Talk:British Isles

---

Archives This page is archived automatically; conversations inactive for 4 weeks or more will be moved to the latest archive.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

British-Irish Isles

This term seems to be in breech of WP:NOR,WP:CITE and WP:V, If this term is to be accepted more than one referenced would be required . The reference currently on their doesnt even load. Gnevin 17:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Arragh Gnevin, surely you have more important things to be worrying about? (Sarah777 21:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

We can't just be creating stuff Gnevin 22:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spooky!(Sarah777 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Ummmm ... the reference right beside it is to a blue-chip London-based publishing house - and a dictionary at that! That would normally suffice WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:V. If you're still concerned then a Google search (web, book, scholar) will show it in use.

By no means it is as wide spread as "British Isles" - I doubt it would even be the most popular alternative phrase - but there had been an expression for at least one alternative phrasing to be highlighted in the intro, however all others were knocked out for not being dictionary defined (e.g. "Britain and Ireland", etc.).

My opinion, it clearly fits WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:V. But also adds a bit of WP:NPOV to what we all know is a contentious issue by pointing the fact that naming is not monolighic, and adding some balance from the naming issue. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If this term is so common i should be able to cite it in a dozen places. I've never heard it and to be honest the ref in the dictionary ,which isnt viewable on-line so we are taking the editors word for it just one reference and is more like to be OR on behave of the dictionary and so isn't WP:V. The links you provided me dont really convince me that this is a legitimate term Gnevin 15:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The link does work, I'm looking at it right now, page 22. WP:V has no stipulation that a source needs to be published online though, but that, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." That's there. As for OR, well, clearly anything that been published (nevermind something published by a company like Routledge!) is by definition not OR.

Which links in particular don't convince you? Is it use of the term in university handouts? British think-tanks? Internet forums? The northern Assembly? Is it the use of the term in accademic journals from "European Journal of Human Genetics" to "Regional & Federal Studies"? Is it its use in books published by Springer and Routledge? Then again, I thought that a Routledge-published dictionary would be enough to demonstrate that it was a "legitimate term" - this will take me a moment to grasp, but - are you saying that it's not? --sony-youth^pléigh 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose i have to agree with you , how ever contrived the links and how ever few their are , they suit a need someone how to include the word Irish into a geographic term .Gnevin 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Do I sense some sardonicism in that? :) I, personally, see it as a fig leaf to NPOV but I can understand why it could by derided. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Gnevin, the inclusion of British-Irish Isles should remain, along with British Isles. It's a compromise, we all can accept. GoodDay 20:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Including it so prominently in this article is silly. Its a term I've never heard before, and Google returns a really underwhelming 38 hits - 8 of which are WP pages or mirrors, or are direct quotes of the reference. Many are blogs, and many use "British/Irish Isles" rather than "British-Irish Isles". 30 hits in no way justifies the prominence it gets. Suggest its moved to the terminology article instead. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Batsun, it's usage is so low and unprominent using it so highly in this article is giving the term undue weight. Ben W Bell talk 13:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

-*grumble grumble*- undue weight I can go along with, but we are still at a situation where discussion of alternative terms or issues with the term are effectively banished to another article, and so taking it out - especially in an environment where no other alternative term stands a snowballs chance in hell of staying in - tips the undue weight in the other direction IMHO. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that this article is about the islands themselves, and therefore not the place for discussing the terminology. Acknowledging that alternative terms exist and that "British Isles" is viewed by some as controversial is surely sufficient for this article, along with a link to the terminology/naming dispute articles. Waggers 11:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't about the individual islands themselves, it's about the group itself. The name of the group itself is controversial. The composition/definition of the group is political not physical. (i.e. Channel Islands don't physically belong) It's pretty fundamental stuff. Burying it somewhere else would be denying verifiable reality. Hughsheehy 13:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer - of course the article is about the group, not the individual islands independently. But it is about the group of islands, not the name of the group of islands. I'm not suggesting removing all reference to the controversy, I'm just saying that we don't need to repeat the contents of the other articles here unless we go for a full merge (and I don't support that latter idea). One mention is enough. Waggers 14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Could I also add that "The British and Irish Isles" throws back even more results on web/scholar/books - and that book results show use as far back as 1857! --sony-youth^pléigh 11:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, British Isles and British-Irish Isles should remain. If either is removed? Edit wars would occur (and we don't want that). GoodDay 13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should the latter remain? Its a neologism with 30 googlehits! If its appropriate for anywhere, then the British Isles (terminology) article is its natural home. There are many more popular alternative terms for the British Isles (as in, terms actually in widespread use!) - but they're not included either! Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong (it does happen) but I don't see why this is a relevant "argument". The first section in the article is about alternative names for the group, with all the required references. "British-Irish" can go there, probably fairly low down the priority list, although the fact that a dictionary explicitly defines it is potentially important. Hughsheehy 16:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

1857 is hardly "neo" (if you'll accept that a hyphen and an 'and' are interchangable in this case). I'd be for other phrases being there, but that was knocked down before because they weren't dictionary defined (e.g. "Britain and Ireland"). I'd not be on for a whole raft of other names, or for some to take advantage of B-II in the on-going 'war', but it's certainly referenced and defined. Maybe a pertinent use of "occasionally" in this case e.g. "The British Isles or, occasionally, the British-Irish Isles ..." Maybe even a footnote explaination? --sony-youth^pléigh 18:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We should leave British-Irish Isles where it's at. Why? because British Isles alone, won't be accepted by many editors out there. GoodDay 20:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Such editors have coped very well in the past, with the inclusion of the very next section describing the controversy about the term, and referring them further to not one but two separate articles on the controversy. Agree with Hugh, that next section is the place for it, along with further coverage in the other two articles. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Make the required edits, let's see how it works. I hope you're both right. GoodDay 20:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree that this looks like undue weight -- indeed, hugely disproportionate weight. The term doesn't even appear in either British Isles (terminology) or British Isles naming dispute, and actual usage seems to be minimal. Frankly, I don't think it should be in this article at all (as against those other two, where it'd seem fair enough) -- much less bolded in the first sentence. If wider adoption of this term -- or one of the other occasionally-floated alternatives eventually solves the naming issue -- or even just reach the level of being a moderately-widely-used alternative, that's marvelous. (I certainly have no objection to it myself.) However, WP practice is to follow existing usage, not to get out in front of it. Alai 13:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has reverted Waggers' edit? I'm impressed and releaved. Guess I was being too pesimistic, earlier. GoodDay 22:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am rather disappointed that The Britirish Isles didn't make the list of alternative names :)(Sarah777 23:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

Keep using it Sarah, try to sneak it into every conversation, and maybe it will become popular (and referenced) enough for inclusion :) Waggers 08:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ibid

Please do not use "Ibid" when creating footnotes. As the article is edited new footnotes will be created between first mention of the source and Ibid, which will then appear to refer to the source listed in the new footnote. It is also possible the first mention of the source will be deleted or replaced by another source, orphaning the Ibid that follows. Kablammo 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"British Isles and Ireland"

Two British lads are trying to sell their book on the weather- "The Wrong Kind of Snow"- on the Pat Kenny radio show this moment. They are referring to these islands as "British Isles and Ireland" throughout. Amazing how this very common definition of the British Isles is given so little space in this article. Anyway, you can listen to this treason by two loyal lieges here: http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/ 86.42.68.161 11:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

They use it in company with Britannica, the publishers of British Admiralty charts, the Oxford University Press and many other UK organisations, so they're hardly on their own (read the article). Hughsheehy 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know how it rates on the "these islands" scale - but certainly more accurate than the pov-loaded term used in the Wiki article. (Sarah777 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

so then why does this article still assert that there are 'two sovereign states located on the islands(sic)' when there are so many sources excluding Ireland from the definition of "British Isles"? 86.42.68.161 02:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect British Isles to British Islands

So, why hasn't this been done yet considering there are so many sources separating the "British Isles" from Ireland? 86.42.68.161 02:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It should of course; but there was a vote on it during the summer; obviously we probably need another vote at year-end to see if the mounting new evidence against "The BIs" has convinced enough folk to see reason. But it's too soon just yet. Btw, if you are going to engage in the debate here an anonymous IP isn't exactly the "high moral ground" -:)(Sarah777 07:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

Actually, that wasn't the proposal we voted on - I see what you mean....(Sarah777 07:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

