Talk:British Isles

Rugby Team in the Alternative Names Section

I'm happy that a reference has been found to show that the rugby team was renamed, and indeed that it was for "politically corrrect" reasons. I'm still not bowled over by the reliability of it (where was it published, aside from someone at a university putting it in their public html directory? who peer reviewed it?). Regardless of that though, it's ridiculous to have a long statement about the fine details of a rugby team in a section on alternative names in an article on a geographical entity. The alternative names section should state that alternative names are Britain and Ireland (ref: Folens, NatGeo) or in adjectival form British and Irish (ref: paper mentioning rugby team). In other words, these should just be inline references supporting the alternative names. The full details on the rugby team should be in the sports section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 08:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

ps HighKing - as someone who has repeatedly reverted here on the grounds that there is "no consensus", how about following your own rules? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 08:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: (1) change the intro wording as follows: "The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, which after several centuries of British intervention and rule was partitioned in 1922 into two, six counties in the north opting to remain within the United Kingdom, with the remainder of the island leaving the UK." (gives some background as to British/Irish history) (2) create a "Naming Issue" section and move the text that was in the intro there (3) do as I suggest above by making the road atlas and rugby team supporting reference for simply stating what the alternative names are. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 09:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose im not sure i like the sound of that, its politicizing the intro even more than it already is. I think the current introduction is reasonable, first paragraph covering what the British Isles is and the second covering the problems, objections and alternative. Seems ok to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't explain, anywhere, the shared history which is why this is such a hot potato. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A section on the background including the political side would be useful but i dont think it need go into detail about that in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Your proposal won't make the lead any shorter, and complicates it. Also, why are you proposing a new section and moving the "naming issues" to it when you shot down a similar proposal by me involving a simple list earlier? --HighKing (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

why is the intro length an issue? Re your proposal I disagreed with a "list of examples". Here I suggest listing the alternative terms and putting the "examples" as inline refs. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Any why has the content of the reference, from an academic source, been edited out again and the dubious tag been replaced (other than that the source contradicts what some people learned at school)? 213.155.151.233 (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to replace the tags with the ref, fine. But expanding text which is already the subject of a dispute as to why it is in that section is not ok (not without the consensus that is demanded by Snowded and Highking every time anyone else attempts to make a change.). It cuts both ways. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't rate this source particularly highly. There are numerous other sources which give varying explanations, and which are more rugby-specific. (This source, for example, has "On the tour to New Zealand in 1950, the team officially adopted the Lions name".) That it is an "academic" source does not, IMO, make it expecially credible on this point - it appears only as a footnote in a paper about team selection in golf, the writers are not experts in rugby, according to their research interests, and as far as I can tell have not published anything on the subject. It is highly unlikely that the note would be fact-checked or peer-reviewed, and they do not supply a source for their assertion. --hippo43 (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Support RHoPF's proposal. --hippo43 (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The journalistic source is from a cricket and rowing buff. So we can have a cricket and rowing buff or a Professor of Sports Studies from Stirling University. Also, the Times (as shown previously) also says that the Lions name was a nickname only. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"A cricket and rowing buff"?? No, a professional who regularly writes on rugby, writing an article specifically about the Lions name, published by a respected source. You're making my point for me - even the Times contradicts itself, so trying to be so specific and claiming that this one source is authoritative just because it is 'academic' is spurious. --hippo43 (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Kidd is the source, and your opinion that he's "a professional who writes regularly on rugby" is worth SFA. Besides, Kidd has written (apparently) about four times as much about property as about rugby, and nowhere near as much as he does about cricket. The academic source is a professor of sport in a respected British University. No contest. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Having been away for a bit I'm frankly amazed. We have an article by two academics from a respectable university who write an article about the whole issue of naming and clearly state that the name was changed in 2001. For anyone who knows anything about Rugby the name change in 2001 is well known (witness the programmes etc.), the issue has been to find something that will satisfy those who feel that using such evidence is OR. Yes they are also more commonly just called the Lions, but the official name changed in 2001. I can't understand why people are getting so worked up about this. The name change happened, its worthy of note it really should not be an issue. --Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What is getting lost is that this is an article about the British Isles, not a rugby team. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

While I believe what's getting lost is an objective and neutral POV. --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So best also mention that they continue to use the term then. [1] "The Tri-Nations champions scored four tries in the first half - two of which were intercepted efforts from jet-heeled winger Bryan Habana - to end their tour of the British Isles on a positive note." Yet again, we see it's not as simple as the cherry-pickers would have us believe. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Especially when the quote isn't referring to the team name, which is what this discussion is about. Cherry-pickers indeed.... --HighKing (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remind me, why is the team name even relevant again to an article on the British Isles? Oh yes, because it's supposed to mean something about changing patterns of usage, isn't it. Oh wait, but we've just found - yet again - the body which has supposedly banished it because of its political incorrectness still using it. Oh how inconvenient. I know, let's try the same tactic that we did for the road atlases. (Yawn.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well - since you asked. Fact: The team name was changed. If you want to maintain that it was because of political incorrectness, please provide a reference. I haven't said it was so, and it seems you are attempting to attribute a motive to editors that disagree with you. Try to keep the discussion on the content please. (Fart in your general direction) --HighKing (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fact: the surface of the sun is very hot. Not relevant to an article on the British Isles though, is it? Same goes for a rugby team changing its name. So why even bother mentioning this in the article, which is about a geographical entity? You tell me. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

()The rugby team was called the British Isles. The sun is hot, but it's not called the British Isles. The rugby team changed its name and there is academic source to say that it was for reasons of political correctness, to change away from British Isles. It's 100% relevant. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is all getting very silly. The term British Isles will continue to be used for some time, no one is disputing that fact (some people think it shouldn't be used but that is another matter). The fact that institutions have been renamed formally to British and Irish is significant in the context of this paragraph. it is different that than the casual use of British Isles in a newspaper article, and its not cherry picking to say so. All it says is that there is a change in terminology, that is what we should report. --Snowded ^TALK 14:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So, it seems that the dubious tag should be removed and the reference replaced. Objections? 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, on what basis are you "ruling" that casual use of "British Isles" in a newspaper article is not important but the name of a rugby team is? If this sentence stays in then we need a balancing statement reflecting the millions of hits on the internet and in Google books. The way it reads it seems that organisations are falling over themselves to stop using the term. That just isn't true. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The way it reads it seems that organisations are falling over themselves to stop using the term C'mon, are you taking the piss? Seriously, I'm surprised you'd resort to tactics of hyper-exagerration - extreme positions like this just make your argument weaker. All that comes across is that you've a problem with any mention of a fact that indicates that "British Isles" is not being used as much by different organizations and publications. The best argument you can find is to read stuff (mostly a hyper-exaggerated emotive POV) into the article that isn't even there, and you refuse any suggestions (a simple list). We're just going round in circles on this one.... --HighKing (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Resorting to ad hominem attacks, now? I'm emotive and taking the piss? Anyway. If you want to state that alternative names for the collection of island exist, and put - as inline citations - supporting references for that, fine. But what you want goes much, much further than that. You want to list only the organisations that don't use the term under cherry-picked circumstances (road atlas cover OK, ignore road atlas description; rugby team name OK, ignore mentions on rugby team website). And why do you want to list them? Because you want to demonstrate changing usage. So what about all the stuff you aren't mentioning? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look very very closely, there is no ad hominen comments made. I asked a question - are you taking the piss by trying to make out that the article even comes close to making it sound like organizations are falling over themselves to stop using the term. I note you didn't answer the question. I also did not call you emotive - are you taking the piss again with that comment too? And would you care to elaborate on all the stuff that's not being mentioned? --HighKing (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a most surprising rant from a noted ad hominem attack spotter. By the way HK, testing the waters again are we - Benjamin Franklin? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No surprise to see a barbed comment from MDM. Typical that you wouldn't bother to actually read what I'd actually said. --HighKing (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Red Hat, I honestly think you need to sit back and take a more objective look at this, you're getting sucked into a extreme position which appears ideological committed to maintain the BI label and denigrate any change even when referenced. The official change of name of a team is significant. The fact that a newspaper uses a geographic term to describe a tour is a so what issue. BI is a valid term, that use is legitimate (they comple, it has NOTHING TO DO with the issue, which is a shift in the names used. No one is saying that people are falling over themselves to change the name, if the wording says that we should change it (I don;t see that it does but I am open to argument). What is being reported is a simple set of facts.--Snowded ^TALK 22:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why was there a change in terminology? Do we know? Perhaps we could find a reference. In itself the change within the context in which it appears in the article is not at all relevant. It is the reason for the change that may be relevant, so I suggest that unless we can find a reference to explain the change we should not be mentioning it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A reference from an academic source has been produced so we do know why the terminology was changed. There's also been a news report about a NI politician complaining about the same reason as mentioned in the academic source. The name was changed to a name that was more politically correct. I think "politically correct" is a direct quote. 89.204.241.211 (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to it please (I note the one from the Times)? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think HighKings recent change improves the sentence and makes it less problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The current phrasing, with since - now is creaky and horrid, if HighKing will excuse me for saying so. Looking back there was a very simply phrased version, with reference, that was clearer and easier and had the university reference. 83.147.165.129 (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Substitute "are now" with "has been" - perhaps? MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd go along with that. --HighKing (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't. It's in deep dark passive voice, which is generally awful unless you at least say who did what. We know that the national unions renamed the team, and why. So here's a better version. In 2001 the British Isles Rugby Union team, often known informally as the British Lions, was renamed the more politically correct "British and Irish Lions"(ref). It's accurate, it's short, it's got the reference to support it. 89.204.234.0 (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And it's rubbish. Who says it's more politically correct, whatever that means? All we have so far is an opinion. Until someone can find a reference from the team itself stating why they renamed themselves then we've still got a problem. MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence started out OK, but I dislike the ending, especially "renamed the more politically correct". --HighKing (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's in the reference. It's verifiable. 83.147.165.129 (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

