Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Abtract (talk | contribs) at 17:15, 22 December 2006 (→Seeking consensus, not a vote: simple). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Irelandproj Template:GA-countries

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

add a food list

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Archives: Archive 0, Archive 01 (April 2004 to August 2004), Archive 02 (August 2004 to October 2005)

History Again

I'm going to cut the history section right down. We now have a very big summary article at History of Ireland and many more detailed articles. It makes no sense for this page to have such a long section as its really a summary of a summary of a summary. People who are interested should be directed to the main articles. Jdorney 13:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Formatting

(Could someone format this page to remove the large blanks caused by the picture boxes? --Krashlandon 17:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

I've moved the Arts up a bit, and the page looks better. Also, I moved your request here, to the talk page, as I'm responding to it, and I think this'll generate more talk than anything that should be on the article itself. More work should probably be done, but it looks a bit better now. Canaen 23:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

We either need an expert in page dynamics to wrap the text, or we need to remove some of those pictures or fill in the space. Krashlandon 13:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty intractable problem. I imagine simply removing some of the right-hung images might help. Or redesigning some so they will spread more left-from-right instead of down-from-up (so narrowing the text and forcing its extent more down the page). Many seem to be single-columns of sub-images, and I imagine they could be reconstructed as rows-and-columns. Laurel Bush 12:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps. I would just as soon remove the pictures. Some of them are not needed. Krashlandon 23:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm going to start a proper Archiving of this talk page. It shouldn't be more than 2, or at most 3 pages. I'll leave what seems to still be active. If you have any qualms, then plese bring them up to me. Better yet, be bold and do it yourself! Canaen 00:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The entry "Ireland"

About the title of this page: I understand that this has been up for several motions and votes and debates and what not over on the article entitled Republic of Ireland. But if that article itself states that the name of this sovereign state is usually just Ireland in the English language, then why does the island of the same name monopolize on that entry on WP? Is it really unequivocally the predominant usage in English? Similar cases elsewhere will usually lead to a disambiguation page if several uses of a word are equally common. Like this:

Ireland may refer to either:

• Ireland (state), a country in Northern Europe
• Ireland (island), one of the British Isles

See also New Ireland and Northern Ireland

Compare where the reader is (re)directed if he/she types in other ambiguous terms with multiple meanings, such as "Georgia", "Samoa", "China", "Micronesia" or "Macedonia". //Big Adamsky 03:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This page is about the sovereign country Ireland. In standard english, that country is most often called "Ireland" alone. I don't know what we should do to make it universal, though. Maybe you should talk to an Irish person. Krashlandon 17:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If anyone has comments regarding this topic Talk:Republic of Ireland maybe the ideal place? Djegan 19:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Layout on higher resolutions

The page looks awful with 1600x1200 resolution (Mozilla Firefox). The row of images continues for a kilometer after the text has ended, and the "" signs are scattered all over the place. I think that this is because of the long Flags of Ireland, etc image blocks. There's also three very random images at the bottom without any captions (picture of an airplane, a picture of a train, a picture of some construction yard, and "ESB" logo). Could anything be done about this problem? (this is the only page where I've noticed the s get messed up). --85.49.234.240 16:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, I think removing one is a start. For those who think the image boxes add enough to merit there use, well it might look good at your resolution but it doesn't at every ones so its not a bad idea getting rid of one. lets have a vote. - Fabhcún 19:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Which one should we remove?

• Irish Flags
  1. remove - Fabhcún 19:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Irish Notables
• Irish Sport
• Some Nobel Laureates
• Arts in Ireland
• Keep them all.

Poll: Ireland article titles

A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"Hibernophile" not in dictionaries?

From Talk:Hibernophile

"I don't find the word "Hibernophile" in any online dictionary. Can somebody give a cite for this word (online or in print)? If not, we should probably yank this article. (Also, Google only gives 265 hits for this word and Misplaced Pages is among them.)" -- 12 Feb 2006

It may not be much used it is a perfectly valid word, just as Hibernophobe, Anglophile, Anglophobe, homophile, homophobe, etc. For minor topics (and even major ones) google is worthless. It regularly throws up inaccurate facts and simply matches the linguistic dominance of American English and British English usage while largely ignoring all other variants of English many of which use the word. But then as most internet users are American or from the Commonwealth of Nations, the bias towards their usage is hardly unusual. FearÉIREANN\ 19:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Flags of Ireland

"Flag of St. Patrick, still used as an all-Ireland flag by the Irish Rugby Football Union and others."

I don't think that this flag has been used by the IRFU for a long time. To my knowledge they now (unfortunately IMHO) use the 4 provinces flag - can anyone find a source for this? Perhaps the next time anyone's at a match a photo wouldn't be out of the question? A couple of things it has been used for: the badge of the PSNI and the Church of Ireland (Anglican church) . The arms of the Queen's University, Belfast also seem to originate from those of the Queen's University of Ireland (1850-1870). Both contain a St Patrick's cross with a white background in the left and right portions, and blue background in the top and bottom portions. I almost forgot, I cannot find a source at the moment but AFAIK the Northern Ireland flag wasn't created until the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, and was based on the Arms granted to the government in 1922. Beano ni 01:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just found this at Ireland_national_rugby_union_team

"Similarly, the Irish tricolour, the official flag of the Republic is only used when playing in the Republic. A quartered flag with symbols representing the four provinces of Ireland is flown alongside in Dublin, and is used exclusively when playing elsewhere. At some matches, the standard of the island's rugby union governing body, the Irish Rugby Football Union, is displayed on the field during pre-match ceremonies."

Beano ni 10:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that all the information about flags of Ireland duplicates the information in that article. Shouldn't we just point there? Evertype 13:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Either the four Provnces of Ireland flag or the de facto Irish Tricolour are what is commonly used as an all Ireland flag by most. Most people take the Irish Tricolour as the flag of Ireland, it was created to represent the Nationalist Irish and the "orange" Scots-Irish etc. And the decendants of the plantations - so to speak anyway - in Ireland and peace and unity between the two. The "Flag of St. Patrick" is probably neutral also, but it is mainly only used by Unionist northerners by choice: southerners and northern Nationalists tent to use the Irish Tricolour.

In terms of totally neutral, the four Provinces of Ireland flag is probably Your best bet for an all island, all Ireland flag, in My personal opinion, though again, the Irish Tricolour is as much the De Facto flag of the island as the old government of the north's flag is the De Facto flag of the Northern Ireland state. Though many Nationalists are offended by the usage of that particular flag, I doubt many would want to pass that offence onto others. So again, the four Provinces of Ireland might be best.

The sutiability or otherwise of a particular flag for some pipe-dream united ireland is not really the issue here, its which flag is used by the IRFU. Based on the lack of anyone refuting the source above, I think the "Irish Flags" box should be amended to remove the claim that the St Patrick's cross is used at rugby matches. beano 12:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Shannon the longest river in the British Isles

I just changed the article to describe the Shannon as the longest river in the British Isles as opposed to Ireland and Britain. For a start it should be Great Britain instead of Britain as that is the name of the island. Anyway, I changed this (even though it may be controversial) as the Shannon is the longest river in the entire archipeligo and not just the two main islands and this term is used in the article for the Shannon. Using "Ireland and Britain" seemed clumsy to me (does "Ireland" refer to the island or the state?) as you have to specify that you mean the geographical meaning of the terms rather than the political meaning (i.e the islands of Ireland and Great Britain) or use the formal names for the states (i.e. Republic of Ireland and the UK) otherwise it can be confusing.Jizz 11:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see that this was discussed in the politics section, but I stand by my point that Ireland and Britain is not a wise substitute for British Isles. Ireland and Great Britain is more correct but this excludes the Isle of Man and perhaps the Channel Islands too. Joke Prince suggestion: The islands formerly known as the British Isles Jizz 12:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The British Isles is quite an pointlessly offensive term to the people of Ireland. Although I personally have no strong feelings on the matter either way, I don't believe in offending people. Ireland, Britain and surrounding islands are the Western European Archipelago, so why not describle them as what they are? The Western European Archipelago.

I really think the Irish can get by with the Shannon being the longest river in Ireland. If you are going to say it is the longest river in 'Britain and Ireland' why not say the longest river in 'Britain and Ireland and Denmark'? It's silly, and it is patently politically inspired to leave out Denmark (or any other country) and place Ireland within a British context. As for the alternative inserted by Jizz, there is no need for the British political construct of the "British Isles". Removed the term for the (very obvious) reason cited by the above poster. El Gringo 15:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there's no need to even mention Britain. LOngest river in Ireland would suffice (Derry Boi 15:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Yes but British Isles is factually correct and when you are claiming the largest something you want to use as large a geographical area as possible. It is simply a geographical term for all the islands off the coast of Brittany. Ben W Bell talk 08:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the longest river in the Republic of Ireland then surely. Why include Northern Ireland in the statement as that is a different country entirely. Similarly you could say the largest river on the island of Ireland. I agree that it should be described as the longest river in the British Isles though. Why the term British Isles is offensive doesn't make much sense TBH.

