take place all over the place, the "proposed guidelines" seem to have stalled over a year ago, no clear distinction between talk and project pages, etc. I also don't really care enough about the taskforce's reason for existence (qualifies for WP:LAME in a lot of cases). I'm sorry, but while I'm sure that some of you are doing your best, I'm equally certain that some others of you aren't, and I've enough trouble in my life already. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can barely keep up with activities at BISE, let alone the Taskforce. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Re DuncanHill: Well, I certainly won't be believing anything HighKing says about how this taskforce operates from now on. well, if you pick and choose which comments to assign weight to, you can come to any conclusion you like. Subsequent statements in the exact same thread by TFOWR (our keeper of the peace) state very clearly Many "discussions" are relatively quickly identified as "non discussions" - a few BISE participants post, it's realised that there's no issue, and we move on. Under those circumstances it seems pointless to notify talkpages. Once a "structured discussion" - one with "for" and "against" sections - is opened, talkpages are notified at that point. which BTW is *exactly* what has been happening. Even though it is usually TFOWR that decides when a discussion reaches the For/Against points, I've been doing this recently for sections and then immediately templating the articles. All as agreed. Apologies if that isn't how *you* would like things done, but that is how the participating community and admins here have decided to do things. If you would like to ask (politely and nicely) for us to consider a different modus operandi, all you have to do is ask. Screaming abuse from the sidelines or other hysterics and drama, while entertaining to some of our page watchers, won't get you closer to what you'd like to see happening. --HighKing (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the Churchill approach: "It's better to be on the inside p-ssing out, then on the outside p-ssing in". GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There has been some complexity and confusion about exactly when to act, but in general I concur with HK's comments above - the "target" articles have been promptly templated when there was agreement to do so - we've already established that it would be silly to do it in all cases. I do think though that we now need to formalise a policy about it. DuncanHill should note that we already agreed that there could be no change without templating so anything short of that is just an abstract discussion. The only bit that needs changing now I suspect is that we need to agree to template project pages in cases where many articles are affected, or where it is many small changes to exceptionally similar stubs. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

REVIEW of BISE

It's quite apparent to me, that editors are in disagreement over why BISE was created & what its purpose is/was. I thought its purpose was to stop edit wars over the usage of British Isles, across Wikipedia articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's try to put some structure on this, otherwise it'll turn into a meandering discussion and we won't achieve anything. Are there any specific issues that need attention? --HighKing (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to let those who question BISE's purpose, respond. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think the review should be of the entire taskforce, and not just the specific examples page. Fmph (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Additionally, I think the whole thing should be cleaned up and cut down as much as possible to, say, a single project page and a discussion. Be honest, how many of you have actually read all the pages?

In the meanwhile, I'd like to suggest that HighKing and all and any of his sockpuppets are banned for 6 months from suggesting new topics for discussion at WP:BISE, and we use that to gauge how much of an influence he was having. It may well be that without HighKing, the whole thing dies down to a reasonable level of discussion. The only way to know is to try.

--LevenBoy (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to review BITASK? by all mean open up a review there too. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Because so many of HighKing's sockpuppets have been posting on BISE Leven. Seriously, I doubt he's using them, especially when he brings forth such obscure articles. If I was him socking, I'd just remove them with the sock.

On the other hand, most current conversations are HighKing. Altogether too long anyway, I'd suggest no new cases unless it's an article an editor is putting a lot of work into. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that is an interesting proposal. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR used to summarize and archive sections here but he hasn't been around for a long while. We could ask BlackKite or Cailil to summarize/close/arhive the articles? --HighKing (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There's about 22 sections opened since October (I'm responsible for 8) and the majority appear to have run their course and it should be possible to uncontroversially close and summarize over half. Anyone disagree? --HighKing (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Very few appear to have consensus. Maybe list the ones you think that have. If there's a clear error in British Isles use then they should be easy. LemonMonday Talk 20:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to see if an admin takes a look without being influenced... --HighKing (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