It hasn't been done because they're not the same thing. British Isles includes Ireland, and there are more reliable sources indicating that than reliable sources claiming that Ireland isn't part of the British Isles. Waggers 09:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The geographical island group exists, and is different from "British Islands". The problem is the name, which will change over time. Hughsheehy 09:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so it's a case of counting the number of sources for one POV vs. the number of sources for another POV? This NPOV thing has been consigned to the dust bin, has it, Waggers? --sony-youth^pléigh 10:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The article on British Islands is all well and good but does not cover the whole archipelago, which this article does. The problem is the lack of an agreed title, not the article's content. But then I think the article addresses that sufficiently (perhaps excessively). Bazza 13:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the British Isles and Ireland don't actually form an archipelago. (Sarah777 19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

I can't believe this is still being discussed. Wikipedia policy is clear that the most commonly used English language name should be used, and we've established time and again that the most commonly used English language name for the subject of this article is British Isles. End of. Waggers 14:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

... but that's not what you said, Waggers ... (Incidentally, my POV is that the two articles should not be merged at this time as "British Isles" is still more commonly/verifiably the name for the archipelago as a whole rather than just the area covered by "British Islands". That said, there would certainly be a better environment around here if alternative POVs - goodness, even NPOV! - were tollerated a la alternative names for the archapelago appearing in the intro. Yet, as we know that is not the case ... you can even reference a dictionary and some people still will come back with "I've never heard of it" and think they've made a valid argument!) --sony-youth^pléigh 14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument of the original poster was that the redirect should happen because "there are so many sources separating the "British Isles" from Ireland" -indicating that they consider the number of sources a valid indicator. You're right, it isn't - but even if it were, their argument would still fail because of the point I made. I didn't agree with them that the number of sources was important, I just corrected their assertion that the volume of sources that exclude Ireland from the British Isles is significant enough to warrant the suggested redirect. Waggers 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, not what you wrote, but not worth arguing over either - and I hardly believe you would mean what came across. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec, requesting this article be re-directed, is going too far. What's next? Do we ban the term British Isles from Wikipedia? GoodDay 16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's a proposal I'll certainly second it. (Sarah777 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

It's not a proposal. British Isles can't be banned. GoodDay 19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Other names" presentation

The first paragraph is not easy to read because of the unusually long list of alternative names embedded in it. The mix of roman, italics, links and parentheses makes it difficult to find the next word after "The British Isles...". Is there a better way this could be presented? There are enough entries to warrant a table or list; perhaps under the title of the infobox. I know that most articles where an alternative name is given use the in-line format, but few have as many entries, let alone embedded explanations, to skip over. Bazza 14:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Goodness! More "British Isles! And British Isles only!"-ism? Common WP practice is to list the names of places in other native non-Enlgish languages of a area italicised and in brackets in the first sentence of an article. In the case of this article, yes, this is quite long, but only because there are quite a few language spoken here and the name of the place is quite long in each of them. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Get a grip, Sony. Bazza didn't suggest for a second that the alternative names should be removed and the article should only refer to the "British Isles! And British Isles only!" He's talking about presentation, and raises a valid point. You've both mentioned the existing convention, and that applying that here produces somewhat confusing results - so let's look for a solution rather than engaging in pointless bickering and putting words into one another's mouths. Personally, my view is that any information in the infobox should also be present in the prose of the article, so I don't support Bazza's suggestion of moving the alternative names there. Would a bullet-point list be better? Waggers 14:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correct summary of my text. It was made in good faith. I know, as you say, what the convention which Sony refers to is, but felt that in this case it made the article harder to read than should be the case. Yes, a list would be a good solution, and might offer some slight advantage by including "British Isles" in it. For example:

The group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe, comprising Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands, is known by several names:

• the British Isles
• French: Îles Britanniques
• Irish: Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór, meaning 'Ireland and Great Britain' or Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, meaning Islands of Western Europe,
• Manx: Ellanyn Goaldagh
• Scottish Gaelic: Eileanan Breatannach
• Welsh: Ynysoedd Prydain)

Not eloquently worded, but you get the gist, I hope. You might even include

• the British Isles and Ireland

should others wish it! Bazza 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

