Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleIreland was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
April 15, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 13, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 30, 2008Good article reassessmentNot listed
April 7, 2010Good article nomineeListed
November 11, 2019Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2022[edit]

Remove Africans from the demographics section--because the only "significant influences on Irish culture" they have added is more crime and chaos. Thanks. (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: for obvious reasons. Princess Persnickety (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps a warning to the IP not to make such remarks? --Tærkast (Discuss) 21:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since it's an IP I suspect the time has passed, and they likely wouldn't have seen it anyway. However if I see this again I'm blocking instantly. A clear case of "tell us you're a racist without saying you're a racist". Canterbury Tail talk 00:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guy's scared of an r-word lmao (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad to see this racist attitude is quickly rebutted. Another example of why only Registered Users should be allowed to Edit!Bibby (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not so fast man, remember IP editors are human too. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 16:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second paragraph[edit]


Geopolitically, Ireland is divided between the Republic of Ireland (officially named Ireland), which covers five-sixths of the island, and Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. In 2011, the population of the entire island was about 6.6 million, ranking it the second-most populous island in Europe after Great Britain. As of 2016, 4.8 million lived in the Republic of Ireland, and 1.8 million in Northern Ireland.[5]
Geopolitically, Ireland is divided between the Republic of Ireland (officially named Ireland), which covers five-sixths of the island, and Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. The population of the entire island is just over 7 million, with 5.1 million living in the Republic of Ireland and 1.9 million in Northern Ireland, ranking it the second-most populous island in Europe after Great Britain.[5] (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good suggestion, the most recent census data has been released so the paragraph should be updated. Cashew.wheel (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British isles[edit]