So, apart from disliking the referenced facts - which is unimportant - does anyone have any actual objection to using In 2001 the British Isles Rugby Union team, often known informally as the British Lions, was renamed the more politically correct "British and Irish Lions"(ref), or perhaps something like "was renamed - for reasons of political correctness - to 'The British and Irish Lions'". 213.155.151.233 (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Objection. All we need to say is that the team was renamed. It's not completely clear why they were renamed. In fact ... leave out the sentence completely. So they were renamed, big deal! We don't know why. Mister Flash (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Objection. It has nothing to do with the group of islands which are the subject of the article. It is part of an unrepresentative sample being used to show a purported pattern of changing usage. The academic source, writing about another subject entirely, does not state that the name was changed for reasons of political correctness, just that the new name is more politically correct. --hippo43 (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Britannica or POV?

I was "bold" and edited in a single word, mirroring the phrasing in Encyclopedia Britannica. It was immediately reverted. My edit was 100% supported by reference and should stand. The reversion was - as far as I can see - based on nothing more than denial, as is apparently usual around here. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted for two reasons. First of all as it was a change to the introduction you should of atleast mentioned it here first to see if there was support for the change considering the long attempts to get consensus for the current wording. Second you mention you want it to be inline with the Britannica source, well your change did not do that.

The source says " it has become increasingly controversial, especially for some in Ireland who object to its connotation of political and cultural connections between Ireland and the United Kingdom."

Your change said..

"The term British Isles is increasingly controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to its usage"

That doesnt sound exactly the same to me, the source says "some in Ireland object" which is rather different. Although Britannica articles are always awfully worded anyway and we should not be copying things word for word, i think thats against the rules. Adding the word "Increasingly" changes the balance of the sentence, so you should have mentioned it here first. In future please do NOT be bold on the introduction of this article, because i will revert anything i have the slightest problem with. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

BW would you tone it down a bit. There is now a reliable source which uses "increasingly" and either by quotation (which is allowed) or my paraphrase its legitimate to included it. You have to have a valid reason for reversion and "I have a slight problem" is not one. --Snowded ^TALK 13:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

BW's reasons (doesn't make same claim as source) are as valid as any of your reasons for reverting in the past, Snowded. However in this case I have to agree with my bearded Welsh friend. I don't think the edit was a problem. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse there must be a valid reason for the revert, although it depends on peoples point of view if its justified or not. I think in this case both reasons i gave were valid. Id have been ok with the change had it been reworded to..

""The term British Isles is increasingly controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are some objections to its usage"

Although for the introduction i do think we should always try to seek opinions here on making a change first to the current agreed wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Britannica mentions that the term is increasingly controversial and then says that's the case "especially for some in Ireland". The Britannica article indicates that it's increasingly controversial in general and that the problem is especially acute for some in Ireland, not that there are only "some objections to its usage". We have references saying that other terms are increasingly preferred or favoured, which is totally in line with Britannica's description of the main term becoming increasingly controversial. My change was the smallest possible change that I could make and respect the references that I can see, or that I'm aware of. The term is increasingly controversial...Britannica, check. The term is controversial primarily in relation to Ireland...other references, check. From reading through the (painful) archives of this article it's obvious that the some, many or most, argument has been done to death and that there's been consensus not to include any modifiers on the amount of objection because different sources indicate different things and that the references should speak for themselves rather than editors to-and-froing all the time. No-one seems to be happy with that approach but everyone seems to be equally unhappy, which is one way of reaching stable consensus. Therefore I suggest that my edit was good.
On the point of when to be bold and when to revert, I absolutely reject the suggestion that "I have a slight problem with it" is any kind of grounds for reverting. If there's a reference that contradicts Britannica or which indicates that Britannica is exaggerating then let's see it. Otherwise it's purely personal opinion driving the revert. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have the right to revert any change i disagree with once if there is no consensus here on the talk page. As i said before, please avoid being bold with the introduction when it took a long time to get agreement on the current wording. I still consider the change you made to alter the balance of the sentence, which needs to be adjusted elsewhere in the sentence to keep it neutral. Im not a fan of Britannica as a source anyway, they have some horrible articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Point of order - 1R is not a "right", in the same way that 3R is not a "right". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has a problem with an alteration done to the article, they have a right to revert it. Being BOLD and making a change with no discussion, depends on peoples right to revert. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll second the point of order. There is no "right" to revert or to make any other edit unless the change the editor makes is sustained by verifiable reference. There is no indication that there is any such sustenance in this case. 89.204.241.211 (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see where it states i do not have the right to revert something that has not been discussed that i disagree with, especially when we are talking about the introduction which took a long time to get agreement on. There have been endless number of reverts on this page, its why we currently have the 1RR in force to prevent edit warring.

He was BOLD, i reverted. Its then meant to be talked about here and if people support the change it can be readded. I reject the suggestion that anything i have done has not been fully within the rules and perfectly acceptable considering the environment of this article. If i make a change to the intro now which is backed up by references and can not be disputed, do people not have the right to revert it? ofcourse they do. Had he made the change to any other part of the article, i would not of been bothered.. but i watch all changes to the introduction and as i said before i will revert any change i disagree with that isnt discussed on this talk page first. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅BW I think you just reverted a correction of a quote. Aren't you getting a bit 1RR trigger happy? --Snowded ^TALK 10:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

He made a change to the intro too adding the word "many". Ive recorrected the if/is thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It does seem that there's no objection to the insertion of increasingly except BritishWatcher's dislike of it. Since it's from Britannica, that does trump dislike. 83.147.165.129 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As no one else seems to have a problem with "increasingly" being added then ill re-add it. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Now we have increasingly used twice in the (short) paragraph. It doesn't read well. Can we get rid of one of them, at least? MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Undone the change for the moment. Is there an alternative word that could be used instead of increasingly in one of the cases? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Howabout 'more frequently'? GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No opinion on the issue at hand, but are there really, as Britannica suggests, people who object to the idea that there are cultural connections between Ireland and the United Kingdom? Who are these people, and why should we care what anyone who is so obviously divorced from reality has to say about anything? john k (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Regretably there are such people, and nearly all of them seem to be editors on Wikipedia. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen people on Wikipedia who object to the idea that there are political connections between Ireland and the United Kingdom, I've not yet seen anyone who has openly and explicitly objected to the idea that there are cultural connections. It's just a very strange claim. john k (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

All things are relative. We have cultural connections to all of humanity nowadays. We share 98.9% of our genetic code with chimpanzees and are discovering cultural similarities as research progresses. We are more heavily influenced, culturally, by America for the past half century than by Britain. I'd guess what people are objecting to is the neo-Unionist assertion that we are the same culture. Sarah777 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

English, Irish, Scots, Welsh; they are all fundamentally the same race and share a common culture. That common culture is influenced by American culture due to their world domination of the media. As for the sub-races of the British Isles, they influence each other all the time. The Irish are no more separate from the mix than the English. The only differnece is that a majority of the Irish live in a country that's politically independent from the others. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

See? I guess that is the sort of thing causes Britannica to state that many folk are hostile to the theory of a "common culture". Sarah777 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Where do they state that? MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No point in arguing with Unionist myth-making Sarah --Snowded ^TALK 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Monday's papers from the two countries are indicative of the level of cultural sameness. The Irish papers were covered - front and back - by Sunday's sporting spectacular. The best game in years, possibly the best team of all time, a run equaling a record that stood since the 1940s by a team which contained names that are still renowned 60+ years later, and all played to a capacity crowd in one of the biggest stadia in Europe was all over the press and radio. The UK papers contained no mention whatsoever of the same events, even in the sports section. A common culture, really? No, not really. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some peculiar activities do take place only in Ireland, and others, equally peculiar, only in England, Scotland or Wales. I didn't say the common culture we share is the sum of the culture of the islands, I said we share a common culture - each country also has its own unique elements. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Increasingly is in the references and we shouldn't worry about searching for synonyms.83.147.165.129 (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• MidnightBlueMan, you are missing something. English, Irish, Scots, Welsh, Africans, Latin Americans, South Asians, Chinese, Japanese, and so on are all fundamentally the same — we are all human beings, and we have similar needs and wants. Race is a social construct; an individual should be judged on the basis of merit, not on the basis of race, ethnicity, or nationality. AdjustShift (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The points you make are totally irrelevant to the issue being discussed, but they do support what I say. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't support what you say. The "common culture" is no more common than any random selection of places in Northern Europe. Kerry and Lincolnshire have far less culture in common than Gt.Yarmouth and Ijmuiden or Devon and Brittany. Several of the largest sporting and cultural events of the year in Ireland are total non-events in the UK, and vice versa. This isn't a case of "peculiar activities", it's a case of different cultures. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

MidnightBlueMan, the points I made are relevant to the issue being discussed. You said "English, Irish, Scots, Welsh; they are all fundamentally the same race and share a common culture." There is no such thing called "English race" or "Irish race" or "African race"; there is only one race — the "human race". And Britain and Ireland don't share a "common culture". As Sarah777 has pointed out above, Ireland is more influenced, culturally, by the US for the past half century than by Britain. I'm not from the US, and a non-native speaker of English. I grew up watching WWE and movies like American Pie, eating hamburger, and I developed a deep interest in the American Old West. I share more common things with the American than with the people of my neighboring country. The same applies with many Irish people. Many Irish share more common things with the Americans than with the British. AdjustShift (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think the people of your neighbouring country don't like hamburgers, American Pie, WWE and the Old West? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You are not getting what I'm saying. I share more common things with the Americans than with my neighbors. The people of my neighboring country may also share common things with the Americans than with the people of my country. AdjustShift (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So if you have things in common with Americans, and the British have those same things in common with Americans ... then Hey Presto, you have those things in common with the British! And possibly some other things too. What I mean is, Britain and Ireland share a lot of culture, even if some of that culture is American. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your point. AdjustShift (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Another thing worth mentioning just in case it's been forgotten, is that the USA was colonised by the English and not the other way around. I might also add that British English is taught and spoken in Ireland, not American English.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

<>The Spanish, Dutch, Italians, Germans, Irish, Poles, and others also had a hand in the USA. As for the English in Ireland, it's a hybrid and is neither American or British English. 89.204.251.182 (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The original 13 colonies which formed what is now the United States of America were British, which is why English is spoken in the USA and not Polish or Italian. Oh, you left out the French. They were early explorers and colonisers of North America.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And the west coast was Spanish or Russian, with most of the middle being French. So? The point remains that the USA is not culturally specifically English. 89.204.242.122 (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

But the founding colonies of the United States were English/British. Many things about America traces its roots back to Britain, be it common law, the bill of rights, the language, etc.. perhaps even greatness ;) But im not sure what this has to do with anything related to this article which needs changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Germans had a huge influence on the early USA, with German language seriously being considered for the national language of the new state. Imagine a German speaking USA, special relationship. The Yankees made America the country it is today, the good and the bad. The Germans have always been culturally a very advanced group, and much of British culture as we know it today was imported from France Germany, Holland, Spain, and of course Italy, with Ireland influencing the northern part of Great Britain. It's a mix, and has a totally different 'feel' than Britain. Tfz 13:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever about the USA, the relevant point for here is still well illustrated by a recent point about last weeks UK and Irish papers. 89.204.243.228 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The most common surnamess in the USA are of British origin, which is further proof of the nation's British roots. Behavioural patterns are also similar between the Irish, British, and Americans as opposed to continental Europeans,; a fact which I personally observed first-hand yesterday. I witnessed the typical continental habit of pushing, shoving, and general disregard for queues. My first thought was that this type of behaviour would never happen in Ireland, Britain or the USA. This is not an attack on continental Europeans, but merely an illustration on how many personality and cultural traits the English-speaking people in the world have in common. A British person would experience less culture shock if he or she married an Irish person or American than a southern European.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A significant proportion of Americans with British-sounding names do not have British ancestry. This is for two main reasons. (1) African-Americans typically bear the name of their ancestors slave owners. (b) During the peak C19 immigration to the USA, the INS officers were mainly of British or Irish descent. If presented with a name (typically an eastern european or turkish) that they couldn't understand, they arbitrarily gave the person an "American" name - meaning in practice a British name - that the immigrant should use henceforth. --Red King (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Excluding the African-Americans, who as you correctly state mostly bear British surnames, as well as Native Americans, many of whom also have British surnames, most of the white people who have British surnames live in regions of the US that did not receive many eastern or southern Europeans, namely the South, Midwest and Northwest. The eastern and southern Europeans settled mainly in the larger cities on the east coast. Most white American southerners have ancestors who all arrived in America prior to 1800. Their ancestry is overwhelmingly English, Scots-Irish and French. The 1790 US census showed that 90% of Americans were of British origin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yups, one of my parents is English, and the other Irish, and it never ceases to amaze me how both Irish and English get along together on personal basis, as though they compliment each other. I think it was Oscar Wilde who wrote in one of his plays, "God invented the Irish to stop the English from boring themselves to death". It's all humour of course.) Tfz 17:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Trust Wilde to say that, although personally I do not find the English boring; on the contrary, I have always found the English to be very good company. Same with the Irish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How can it get boring with the Irish living next door, there is always something to talk about. Tfz 17:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That is very, very true. My dad was Irish and he never, ever ran out of things to talk about.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder if the rest of the world must imagine the Irish and English to be constantly at each others' throats, given all the reporting and propoganda they must hear. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. When interacting in non-political settings - i.e. almost all of the time for almost all of them - the two nations I think secretly rather like each other. ðarkuncoll 18:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I certainly can't recall a war between the UK & Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there have been many wars between Britain and Ireland. These began in Roman times when the Irish started raiding Britain, taking slaves and such (e.g. St Patrick). They also conquered and settled large parts of what are now Scotland and Wales. In order to fight back the British were forced to employ Saxon mercenaries. Later, after England had been conquered by the Normans, the Normans set their sights on Ireland, and aided by a papal decree (confirmed by Adrian IV's successor, who was not English), the Norman rulers of England were tasked with the job of pacifying Ireland. It is probably fair to say that they didn't make a very good job of it, and the troubles remain to the present day. ðarkuncoll 23:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the Irish came with St ColmCille and brought Christianity to Britain via Caledonia. They arrived with bibles and manuscripts rather than weapons. Also St Patrick many not have existed at all, who knows. I think the Irish Church was a thorn to Rome, and for some reason it's called the Celtic Church here on Wikipedia, but that's another tale. Tfz 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a thorn in the side of Rome which is why the Pope issued the Papal Bull in 1154 which gave the Normans the holy entree into Ireland; along came Strongbow in 1170 with his Norman knights and Welsh mercenaries, aided by Dermot MacMurrough, and the rest is history. The Church has a lot to answer for as regards Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Getting more up to date than the Romans and Columcille, the UK and Irish papers again (as two weeks ago) illustrate that there's a greater cultural divide than some people care to admit. Once again, one of Europe's largest stadia filled to capacity (which is impressive in a small country like Ireland), once again the Irish papers are all full of the story, and once again it doesn't even merit a mention even in the sports section of the UK's largest papers. I checked the Sun, Mirror, Times, Telegraph and Independent. I wonder what percentage of UK editors would - without going to check - know what NAMA is? Irish editors might not be sure exactly what it is either :-(, but still, the point remains. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

semi-protect

Would someone semi-protect this? We've got newly created IPs who are very "knowledgeable" reinserting material against prior consensus. Given the Irr restriction this makes it very difficult --Snowded ^TALK 20:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is the "prior consensus" to remove the referenced information about John Dee's politics? Removing it is designed to deny that the term "British Isles" in its very origins is a politically contrived term. Removing well-referenced sources for Dee's imperialist politics in order to propagate a political agenda which claims this term is not political is ethically wrong and against wikipedia policy. Such a removal is, plain and simply, part of a British nationalist political agenda. Please have the decency to be honest about what is really going on here. 213.202.190.199 (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(i) look at the talk history, first use yes, speculation as to motive is OR, (ii) please avoid conspiracy theories and (iii) do us all a favour and list the previous IDs under which you have edited. --Snowded ^TALK 20:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no speculation about his motives: all of his biographers are at one that he was motivated by imperialism. As the DNB entry puts it (and the DNB is not one of those articles referenced in the article pointing out his imperialist ideas and views): "From about 1570, however, he emerges, both in manuscript and print, as the advocate of a policy for strengthening England politically and economically, and for imperial expansion into the New World. The first survivor of these manuscript tracts, Brytannicae reipublicae synopsis (1570), perhaps a schematic digest of a larger work requested by Dee's friend and patron Edward Dyer, concerns itself with trade, ethics, and national strength. Six years later he began a much more ambitious project, The Brytish Monarchy, of which only the first part, General and Rare Memorials Pertaining to the Perfect Art of Navigation (1577), achieved print, albeit in a limited edition. Another volume of great bulk was to consist of Queen Elizabeth's Tables Gubernautik, but has not survived; a third volume was destroyed, perhaps by its author, while a fourth, Of Famous and Rich Discoveries, remains only in Dee's now very imperfect manuscript. Concurrently with these writings Dee was producing another work, the Brytanici imperii limites of 1576–8 (extant only in a manuscript by another hand)." The guy wrote several books about creating a "British empire". There is no "original research" there either. It is serious head-in-the-sand stuff to write this off as "original research". And "head-in-the-sand" is a generous way of putting what's really going on with the wikipedia editors in question. 213.202.190.199 (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we need an admin to come and block this IP for breaking the 1RR?? (if he has) , the history page is confusing im lost which are allowed to be reverted theres been several IP changes today. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The link between BI as a name and Dee's motives has to be established. Its not enough to say X was motivated by A, X said B thereofre B was motivated by A. That aside, how about answering point (iii) above. --Snowded ^TALK 20:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is well established. The guy was an imperialist, he advocated English, indeed British, imperialist expansion, and he is the first person, according to the OED, to coin the terms "British Empire" and "British Isles" in the course of that advocacy. To contend that there is no verifiable connection is disengenuous at best. To remove these references is letting political views of editors triumph over Wikipedia's requirement for referenced sources. Also, there are many other sources in absolute agreement about John Dee's imperialist politics. There is no authority on Dee in denial about his imperialist politics. But there are rightwing British nationalist editors here in denial. Ergo, these sources are censored.213.202.190.199 (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

it does not matter if the material should be added or not, it needs agreement here first. You added it, i have reverted it but then you broke the rules by restoring the information. Please undo that restoration IP because i have contacted admins asking someone to take a look. We can debate this matter here, but u need to undo that revert of yours. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If an admin comes they need to read the different edits carefully. Most of the edit warring has been over use of Republic of Ireland / Ireland. The only thing i have undone is the edit by the IP who added stuff about John Dee, this has not been agreed on the talk page so reverted it for the first time, nobody else reverted it so ive not broken the 1RR just so everyones clear on this.

On the issue of ROI which there is an edit war going on, im fine for that to just say Ireland. Perhaps it will be addressed later on after the voting is finished, not before. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Now the page is semiprotected from what i can see theres been two changes that need undoing to the previous stable version.

• Republic of Ireland changed back to Ireland
• Removal of the POV about John Dee

Both these things should be done so its back to the recent stable version, an admin will need to make these changes because otherwise we are breaking the 1RR. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• "POV" - are you for real? What planet are you on? John Dee is referenced material from British - yes, British - sources. This is more, much more, than what is offered by those who want to silence the politics of the earliest known user of the term "British Isles", that is John Dee in 1577. Rather, it is this insidious political agenda which seeks to cover up the imperialist politics underlying the term "British Isles" and instead propagate a notion that it is a harmless apolitical term which is, quite patently, the problem here. 213.202.190.199 (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: Just for clarification: "stable" means the version you agree with. This article, as a quick glance at its 34 archives of edit history (so far) demonstrates, has never been stable. It is exceedingly unlikely that it ever will be genuinely stable as long as it has the name "British Isles" on it. 213.202.190.199 (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No it does not mean the version i was happy with, id rather see Republic of Ireland remain but its been Ireland for some time so that is the stable version. The original research about John Dee was removed some time ago as well when it was moved out of the intro. There for the stable version is the one without those two changes that took place yesterday. Sorry but the article WAS reasonably stable for sometime, although alot of crap has hit the fan recently i must admit. If further information is needed about John Dee, it needs to be agreed to here. Now i dont want you punished, but i want the material you should not have readded which was in violation of the 1RR removed from the page. The edit page clearly states do not revert another editors revert. You reverted by revert in violation of the rules. That material must be removed thanks. It would save us all alot of time if you undid the revert yourself, rather than us needing to get an admin to restore it, who may have to punish you. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's high time this article was semi-protected, the editor (with his IP accounts) is merely causing disruption with his/her continued refusal to stop his/her 'edit first, discuss latter' style. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the 1RR only apply for 24 hours like the standard 3RR??? BritishWatcher (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please enlighten me on the current state of this article: It has been reverted to what is being referred to as a "stable" version, in part because of the edit warring over the use of the phrase "Republic of Ireland" to describe the political entity, in order to differentiate it from the geographic entity "Ireland" referred to earlier in the same paragraph. Is this correct? This revert, of course, has the effect of preventing my edit from being published which, it so happens, was the very purpose of the edit warrior who violated the 3RR. Is this a correct assessment so far? I would additionally like to ask, besides this reversion, what is the procedure to be followed that could allow for my edit to take effect, should it be deemed justified, and who are the parties entitled to judge that justification? Shoreranger (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Im concerned about a different section of text that was added, not the matter on the ROI / Ireland. I agree it makes sense to put Republic of Ireland where it is, however as there is 1RR in force it should now be Ireland still. Also this matter is sensitive because the issue of when to say Republic of Ireland instead of Ireland, is soon to be talked about at another location. The poll on if the country article should remain at Republic of Ireland has recently ended here and soon the debate on other matters relating to that (including when to use ROI) will be made at Wikipedia:IECOLL and its probably best for no changes to be made until agreement is reached there. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, let the discussions peter out over there first, and then bring it back later if you wish. Has been stable for a while Tfz 17:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I wish I had known about the poll earlier. However, the results fo the poll itself would not seem to solve the problem in this particular paragraph. That is: Even if "Ireland" is polled as the "preferred" term for the political entity, "Republic of Ireland" is still a viable alternative and, if so, would be the best solution to differentiating it from the term "Ireland" used earlier in the same paragraph to refer to the geographic entity. Basically, the problem of using the same word twice in the same paragraph to mean two very different things will not be addressed by any of this, it seems to me. Shoreranger (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The vote is over, however that was just phase one. In the coming days debate will start on this page about exactly when Republic of Ireland should and should not be used in different articles. Feel free to get involved there, the point about two uses of Ireland in the same sentence / paragraph is something id not considered before and does add to confusion so that will have to be covered too. Like i say the debate there should start soon, the result of the poll has not been officially confirmed yet and a few people will be raising hell in an attempt to get the vote declared void because they dont like the outcome. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So what's the result? I can't make head n' tale of it. Overly complex if you ask me, but then it would be, wouldn't it? Mister Flash (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The status quo won when it comes to article titles, the outcome of the remaining matters still being debated are far from clear, looking at where we are currently and what still needs to be covered id expect it to last a few months yet. I still have other matters to raise, but previous things still are to be addressed. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

1RR needs sorting

Its clear from todays changes which has led to several people being blocked the current ruling on this matter simply causes more problems, and the awful wording that someone should NOT have added, has remained on the article for a long period of time because none of us are allowed to revert it.

The 1RR should only be applied to ones own edits and if it leads to many people getting involved in an edit war then the page should be protected for a week AFTER the stable wording is restored. That would seem easier to enforce and keep calm than the current method.BritishWatcher (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It'll just turn into a war of everyone on each "side" reverting once, the winner being the "side" with the most people able to revert, it will all end in tears! This way is better because at least then an admin can step in and "neutralise" the article back to its original state. The edit notice is perfectly clear that if you revert a revert you will be blocked. Jeni ^(talk) 21:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I almost got caught out by this rule a few weeks ago, i think i was like two minutes away from getting blocked by CT but luckly i decided to undo my edit just in time. I cant see this method keeping more order than 1RR for every editor and then if a edit war does break out an admin protecting the page and restoring the stable version. Now several people have been blocked, all because an Admin (BrownHairedGirl) decided to come to this page and change the wording to something clearly that would be opposed by people here. Now CT will probably get abuse for applying punishments for those who broke the rule, despite disagreeing with the rule itself. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

AGF, please. Britishwatcher, I changed the wording to something which seemed to me to be a simple formulation of a neutral approach to the question. Maybe I should have guessed that an opening sentence which doesn't lend weight to one side or other of the dispute would be opposed by those who think that a British worldview is neutral and a non-British one is POV, but I didn't. I try to assume at least some degree of fairness, but I note your advice that this is a bad assumption.

And no, I wasn't aware that this solution had been tried before. The discussions in the talk page archive are far too long and verbose to review, and no sane person would try to read them all before contributing.

As to Jeni's comment that lifting 1RR will lead to 'the winner being the "side" with the most people able to revert', well stone the crows! That'd be such a big difference to the winner being the side with the most people able to oppose a neutral wording. When the Encyclopedia Britannica article devotes nearly half its opening paragraph to to describing the controversial nature of the term, wikipedia's failure to follow suit makes it look like a particularly old-fashioned sort of Wikipedia Britannica rather than the neutral project it sets out to be. I feel an essay coming on ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont think i went against AGF, the wording you changed to was offensive and was clearly going to be reverted, i will strongly oppose any changes to that first sentence, anyway ive no more to say on this matter tonight. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Who was offended? Jack forbes (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Offensive to say something is disputed come on. BigDunc 21:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Dunc, I can only read BW's comments as meaning that it is offensive to suggest that the preferred British terminology could be disputed by any reasonable person. I don't agree with him, but he's not exactly the first person to take that view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 28 September 2009

And now the only person still blocked is the person who restored the stable wording!! This system is just too unfair and counter productive. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is not 1RR it is 0RR and it is not stated clear enough and if blocks are being handed out why has Jeni not got one for her revert of BHG. BigDunc 21:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't revert a revert, as clearly stated at the top of the page. Jeni ^(talk) 21:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on Jeni you know well that reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits and that is what you did. BigDunc 21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the edit notice... "Do not revert or undo another editor's revert." I didn't revert a revert, as I said above, you and the other guy both reverted a revert, there is a difference. Jeni ^(talk) 21:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The restriction is as Jeni says, do not revert another editors reversion. It's a very strict enforcement of the BRD cycle. Canterbury Tail talk 21:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the current restriction doesn't work, but the last time it was brought up people wanted it kept, and indeed I was heavily criticised by many on this page for not enforcing it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What would be the alternative? I agree that the no revert of a revert rule is not ideal but wouldn't the alternative be a new and rather messy edit war? Jack forbes (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There isn't one, that's the problem. The best I can come up with is the full protect and then editing by consensus only, but that still has issues. Though it may make people think through arguments more rather than throwing "British imperialism" and "Republican ignorance" type comments around. I just don't know any more. Canterbury Tail talk 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The alternative is to simply protect the page. It would have exactly the same effect on content as this 0RR, but it would mean nobody got blocked for misunderstanding the edit warning. (This 0rr rule means that any edit can be reverted and that's it, unless people want to be blocked, so no change is possible). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As much as I hate full protection, I fear it may be the only option on such a controversial topic. Jeni ^(talk) 22:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Would that be a disputed topic Jeni? BigDunc 22:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Controversial enough to be protected, but not controversial enough for the opening sentence to note the existence of that controversy? Brilliant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think its fairly obvious my comment referred to the controversial nature on Wikipedia, you seem to like reading too deep into my comments? Jeni ^(talk) 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So this dispute only exists on wikipedia is that what your saying Jeni BigDunc 22:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Jeni, I had assumed in good faith that there might have been some depth to your comments, but I'll accept your assertion of shallowness.

Pity, though, that even the EB article doesn't seem enough to persuade you that this isn't just a problem on wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it is controversial is mentioned in the first sentence of the second paragraph, that is more than enough. Jeni ^(talk) 22:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That's priveliging one view over the other. So long as the opening paragraph continues to say "the BI are", without qualification, it presents that view as fact and the "controversy" as noises-off. That's not NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The 1RR safe-guard should continue. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

BHG already pointed to the Encyclopedia Britannica article. I noted that BW thought her edit was offensive. An honest question. Does anyone think the britannica opening paragraph is offensive? If so, why do you think they would go out of their way to offend? Jack forbes (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely the 1RR rule can not be used to preserve a position against citation? --Snowded ^TALK 01:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead paragraph of this article should begin: "The British Isles is an increasingly controversial phrase that refers to an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe, which includes Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands." It has the merit of being both correct and sourced. I am rarely offended by the Encyclopædia Britannica and, in this case, not at all. Could an admin make the appropriate change please? Daicaregos (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds good, Daicaregos but I think we should also specify the Isle of Man.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I like that suggestion by Daicaregos, and the words "increasingly controversial" should be referenced to the EB. I don't mind either way whether the IoM is included in the opening sentence.

Does anyone object to the use of the EB as a reliable source for the "increasingly controversial"? If so, please explain why. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections with the sentence or EB as a source. BigDunc 08:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the suggested wording. The first paragraph must stay the same, we go into details about the disputed status of the term in the second paragraph. Its questionable if this dispute belongs in the introduction at all, theres not a chance its being put in the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds do you oppose? BigDunc 08:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The only way to resolve this is citation, in this case the above wording does that and is used by britannica in the lede. BW you can't (legitimately) strongly oppose something which is cited without a far more solid reason than your opinion. On the British Empire article you argued that a (much weaker) citation was sufficient and you should attempt consistency here. --Snowded ^TALK 08:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I oppose because the current wording has been agreed to over a long period of time, with a few exceptions since that point the introduction has remained stable. The British isles are a group of islands, its not "an increasining controversial phrase" first. To switch this around would be very offensive and clearly overplays this dispute. As in the article, Irish publishers still use it.

The British Isles must be treated the same way a continent or island is. The Great Britain article doesnt start by saying GB is a phrase..., the Europe article does not start, Europe is a term.. Such things are stated as fact, and reliable sources clearly state the British Isles as fact.

If any change at all to that introduction is made in the next few days before far more people have commented on this alteration and agreed to it, i will revert. As 1RR is still inforce, that will lock it into place. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So a reliable and authoritative source says it is controversial, but BW says it is not? --Snowded ^TALK 09:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And has stated that he will edit war in the hope of getting the page protected, this is more disruptive than the editors who were blocked, which BW supported, last night. BigDunc 09:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And the issue of double standards on the British Empire article is not addressed - can you do that BW? --Snowded ^TALK 09:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ive not stated i will edit war, ive stated i will revert a disgusting and offensive change to this article if it does not have clear consensus on this talk page. That is not edit warring and it violates no rule. As for the BE article, i cant remember what incident you are refering to, although the British Empire article is a FA so if its something in the article still now it must be acceptable. Oh and i never once said last night that i supported blocks being issued, i started this conversation here because clearly issuing blocks in such a way resolved nothing and simply caused more problems, allowing the offensive wording to remain in the article for a longer period of time because we are not allowed to revert it ourselves. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I accept its controversial for some, although i consider some of the crap we hear here on wikipedia about it seriously over plays the dispute. Im slightly confused, people are talking about the British Isles article on Britannica, but that does exactly what we do already from what i can see..

British Isles - "group of islands off the northwestern coast of Europe. The group consists of two main islands, Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands and island groups, including the Hebrides, the Shetland Islands, the Orkney Islands, the Isles of Scilly, and the Isle of Man. Some also include the Channel Islands in this grouping. Although the term British Isles has a long history of common usage, it has become increasingly controversial, especially for some in Ireland who object to its connotation of political and cultural connections between Ireland and the United Kingdom"

We do exactly the same thing, we just split that long single paragraph in two and go into MORE detail about the dispute / alternative names used. The EB backs up the current wording not this disgusting wording proposed. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please AGF, be civil and moderate your tone. Saying things are "offensive" and that the proposed wording is "disgusting" is completely unnecessary and insulting. All that is needed to be said is that you disagree. Daicaregos (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. Now you have agreed that it is controversial and it appears in the article we have a reliable source for the sentence, so I can see no reason for not adding it to the lead. BigDunc 09:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Its in the lead already thanks BigDunc. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is in the second paragraph, but qualified. We now have an authoritative citation which simply says it is controversial without qualification. Its OK to suggest different ways to word that, it is not OK to call another edit's wording "disgusting", I suggest you strike that. --Snowded ^TALK 09:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok i have striked it, but i oppose that awful wording being added to the introduction. Even if we have a source that says its controversial without qualification, does not mean the first sentence needs changing. To start an article.. "British Isles is an increasingly controversial phrase" instead of stating what the British Isles are (a group of islands), clearly goes against relibale sources and it would not make the introduction neutral, far from it such a change would be deeply offensive and give too much weight to this dispute. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. It was quiet for a time and now they're back with a new line-up. What happened to the last bunch? Did they all get blocked? The structure of the Britannica article is strikingly similar to that which is currently used here. If we were copying that format – which we shouldn’t be doing – then this article would look… exactly like it is at the moment. The facts are stated and relevant qualifications follow. Neutrality trumps verifiability. In fact, on that basis, there is a good case for removing mention of the supposed controversy from the intro altogether. It is only relevant to a small minority of inhabitants of the geographic area (maybe 7% if everyone in Ireland objects) and a tiny minority of the total number of English speakers, for whom this encyclopaedia is written. The current text is a compromise and the minority have absolutely no case for pushing their opinion further than is already reflected. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

@BritishWatcher: If you'd like to understand how something can correctly be termed "offensive" all you need to do is to read the incivil comment made by Wiki-Ed above. See, you learn something new from Wikipedia every day. Daicaregos (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

lol i thought Wiki-Ed made some very good points BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Claim of offensiveness

The problem here seems to be that BW insists that the proposed wording is "offensive", and expects his application of that word to trump anything else. At this point, the onus is on BW to explain in detail exactly how a reliably-sourced use of the word "controversial" in the lead is "offensive", when he doesn't appear to be claiming that it's offensive if it's para 2.

This seems to be perverse. If BW finds it offensive to note the controversy in para 1, why is he not offended by its inclusion in para 2?

This requires a detailed explanation, BW, not just a repetition of words like "offensive" and "disgusting". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I have explained above, and this issue has been raised in the past where others have objected. Perhaps those who have arrived on this page in the past 24 hours and started this campaign should read some of the archives?

Its offensive because the proposed wording treats the British Isles a different way to other locations on wikipedia. I support the second paragraph, it explains the concerns some people have aswell as saying alternatives. but that is very very different to starting this article..

"The British Isles is an increasingly offensivecontroversial phrase"...

Imagine the Europe article or the Great Britain article, starting.. "is a term used to describe" Such things are treated as fact, and yes i find it offensive for people to suggest it should be treated differently. Reliable sources back up our wording, even the EB which you guys have mentioned backs up our wording not the proposed wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is to say "controversial" not "offensive" and as far as I am aware there is no controversy over the name and extent of Europe so that is a red herring. --Snowded ^TALK 09:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry yes, controversial (corrected it). still exactly the same problem though. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the British Isles a phrase, or is the British Isles a group of islands? Reliable sources say its a group of islands. Even if we left out the controversial, it we shouldnt start by saying British Isles is a phrase used...., that is where the issue of Europe or Great Britain comes into play. These are all manmade terms, by putting in the first sentence this is just a phrase, goes against reliable sources and would not be neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So a wording which says it is controversial, but does not use "phrase" or "term" would be acceptable? --Snowded ^TALK 09:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would probably object to that aswell, but i wouldnt find it offensive the way i find starting this article "British Isles is a phrase", which downplays it. I think the current agreed wording is good. First paragraph explains what the British Isles is, second is dedicated to the dispute over its name and mentions alternatives. That seems reasonable. This issue was covered at lenght, agreed consensus was the British Isles are a group of islands.. not a phrase. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

BW, using the word "phrase" does not contradict the reliable sources. What sources say it isn't a phrase?

But if the word phrase is the stumbling block, how about wording it as "controversial description of" or "controversial name for"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

BW, I said if "phrase" was removed would you object so I am not sure why you are saying you would object? BHG suggestion sounds good --Snowded ^TALK 10:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Because i do not think we need to say its controversial in the first sentence and i would rather the previously agreed introduction remain than make alterations on that first sentence, the whole second paragraph covers this matter clearly enough. Lets wait and see how others respond, but like i pointed out before this matter came up in the past and it was agreed we must say British Isles is a group of islands, not downgrade / downplay it by saying its some form of term which is the bit i find offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The islands existed long before the name, which is a relatively recent human construction; they will continue to exist even if the name is changed. Some names are uncontroversial, so we say "X is ...", but there are plenty of wikipedia articles which handle this situation by problematising a name in the first sentence by a form of words along the lines of "X, also known as Y or Z, is ...". So the notion that it's some sort of wikipedia convention for a lead to state a name as unqualified fact is simply wrong.

But maybe it would be better to turn this around. What form of words would you accept in the opening sentence to make it clear that the term is controversial? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to change the introduction, if someone wants to suggest a more reasonable alteration than the previous proposal here then i will consider it. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's helpful, insofar as we have finally clarified that your actual objection is not to the wording of any alternative proposal, but to any change at all. The problem here is that you are being disingenuous: if you see no reason to change the intro, then your promise to consider "a more reasonable alteration" is worthless, because you have already made it clear that you view any change as automatically unreasonable.

So you've actually just used a lot of words to say nothing more than would have been conveyed by "no, no, no". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

lol fine, no no no! :) BritishWatcher (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is a small group of editors who think Wikipedia’s core policies don’t apply to their opinions. BI is not a "phrase", it is a proper noun. It may be controversial in some places, but those people who find it controversial are vastly outnumbered by those who do not. Thus, to qualify the noun in the lead sentence implies the topic is much more controversial than it actually is; this is not neutral and has no place here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, I agree with your first sentence. The problem here is that a small group of editors insist that their POV must be stated as a "fact", while reliably-sourced opposing views are relegated to a subsidiary position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing many reliable secondary sources with a single tertiary source, the emphasis of which is being misrepresented to support a minority POV. The former provides neutrality and verifiability; the latter barely meets the criteria for verifiability alone. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify how my proposal "misrepresents" the Encyclopedia Britannica. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

EB says the British isles is a group of islands, it goes on to define which islands. Then it says its increasinly controversial. The proposal above seeks to say it is an increasinly controversial phrase that refers to...., that is not what the EB source says. The EB do what we do, we simply divide it into two paragraphs instead of one long one. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

To add to what BW said: the EB article qualifies its statement by explaining the controversy relates to Ireland/Irish perception (as we do in the second para) whereas the proposed wording would not. This would be synthesis. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. The EB article says "it has become increasingly controversial", and follows that by saying "especially for some in Ireland". You are trying to misrepresent the EB by portraying it as relating solely to Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We cannot seriously be back on this topic again? --Narson ~ Talk • 11:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Narson - sadly yes. BHG - the implication of section in the EB is that the controversy relates to the Irish/Ireland. It doesn't give any other explanation and doesn't provide any citations (one good reason we don't use tertiary sources). Grateful if you could provide some secondary sources explaining who/where else it is controversial. And, in any case, the format is the key point. The layout puts the facts first and the opinions second - which is exactly what we do here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, you complain about not following what the sources say, yet you impose an interpretation on the source which isn't what it says. If the EB had wanted to say that the controversy was solely relating to Ireland it would have omitted the word "especially", as in "it has become increasingly controversial, especially for some in Ireland". It didn't do that, so you have no grounds for claiming that it implies somethinmg other than what it says.
And I simply adore the way you try to characterise the British view as "fact", and the Irish view as "opinions". That's a priceless illustration of a British world-view ... and while you are quite entitled to your world-view, wikipedia strives for neutrality. Do you want to retract that, or would you like to try to explain in what way the controversial nature of the name in Ireland is not a fact? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If it was a Wikipedia article we would have stuck "citation needed" and "weasel words" tags all over it. The only attempt to qualify their statement is to hint that it relates to Ireland. If it was a general trend it would not need qualification at all.

As for neutrality, one would hope you are familiar with the concept of weighting? Minority views do not get the same coverage as the majority. Assuming everyone in Ireland finds it objectionable - and there is no evidence of this - and considering the potential readership of this article (the English speaking population of the world) the proportion who find the term controversial is considerably less than 1%. If we restrict ourselves to the population of the geographic area to which the term applies it is no more than 6 or 7% (population of Ireland as a proportion of the population of the isles). Yet somehow, here, 50% of the lead section is devoted to covering that POV. This is not neutral, but we're willing to allow that view to be reflected. That is compromise enough. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would come down to that, but it's helpful of you to state your methodology so clearly. Two neighbouring countries have radically different views about a collective term, and you say that the views of the more heavily-populated one should trump those of the smaller one, to the point of dismissing the minority as "opinion" against the majority's "fact". By that rationale, I presume that you are going to try to rewrite the article on Cuba, using the American POV as "fact" and Cuban perspective as "opinion". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not what I say; what Wikipedia says (WP:WEIGHT): Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. A consequence of having a larger population is that there are more 'reliable sources' to work with. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you take sort of legalistic view of "undue weight", and ignore the spirit of it, then we might as well go the whole way and rewrite the lead of Republic of Ireland to describe it as "an unruly former colony populated by terrorist bogtrotters, feckless layabouts, and other sorts of undesirable papist". Followed, of course by something much lower down to say that the Irish dispute this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If that was what the majority of reliable sources said then yes... but as you well know, they don’t. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The above conversation is a waste of time. The proposed change is opposed by several people. It will not be added to the article, and there is nothing to gain from going over old ground which was covered in the past that can be found in the archives. Lets play with the motorway articles instead please and leave the British Isles alone. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we could save a lot of time on wikipedia if discussion of any change was abandoned when "opposed by several people". That would lead to a permanent freeze on any change to huge swathes of articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to be 'peer reviewed', then frozen, and then visited only once a year, or in exceptional circumstances, to keep it up to speed with events. It has been an awful 'drain'. Tfz 13:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Quit the patronising would you BW your comment Lets play with the motorway articles instead please and leave the British Isles alone shows you up for the type of editor you are. This is supposed to be a collaboration process not a democracy weight of numbers mean fuck all. BigDunc 13:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I oppose the wording, it gives undue weight to the argument, the first sentence of the second paragraph (which is still in the lead) is more than enough. Jeni ^(talk) 13:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds do you say "undue weight"?

Explicit rejection by the govt of one of the two sovereign states included seems to me to be fairly heavyweight. What do you want,a UN resolution? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a completely neutral admin come in here and assess the discussion? In my opinion there is no reason not to include the controversy in the opening lines. I feel a completely neutral admin would agree (I think so anyway). Would this be a good idea, and does anyone know of such an admin? Jack forbes (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is right up there in the lede in a nice spot at the start of a paragraph. More prominance that we would normally give to such controversy (I'm thinking of how we treat the naming controversy on Burma/Myanmar, for example). Totally agree with Jeni here. Can both sides try to treat this as a geography article and not a battlefield though? It is what keeps people away from the article (giving the much needed third POV) --Narson ~ Talk • 13:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If only this was just a geography article, then we'd have a much easier life :(

The problem is that applying the name of one country to a collective term encompassing another is a political issue rather than a geographical one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it strange that the Irish Sea article has this lede paragraph. "The Irish Sea (Irish: Muir Éireann or Muir Meann, Scottish Gaelic: Muir Eireann or Muir Mheann, Manx: Mooir Vannin, Welsh: Môr Iwerddon) also known as the Mann Sea or Manx Sea". It is the same case for Britain and Ireland which is also used at times for British Isles. Shouldn't Britain and Ireland be mentioned in the lede sentence because it is an alternative name and more so because of the controversy surrounding the whole naming issue in real life? Are we saying Mann sea and Muir Mheann can be included in the lede but Britain and Ireland can't because it's controversial? It is the controversy that should make it a shoe in for the lede paragraph. Jack forbes (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk. Of course it shouldn't, Jack. This issue is (apparently) being decided by majority rule, and the majority feels under no obligation to be consistent. Now, go and tug that forelock before the British get offended again ;-) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Never tugged my forelock to anyone. Wouldn't know where to find it. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning a name in different languages is not the same as suggesting an alternative term in the same language, especially when that term is not an accurate equivalent. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that it is an issue for some people and I understand the frustration if you feel valid concerns are being ignored. Though, that said, to me it is just a geography article. There is no political issue for me, just a related fact that needs to be documented appropiatly and sourced. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC) (ecx3: I would like to say that I have no problem with, and would encourage the inclusion of, Britain and Ireland as an alternative name. It is not yet the common name that I can tell but does appear to be getting some usage (Probably more people use it than speak the Manx Language mentioned above!) --Narson ~ Talk • 14:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a viable alternative precisely because it doesn't include those who speak Manx (and others). "Britain and Ireland" does not encompass the same geographic area as "the British Isles". Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it encompasses the same geographic area as the British Isles is, believe it or not, irrelevant. If people are using the name Britain and Ireland as an alternative to British Isles that is the important thing. Is there any proof that those who use it don't think of the other islands when saying it? If people insist on accuracy in their geographic names then I'm afraid British Isles doesn't live up to that. Jack forbes (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well there is the question as to whether the Manx people are offended by the suggestion that there homeland be written out of the term for the archipelago. Are we denigrating them in our attempts to appease another group who feel denigrated by a third group? I can't help feeling that the real problem might be the use of "British" to mean either UK-ish or Great British rather than to refer to anyone from the islands, on a par with using Irish to refer only to the 26 counties and not the 32.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

On the broader issue, I think it would be useful to know

• how the archipelago was referred to in English before Dee referred to the British Isles.
• What terms were used in other languages, in particular Latin which would have been used by British, Irish and European scholars up to the Reformation which took place shortly before Dee was writing. What was it in Norman French?

There's been mention of Ancient Greek terminology for the whole archipelago as British. Then the Romans invaded and called the bit they conquered Britannia. But what was the practice in the middle ages. Is Dee just translating a widespread practice into English or coining a new term with imperialist intent and it just happens to be similar to what some ancient Greeks used?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to narrow down what you mean by Middle Ages. I mean, do you want the Anglo-Saxon? The Norse? The Norman? Early French? Early English? Tudor Terms? --Narson ~ Talk • 14:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the revisionist thesis seems to be: 1) Dee coined the term, 2) he was an imperialist 3) therefore there are deep idelogical flaws underlying the usage "British Isles". I'm willing to be convinced by this argument but want to see more evidence. Dee was writing only a gneration after More wrote Utopia in Latin and therefore it is appropriate to look to Latin usage as an expected influence on his English. If the community of Latin-writing scholars in the late middle ages into the early Renaissance world were already using terms which translate as "British Isles", that would seriously undermine the thesis. Following the links to the French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Dutch, Russian, Swedish and Danish Wikipedias, I notice that they all use terminology equivalent to "British Isles". Several of these are or have been maritime powers and have attempted to invade the islands at various times and yet they do not favour an alternative usage. I would therefore be surprised if they had all abandonned a different previous usage.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You can find pictures of contemporary maps in medieval Latin in various places, for example here [2], which mention Britanniae Insulae. It seems unlikely that Dee coined the term independently when there are so many other sources indicating the term was already in use by scholars. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It does look more realistic to assume that he followed pre-existing usage, which might have been an English-language oral tradition or the written Latin pattern. Of course the map seems to be of English provenance. A mainland European or Irish source would also be useful.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a few links here [3]. There are plenty of European names there but - and I haven't checked them all - I didn't see any which appeared to have an Irish origin. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter I think you have fallen into the trap. Britannicae is British; Britanniae is of Britain. Insulae is Islands; only since John Dee's use of the term, British Isles has it been retranslated as "Isles." The first 'grouping' of the area was in Roman times by the Greco-Roman (not ancient Greek) Ptolomey (and even that was not usual Roman Terminology. The earliest extant reference to the area is, I believe, Dioderus, in Roman times, and according to this wiki, The connection is made as follows:[7] Pliny reports[8] that "Timaeus says there is an island named Mictis ... where tin is found, and to which the Britains cross...." Diodorus says that tin is brought to the island of Ictis, where there is an emporium. The only indisputable fact is that, at present the first usage of the term "British Isles" was by John Dee. The term BI did not gain widspread usage until 300 years after Dee - well into the 19thC. The trap is because we have the ubiquitous image of Britain and Ireland burned into our conscience we assume Greeks, Romans, and Tudors also did - they didn't. Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The first known usage of British Isles was by Dee according to a certain source, we do not know that it wasnt used by someone else before. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually no. Dee used "Brytish Iles", which is early modern English; easily distinguished from modern English by the obvious spelling differences. Just thought I ought to point that out since we seem to be splitting hairs. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed also knows that The first references to the islands as a group appeared in the writings of travellers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia is simply complete bollocks. Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Revisionist editor vs reliable sources. Result: swearing. Constructive as ever I see. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Two points Pytheas' text has been lost over 2000 years - where is the revisionism?. Second Can we really relie on your "Reliable sources" (or do you mean the subtly different WP:RS?) (1) you have found the trolls paradise of a WP:RS (Foster/O Corrain), containing an unreliable sentence which is demonstrably untrue.(2) Allen, p. 174 is simply does not support the sentence. Synthesis of (1) + (2) = Complete and utter Bollocks. Yeah if I were you I would be smug; you are managing to fool all the people all the time. Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That was not very coherent, but I gather that you dislike one source - so presumably you'll be providing some reviews that discredit it - and you can't read or haven't bothered to read the other one. Did you consider that the other editors are not "fooled", that they simply read the sources and accept what they say? Just a thought. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly invite everyone to read Allen, p. 174 and call your bluff. Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay here[4] is the German Sebastian Münster refering to "Britannicae insulae" in 1550. As for the usage of the term, presumably can cite sources. My OED CD-ROM - the previous edition to the one now beign sold - contains the following citations

• 1621 Heylin Microcosmus 243 (page-heading) The Brittish Isles.
• 1792 A. Young Trav. France ii. 343 A territory, naturally so inconsiderable as the British isles, on comparison with France.
• 1888 A. J. Jukes-Browne Building of Brit. Isles 1 There have been many different arrangements of land and sea over the area where the British Isles now stand.
• 1916 G. B. Shaw Androcles & Lion Pref. p. li, Practically all the white inhabitants of the British Isles and the North American continent.
• 1960 C. Day Lewis Buried Day ii. 32 He was for ever buying, selling or exchanging books, many of them worthless, with correspondents all over the British Isles.

One example for every century after Dee (who isn't cited here) and two for the then-current century.Peter cohen (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Münster's work was not a contemporary work but a Latin edition of Ptolemy's Geographia. Any British resident with a library membership can access the Times Archive and see that the term BI was not in common usage until well into the 19thC (and without a single mention during the first 20 years of printing). Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅BW seems to be under the mistaken idea that he (or a small group of editors) have a right of veto - this is not the case and little less preaching would be appreciated. There is also some double standards here. On British Empire we had a use of British Isles (defended by WIki-Ed and BW) which was clearly OR. A tertiary reference (the Encarta dictionary) was found as a single citation to support the use. The editors concerned then used this to insist on its retention. Now we will get back to that debate and it was only suspended. However we now have a case where a strong source (Britannica) supports controversy, and low and behold the same editors are trying to find a way to ignore the citation. --Snowded ^TALK 23:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well im glad we consider Britannica a strong source, perhaps we should open up the debate on what Wales is based on their wording? [5]. I honestly do not understand why people keep trying to use the EB source as though it justifies change, it uses exactly the same method we do, we just divide it into two paragraphs so its more clear. If it will make you happy Snowded, i will support having a single paragraph for our intro, so its inline with EB. ok? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding the point on the British Empire article I see BW, I'm disappointed but not surprised. As to the rather petty point about Wales then go to the citation tables we produced, a lot of COLLABORATIVE effort went into sorting that out. Try and do the same here. --Snowded ^TALK 23:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Im not avoiding the point i addressed your point along with giving an example where i knew you would be less supportive of EB being such a strong source. Your point was about EB being a strong source for change, i pointed out this article follows EBs methods, they do not put it in the first sentence. Sure its in the first paragraph, but we split ours in two, is that really a problem when we go into more detail about the dispute and offer an alternative term?

This issue on the British Empire article has been resolved, and i do remember the bit you are talking about now but it was important to talk of territories outside of the British Isles so as to avoid confusion with the crown colonies and it was backed up by the source found yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The BE hasn't been resolved BW it was suspended in the hope of a generic solution. I think your overall position is now pretty clear, there are people ideologically against the BI phrase, and people ideologically for it. Both groups make progress difficult. --Snowded ^TALK 07:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

I find the latest proposal acceptable, on the grounds that the article is (correctly) named 'British Isles'. Seems a fair trade off to me (along with the fact that Republic of Ireland will remain at it's present name 'til 2011 [at least]). GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I cant accept a compromise on this matter for those reasons. Although this recent spike in activity could be seen by some as a punishment for the outcome of that vote. I have several times mentioned that i expected to see an increase in certain actions across wikipedia following that vote and sadly my thoughts on this matter have not been proven wrong yet, BritishWatcher (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Makes me see the conviction of the Birmingham Six in a whole new light.... --HighKing (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, I don't see this as some sort of punishment (who is being punished?). Although I have not often been part of this debate over the long time it has been going on, I have kept an eye on it. I don't believe there is a minority of editors who believe a mention of the controversy should be mentioned in the lede paragraph. Even if that were so, majority doesn't rule, it is the strength of the argument that matters. Putting aside my opinion that it should be included in the lede para I would ask again. Is there a way to get a neutral admin/s to have a look at these discussions and at the very least give us their honest opinion. Jack forbes (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the introduction, the whole second paragraph is dedicated to this matter. That seems very reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've also agreed in the past that I see no reason why it requires a mention in the very first paragraph. But now I've changed my mind, especially as I now understand the "tactics" of several British editors here on Wikipedia. Being reasonable and open to compromise just doesn't work. Oh well. --HighKing (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland is an alternative name. Whether you think that offensive or you think it does not match precisely the geography of the British Isles is neither here nor there. The fact is, it is used by people in place of BI's, an alternative. Alternative names should be part of the lede paragraph. Jack forbes (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. What's so important about alternative names anyway? They already get a mention in the artcicle even before the contents. Thats's good enough. This article is about the British Isles, not about alternatives or controversies. There are other articles dealing with those points. Leave the lead alone, I say. Mister Flash (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at alternative names, I find

• Burma, officially the Union of Myanmar...
• Lulu Kennedy-Cairns, OBE, (born Marie McDonald McLaughlin Lawrie on 3 November 1948 in Lennoxtown, East Dunbartonshire)...
• The Stars My Destination is a science fiction novel by Alfred Bester. Originally serialized in Galaxy magazine in four parts beginning with the October 1956 issue, it first appeared in book form as Tiger! Tiger! (after William Blake's poem "The Tyger"[citation needed]) when published in England, where it remains widely known under that title."
• Al-Qaeda (pronounced /ælˈkaɪdə/ or /ælˈkeɪdə/; Arabic: القاعدة‎, al-qāʿidah, "the base"), alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa'ida...
• The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America)...

--Peter cohen (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

lets not forget Britain and Ireland is NOT an alternative name for the British Isles, its an alternative term used. Britain and Ireland does not equal the British Isles, there is no alternative name for what is known as the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And America does not match up to the United States of America. It actually matches up to the Americas. As`I have said, you can't deny that people use Britain and Ireland in place of British Isles. That is an alternative Jack forbes (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. America has several meanings. Britain and Ireland does not include all the locations the British isles do. According to Britain Ireland or even Great Britain, its clear the locations described in those articles do not match what is described in the British Isles article. If those articles are incorrect please take this matter up there. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, we are talking of geography. America does not equal United states but is often used in error to refer to the States, just as B&I are used to refer to BI's. Jack forbes (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You have just made me laugh out loud, BW. I've just had a look at the Britain and Ireland article and what did I find? It was only you that deleted the information from it that explained it was an alternative name for British Isles. Ha! Jack forbes (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

America is a name often used when talking about the USA, greedy Americans, i wonder where they learned such things :). The point is Britain and Ireland does not equal the British Isles by any reasonable sources. If i say Britain and Ireland, i either mean the two islands or i mean the two states.. I do not mean what is the British Isles and the articles on those things clearly show this is the case, as i said before if you have a problem with that then try and get those articles fixed, but this intro states its an alternative term, that is very different to an alternative or commonly known name. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not ask you to look at the disgusting questionable article at Britain and Ireland which should not even exist. I asked you to look at Ireland, Britain and Great Britain. Combining the locations in those 3 articles does NOT equal what is the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Disgusting, yet you decided to edit it? I'm sorry, BW. Using words like disgusting is only pointing out the glaring POV you are showing. It also denegrates the work put in by those who created and worked on it. I'm gone for the night. Jack forbes (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The language is getting out of hand here, BW please think before you write and calm down a bit. --Snowded ^TALK 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Im going to bed now anyway, ive had enough of this nonsense for tonight. I decided to edit that page, removing unsourced content instead of returning the page to a dab which i think is justified. I think that shows i did the right and reasonable thing there, i even added a cite tag some time before deleting certain content. I have striked out my comment and put questionable instead. Night BritishWatcher (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that your first version of that comment said "I decided to edit that page, removing unsourced content instead of returning the page to a redirect which i think is justified". I was just about to ask you what exactly you proposed to redirect it to, given that you insist that "Britain & Ireland" is not the same as "British Isles". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have wanted it to be a redirect to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. As i pointed out on the talk page of that article, that was one of the most important things it should link to as a dab page as far as i was concerned and a few days ago i had to change several links incorrectly going to that article to point towards the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland article as sometimes people leave off UK from that wording. However i did mean to say dab, not redirect so i changed my wording above. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If the compromise is a lead sentence of "The British Isles is an increasingly controversial phrase that refers to an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe, which includes Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands." then I also oppose it. A couple of reasons for this. Firstly, the opening sentence should describe the primary subject of the article. The article is primarily about the Isles, it is not primarily about its terminology. Such an opening sentence would be most appropriate for the article British Isles (term). Secondly, on Wikipedia articles about entities titled with proper nouns are written about the things they describe, not about the terms that describe the things. Are there any other articles on a similar subject that start by describing the phrase rather than the entity? For example, Pacific Islands starts, "The Pacific Islands comprise 20,000 to 30,000 islands in the Pacific Ocean." It does not start, "The Pacific Islands is a phrase that refers to 20,000 to 30,000 islands in the Pacific Ocean." If this title is acceptable for an article about the Isles, then it is acceptable to describe them collectively in the opening sentence. If it is not acceptable term to describe the Isles in the opening sentence (without caveat), then the article should be renamed.

That all said, I'm not suggesting the controversy be removed completely. My objections are could be easily resolved by rephrasing, for example: "The British Isles is an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe, which includes Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands. This description of the islands is increasingly controversial." Rockpocket 02:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that is going int the right direction, how about fleshing it out a bit? --Snowded ^TALK 07:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles Until 1949 a collective title for Great Britain, Ireland, and the numerous islands surrounding the two larger islands, including the Isle of Man. In 1949 the Republic of Ireland left the British Commonwealth and so could no longer be included in the title. ref "British Isles" Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names. John Everett-Heath. Oxford University Press 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press./ref The point is that there exists a reliable source that directly contradicts the opening sentence as proposed by Rockpocket. I think, in light of this, the opening sentence really does need to be qualified along BHG lines. Þjóðólfr (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's quite obvious this article has become a vehicle for political trouble-making, and it can't be a big stretch to say those people should not be editing anything. The Times entry and the BBC entry are presented as if they favour the new useage, which they do not mention. The "Economic History Society" warns against using "British Isles" but for very obvious reasons that have nothing to do with re-fighting the troubles in here. Allowing this kind of thing to go on makes the lives of sensible editors a misery. TomRawlinson (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)