Rational people everywhere realise that the Shannon is the longest river in Ireland, and that it's also the longest river in the British Isles. However, you won't get away with stating that fact here. The owners of the article will unrelentingly revert any such attempt to diseminate this, and other related facts. Arcturus 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ireland is part of the British Isles the same way that Mumbai is still Bombay, but if you say that to Arcturus and his ilk, you'll be branded as "irrational." Dppowell 21:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As noted in British_Isles#Problems_with_modern_usage_and_controversy, "British Isles" can mean that but it can also mean something different, politically. Not quite so "simple," I'm afraid.--Craig Stuntz 13:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

British Isles is the correct term and saying it is the longest river in the British Isles includes Ireland. This is a geographical term only and besides part of Ireland is BRITISH (if I had my way the whole of the Island would rejoin the United Kingdom where it belongs). It would seem the only ones that get "offended" by the term are the nationalistic fanatics in Southern Ireland. Everyone else in the British Isles is fine with the term, just like everyone else in the British Isles is fine with being within the United Kingdom. The Southern Irish are the ones out of line and out of place with thinking in the rest of the British Isles and need to get their act together. Once again, it's a GEOGRAPHICAL term only! YourPTR! 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Um...no. The Irish aren't out of line for not desiring to be British. And no, Ireland isn't British and therefore isn't part of the British Isles. IrishGuy 19:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You're partly right, Ireland isn't British in it's entirety, although part of it is. However, the island is part of the British Isles. It's just that you, DPpowell, MelForbes and others don't like to acknowledge it. Please draw me your map of the British Isles. Next you'll be telling me the British Isles don't exist. Arcturus 22:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, You should get out more!! 86.42.164.26 23:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I won't be telling you the British Isles don't exist. They do...they just don't include Ireland which isn't British. IrishGuy 23:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Irish Guy - I can't understand you guys. We all acknowledge that the Republic of Ireland isn't British, but the island of Ireland includes a part that is British. You cannot say that Ireland, the island, isn't British full stop. Ireland, the island, is a geographic notion, as is the British Isles, and the one is part of the other. This article is not about the Republic, it's about a geographic entity called Ireland. Arcturus 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand the other side because you choose not to. Ireland (the island) is not British. While you yourself said You cannot say that Ireland, the island, isn't British full stop the reverse is also true: You cannot say that Ireland, the island, is British full stop. As such, it is not part of the British Isles. One cannot take a smaller piece of a whole and use that small piece to claim ownership over the whole. IrishGuy 00:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For long historical reasons, most English-speakers on the planet when speaking of "The British Isles" understand it to include Ireland. Those more familiar with the history understand that there are some Irish people (and arguably more Irish Americans) who find that concept offensive. Personally (let me emphasize the personally), I don't see the term "British Isles" as an affront to the Republic of Ireland's nationhood but I do agree that it may bother some folks on a conceptual basis and deeply offend still others. That said, and having acknowledged that others will disagree, I feel that an encyclopedia should be bound by common usage of a phrase in the intended readership. If common usage of a phrase is egregiously offensive, usage of the offensive phrase becomes marginalized. I do not believe that this particular phrase comes close, even in Ireland. I have to ask myself this: if a 9-year-old looks up "British Isles" what should she or he find? That the term is not in the encyclopedia? That an artist formerly known as page will redirect to the freshly minted PC phrase. I don't think that this would be a useful outcome. These are just my thoughts as a native-born Paddy now living stateside, and are not directed particularlly at any of the previous contributers to this debate. I Wish you all a very merry Eurocentrically-imposed mid Winter festivalDmccabe 03:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow Irish Guy really has lost the plot! No one is claiming the Irish Republic is British when they include it in the British Isles. British Isles is not a political term. I'm sure the Southern Irish are fully aware of this but they keep pretending not to understand just to cause problems and be a nuisance. They seem to think the term Ireland means Irish Republic are they not hypocrites? Ireland is PARTIALlY British. Northern Ireland is British 100%! The rest of the Island is Irish. Northern Ireland is still Irish in the sense that England is English but both regions are also British. Republic of Ireland is Irish in the same sense that Northern Ireland and England are British. I'm not happy with this article, it still needs a lot of work and is far from being NPOV. For example, near the start it mentions that the Island is the 3rd largest in Europe but then it fails to mention it is the 2nd largest in the British Isles. Why not? Because of Southern Irish PRETENDING they don't understand what the term British Isles mean? They know perfectly well what it means and are just being akward. YourPTR! 04:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Lost the plot? I'm not sure you should be pointing fingers about trying to cause problems and be a nuisance while you egregiously broach the guidelines for civility. Frankly, Northern Ireland isn't 100% British as not everyone in Northern Ireland considers themselves British. Hence the problems up there. You obviously aren't happy with this article as it doesn't reflect your personal points of view. IrishGuy 05:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Northern Ireland is 100% British as it is part of the United Kingdom, it doesn't matter if a deluded minority do not think of themselves as such. They are still British because they are citizens and residents of the United Kingdom. It is a fact that around 90% of the inhabitants of the British Isles see Ireland as part of it and I bet a huge majority of the worlds population also see it the same way! We shouldn't let a small but fanatical minority who haven't got a clue what they are on about define what constitutes the British Isles. Ireland is part of the British Isles and Northern Ireland is British and part of the UK. It seems Irish Nationalists are determined to vandalise every article about the British Isles or the island of Ireland. They see the WHOLE of the island as theirs, when 17% of the island is British, is part of the British state and belongs to the British (shame it weren't more)! YourPTR! 07:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that British Nationalism is still very much alive and well!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.164.26 (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Sir, you bet it is and I will resist all attempts to undermine Ireland's status as A) partially British B) Northern Ireland being British and nothing else and C)Ireland being one of the major islands that makes up the British Isles. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN, QUEEN OF (Northern) IRELAND! YourPTR! 13:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't a venue for you to push your POV. IrishGuy 17:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jasus lads, wouldn't it be great if they start calling them the Irish Isles! (192.198.151.130 06:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)stoneill)

Éire is NOT Ireland in Irish

Éire is the official name of the Republic of Ireland, it is not "Ireland" in Irish. "Ireland in Irish is "Éireann".

Éire is the name of the state, in Irish, and most certainly not English. I understand that Éireann means of Ireland. Djegan 00:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you've been misinformed. Éire and Éireann are just two different forms of the Irish word for "Ireland", the latter being the genitive case. As Djegan says, Éire is the name of the state in Irish.--Ryano 09:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it's not: Ireland is the English for Éire. Talk about distorting the historical sequence. To equate Éire with the 26 counties, can we assume our anonymous user is British? As Djegan and Ryano point out, Éire is obviously the nominative case. Éireann is the genitive case as in Bus Éireann and Banc na hÉireann. Éire has been the name of Ireland for well over a millenia. You will find Éire used to refer to the island throughout Irish literature since the Early Christian period. There is no dispute about this among educated people. The etymology of the English word 'Ireland' itself derives from 'Éire' and the Germanic word 'land'. Derry, Ireland is simply the English for the original Doire Cholm Chille, Éire regardless of what states were invented in Ireland in the past century. El Gringo 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

'Éire' shows up on the stamps, and on the pre-Euro coins. Does that help?Dmccabe

It also shows up on euro coins!--Dub8lad1 16:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, this issue came up at ga.wikipedia in recent weeks, so I'll paraphrase what I said there. With reference to the dictionary Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla Uí Dhónaill, published by An Gúm:

• Éire is the Irish word which corresponds to the English Ireland. It is in the nominative case, and is as ambiguous as the word Ireland is (i.e. it can mean the whole island or just the Republic).
• Éireann is the genitive case of Éire - that is, it means of Ireland. Thus we have 'Uachtarán na hÉireann' (President of Ireland), 'Tuaisceart Éireann' (Northern Ireland, lit. north of Ireland) and so on.
• Éirinn is the dative case of Éire, and is only used in specific circumstances such as with prepositions - for example, 'go hÉirinn', to Ireland; 'in Éirinn', in Ireland; 'd'Éirinn', for Ireland; 'le hÉirinn', with Ireland; etc.

--Kwekubo 23:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Edits

Will people please use the "Preview" button instead of making multiple consecutive edits! A user called "SeanMack" made 21 edits over two days when two or three would have been enough. Patrick 13.55, 15 April 2006.

And will people, in this case you, please not change others talk page comments, as you've done directly above this to El Gringo's comments? --Kiand 13:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry one or 2 edits would not have been enough. I find people on wikipedia are SO quick to criticise others. Did I vandalise? No. Did I add rubbish? No. I added references which this article was badly lacking. I spent a long time between edits trying to find sites online that would backup what was being said in the article. Plus, when I was doing this I had to correct facts, which should have been correct in the first place. Can I ask a question big man, is your criticism because I fixed up an article or some other reason. Did I use up some finite resource doing what I did? Again I don't think so. As far as I remember multiple edits do not cost anything, it seems to me you are being sh***y without reason. Really what is your point? SeanMack 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC) BTW every time I used preview to make sure the reference I added was added correctly. You try and add more than 20 references to an article without coming across an edit conflict or a computer crash - which tends to happen with me with multiple tabs open in firefox on XP... BTW I did not touch the talk page apart from nominate the article as a Good Article... SeanMack 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have reverted the changes — its generally frowned on to change any editors comments, except for instance if they are a personal attack, libelous etc in which case they may be removed. Djegan 13:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right about 'editing' the comments page. Sorry about that: I obviously forgot that it wasn't the article page I was commenting on.

To "SeanMack", who's all hot under the collar: I didn't read through the 21 revisions you say you needed to update the article. All I saw was 21 consecutive edits. A while ago "Denniss" rightly told me off (quite nicely!) for doing about 12 consecutive edits when he felt 2/3 would have done. I assume this must relate to systems overuse, or whatever, but why shouldn't the same rule apply to all?

To Misplaced Pages: I would like to complain about SeanMack's use of bad langauge towards me. S****y is a word I object to. Action, anyone?

You are quite right, I lost my cool. As I mentioned my PC was crashing a lot and I was losing work, I did try to bundle some of the refs together and if I had realised that multiple edits were so frowned upon I would have tried harder to bundle more together. I also take you point about language, it was over the top, and I have moderated my comments. I let my frustrations get the better of me. It seemed at the time I was being criticised for doing something that wikipedia needs more of, and that's making sure article facts can be independently checked. I should never have let the frustrations of my own pc and the criticism get to me. Please accept my apologies. SeanMack 14:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, Misplaced Pages needs people to work to improve the wonderful work done to date. Keep it up. Patrick

Why the hell would multiple edits be frowned upon? I've never heard so much nonsense in my life. It seems to me that some people just search for any possible excuse to be annoying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.53.183 (talk • contribs) date.

Country Stats

Where have the country stats, that are used in all of the country articles, gone?

Ironcorona 06:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the island not about the country, for the country see Republic of Ireland, aslo see Northern Ireland. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Huuum. But the country isn't called the Republic of Ireland. Which can be quite confusing. Ironcorona 17:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The first line is

This article is about the island; for the state also called Ireland, see Republic of Ireland. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation).

I'm not sure how much more clear this article could be? Jizz 22:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Also consider that the the official description of the state is Republic of Ireland. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe the word "Republic" is even used once in the constitution. Where do you get the official description from? And as to what Jizz says above... Yes, I'm an idiot but... I dunno, it seems we have the only country in the world that is commonly named after it's own football team. Perhaps the article on the Island of Ireland should be called "island_of_ireland" and the article on the state should be called "ireland". That seems more logical. It seems that most of what appears in the article describing the island belongs in the article describing the state anyway. Ironcorona 01:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND ACT, 1948, Republic of Ireland Act, anyway this is an issue that has been numeriously discussed before. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I accept that. I didn't know it'd been talked about before. Thanks for the link Ironcorona 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

N/P --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Names of Ireland

For an informal merger discussion see Wikipedia_talk:Irish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Names_of_Ireland.

Djegan 20:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

External links

I was looking at the external likns, and after remoivg some basic spam links to external boards, i noticed that their are a fair amount of republic specific links. Considering that this article is not about the republic and about the island as a whole, i think that the country specific and non cultural links should be removed. Any objections? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 19:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Collins

How can an article about Ireland not include a reference and information about Michael Collins? I looked at the article for the first time today. It may never be a FA if there is no reference to Michael Collins. Mfields1 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the Island of Ireland, not the state. I would imagine that Republic of Ireland would be the place for Michael Collins stuff (and indeed, he's mentioned in the history section). Martin 01:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, despite what the film may have portrayed, he wasn't as important as most of the world outside of Ireland seems to think.... --Kiand 01:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have few political allegiances however Kiand may belong to another group altogether. I have tracked their comments across different pages and they are very pointed in their design. Let us be clear, whatever your political affiliation in Ireland, Michael Collins was immensely important. In the context of the Twentieth Century probably in the top three.

Is Ireland, or is it not, the second largest of the British Isles?

This article is about Geography, not Politics. It is a fact that the island of Ireland is the second largest of the British Isles. This is borne out in very many sources, including Misplaced Pages List of the British Isles by area. Some people might not like this, but there's nothing that can be done about it; it remains a fact. We are not here to placate the sensibilities of a particular group. It matters not if no-one in the Republic of Ireland uses this term, or even if they all find it offensive, because it is used elsewhere and there's even a lengthy Misplaced Pages article on it. I would urge certain users to stop removing facts because they don't like the particular terminology associated with them. Don't forget, the island of Ireland is not exclusively the territory of the Republic of Ireland. Part of the island is British - part of Irleand is British. Having said that, this is about geography. Another point: I find it childish that two editors (User:Sarah777 and User:MelForbes) have combined to overcome the 3RR rule and remove the fact that Ireland is the second largest of the British Isles. Incidently, the River Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles - that is also a fact. Arcturus 16:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

NO, Ireland is NOT part of the BRITISH Isles....

I certainly don't live on a British island. I live in Dublin. The "British Isles" was a geographical term invented when the islands dominated by the London Government. Persia was once inhabited by Persians. Names change to reflect demographic and political change. You can't get Peking Duck in Peking anymore, there is no such place as Siam. The entire Spanish speaking world knows "The Falklands" as the "Malvinas". There is no such thing as "politically neutral" geographic names.

I might also add that some of the "British" contributors here lend way too much authority to colonial British Law in supporting their definitions of Irish and British.

And "the Shannon is the longest river in Ireland or Britain" is how most Irish people would put it, avoiding a political pov.

(Sarah777 19:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC))

Sarah, no one is saying you live on a British island (political), but like it or not, you do live in the British Isles (geographical). You cannot abolish a geographical entity simply because you don't agree with the concept. If you don't want to acknowledge that the Republic of Ireland is in the British Isles (actually it is) then take it up at that article. This article is about geography and includes an area of land that is not part of the Republic of Ireland. British Isles is a widely accepted term throughtout the world and we have an article about it here on Misplaced Pages. You are denying the fact of the matter. Arcturus 21:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Take it up with the article? The one that has a preface which states: The term "British Isles" can be confusing and is objectionable to some people, particularly in Ireland. See the Terminology section below for details of the controversy. and later goes on to note In October 2006, Irish educational publisher Folens announced that it was removing the term British Isles from its popular school atlas from January 2007. That article? Seeing as how that article itself takes great pains to illustrate how controversial that term is, how can you possibly use that as an argument to add the term into other articles? IrishGuy 00:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If Arcturus or anyone who supports his position can find a contemporary (say, last ten years) reference to the British Isles on a map or in a geography text that was not produced in Britain, there may be an argument for retaining its use in this article. His effective assertion that the term's use is immune to the march of history is so obviously laughable that I suspect he's trolling (and enjoying the rise he's getting out of everyone). Yes, it's correct that Ireland is part of the "British Isles." It's also true that the Navajo tribes of the U.S. southwest are "Indians", if one insists on using obsolete labels. By the way, since I'm here, I'd like to point out to everyone in the UK and Ireland that the liquid you fill your cars' fuel tanks with is, in fact, gas--not "petrol", whatever that is. If you don't want to acknowledge that you're actually buying gas, take it up at that article.  ;-) Dppowell 01:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean something like this , from National Geographic, no less! Arcturus 08:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Touché! As I said above, though, that's merely one piece of evidence (the first you've produced, as far as I can tell from my admittedly hasty overview of the discussion) to support an extremely contentious assertion. Labels are not "geographical entities" like mountains or oceans. They do change. They change to reflect evolving knowledge, understanding, and, yes, sensibilities. I understand the desire to stem the often-insidious tide of political correctness, but at some point that becomes more obstinacy than noble traditionalism. It's clear which way the wind is blowing on this label. Why intentionally bat the hornets' nest? Dppowell 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The example from NG is one of thousands available online. They depict the British Isles as a geographic entity, including Ireland. The term "British Isles" scores 9.1 million Google hits (not exactly scientific, I know, but a good indicator - "Republic of Ireland" scores 8 million). The truth of the matter is that the term is used widely across the world. Only in the Republic of Ireland is it not favoured, and I bet it's only a voiciferous minority who object to it there. Funny thing is, I don't have a problem with Irish Sea at all. Unless someone can come up with a geographic reason as to why Irleand is not the second largest island in the British Isles I will re-instate this basic fact in the article. This article is for readers, not editors with a grudge. Arcturus 17:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There's already a NPOV-friendly reference to the British Isles (and the attendant controversy) in the article. That should be sufficient. Dppowell 02:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Argghh!!! I live in the Americas but most Canadians and South Americans I know do not want to be styled with any appellation denoting that ( excluding America which by an anamoly of English has already been taken by citizens of the States). Even though it is a geographic fact borne of history. I also know many Pakistanis who do not want it mentioned that their country is on the Indian subcontinent. Ah, history thou art a hideous bitch goddess!Gary Joseph 00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The use of the word "British Isles" is an old and out dated term that goes back to when Britian ruled Ireland. The new edition of the Follens World Atlas published in Ireland has rightly removed this term. This signifies a new outlook on how we view this region and the future of the word will be up for discussion I'm sure, but the political comment (if any)on this action is yet to be heard.

