Talk:Ireland/Archive 5

message: 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)
thread_title: Ulster

message: 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 Wikipedia format. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackdev (talk • contribs) 00:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Dmccabe said.  Do it up! Dppowell 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enya?? 

message: 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: 

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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia.  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: The Channel Islands aren't within the British Isles, strictly speaking. Arcturus 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed Common "British Isles" Template 

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia.  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)
thread_title:  General Comments on Revised Template and General Proposal 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  For 

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The Channel Islands aren't within the British Isles, strictly speaking. Arcturus 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed Titles for the Ireland Page 

message: * This is the best option, because it's correct and is understood throughout the world. Arcturus 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Isles 

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

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The Channel Islands aren't within the British Isles, strictly speaking. Arcturus 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Britain, Ireland & the Isle of Man 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  United Kingdom, Ireland & the Isle of Man 

message: * Not well known: does not avoid neologisms. --sony-youth 11:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative names such as IONA, Anglo-Celtic Isles or the West European Isles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Corrib Gas Field 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ireland-the-island (the subject of this article) is not a member of the EU. Demiurge 18:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  not as such, but all its constituent parts are :)Abtract 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ireland-the-island (the subject of this article) is not a member of some "British Isles" unless of course you are British/of a certain imperial political hue. 89.100.195.42 02:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Er, EU template?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Map

message: Why does everything I ever contribute to this page always get reverted?
Somethingoranother 08:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you aren't discussing here first and getting consensus. Please do that in future. Thanks. --Guinnog 08:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Reverting all the time

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

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

text: * 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)

text: * 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)
thread_title: Anti British View Projected by Editors

message: 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)
thread_title: Settling Dispute by Vote

message: * 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 Wikipedia is not a democracy — consensus is what's important, not counting votes. Demiurge 12:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Abtract's edit is tight and neutral.  I like it a lot. Dppowell 17:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Good work. --Guinnog 17:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is about the island of Ireland as a whole. For the state of the same name see Republic of Ireland.  For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation).
I don't think there is any problem with the map image or title.  Its the same as is used on the Great Britain page.
Finally, please take it easy Somethingoranother - its Christmas, give people a chance to reply. --sony-youthtalk 17:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeking consensus, not a vote

message: Somethingoranother, please see discussion above with regard to the use of the term "British Isles" on Ireland-related pages before editing further. It would be appreciated if you could discuss matters on the here on the talk page before doing any more. Further information can be got from the terminology and controversy pages regarding the term. Please also see the British Isles talk page for an overview of discussion of the use of the term.  Thank you.  --sony-youthtalk 18:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Talk:Ireland#"British Isles" template discussions very few would. « Keith » 18:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not. --Guinnog 18:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is it absolutly not? why can British Isles not be mentioned in the article? Somethingoranother 18:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree. Adds little of value for the reader. Is confusing since one of the states occupying the island officially objects to and discourages use of the term. Does not follow consensus reached above. --sony-youthtalk 18:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't agree with that either. Are you very young perhaps? I am from Scotland and spent a lot of time in NI in the 1980s and 1990s. I remember the awful events of "the Troubles" there. If you are from Northern Ireland you should know that adding this information will be contentious for some people; the point about NI being part of the UK was of course the main bone of contention around which the terrorism and war revolved. Can you see why some people feel strongly about it? --Guinnog 19:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The article mentions repeatedly that Northern Ireland is in the UK. IrishGuy talk 19:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Who ever said that it cannot be said that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK? It would seem quite natural to say so to me. This discussion is not about saying NI is part of UK.  It is about use of the term "British Isles." --sony-youthtalk 19:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Have updated page clarifying that NI part of UK and IRE is sovereign.  RE: Anglo-Celtic Isles, this was discared above for being a neologism.  Honestly, best to avoid British Isles - what does it add anyway? --sony-youthtalk 19:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Demiurge, I only just changed that.  It was not mentioned before, rightfully it should have been. --sony-youthtalk 19:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somethingoranother, you have to participate in the process.  That means reading the weeks of discussion that have taken place on this, and then adding your voice.  You can't just shoehorn British Isles and other, more overtly unionist POV into the article because "it's right."  That's not how Wikipedia works. I've reported you for a 3RR violation, which I expect the evidence will support. When you return from what I expect will be a 24-hour block, please try to use a more measured approach to your editing. Dppowell 20:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if that reporting policy were accurate (which I don't think it is), the edits in question were made only a few hours ago.  It's a legitimate report. Dppowell 20:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sarah - looking at your contributions to this Talk page it's clear to me that you don't know the meaning of the word fact. The Repulic of Ireland IS geographically speaking, within the British Isles. The sooner you and several other editors on this page come out of denial, the better. Arcturus 11:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Somethingoranother|Somethingoranother]] 