The phrase "British Isles in relation to Ireland (as used in the introduction) is at best highly controversial. This is the relevant Irish government directive on its use of the phrase in relation to Ireland. "Dáil Éireann, Volume 606, 28 September 2005. In his response, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term. Our officials in the Embassy of Ireland, London, continue to monitor the media in Britain for any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation. These include the name of the State, the President, Taoiseach and others." Also see: The UK government has also made moves not to use the phrase in relation to Ireland whether politically or geographically within official government communicas There is also an issue here relevant to decolonising the language of empire previously deemed acceptable, but no longer so. Mogh Roith (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there an edit you would like to suggest? Cashew.wheel (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and that is pretty much the only statement a member of the government of Ireland has ever made about it. As has been raised before, a single (albeit cabinet) member of one governmental branch from 17 years ago does not an overall Irish government policy make. A simple search also shows that the term is used in Irish government documents and reports even today. Canterbury Tail talk 22:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Cashew.wheel. thank you for the reply. I believe the most common phrase in current usage is the "Atlantic Archipelago" Other phrases include the "British Isles and Ireland“ ot the "Western Atlantic Isles" Of course there are some who may suggest that when referring to the Island Ireland in the context of the two islands- that the phrase the " Irish Isles" should be used and visa versa when referring to the Island of Britain ;) Mogh Roith (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Canterbury Tail Not quite. The official Irish government guidance detailing a prohibition on the use of the phrase "British isles" remains unchanged. Responding to questions from the Irish Press in 2013, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) stated that the government’s position on the use of the phrase remains the same as outlined in a Parliamentary Question detailed above. Regardless that the phrase may have been occasionally be used by individuals or otherwise doesn't negate those still current guidelines. Mogh Roith (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any evidence that the alternatives have made it into common language? The Banner talk 08:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Banner. Im unsure what "again" refers too? Afaik this hasn't raised here previously? Do you mean the detail is included in the Wiki article on differences in the acceptable use of the phrase between Ireland and the UK? To answer your question yes a number of alternatives are already found inncommon usage in Ireland. The most common one is "Atlantic Archipelago" as far as I'm aware. For example this from the Irish Times on overfishing in Irish waters: "The north Atlantic archipelago has also “unilaterally” increased its own quota of blue whiting which can be caught by more than 225 per cent, from 82,000 tonnes to 267,413 tonnes, says the KFO. Mr O’Donoghue said this increase was “off the Richter scale”.
This from University College Dublin research network online network: "Atlantic Archipelagos Research Project: The Irish Sea. Description: The Atlantic Archipelagos Research Project is a collaboration between eleven leading academics in the UK and Ireland to investigate the complex of relations that make for the contemporary islands of Britain and Ireland"
Plenty of other examples of usage for 'Atlantic Archipelago' as well. This is the current text of the 'Ireland' Wiki article which I referred to: "Ireland is the second-largest island of the British Isles, the third-largest in Europe, and the twentieth-largest on Earth" I believe the text of this short paragraph could quite easily be amended to reflect the more contemporary description of the Islands of Ireland and Britain as islands off the mainland of Europe, especially in light of the historical context and controversary surrounding the use of phrase "British Isles" in relation to Ireland. Mogh Roith (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe you should take a look at the archives to see why I shouted "again"!
And it is nice that you confirm that the alternative names are not in common use but only used incidental. The Banner talk 11:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To get back to the Dermot Ahern quote, he only says that British Isles has no official status. He doesn't say that it is forbidden. Atlantic Archipelago has no "official status" either. Scolaire (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. You will have to excuse my lack of poking around in the archives as I'm fairly new here and noted that the issue was currently unflagged. And to reply: no the phrase "Atlantic Archipelago" (as an example of an alternative phraseology) is not "incidental". There were just two examples which can be found in the public sphere. Colloquially I don’t knew anyone in Ireland who uses the term 'British Isles" to describe Irelands position relative to the island of Britain in regular conversation. Can I prove that? No unfortunately I cannot. You'll have to take my word there. As to "forbidden" I don't believe anyone has used that particular argument. In terms of official language, governments tend to advise (not legally forbid) words and phrases which shouldn't be used. In respect of that position, then certainly there should be an acknowledgement of that in the terminology used describing Ireland in relation to its neighbour . All that said, I think we're getting fairly far away from the obvious point that the use of the phrase "British Isles" in this article appears largely superfluous. A straighforward substitutiion shouldn't require delving deep into political or historical issues or the need that any change has to have defacto "official status". For example in my experience and in regular conversation, the two islands are often simply described as Ireland and England. That may be a better alternative to those who are terminally entrenched in favour of the use of the now somewhat archaic phrase "British isles"