An imaginative solution, and in an ideal world this kind of thing would be possible - but, seriously, you know as well as I do that in time points 2-6 will be stripped away "as this is the en.wiki", or at best be moved down to the 'Alternative names and descriptions' section ... and we all know point 7 doesn't stand a snowball's change in hell! It's the slippy slope to "British Isles! And British Isles only!"-ism. No offense intended. No assumption of bad faith. That's just the way it is. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've not problem with alternate terms being used in this article, as long as the article's title remains British Isles (in otherwords, don't move the page). GoodDay 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are there two Irish Gaelic names, and why are they then translated back into English? And why leave out the phrase that translates literally as "British Isles", because it certainly exists. And is the first name listed, the one that translates literally as "Ireland and Great Britain", actually a name, or just a juxtaposition of two names that often fall together in the same sentence? Also, on a related matter, does Irish Gaelic have a way of differentiating between the English words "Isles" and "Islands"? TharkunColl 19:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. And what does "Irish Gaelic" mean? Is that synthesis? (Sarah777 19:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

There were a number of questions. Why does Irish Gaelic have more than one version of the name in this article, when Welsh, for example - which is spoken by a much larger number of people - only has one? And "Irish Gaelic", by the way, in case you weren't aware, is the Celtic language spoken in tiny pockets in parts of western Ireland. TharkunColl 00:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Thark means "Irish". I always found it funny the way people in the UK ask Irish people if they speak "Gaelic". I always had this mental image of someone replying by starting to commentate a Dublin-Kerry All Ireland Final in the style of Michael O'Hehir. Hughsheehy 09:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with calling it just "Irish" is that one is far too likely to confuse it with the Irish dialect of English. The term "Irish Gaelic" has been used for centuries, it was only in the 20th century that the Irish government attempted to rename the language, for political reasons. Well, fortunately the Irish government has no authority in Great Britain, and we shall continue to use the normal English name for the language, if that's not too terribly inconvenient. Gaelic is the name for the language, divided into the closely related Scots and Irish varieties. What could be more sensible than that? TharkunColl 10:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Thark, you're funny sometimes.... "one is far too likely to confuse it with the Irish dialect of English".........Fantastic! Hughsheehy 11:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. If someone said to me that a person was speaking "Irish", I could not be sure whether the person was speaking Irish Gaelic or Hiberno-English (even though the former might be more likely). Anyway, what's wrong with calling it Gaelic? That's its name in Gaelic, or something very similar. TharkunColl 11:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"The ball comes into Liston. Liston jumps and grabs the ball. He turns. He's surrounded by the Dublin full-backs. There's a right struggle now, about ten yards out from the goal. Liston still has the ball but there's no way through. He makes a space and passes out to Spillane...Spillane has come rocketing up to support. He's got the ball, he's in the clear, he shoots. A GOAL!!!! A GOAL FOR KERRY WITH ONLY TWO MINUTES TO GO!!! A GOAL FOR PAT SPILLANE AND THE BOMBER LISTON! IT'S ALL OVER NOW FOR DUBLIN!"

Now, you see Thark, there's someone talking Gaelic, and in Hiberno-English too!

Meantime, your ignorance of Ireland is showing..... Hughsheehy 11:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE can we get back to the original subject of this thread and stop slagging one another off? Thanks Waggers 12:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. But the foregoing does illustrate a rather significant problem with the approach of many editors on this page. (and yes I mean Thark, and others) They "know" a lot of things.....but the things they "know" are often WRONG. This is particularly true of many British editors "knowledge" about Ireland. I mean, this diff is a beaut. [1] That'll keep me amused for the rest of the day! Hughsheehy 12:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I must ask, why do we have to have a French language name in it? By the most common definition of BI (Britain, Ireland and some other smaller islands not including the Channel Islands) there are no French speaking native inhabitants that I can think of unless I've completely missed something. The other languages yes (though I'm really not sure about the Scots personally but anyway) but the French? Ben W Bell talk 12:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm not convinced we need to list the name in other languages at all, at least not in the introduction. Listing the more notable alternative English language names makes sense. But to answer Ben's question, variants of French are spoken in the Channel Islands. Waggers 12:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But haven't we determined in long and convoluted conversations that the Channel Islands aren't normally included in most common definitions and are definitely not geographically, which the term is primarily? Ben W Bell talk 13:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

@Ben - Channel Islands are normally included. The only way some definitions can be seen to exclude them is by reading one thing or another about the what it means to be "adjacent" or "nearby" something else. Definitions that go beyond listing Ireland and Britain (there are even some published definitions that describe BI and being the UK and RoI only!) will explicitly include the Channel Islands e.g. any definition that mentions the Isle of Man, will also mention the Channel Islands. This doesn't really have any effect on whether it is a geographic term or not - it still obviously refers to geography - but does cut a swipe into the "purely geographical" mumbo-jumbo.

@Waggers - French is included because the list is of langauges which enjoy official status in the various jurisdictions in the archipelago. If it were regional/ethic languages then it would be Jèrriais/Guernésiais etc. not French.

@Thark - the Irish (and call it Irish Gaelic if you like, there's nothing wrong with doing so, but unconventional in Ireland, as the "Gaelic" is redundant when describing Irish or Manx, unlike Scottish Gaelic where it could be confused with Scots, in the same way as Welsh, Cornish and Breton are not called Welsh Brythonic, Cornish Brythonic, or - very strangly - Breton Brythonic! Or even English Anglic! Or French Oïl!) tranlsation is provided as part of a project to provide translations of the meaning of Irish placenames. This is mainly relevent to Ireland-based articles (see Athlone or Sligo for examples) to shown the origin of placenames. Maybe it's not relevent (or wanted) here. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't give a toss about how many names there are. The list has grown over the past year or so as part of the various attempts to reach compromises over the article's title's definition. My original point was that, if there are a lot then the start of the article is difficult to read. It makes it, from the start, a poor quality article. (And the inclusion of Jerriais, Guernésiais, Sercquiais, etc mentioned above would make this worse.) Whilst bickering goes on about whose version of what name should or should not be included, this fairly fundamental point is missed. So, does anyone have any views on "Is there a better way this could be presented?"? Bazza 13:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't mean to include Jèrriais, Guernésiais, Cornish, Shelta, Northumberland Brythonic, and god knows what else. Only those langauges that have official status in the jurisdictions of the archipelago.

My view is that it doesn't distract too much from the readability (but losing one of the Irish definitions certainly is a good thing and dropping the translation or the remainder would be a good thing) and is beneficial for the article as from the off-set it show the diversity of life, history, culture and people on the archipelago. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As is stands now, somewhat shorter than when I first posed the question, it's OK. I had no problem with showing various names, just the six-line interruption they caused to the main text in smaller windows. Bazza 16:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is huge. Would anybody object if I set a bot the task of archiving old discussions automatically? If not, what timescale should we set - would fortnightly be too short a time? Waggers 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, an archiving bot is needed. GoodDay 22:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. A four week inactivity level should be a good balance as some conversations get restarted after a few weeks. Ben W Bell talk 22:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've set it up for 4 weeks. Obviously we can change it later if necessary. Waggers 10:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Political naming

Anyone who may be wondering how representative the views of Irish Wikipedians (non-British) are on this topic of the offensive name check out Geograph British Isles, look at the coverage map and wonder why? Hint: it isn't 'cos we Irish don't have digital cameras or the Internet:)(Sarah777 (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Nah, that's probably more to do with the fact Ireland is approx 1/2 the size of Great Britain but only has around 10% of the population and is a lot less densely populated. Trust me, the less densely populated thing is a good thing. Ben W Bell talk 23:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and there's a lovely photo of The Royal Canal at Drumcondra Road Lower, Dublin, Ireland,[2] to pick one of many at random. Of course, like parts of Scotland there are all these miles of peat bogs with naething worth photieing. However, I'll grant you that Boycott is an Irish word ;) .... dave souza, talk 23:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Will you British ever just...

fuck off with yourselves? Ireland is not one of your British Isles. It never was, and it never will be. We have our own history, our own heritage and our own myths that predate your British imperialist myths by millennia. All you people claiming our country to be British really leave no doubt that you, like countless of your compatriots throughout the centuries, truly perceive yourselves to be a masterrace. And I do mean that in a collective sense so I trust that is impeccably clear. You people are a blight on Ireland's history and alas, as the mentality behind this article demonstrates clearly, its present. Your empire is finished. It is 2007, not 1607. We, the Irish, have survived. 86.42.82.239 (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)