Talk:Ireland–United Kingdom relations

message: Ireland is represented by orange and the UK is represented by green. That made me smile. No rebuttle required.--Play Brian Moore 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good post but the map did turn to traditional green & orange colours.  I tried to revert (but failed) it to the 'pink' UK version as that is the usual colour in atlases and maps for UK & dominions etc.  Perhaps consideration should be discussed? Gavin Lisburn 20:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The first guy's post was probably the cleverest observation I've seen on this article. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ironic? 

message: What is the purpose of having a troubles section if it doesn't actually say much about the troubles?--T*85 (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troubles Section 

message: Quote Whatever Britain did, Ireland did the opposite was the main policy of previous Irish governments for decades after independence unquote.  What a lot of old chuff.  I am assuming that the author meant to say that the Irish chose to do some things differently than the British [governments] sometimes on principle alone perhaps.  Examples should be given, but the phrase used is annecdotal, unsourced and frankly, totally erroneous. Dainamo (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable phrases

message: A editor has raised the question of removing the ability to pipe link the title of the British Isles template. Currently, on this page, it pipe links as British Irish Council area. The editor would like this ability to be removed.
Discussion is taking place here. --RA (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Isles template 

message: I've merged content from Politics in the British Isles, which has sprung up as a POV fork (in the best possible sense of the word) of this article. It contained some very good text and is a great addition to this article IMO. --RA (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks RA. Given the discussion is ongoing, I don't see any point in maintaining two copies of this content. If the AfD results in a merge, then of course this content should be moved over. Until then, let's keep it where it is. Thanks again, and I appreciate the complements on the content of the article.--KarlB (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged content from [[Politics in the British Isles]] 

message: As per this revision, there had been a revert which resulted in removal of large amount of content without discussing in the talk page, which I identified as vandalism and gave a warning. Now the differences in opinions between the editors has resulted in an edit war, knowingly or unknowingly, because of these reversions, 1 and 2. I believe the matter will be resolved with proper coordination between the editors, hopefully without any blocks. Thank you. Shriram (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi thanks Shriram. I would appreciate your (and other's) opinions on the matter. If the Politics in the British Isles article is up for AfD, and one of the main proposed results of the AfD is to merge the whole article into Ireland-United Kingdom relations, is it reasonable to pre-empt consensus at the AfD by unilaterally copy/pasting the entire content into this article before the AfD closes? I don't want to edit war any more than anyone else, I just want to make sure we have a good, reasoned discussion, and I don't think this particular move is helpful; in fact I find it rather disruptive. The main reason being, as a result of the AfD, many people will be editing Politics in the British Isles - improving, adding, removing, etc; if there is a complete copy on *this* page, then we will have diverging content streams. You can already see this - additional edits/improvements are being made here which are not being copied back to Politics in the British Isles. If the decision is made to *not* merge, then all of the work here will have been in vain; if the decision is made to merge, then all work in the other page will be in vain; either way, innocent editors will be wasting time making edits that will then have to be tediously merged later. The editor in question (RA) has called this a content fork, but it is RA who created the content fork by copy/pasting the full contents here in the first place before the AfD was closed. I am happy to abide by community consensus once the AfD is complete, but until then, there is zero reason to maintain two copies of this text, and in fact it is a detriment to the encyclopedia. I look forward to hearing what others think. --KarlB (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you think "there is zero reason" does mean that there is a consensus to remove the text from this page. Please seek consensus for the removal rather than WP:EDITWARing when your actions are contested. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible edit war

message: In these two edits, KarlB removed a large chunk of text, and changed some wording.  I reverted those changes, and per WP:BRD that was the point at which KarlB should have started discussing them.  However, instead of discussion he simply reverted my reversion.
I have now restored the text again, and asked Karl to discuss these changes on the article's talk page rather than simply restoring the text.
The reason I reverted Karl's edit was that:
* the first of his two edits introduced several subtle but unhelpful changes:
*#it changed the specific phrase "the two states" to the vaguer "countries in the region". This is less clear, and less accurate: the British–Irish Council comprises two sovereign governments, three devolved administrations, and three crown dependencies. In this context, "country" is a vague term which could refer to a historic country (e.g. a united Ireland or Scotland), a current nation-state (the UK or the Republic of Ireland), or to one of the constituent countries of the UK.Terminology which would work in a less complex context does address the complexities of this situation.
*#Karl'd edit replaced the phrase "dependencies of the UK" with "crown dependencies".  The phrase Crown dependencies is introduced and linked in the lead of the article, so does not need to be repeated. In this case, the fact that three islands are constitutionally dependencies of the crown is less significant than the fact that for practical purposes they are  dependencies of the United Kingdom, which is responsible for their international relations: as the Crown's own website explains it, The United Kingdom government is responsible for the defence and international relations of the Islands"
* Karl's second edit simply removed the whole two whole paragraphs relating to joint projects involving Ireland, the UK and the crown dependencies.  This is a damaging removal, because those joint projects illustrate how the process of co-operation is broadening from political measures through to include infrastucture.
I hope that per WP:BRD, Karl will now discuss his contested changes rather than simply reverting. I note that he has already been warned above about WP:EDITWARring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested changes 