May I suggest a simple reworking of the phrase used descbing Ireland position in relation to its neighbour in favour of something less potentially divisive? Mogh Roith (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be helpful if you didn't just make assertions not backed up by anything. Please - do read the archives. They're not really all that long, but all of the points you have raised have been addressed there, on more than one occasion, at either this page's archives, or those to be found at Talk:British Isles and Talk:British Isles naming dispute. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok but whats with the grist? I've not "just made up assertions". I've backed up what I've said with concrete examples where possible. See above. But if you would people to record the conversations of people in Ireland using alternatives to the "British isles" thats going to be a fairly long winded exercise in negation through recording the absence of the phrase in common speech. The fact is, there is no need to determine any absolute concensus of exactly how many people don't use the phrase in Ireland, when we know that the use of the phrase is already highly controversial and the Irish governments position is that it's "not an officially recognised term in Ireland". Not me saying that btw. That's a quote
Re. The British Isles naming dispute wiki article, I've already read it. I was referring to the use of the phrase in this particular article which refers to the Island of Ireland in relation to its neighbour only. As detailed may I suggest a simple reworking of the phrase used to describe Irelands position in relation to its neighbour, in favour of something less potentially divisive? Or maybe you have another constructive suggestion? Mogh Roith (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a couple, yes. Stop using proof by assertion: an "archaic phrase" wouldn't generate 10 pages of Google search results, said results limited to Irish sites from the past year. And regardless of a government minister stating that a particular geographic term has no standing, it still seems to see common enough recent use in the Oireachtas. You may not like the term - that's your right, of course - but there's no problem with its use in this article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again no. Common speech as in every day use and/or alternative usage (as was requested to be proven above) is not going to turn up in a Google search. Regardless of any separate dispute as to who does and who does not use the phrase on Irish websites (not limited to ongoing online disputes about the use of said phrase or the fact that not only Irish people are quoted or engage with these "Irish websites" - the original point is that the use of the phrase (already acknowledged as being highly controversial elsewhere in wikipedia and etc) in this article is superfluous. Especially considering the article is about Ireland and not the neighbouring Island of Britain The phrase doesn't have to used at all especially where a simple reworking of the highlighted section to describe Irelands position in relation to its neighbour, in favour of something less potentially divisive would resolve the entire matter. And btw it doesn't have to be any officially sanctioned "Atlantic Archipelago" or any other replacement phrase. A general description or any other reworking would more than suffice.
Tbh this would not amount to a big change, but as you detailed, its certainly been requested several times on this page. Btw my feelings are irrelevant. But I do acknowledge that the use of the phrase in this instance is going to continue to garner significant controversy "again" Therefore may I suggest that a simple reworking of the phrase used to describe Irelands position in relation to its neighbour, in favour of something less potentially divisive that would make everyone happy. Mogh Roith (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I empathise with you on this and agree that the use of the term "British Isles" in relation to Ireland does not sit well with some people. Like it or not, it is the WP:COMMONNAME as others have mentioned, alternatives have not gained traction and are unknown outside of niche circles. As previously mentioned, Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
So I would be opposed to rephrasing it's reference in the article to an alternative.
However, I do see merit in discussing whether the inclusion of the "British Isles" in reference to island sizes adds sufficient value to the article to warrant it's inclusion.
Does the referring to the size of the island relative to other European and all islands globally suffice? Cashew.wheel (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose I would be a serious and controversial change. Beside that, Wikipedia is following the common use of a term, not introducing new terms. The Banner talk 19:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK I'm not sure I understand you. How would using a couple of alternative words to describe the size of Ireland relative to its neighbour Britain be a "serious and controversial" change? That and no introduction of any new terms would be necessary. Mogh Roith (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you did not read the prior discussions? And you also do not understand the article British Isles naming dispute? The Banner talk 21:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK to reiterate Yes I have read the prior discussions. Yes I have also read and understand the various arguments in the article referred to. Rewording a sentence in this article and simply dropping the phrase "British Isles" (as superfluous to begin with in the context of the sentence) would not equate to a "serious and controversial change" regardless. And to do so does not necessarily involve using any new terms. The proposal is a simple reworking of the phrase used to describe Irelands position in relation to its neighbour, in favour of something less potentially divisive and which would accommodate everyone. I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer. Mogh Roith (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that you are passionate about it. But again Wikipedia follows the common use of a term and is not a vanguard to promote a term and its use. It is not a simple semantic change, but a highly controversial and rather political change. I has already been shot down many times and you do not offer a new view or arguments at all. The Banner talk 10:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, also. Nope, Wikipedia is not censored. By far the most common term for these islands is "the British Isles", and that's why we use the term. You are, of course, free to take offence at the use of the term, but this is not the place to right great wrongs. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Banner. I'm unsure from where the hyperbole has crept into this discussion, however as outlined there is no request to make any "highly controversial" or "political change". The request is simply to alter the wording of one small section of the article to a wording, which would be acceptable to all. The points made are that the term "British isles" as used in the context of the article is A) unnecessary B) divisive. The objective would be to simplify and clarify the description using non divisive language. Currently that clearly is not the case (see archive discussions here etc)
And to clarify. A term does not need to be used in the article, as a simple change of wording will more than adequately allow for a description of the size of the two islands relative to each other, to be detailed. And no term need be "promoted" over any other. Two birds, one stone. Mogh Roith (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are mistaken. And your private opinion does not align with the way Wikipedia works. And what you write her, is a classic case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. The Banner talk 16:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Batsun respectfully. My personal feelings have not been detailed as they are not relevant to the discussion. As I'm sure you'd agree that your own feelings would be concerning the same issue. To reiterate, in the context of the article in question, the use of the term "British isles" in relation to the size of islands relative to each other is clearly unnecessary and divisive (see this and previous discussions). Btw the editing of that text should not equate to any 'censorship' as there is no suppression of any information required to make the necessary changes. Sin é. Mogh Roith (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Banner. Your link. Re "Failure or refusal to "get the point". You do know that I could just as easily redirect that to your own position yes? Again its not my "personal opinion". This issue has been been raised repeatedly (see archives). That the term as used in the context of that particular article is divisive as is clearly shown here and as generally detailed elsewhere in Wikipedia. The specific issue here is not going to go away by burying our collective heads in the sand. My approach here was to suggest a workable solution. And I can't say I haven't tried. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯|> Mogh Roith (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mogh Roith: Let's forget the hyperbole. Here's a policy-based reason: reading the archives, you will see that this question has been aired many times, but nobody has ever been able to gain a consensus to remove that term from the article. You haven't done so this time, either. WP:CONSENSUS is a policy; it is how we deal with such questions. Therefore, the term remains. Scolaire (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cashew.wheel. My apologies I had missed your reply above. OK thanks for those points. Re. The use of the term in context in this particular example "I would question whether the use British Isles" in reference to island sizes adds sufficient value to the article to warrant it's inclusion" Looking at the text in question, there is a strong case that it doesn't. Mogh Roith (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mogh Roith: Please, please can you read WP:INDENT and learn to add one colon more than the previous poster at the start of your post? Also, can you stop making every sentenced into a separate paragraph? Scolaire (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Scolaire already replied to you on my talk page @18.21. You may have missed that but no worries. Btw I'm not hitting return after every sentence. I'm using a mobile device. If it keeps happening let me know and I'll change to another device. Thanks Mogh Roith (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your previous reply regarding concensus Scolaire. I'm in agreement with you that there hasn't been concensus on this issue to date. As per that wiki link where concensus and I quote "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". The points raised by me in this particular article are that the term "British isles" as used in the context of the article is A) unnecessary B) divisive. With the exception of one reply as far as I can see neither of those two legitimate concerns have been actually addressed. I'm saying they should be, because the issues on this page that I've and others have detailed will continue to arise here otherwise. Mogh Roith (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, they will keep arising. As long as any other term is in common use. And then we will have an endless series of requests to turn it back to the old term, because the new term is offensive and divisive. A no win situation, talk page-wise. The Banner talk 21:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So far, your arguments have amounted to nothing more than "use of the term 'British Isles' is a) unnecessary, and b) divisive." This article is a geographic article. It is absolutely perfectly normal and usual practice to describe geographical features and entities as "biggest", "smallest", "tallest", "longest", etc., and to compare them in size (length, distance, etc.) to