Jump to content

Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/archive 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shared principles

However, I don't want to be negative so I've re-written the principles to take account of reality: Sarah777 (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved back to numbers (they do not equate to importance). I've also added a few new points surrounding flexibility of the use of the word 'Ireland' (which has two meanings - Republic of Ireland (which it often pipe-links to), and the island of Ireland. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. The guideline must deal with sources and subjects, and address usage for Ireland specifically.
  2. 'British Isles' is a political, cultural and geographical term but should only be used in connection with geographical features.
  3. 'Britain' is a political, cultural and geographical term but should only be used in connection with geographical features.
  4. 'Ireland' is both the name of an island and a country.
  5. The 'geographical' in all cases is physical geography and not human geography.
  6. 'British Isles' is a widely-used term, but it is acknowledged that it has political and cultural legacy aspects which can cause offence.
  7. 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).
  8. Flexibility is needed when describing Ireland (which can mean both Republic of Ireland, and the whole island, also called Ireland).
  9. The phrase 'Island of Ireland' is a good way to distinguish Ireland-as-an-island from 'Ireland' (the 'pipe-linked' Ireland that just means the Republic of Ireland).
  10. Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) could also have their uses in certain situations, when the prose style dictates.
  11. 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'.
I am somewhat concerned at the tendency of some editors to spread this issue across a whole range of issues. The potential for escalation is enormous. Sarah777 (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
fair point but I think this time Matt was attempting to move things forward --Snowded TALK 10:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed - a good approach. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. (with additional comment) Because it fits in with the above shared principles, I still think one could incorporate a disambiguation scheme for "British Isles" which I pointed out, above, and that this might be as good a means as there is possible of removing the ambiguity the term has because of its "political and cultural legacy" whilst still including verified material. It would also mean that if a pipelink reference to one of the resulting pages was made, it would allow for accuracy as well as reducing the legitimate concerns of people who feel uneasy about including a link to "British Isles" in any articles, because if used in its ambiguous state, it might imply some kind of cultiral or political meaning that would not be desired or accurate. It would, however, require the present British Isles article to be looked at afresh, and for there to be a legitimate separation between the content dealing with the purely geographical sense of meaning, and the content dealing with the purely political and cultural issues (which would be expandable to explain in more detail the difficulties that such a meaning now has, and what that then means.) If this is acceptable, I do not see why this shouldn't also be included in the later principles/solutions if not these shared principles. If these additional comments impede the consensus for agreement on the shared principles, though, merely delete them!  DDStretch  (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
this is certainly worth thinking about. remember we have a BI 'dispute' fork too (which is a simply outrageous fork IMO). As this is a further complication, we maybe best treat it as a separate measure. An initial worry is how to deal with the dispute in the disam page (I've seen it put in bold at the top of them!!!). Maybe Britain and Ireland could hold a lot of the dispute material? Or we could fit it back into the BI article (but fairly!!!!). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Matt, I do not agree that the dispute article is a fork at all, much less an "outrageous" one. The reality is there are two irreconcilable views of the nature and status of the term "British Isles" which splits (more or less) along national lines. Thus the Wiki cult-mantra that there must only be a single settlement which must then be imposed everywhere is grotesque,unreasonable, bizarre and unusual. The original thinking behind the idea may have been to cut down on edit-warring, but all it does in this case is cause battles to erupt everywhere. While Ireland (state) is described as a "British" Isle the dispute article is an absolute necessity. Sarah777 (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
We have guideline pages to deal with inter-Wiki disputes (like the one we are working towards here), not article forks! It was created due to lack of consensus on the BI page, and is totally against policy. I care more about WP's integrity than the term 'British Isles', believe me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Problems with the above: Firstly see Britain. If we are choosing to re-define the word lets be explicit. Secondly, whilst the above is a valiant attempt it does not hit the spot. Some of us will choose to interpret "non-binding preference" as meaning "more-or-less irrelevant as a preference if it does not suit my POV". Unless "non-binding" is removed I think its pretty useless. Thirdly, as mentioned above I am concerned at the lack of specifically Irish input and hope this will be remedied soon. In the absence of the same let me ask a question. If we were to go with "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" how does this help with the following example taken from human geography. Which of these is correct?
  • Dublin is the largest city in Ireland
  • Dublin is the largest city in Ireland and the xth largest in the British Isles
  • Dublin is the largest city in Ireland, the xth largest in the British Isles and the yth largest in Europe.
  • Dublin is the largest city in Ireland and the yth largest in Europe.
On the above basis, I think it is "all of them" (or possibly none of them, it should be "Dublin is the zth largest city in the known Universe"), so we have not really solved the problem. Finally, "Ireland is both the name of an island and a country." would probably be better as "Ireland is both the name of an island and a nation state" given the tedious edit wars about the definition of the UK's individual 'countries'. Ben MacDui 13:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the 'Subject table' above (I'll copy it below), it uses the word 'heavy' (suggesting 'WP:weight' - mentioned in point.9 which is left out of the above). We could add that 'British Isles' itself needed to be 'primarily' relevant (the weight issue I guess). (ie "x is the largest y in the island of Ireland and the surrounding British Isles". No second places for BI? Perhaps DDstretch could add it to, and expand on, his 'Sources table' (I've copied that below too)? You must explain you point about the Britain disam page. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC) I've just added sections and contents to Britain, by the way, as it was a bit of a mess. If there is problem with it perhaps it can be developed? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Re Britain the above says "Britain is a geographical term" and (for example) the first entry on the dab page says "Britain may refer to the current United Kingdom (UK)". The UK is a geopolitical concept as well as a "geographical term". In ordinary speech Britain and British are often conflated as well. I therefore think the entry for "Britain" needs to more-or-less repeat that for the British Isles i.e. "is a political, cultural and geographical term but should only be used in connection with geographical features." Ben MacDui
I've amended the point in the 'Shared principles' list per this suggestion: ("'Britain' is a political, cultural and geographical term but should only be used in connection with geographical features.")--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed ON HOLD (per 'additions' section below) So far: (but attempting a to add the use of "island of Ireland' - but not the 'pipe' issue here). Nobody argues that 'Ireland' can't be the name for the whole of the island, surely, but I'm fine clarifying it here. How about "island of Ireland" in those cases though? We can also add the political element as a side note. These two additions are fine - though I noticed the word WP:WEIGHT has gone, though possibly that last point (no.9) was not strictly needed here? But can BI be further limited to stop perfunctory use? (see above) --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I for one intend to go on using it in any article that it happens to be the most convenient phrase. ðarkuncoll 17:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Most convenient for what purpose, though? I think you need to expand on that, especially since convenience need not indicate the same solution for which link to use as "linguistic accuracy" or "factual accuracy" would, which I understood were your declared prime motivators. If there were an article dealing with, say, something like British Isles (geographical), then, where appropriate, would you use that in preference to the unqualified British Isles? (The same question can be asked in the case of something similar to British Isles (political) as well?)  DDStretch  (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Most convenient for the with regards to the proper use of language. Would you have "Great Britain (political)" and "Great Britain (geographical)"? This is getting preposterous. I shall not support anything that seeks to remove BI from Wikipedia. What about adding it, eh? Just like the group's initial description stated? ðarkuncoll 22:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
What inclusion or deletion would make you vote for the above Shared principles? The tables can deal with when/where to use the term, by the way - we need to get past this stage first though. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(response to TharkunColl) Nowhere in what I wrote to which you reacted have I suggested that "British Isles" be removed from wikipedia, though I suggest that even you should admit that it can be an error to include it sometimes. This then renders your statement "I shall not support anything that seeks to remove BI from Wikipedia" rather unwise and may well represent an entrenched position that can lead to unfortunate consequences if adhered to completely (though probably not from me). So I assume you may either be in an entrenched position, or that you may have really not meant what you wrote. Assuming you don't want to be on a collision course here, could I suggest you try to avoid the hyperbole in future, as it would help us all move forwards. As for the suggestion that my solution is becoming preposterous, I gently suggest that you failed to realise that one could use a pipelink to either of the two terms so that "British Isles" could still be used without the parenthetical disambiguation in the text that readers would see. This would thus be a "proper use of language", within the remit of wikipedia and on any sensible interpretation of your remark, which thus makes your comment about the proper use of language redundant and almost a red herring. Similarly, if my scheme were adopted, it could lead to the addition of an appropriately disambiguated "British Isles" term to more articles than currently have them without the associated unease or drama that accompanies it at the moment. Please I politely ask you to try not to react with apparently knee-jerk responses to suggestions, and think about them more, because then you may find matters much more to your liking, and we all may then benefit from your contributions more.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Language can't be constrained into little boxes, or mathematical formulae. I shall write what I like, thank you very much. ðarkuncoll 23:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
What about the Shared principles? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
What about them? ðarkuncoll 23:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Do you agree with them, or not, Tharky? GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with anything that is presented to me in little boxes with ABCD answers and multiple choice questions. A living, vibrant language can never be constrained in this way. ðarkuncoll 23:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The Shared Principles list, I mean. As placed by Sarah at the top of this section! Forget about the boxes for the moment. Isn't this what you signed up for - forging something we can all agree on? Which points do you not like?--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Which could be presented as this:
  Material IS presented in little boxes with ABCD answers and multiple choice questions Material IS NOT presented in little boxes with ABCD answers and multiple choice questions
AGREE Option A Option B
DISAGREE Option C Option D
TharkunColl chooses Options B and C.