Adding flag icons to the header

I propose attaching flag icons to the header of this article for NI and ROI. The majority of people on the island know that the red cross is representative of 'Northern Ireland' and the tri-colour as the 'Rep. of Ireland'. Outsiders visiting the article may skip the italicised header and go straight to the main content. Simple flag icons would catch their eye and assist then in finding the article of the state they might need. I've seen this used before in other Wiki articles, Taiwan for example.

This is how it might look:

I can't see how it would have a negative effect on the article as a whole. Any thoughts? Wiki01916 03:20, 9 October 2006 (GMT)

The NI flag as shown is no longer an official flag and is never used- I believe (top of head) NI now technically represented by the symbol on the NI Assembly website. The Union Flag would be a far better choice as it remains an official flagWeggie 09:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The corporate logo of the Northern Ireland Assembly isn't used anywhere to represent Northern Ireland (other than the assembly itself). The Union Flag is the only 'official' symbol, with the old Government of Northern Ireland flag used for some purposes to represent Northern Ireland as an individual territory\region\country\statelet. In this case the Union Flag would only add to the confusion. Best to leave the header as it is. « Keith » 20:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Economy

Can someone back this up? Coming from an Irish agricultural background, I would have to say that the opposite is true i.e. tillage is usually more profitable on a large scale, Also I've never heard of this change of policy before, a reference would be nice:

"De Valera focused on agriculture again, but this time on tillage farming, as this favoured the small farmers, whereas cattle farming benefited the larger farmers."

Also, I've heard from several sources that the economic war with Britian resulted in severe hardships, and I've never heard anyone suggest that there was a favourable outcome to the Republic at the end of it. If a reasonably good reference for this paragraph in the economy section is not found I think that it should be significantly rewritten.

134.102.186.220 12:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Sean_0, also 2 November 2006 17:39

Sport

"Gaelic football and hurling are the most popular sports in Ireland"

While this may be true for the South I doubt its true for Northern Ireland (I'd of thought football). Is there any official figures that could be found to show that its the most popular sport in the two countries and not just the south? --Alanewing1 09:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• I personally don't know any exact figures, but I do know the popultion in the Republic is about four times the North. On top of that Gaelic sports and very popular in the North. I think it would be a pretty good educated guess that the gaelic sports are most popular in Ireland. codu (/) 17:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The population ratio is 2.5:1, not 4:1. I think collectively gaelic games are the most popular, but individually I think hurling is roughly level with soccer in terms or participation. Fasach Nua 17:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess this shows what I know!

Gaelic football, the most popular of the GAA games, is played by 8 per cent of male adults and at that is the fourth most commonly played sport among males in Ireland (after golf, soccer and swimming) (Fahey et al. 2004, p. 22). Hurling is played by 5 per cent (ibid.) Gaelic football and hurling together have a share of the adult male playing population somewhat less than that of soccer (which amounts to 17 per cent when 5-a-side soccer is included – ibid.)

Taken from the Irish sports council ] Fasach Nua 17:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The North/The South

I was under the impression that these were POV terms, at the very least they should be ‘the north’ or ‘the south’? I changed a couple of instances in the article; maybe someone has a better grasp of the issue. Sorry if I have got the wrong end of the stick.  Keithology  "Talk"  12:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Keith, your edit is not allowed, but you don't need to change it back. One of the article's owners will do that for you. Arcturus 14:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, two things:

1. "your edit is not allowed" on what grounds?
2. "the article's owners"?

There appears to be some confusion these are the three changes I was referring to.  Keithology  "Talk"  15:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the sarcasm. In the past when I've tryed to add factual material to this article it just hasn't been allowed/accepted. There is a group of editors who ensure that a Republic of Ireland POV is maintained here, and they will mercilessly revert anything that doesn't adhere to their views. Have a look at the edit history, and some of the comments on this Talk page. Cheers, Arcturus 15:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I know what you mean.  Keithology  "Talk"  16:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Arcturus, in accordance with his apparently standard M.O., is expressing his frustration with our (collective, consensus-based) attempts to combat Anglocentric terms and language, which he feels espouse a Republican POV. He dismisses the obvious, ongoing controversy over the term British Isles (a controversy which contributors have attempted to explicitly acknowledge in NPOV-friendly language) as the grumblings of a few extremists, imposes so-called "geographical facts" (also known as subjective labels; "The Panama Canal transects an isthmus" is a geographic fact) on the article and calls the inevitable reversions POV. In fact, Keith, I've performed a vandalism revert since your edit, leaving your changes intact, because I'm not familiar enough with the POV/NPOV status of the terms in question. If someone else feels that your edit was inappropriate, I hope they'll discuss it here before acting.Dppowell 16:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hibernia?

I didn't want to revert without discussion, but does the ancient Roman name for Ireland need to be the second word in the article? Dppowell 22:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, nope! I just backed it out on a vandalism cleanup. It's hardly appropriate and smacks of Oirishness - Alison 05:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Reversions to 81.104.174.7 edits

I reverted the last two edits from this IP; I'm not sure any of the edits added anything really necessary to the article, but I try to err on the side of inclusion. The last two edits, however, could reasonably be labeled as POV. I was less sure about the first two and would welcome another pair of eyeballs. Will drop a note on that IP's talk page, too. Dppowell 00:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Catholic v Roman Catholic etc.

I don't want to get into a discussion on terms but at present several of the words used go to articles not about the intended subject: e.g. X% are Catholic goes to a disambiguation page on Catholicism and Catholic Church goes to a redirect page. Neither are ideal: redirects are bad for WP overall (it will get fixed by a bot eventually anyway) and bad article links give users a bad experience. However, I don't really want to sort them out through fear of being perceived in an article where I have almost no knowledge (beyond the odd holiday) of trying to switch any meaning. Could one of the regulars have a go? --BozMo talk 18:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the confused linkage is just a function of how many different editors have assembled this article, not of some kind of disagreement over what "Catholic" should link to. Would anyone object to my pointing all the affected links to Roman Catholic Church? Dppowell 20:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Divisions

In the first paragraph, it states;

Politically it is divided into a sovereign state, the Republic of Ireland, that covers about five-sixths of the island (south, east, west and north-west), and Northern Ireland, which is part of the United

If memory serves there is a small area of soverign US soil at Shannon airport, handed over in the 1960s, does anyone know what I am thinking of? 86.12.249.63 11:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• You're thinking of United States border preclearance — according to that article and the Dáil debate linked Irish law still applies in the precleared area. Demiurge 12:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ulster

the article states:

....although the historic province of Ulster also includes the counties Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan, which are in the Republic

The border of any province has not been static, cuchullain lived south of Drogheda, and I would never call him a Leinster man! I would propose we change this too;

....although the historic province of Ulster also extended into the what currently constitutes the Republic

any objections? Fasach Nua 22:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

British Isles template

I wish to include the template Template:British Isles on the Ireland page, according to British Isles with this map. Ireland is clearly within the British Isles.

Despite making the template unbiased and including features Irish-reltaed i.e. Four provincies flag, the template continues to be removed.

I am not trying to antagonise, but should very much like to see the Ireland page including the following template

If I were to change the name to something like Great Britain and Ireland (British Isles) would the template be accepted?

Thankyou

Lofty 14:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ireland isn't British, hence it isn't a part of the British Isles. Were the name to be changed it might be more acceptable. IrishGuy 14:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I shall change the name. However, I still do not understand the point. I am not attempting to impose a British identity on you. Ireland is not British no (well at the Republic of Ireland isn't), but it is still within the geographical region known as the British Isles. I think that this is going round in circles...Thankyou Lofty 15:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a pretty contentious area, and we've had other folks involved in the British Isles question attempt to push POV here in the past. That said, Lofty, I am assuming good faith about your intentions regarding this template. The problem is that lots of people (including me) see the term as an outdated holdover from the days of empire and British hegemony over the whole of the island. Is there a version of the template we can use (or create) which acknowledges the archipelago without the imperial connotations? Dppowell 15:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou very much Dppowell. A proper answer. I can understand your point. I have changed the name to "Great Britain and Ireland (The British Isles)", although I could see how that has the potential to imply Irish subserviancy to Great Britain...Maybe I ought to leave it after all? Lofty 15:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be okay with just "Great Britain and Ireland", provided all the constituent flags got equal billing. There are others who feel somewhat more strongly about the issue, however. I think consensus is possible as long as everyone assumes good faith, but given the history of both Republican and Unionist POV-pushing on this article (and so many other Ireland-related articles) we might have to engage in some testy discussions to just to get to the "good faith" point. Then we'll have to wrangle over the template itself. (This is just my guess of how it will go, I could easily be wrong.) I'm willing to give it a go. Dppowell 15:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As noted in the British Isles article, the Irish government's policy is that the term is not used by the government and is without any official status. As such, I think consensus should be gathered on the talk page before adding the template to the article. IrishGuy 15:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep cool and continue to assume Lofty's good faith. We've each reverted once already, and Lofty is trying to make agreeable changes. Others will join this discussion soon. I'd love to see a genuine consensus over how to acknowledge the islands' relationship emerge from a discussion on this page; it would be a minor triumph of the Misplaced Pages model. Dppowell 15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to hammer out a legitimate consensus about this issue. I simply feel that it will inflame the situation by putting the template on the article before a serious discussion takes place. IrishGuy 15:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, sorry about adding the template again guys. Ok, so the current proposal is "Great Britain and Ireland"? I can see that I have created a monster. There will probably be complaints from Scottish Nationalists too about the term "Great Britain". I may be fighting a loosing battle. Interested to hear more thoughts. Lofty 15:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have avoided the British Isles page like the plague, because I think the atmosphere over there is poisoned beyond repair, and it's contagious. The last time a veteran of that battle tried to force the term into this article, I let myself get sucked into the flames and wasn't proud of myself afterwards. It's crucial that everyone in the discussion try to avoid thinking of it in terms of winning or losing a nationalist edit war. Beneath all the layers of noise, there are very sound arguments on both sides. Let's hash them out, be creative, and if we're really lucky we can establish a cross-article model for dealing with this issue. Dppowell 15:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

After having a short think on this, I'd like to toss in these statements as a litmus test.

• The term British Isles, which traditionally includes Ireland, has been in use for a long time and is considered valid for common use by a large number of people, including many with absolutely no emotional investment in the issue.
• The term British Isles can very easily be perceived as an expression of British hegemony over the Republic of Ireland and is considered offensive by a significant number of people.

I'd like to humbly propose that everyone who signs on to this debate acknowledge the validity of both statements. If we can do that, we have a starting point. Dppowell 16:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Slavery has also been in use for a long time, and has been considered a valid concept by dominant cultures for quite a long time. I guess that must make it legitimate then? 89.100.195.42 17:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a wee bit extreme, don't you think? I don't know that analogies like that are helpful to the conversation at hand. IrishGuy 18:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls! Dppowell 18:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? The only troll here is the person who is trying to ram this "British Isles" jingoism of British imperialist myths into an article about Ireland. When another nation (never mind one with Britain's sanguine history against the Irish people) forces their nationalist myths on to the representation of your home country (which clearly is not Ireland), come back to us and tell us how you feel without your voice and that of your people. In the meantime, get over yourself. Thank you. 89.100.195.42 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least Lofty can see what I was talking about when this discussion began. Exhibit A.  :) Dppowell 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.77.179.85 (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I have just noticed that this template is on the Republic of Ireland page, which seems strange as, atlhough in the British Isles, does not have British nationality, whereas Northern ireland, which comprises part of the island of Ireland is both British Isles and british nationality, and yet the template can't go on this page which covers in part Northern Ireland. Lofty 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lofty, I understand your situation and accept that you don't mean anything offensive. Dppowell, yeah, I also accept both your points - and think that its important that others accept them too in order to keep a cool head on this situation - but I think it is also relevant to acknowledge that Britain and Ireland are two separate islands and therefore using one term or the other to refer to both would imply a ordinate-subordinate relationship (try saying "Irish Isles" as an imaginary entity encompassing the islands of Great Britain and Ireland; or the more tangible title of "European Isles").

As for the template Lofty, the follow need to be updated:

• Irish Free State needs to be included in the historical states section (Southern Ireland, too?)
• "List of Islands of: England • Ireland • Scotland • Wales" - change the word "island" to "countries" (include Norther Ireland, but then need to change "country"?)
• "History: British society • British language" - Needs serious revision - Ireland is not included in this at all since it is not a part of Britain (uncontroversial), also references to "society" should be in a "society/culture" section
• "Irish Gaelic" should be changed to "Irish," common/proper name for the language
• Add "British" to list or peoples

Change these and I'd be happy with its contents.

Now for the contentious part: "Archipelago of the British Isles." My personal opinion is this: the term is associated with the period of British (viz: English) rule over Ireland, as has been for a long time. Semantically, it is incorrect (would contend always have been but certainly is today): What would you call someone coming from the "British Isles"? British? But Irish people are not British. (There is also the more emotive argument: British Isles -> islands belonging to Britain -> (?) Ireland does not belong to Britain)

Might I suggest changing the title to something less controversial such as "Ireland and the UK" or "Great Britain and Ireland" or "The Archipelago of Great Britain and Ireland" (Or go wild and brave "The Anglo-Celtic Isles" or the really PC Islands of the North Atlantic!). --sony-youth 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done up a new template - maybe it is more acceptable. I do think that a common template among British and Irish related pages would be welcome. The Irish pages could use the variant appropriate to Ireland as per wikipedia guidelines, and the same for Britain-related pages (can't find the specific section right now, but similar to disputes between British and American English).

Template:Archipelago of Great Britain and Ireland

--sony-youth 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it, though I think it should just be "Great Britain and Ireland" (or optionally "Ireland and Great Britain" if folks take exception to the sequence). Or one of the other established alternative labels. As far as I know, the "The Archipelago of Great Britain and Ireland" would be something we just invented here and therefore would violate WP:NOR. Dppowell 03:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I meant it solely in a descriptinve sense (such as, describing "the countries of Western Europe"). Great Britain and Ireland seems to me like the most broadly acceptable comprimise (for Ireland-related pages), although it does put the Isle of Man in an ambigious (maybe even equally offended) position. Great Britain, Ireland & the Isle of Man would cover everything in a completely neutral tone. What if "archipelago" was put in not-bold, would it emphasise that it is meant as a description rather than a definition? i.e. The Archipelago of Great Britain and Ireland. Seems to me a complicated and silly looking. --sony-youth 15:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Lofty and Sony-youth, give up now! The owners of this article are not going allow you or anyone else to have any reference to Britain, British Isles, or any word commencing Brit..., anywhere in this article, apart from perhaps in an historical context. I suggest you find another Wiki where censorship and bigotry don't rule the day. Arcturus 18:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

/sigh Dppowell 18:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote Dppowell "The Shannon is not the longest river in the British Isles" /sigh, sigh, sigh. Arcturus 18:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, I never said any such thing. Dppowell 18:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK - so can I re-instate this fact in the article, together with "Ireland is the second largest island of the British Isles"? Arcturus 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean, can you willfully offend the constituency (which you concede exists and which has previously voiced itself on this article umpteen times in the past) that objects to that usage for contemporary Ireland? No, I think it's safe to say that you can't. As you said, I think that's only going to meet the bar within a historical context. This is why I put those "litmus test" statements at the top of the discussion. If you accept both of them (which you seem to, judging from some of your other contributions), and still take a hard line on "British Isles or bust," you're effectively saying that you either wish to offend or don't care that you're giving offense. Dppowell 19:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Arcturus, in your world, it's all the "British Isles" or it's wrong. Clearly, the consensus ran against you on that. Instead of taking a constructive approach to the discussion, your reaction has been to call all of the people who frustrated your POV insertions "bigots" and "censors" while surreptitiously trying to get your personal versions of the articles enshrined on the Misplaced Pages CD. Lofty has attempted to reopen the question under good faith auspices. And...amazingly!....people engaged him intelligently. If you're not willing or able to follow his example, please do us the courtesy of abstaining. Dppowell 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Arcturus, if anyone ever tell you that they "own" an article on Misplaced Pages, direct them here. If they then tell you that your way is wrong and their way is right, don't reply by saying that, "No, in fact, my way is right, and your way is wrong." Instead, direct them here.

What's your opinion on the proposal to include the template but with the name changed to reflect something close to what we all can agree on? We may not all get our way, but since you argue that Ireland does in fact belong to the British Isles - would you disagree to a template for that archipelago being included in the Ireland page? Albeit, with a descriptive title rather that a name. --sony-youth 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sony-youth, I'm broadly in favour of the template, but I wonder if it's a bit on the large side. It somehow needs reducing in size while still keeping the proposed content. Regarding the title, "British Isles", as simple as that, would normally be OK to use and I would favour that term. It's used in Misplaced Pages elsewhere. However, in this article you'll never get away with it. Personally I don't like the word "archipelago" here. The islands really aren't an archipelago. "Great Britain and Ireland" isn't inclusive enough, and its use would be misleading. Given that "British Isles" won't be allowed, I would suggest "United Kingdom and Ireland" or "Ireland and United Kingdom", probably the latter in this case; it's alphabetical, and the article is actually about Ireland. However, if you want a straw poll on this, put me down for "British Isles". Arcturus 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"United Kingdom and Ireland" or the reverse is fine with me. Dppowell 20:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a thought: I count twelve uses of "British Isles" (sic) on this talk page. What if we were to use "British Isles" as such in the template - as in Great Britain and Ireland - Archipelago of the "British Isles"? The quotes would not not have the meaning of 'so-called', but rather, as Lofty says at the very top of this section, to denote a 'geographical region known as the "British Isles."' I think if you're going to convince Irish readers/editors that it's 'only a name' it's no harm to highlight it as 'only a name'.