BISE as a task-force

Okay I just saw HK's request for structure on ANI. First in terms of the task-force generally it should be here to maintain (that is uphold WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, as well WP:MOS and other specific criteria) relating to articles in the British Isles topic without regard to whether the article should use the term or not. Discussion should be limited to and structured by reliable sources and should encompass the whole of the article not just the term British Isles. The task force should be notified when there is need for broader input, for an RFC, MFD or other relevant discussion (although this is not mandatory). When there is a problematic issue in regard to the insertion of external links, OR or material breaching WP:BLP, the task force should be a port of call.
In terms of this sub-page for "specific examples". It's core purpose, as the Task forces is to uphold WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR first and foremost. Where there is an incorrect reference, and omission or an inconsistency with the MOS in regard to the use of the term this page should be used along with the relevant talk page to find consensus. Remember WP:CONLIMITED: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."
There are a few issues with the current systems and layout here. First of all this project page has/is being used as a talk page as well as the talk page. It should be like all other task-force pages show guidelines, 'mission statements' and anything else a task force is required to do. Look at other task forces and see what they do (i.e the Nineteenth century novel task force). Conversations should not be divided into 'for' and 'against' - look at how we do MFDs - discussion is about making the best (policy or source based) points not counting votes and not the number of comments. Also for reference one dissenting voice does not make no consensus.
Also the page should highlight the topic's probation - new users need to be made aware of the situation and it's implications (i.e strict observances of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF). Abuse of the talk-space will not be tolerated please read WP:TPG: talk pages are used to help improve the project not express opinions about subjects or other editors.
If the task-force wants to set-forth a proposal at WP:MOS-IE or the WP:MOS generally it must put it forward there and ideally open an RFC on it.
Moving forwards, you should consider what this page "specific examples" needs to do to get in line with upholding WP:V, W:NOR and WP:NPOV and how it can help form consensus at article talk pages.
If you are unclear about how project's and task forces are designed and run please see WP:WIKIPROJECT and WP:TASKFORCE--Cailil ^talk 19:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yippee. About time too. Well said Cailil. OK, my take is that this subpage was originally designed to provide a forum where general classes of disputed instances could be discussed using specific examples and some general rules/guidelines could be agreed for addition to the WP:MOS. It has singularly failed to produce even one such agreement. Every now and then an editor proclaims the "We've agreed that in the case of all <xyz> articles, British Isles should be the preferred usage", only to be shouted down. Instead the page has become an adjudicated brawling ring where individual usages are bludgeoned through against determined opposition. This just about works, but no one likes it, no one thinks it's a good use of time or resources, and none of us gain anything from it. We need to get away from that. I'd suggest that the first step will be development of as Code of Behaviour for task force members, then disband BISE, and push discussion back to the TF. It should be taken be to zero and rebuilt from scratch, focussing on development of WP:MOS additions. Fmph (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with any solutions which is (i) moderated by admins and (ii) retains some central forum for insertion/removal of BI so we don't go back to edit wars sprawling over many articles. --Snowded ^TALK 22:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've only one concern. The Task Force was set up at the suggestion of admins concerned with disruption overtaking multiple articles, wanted a central place to monitor matters and minimize disruption. Similarly, the BISE page was set up on the suggestion of an admin. Likewise the current process involving For/Against was set up by an admin. In all those cases, the admin is no longer participating here for whatever reason. And the current process was starting to work, thanks to strict enforcing. But then we saw how quickly things fell apart when TFOWR was no longer around, and other admins avoid this topic. Without admin moderation, any new process is also at risk. For the record, I'll wholeheartedly agree to sign up for whatever new structure and process is put in place - but I also believe that we need an admin to moderate. --HighKing (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I do recognize that HK and I agree with the other sysops actions. I do believe this page has a purpose and will work as a central hub to deal with disruption - but also to build consensus. The problem at the SE page isn't that TFOWR applied the 'for' and 'against' but rather they were used for voting by others. They should have been used ala MFD for source/policy based arguments. Rather than having editors register a +support or +oppose in the sections, they could be used for evidence onee way or another: sources that say one thing and sources that say another. This structure of arguments for and against could be retained if it was centred on sources not editors' opinions.
Disputes need to be resolved on wikipedia and the only way for that to happen is for the core principles of the project to be brought into focus for all involved. That means a spirit of collegiality needs to be fostered - especially between those who disagree. The basics of editing are found in civility and sourcing - the complex matter of editing are in weighing sources and finding what the project deems to be a NPOV. There is no reason that steps towards normalization of editing practice (while retaining the probationary structure on the topic until it is evidently unnecessary) should not be taken. Failure to deal with others in a civil, respectful and AGF manner is the problem of individual accounts and the responsibility will be borne by them. There are many people here and on wikipedia who have differing views and who can work together - that there are a few who prefer to disrupt is a fact of life, but these hard cases make bad law. We should try just to 'legislate' for normal problems (ie what's more reliable, how many sub-articles in a category etc etc).
I'm not proposing that the SE page be wound-up, but rather that it be refocussed and brought into line with other taskforce's sub-pages/departments. The idea of 'Specific Examples' however needs clarification - is Fmph's view the one everyone holds? If so then I suggest specific cases and their resolutions as examples for users (to be explained in terms of policy and sourcing) for when BI should be used and when not per WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. One way this could be structured is like the LGBT project's guidelines[5]- using the talk page for current examples. There is a huge collection of closed cases already - these could be used for something like that.
That said this is just my suggestion and it's really up to you all to decide what "specific examples" means and what the page is for, and/or if you want to move it to an updated name to fit with what Snowded describes: a "central forum for [the discussion of the] insertion/removal of BI so we don't go back to edit wars"?--Cailil ^talk 03:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Specific examples certainly evolved into many examples. Many a times, I've found it difficult to keep up with the cases. Thus my reasons for 'sometimes' having less frequent participation. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There should be only 1 case per month, brought to BISE. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest a figure of zero, unless they are part of a suggested common cohort designed to lead to a MOS entry. 1 is an arbitrary nonsense figure with no funtional purpose. Fmph (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoopee, zero. Instead let's edit war away on the mainspace! :D Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not put everyone who has ever contributed here on bans from inserting or removing the term "British Isles" or discussing its use for 11 months of the year. In the other month this page can be used to discuss any cases necessary. TFOWR or another admin should be given reasonable freedom to rein in discussion and make quick conclusions if it is reasonably clear rather than letting arguments carry on and on. Quantpole (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a charter for sock puppetry. RashersTierney (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And if people are caught then they get blocked/banned. Why is it different to any other editing restriction? Quantpole (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? No editing that for 11 months? Seems slightly harsh. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This subject is a recognised battleground. The initiative here was a means of minimizing disruption and arriving at consensus through centralised discussion. Despite the b/s, socking is effective on the project as a means of pushing POVs, which is why its rampant. Stopping it is wasteful of others time. Anything that reduces its attractiveness is a good thing, anything that encourages it is a bad thing. RashersTierney (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

So nobody can change any article by inserting or removing British Isles in substitution of UK/GB/I etc etc except for one month a year when you all have a sort of BI fest for a month? It's a million to one chance but it might just work. This is not an area where the "wrong" edit, ie UK instead of BI or vice versa, causes any real harm, like BLP or pseudosciences. On the other hand, obssessions with it and the endless nitpicky arguments are enough to drive anybody bonkers. If there was simply no editing along those lines for a while the socks should be easy to spot. If it's limited to existing articles then it doesn't catch out new stuff by the uninitiated. 11 months is too long. How about 6 months? Meanwhile, without changing anything, you could perhaps clarify some guidelines.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We've certainly got, what, 7 pages of archives plus the current page at BISE. It's not like we haven't gotten enough examples already to examine usage, so from that point of view I don't see any reason for changing articles while guidelines are being discussed and written up. Although it worries me that someone might think that it'd take years..... If we get a decent number of participants, we should be able to make good progress. RA made a decent stab previously and it looked like we'd get an MOS entry. --HighKing (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Banning addition/deletion/replacement of 'British Isles' until a MOS is agreed on? is a perfect idea. As for worries of socks? big deal, SPIs will snuff 'em out. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about banning, and I wouldn't agree to that. There's one side to this discussion that would consider that a victory, and there'd be no motivation to agree on anything. In fact, as it currently stands, they've currently no motivation to agree to anything, not even participation. Oh, and SPIs will snuff 'em out - hmmmm ... I don't think so.... --HighKing (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with a ban 'til an MOS is created. If an editor(s) have no desire or motivation to reach a MOS? that's their personal choice. There's no 'fire' to get BI deleted/added/replaced on these articles - Wikipedia has been running smoothly for over 5yrs & doesn't appear to be ending anytime soon. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, that's your choice to want an outright ban, but I'd like to point out that with the BISE page running, there hasn't been any adding/removing of "British Isles" on articles, and there wasn't any 'fire' either with about 8 discussions relating to articles per month. --HighKing (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there'll be a consensus for a ban, anyway. There's only a few of us (familiar faces) hanging around the 'British Isles' dispute. Most of the community are either un-aware of the dispute or most likey don't care about it. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A procrastinators and socks charter methinks. I've no problem with an agreed suspension of adding/removing British Isles, but it would need to be as part of a total package aimed at moving the project forward. How about adding a couple of conditions:

1. Additions or removals would be allowed in any article covered by a BI related MOS entry, i.e. if we agreed a MOS entry to cover, say, fauna-related articles (which shouldn't be too difficult) then those articles could have BI added/removed in line with the MOS
2. All participants required to sign up to a BITASK Code of Conduct, which might include a notification process for the TF, i.e. when you did a BI edit you would be required to notify the TF (hidden category?)