message: I have tagged the section headed "Academic perspectives" as a , because far from offering perspectives (plural), it offers only one perspective, "postnationalist" approach advocated by the philosopher Richard Kearney.
The sole focus on "postnationalism" not only ignores the significance of the nationalist perspective on Irish history, but it also ignores the huge significance of Ulster Unionism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the section isn't really relevant to an article about bilateral relations; it is much more relevant in an article about multilateral relations in the archipelago. Thanks! --KarlB (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of which article it is placed in, it purports to offer a summary of academic perspectives but actually offers only one perspective. It fails WP:NPOV in either context. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a content fork in any case, so let's discuss in the other article. I've deleted, we can continue the discussion at Politics in the British Isles (where this content was first created...) --KarlB (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl, just stop removing it. There is a discussion underway about it here; please discuss it rather than simply removing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's silly to make edits to the same section in two places. I already placed a redirect, so we can have the discussion *there*. Please stop edit warring to maintain duplicate content - there's no point.--KarlB (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Karl, please stop edit-warring and revert your latest removal. Please discuss the inclusion of an academic perspectives section in this article, rather than repeatedly removing it. There may be a separate discussion about academic approaches in the other article, but please do not unilaterally move a discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same *exact* content BHG. If you want to discuss it, the content at the original article awaits your input. Thanks! And let's not talk about unilateral - copying over the whole Politics in the British Isles here was the very definition of unilateral, and that move has caused a lot of wasted time since.--KarlB (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl, the discussion was happening here. You unilaterally moved the discussion, but then went ahead and unilaterally edited the text on the other page anyway. So I can only conclude that attempts to discuss this with you are pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

text:  That is a misleading message. Wow. There is an AfD currently happening for Politics in the British Isles, and in a few days time, either they will or won't be integrated based on consensus. In the mean time, you have forked the content here, pre-empting consensus, and then you have the temerity to state that they need to be integrated. Total and utter nonsense. --KarlB (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

text: If you had bothered to read the perspectives, and the elements within, you will notice that bulk of this section is *not* about the academics of British-Irish relations. for some odd reason, you seem to believe that historians and those who study culture and politics care only about sovereign states. I have news for you - they don't. --KarlB (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Karl, an aspect of the perspectives pointed to in that paragraph is that British-Irish relations is not merely about the interaction of sovereign states. That's a perspective that needs to be present in this article in order to address the topic of British-Irish relations from a neutral point of view. It is no reason to create new article that addresses the same subject from a different perspective. --RA (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic perspectives 

message: The history section is rather one sided, and seems to tell the story from a nationalist irish perspective. --KarlB (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no section of the article labelled "history".  Please can you be more specific about which sections of the article you are referring to, and what exactly are the aspects of it which appear "one-sided". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag for neutrality does not seem to have any meaning at the moment. --Éamonn Cálraighe (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality of history section 

message: I propose that "Politics in the British Isles" be merged into the already-existing "Ireland-United Kingdom relations". Per Wikipedia:Merging reasons for a merger include:
# Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
# Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
There is an obvious and clear overlap in the content of the two articles in almost all of the sections of the "Politics in the British Isles" article. Effectively all of the content of that article has already been incorporated here and expanded upon and further developed. Thus, as it stands, the "Politics in the British Isles" article is essentially a duplicate.
"Ireland-United Kingdom relations" is the earlier-existing article, whereas "Politics in the British Isles" is newly-created, so a merger in this direction makes greater sense. Additionally, in the recent AfD, concerns were raised about the suitability of "Politics in the British Isles" as a means to frame the subject. These concerns are borne out, for example, in the heading on "Government structure" (for a geographic entity without a government) and, for example, in the heading "International relations" (for a geographic entity with only two states that have competency for international relations). --RA (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Pity it couldn't be more focused instead of being a potted history and description of just about everything and anything. Cut it down to a third in length would be the best start. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a dreary read... 

message: Another point...it goes on so much about Channel Islands (not even in UK) and EU citizenship etc., etc. ad nauseum...Is it really about Ireland-UK relations? I think it should be more Governmental focussed....as otherwise it goes on and on and on .....Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it really about IRL-GBR relations... 

message: An editor insists that the following is correct:
"During the period from December 1936 to April 1949, it was unclear whether or not the Irish state was a republic or a form of constitutional monarchy and (from 1937) whether its head of state was the President of Ireland (Douglas Hyde until 1945, and Seán T. O'Kelly afterwards) or the King of Ireland (George VI) and so be in personal union with the United Kingdom.
I disagree....Read the following:
..."The King's title in the Irish Free State was exactly the same as it was elsewhere in the British Empire, being from 1922 to 1927: "By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India" and, from 1927 to 1937: "By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India". 
The position (as outlined above) continued until the ROI Act....That is to say, the King had no separate Irish title...There was no "King of Ireland" (the title did not exist) in personal union....There was a King whose title was universal...It was only in 1953 (after IRL left Empire) that Royal titles got split out and there were separate "realms". Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: King's Title in independent Ireland

message: On the page Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland, for each country added to a list of countries Ireland has ties with, it asks for a year in which formal diplomatic relations began. As of now I have placed 1801 in the box to represent the Act of Union but this does not seem right to me. Does anyone know when official diplomatic relations were started between the two countries? Im guessing around the 1920's? ShaneMc2010 00:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal Diplomatic Relations

message: UK orange. Eire green. I don't know why it was changed from how it was originally, but this is a little silly. Rob (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colours 

message: I am completely amazed that there is absolutely no reference to Brexit within this article as it will have a profound affect on relations between the United Kingdom and Ireland and should be mentioned on this article. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:A4B2:484:4A54:9BF3 (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brexit 

message: The Irish GDP PPP figure is totally off. See economy of Ireland Wikipedia page. 109.79.86.180 (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country comparison