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

Ridiculous Name

Who in their right mind uses the term "British Isles" anymore? I'm 22 and I've never heard it used in Ireland; I think I'd feel decidedly uncomfortable if somebody were to use it while talking to me. It's a ridiculous hangover from the time the Brits had their boot on all the Irish people. This article doesn't emphasise that enough. 86.42.84.131 (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a global project, not an Irish one. Globally, British Isles is still the most common name applied to the islands. Suggesting that the majority of the world's English-speaking population are out of their minds is not going to help your argument any. Waggers (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The commenter never said this. Their substantive suggestion was that the "article doesn't emphasise that enough." That's a fair comment. We should take this remark on board and work their suggestion into the article in order to improve it. Dismissing anybody's criticism or reading things into remarks that aren't there does not benefit us. Is there a reference to support the claim that "the majority of the world's English-speaking population" use the term as opposed to the manifold alternative phrasings? --sony-youth^pléigh 10:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

second line in The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland where its use is objected to by many people[3] and by the government of the Republic of Ireland. Gnevin (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it's there, that's not my point. A reader left a comment on this talk page suggesting that it be emphasised more. That's fair comment and should be dealt with in the same manner as you replied to me. Dismissing their comments as part of some imagined campaign ("... not going to help your argument ...") is not the way to go.

However, I also feel that the current phrasing suggests that it is only to Irish people that the term is objectionable or felt to be outdated. This is not true. See my comments on the "name debate" page. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Who in their right mind uses the term "British Isles" anymore?" The implication there is clear: anyone in their right mind would not use the term "British Isles". Yes, there was a suggestion about improving the article later in the post, but to come in and suggest that you'd have to be deranged to use the term "British Isles" is not acceptable behaviour, and that's what I was addressing. Waggers (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't take it that way, but fair enough. (Still, the question is left hanging :-) ...)--sony-youth^pléigh 10:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too upset with the anon editor, Waggers. He/she only started editing yesterday and will probably raise a similiar question at Irish Sea, - Peace brothers/sisters-. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Irish Sea"? Never heard of it. Maybe you mean the Inter-Britain-Ireland Common Sea Route Area? (I do of course prefer Manx Sea myself as was the Irish term for that body of water before that language became polluted by filthy calques from the English language, the title of this page being another example of one.) --sony-youth^pléigh 21:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

He he, I'm just glad both articles haven't been moved. Even if their names are 'out of step with the times', they're still historical names, they were used. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was any proposal to move this article (at least, not recently). The term British Isles is still very much in common use, certainly on this side of the body of water mentioned a short while ago. (Help, I'm turning into a politician!!) Waggers (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"these waters"? --sony-youth^pléigh 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been led by my Irish friends to believe the Irish were growing out of this kind of thing. I thought the days of the North Atlantic Archipelago were gone. I can kinda understand the origins of the sensitivities, but come on, Ireland is a respectable, dynamic and successful independent country these days. You don't need this paranoia ... no-one using the term "British Isles" seeks to subject Munster to England, it's just a the convenient and well-established term. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

British Isles is an ancient term, and is also a purely georgraphical one. It has no political overtones whatsoever, and is a perfectly acceptable, and common, term. Lianachan (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this assertion? It would be very welcome if you did. Until then, you should note that the OED dates it to 1621 and historians agree that it was political in nature. See here for some examples. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Reading the references, what historians actually seem to be saying is that it is a geographical term that has acquired political overtones, which is something different. On a pedantic point, the OED records the earliest usage it can find, it doesn't date words per se. In fact someone as a result of this talk page found an earlier use (1580's I think, and an example of Wikipedia at its best IMO). It's a shame that these talk pages are so clogged up with personal opinion, but it's there somewhere. MAG1 (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where they say that it "acquired" that overtone, but you're right, the "it was" in that sentence was too strong given the evidence, "it is" is more accurate.

The pre-1621 reference you are thinking of was found by User:TharkunColl. It's to a 1577 use by John Dee. It appears in the article.

Do you not find a contradiction between saying "... someone as a result of this talk page found an earlier use ... an example of Wikipedia at its best IMO" and saying that "It's a shame that these talk pages are so clogged up with personal opinion"? It was a bluster of argument and opinion, charge and counter-charge that provided the impetuous to find that reference. If it wasn't for all that opinion, that now looks like it serves no purpose but cloging the place up, it would never have been found. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The term is never used in good company, I'm afraid it's gone the way of the 'Empire', a relic from from the past. I see National Geographic is doing some modernising, look here http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_scope=Tribune/News/Home%20News&id=82652 03:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.86.129 (talk)

Excellent - yet another MSM reference for the fact that Ireland is not in the British Isles. Sarah777 (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. The term "British Isles" may or may not be obsolete, but the term certainly includes Ireland. Saying that it's excluded is like saying that Calcutta is not in Hindustan. The issue is whether the term is appropriate, not what it means. john k (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment, Hold on a sec! Is India in the 'Empire'? Well, I should definitely say nay. But if you should have asked me that question 100 years ago, it would have a definite yeah. Assuming you were alive then, of course ;-) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.72.224 (talk)