As I say: just a thought. Scolaire 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that almost every single person (if not all of them) pushing for the term "British" are British themselves, not Irish. There are virtually no Irish people pushing for that term. Would we allow seven Americans to tell the English editors what their country should be called? IrishGuy 21:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it in terms of 'pushing'. As I see it, no Irish person has a viable alternative name for it (and plenty of Irish people do say "British Isles" without even thinking). I'm just saying that if it's frequently referred to as the "British Isles", then let's say exactly that: not British Isles but "British Isles".

I think we need to be very careful about matching up perceived ethnic or national identities with editorial motivations, because that's when it starts getting nasty. The salient points here are 1) lots of people, including some in Ireland, use the term "British Isles" while including Ireland and think nothing of it and 2) lots of people (enough to cause changes in government verbiage and compel at least one atlas publisher to discontinue use of the term) feel that "British Isles" is an invalid expression of British hegemony. Both views have some validity. The goal should be to find a middle ground between them. As soon as we start thinking "He's British, of course he wants unqualified usage of 'British Isles'," we're sunk. Dppowell 21:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinion You absolutely MUST change "Scots Gaelic" to "Scottish Gaelic" in your template. Moran taing. -- Evertype·✆ 10:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gabh mo leithscéal, ní raibh mé cinnte faoin t-ainm ceart. (Sorry, I wasn't certain about the proper name.) --sony-youth 10:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Enya??

Why so much about Enya? I know she has sold a lot of records but she is nowhere near as important as U2(they seem to be simply a footnote to Enya in this article) Culture wise, Thin Lizzy, Rory Gallagher, Horslips and even contemporary acts like 'the Frames and Snow patrol command as much detail, if not more, than Enya recieves in this article. I would correct it myself but I'm not sure my writing style is in keeping with the Misplaced Pages format. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackdev (talk • contribs) 00:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Write away! The community will edit if the style is that far off (and it probably is fine anyway). But I agree, let's emphasize the dominant forces of Irish music.Dmccabe 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What Dmccabe said. Do it up! Dppowell 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Common "British Isles" Template

I've made a new template. My proposal is that this template be used across all pages that related to the "British Isles." However, the title of this page is user defined, so it can be different from page to page. The advantage, I propose, of this solution is that a particular "Irish" "British Isles" template will not fork from other related pages. It will also allow us to continue the debate on the term, without disrupting other work. I propose that each community (UK, Scotland, Wales, etc.) decides independently on the title that they see fit.

The code is as follows: {{British Isles (common)|Title Will Go Here}}

The template follows, please comment on it and proposed names below. (Apologies, if it appears that I have the first word.)

Template:British Isles (common)

General Comments on Revised Template and General Proposal

(Please make general comments on the template - such as revisions to comments, etc. - here, and specific arguments for or against the template below.)

So on this template, a different name can be used for each page? What a brilliant idea. I didn't know that that could be done. Well, it looks as though I'm just about done, as the title applying specifically to the Ireland page will be no longer any of my business. Thanks everyone. Lofty 13:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I do very much like the template though , and for the Ireland page "Great Britain and Ireland" seems like a fine compromise, although this does have a certain amount of ambiguity. However, I can't think of a better description than "British Isles", which I understand is not acceptable. Do you think that the latest limerik on User:Jtdirl's page is related to theis discussion.....? Lofty 18:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have permanently signed off a few weeks ago, so I doubt it. But it speaks to the legendary contentiousness of this issue on Misplaced Pages. I'm pleased that we've kept the discussion amicable, so far, though I still suspect that extremists on both sides will start howling when the agreed template actually goes up. Dppowell 21:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For

• The Ireland page is specifically about the island of Ireland, which shares a geographic space with what is widely called (rightly or wrongly) "the British Isles." The nations of this region share a common and intertwined history and culture. It is presumable that a reader of the article may be interested in reading more about other places and peoples in the area. Related articles already use a similar template. Using a user-definable title would allow the Ireland article to participate in this exchange between articles while at the same time retaining the objections made above relating to the use of the term, "British Isles." --sony-youth 11:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Against

Proposed Titles for the Ireland Page

(Please add more, if necessary.)

British Isles

• This is the best option, because it's correct and is understood throughout the world. Arcturus 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Without heavy qualification, this is a non-starter. It completely fails to acknowledge the objections to the term. Dppowell 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ireland and the UK

• Does not include the Isle of Man (not part of UK or Ireland). --sony-youth 11:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland

Great Britain, Ireland & the Isle of Man

• Most inclusive, in my humble opinion. Great Britain may or may not include the Isle of Man - the Isle of Man article does not mention the word "Britain" once - using "Great Britain and Ireland" without including the Isle of Man may cause as much offense as the term "British Isles' did here. Politically neutral - avoids naming states, only states the geographic members. --sony-youth 11:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Sounds good to me. I find myself idly wondering whether the Channel Islands should also be under this template's umbrella, but I'm not familiar enough with their status. Dppowell 16:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be almost certain they are not - their article describes them as belonging to the "part of the British Islands, not to be confused with the British Isles." The "British Isles" article, shows their location but puts them outside of the "British Isles." Geographically, they are a part of France. Politically, they are not a part of the UK. --sony-youth 17:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Channel Islands aren't within the British Isles, strictly speaking. Arcturus 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Great Britain, Ireland & the Isle of Mann" seems like a fine compromise, although this does have a certain amount of ambiguity. However, I can't think of a better description than "British Isles", which I understand is not acceptable. "Great Britain, Ireland & the Isle of Mann" also seems to affirm the difference between Great Britain and Ireland, as its list-like nature doesn't seem to offend. Lofty 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't like this one. In geographical terms it excludes alll the island groups around Scotland and elsewhere. It's also too unwieldy as a title. Arcturus 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I like this one, more accurate. MelForbes 22:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Mel, what's accuracy got to do with it? The point is, it excludes the likes of Shetland, Orkney, Scilly Isles and many others. You obviously know that Great Britain is just a single island. Arcturus 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Arcturus, I'm surprised to disagree with you on this matter, but are not the Orkney and Shetland islands a part of Scotland, and so a part of Great Britain? Similarly, are not the Scilly Isles a part of Cornwall/England and so also also a part of Great Britain? Ireland too has many islands. We cannot mention them all. I agree with you that a single name for the whole region (i.e. something akin to "the British Isles") would be the best solution, but it's not workable, so, just so much as "the British Isles" generalises, let's also generalise to an extent - without unnecessary exclusion or offense. --sony-youth 03:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Sony-youth, as I understand it Great Britain is simply a geographic term meaning the large island, otherwise known as the "British Mainland". It excludes all other islands. I'll check again on this, buit I'm fairly sure this is the case. Arcturus 11:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah! just checked here - Great Britain. It seems like there's two meanings; the strict geographical term meaning the mainland only, then the so-called geo-political term which includes all the territories of the UK except Northern Ireland. It really is getting difficult. Maybe we've got to go with United Kingdom, Ireland & the Isle of Man after all. As I said earlier, it's a bit unwieldy, but at least it clarifies that we don't include the Channel Islands - and I think it's right that we don't. My preference is still British Isles (without quotes) as per the current template at British Isles, but failing that, then as suggested above.Arcturus 11:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom, Ireland & the Isle of Man

• Would also lend my support to this, since there seem to be concerns about the inclusiveness of "Great Britain." Dppowell 00:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm - never though of this - depending on what Arcturus and Lofty say, I might agree with this also. I trust Arcturus' opinion, despite our disagreement above, on whether this is suitable or not. It does, however, have political connotations (like "British Isles", I argue), by naming an actual an unmistakable state, rather than just a strictly geographic description. --sony-youth 04:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

When I created the template, I was aiming to create it about the geographical region of the British Isles, IONA, whatever you want to call them, so I think that naming states isn't such a good idea, especially as it might suggest political bias. i.e. in favour of unionism etc. Lofty 11:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative names such as IONA, Anglo-Celtic Isles or the West European Isles

• Not well known: does not avoid neologisms. --sony-youth 11:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Islands of the North Atlantic ("British Isles"). I don't like IONA as an acronym, and I believe in acknowledging the common use of the term "British Isles", as I stated above. Scolaire 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Corrib Gas Field

Corrib Gas Field. Firstly, I have no involvement whatsoever in the anti-Shell protests around the Corrib gas field of Mayo and never have (in fact I left Ireland about four months ago and am no living abroad). Even before I left however, it would have been something of an understatement to call the protests against Shell small and localised. Throughout the country here is a serious (and possibly grounded) level of protest against the manner in which the Corrib Gas line is being constructed. This should be noted.

Then it should be easy to cite a reference for any descriptions to that effect. Dppowell 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"British Isles" template discussions

Okay, taking my life into my hands I'm going to act on the "British Isles" template discussions.

To me the outcome looks like this:

There were no objections to a compromise template reflecting the groups of islands known as the British Isles being appended to the Ireland article. A new template was made which could be used across all articles relating to this group of islands, but with a title definable page by page.

What title to use on the Ireland page was discussed from a list of proposed title. "Great Britain, Ireland & the Isle of Man" and "UK, Ireland and the Isle of Man" stood out among these. Either of these would be generally acceptable, but there were preferences one-way-or-the-other for both. The first of these recieved four supports and one against. The latter of the two proposals got one strong support, a weak support and an against.