So, we have a paradox, which is explained in a routine way by the ultimately self-inconsistent way in which TharkunColl described his opinion. It is another example of a hyperbole. Can you see how entrenched and self-defeating your comments are becoming? Please try to be more open to a resolution of the problem by using the recommended methods wikipedia endorses.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(Afterthought) Reading Strange loop may help understand the paradoxical nature of TharkunColl's comments, by the way, though the wikipedia article is not very good in my opinion (and I have studied such things in real life): since his comment can be cast in the form in which so presented facts will never be acceptable to him, it becomes a self-inconsistent position, such as "This sentence is false".  DDStretch  (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The term "self-inconsistent" is a tautology by the way. I shall not be dragged into your little games, and will not agree to anything presented to me in boxes. ðarkuncoll 00:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Normally groups of things are said to be inconsistent, such as an "inconsistent set of axioms", where there is an assumption that the group or set has to have more than one member or element. The phrase "self-inconsistent" has been used in the formal literature to emphasize that the group is of size one to be absolutely clear. If you feel uneasy about this, I could have used the Liar paradox as the main example and descriptor, but wished to avoid any suggestion that I was accusing you of uttering lies here, because I don't think you are. On the whole, though, it doesn't bode well for any resolution of the problem with "British Isles" in which you play a positive part here, does it?  DDStretch  (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The term you're looking for, I believe, is "not consistent". "Inconsistent" already implies identity. Still, I have no idea what you mean by "formal literature" and nor do I care (so please don't bother telling me). I am simply using English, plain and simple. ðarkuncoll 00:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick comment here. The idea that there is something called "English, plain and simple" directly contradicts User:TharkunColl's earlier comment that it is "a living, vibrant language". The fact that it is indeed a "living, vibrant language" means that meanings of words change over time, and vary between different people, and hence the need for consistency here to minimise confusion and maximise understanding. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I asked you about the list of Shared principles, not the boxes. The boxes (which will come later, and have been moved below) will be written into English anyway. Are there any of the shared principles you disagree with? Do you have anything extra to add to them?--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I'll even support contradictions, if it'll help solve things. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - I don't think the "weight" issue should carry any weight in this case as opinion divides mainly along national lines so the flawed concept of weight merely favours the POV of the larger one. Which is why I removed it. Sarah777 (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is WP:WEIGHT flawed as a concept? It could help you in many places - for example: what is someone said "x is the biggest y in the island of Ireland and the second biggest in the surrounding British Isles?" I think that would give 'undue weight' to the BI term for an Ireland-heavy article. It's why I've attempted a 'Weight' table above. It would have to be stated in a guideline here. You never know what might come up in the future of we don't settle on things here. We can also state that the criticism of BI on Wikipdia is a significant (and therefore counter-balancing) weight in itself. I would be willing to put the criticism I see here above the criticism I see outside of Wikipedia, certainly (as the criticism outside is a great deal less of a 'weight' indeed). As Wikipedia is a very particular thing, and works via consensus, I am willing to do it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I fear we're hitting a rut, concerning Tharky & Sarah's recent responses, here. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's not give up though. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
A consensus doesn't have to be 100%, especially if there are good reasons to suspect a few editors are merely being entrenched in their opposition and resistant to great efforts to get them on board, or providing unconvincing arguments in their position's favour. See WP:CON, especially WP:CON#Reasonable consensus-building and WP:CON#Participating in community discussions.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Having 'shared principles' is so important, I feel that we can't move on until Tharkuncoll, Nuclare and CarterBar have voted, or at least properly commented. We need some input from them. I'm personally willing to eventually go onto Guidelines without them, but it would be very difficult. I think CarterBar is off-WP and I've no idea where HighKing is. Others, like Waggers, are around too. I suppose we just need to wait for a bit more input here.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm on hols at the moment, and while I've logged on briefly now and then, I had absolutely no idea that any of this discussion was taking place. My immediate and initial reaction was that I was disappointed that nobody thought to inform me (but hey, I'm here now!). Having read through the thoughts above, I'm generally happy with them, and grateful for the energies and patience shown by a small number of editors. I have some comments.
  • I think the discussion on Ireland/ROI should be clearly put aside. It is a different discussion. It can be held immediately after this one, or parallel, but it is not a part of this one. Can anyone think of a clear example where they believe these two are somehow linked?
  • I'd like to see clearer guidelines relating to non-geographical usage. I can dig up specific articles (perhaps further into the discussion) to highlight difficult cases. Generally, I'm thinking of articles that boast being the highest/smallest/biggest/whatever-est in the British Isles, where the subject is not a geographical feature. Maybe the "biggest ham sandwich in the British Isles" type-of-article.
  • I'd like the guidelines to clearly set out that references are important for any claims. Many article edit-wars could have been easily resolved if this guideline was held up as a priority.
That's all for now. Again, this is good stuff. I'll be back from hols next week and will participate in this process. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
You've reminded me actually - I did assume people would follow all the links. I only actually informed the Geography, UK and Ireland wikiprojects - I'll inform the England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales WP's now. The guidelines will cover referencing and how to deal with non-geographical usage too. Re the ROI name debate, I'll be putting it in some possible guidelines solutions, so it may eventually get entwined. Ireland (state), and Ireland (island) too. Less rigid (and less ambiguous) description here could help. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Tharky's position is very clear Matt, clear rejection of any removal of the BI term from any article, arguing for more use. Clear rejection of consensus in favour of his free right to edit. Its a consistent position and he seems to enjoy many of the edit wars than ensue. I don't think a 100% consensus is possible, but getting to a view supported by all but the most extreme pro/anti edits is still worth trying for. --Snowded TALK 02:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Revision needed before I can agree – 'Ireland' is a political, cultural and geographical term and should only be used without clarification in connection with geographical features. The official description Republic of Ireland should be shown when introducing any description of the state in any context where it is unclear that this political meaning is intended, any unqualified reference to Ireland should refer to the island unless the political context is clear. As for use of British Isles, as a general principle that should follow the source – if the source uses a euphemism such as the rather ambiguous "Britain and Ireland", then that's what should be shown. . . dave souza, talk 14:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed additions to Shared principles

  1. The term 'Britain' is defined in the commonly-used cultural/political sense that includes Northern Ireland.

Comment: This is essential as far as I'm concerned - either that, or we just use the 'UK' in its place. I also need to use the Republic of Ireland - the (frankly) controlled censorship of it's use in anything other than a pipe-link is simply strangling the situation here. We need to be fair all round if we are to get anywhere.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Usage Tables

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

These have been moved here to work on. Please bear in mind that, once worked out, these will also be reproduced in English!!! Not everyone goes for tables like these. The boxes may remain useful (as could a flowchart) but they will be put into English too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

These have been revised into one table in 'Suggested guideline 2' below. --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm page-archiving these to avoid confusion - If you wish to propose a new table/tables please do so in a new section. --Matt Lewis (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources table

Step Reliable sources using term "British Isles" Term already used? Term is not used?
1 Do exist? Follow 'Weight of Term' table to check if used correctly. Follow 'Weight of Term' table to ascertain correct use.
2 Do not exist? Consider removing the term, unless it's use is clear and unambiguous. Follow 'Weight of Term' table to check if used correctly. Consider whether the term is relevant. Follow 'Weight of Term' table to ascertain correct use.

Weight of Term table

Step Article-relative Weight of the term "British Isles" Yes No
1 Term has a primary weight? Follow 'Weight of Subject' table Do not use term if the Republic of Ireland also has a primary weight in the article
2 Term has a significant non-primary weight? Follow 'Weight of Subject' table (unless the Republic of Ireland also has a primary weight in the article, in which case do not use term) Do not use term

Weight of Subject table

Step Subjects (per weight) Geographical issue (physical geography)? Non-geographical issue?
1 Republic of Ireland-heavy issue? See Guideline A Do not use term
2 Republic of Ireland and Britain-heavy issue? Non-use, or used with country (per Guideline B) Do not use term
3 Britain-heavy issue? Use "British Isles" Non-use or "British Isles" (per Guideline C)
4 Regional specific issue? See Guideline D Do not use term
5 Secondary usage (or none of the above)? Use "British Isles" (per Guideline E) Do not use term

Comments on tables

Matt, these tables look promising, but as ever, the devil is in the detail. What is "Guideline A" - I'm becoming confused even more confused than normal. Sarah777 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
We will have to work them out below! To facilitate this I've added some new points to the Shared principles (I know I said I'd leave it until later, but..). I think flexibility with language is the key (ie the ways we can describe the ROI) - we both want to distance the ROI and the term 'British Isles' as much as possible, I promise (at least in WP terms). Language is the key. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Matt, it would help if you had Guidelines A-D as they are likely to be different in each case/ There is also a fifth box "Regional specific" to cover cases like the Thames, Snowdon etc.
I've added a Region specific row and amended the letters (though I suspect that during the guideline process the actual amount of individual 'guidelines' (ie the lettered sections) could change anyway). --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify what 'region specific' would cover, btw? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm supportive of using the "Weight of Subject table" above as basis for discussing the guidelines, although such support is of course contingent on the nature of the said devils in the detail. I'm not sure of the purpose of the other two tables above that. I am also wholly supportive of Matt Lewis's reply to Sarah777 at 22:05, 5 August 2008 above re "Weight". Ben MacDui 11:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I fear the issue of "weight" may be an especially devilish detail Ben. Is someone going to have a shot at writing the guidelines? Not much point me doing it I fear. Sarah777 (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
With proper guidelines the other two may possibly become redundant. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be that row 1 should read as per row 3, ie "Use "Ireland" (per Guideline A)" and 4 should read "Use Britain, United Kingdom or Ireland" as appropriate. If we can get rows 1,3 & 4 agreed then the more contentious row 2 (and row 5 but I don't understand that one) can then be discussed. Great job by the way, thanks. --Snowded TALK 06:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll start a Proposed Guideline section (with sub-sections) this evening, as people seem to want to move on, and we don't want to stagnate. We can always come back to the Shared principles if we have to. Having started compiling suggestions, I think it will look a bit complicated at first, with lots of options and examples. We will have to all add to them and improve them, and then try and hone them down into agreed guidelines. It's the weekend in the UK so I expect people will be on and off at various times. It could be an Olympic task, but I'm sure we'll get somewhere with it! --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gone for a single table approach in the new 'Suggested guideline 2' below. I don't think the other two are needed now (as someone suggested above). --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: These are page-archived to avoid confusion - If you wish to propose a new table/tables please do so in a new section. --Matt Lewis (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggested Guideline 1 (archived)

See Suggested Guideline 1 (archive)

Suggested Guideline 2

This is now in WP:BIDRAFT1 (the sandbox version), and WP:BIDRAFT2 (the reference version).

Comments on Suggested Guideline 2

If possible, please keep the comments here, referring to the section/guideline/issue in question. --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

After an initial jumble with some terms and examples, I've rearranged it slightly, and filled seme bits in. Remember that this is work in progress. It also plays by Wikipedia's rules of no censorship. I strongly feel we have to be realistic with them to advance with this. Wikipedia has some very strong stuff in it, and censorship laws are generally adhered to. The guidelines currently gives plenty of options (and can give more), and without fully banning any term that could normally be used outside of Wikipedia, gives strong recommendations on how to use the term 'British Isles'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sheepishly, I confess I'm overwhelmed by these numerous proposed guidelines. However, I'm content to see you're given this Taskforce your energy & care. Thumbs up. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What terms do we use? (Britain, UK, Ireland, ROI)

This section and the subsequent discussions surrounding it are archived here.

Making use of geographical and political terms

I thought a few examples might help understand the question of terms above. Here I am applying at least one of the principles outlined at the start of this exchange, namely reference to the largest geographical area. All of these would I think be legitimate uses, although not necessary the best wording. Comments in italics.

  • The River Shannon is the longest river in Ireland and also in the British Isles Assuming measurement is to the mouth of the estuary
  • Ben Nevis is the highest mountain in Scotland and also in the British Isles
  • Dublin is the capital city of Ireland and the largest city in the island of Ireland Note: island of introduced to diambiguate
  • Belfast is the centre of government for Northern Ireland and historically was one the largest shipbuilding cities in the World
  • Snowden is the highest mountain in Wales No mention of a wider territory as it is not notable as such
  • The River Severn is the longest river in Britain Not sure about the pipelink here and we need to discuss the use of Britain as a term
  • Bord na Móna is based in Ireland the largest industrial peat company in Europe Not 100% sure of this as fact, but wanted an illustration. Its owned by the Irish Government so right ot link to ROI, but largest geographical entity would be Europe.
  • Newgrange is one of the most famous prehistoric sites in the world and the most famous of all Irish prehistoric sites

OK that is my attempt at some illustrations. --Snowded TALK 15:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't go on, the

"also" is a good alternative here for BI. The fist Shannon example you have would have to be island of Ireland, per Dublin. I don't go for this enforced geography/political surgery. Lot's of these examples are not BI related at all - I won't comment on them here. It's not right or fair to try and consolidate any wider 'ROI' term-use in here. I'm interested in the British Isles. Snowdon is the third highest peak in the British Isles - which is surely notable. Severn can surely be mentioned in 'BI terms' too, if someone wishes to do it. Using GB and Ireland are fine, as long as we do not set rules on not using ROI. The guideline must initially be framed in terms of the countries in which the usage issue (supposedly) occurs. It's the whole reason for the guideline, and I refuse to let NI be crowbarred into it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why the term "Britain" is being used so much in a geographical context? Is the correct geographical term not "Great Britain"? For me, Britain is a confusing term, as it seems to have different meanings depending on the context of usage, and is therefore not the best term to use in most circumstances.... If someone can clarify, I'd be grateful. --HighKing (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I would discourage the usage of pipelinks for Republic of Ireland & for Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
What I think works: Examples of Political & Geographical: X is the largest thing in the Republic of Ireland & the fourth largest in the British Isles or Y is the longest thing in the United Kingdom & the fifth longest in the British Isles. Examples of pure Geographical: X is the second largest thing in Ireland & the fourth largest in the British Isles or Y is the third longest thing in Great Britain & the sixth longest in the British Isles. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Not a bad workaround! Without doubt it should be in there with the other choices - I'll put them in in fact. The only thing I would argue is that British Isles (and any term) can be abused by a 'comparing' process, so we should restrict it to one, two or three max, per importance. There is a paragraph in the proposed Introduction called "Note on comparative terms" that specifically deals with this, (#Introduction). --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Matt. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
@GoodDay, I don't understand why you are mixing political (Republic of Ireland, UK) terms with geographical (British Isles, Ireland (as the island)) terms. Unless you are saying we shouldn't distinguish? Have you read Names of the Irish state#Name dispute with the UK? Perhaps what is really needed is to reopen the old debate and recommend that we disambiguate when we use the term "Ireland" and indicate either Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) when required. --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to say I understand the question of mixed terminology, but this can be worked around, and there no strict rules where terms cannot be mixed anyway (esp where it helps clarity, like in situations surrounding the BI term). I am working on GoodDay's suggestions in my sandbox at the moment, as this page has got so long and full of comments that it's got a bit hard to do here. I will insert them in the relevant sections on this page with the usual "Comments:" heading shortly. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Resp to HighKing. I believe it can be done; where there's a Wiki, there's a way. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi GoodDay, I'll reserve judgement until I see what's proposed. My concern is that it'll be confusing. So far, nobody has explained *why* we need to mix political and geographic terms. Looking at your examples above, and using more specific examples, what are your suggestions for the following? For the examples below, I recommend using geopolitical terms due to the context of the sentence/articles):
  • The Irish national broadcasters mast is the tallest television mast in ?
  • Joe Hugeman is the tallest person in ?
  • The most expensive speed ticket issued in ? was for driving 200kph over the speed limit
For these other examples below, I recommend using a geographic term (unless over-ridden by concensus on specific articles):
  • The River Shannon is the longest river in ? (Ok, contentious example, but perhaps an example where consensus overrules a guideline, or a guideline on a specific set of related articles takes priority)
  • ? experiences a mild climate
  • The common crow is found all over ?
The more difficult articles (and ones I hoped we'd be discussing at some stage are)
  • Red hair is more commonly found in celtic people in ?
  • In 1859, the British ruled over ?
What do you think? --HighKing (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Clarify, which terms do you feel should complete those phrases? GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I was leaving it as a mental exercise for you - but in order, I'd say; RoI, UK, RoI, then; BI, Ireland, the BI; finally; the BI, the 7 seas (or the UK of B & I) :-). Now - what do you think? --HighKing (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to insert them in your above phrases, for me. My brain's sometimes like this (the wheel's turning, but the hampster's dead). GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if you're having a laugh....but here goes....
First ones use geopolitical terms only - whatever ones are agreed.
  • The Irish national broadcasters mast is the tallest television mast in Republic of Ireland.
  • Joe Hugeman is the tallest person in UK. (or other country - perhaps N.I. or Wales either)
  • The most expensive speed ticket issued in Scotland was for driving 200kph over the speed limit
Next ones are geographical:
  • The River Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles. (Ok, contentious example, but perhaps an example where consensus overrules a guideline, or a guideline on a specific set of related articles takes priority)
  • Ireland experiences a mild climate (as the island)
  • The common crow is found all over the British Isles.
The tricky ones...
--HighKing (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I've no problems with those examples; but I'm staying away from Scotland. I've had interesing times at the Scotland article. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If the long title of Ireland (state) Republic of Ireland is to be used, then the long title of the United Kingdom United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must also be used. But note that the best diplomatic minds in both governments have come up with the solution that the short title for Ireland shall be used and the long title for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall be used. Who are we to argue without drifting into WP:OR. --Red King (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

But isn't you first line OR?: "If the long title of Ireland (state) Republic of Ireland is to be used, then the long title of the United Kingdom United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must also be used." It is simply another way of saying "Republic of Ireland CANNOT be used!", surely? This is getting like a Monty Python sketch to me - a cross between the old men from 'up north' and the amphitheatre splitters. It's just a hugely elaborate way of saying something else - in this case: "No!!!" It reminds me of mr boggle-eyes, Ian Paisley. Why can't we forge a sensible guideline instead of making these totally unreasonable demands? Who says we can't use one if not the other? God? I can't read it anywhere in Wikipedia's rules that to use ROI we MUST also use the whole UKOGBANI! Like you say, the governments are flexible themselves (they have to be) - so why cannot we be flexible too? This is Wikipedia - not a Roman forum. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The examples I use above are good examples where there's no need to mix geographic and geopolitical terms. The governments are only concerned with geopolitical terminology, and they've made a decision on which terms to use. I suggest we don't mix terms, and follow current geopolitical usage, and we focus on creating guidelines that make it simple to decide which terms are recommended for particular types of articles. --HighKing (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Your examples seem reasonable (sorry I didn't address them earlier), but they don't cover all the kinds of possibilities that can arise. For the River Shannon I think we can say a form of "Ireland" as well - I'm sure that will be wished for too. If the Shannon (as we know it as) flows in NI too, we should really use a form of "island of Ireland" to make that really clear, and if it just flows in the ROI, then we should use 'ROI'. But I wouldn't overly push either here. Clarity surrounding the BI term is my interest - the fact it is used in this case is enough. I honestly believe that "Republic of Ireland" distances the ROI from the problematic word "British" in the British Isles, to a much greater degree than the piped-linked 'Ireland' does. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The river Shannon is the longest river in Ireland, and has been so before any of the political entities we know today were dreamt of. Lough Neagh is its largest lake. Ben Nevis is the highest mountain in Great Britain and the Severn is its longest river. To make these statements is not nationalist or separatist, it merely states the undisputed geographical facts. Adding the political designations adds more heat than light. If it weren't for the fact that the term "British Isles" also has a political connotation, there would be no problem with using that too. So it seems to me that this duality is the only issue that we need to solve. The rest is just chaff. --Red King (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Variations of the discussion on Ireland/RoI are now also taking place on WT:IMOS. It would probably help to continue further discussion relating to Ireland/RoI usage there. --HighKing (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's make a deal

Howabout this folks. When the moratoriam on Republic of Ireland name-change proposals ends; let's make a Wiki-deal. In exchange for changing that article to Ireland (state)? we allow full usage of British Isles, on all articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c):Ireland (state) is fine but obviously we need rules for the usage of "British Isles"; maybe "British Isles (traditional name)" or something?
  • British Isles is the most common name of the islands but there are other names and the term is often used ambiguously or to mean different things.
  • Ireland is the most common name of the state but there are other names and the term is often used ambiguously or to mean different things.
Consistency is vital if we are to get agreement.
Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, very interesting. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Where was a moratorium on RoI decided? --HighKing (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in the RoI archives (I believe). GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't find it. Went to a Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Name_Mediation mediation request in May, but no moratorium. --HighKing (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was. Wikipiere was the last to bring up a page-move request. Oh well, my memory isn't what it used to be. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bastun referred to it I think and I seem to remember the pipe solution was "ratified" as a compromise to stop the issue of the name of the RoI article being raised every few weeks. (That's certainly why I never raised it again). I really think we should settle the BI issue and leave the RoI arrangements alone - otherwise we come up against the duality I've outlined above. And nothing will be solved. Sarah777 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's think of it as something to consider (the deal), if a compromise can't be reached on BI usage. PS- I'm signing out for night; 'til tommorow my cousins. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be stated clearly that this proposal in full is that the present content of Ireland becomes Ireland (island) and the Ireland article becomes a disambiguation article. And I agree with Sarah777 on the need for matching consistency over the use of "British Isles". --Red King (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I have not been following closely enough, but which proposal are you talking about? The "Let's make a deal" 'proposal'? It is not clear to me what the proposal actually is. Can we please have a "Proposal" subhead and a "Discussion" subhead to separate the 2. As I read it above, its not a proposal as such, more a statement. But maybe I've got it wrong. I have to say that I personally don't have a problem with the current naming structure for the articles in question and haven't heard any mighty powerful reasons for change just yet. But even if it is agreed that a change is needed, I don't accept that the Ireland (state) solution is useful, or that it would succeed. Consider this: every article about a place in the RoI would need to be changed from [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] to [[Ireland (state)|Ireland]]. Doesn't seem to be any benefit in that. A much better solution would be to move RoI to Ireland, move Ireland to Ireland (island), and create a new Ireland (disambiguation), and filter {{otheruses}} on all related articles to there. Crispness (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I would agree with the terms in above, but that would need to be raised elsewhere wouldn't it? A task force on the British Isles is not the proper place. However it might be a lot better to suspend this (which is stalled) while that is resolved? I also think the idea of "making deals" is a bad one, the idea here is citable sources --Snowded TALK 11:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No way to such a deal. It's not our place to be cutting deals on a separate issue anyways, even if it were a good idea. And this notion that the issues of BI and ROI always cut along party lines is also a false assumption. Nuclare (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ya'll should reconsider. As (IMHO) the pro-British & pro-Irish sides on the British Isles usage debate across the related articles, are hopelessly entrenched. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policy will win through here, I'm certain of it. We just need to be patient. Policy like WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:NOTCENSORED simply can't be ignored. Common sense alone dictates that we need a flexible guideline. It doesn't matter how entrenched people seem to be - provided we can get it to the point of the acceptance, the Wikipedia way will win through.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for those references, Matt. For me, two paragraphs stuck out of the first document:
Also, some terms are in common usage but are regarded as offensive (Mormon Church, for example). In those cases use widely known alternatives (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). When in doubt, check a mainstream reference work. A term can only be considered offensive if a verifiable, authoritative source can be quoted as citing it as such.
and
Other exceptions are contained in the Manual of Style; for example the National varieties of English section in that guideline leads to fixed-wing aircraft being used instead of aeroplane or airplane, in order not to give precedence to either British or American spelling.
do we need to get creative and find a term that is acceptable across the board? Chris55 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Get creative using the English language certainly, but don't forget this is an encyclopedia: it represents what exists. Your selective quotes above are just a form of Wikilawyering: you haven't disproved or proved a single thing. There are not even 0.1% enough verifiable 'dispute' refs needed to satisfy the WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEIGHT that would be needed to allow for creating a new term to actually displace 'British Isles'!! But I will prove the paucity of refs in the table I am working on - it's the only thing I can think of that you people will not be able to routinely ignore! The proposed guideline gives some 'alternative phrases' to use. If you can really think of more, why not "be creative", like you say, and add them in?--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately Chris, despite precedents elsewhere on Wiki it appears that some editors will not make any allowence for the fact that a term is offensive, nor will any compromise terms be accepted - they will be rejected as WP:OR. So, creativity and compromise are ruled out in favour of "consensus"!!! Sarah777 (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The deal folks, the deal. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
That's not a deal G'Day - there is no equivalence. Sarah777 (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree GoodDay, it's no deal at all. It's worth considering the case of "Mormon Church". Why is it accepted as being unacceptable? Clearly because 'orthodox' Christians are in a majority. British users of the term 'British Isles' clearly consider they are in the majority and therefore have no need to shift. I wonder if that is true, given that our American cousins outnumber us hugely. But I have no evidence for that. (Help, please!)
But I think it's clear the consensus route is doomed. So we need to find an alternative authoritative term. The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World is as good a source as you'll get. It uses the term "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" for the page showing the whole of the "British Isles". The newspaper is not as much the voice of the establishment as it used to be, but the Times publications have generally held their reputation so British people need to listen. Now that is clearly a political description, although as I've pointed out before, the definitions of British Isles still retain a political heritage because they include the Channel Islands. But that's the reality and I think it's the best term, because it does include all the small islands, whereas if we used "Great Britain and Ireland" then it could be argued we were just describing two of them. UK&ROI is bulky but so is "fixed wing aircraft". Chris55 (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok let me point it out before other people do. The Channel Isles and Isle of Man are not part of the UK. Back to the drawing board... Chris55 (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Please read through this taskforce and contribute to the guideline - or if you are driving at something, please get to the point! Are you simply trying to say that we should not use "British Isles" at all, but use "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" instead? Lines like "back to the drawing board" can hardly be productive surely, and are at odds with the way the guideline is genuinely progressing. What is it you personally want to see? Apologies if I have you wrong, I just find it a bit hard to follow. The Channels Islands are ambiguous yes, but so are the British Isles. We have to simply explain the whole situation and try and guide people on usage - because the term in general is clearly going nowhere. We have locked articles that can testify to that. We can, however, guide people on its use.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was suggesting that WP should abandon the term "British Isles" as a topic heading. It's an anachronism. But when I realised that my proposed substitution was incorrect I withdrew it. I'm asking people to propose a better term, if it's needed. Chris55 (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I think one of the problems is that all the proposed alternatives over the years have never really worked, so have never caught on (Atlantic Archipelago etc) - I don't believe that has been the case because of 'Imperialistic' reasons, just practical ones. Only variants of 'Britain and Ireland' have: you might want to see the proposed new paragraph in the British Isles introduction on this. But Wikipedia must be "descriptive, not prescriptive" as they say - it can only describe what is out there, it can't push any rivers. We can certainly describe the complications surrounding the term - but it must be done fairly.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about it, I was a bit hasty withdrawing that name: the fact that the Channel Islands are omitted is no bad thing. I doubt we'll have many Manx arguing. So why not UK&ROI? Chris55 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
When I have time, I'm going to do a Euler diagram variant that 'dots' the Channel Island case - it can replace the one we have, which has only the inclusive approach. Some sources include it as part of the British Isles, some don't. It's certainly not part of the archipelago. Wikipedia is entitled as an encyclopedia to make a guideline choice - I suggesting we strongly recommend the 'geographical only' approach on Wikipedia - ie to see the Channel Islands as part of the European mainland only, and not as part of the British Isles (in either a traditional or political sense). Needed sources/quotes etc that deviate, can simply be denoted if we need to clarify. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
But there is ample evidence that politically they are politically connected to the UK (and therefore by definition the BI) - not least the rather obvious facts that they are British Crown Dependancies, have a BBC Channel Island News and Queen's head on the stamps. So such a change will be opposed. Geographically - that's a different matter. On the general point of this debate, it's faintly absurd to be horse-trading names of Ireland for use of the British Isles. It represents a fundamental cave-in to POV on both points. On the one hand, Ireland (the State) should be called Ireland, because that's what the World and his uncle says it is. On the other, the Briitish Isles exists. I suspect this latter is the real sticking point for some of you. Either Wikipedia is NPOV or it isn't. Those of you who believe the BI does not encompass Ireland have an opinion, not a fact. If this is irreconcilable for you, you probably need to find some other way to express that than through Wikipedia. It will not prevail as a plan. So no horse trading. For exactly the same reason, Ireland should be called Ireland. 18:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
James, your signature went missing above. Interesting points above. Except on this so-called NPOV encyclopedia, the article on the state is not located at "Ireland". That said, everyone knows that the British Isles are called the British Isles. But using the term as a political (or geo-political, or geo-cultural, etc) region is where some people draw a line. When all of the British Isles was politically linked, it made some sense, since the boundaries overlapped for the most part (squinting through the eyes and making the crown dependencies less "independent" didn't seem too much of a fudge, as you've pointed out). Today, using "British Isles" as an inclusive geographical region for topics such as "football" or "job opportunities" makes me wonder why is it being used in this way? Is it notable? What's the link? etc, etc. Fair points though - this isn't about horse trading. --HighKing (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Please: It's "an Euler diagram", not "a Euler diagram". "Euler" is pronounced as if it were spelled "oiler". Michael Hardy (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's obvious the existing diagram is inadequate, so, fine. But what's your reaction to my proposal that the current BI article be renamed UK&ROI? Chris55 (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up?

Do you think its time to clean up the page by archiving discussions, so that the Guidelines are clear? --HighKing (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How can the "guidelines" be clear when there is no consensus in the discussion? Sarah777 (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I archived as much as I could around a week ago - it's hard to do more, I feel, without risking being contested on bits of it. We can still move on however. These guidelines are inexorably moving towards a MOS proposal whatever happens. They can't stay in here forever, so at some point (after a period of no movement) I'll put them through. At the moment I want to make sure the "excluding flora" bit is right, and that all the likely examples of use are covered. Can anyone think of any more?
If anyone wants to read just he latest guidelines, by the way, I've updated them in my sandbox (guidelines on their own are here).--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Rather than archiving the discussion I think it would be better to tidy the page by moving all the discussion to the talk page and leaving the proposed guidelines only on the page as has been suggested. Chris55 (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's everybody?

It's been a week now, since the last posting here. The Taskforce seems to be loosing steam. PS- ya'll should re-consider my deal & accept that the BI sides, may never compromise. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No deal is possible G'day. Sarah777 (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't losing steam (in my eyes at least). There is related discussion on Talk:Northern Ireland, and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles) too. I'll put up a version of the BI usage guideline based on the 'package deal' in my sandbox soon - so we can see what it would look like. I'm also thinking of an "Ireland disambiguation task force" where we can work out the relevant details for a package proposal: - the new "Ireland" introduction, the layout of the ROI page, the diambiguations in the Irish MOS etc. No-one can stop us proposing either of these: I'm happy to do them together, as it seems to make sense. They are nothing if not related. I'll propose it at NI some point soon, but probably won't hang around for so much 'support' over this one - if there's no technical objections it's best to just get it done.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Finally, I'm starting to realise the phrase "wide ranging discussion" is more than a cliche! Sarah777 (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

British Isles usage? could it become extinct on Wikipedia? doubt it (for historical purposes). GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Heck G'Day - nobody imagines it can become extinct; but it certainly shouldn't be used as the title of a Wiki article about any place that includes Ireland! Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

At least post-1927 Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm....and what happened in 1927? Sarah777 (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that when the partition occured? GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A bit before that I think...but then I wasn't actually there! Sarah777 (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

1922? GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Do you see "usage" as past tense? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For the post-1922 Ireland articles? Yes. Though it smacks of censurship & headaches to come. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is "Usage" in my SOED:

1 Habitual or customary practice or procedure, esp. as creating a right, obligation, or standard; an instance of this, an established custom or habit. ME. b A right of way. local. E19.

2 Usual conduct or behaviour; an instance of this. Long rare or obs. ME.

3 The action of using something; the fact of being used; use, employment. LME. b The amount or quantity used; the rate at which something is used. M20.

4 Treatment of a person or thing; mode of dealing with or being dealt with. Freq. w. specifying wd. Also foll. by of. M16.

5 spec. Established or customary use in a language of words, expressions, constructions, etc.; an instance of this. Freq. w. specifying wd. L17.

Excerpted from Oxford Talking Dictionary Copyright © 1998 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

If there could be some confusion I better stop using it - I've started to use it quite a lot! What smacks of censorship? Maybe I'm a bit tired. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you simplify those 5 pts for me? GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Into one? "current procedure" - how we use the term now. The term "BI Usage" regarding guidline would fit with all 5 IMO (we offer acceptable usage choices), but the word does seem a bit archaic too. I'll try not to use it. Sorry if I've missed something too clever here! I'm off to bed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been noticing people have been discussing BI & RoI more; edit warring over them less. Jolly good. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Objection

Just for the record I want to restate my previous position. The current DRAFT guidelines have been based on a use of political language (eg. ROI) rather than using geographical terms (possibly with some political clarification. As such I consider the current drafts (which have limited participation) to be premature as basic issues of language have not been resolved. I am saying this not, not to provoke a row, but to prevent someone claiming "consensus" or agreement to the current drafts. --Snowded TALK 18:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have guideline proposals to present? you're certainly welcomed to do so. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Why would I do something that I am criticising other people for GoodDay? My long expressed point is that there needs to be an agreement on principles and language before we proceed to guidelines. I think that is essential not only to achieve a sensible guideline but also to engage other editors. This whole process has been subject to premature convergence. --Snowded TALK 18:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You feel we're not ready for a Taskforce (at least not yet)? GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
More than ready for a taskforce (overdue in fact) but to be successful it needs to move forward step by step. First agree language and principles, then start to test with guidelines. This has rushed forward to far to fast and is based on a set of controversial starting positions. --Snowded TALK 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Objection sustained, as I agree that mixing politics with British Isles is troublesome & counter-productive. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
We should sweep the British Isles with mind canons removing all politics and all notion of state and declare it an anarchy! --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But who has even looked like claiming any "consensus"? The diclaiming language of "draft", "in progress", "not consensus" etc is all over the place. Discussion has been elsewhere on the ROI issue (hence the quiet in here). I had to make those two DRAFT pages as at least three people now have said they needed the guideline on its own page to contribute properly (see the talk page). I actually go out of my way to cover everything in disclaimers. I'm currently trying a non-pipe-linked "Ireland" disam-page version in my sandbox, as it goes. But these are big changes. The 'pure geography' idea is to ignore the inherent politic elements and didn't logically work out for a guideline when I tried them. It also has inherent bias, whether it is intended or not. The states (and the word/article Republic of Ireland) simply exist and are unambiguous. The 'Ireland' name in ambiguous, so can't be built upon structurally - it gets too complicated and awkward to cover all the editing possibilites (so some have to be eliminated to make it work - which equals consorship in many people's eyes, as I have said). The geography-only guideline is so simple it is restricting on what people can and can't do. It will never be adhered to.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Then folks, barring any other editors getting involved with this Taskforce? we're at a standstill. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
We have been debating at ROI - we can't concentrate in two places at once. But the ROI name issue is important, as it hugely effects this guideline. As I said at ROI, the 'Ireland disambiguation' issue is not over yet (despite people who are anti-change 'declaring' that it is). We will very soon have a task force and a brand new package - lets just be patient instead of this negativity. It's only been a matter of days! We are not at any standstill when people are working on the matter. If you want more excitement, watch a film!--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I wish I had your optimism. You & Snowded have got to work this out. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm open--Snowded TALK 22:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Task

Some much needed think-time has passed. Perhaps it's time to return to this issue before too many people (myself included) revert to the previous edit wars. Any appetite? --HighKing (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll participate, as long at the IP accounts stay away. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll participate, but only if we stick to the verifiable truth, not what people think they know. Any proposal has to be in line with reputable external sources. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Bye folks. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • For anyone passing through and wondering about the impasse here, related discussion has revolved around the naming of Ireland articles, and an 'Ireland disambiguation taskforce' has been set up at WP:IDTF. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As much as the topics intertwine, they are not necessarily interrelated to the degree that one depends on the other. I've looked at the draft guidelines here, solely addressubg British Isles terminology, and I believe that they're good and nearly complete (kudos to Matt). Lets see if we can finish this task force first before moving onto the next. Thoughts? --HighKing (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

One problem with this guideline is that (arguably) the 'main article', British Isles, is in a mess, and is currently protected yet again, as it nearly always is. I've always worried that this wouldn't get far in the Village pump if the BI article still looks like a playground. I'm concentrating on that for the moment, and have cut my WP down to about a quarter of what it was. Ireland was in Snowded and Scolaire's hands last I looked, but that seems to have died too - someome needs to talk to Snowded and chase the chairman people wanted - Brown Eyed Girl isn't even answering her mail and has been awol for what - 2 weeks? We need to know if change is likely there, as it would effect which guideline approach we take here.
What do you think of the Ireland version of the guideline, by the way? (the 'Prospective non-forked or piped "Ireland" proposal' I've added places to put comments in Prospective non-forked or piped "Ireland" proposal, by the way - looks like I forgot to do it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, IMO the BI article already is an existing compromise (the article title & the controvery mentioned). But, I see a time coming where the BI page will become a historical article; thus requiring the creation of Britain and Ireland article. As for the Republic of Ireland stuff? It doesn't look like that article title is gonna be changed anytime soon. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
That time is many years away. The term is widely used and the only evidence we really have of change is in cartography. Folens (the Irish child atlas publishers) have dropped it as a precaution (but say they have not actually had parental complaints), and National Geographic bow have a disclaimer on the term (though not very public), and have embarked upon dual usage for its BI map (as was) - with "Britain and Ireland" as the title, and "British Isles" mentioned in smaller print on the map itself.
Yes, things will change in time, but time is a law unto itself. The problem on Wikpedia is very simple: people want to use it to push the river - to influence public change. It completely messes with WP:NPOV and just generally breaks everything down. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Progress will be slowed further, if veteran IP accounts continue to refuse registration. I wish both sides would see that the British Isles article is already in a NPOV state. Also, where to use/not use BI on Wikipedia has started a Wikiquette report on an editor. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
At least two of the main IPs on British Isles have a registered account too - one prefers the flexibility of his IP, but the other is simply socking with them, and has been banned in the past for it too. Regulating IP usage is the only thing that will relieve all these pressures. It is simply easier to recognise a new handle than it is a number, some of which are 'dynamic' and change day by day. There must be a turning point where the many clear negatives of IP editing start to outweigh the obvious early benifit for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia needs to provide statistics so we can see what is going on. It is certainly true in the wider world that many people shun the very idea of regulation as more corruption can happen without any going on at all. It can always be called 'free' as long as no restrictions are in place. The truth is that we all need rules, and we need to change them on Wikipedia regarding IPs. The 'encylocpedia that anyone can edit' line is an exaggeration anyway, so it needn't be changed.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the place to vent about people editing from IP addresses. Mind you, it's probably not the place to vent about people refusing to deal with verifiable sources rather than their own opinion either, so I won't. 88.23.15.173 (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion resumed

I'm not sure where this best belongs, so excuse the multiple posts. Discussion has resumed on WP:BIDRAFT1, the sandbox page. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning off the dust

I believe it's time for us to get this Taskforce back on its feet, folks. There's been some British Isles frustrations occuring lately on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowded comments at Administrator Canterbury's page, were accurate. When somebody removes British Isles (or alters it) from an article? he/she is accused of Irish Nationalism. When somebody add British Isles to an article? he/she is accused of British imperialism. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland solution

Howabout this. In articles that deal with people, places etc, with what is today 'Northern Ireland', we allow the usage of British Isles (afterall Northern Ireland is within the United Kingdom). Articles which deal with people, places etc within what is today 'Republic of Ireland', we delete or alter usage of British Isles. Hmm? GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That was the defacto compromise on Loch Neigh and the River Shannon, which would cover things like "longest" and "largest". However you also have to come up with something that would handle the international use in political or historical articles .--Snowded TALK 17:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. Historical stuff, we check to see the area in question. If an area is todays RoI or NI. International? same thing. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we should look to external sources to see how they handle the problem. There are three solutions, as far as I can see:
  • 1 Stop its usage altogether (Irish government, NatGeo)
  • 2 Stop its usage in publications in the ROI, continue usage in publications in the UK (Foley's)
  • 3 Continue using it (BBC, FCO, House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, for others look at Google Books or do a Google search)
As we have a shared readership, 2 is obviously not possible. There is no solution to this problem that can be found in reliable sources which discerns an acceptable "geographical" usage from a "political" usage. That is because there is no political usage of the term - there is no political entity called the "British Isles". So the only decision we can take is, is it acceptable or not? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, there are too many conflicting reliable sources (thus making them un-reliable-). My NIRoII plan should be considered, as editors are edit-warring & sniping at each other. User:GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't address the BE talk page saga though, and it still implies that there is a usage of British Isles which is political, when there isn't! Even the strongest Irish republican doesn't believe that a Brit saying "British Isles" means that the whole of Ireland is British. But they do resent British historical interference in Ireland and therefore they resent the term, any usage of it. (I also resent it: had our ancestors decided to stay out of Ireland, we wouldn't have wasted all that time on the BE talk page) The Red Hat of PatFerrick t 17:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The British Empire, I'd recommend keeping British Isles in a pipe-link form (say 'Britain and Ireland'). User:GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
That really would be a problem though. Aside from simply being anakwardd replacement for "British Isles", "The UK retains sovereignty of 14 territories outside Britain and Ireland" really could imply that Britain retains sovereignty over Ireland. The difference is that those terms are political as well as geographical depending on the context,iee meaning two separate political entities as well as two separate islands, whereas "British Isles" is simply geographical ("group of islands off the northwestern coast of Europe") The Red Hat of PatFerrick t 17:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It's worth a try. We all got to admit, edit warring and/or editor's throwing insults at each other, is counter-productive. I've been watching article like British Empire & Derry, and have noticed growing stalemates. User:GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
@Redhar = Good point - Because the article deals with a historic topic and corresponds with the period of time that Ireland was part of the UK, the term British Isles is misleading. The article might very well quote from a reference which uses British Isles to refer to the UK at that time in one place, and refer to the modern geographic area in another. I believe we'll have to look carefully at how best we can use the term in the context of historic articles, especially those that deal with countries that used to be ruled by Britain, etc. --User:HighKing (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The "misleading" argument is a non-argument, becausenoonee thinks that the state of Ireland is British, and besides the word itself is linked to the article in question where it is fully explained. It's no more misleading than "Gulf of Mexico", part of which is in United States territorial waters. We could analyse many sentences with the words "Texas" and "Gulf of Mexico" and claim that they are misleading, if we wanted to be obtuse about it (Texas was once part of Mexico). As I've said here and at the BE talk page, there is only one argument for the removal of British Isles, and that is out of respect for political and cultural sensitivities. The Red Hat of PatFerrick t 18:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Quote:..noonee thinks that the state of Ireland is British." Sorry, but that just cannot be taken for granted. The WP readership is international, and a large proportion of the readers of articles to do with "Britain" or the islands will not be familiar with the subtleties with which British and Irish editors are aware. They are here looking for neutral, unbiased, clear information. It is, on the face of it, possible if not probable that many from other parts of the world will think that the term "British Isles" might imply political sovereignty over the whole of these islands. If people click on the right link, all should be explained. But there are many occasions when the term does not need to be used at all, and the sense would be clearer if alternative terms, or phraseology, were used. Re British Empire, I really don't understand the problem with "The UK retains sovereignty of the 14 British Overseas Territories". They are territories which are British, and overseas. User:Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
(Responding toGhmyrtle'ss posting) Is it possible to insert the British Isles pipelinkedd or not) & British Overseas Territories? User:GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Possible? Of course. Desirable? No. How does it make the text clearer? It doesn't. Do I think textual issues should be resolved by politicking and quid proquoss between editors? So long as there is merit of clarity in one text or another, definitely not. User:Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
'Possible' sometimes, is better then Desirable. User:GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle'ss:"a large proportion of the readers of articles to do with "Britain" or the islands will not be familiar with the subtleties" Go down that route and where do you draw the line? That some readers might think North and South Korea are just one country? That Austria and Australia might be confused because the second contains only two more letters than the first? That EastTimorr might just be taken to be a region ofTimorr and part of Indonesia? That the Sea of Japan is entirely within Japanese territorial waters? By what yardstick do we determine the potential of readers to get "confused", or what is and what is not a subteltyy"? Encyclopaediass are not written on the basis of what people might get confused about, because there is a huge spectrum of age, education and intelligence in their readership. They simply describe things as they are, and if there is a word or term in that description which the reader does not understand, they look it up. Don't know what British Isles means"? CLICK ON THE LINK TO FIND OUT.... The Red Hat of PatFerrick t 22:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what the British Isles article is for. User:GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
You are both missing the point. The problem of confusion arises because the word "British" in the term "British Isles" has a different meaning to its meaning in terms like "British Empire" or "British Overseas Territories", where in both cases it indicates sovereignty. (PS - no need to shout...) User:Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Who's shouting? User:GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Red Hat. WP:CIVIL (again). User:Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it is you that is missing the point,Ghmyrtlee. What "right" do you have to say that people will or will not be confused by the meaning of the term "British", or indeed any other term? Presumably you don't have a problem with referring to the "Indian Ocean" because it never crossed your mind that anyone might think it belongs to India. But what if I say that some people will get confused? Will you then agree with me? What if you don't agree, or someone else says they don't agree? Again, where do we draw the line? What is the absolute frame of reference for "likelihood of confusion"? Should we target the Englishwikipediaa at the world's most uneducated English speaking idiot? If so, how are they going to get on reading about Theory of Relativity? The Red Hat of PatFerrick t 22:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have every "right" to express an opinion, just as you do. People don't live on an ocean, they live on isles, and it's obviously going to be important to them if there is confusion over the sovereignty of the land they live on. If I may say so, you really do seem to be more emotionally involved in this issue than is healthy for a neutral editor. User:Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Er... I'm not sure where that came from. I'm just replying here the same as you. I'm sorry if my arguments are so good they appear that I'm "emotionally involved". As for "rights", you have every right to express an opinion on a talk page but you do not have a "right" to speak for your readers about whether they will get confused. As I said before,encyclopaediass explain things as the are. It's the reader's job to dig further if they don't understand a term. The Red Hat of PatFerrick t 22:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid to admit that the "strength" of your arguments has largely passed me by so far...;-}. I agree with your other points, but would merely add that it is the responsibility of editors to minimise, and where possible avoid, potential confusion to readers - such as not using the same word to describe two quite distinct concepts in the same sentence. User:Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Right, but we should not be apologists for the English language. That's why I stress we should separate the naming dispute from everything else. The naming dispute does not stem from the fact that the term is confusing, and if it wasn't for the naming dispute, we wouldn't be having these arguments where people who are middle of the road in terms of their views on the Br-Ir situation have to cite other reasons for removing the term. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
We have been through this before, i cant believe we have simply transfered exactly the same debate from one place to another, each instance isnt always the same. For example at Derry i have no problem with British Isles being removed from the sentence because it can talk about Europe instead.. it makes sense to remove it there. On the British Empire article this is not the case, we have given clear reasons why it should remain, a source found using EXACTLY the same method to talk about British Overseas Territories.. There is just no justification for change on this matter.
Those who are out on a campaign to remove the British Isles from Wikipedia should accept they have had some success, an article has been renamed and the term removed from the article at Derry. I see no reason why people should push on with this agenda, certainly not in the case of British Empire where it is totally justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The only "campaign" I'm on is to try and persuade people to use rationality and agreed criteria for improving articles, in the face of what seems to me to be illogical intransigence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: BritishWatcher's comment above. Please note there is a vote at the moment at Talk:Derry#The Vote where you can register a view on the matter regarding Biritish Isles references in the Derry article. LevenBoy (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I harken back to my idea, the Northern Ireland plan. We should implament it on (at least) some of the articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Accusatory remarks and having agendas is what has characterised these discussions. But here we are, rehashing the same arguments that we had at the Empire page. The same ownership issues are apparent with shouting across the room now added. Several of us have argued the same principle, i.e. the blurring in the minds of some readers with the different uses of the word British being employed. A total rejection of this possibility goes on with absolutely no willingness to accept that this could even conceivably occur. Wikipedia:The perfect article 'is clear; it is written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain, clear prose; it is free of redundant language.' The sentence The UK retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles, which were renamed the British Overseas Territories in 2002. doesn't avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding and has lead to this entire debate; isn't plain, clear prose but is awkwardly written; uses redundant phraseology. To correct these issues Ghmyrtle has reitterated the sentence which overcomes these problems ie The UK retains sovereignty over the 14 British Overseas Territories. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A Wikipedia-wide Ban

Just to check. We could never get a consensus to ban the British Isles term from Wikipedia articles (of course the BI article itself would remain), right? GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unionist/Republican solution

As I have said in the Derry article, we could settle on a compromise where:

  • British Isles would be banned from Republic of Ireland articles but
  • Full permission would be granted for the use of the term in Great Britain articles
  • As for Northern Ireland, the term would be allowed in areas where Loyalists are predominant, but not in Nationalist-controlled areas.

If this is accepted, it could be the solution to this problem. It would provide us with a strategy that we could work around to settle this dispute. Even though I hate the term, I would be happy to join this taskforce to implement its' policies.

It is a fair compromise for both Nationalists and Loyalists. FF3000 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is an utterly ridiculous suggestion. There are loads of things in Wikipedia I find offensive, but I have to live with them. You will have to live with British Isles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Any user who has any sense of fairness and want to sort out this problem would accept it. This is a fair, unbiased proposal which would be a great attempt to end this ongoing dispute. All you want is to keep the flame going. Unless a compromise is reached like the one I have proposed, this dispute will go on forever. And if you think this is bad, GoodDay has tabled a proposal where the term would be completely banned from Wikipedia. Although I would personally be in favour of this, I know that the opposition would be strong.

I do believe that there is a strong chance of this proposal going ahead. Sometimes on Wikipedia though you have to consider what other users want, rather than being wrapped up in your own selfish proposals. FF3000 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Note: This poll will remain open until Thursday 18 June, 2:00 p.m. (BST)

NOTICE: Although new suggestions are greatly welcomed, please do not add any more options to the poll until they have been discussed in the comments section. Any new options that haven't been discussed will be deleted.

I am holding a poll on this page to see whether users will accept a compromise on the term "British Isles". This will not be the final word on the issue, though. A compromise is needed to finally end this ongoing dispute and to provide a strategy to work around to finish off this headache issue for Wikipedia. Although I am completely against the usage of the term, I have thought of those who like the term by proposing Option 2 below. In this poll I ask to consider what other users think instead of being wrapped up in your own opinions.

There will be five options. If you agree with either one place Support followed by your reason why, and signature. If you disagree with any options, do not say Oppose. Instead, leave a comment in the comments section.

To prevent sock puppetry, autoconfirmed users will only be accepted in this poll, including the comments section. Any new users' and IPs' contributions will be deleted, and so will votes that say Oppose (as explained above) and unsigned votes or comments.

Option 1 is: to completely ban all usage of the term British Isles (proposed by User:GoodDay)

Option 2 is:

  • British Isles would be banned from Republic of Ireland articles but
  • Full permission would be granted for the use of the term in Great Britain articles
  • As for Northern Ireland, the term would be allowed in areas where Loyalists are predominant, but not in Nationalist-controlled areas.

If this is accepted, it could be the solution to this problem. It would provide us with a strategy that we could work around to settle this dispute. Even though I hate the term, I would be happy to join this taskforce to implement its' policies.

It is a fair compromise for both Nationalists and Loyalists, in my opinion. (proposed by me) FF3000 (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • A map of nationalist and loyalist areas is available here. I know it's from 1991, but the areas haven't changed since really.

Option 3 is: Apply British Isles to articles covering the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Delete British Isles from articles covering the republic of Ireland. (proposed by User:GoodDay)

Option 4 is : None of the above

Option 5 is: No British Isles to be used for the island of Ireland, but full permission for Great Britain. FF3000 (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Option 6 is: We leave the articles as they are. If British Isles is in the content? we leave it alone. If it's not in the content? we don't add it. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Option 7 is: take the position that "British Isles" is a term in British English but now not "Irish" English. Then follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. (proposed by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Option 1

Option 2

  1. Support --FF3000 (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Option 3

# Support - in agreement with me. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Option 4

  1. Support - Fmph (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support - this poll can be considered nothing but a joke, its certainly not going to bring about consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support - I really don't think that this approach, good faith as it is, is worthy of serious consideration. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support - What about articles that need to refer to the British Isles as a whole, including Ireland? It seems to me that if the Republic of Ireland was excluded, to ban BI from such pages would effectively restrict the term to the UK and Crown Dependemcies, which is just plain incorrect. I propose no restriction whatsoever on the free use of language, and in many cases BI will be the most natural term to use. ðarkuncoll 17:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support - It's untidy, but I don't think it's workable to filter the usage of the term by the origin or focus of articles. Surely, it depends on the exact context of the usage. If the distribution was as clearcut as, for example, "color/colour", then it might be feasible. Evidence for clearcut distribution of that sort seems lacking, to put it charitable - and trying to ascertain usage distribution by voter distribution seems more than arbitrary. Man vyi (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support. per all above. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support --Snowded TALK 08:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support This is an encyclopedia. Keep politics out of it. Ban the POV pushers. Whats wrong the we other guidelines at the top? --Qaziphone (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support, if only because I can't see any of the other proposals being widely accepted. Loganberry (Talk) 11:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Option 5

Option 6

  1. Support - in agreement with me. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - the aim is to improve articles (and change them as the world changes), not set them in stone at some arbitrary date. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support - seems perfectly pragmatic Brunnian (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Option 7

  1. Support, for the following reasons:
    • It takes the politics out of it by reclassifying it as a language issue.
    • Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English really does provide some objective and surprisingly appropriate criteria for deciding what variety of English applies.
    • Such a position has verifiable precedent in reliable sources. First, atlas publisher Folens [1] "The British Isles is to be wiped off the map by the Irish publishers of a school atlas after complaints that the term was no longer applicable in a modern Ireland....Folens will retain the British Isles in its atlases produced for children in the United Kingdom, which includes Northern Ireland." Second, we see it in the position of the two governments - the Irish government doesn't use it, but the British gov does. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment The British government does not use the term. FF3000 (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. Support - Good suggestion BritishWatcher (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Comment - an interesting suggestion, but in practice I'm not sure it would take things any further, as there would still be debates over interpretation and over which variety of English should be used in each case. We also need to remember that WP readership is international, not just British or Irish. Some readers have English as a first language, others do not, and an approach which may seem subtle to residents of the islands may just be mightily confusing to everyone else. However, I hope we all take note of this guidance in WP:MOS: "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English...Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternative terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia...Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to one that is ambiguous because of national differences." How true, how true... Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    1. Comment on Comment ah, but the same problems apply in deciding whether Am or Br English should be used in an article, don't they? If the MOS can be used to settle that, it can be used to settle this. Admittedly it's not perfect, but it's the most objective set of rules we have, and we know they weren't just conjured up to deal with "BI". Disagreements could be settled based on the neutral interpretation of this policy instead of the politically charged atmosphere of British-Irish relations. And the beauty of it is, a fallback is supplied: "retain the existing variety". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    2. Comment on Comments I think its a foundation position and covers a range of issues around the name. It also supports some of the compromises that have already been stable for some time such as the Shannon and Loch Neigh. However it doesn't manage some of the more contentious areas, in particular historical articles where the term has (in the past) had a political as well as a geographical sense. Its good that the debate is again active centrally, rather than on individual articles. My gut feel is that we need a lot more examples here to see if over a range of controversies we can see a pattern that will lead to a more general resolution. Ie take an approach based on common law rather than attempting to write statutes. RedHat's proposal above gives us two/three principles, more examples might give us some more. --Snowded TALK 16:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    3. Another comment No I think it will only spark debates over what language should be used, and therefore "British Isles". Anyway there is no Irish English. The only difference is a few words used colloquially in Ireland, and that wouldn't be used on Wikipedia. It is another messy idea with shaky foundations, and wouldn't provide the necessary legislation to deal with the problem. And what we need is to sort out the problem, instead of reclassifying it into another issue, which could be even worse. FF3000 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, if the term is used in Britain but not in Ireland, fundamentally there is no difference between the Americans saying "sidewalk" and the British not. It is a matter of language. The reason for the choice of language may differ, but at the end of the day it is still a matter of choice of language. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, but people will then argue over the type of language used in the article to get the term in or out of the article. It would just steer the dispute in a different direction, rather than solving the dispute. FF3000 (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
By now, after all the bickering and edit warring, it should be perfectly clear to all that there is no solution which is going to satisfy all. My option is the worst save for all the rest. The MOS is very clear about deciding "which" language applies. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussions over a compromise can easily take place, but only if users are willing to compromise. However, as long as there are people who are too wrapped up in their own wants, making a compromise is more difficult. FF3000 (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Option 8