message: No, I'm not arguing that it's part of the British Isles. All sensible people know that already - see British Isles, where it says so. This time I'm more concerned with relative location - where is the island of Ireland - Europe - yes, north-west Europe. Well as far as I can see on my map it's located to the west of Great Britain, in the north-west of Europe - anyone care to disagree? Thought not! So why does some bone head keep altering the caption on the map? You editors and article owners really take the biscuit (UK terminology)! Not content with burying your head in the sand regarding the British Isles, you are now trying to expunge all reference to Britain in this article. Give me strength! Reverted caption. Arcturus 11:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arcturus, your legitimate concerns about anti-UK POV notwithstanding (I'm actually on your side on this particular issue), I'm done engaging in discussion with you until your tone changes.  Now anyone who isn't comfortable with front-and-center placement of "British Isles" as one of the defining characteristics of the article is "insensible," in addition to being a "censor", a "bigot", and any number of other labels you've slapped on us previously.Dppowell 14:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is pretty immediately west of Great Britain, Sarah.  I can appreciate your proper vigilance against attempts to define Ireland entirely within the context of its relation to Britain, but going to the other extreme only gives ammunition to the malcontents. Dppowell 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is even more immediately west of the Isle of Man.... But of course the Isle of Man didn't have the Irish faoi chois for centuries; the British "civilisers" did. As JJ Lee observed many years ago in The Sunday Tribune, 'British self-definition has to a large extent been defined on anti-Irishness'. And trying to tell us we are not who we say we are but rather that we are who the British, the old colonial master, decides we are is just par for the course with a culture as supremacist as Britain's has been towards the wishes of the Irish people. Same old same old on the cusp of 2007. 89.100.195.42 01:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm mostly inclined to agree, but do you really think that defining Ireland to an equally large extent on anti-Britishness is the appropriate way to proceed?  Seems a bit of a knee-jerk, and certainly not anything that distinguishes the pro-Irish attitude from the pro-British one. Dppowell 01:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No: this is about defining who we are by who we are. That is a luxury which we- a vibrant, dynamic, young, confident and culturally at ease nation- has only of late been allowed. It is only incessant attempts by outsiders to tell us that we are not what we actually are but rather are what they have labelled us and our country which turns this into some negatively defined issue. We will not smother under the cloak of a neighbouring island and the internal historical needs of their nationalism to define Ireland as being a British isle. The world is much bigger than Britain, even if our patriotic contributors from that island firmly believe that it is not, in fact, bigger- but that if the world is then it obviously must revolve around Britain. 89.100.195.42 02:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Great speech, but the editorial stance that follows from it is no more NPOV-friendly than the contention that "British Isles" is the forever-immutable name of the archipelago that includes Ireland.  And we're not even talking about applying the British Isles label, as much as Arcturus might want us to be.  We're talking about merely mentioning, in a purely geographical sense, the adjacent island.  How is that "smothering under the cloak" of that island?  See also: Saint Lucia.  Dppowell 03:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Ireland? 

message: In the section on Demographics, what is the source for the figures on Immigration? The last offical census figures are from 2002 and the figures from the 2006 census dealing with this have, as far as I know, not been published. I ask, because the single largest group of immigrants in the RoI in the 2002 census was the British! This is not surprising given the geographic proximity, yet the section completely fails to mention them even though in 2002, they out-numbered the combined total of immigrants from every other EU state at the time. This is a serious ommission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.103.69 (talk • contribs)  
:Yup, the British are the largest immigrants to RoI, and they are most welcome, like myself.  That's the way it has been for a long time, nothing new here. Oliver Reed, Andrew Lloyd Weber, Fergie etc, we love them all. Cool. In fact, everyone is Irish, once one sleeps here!!!!!!!!MelForbes 03:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are British people regarded as "immigrants"? Surely one has to be an alien in order to be an immigrant, and the British are not regarded as aliens in the RoI (just as people from the RoI are not aliens in Britain). Perhaps I am drawing distinctions where none exist. Martin 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *yawn* I think you'll find that the British government has legislated that the status of NI is solely a matter for the people of Ireland to decide. Martin 21:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That anonymous editor 89.100.195.42 reminds me of an old relative of mine from Drogheda. My dad met her some time in the 1970s. They had never met before, but apparently within five minutes of their introduction she was in tears as she related how the "terrible British" had massacred "all those poor children" .... wait for it .... during the Battle of the Boyne! I've been taken to task on this page before for the use of certain words, but I make no apology now for re-using one of them - bigotry; that's what we've got from 89.100... Arcturus 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment, Isn't it nice that someone shed a tear.  There was no-one left alive way back then in Drogheda to shed a tear. 86.42.160.47 01:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks 89.100.195.42, but as a Roman Catholic from NI, I'm more than educated about what my "British heroes of democracy" (lol!) have been up to. As I regrettably don't have any access to a time machine, I'm forced to accept that this is in the past and that we in the present have to deal with the fallout. Moaning about British imperialism might be a diverting way to pass the time, but it's not much of a solution for anything. Martin 23:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: erm...well, I'm a Catholic from Northern Ireland. I'm pretty sure it says nothing about my level of sectarianism, or how modern or European my "political leanings" are. But I'm also an Irishman from Ireland, so I guess we have something in common. Martin 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics & Immigration

message: I think the CBO should be included here - somewhere. It is a large and inportant Bird Observatory ringing birds, such as Manx Shearwaters (Puffinus puffinus) which have long lives and real seabirds which travel to the south Atlantic every year. An internationally important  observatory. Osborne 11:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Osborne. If the CBO is important in the general context of flora/fauna/etc of the island, then please write a sentence or two on it in the relevant section. As you know, Wikipedia is not a link farm and putting in a link on it's own with no context or reference as to why it's important is not appropriate per the external links guidelines. (In short. If it's important, don't just put a link - write about it!) Guliolopez 12:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: PS. If the CBO is internationally important, you may want to consider creating an article for the CBO (as Rotamah Island Bird Observatory or Bardsey Bird and Field Observatory) and linking from Bird observatory - Observatories in Britain and Ireland. As noted, just adding links isn't what the Wikipedia is about. Guliolopez 12:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copeland Bird Observatory

message: Could someone who has done it before make an archive of some of the dead discussions on this page?
Id make a run at it myself but with a talk page this active i wouldnt want any mistakes made.--Ferdia O'Brien 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive