Talk:Terminology of the British Isles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Version 0.5      (Rated B-Class)
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Cornwall/recent edits[edit]

Recent edits have massively expanded the details on how medieval maps purportedly portray Cornwall, which seem to have more to do with making a political point and waving flags about purported Cornish independence. This page is simply about the terminology of the British Isles and really doesn't need to be a proxy battleground for this sort of thing. I've copyedited and qualified some of the claims, as there is some useful info there, but this latest one is a definite step too far. The source advanced, Cornwall's Strangest Tales: Extraordinary but True Stories, is clearly not an authoritative source for matters of geography or history. It also simply appears to rehash tropes and claims commonly found in other, even fringier, sources such as nationalist blogs and self-published books about ancient maps.

A brief look around the internet for examples of these maps will reveal that most such maps clearly include both Cornwall and Wales within England (as the latter was too then), marked no differently from any other subdivisions. Here, for example, are maps by Munster, none of which do what the material just added claims his maps do. Here are links to other maps, including those by Ortelius which, again, do not appear to make this alleged distinction. Even with those few that do give more prominence to Cornwall and Wales in terms of the way they are marked up, eg by putting the names in capitals, there is of course no way of proving what the mapmaker meant by this at all, let alone that they meant they were "separate nations". N-HH talk/edits 17:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition, I can't access or check the source being used to support the claim that the Hereford Mappa Mundi "shows Britain as being composed of Anglia, Cornubia, Scotia and Wallia", but a glance at the detail of the map itself shows that this is manifestly incorrect. The quote from the George Lily map talking about Welsh, Cornish and English "people", and suggesting that Wales, Cornwall, England and Scotland were the main national or political divisions, is also selective, out of context and possibly mistranslated. The map and its notes are quite explicit in dividing Britain into simply two kingdoms, England and Scotland. The full quote talks about five "idiomata" – which AFAICT refers to languages or dialects – and includes reference to Irish in the Hebrides and northern Scotland and "Gothicum" in Orkney. It cannot be taken to be a reference to political entities additional to England or Scotland or to imply that Cornwall was then considered a separate nation any more than Orkney was. N-HH talk/edits 13:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There also seems to be problems with the claims about the use of Anglia et Cornubia. The Celtic Review [1] doesn't contain any reference to the term. There is a mention in the second reference [2] but it states that it was used due to the "wide ranging expemptions from central taxation derived from the exceptional importance of the tin industry". This is not relevant to an article about terminology. I cannot get hold of the other references but given the misuse of citations by the editor it is probably safer to remove the whole paragraph. Eckerslike (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Home International sporting competition[edit]

Those "Home International" bridge tournaments include five national teams (and one extra host team) that represent E S W NI and Ireland, which implies five home nations.

The regatta is also active and implies four home nations, E S W and Ireland.

The football tournament is defunct and covered in this article.

--P64 (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've posted a request to clarify the opening sentence on the Home International Regatta page. The contract bridge page is a real mish-mash of different terms and a great example of how terms are used in an "inexact" way but largely accepted. ---- HighKing++ 17:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not certain you mean simply that wikipedia editors accept what they shouldn't, or that bridge officials or the Irish do, etc. Regarding the facts sufficient for coverage here:
I arrived here this week via Home nations, where I posted much more about international bridge competition one month ago. Talk:Home Nations#Home Internationals at the bridge table. Just now I expanded the month-old P.S. and P.P.S. to cover the 1999-2002 passing of "Great Britain" teams from Europe- and World-level competition, with more external links. The month-old material should be sufficient concerning British-level "Home Internationals".
--P64 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)