I made a proposal the other day to Canterbury Tail (context and conversations here) as follows: One way round this would be a group to be set up to mediate discussions on an article by article base as the issue is raised, hopefully to reduce temperature. If I think about current disputes its pretty obvious that BI is a valid term in respect of the Derry walls debate (on the same principle as we settled Loch Neigh and the River Shannon), while on British Empire none of the primary sources use it. Temperatures have been raised in both cases. If when those debates started there was a click in process that mediated a solution and built in the process a series of cases that might work. A common law rather than a statute law basis. Such an approach might also reduce admin time on escalating blocks etc. In effect this would be a special type of mediation for some momths just to get things sorted out. Rather than long and difficult conversations, if use became controversial then a small group would examine the evidence and present an evidence based recommendation. Suggestion for membership would be one moderate editor from each side and an experienced admin with no involvement. A small pool could be managed. Given the sheer energy that goes into this, and the past failure to reach a general agreement this might be one way forward. Offered for "merciless" comment. --Snowded TALK 16:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In theory yes, but in practice this is what would happen: the anti-BI brigade (for want of a better desciption) would work systematically through the list of articles containing "British Isles" and would challenge the lot. In some cases they'd be successful in removing it, in other cases they wouldn't. In every case there would be a battle of the sort we've recently witnessed at British Empire. When they were done, they'd start all over again with the depleted list. This would go on for years (it's already been going on for three years) with much wasted editing time and continuing ill feeling. The long-term objective of the group is to eliminate British Isles from Wikipedia. Option 8 would give them a vehicle on which to try and achieve it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree Midnight Blue. I think the community has to decide what to do. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, its just not something a small group can decide for everyone. If the group had 2 from each side and an admin then its simply going to be left up to that one person to decide, thats not fair on them and its not fair on everyone else either because it depends on your point of view. I dont think a central agreeement can be reached here either it has to depend on the case in hand.
Take the two mentioned British Empire and Derry i see it totally the other way around from Snowded. I see huge justification and reason for keeping British Isles in the place its mentioned on the British Empire, but very little reason to mention the British Isles on the Derry page if we can talk about it having the best walls in Europe instead. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
"We've also had some editors systematically inserting it! In practice editors on both sides will continue as they have for three years and the same debates will take place. With option 8 there something that can flip in which reduces the aggro, in the end the community still decides. However rather than the community getting locked into positions, its is quickly passed elsewhere for assessment before it comes back. FAD I am not proposing that the group decide, but they summarise the issues and present findings back to the community. That also brings in an automatic cooling down period.
I disagree on BE by the way Midnight, if you look at the editors involved its not all the usual suspects. However that is a good example of entrained positions preventing agreement. BW I am not trying to debate Derry and BE here we have differences on that. My proposal here is not the resolution of any example, but a process to resolve examples rather than the current debates and attempts to create general rules (neither of which have worked) --Snowded TALK 17:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I've seen it mentioned on numerous occasions that some editors are systematically inserting British Isles. I don't know who these editors are and it would be useful to get a look at some edit histories to back up this claim. There are well-known editors who did (maybe still do) systematically remove it. I think there is an agreement not to do either and my preference would be to enforce it (so no removal of the term from Derry, British Empire, Military History etc, and no insertions either. Removals only when the usage is clearly erroneous). MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Once again I disagree. Having separate disputes on each article isn't the way forward. A single, clear, detailed set of regulations must be put in place so that there is no question mark as to whether it is allowed or not.
I agree that such a set of regulations would be desirable, but I see not evidence that they are likely to be agreed. --Snowded TALK 17:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

However MBM, it's not that other people want to elimanate the term, you just want it enforced and used wherever possible. FF3000 (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Put another record on, will you? Your remarks are beginning to jar a bit. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry but sometimes I have to repeat myself. Some people need to be reminded of certain things (you included). FF3000 (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Where's Option 3? Divide along United Kingdom (thus Northern Ireland) & Republic of Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That, well I wasn't planning on including that because it would be unfair on NI nationalists, but you can add it if you want. FF3000 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confident that unionist can handle this. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant nationalists, not unionists. FF3000 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confident they can handle it, too. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dividing the usage/non-usage along "topic country of origin" lines, much like British/American English is favo(u)red on British/American topics is a promising one. The argument could be made that "British Isles" is not used in Ireland but is in the UK. But what would happen to British Empire which covers both or, indeed, an article on one of the former British colonies to which many from the "British Isles" emigrated? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Please, one disaster at a time. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Can we have Option 4 - None of the above pls Fmph (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My ghast is well and truly flabbered. This is complete nonsense. -- Evertype·✆ 09:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny nonsense though, gotta love the idea of looking at maps of loyalist / nationalist areas in northern Ireland and going around the articles adding or removing the term British Isles where possible. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
When done flabbering itself, can Evertype's ghast please come over and flabber mine? No doubt this is very well intentioned - and the best of respect to FF3000, MidnightBlue, Red Hat Of and everyone else who put work into it - but I think it needs to work out the subtleties a little more. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have any other suggestions, don't hesitate to mention them. This is nothing but a trial to see whether users are happy to compromise. FF3000 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

FF3000, surely option two is some sort of a joke. Its totally unworkable.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be alot of fun trying to implement it, imagine all the dozens of disputes that would break out straight away lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think a "code of conduct" might be a better place to start. I'd like to see an acceptance among editors contributing to "interface articles" (if we can borrow an NI turn of phrase) that:
  • Editors that see a problem with the term are not terrorist sympathisers
  • Editors that see no problem with the term are not imperialist jingos
But the trouble is not only over the term "British Isles". Even if that was sorted out, it wouldn't solve anything great.
I'd like there to be a mature acceptance that, owing to both of our perspectives, that British and Irish editors are likely to clash on how we imagine the history, culture and geography of our islands. I'd like an undertaking that the WP equivalent of stone throwing and painting of curbs is not how we will proceed in future. I think we need a sort of "shared future" understanding in WP. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It would solve something great. OK, it won't be the answer to all of Wikipedia's disputes, but it would be a major advancement. My Option 2 anyway wouldn't start disputes as it would go with the general will of the people living in the area. Any more arguments would be shot down unless proof would be given that the NI area is not mainly unionist but republican or vice-versa. FF3000 (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I totally understand why many Irish editors hate the term British Isles, i do not blame people for that although what appears to be an ongoing campaign for its removal across wikipedia is unjustified and does have to be stopped. It is possible to get over many of these issues though, im surprised at how stable the content on the different Ireland articles are despite the obvious ongoing dispute about the names. In this case on the British Isles and its inclusion/exclusion i dont think it can be agreed centrally, it has to be taken in a case by case basis really. This option two is simply not going to work as editing of articles isnt restricted to those areas and it will lead to dozens of disputes on the individual talk pages and we cant just say some people on a poll here decided to impose their will on everyone. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Footyfanatic3000, going by Option 2: Lough Neagh is the largest lake in __________.
BritishWatcher, I've seen as many belligerents rephrasing articles it has never been in before just to include it. When confronted their answer is: "It's a fact". Confrontational editing and persecution complexes are the bigger issue - and editors from both islands are as bad as each other.
(Also - why is this discussion talking place on a project page and not the talk page?) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Well ive only been on wikipedia about 7 or 8 months, i dont know what went on before that but i accept there have been trouble makers on both sides. In all the cases about the British Isles ive been involved in, its been following someones attempt to remove it or change a title its not been about someone putting it in. Take the case resolved yesterday with the British Islands article, now i dont know why Setanta changed it to British Isles many months ago, all i know is Ireland and Britain do have a shared military history which is why it made sense to have a single article covering it and the fact it had content about Ireland was what he put in the edit summary, it remained there till last months conflict erupted. I didnt strongly oppose the split and it appears people have accepted that (i expected there to be alot more arguments, it seems very quiet on that talk page now so hopefully its resolved.
But when you compare that case to the issue of British Isles on the British Empire article, the case for change there was just not justified at all. Something contained in the text for over 2 years, added by the person who made the entire section, there was clearly no political agenda on his count. Yet all of a sudden, the crew arrived demanding its removal. When you take that case along with attempts to rename British Isles itself and certain other cases like History of the British Isles where someone seeks a removal of the term.. its understandable why people think there is some sort of campaign going on BritishWatcher (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Clearly I'm in catchup mode and would consider myself to be neutral on the issue as a whole. As a term, Ive used the British Isles but can always thought that it referred to places owned by the British and wasn't 100% sure about Ireland. What I'm seeing from here is a number of users asking for the removal usually on the grounds of looking for references. Pretty reasonable if you ask me. The reaction though is sometimes overwhelmingly personal with a lot of namecalling and ranting from both sides. Puts me off reading the discussion at all. I can't understand why its tolerated. An admin should block anyone who steps out of line with hate comments and trying to incite other users. I'll take a look at the other articles you mentioned. --Qaziphone (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
But what I've proposed doesn't anywhere near wipe it out. It allows full usage of the term for all of Great Britain and unionist areas in NI. The dispute currently has no structure, or legislation to deal with these disputes. A good example of a successful compromise is the Derry/Londonderry dispute. Although the occasional person makes a complaint, the compromise has largely been successful. A similar compromise is Option 2 which I have proposed above. The one obstacle though is the users on Wikipedia who only want what they like on Wikipedia. --FF3000 (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Er, that would be you then. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If we can't put Oppose under any of the options, why are we putting Support? Wouldn't our names be enough? GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's just to avoid confusion. The reason, by the way, that I don't want oppose to be there is because the whole thing would be a mess. FF3000 (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, FF, you're not addressing the vast majority of articles that include the words "British Isles" but have nothing to do with the UK or Ireland. Take a look at the "What links here" link at British Isles. A link high in the list is Brown Bear. It was, and maybe still is, this type of article that certain users quietly target for removal. And another thing; I'm not voting. This is not the sort of issue at Wikipedia that can be settled by a vote, !vote or poll. Some things can be, but not this. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but further compromises could be made down the line. This deals with disputes on geographical articles. Anyway, if a fair compromise on this is reached it will be much easier to agree further compromises down the line.

There is one thing I would like to say to everyone though. Instead of saying that this is "nonsense" and "rubbish", suggest your own opinions. I am only making an effort to draw the line in the sand, but the responses from some users here is disgraceful. FF3000 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is very clear that you are one of a number of editors who seek to remove "British Isles" from Wikipedia. Your veiled attempt at this is obvious in your remarks here and elsewhere. Why should I, or anyone, offer an opinion on the matter? All I will say is that British Isles is a globally acknowledged term (minority view in Ireland excepted) and as such it can be used in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored. End of story. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, this is to draw up a compromise. "British Isles" by the way isn't acknowledged by anyone in Ireland. But I have discovered, as there are editors here who want to keep it too, and some like you who want to enforce its' use (possibly to annoy the Irish), a compromise has to be reached.

Now instead of being selfishly wrapped up in your biased, unfair views, try and cooperate to end this dispute by reaching a fair compromise. It seems to me though that you just want these disputes to continue. FF3000 (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If no one in Ireland accepts the term British Isles why on earth has the Irish map Publisher Folens only recently stopped mentioning British Isles in their maps for Ireland yet continue to use the term for ones produced for Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
In the republic, No one accepts the term British Isles? That's not true, Irish infants have 'no opinon' on the term. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)And what disputes would those be then? The disputes where British Isles has been in an article for ages then someone comes along and objects to it? Maybe it's where the term appears in an article title and someone objects to it. In any event, it's not me who starts the disputes, so why would I want them to continue? I just wish there were no disputes, because it would mean that certain editors had given up trying to eliminate British Isles from Wikipedia and we could all then sleep easier. As for it not being acknowledged by "anyone" in Ireland. Come off it! The vast majority of Irishmen, and British people for that matter, couldn't give two hoots about British Isles usage. It's just the (Irish) chattering classes that get on their high horse about it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We never use the term in everyday speech. MidnightBlue, you just love the term and want it enforced.

As for GoodDay, I would expect a little more maturity and common sense in your statement about infants. FF3000 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, it does have a certain satisfying ring to it, unlike British Islands, which is more akin to blackboard scratching. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we shuld expand on the agreement between TharkunColl & HighKing. Where there's British Isles? we leave it & where there isn't British Isles? we don't add it. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC).
Absolutely. I thought that was the rule, but others don't seem to. HighKing, for instance, appears not to be abiding by it (where is he anyway, now that the mayhem he caused at the British Military article has died down). MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC

Just to prove how the term isn't used in Ireland, if you search the term at Google "pages from Ireland", you only get 31,400 results, most of them being either debates about the name or book titles, while if you search "pages from UK" for the term at Google UK, you get 1,730,000 results. Although, I know that the UK has a bigger population than Ireland, the difference still doesn't justify it.

That is conclusive proof for it is not commonly used in Ireland. FF3000 (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny how in your list, the very second item details the articles in the Irish Independent newspaper that use the term, some as recently as two weeks ago. How does this conclusively prove that it isn't used in Ireland? Canterbury Tail talk 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Remind me, what is the population of the 26 counties?? around 3.5 million. Now what is the population of the United Kingdom? 70 million...bit of a difference me thinks! --De Unionist (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Untrue. The population of the republic is 4.3 million according to the last census (and has risen since). The UK has a population of ~60m. Difference in population still doesn't justify difference. FF3000 (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Say hello to Option 6. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It is conclusive proof of nothing. Google results are pretty meaningless in any context. However, just for a laugh, if you chose most terms at random (I tried "government") you'll get about ten times more hits from the UK Google than you will from IE Google (put the discrepancy of 31000 -> 1.7m down to Irish chattering classes). In fact, you get twice as many hits for "Ireland" from UK Google than you do from IE Google. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
But MidnightBlue, the population of the UK is 15 times that of Ireland. So on average there should be 15 times more results for "government". So really and truly, the IE google wins. And for BI, even if you multiply the number of results from the IE google 15 times, it doesn't anywhere near reach it. --FF3000 (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
MB is absolutely right on one major item. British Isles will never be eliminated from Wikipedia (nor should it be). GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Try reading my remarks more carefully, especially the first two sentences, and also the bit about Irish chattering classes. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Option 6 has a major problem. It would be very difficult to prove when BI was added to the article, and users could also plaster British Isles all over lots of articles or vice-versa before the rule would be implemented, causing uproar and possibly a massive dispute. It is a very messy idea indeed. FF3000 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It's best we set a date for when Option 6 (if adopted), will go into effect. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm not voting, but I thought option 6 was already in effect. If not, let's set the date for 12 June 2009, 19:28 Hrs BST. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
But the problem is, there would be crazy activity just before it is implemented. It would cause absolute chaos. FF3000 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I like MB's idea. Don't add/don't delete has taken effect, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, Google be buggered! Try Doogle - MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have just proved you wrong, MB. There is no need to go all crazy. FF3000 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hehe and I think I'll remove this stupid link now, yeah.--FF3000 (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


I have just proved you wrong, MB. There is no need to go all crazy. FF3000 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


Anyway, Google be buggered! Try Doogle - [5] MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(multiple ec)BTW, Doogle gives just as many hits for "British Isles" as it does for "Dublin". Who said the Irish don't like the term? MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought I better put the link back, just for the benefit of those who haven't had the sense-of-humour lobotomy. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You have just lost the point, my dear friend. FF3000 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The 'British Isles' is a perfectly legitimate geographical term, do we not all listen to the weather men and women use it night after night, even RTE use it. These pathetic attempts to denigrate the term by those with a Irish Nationalist or Republican agenda is pathetic. --De Unionist (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I know from being an Irish citizen that we never use it everyday speech. And only British meteorologists use the term, not Irish ones. FF3000 (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not every Irish protests the term, though. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Every native Irish person does. FF3000 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a reference that states that every native Irish person protests the term? I know many that don't, including obviously those that are Irish, live in Ireland and work in Ireland and use the term in their profession as illustrated in the handy Google search you posted above. Canterbury Tail talk 19:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
We just never use it in everyday conversation. And, no, it would be very hard to find a reference. FF3000 (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
No they don't. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It's now looking more and more like editors are too selfish to accept a compromise. I can honestly say that I've done my best, but British enforcers have blasted down any hopes of a compromise by now. It's a real disgrace to Wikipedia. FF3000 (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
People aren't willing to accept compromise, or people aren't willing to accept your POV? There is a difference. Anyway there are Irish people involved in this discussion that see other than what you see. Also, GoodDay are you British? I don't believe so. Canterbury Tail talk 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
No, people are too consumed with their own wants and beliefs. I welcome alternative fair proposals, but users instead lash back rude comments, just because I try to compromise. FF3000 (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Examples above are MidnightBlue and De Unionist, who instead of wanting compromises, just want to put what they want on Wikipedia. FF3000 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd still argue that not all native Irish oppose the BI term. The native Irish infants have no opinon on it. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What's a POV? FF3000 (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Point of view. Canterbury Tail talk 19:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm Canadian. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah ... British with an a American accentjoking! --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought that was Keith Richards.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm mainley french Canadian, but I don't speak french. I suppose that makes me a 'francophony'. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice also that hes been selective in where he advertises this poll. [6] and [7], The wikiprojects for Ireland and Irish republicanism was seen as an important place to advertise.. i notice he forgot to do the same at the wikiproject for Unionism in Ireland or on the UK / country projects. A simple mistake im sure BritishWatcher (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I advertised it at the collaboration. I thought that would be enough. There isn't a unionist Wikiproject anyway. FF3000 (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'll take that back about the unionist wikiproject. I'll advertise it there now. FF3000 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
And perhaps the United Kingdom wikiproject aswell which is also part of the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I never thought of advertising it on the UK wikiprojects. FF3000 (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
There, it's now also on the UK noticeboard. If you want any more ads, do it yourself. FF3000 (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, that's sorted then. The British Isles stays as a geographical term and should never be used in any political assignation. --De Unionist (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but nothing has been sorted. This poll has been nothing but a waste of time. I am honestly very disappointed. A new discussion over another compromise needs to start. --FF3000 (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
So we can all go home now? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The term BI is almost universally avoided in Ireland, but in Northern Ireland where there is a Unionist majority the term is used more often. If this isn't proof that the term indeed has "some political connotations", then no amount of proof will ever succeed in getting a NPOV attitude to subjective usage of the term accepted by all, or most. Tfz 22:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(UPDATE on Poll) So far Option 4 is being heavily favoured. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try to avoid this dispute now for a few days to let my head recover. The poll remains open until next Thursday afternoon at 2 p.m. Happy voting! FF3000 (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've thrown option 7 into the mix. It's the only option that (a) can defer to precedent in the manual of style and (b) which is anything close to being "verifiable" in external sources. The political/geographical distinction is simply nowhere to be found in reliable sources that define the term, or that use it (it's an invention of editors here seemingly based on original research about when the term was first used half a millenium ago) and the Great Britain v Ireland or UK v Ireland island/country thing is just bizarre because the definition of the term includes the square footage occupied by both. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Option 7 is also quite messy as it doesn't lay down the legislation needed to sort out the dispute. Anyway there isn't really an "Irish English". The only difference is a few extra words that we may use that the English don't, but even that varies greatly from one part of the country to the other e.g. the North and the South. I don't see though how it could sort anything out, as much debate would begin over what "type" of English would be used in the article. --FF3000 (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Holy smokers 8 options? we'll never get a consensus on this Poll. It may be time to shut the Poll down. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Can we have a poll on whether we should shut down the poll? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
No that would be ridiculous altogeher. FF3000 (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Er, I think someone has misplaced their sense of humour. That was a joke. 19:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Well with the current craziness going on at the moment you wouldn't know whether it was a joke or not. FF3000 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm coming down with Poll-itis. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
No we won't shut down the poll any earlier than Thursday to encourage discussion, but I'll put up a notice saying that any new options have to be discussed before being put up on the poll. FF3000 (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The options should have been agreed upon before the poll was started. It's not "fair" otherwise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm English, but am coming to this from outside (through following a link) and I've voted for Option 4, since the only reason to change to one of the others would be if that were likely to lead to less unhappiness than there is now, and I can't see that happening. I'd be more than happy to use a neutral term if one existed that people actually used, or at least understood, but there isn't one, given that "British Isles" is still so overwhelmingly used in GB. "Britain and Ireland" is workable in some cases, I suppose, but not all. "British Islands and Ireland" too, but "British Islands" is not an everyday term. So... I don't know! Loganberry (Talk) 11:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is much bigger than a few sanctimonious island dwellers. The worldwide acknowledged reference is to the 'British Isles' and that is good enough...the bigger picture and all that. --De Unionist (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)At the risk of sounding naive and maybe this is an area that newish editors shouldnt dare to tread but whats wrong with Wikipedia:BIDRAFT2 mentioned above? It seems that a lot of the basic groundwork has already been established. Qaziphone (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is people wont stick to such agreements anyway its not worked in the past. The anti-British Isles brigade will continue to plague wikipedia like a virus until British Isles is wiped from history. A central agreement wont be set in stone unless this went all the way to ARBCOM but they wouldnt bother getting involved in this. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's an anti-British Isles brigade - unless by implication you are acknowledging a pro-British Isles brigade. Agreements can be enforced, so if theres an agreement in place, it will no longer be about individuals. There will be clear rules about content that will be enforcable. A central agreement is just that, an agreement, and if it covers 95% of the disputes, I think thats going to be a lot better than the present edit warring. Qaziphone (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Time is running out on the Poll. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesnt time fly when ur having fun Goodday? :) BritishWatcher (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell, will it ever end? ive just seen another editor removed British Isles from an article today, the campaign clearly continues. [8] BritishWatcher (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As an example, the task force content rules would easily resolve this. And as a new editor to this, I don't understand why you believe that there is a campaign. It seems to me that articles are using the term British Isles very inaccurately. The Britannia article is a good example - was the editor incorrect? Later on in the article, it seems to be saying the same thing as the editor when he removed British Isles - which I thought was Insulae Britannicae and not Britannia anyway? Qaziphone (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Poll result

Looks like all options have been defeated. Talks need to start over a compromise. Any suggestions? --FF3000 (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Wait until the Ireland stuff is finished, then come back here. Fmph (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, what's wrong with the earlier suggestions drafted up which are good and use clear examples. Qaziphone (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Holy rattlesnakes Batman! I missed a vote. I would have toyed with Option 7. Had I been here. Sarah777 (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
You snooze, you loose. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force/archive_4&oldid=1148690886"