Going by this, is it okay to say "Great Britain, Ireland and the Isle of Man" is an acceptable name for the template on the Ireland article?

The new tempalte, formerly at Template:British Isles (common) has been moved to Template:British Isles, article that had linked to the redundant template have been updated. I'm now going to try to insert the template into the Ireland article (wish me luck!).

--sony-youth 16:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is political correctness gone mad. The group of islands is called the British Isles in the English language as is recognised by WP in its article naming. To pretend otherwise is just that, a pretence. Perhaps editors from the north would like this article named The island containing the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland but that would be rejected out of hand (I hope). This proposal is similar ... "Great Britain, Ireland & the Isle of Man" means nothing to anyone, whereas Great Britain is univerally understood (but not universally liked I understand that, believe me). In any event does it include Orkney and Shetland? Isn't the Isle of Man part of Great Britain? Does it include the Channel Islands? I hope common sense will prevail here and we can revert to Great Britain. Write a great article about Ireland and don't try to rewrite history or the English language. I say this as someone who loves Ireland as a visitor :) Abtract 22:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see the article regarding terminology and controversy regarding the "British Isles" and the (many and quite bitter) discussions on the British Isles talk page. Please see other areas "universally understood" such as the Persian Gulf or India.

Regarding the Isle of Man, no it is not a part of Great Britain. Orkney and Shetland are. The Channel Islands are not a part of the "British Isles" (they are a part of France) - however your confusion does hint at why the term is not considered purely geographic.

I understand that many people in Britain (and elsewhere) would consider this "political correctness gone mad", however, I hope through the links above you will see that we are not rewriting history, just trying to deal with it in a civil manner. --sony-youth 23:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As I've argued previously, the past (or even present) common use of British Isles doesn't make it immutably relevant and correct, for all time. Ask Mumbai (formerly Bombay) or any number of other places that were once called one thing and now called another. This is not a Misplaced Pages phenomenon. The British and Irish governments both try to avoid the term. It's enough of a problem that an Irish atlas publisher took the trouble to eliminate it from its newest editions. The term is absolutely not necessary to describe Ireland, and it clearly bothers (even enrages, in some extreme cases) some people...so why the stubborn insistence upon it? It seems to me an alias for stating either "I want to offend people" or "I don't care that people are offended." Neither of those attitudes has any place here. Dppowell 01:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have only one desire - to make WP a better encyclopedia, so please accept that I have no "attitude". Surely you make the point for me whan you say "... the past (or even present) common use of British Isles ...". That is precisely what should be in WP - the common use; trying to invent another terminology for templates is surely evidence of original research, apart from being pc gone mad. However life's too short to argue against consensus ... if such exists for this awkward wording (apologies, forgot to sign earlier) Abtract 10:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no original research taking place. The names in the template are real. The article acknowledges, within the context of the controversy, the use of "British Isles" to refer to Ireland. My participation in this discussion has been aimed at finding a middle ground between the "British Isles, period" faction and those who imagine the peaceful acceptance of the term to be tantamount to inviting the Lord Lieutenant back to Dublin. Ignoring the existence of the controversy is only going to lead to a tiresome edit war with people from red-colored IP addresses who delete any/all references to the UK from the article. I don't think anyone wants that. This is the alternative. Dppowell 02:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, EU template?

To state the obvious to all but the most expansionist of British nationalists, just what is the relevance of this misnomer "British Isles" template when an EU template is the accurate context within which modern Ireland exists? This British template has nothing to do with reflecting modern Ireland but everything to do with contextualising Ireland within a British colonial framework. As such, that template is a non sequitur, promoted by British nationalists for atavistic British interests. Ireland is Ireland, a full member of the European Union according to the choice of the vast majority of the island's population. EU= democratic choice in Ireland; British Isles= imposition from Britain. So, what political agenda is really going on with these people, and from whence do the protagonists of the "British Isles" context hail? 89.100.195.42 03:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That sound a lot more sensible than the current situation. My main objection to the current template is that it is for a something that doesn't exist as an entity "Ireland, Great Britain and the Isle of Man" is not an entity whereas the British Isles is, however annoying that may be to some people (understandably). The current template looks silly, doubly so when you actually hover over it and find it links to "British Isles". Incidentally I assume you were not refering to me when you talk about "British nationalists" because nothing could be further from the truth. I am not going to fight over this, I just hope that other interested editors will bring an element of common sense into thisAbtract 10:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Ireland owes very little to the word British, considering they tried to bankrupt the newly fledged state, Anglo-Irish Trade War. The inclusion of BI is basically an anachronistic term pushed by vociferous few British based editors. Irish editors are being met with strong Resistance when trying to add NPOV to the British Isles page. I believe that EU template to be the proper context. MelForbes 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ireland-the-island (the subject of this article) is not a member of the EU. Demiurge 18:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• • not as such, but all its constituent parts are :)Abtract 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromises

I'm trying to find a compromise with fellow wiki editors over the beginning of the article as to whether it should point out that Nothern Ireland is a part of the UK and the map displaying the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland misleading people to think Northern Ireland has nothing to do with the UK. Any suggestions are welcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingoranother (talk • contribs)

Introduction To Article

I had change the beginning of the article to "

" as i consider this to be easier to understand by readers but someone keeps reverting it to the less clear previous version! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingoranother (talk • contribs)

What about the previous version do you find confusing? Dppowell 05:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a compromise over this matter. Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingoranother (talk • contribs)

I suggest you should sign your posts, by putting four tildes (~~~~) after what you write. You should then read the talk page archives of the pages you are editing. Finally you should scan WP:3RR, WP:NPOV. Please make your arguments here in the talk page, and only then when some consensus has been reached, enact your changes. I'm sorry if that isn't as you would like it but that's the way it is here. --Guinnog 06:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant only to make this article clearer for readers and to state that which is fact, as should be the case with all wikipedia articles. I am trying for and willing to reach a compromise over these issues and I am open to suggestions from editors. I meant not to cause any upset or distress. Somethingoranother 06:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion for the beginning of the Ireland article is:

What's the general consensus on this? Somethingoranother 07:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Map

I tried to point out on the map that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom because the map looks misleading as to make people think Northern Ireland is a seperate independent nation. I think there should be a compromise over this matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingoranother (talk • contribs)

My suggestion for the Ireland map showing the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland should say below it: Map of Ireland showing the state of Republic of Ireland and the UK province of Northern Ireland. What's the general consesus on this? Somethingoranother 07:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article makes clear the status of Northern Ireland without you having to add that info to the caption. --Guinnog 07:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It was just meant to be helpful to readers who might not know that Northern Ireland is in the UK and might think it's a seperate country of its own as the map gives no information that Northern Ireland is just a province of a much larger country. Somethingoranother 07:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting all the time

Why does everything I ever contribute to this page always get reverted? Somethingoranother 08:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Because you aren't discussing here first and getting consensus. Please do that in future. Thanks. --Guinnog 08:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no one else but you to get consensus from at the minute and I've never had to go through such to do over contributing to other articles before. As I say I think it's certain people who like this article a certain way and won't let other people contribute towards it, because I haven't been able to yet so I doubt many others have.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingoranother (talk • contribs)

I have reverted your last edits because they, inadvertantly I assume, introduce a British slant which is unecessary. For example there is no advantage to the article in mentioning that Ireland is part of the Britsh Isles; its place in Europe is quite sufficient :) Abtract 09:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti British View Projected by Editors

Come on people we're all adults here are there no compromises to stop the reverting war? Does anyone have any suggestions at all? Somethingoranother 10:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this Fair? Somethingoranother 11:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me there is a problem of an anti British view being projected on this article because whenever anyone mentions anything to do with Britain it is instantly reverted. Considering the close proximity of both and their shared history why is their such an aversion and distinct lack of mention of Britain throughout the article? On purpose? Somethingoranother 09:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

From me there is no anti British POV since I am British. If the word "Britain" is useful then of course it must be used ... however I have reverted your last edit because it used 7 words instead of the 6 it replaced which is hardly "more brief" and in any event the use of Scotland, Wales etc is actually useful in helping the reader to interpret the map whereas the more nebulous term "GB" is less helpful. :) Abtract 09:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I count 19 uses of the word "Britain" in this revision (the last before you started editing the article) plus more mentions of "United Kingdom", "England" etc.; can you be more specific about where and why you would like Britain mentioned? Demiurge 10:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It is said that the article cannot contain too much UK and British related material in case it's offensive, but is it not offensive to all UK citizens for wikipedia to say parts of their country are not really acknowledged much as parts of it at all? Afterall the people of Northern Ireland voted not many years ago to remain a part of the UK and so the idea that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK must not be shied away from and those who would be offended are a clear minority.Somethingoranother 10:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