other nearby entities. Look at the first line of the article. Click in to the links. "Ireland is an article in the North Atlantic Ocean (first line of that article says "The Atlantic Ocean is the second-largest of the world's five oceans")... It is separated from Great Britain (second sentence of that article states "it is the largest of the British Isles, the largest European island, and the ninth-largest in the world")." Similarly on many, many geographical articles across the encyclopedia. Look at Jamaica: "it is the third-largest island of the Greater Antilles and the Caribbean (after Cuba and Hispaniola)"; See also Honshu; K2; Errigal; the River Shannon. Etc. Etc. Etc. This is something we do. We will not stop because one person thinks it's "unnecessary." It's not. It gives very useful context to readers. Second issue: It's "divisive." Frankly, /shrug. Some people don't like the term. We recognise that, and write about it. But. The term is still widely used. In Ireland, as well as in Britain, and the rest of the world. We don't avoid terms or content or articles because they're divisive. We just don't. In fact, if something is divisive, it means it's generally got lots of good, reliable sources, because people are writing about it. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. is one of our five pillars. So no, we won't avoid use of the term because it's "divisive." If you have a better argument to make - ideally one that hasn't been made before - then fine, consensus may change. But so far, you've not done that, and yes, your arguments do sound a lot like WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well no logic that doesn't hold up. As already detailed above, a straightforward change of the current text, not using the current term or indeed any specific term is suggested. The reason because - no term is actually necessary to convey the ideas detailed in that sentence. We already know the term currently used is considered divisive see. British_Isles_naming_dispute and various archives here. Changing the sentence, to using neutral language solves both issues and would also provide a solution to what you refer to as an "endless series of requests" Mogh Roith (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, as I said before a few times: Wikipedia follows the common use of a term. It is not a vanguard in promoting a term. And certainly the encyclopedia is not a forum to invent a new term that suits your taste. The Banner talk 09:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As already detailed many times here, no-one here is promoting any alternative term. Btw I'm also aware of the common use of a term via wiki's guidelines. However the term is certainly not the only common term used to describe these islands. A quick check on google trends for Ireland shows that for as far back as records go on google - the terms "Britain and Ireland" and "British isles" are close to neck on neck with regard to online searches . Regardless of that, the point remains it seems that you're arguing beside the point I made and are replacing it with something else. To reiterate - there is no need to employ any common terms in order to detail the size difference relative to the two islands. And where that solution also helps to prevent the division that the use of that term causes and continues to cause, then that's to the good of article in question Mogh Roith (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bastun. Yes they're the two points made and as I've detailed few have addressed those specific issues so far. Btw there's no issue with anything or any place being described as biggest, longest, shortest etc. And nowhere has it been suggested that's an issue. So I'm going to disregard that part of your comment. What is apparently unnecessary in the context of this article is the use of the term "British Isles", which is already noted as being generally divisive in the naming-dispute article, and here specifically using the term in the main article about Ireland. And btw I checked with google trends and the term is not particularly widely used in the UK, where terms such as Great Britain and Britain are all used much more frequently. I note you refer to "neutral points of view" and "an impartial tone that document and explain points of view". That's the point. The inclusion of the phrase is not considered neutral nor impartial by many people in Ireland. And that is already detailed in the naming_dispute article. Nor is any point of view in relation to the term explained. Another comment here stated that "I would question whether the use British Isles" in reference to island sizes adds sufficient value to the article to warrant it's inclusion". I would agree with that and suggest that a simple change in the text would be the best solution, because to put it simply, it isn't necessary to use the term within the context of the current article. Yes the term is widely deemed divisive (and its not just me saying that) and I believe its use in the current article is unnecessary and can be replaced with other text to make the same point about size etc. Considering that most of the replies to-date haven't addressed the points made, I can just as easily redirect your link to "Failure or refusal to "get the point" back at those replies. Mogh Roith (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I give up. I would, however, suggest you have a read of WP:1AM and then maybe consider dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that bastun. The analogy doesn't hold though. The issue remains that I'm only one of many who have raised these specific issues here. Those issues are not going to go away and will unfortunately continue to arise, especially where there is a blind insistence that those issues somehow don't matter, despite those very issues repeatedly coming to the fore on this very talk page. And to quote the wiki consensus page "consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Unfortunately this discussion has not even got close to that imho. But hey that's where were at I guess. Mogh Roith (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second-largest island in the British Isles[edit]

I was focussed on the "unnecessary and divisive" argument in the section above, and I missed this post by Cashew.wheel, where he says "I do see merit in discussing whether the inclusion of the 'British Isles' in reference to island sizes adds sufficient value to the article to warrant it's inclusion." On reflection, I'm not sure that it does. Anyone with any knowledge whatsoever of the area knows that there are two large islands, Great Britain and Ireland, and a whole lot of smaller ones. Having it in the second sentence of the lead is arguably overkill. An island's ranking in the British Isles would surely be of more interest in the Isle of Skye, Isle of Mull, Anglesey, Isle of Man or Mainland, Orkney articles, none of which has it in the article at all! If we were to replace it with

Ireland is the third-largest island in Europe (after Great Britain and Iceland), and the twentieth-largest on Earth.

we would have more information, not less (since Iceland is not in the British Isles, Ireland will still be seen to be the second-largest). Scolaire (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support - I agree, the suggested copy is very clear and does include more information without having to reference 'British Isles' Cashew.wheel (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seeing how well known the term "British Isles" is, it is useful as a geographic marker. Certainly on a map. The Banner talk 16:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a map in the infobox, where Ireland's position and size is clearly shown. What is added by having "second-largest island in the British Isles" in the text? Scolaire (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For readers who can't see the map. Bazza (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - current text is just as clear, and it would be poor precedent to start writing to appease the perennially offended/trolls. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Scolaire has been kind enough to refocus the discussion on a specific reference, in a specific sentence, without all the sidequests and baggage (from all parties) of the previous topic. Let's assume WP:GOODFAITH from all involved.
    Starting out as an editor can be daunting and it can take a while to understand how things work, especially when it comes to change of consensus on politically sensitive topics. Cashew.wheel (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - I agree. I detailed in the other discussion that the addition of the term "British Isles" (apart from the other considerations) is unnecessary in the current text of the article, which is primarily about Ireland. The nearest continental landmass is Europe and it makes sense to refer to that in relation its size relative to other Islands. Btw I had already replied to @Cashew.wheel agreeing with the above comment Mogh Roith (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Unnecessary and reduces clarity. The Banner talk 21:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – I think the proposed wording is very good. It conveys more information than the original (Iceland and Ireland being very close in area, readers may not know which is larger), while not losing the fact that Ireland's area is smaller than Great Britain's (for the readers that don't know this). And all while not having to mention the British Isles so soon in the article and would leave that to Geography where the caveats can be noted. Declangi (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Agree change would be a very poor precendent. Scolaire's statement 'Anyone with any knowledge whatsoever of the area knows that there are two large islands, Great Britain and Ireland, and a whole lot of smaller ones.' assumes knowledge that others may not have - the whole point of an encyclopaedia is to help inform not for editors to assume what readers know or don't know. Oh and I'm thoroughly offended that Great Britain should be in the same sentence as Europe since leaving the EU. Oh wait this is a geographic article not a political one. My mistake. Robynthehode (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: This proposal, as opposed to the previous section, has nothing to do with people being offended, or "appeasing trolls". It is to do with replacing an unnecessary and clunky wording with a more informative one. As for it would be poor precedent and agree change would be a very poor precedent, there already is a precedent, as I noted at the top, in the Isle of Skye, Isle of Mull, Anglesey, Isle of Man and Mainland, Orkney articles, none of which has ranking in the British Isles in the article at all, let alone in the lead. 13:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    • When you are talking about clunky wording, please pay attention to Great Britain. Not many people will think straight away about the island. That they think about the state incorrectly called Great Britain is far more likely. The Banner talk 16:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment This proposal is aimed at removing the term 'British Isles' from the lede. It may not be the proposer's intention to make it part of the previous discussion but it is and therefore the comments re offense or appeasing trolls are relevant. The sentence of island size comparison is certainly not clunky: it compares Ireland to the island group its part of first; the continent it is part of second and then the world's islands. Perfectly reasonable and logical. Second point is if the island size comparison sentence is unnecessary why suggest an alternative size comparison sentence to replace it? No, the suggestion is a backdoor way (whether intended or not) to remove the term 'British Isles'. Why? Because its 'divisive'? Which takes us full circle to the repeated debate (an example of which is in the above section) that has been rehashed ad nauseum. Robynthehode (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment I may be a new editor here and not overtly familiar with these type of discussions, however employing repeated references to "the perennially offended/trolls" or "appeasing trolls" in relation to my previous discussion is unnecessary and WP:CIV. Following from the previous discussion I have already been accused of being a sockpuppet, for which the editor has now apologised. To clarify there were two separate ideas which I detailed previously i.e. the term is generally considered divisive (See naming dispute article etc) and separately the current wording complicates the ideas conveyed. Leaving that discussion aside, the present discussion is focused on the suggestion by Cashew.wheel with regard to the current wording of the article. Afaik no one has proposed that "the island size comparison sentence is unnecessary". Additionally I agree that changing the present clunky wording with a "more informative one in keeping with other articles on islands as detailed as in "the Isle of Skye, Isle of Mull, Anglesey, Isle of Man and Mainland, Orkney articles" will help standardise such comparisons. Mogh Roith (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Further Comment Mogh Roith The comments re 'trolls' is likely a comment directed at other editors not you. Without going back over all the posts I can't confirm this or not. My main comments however are that: The article British Isles naming dispute states the dispute over the term 'British Isles' as 'controversial' not 'divisive' (correctly in my view - but acknowledging controversy does not translate into removing the term 'British Isles'). Secondly merely asserting the wording that contains this, some would say, controversial term in the lede of this article as 'clunky' or that 'the current wording complicate the ideas conveyed' are merely an assertions. You haven't made an argument as to why these assertions should be believed - you need evidence - re-read what I argued above. Thirdly, your support for removing the term based on other island articles is not a valid argument because all those island articles describe their size status and relationship with different islands groups differently. A consistent format might be the way to go but presently there is no consistency between these island articles nor others I have scan read across in other island articles from across the world. I would prefer a better term, but controversy can't be resolved by censoring terms. In time 'British Isles' may become 'Britain and Ireland' or whatever but for now it should remain in the lede. As editors we are here to describe the world as it is using reliable sources not change what we don't like. Robynthehode (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – I have just been directed to this discussion here, having actually moved to remove the 'British Isles' wording myself. My comment had been as follows: 'Especially in an introduction, using space to say that one island is the second largest in a pair I submit is unnecessary. While the British Isles term is widely used and causes understandable controversy in some corners, its use here really is not needed'. I stand by this. We can argue level of usage of that term here all we like, but the fact is that its use HERE adds little or no value and makes the introduction unnecessarily long. I strongly support the alternative wording because it is more helpful to users - which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be doing. A final point to British users I would make is that we Irish are your neighbours...understanding sensitivities and thus avoiding them is a good thing to do. Our former conflicts should be long buried and really don't need to be dug up again and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifiveoh (talkcontribs) 13:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As an Irish person, born and bred, I find your assumption that it must only be British editors who are supportive of the use of the term to be quite offensive. Yes, the British are our neighbours, and there is no "conflict" with them in using a geographical term that's been used for centuries and still is widely used' in this, a geographical article about an island. There may be "conflict" in pretending the two islands are not intertwined, culturally and historically, though. Most of us have long since moved past the Irish = "goodies", British = "baddies" mentality. Attempted erasure of terms isn't "understanding sensitivities", it's - well, erasure. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Bastun, regardless of where you were born, it is you who is referencing a mentality of 'Irish = "goodies", British = "baddies". I didn't go there. It is a fact that most (but not all) editors who are keen to use 'British Isles' are from Britain or are Irish with a unionist heritage. In my experience, many British users of the term are quite unaware that many Irish people do prefer to avoid use of the term. You have my blessing to shout it from the rooftops every day if it gives you satisfaction. We must remember - both of us - that our personal opinions on this term (and how these may nicely contrast) are irrelevant here...we are looking to make the introduction paragraph of this page as helpful as possible. The task is only that. Wikifiveoh (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is a fact that most (but not all) editors who are keen to use 'British Isles' are from Britain or are Irish with a unionist heritage. Frankly - bollocks to that! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikifiveoh Don't you realise how contradictory your last post is. You make two assertions - re 'It is a fact...' and 'many British users...' based on your opinion (with no supporting evidence) and then go on to say 'that our personal opinions on this term are irrelevant'. You're correct with the latter statement and moreover all people's opinions (related to substantive content) are irrelevant unless reported in reliable sources. It's interesting that many editors in this debate have now reframed this discussion arguing that the removal of the term 'British Isles' is only an attempt to make the lede more helpful and less clunky when the core reason is they don't like the term themselves. As I said above as Wikipedia editors we are here to describe the world as it is (supported by reliable sources) not change what we don't like.Robynthehode (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do you mind that I take offence of your aspersion? Last time I checked, I have a Dutch passport. Not British and not Irish. And what I hear in the street/pub/community centre/elsewhere is that most Irish people do not give a flying flip about the term "British Isles". The Banner talk 11:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - It makes sense to include 'British Isles' in my opinion, since Ireland is part of the British Isles grouping, then Europe, then Earth. To leave out one grouping would reduce the overall quality of the article. This removal would appear to be an unnecessary political action, rather than one done out of academic accuracy. SaltyW (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To Bring a Conclusion

I see that the proposal from Scolaire for this page on Ireland was to change the last sentence in the first paragraph of the introduction from

Ireland is the second-largest island of the British Isles, the third-largest in Europe, and the twentieth-largest on Earth.


Ireland is the third-largest island in Europe (after Great Britain and Iceland), and the twentieth-largest on Earth.

The proposed revised version is clearly more useful to users in providing helpful geographic context (I for one live in Ireland and did forget that Iceland is indeed larger). This is the only argument that needs to be made for the change; there is no factual inaccuracy or ambiguity here. I see that, including the proposer and myself, there are six contributors expressing support for this change and three contributors expressing opposition. This isn't an election and none of us are seeking to be elected here, but when a proposed change has a clear margin of support like this, it should be adopted. I will wait for two days for more comments to be put here by anyone who wishes to do so. Then, if this summary of the situation remains valid, then I will put in Scolaire's revision and pray for good blessings upon all of us. Wikifiveoh (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just checking on your math there. I'm counting five for and four against, which is not a consensus for change. Canterbury Tail talk 17:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus is not voting. Any significant and good faith objections to a proposal means there is no consensus and the original content should be retained WP:CON. So no don't change the content for Scolaire's revision. Robynthehode (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The word consensus means 'a general agreement' (that is all in agreement) and you must know that Wikipedia does not only make a change if it is backed by a 'general agreement'. People will have differing views and no user has veto authority. The decision needs be made on balance of argument. I submit that the balance of argument is in favour of the proposed change. This is not a vote for/against on wider use of the term 'British Isles' or any other term, but solely what text is most helpful here. I have counted the 'support' and 'oppose' and see that six users have expressed support (Scolaire, Cashew.wheel, Bazza, Mogh Roith, Declangi and Wikifiveoh), while four users have expressed opposition (Bastun, The Banner, Robynthehode and SaltyW). That expressed support outweighs expressed opposition. Editorial logic (as opposed to pointless political speculation) and expressed support from users thus far is in favour of the change. Wikifiveoh (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you point out to me where Bazza is making a comment in support of this motion? I can’t seem to see it. Canterbury Tail talk 12:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can only see a neutral comment on 13 October 2022: "For readers who can't see the map." The Banner talk 13:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Robynthehode That sounds like a one person veto. Consensus is neither voting nor unanimity.
Does anyone care to define what consensus would look like in this case? I agree a 60% majority is cutting it fine, but disagree that consensus requires all editors to agree. Cashew.wheel (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, a requirement for actual consensus could never be Wikipedia policy. Am equally interested to see how a Wikipedia decision is made in such circumstances. Perhaps by weight of argument, with all political posturing discounted. Wikifiveoh (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI, Wikifiveoh, WP:CANVASSING is not appreciated. The Banner talk 10:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm already party to the discussion, considered WP:APPNOTE Cashew.wheel (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Banner are you trying to censor contributor communication also? Thank you Cashew.wheel for putting him/her right regarding that. Wikifiveoh (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I just object against your canvassing to find more support for your stance. It is clear that you are trying that with the sentence: "You might like to view this and put in additional comment...and invite like-minded users to do so also." The Banner talk 11:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blatant canvassing at that, and, above, attempting to poison the well with regard to others' contributions. What will actually happen, Wikifiveoh, is that an uninvolved editor will come along, perhaps by invite, and judge the relative merits of participants' arguments. FWIW, contributions that are little more than opinion asserted as fact will carry less weight than others. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For people who are wondering what happens with no clear consensus. If there is no clear consensus, which is based on weight of argument and not votes, then nothing happens. The status quo would be retained in the event that editors on the talk page cannot come to a general consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 14:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2022[edit]

Please remove the term British Isles in the introduction, as an irish man this highly offensive and should be remove. an article about Ireland should use the terms accepted by the Irish people across the island not the terms used by colonists or our colonisers. Dundalkbhoy1888 (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion immediately above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

second paragraph[edit]

Geopolitically, Ireland is divided between the Republic of Ireland (officially named Ireland), which covers five-sixths of the island, and Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom.

I would suggest that this be reworded to remove references to ‘the Republic of Ireland’, since Ireland is the internationally recognised name of the country and is the name in the constitution. The Republic of Ireland has unwelcome overtones routed in pre Good Friday language used by the UK government.

I would suggest something like

“Geopolitically, the island is divided between Ireland, which covers five-sixths of the island, and Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. “

Or something along those lines. (darsi) (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m aware there has been a lot discussion over decades about the name of the country in Wikipedia and this a rather heated discussion and my suggested edit would break a link to the article about the country.

Suggest perhaps then that an alternative edit with a link to the ROI article could be:

“Geopolitically, the island is divided between Ireland (also known as the Republic of Ireland), which covers five-sixths of the island, and Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. “ (darsi) (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you want to use the same terms for the island and the state? The Banner talk 23:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, they do have the same name, so there is a clear logic there in the proposal from darsi. It would make sense to use the correct proper nouns, with a phrase such as "which is often referred to as the Republic of Ireland" for example, to make the differentiation clear. The Republic of Ireland is a football team and not a state, after all. (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being confusing makes absolutely no sense. The Banner talk 10:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When a distinction needs to be made; the country of Ireland vs. the island of Ireland, has always worked for me: If the discussion involves politics or legal issues then more legal / political terminology would be best, such as, the Republic of Ireland. Bibby (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]