Would that work? Fmph (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd still say freeze BISE, until we get a MOS. As for Code of conduct being mandatory? agreed. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ok this is interesting. While I see and understand the suggestion GD I think a freeze of BI naming issues would impossible. A freeze on BI articles (British Isles, British Isles naming dispute) wouldn't help either. You can't force everyone to join-up to voluntary code of conduct (unfortunately). New and IP users (an other people out of loop, so to speak) would get labelled as disruptive simply for not knowing said agreement, IMHO it also runs the risk of breaching WP:CREEP. Entries will be innocently adjusted (additions and removals) in actions covered by WP:NOR, WP:V. So I'm afraid an actual freeze on BI editing wouldn't be feasible.
  In actual fact the topic's probation should cover the problem taht this suggestion wants to resolve - if an account disrupts the project to make a point it will be blocked. IMHo it's a matter of seperating this list of examples from worries about breaches of the probation (which is itself a community sanction rather than anything actually to do with this project).
  However an agreement here not to edit entries but rather to co-ordinate a list of examples where BI is used and why (as regards WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV) would be good. Even before there is an attempt to do a MOS entry this 'list of examples' would be useful on its own.
  A new page could be opened for reporting disruptive or OR additions/removals/changes. Also I think Fmph is on to something with his 2 suggestions but as regards the 1st one: I suggest investigating WP:MOS-IE which already deals with some of the naming issues are geographical/political names of Ireland. It might inform editors here of how such MOS entries are formatted--Cailil ^talk 17:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever will get the ship sailing more smoothly, I'm for it. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see the opinions of all contributors here to the following scenario; BISE, the task force, the BI "project", the SE page and everything else is abandoned. What, if anything, would then happen as a result? LemonMonday Talk 17:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

RL would continue, as it did before 2001. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you a serious opinion ? LemonMonday Talk 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You said "...if the project was abandon", the project is Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Corrected, now, what do you think? LemonMonday Talk 18:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I can only theorize: The aboliton of the Task force, BISE (which is the SE page) etc, would bring about the increase of edit wars over the addition/removal/replacement of British Isles on articles across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to a voluntary freeze and abolition and to focus instead on a creating one single simple page and a discussion page for any queries

Let us accept all the 'usual suspects' are 'known'. If we remove all the topics which appear here because of a) the suggestion of a usual suspects and, b) because a usual suspects made an alteration on a page without discussion, how many topics are we talking about actually arising? Basically zero, right? How many individuals are actually raising new issues all the time? The fact is, most of the Wikipedia, and almost all of the readership, really does not care. So try it. Just have some arrangement whereby any suspicious new user adding or subtracting BI or B plus I can be checkusered quickly against the usual suspects.

Some kind of additional, voluntary sanction. Either that or we all go voluntarily to arbcom.

The whole thing is, by now, a messy sprawl over umpteen confusing pages. It has become ugly and does not attract new volunteers. Why on earth should any admin want to stick it out refereeing it. It just wont happen. --LevenBoy (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Now what?

Is the 'review' over? GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Nuke and pave. --LevenBoy (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What do ya mean? delete BISE & the Taskforce? GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? Who decided this?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Then why are we having this discussion about nuking and paving?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yo'll have to ask LB that, as he wants to stop the removal of British Isles from articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

GD, either the volunteers here propose a change or they continue on as is. I've outline what practices are outside the remit of this page (or any wikiproject/taskforce) to discuss. And what practices will have to change. So you guys can find a consensus (doesn't need to be unanimous) to bring this sub-age of the BI task force into line with WP:TASKFORCE as suggested or not. You can start talking about how you want to deal with examples or not. Either way please ignore comments that are unhelpful--Cailil ^talk 19:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it for the last few days, and the format is tired, but we do need some central location. Equally all debates would benefit from participation of editors interested in each article (although realistically we know there is little of that given the obscurity of some of the articles. One way forward would be to create a new notification only page - any insertion or removal to be notified on this page and debate on the talk page of the article itself. The notification page to have a scribe who keeps it up todate with open/resolved/conflict. If conflict then admins step in on request. That way it would be easy to scan the page.--Snowded ^TALK 19:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems workable to me. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any harm, based on prior experience, to try to anticipate likely reactions to inserts/deletions? Prior experience would lead me to believe that an insertion/deletion will be met with a revert (likely quoting BRD) followed by extensive debate on the article Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Snowded's idea has value. Seperating the "examples" from notices is a good idea. It lets this wikiproject have a clear place to say "there's a discussion about an insertion/removal/alteration at [[article x]]" and then use this page as a place for "specific examples" of usage or whatever you guys want to use it for. It is best to AGF and try something like this HK - the topic needs to move towards normal editing. If there is disruptive or tendentious insertion/removal/alteration or "stone-walling" of these actions when/where appropriate then it can be handled through the probation.--Cailil ^talk 00:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I also like Snowded proposal and it's worth giving it a try. Bjmullan (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to keep the same enforcement, no changes without notification and discussion, and keep some of the agreements we have reached intact. Cailil, do you think we could move the rule to be a general one revert on BI then discuss, not a 1RR as that would just result in a slow edit war. I also think we need a group of admins prepared to intervene if no agreement is reached on the talk page within a week (and to enforce civility); that would deal with HighKings point and also reduce the burden on admins. If there is agreement, and Cailil will advise the best form I am happy to set the thing up over Christmas (and by the way if any Irish editors are in Limerick this Saturday happy to buy a drink BEFORE the game and after if Munster loose) --Snowded ^TALK 09:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree wrt 1 revert vs 1RR. The later will encourage slow edit wars. My proposal as follows:

1. Ssspend/close WP:BISE - its just become a battleground
2. Start WP:BINOTIFY - a place for notification of insertions/deletions - it should also have a Rules of Engagement section and a membership section. ALL members required to abide by Rules of Engagement.
3. Develop 2 templates - one for the article and one for WP:BINOTIFY (Is it possible to do it with one template?) - so that both the article talk page and the notification page are informed about the process

Actually, I don't like 'notification'/'notify' - too long. Can anyone think of a better word? Fmph (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Notify isn't that long. I think it's an apt word.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

But Notification is toooooooo long. If it was just notify I'd be happy. Fmph (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's see....there's report, placard-which I happen to like. The other synonyms are as long as notification, alas....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

How about WP:BIALERT? or if thats too melodramatic, maybe WP:BIADVICE or WP:BIADVISE, or simply WP:BIADV? Fmph (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I like BIALERT. No, it's not terribly melodramatic; however, it does grab one's attention, which is the purpose, surely. That one gets my vote!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Snowded that revert idea seems reasonable - I want to look into it but on the face of it I think a proposal could be made for the probation to take this on board. Let me get the idea straight in my head - what's being proposed is: "a limit of one revert in total of insertions/removals/alterations of the term 'British Isles' until consensus is reached."?--Cailil ^talk 14:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so if someone makes a change to insert or remove and its reverted then all stops until consensus is reached or we do the escalation after a week (I am thinking about formal statements here, we need to stop the internal repetition of the same points). Its not a 1RR as you just get tag teaming or slow edit wars. Any change to be notified at the new page (I do like BINOTIFY) and new editors advised of the rule. Experienced editors would be expected to notify automatically and not make changes until agreement reached. My idea is we set this up and get community agreement to consolidate the current rulings. --Snowded ^TALK 14:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the rvrv idea. I like the idea of the discussion taking place on the talkpage of articles too. That seems sensible as this page is a rather rarified place. I do wonder though what a bunch of normal editors will think though of people descending on them arguing that British Isles is "polemic" or whatever. Overall thoguh I think it's worth a try. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What you're talking about is a 1RR on the topic rather than on editors. I want to check and see if something has been implemented like this elsewhere but again I think this might be workable--Cailil ^talk 15:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne, "nuke and pave" is a term computer technicians often use when a problem is just too complex or too time consuming to attempt fixing and where it is just quicker, easier and more productive to erase the hard drive, reinstall an operating system and start over again. To rebuild a healthy system. Of course, "archive and pave" would be what we are going to do. We need a single page, with a single discussion page and a good, searchable archive. We can borrow some code off other archive pages.

And I am sick of all this "tasking force". I want a simple, grown up WikiProject. Tone the whole thing down from a battlefield to a collaborative process. Look at WikiProject European Union. Make it a bigger, better thing about improving all British Isles related topics.

I am not clear about all this 1RV business. There has been a lot of tag teaming, tripping up and deliberate provocations or tactical editing going on over the whole insert/revert war. If it means

"any new edit sticks but can tagged with a 'notification for discussion' before any change or revert is made"

then I would be in favour of it. I think the tag should be small like a citation tag, e.g. fact, who? etc and not interfere with the over topic because, again, big tags have been used as weapons to mark topics. A big tag for talk pages is fine.

Lastly, I am not overly keen on any BI acronym. BI is BI and has distinct sexual connotations which we can respect and leave alone for those who swing that way. "BI Alert" sounds like something out of the Daily Mail circa Boy George's outing. I suggest WP:BRITISLES. --LevenBoy (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I very much look forward to this new "nuked and paved" LevenBoy, toning down the battlefield and engaging in collaborative editing. The RV business would not mean "any new edit sticks" which is a recipe for mass edit wars, but rather than any new edit if reversed moves to discussion until the matter is resolved. Given that part of the ongoing debate is the valid use of BI as a term, a task force focused on improving BI topics would seem to be taking one position in the dispute. I think that is a very different thing from the ideas above (and the original purpose of this page) to reduce edit wars over insertion or deletion of term. --Snowded ^TALK 11:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that opposite proposal (revert blindly then discuss) is that is disencourages any editing or development at all. Someone edits, someone reverts, discussion is stonewalled at WP:BISE despite however benign, innocuous or even accurate that edit is.

Are you suggesting British Isles is an invalid term? If such a workgroup offended you, you would be under no duress to join it. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone edits, someone reverts, discussion is stonewalled at WP:BISE despite however benign, innocuous or even accurate that edit is. Sorry, but I choked on my beer when I saw this..... --HighKing (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at there. Anyway, my view on this whole thing is that BISE should be dissolved. Its very existence suggests that there's something generally wrong with using British Isles in articles, which of course there isn't. Anyone found carrying out serial, or persistent, deletions or insertions should face an immediate topic ban. Other than that, I'd say if someone edits out (or in) British Isles and someone else is not happy about it they should challenge it on accuracy only on the relevant talk page. Please let's move away from this debilitating tactic of justifying inclusion or exclusion of British Isles based on references. In just about all cases it's inappropriate to do so and could be regarded as gaming the system. LemonMonday Talk 17:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"his debilitating tactic of justifying inclusion or exclusion of British Isles based on references", revealing. Unfortunately LM its basic wikipedia policy. As far as I can see "accuracy" for you have a different meaning from other editors so its not as simple as you say. Your suggestion to free up editing means that you could insert BI or another edit could reverse it and we would all have to accept that as the new default. Sorry but you have to work within Wikipedia policy. --Snowded ^TALK 18:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Aside from Lemon Monday whose position is ambigious, is everyone else happy with the general tone of my proposal? If so I will spend evenings in various west coast Irish hotels working on something to post this weekend --Snowded ^TALK 18:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Snowded stop what you are doing and instead why not enjoy the unique ambience of a nice "real" Irish pub, much more rewarding :-) Bjmullan (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)I'm happy and appreciate your volunteering for this. I'll help where I can obviously. There's one more little habit that has crept in recently that should also be covered. It when an article is being discussed - perhaps over inclusion/deletion of the term British Isles in a sentence - and an editor (BISE participant) edits the article to include/remove stuff to bolster one side of the argument. I'd like to see this activity specifically excluded also - there's nothing to stop the content insertion/deletion also being discussed in the general context of improving the article (in fact, that would be a good thing), but not to simply bolster one position or another (which is not NPOV). --HighKing (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You've misunderstood my mention of references, Snowded. Just have a look at Westward Ho!; it's a classic example of what I mean. As for your suggestion, all I see is WP:BRD - every insertion or deletion will be hit by WP:BRD. LemonMonday Talk 19:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I misunderstood LemonMonday, and I also have your pattern of editing as additional context. You can't construct an approach which doesn't match the way wikipedia works. You really should go and edit some other articles, both to gain an understanding of due process and to demonstrate that you are not a POV drive SPA. I'm not the first to advise you to do that, I hope I will be the last. --Snowded ^TALK 20:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on the content or issues, not on the contributors. LemonMonday Talk 20:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone there?

Seems like a lot of inaction recently. Is this project dead? There are outstanding items that need resolved and also new item the could be brought to the project. Bjmullan (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)