No. It's more like saying that Calcutta isn't in Alaska. Sarah777 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's totally insane. john k (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To re-iterate the point of grammar made by 78.19.72.224, if a term is obsolete then the past tense should be used e.g. "The Isle of Man was in the British Isles" and "Calcutta was in Hindustan". Better still would be to say that "Kolkata was in Hindustan". Although, like British Isles, many persist in using Calcutta long after its sell-by date has past. --sony-youth^pléigh 03:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that doesn't make any sense. "Hindustan" isn't an old name which was changed, it is an obsolete name which is no longer used at all. It's not that there used to be a place called Hindustan, but it changed its name to something else. It's that there's a place which used to be called Hindustan, but that name is no longer used. john k (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment, yes John, obsolete, just like the term British Isles. Unfortunately people keep these atlases for years and years. It's little wonder why some folks sometimes get a little mixed-up in their geography. 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.169.28 (talk)

Okay, let me again clarify my basic point here. There seem to be a group of people here who are willing to say that Great Britain, and the Isle of Wight, and the Orkneys, are part of the "British Isles," but that Ireland is not. This is absurd and wrong, and the article should not say anything of the kind. Whether or not "British Isles" is an obsolete term is a completely different question. john k (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There are some who use the term like that, mapmakers among them. It gives rise the to phrase British Isles and Ireland. Compare with the term British Islands, which has legal meaning in the UK. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Saying that it's excluded is like saying that Calcutta is not in Hindustan." Actually is more like saying that Karachi is not on the Indian sub-continent. Mucky Duck (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I was giving the full benefit of the doubt to the opposing position. I agree that it's a lot more like that. john k (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So, is Kolkata, or is Kolkata not, in Hindustan? And has Calcutta ceased to exist? What is the name of the archipelago formed by Corsica and Sardinia? They must not form one. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

1. It is in the historic region of Hindustan, but not the modern state with that name.

2. No - it has not, but it is now officially called Kolkata.

3. "Corsica and Sardinia".

What's your point? Mucky Duck (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That the words we use to describe geography are intimately related to politics; that as politics change so too do the words that use use to describe places; and that it is not necessary that an archipelago have a name, it can be known solely by it's members. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessary for it to have a name, and the name could be something different. However, the actuality is that the name of the archipelago that consists of Great Britain, Ireland, Man, Lewis, Wight, Yell, etc, etc is the British Isles. You and others don't like that, that's understood. But this is an encyclopeadia, campaigning for change does not belong here. Mucky Duck (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody campaigning for anything other than truth and reality. The article should reflect all political, all geographical, and all historical contexts of this little used relic of a term from an acrimonious past. I'm afraid Mucky Duck that you too could be charged with campaigning for change does not belong here. 13:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.105.106 (talk)

That situation is clearly in flux, as news from the National Geographic Society demonstrates. It has been in flux for many decades now, as is well documented. (The crux of the issue may indeed be that we are now standing at the precipice of one state.) Neither has it ever been the case that "British Isles" was the sole means of referring for the group. I have long used and heard "Britain and Ireland" without any confusion over what was being referred to - and without fear that through pedantry anyone would think that that turn of phrase must by necessity exclude Lewis, Wright, Mann, etc. - as I'm sure that you secretly have too.

The original post was that this flux was not given enough treatment in the article. While we have since wondered off topic, that was a fair comment, in my opinion. For example, save for when explicitly dealing with terminology, the article does not contain any other means of referencing the archipelago in the English language save for "British Isles". That appears to me to be quite unnatural. There was a time when it did, but these were 'fixed' by certain UK-based editors. That doesn't strike me as being particularly reflective of reality. Reality is that British Isles is quite an odd little term, rarely used. Much more common is that other terms are used in its place. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not given enough treatment? Half the lead section, the entire first section (alternative names and descriptions) and chunks of "names of the islands through the ages" are devoted to it along with an entire separate article British Isles naming dispute and large parts of a third British Isles (terminology). Mucky Duck (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Not exactly John Kenney. The article should reflect the reality of a present day analysis. Even calling BIG islands like Great Britain & Ireland by the term isle is metaphor of Swiftian proportions, and a gross insult to their true status, more like land masses I should venture. We rarely hear Iceland being called an island, people respect it, and call it by it's proper name, which is Iceland. Even in the Falklands, which are pretty tiny, they refer to them as islands. British Isles has about the same weight as Emerald Isle (as in Ireland), which doesn't have an entry on Wikipedia I gather. 12:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.105.106 (talk)

General Sanctions?

I'm a bit surprised and disappointed to see the general sanctions template at the top of this talk page. When was the last time there was an edit war on the page, April? All the big disputes of the past were handled pretty much w/o admin intervention. There has been quite a bit of heated discussion on a few issues, but a number of editors put some effort into reaching a compromise. These "general sanctions" seem unneeded, and a little insulting.—eric 19:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fear not - the article isn't under general sanctions (if it was, it would be listed at WP:SANCTION). I've removed the template. Waggers (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually sanctions were applied to this article on January 25, under the Great Irish famine sanctions.[1] -- SEWilco (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A sanction perhaps, general sanctions (in the Wikipedia sense) no. In this case, a single user was banned from editing this article (and its talk pages and subpages). Wikipedia:General sanctions apply to the article, not to any specific editors. Waggers (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry i guess, i wasn't up to speed with everything that's been going on lately!—eric 09:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't apologise, the template shouldn't have been added to this page and you were right to question it - I for one wouldn't have noticed it until much later if it wasn't for your raising it. You did a good thing :) Waggers (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The good news Waggers is that I've just realised the block you engineered is long since expired. I think your wilder statements will no longer go unchallenged. Sarah777 (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I "engineered" nothing and I don't know what "wild" statements you're talking about - but I think we can categorically agree that there's no need for the {{Sanctions}} template on this page. Waggers (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

On that we can indeed agree. Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)