*sigh*. As predicted, this has rapidly turned political. Now, the accusations and finger-pointing begin. - Alison 10:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This conversation has also been happening on User talk:Ali-oops#Ireland, if anyone's interested. - Alison 10:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you have now taken the matter over to WP:AN/I already. (see here). - Alison 10:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Somethingoranother, please stop making unilateral changes to geographical/political nomenclature in this article. If you want something changed, bring it to the talk page first rather than changing it yourself — for example, the Republic of Ireland is more commonly described as a "state" or "country" than a "nation". Describing it as a separate "nation" implies that Northern Irish nationalists are not part of the same nation — a highly contentious claim. Demiurge 11:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is no one is coming up with a compromise what's your idea of what it could be called fairly? Somethingoranother 11:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Demi - I see you've reverted the latest attempt. What if we just add .. and the constituent country, Northern Ireland - will this work for everyone? - Alison 11:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Somethingoranother - you seem to have an issue with the phrase, "the state also called Ireland" - is this the case and if so, why? - Alison 11:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the latest version looks too much as though it has been created simply to shoehorn in "UK" a couple more times, though obviously that wasn't the intent of the editor. I am going to rv it until a better version comes along :) Abtract 11:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The version I created was by far I think the most fair for everyone. If anyone has any points about it they would like to point out please do so. Somethingoranother 11:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• A number of editors have repeatedly pointed out stuff (see above) but you are not discussing matters. You're simply reverting again and again over multiple page edits. I suggested a compromise above which you proceeded to ignore. Abtract tried to compromise earlier but this was reverted too. What's going on here?? - Alison 12:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with compromise. what's the compromise to be? Somethingoranother 12:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• My own suggestion is there above, in reply to User:Demiurge. Ok - it's 4am here. I'm outta here - Alison 12:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should contain information which tells the reader at the begginning and when looking at the map that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, as it is in reality. Somethingoranother 12:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Other people's thoughts............... Somethingoranother 12:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• As a Protestant from NI I really don't see the problem with the current version - it is very important to keep to neutral point of view. Furthermore, anyone can easily ascertain the status of Northern Ireland by clicking on the link provided to Northern Ireland, anyway - it's not necessary to keep pointing it out on a fairly unrelated article. I'd like to quote a (sadly now deleted) comment by an admin on an unrelated article which really does illustrate best not only what consensus is but why it is the best way to move forward on contentious matters. Orderinchaos78 14:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Settling Dispute by Vote

Option for first lines of the article to read:

This article is about the island of Ireland as a whole, which includes the state of Republic of Ireland, known also as Ireland, and Northern Ireland, an area of the UK in Ireland. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation).

All those in favour write YES, followed by name. All those not in favour write NO, followed by name.

Votes will be counted in 24 hours.

Somethingoranother 12:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

YES Somethingoranother 12:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeking consensus, not a vote

• I think saying that Northern Ireland is "in Ireland" is redundant and confusing (because of the difference between Ireland-the-country and Ireland-the-island), and would prefer something like "This article is about the island of Ireland as a while, which includes the state also named Ireland (i.e. the Republic of Ireland), and Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation)." Also please note that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy — consensus is what's important, not counting votes. Demiurge 12:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• We need to be concise and helpful in the introduction.

I suggest the first line should be:

This article is about the island of Ireland as a whole. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation).

Followed by this simple intro:

Ireland (53°30′N 7°38′W; Irish: Éire) is the third largest island in Europe. Geographically it lies to the west of Great Britain, between the Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea. Politically it is divided into two: the Republic of Ireland, five-sixths of the landmass; and Northern Ireland, the northeastern sixth of the island. The name 'Ireland' derives from the name Ériu (in modern Irish, Éire) with the addition of the Germanic word 'land'.

Abtract 13:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Over at Australia we have a similar problem - the country and the island are two separate entities, although largely coincide in area, and the continent it resides in has some dispute over its name (there's a proposal to change the name currently on the talk page but no-one can quite agree what to change it to!) The suggestion you have made seems both NPOV and concise/useful, so I'd support it. Orderinchaos78 13:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article must point out sufficiantly to readers that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom so they don't mistake it for an independent nation of its own. We take it for granted that people know this already but many people around the world do not know of how the UK is contructed. Somethingoranother 14:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to go with "This article is about the island of Ireland as a while, which includes the state also named Ireland (i.e. the Republic of Ireland), and Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom. As stated higher up Is everyone else willing to go with this too? Somethingoranother 14:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tried out using:

As the opening lines for the article. I hope not to upset anyone and anyone who dislikes this version feel free to discuss & make suggestions of sollutions. This does not have to be a final version. Somethingoranother 15:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I hope the changed one works better now Somethingoranother 15:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• That wording is unsuitable because "Ireland" is the official constitutional name of the Irish state, not a mere "common name". "Republic of Ireland" is only a description (albeit one with official legal status. Reading Names of the Irish state may be informative here. Demiurge 15:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope the changed one works better now Somethingoranother 15:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Will you please stop inserting your changes until you have gained a consensus here? You've gone so far past the 3RR you can't even see it at this stage! Demiurge 15:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was a consensus now to clarify the beginning like as I've put it Somethingoranother 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the

opening that I've suggested and seems others are following the same line too Somethingoranother 15:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The beginning I've used covers everything explaning this is an article about the island Ireland and that the country Ireland or Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland occupy it and clarifies Northern Ireland is an area of the UK for readers who don't know this. Somethingoranother 15:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• There is no such consensus for the wording you just inserted — the edit just above is the first time you have proposed this wording on the talk page, so it's clearly impossible for other people to have endorsed this version. Stop reverting and make a serious attempt to reach consensus on the talk page rather than repeatedly and unilaterally making your own changes. You have gone way past WP:3RR at this stage. Demiurge 15:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

OK do we have consensus on my version to be the clearest and fairest sollutions without just leaving it as it was and having a edit war going on forever? Somethingoranother 15:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone say if they think the version I suggested and is currently being used is the one we should all go for?......................

No .. A much simpler lead is required, This article is about the island of Ireland as a whole. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation). this says all that is needed at this stage. :) IMHO. Abtract 15:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The version I used is a compromise between the Catholic view and Protestant view otherwise this editing war will carry on forever and only the article will suffer. Other articles representing 2 groups of people with different points of view where both sides are appeasesed and so end the editing war and the article can move forwards. Somethingoranother 15:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, Somethingoranother, we do not have any such consensus. You need to stop edit warring on this page or you will be blocked under WP:3RR. Making your own unilateral changes and then putting them forward for discussion on the talk page after the fact is not how consensus is reached. Demiurge 15:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to reach consensus but stating the obvious that Unionist view won't accept United Kingdom not being in the opening and Nationalis view won't accept Republic of Ireland not being in the opening. So as far as I can see I'm the only one trying to reach consesus and compromise and no one else will sugest anything because some just wanted it to stay as it was with a Nationalist view, which will just cause Unionists to contstantly edit it unless compromise is met. Somethingoranother 16:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Plenty of people have made suggestions above, including myself and Abtract. I'm open to "United Kingdom" being included in the disambig header (see the version I suggested above). But you will not get yourself anywhere by endlessly reverting to slightly different versions of the same thing. We reach a consensus here first, only then do we change the article. Demiurge 16:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

OK write your propessed sollution for the opening lines of the article and I'll say if I think it's fair. Somethingoranother 16:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have already presented my proposed solution, scroll up. Demiurge 16:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

OK is it the "This article is about the island of Ireland as a while, which includes the state also named Ireland (i.e. the Republic of Ireland), and Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation)"Suggestion? If so I support it being used then. Somethingoranother 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to use that version of yours I will support you putting it on the article and won't change it. Somethingoranother 16:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We have consensus now about that version of yours being used? Somethingoranother 16:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, we need to wait for a few days to see if anyone else has any objections. My warning above about not reverting any more still stands. Demiurge 16:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well simply if anyone else has objections in the future they can bring them up at the time. As for now I think we should go on the proposed consensus to stop anymore editing. Unless you're change your mind on it? Somethingoranother 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So when is this new proposal going to be used? or was it never meant to be used? Somethingoranother 16:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• It will be used when everyone else has had a chance to comment on it. The old intro has been there for months if not years; a few more days won't harm anyone. Demiurge 16:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

OK so if no one has any objections over then next 3 days I can expect to see it being used by Christmas Day? Somethingoranother 16:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, you can't expect anything. There is no deadline, so don't use a lack of objections as a license to insert it on Christmas day (when most editors won't be online anyway.) Demiurge 16:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't talk down to me like I'm subservient to you or something. I don't even know you and I don't tolerate being subjected to threats of being blocked should I dare to change an article to conflict with your point of view on a subject. To be honest I think it's your desire to keep the article in an Irish Nationalist perspective bias, regardless of what others might want or what compromises might be offered and you simply cannot accept compromise which might remove the article's Irish Nationalist bias. And in future don't presume to tell me what I can and cannot expect or do. Besides I'm sure your lifestyle and love life provides you with lots of space time to harass others in the same way. This is Somethingoranother signing off Somethingoranother 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the intro is still being edited, I have put a simplified (and NPV) version in placed as proposed above, hopefully until we agree on a fuller version (if necessary, personnaly I favour simplicity). I humbly suggest we talk here about options rather than continued editing.Abtract 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists