Talk:British Isles

---

Progress to date

I don't believe this page needs protection just yet - despite the continued editing, progress *is* being made. The article lead paragraph is better today than 2 days ago. But, there is more to do, and it might be better to agree the lead para here on the talk page before editing the article. In addition, I don't believe the reference to Folens dropping the term is appropriate for the lead para. <since I wrote this, Deek has protected the page, and removed the reference>

Matt, Wotapalaver, how close or far away are we to a consensus on the lead paragraph? When it is largely agreed with both of you, as the most active on opposing viewpoints, I believe it would be appropriate to ask the wider community to agree - perhaps a straw poll? This discussion is only to agree the lead paragraph - it might be appropriate to move some content to a different article or to a different section in this article. We are working on the assumption that everybody is working together in good faith to develop a lead paragraph through consensus.

What we appear to have agreed to date:

• No long list of references in the opening paragraph.
• Mention of the "controversy" / "dispute" is appropriate in the lead paragraph, pointing to the dispute article

Having the "dispute" article (a POV fork imo) is for "See also" only - sorry. It's a fork and should be merged. I would compromise with "See also".--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• No elaboration needed in this article - the dispute article can contain the details of the dispute

this is logical as things stand - though the dispute article should be merged here imo.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• The term "British Isles" is controversial (accepted as fact / by consensus. Matt?)

I have never said it wasn't controversial, or removed the word. The word "controversial" always needs qualifying - it must be done farly. Everything is controversial to some degree.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• The government of Ireland has an official policy that states it has no weight in legal or intergovernmental use.

"Intergonvernmental" is the key word. We mustn't make it look like the Irish government actively and universally discourage the word. Also - it is a geographical word not a legal one anyway - so how uncommon an governmental act is this? Is it really a strident move to label it as 'non-legal'?--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Intergonvernmental" is the key word. Hmmmmmm. I see...... Sarah777 (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What we are still trying to agree on:

• (controversial in relation to what?) The term is controversial in relation to Ireland (because?)
• (controversial to whom) The term is controversial to people in Ireland (people?) (How to quantify this? Is it just people in Ireland - what about elsewhere? Suggestions please?)

The current sentence simply reads:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland.

In my opinion, this sentence is only half a thought and incomplete. The sentence needs (at least) to explain controversial to who, and ideally should have a brief explanation of why (although if this is too complex, perhaps not). --Bardcom (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My view is simple. We have solid references that are the highest possible standard saying that the term is often objectionable, or that it is objectionable to many people in Ireland. This is important information, it is still in dispute, and must be reflected in the intro. We have another view saying that the references are crap and that the level of objection must remain undescribed because there are no good references. The two views are irreconcilable. Either we live with references or we don't. Either WP works with what references say or it's a formalized version of Usenet and the loonies will win. I'm getting policy guidance on the acceptability of Cambridge University press (etc.,) sources. Further, I found reference that the official position of the Irish government on the term British Isles dates back to 1947. Finally, I believe that the naming dispute is a content fork of this page, which means that the main page must contain an adequate presentation of the controversy. One word is not adequate. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I beleive the examples are weak (and I keep giving the reasons why - not calling them "crap") and I will go through them one-by-one to show why, soon. I'll have to cut and paste (I've written a varient of this so many times):

RE backing-up that "many Irish" dispute the term: The collected evidence is not strong, not current, not actually all Irish, is not from the actual people of Ireland (as the intro suggests), and is in very short supply. It is not enough to warrant the word "many" - more must be found (and believe me I've been looking). I believe it doesn't exist simply because it is not currently the climate to go after the term "British Isles": the climate is one concerned with consolidation, mediation, focus and peace. Wikipedia is not a forum to river-push and encourage an anti-"British Isles" climate. It does not matter that "most" appears in the evidence or not - we must weight the evidence.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I acknowledge that you are putting a lot of effort into trying to improve the lead paragraph. Can you put forward a suggestion for the lead paragraph? Do you agree with the summary assumptions on what we have agreed to date, listed above? --Bardcom (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraph reads very badly at the moment. Quite apart from the unncessary three Irish language translations - only the first one is necessary - I don't see any need to reference a controversy at all in this paragraph. There's a whole section about it later on. After all, British Isles is not about the so-called controversy, it's about a geographical entity, and that's all that should be mentioned in the lead. On the subject of the naming section, it appears to be complete overkill to have numerous references to back up some of the points being made. One, or two at the most, are all that's required. To have so many is nothing short of POV-promoting, in both directions.Silas Stoat (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On the translations, why should there be only one, when different dictionaries translate it so differently? It's interesting, and true, that there are different translations. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Only the literal translation is needed, and that appears to be the first one. An online translator gives this result. Having more than one is tantamount to saying "we don't like that translation, so here are some alternatives". On the subject of multiple (many) references, it's akin to shouting the referenced point from the rooftops - "this opinion is more valid than others, just look at the number of references we've found"; it's POV when it's overdone. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why pick the first one? Why not the others? They're from solid dictionaries. An online translator would not translate "The English Channel" into "La Manche", yet "La Manche" is correct in French, not "Le Canal Anglais". Different terms may exist in other languages. On the question of shouting the point from the rooftops, it seems to be needed. From reading the discussion archives the current set of references is already a shortened list. Besides, I believe that policy suggests that where facts are in dispute, plentiful reference is recommended. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the following is reasonable;-

• No long list of references in the opening paragraph. Fine, references can be (and already were) consolidated but since the simple facts are in dispute the references are needed. As for lots of references being POV promoting (silas Stoat's point), references can't promote POV unless they're unreliable references. Good references simply are.
• Mention of the "controversy" / "dispute" is appropriate in the lead paragraph, pointing to the dispute article. Fine, but the mention must be an adequate summary of the content forked article on the naming dispute.
• No elaboration needed in this article - the dispute article can contain the details of the dispute. Fine. There is no real elaboration in the article already, it's in the content fork.
• The term "British Isles" is controversial (accepted as fact / by consensus. Matt?). The term is actually described in several references as "objectionable". Controversial is a softer description, but can be used as long as the controversy is summarized adequately.
• The government of Ireland has an official policy that states it has no weight in legal or intergovernmental use. Yes, the government of Ireland has apparently regarded the term as a not-to-be-used and as a to-be-discouraged misnomer since at least 1947 and has recently reiterated this.

What we are still trying to agree on:

• (controversial in relation to what?) The term is controversial in relation to Ireland (because?) The term is objectionable to many Irish people, probably largely because the term has a political implication but also because many Irish people do not identify Ireland as in any way British. It's simply felt to be a misnomer. I expect that the formula "in relation to Ireland" was originally intended as a short way to express this and a way of avoiding long discussions about Irish people everywhere or only in Ireland, or the differences between ROI and NI, etc.
• (controversial to whom) The term is controversial to people in Ireland (people?) (How to quantify this? Is it just people in Ireland - what about elsewhere? Suggestions please?) Suggestion is, as always, that we reflect the references as closely as possible. If someone wants to avoid the terms "often" or "many" then they need to find reference, not just to keep attacking the sources. As for who and where, see my thoughts on "in relation to".

Sorry, but I'm just trying to stick to references. They're what we're supposed to follow. If the references said "a few people don't like it" then that's what the article should day. The references DO NOT say that. The references say many and often. Unless someone has something else then this is what we should say. It's relevant, important, verifiable and doesn't take a lot of words. Many is one word. Often is one word. Even if we used them both we'd have two words. That is hardly an unreasonable lenghtening of the intro and yet highly informative and relevant. Seems like good criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What if the reference says "Hitler was a Finnish pole vaulter"? We only follow the references if they pass notability and weight. This is another extreme example, but there are countless more statements saying "the earth is flat!!" than there are saying "the earth isn't flat". We must judge weight and notablility by consensus sometimes - not by counter-weighing citations by the kilo. References have a quality - and a 'plural' statement like this demands a plural amount of quality refs. This citation issue is what Talk Pages were made for: and I am here saying the evidence is not strong enough.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion archives I found a page of references, which user Sony Youth mentioned during a previous campaign to have the level of controversy downplayed. It is here [1]. It contains many more discussions from serious sources of how the term is used/not used/is controversial, etc.,. A sample from the editor of the OUP history of the British Isles. "The expression is not uncontroversial, especially to many in Ireland, for whom the very word ‘British’ implies an unacceptable politics of dominion." Now we have OUP and CUP describing the term as controversial or objectionable to "many" in Ireland. Perhaps OUP and CUP are part of TharkunColl's vocal minority or Matt Lewis river-pushing effort. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you had read through the archives you will have seen my responses to Sony Youth about that page - I believe it is full of the multitudinous 'tracts' that I mentioned to you earlier: they have a small weight but you cannot call them 'serious' sources, and you can fill the Irish Sea with the amount they publish 'academically' like that these days (on any kind of radicalised subject - read the tiles for hints.) I went through the whole page a couple months ago - I felt the lack of better evidence told the whole story: this is the limit of what the 'opposers' can find. Where is the broadsheet article questioning whether the recent BBC 'Coast' TV series expressly about the British Isles (and visiting Dublin) is 'politically incorrect'?. Where is the report of Irish people calling for change somewhere (Europe perhaps)? Where is anything like that? The Folens example of a publisher removing it stated they had received no public complaints! As I said to Sony youth regarding that page, the evidence shown me 'for' paints the same picture as I am finding myself: that this is not a popular approach. Wikipedia has to 'weight' and back up its statements: 'many' is comparatively too strong and is not the right word for this. The truth that I see is that comparatively 'hardly any' people are actively for this recognised geographical term being dropped - and very few are harping on about how undesirable it it. It's not the climate, not the time. As the Irish Times said when reporting Folens - it's a Wikipedia thing! Most people can handle the historical distance and geographic sensibility. And a government stating it is not a legal word means nothing - it never was!

By the way - can you stop using my name in this constant personal manner - you sound far too much like another (absent) editor for my comfort. Are you really suggesting I'm trying to 'turn a tide' against a 'natural change'? (that is reminiscent too). I'm just asking you for popular, substantial and credible evidence to support the intensity of your edits.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. Hugh Kearney, who's a pretty big deal, says many find it a problematic term in his introduction. Davies agonized about it. Baycroft & Hewitson and John Earl Joseph in major studies of nationalism mention that it is exceedingly objectionable to Irish nationalists. There's no reason not to say "many in Ireland" in the intro. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see a single reason to include it. Irish nationalists are in effect a 'sub-group' - so that would have to be qualified. (And is it the climate not to qualify it?). Who are Kearney's "many"? The people? Kearney himself continually uses the word for contemporary situations in his "British Isles" book. I'd also add as an aside that Kearney wrote this book because of the clear combined history, and this term is the geographical one that covers it. We have to have a term, and I see no great 'movement' for another one (only weak refs that are not stong enough). If "many" Irish really objected, wouldn't it be more of an issue? Outside of history books it isn't. "Many Irish object" is too much, and the climate isn't there for it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, anybody feel like going door-to-door throughout the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, to get an exact number on how many people 'object' to the the term British Isles? It seems that may be the only way, to confirm or deny these arguments. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If there were studies of people doing such sociological research it would be a useful thing! Alas no one has seen any. And who would embark on it in this climate anyway? It just isn't the day for this.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The references provided appear to be of sufficient quality to be acceptable, and there are little or no references to the contrary - i.e. show that Irish people accept and happily use the term. The personal opinion of some editors may be that they don't like to accept them, but the assertation that Irish people find the term contentious appears to be supported by proper references, and more importantly, has become the consensus for this article. If the consensus needs to be tested, I suggest a straw poll. Let me add - I don't like straw polls very much, but perhaps it is a good thing if it results in a lead paragraph that is NPOV. --Bardcom (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A straw pole in here? Have you seen the woodwork? And the IP's? You are right - polls in these contested cases are generally a bad idea!--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you may take it that the attitude of the established (non-Unionist NI) Irish editors here reasonably reflects Irish opinion on being described as living on a "British" Island. That would be, what, 80% against? Sarah777 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The irony. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you grasp the concept fully. I see that you plumbed for your name Matt - how does that work? Sarah777 (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd not noticed that! (it was "plummed" once). By the way - take the odd peek at the personal tone your edits (like the one below too). I'm on the case re footwear as well - it's a little wiffy in here at times. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, you may be the only person in the whole of Wikipedia who will call Cambridge and Oxford published texts "not serious sources", and "of small weight". As for tracts and them writing on "radicalised subjects", textbooks on the History of the British Isles hardly qualify as either, and that is where several of the references are. As for what you see when you read these terms, you apparently cannot see the words many and often in the sources. As for broadsheet references, there are already two. You have still not found a single reference that contradicts the references provided, which are of the highest quality. The burden of verifiability is already more than met. If you can find a SINGLE case of a Cambridge or Oxford published history asserting that - as you put it - Hitler was a Finnish pole vaulter then there may be a reason to consider your points as something more than the rantings of someone with a political point to prove and who is engaging in deliberate vandalism of a Wikipedia article. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is exaggeration an incurable disease? You are never going to address/see my points are you? You will just carry on calling me "blind". Remind me which are two broadsheet references? Is one the Folens example (who stated they had no public complaints) that also mentions Wikipedia? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is exaggeration an incurable disease? Surely you should be telling us, not asking us? Sarah777 (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What have I exaggerated? --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt - you have all but accused me of breaching WP:NPA and of having malodorous feet in the same paragraph. Chutzpah is a word that springs to mind here. Irony doesn't do you justice. Sarah777 (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

More reference, following the hints above. "...the British Isles (a term which is itself offensive to Irish Nationalists)", from Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious John E. Joseph, published by Macmillan . [User:Wotapalaver|Wotapalaver]] (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

...does not go towards supporting "many Irish find the term objectionable/controversial". You could find 100 such books and I would still ask for wider examples (like Folens - but without the bit where they say "no parent actually made a complaint"). I want to see evidence of what the public think - because I don't think they are interested. "Objectionable", "controversial" and "many" are all strong words in an encyclopaedia.

I'm sorry, but - "Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious"? Maybe I'm an old cynic. At least you've chosen Macmillan and not someone totally unrecognisable! I used to run a secondhand bookshop for a while and I've just know what gets published, and how easy it is to be published. I started by vowing never to throw away a single book - I ended up having to pass books on for nothing, even bin some in extreme cases. I also know how much Oxbridge stuff there is out there too, though you are right to say they hold more credence. Kearney (who wrote British Isles - the big tome you quote from) is happy with using the term for modern Britain - as are so many people. Whether you like it or not, the use of the word in the UK does counter-balance your argument. "Many in Ireland"? I don't think it would be so widely used if this was the case. Popular and peak-time programmes like "Coast" (history of the British Isles coastline) (which was excellent) wouldn't constantly reference the word - even when going to Dublin (which they stressed was built by the British)! The historical view (much like the geographical one) is to use it - and histories of dissent will cover the dissent. Kearneys "British Isles" book is a good example - it does both!

How am I to find the equivalent amount of "Irish are happy with British Isles" quotes? It just isn't news! Same for "Hitler was not a Finnish pole vaulter!" (an extreme example, as I said) - it's just not news, and doesn't 'prove' the opposite is true! It's up to you to provide enough weight to support a very strong statement. (although, as I keep saying, I have spent a long time looking for it too). It's an old trick to say the citations are there - so Wikipedia has only to quote from them. Life is more complicated than that. Fortunately we have a Talk Page and the policy of consensus to stop the "statement in citation = statement in Wikipedia" equation being taken to extremes. The article has a context of its own and is part of an encyclopaedia - it must be balanced, and represent the full picture. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How am I to find the equivalent amount of "Irish are happy with British Isles" quotes? You can't Matt - because there is no equivalent amount. There are almost no Irish "happy with" the term "British Isles". Can't find what isn't there. Sarah777 (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not been advocating "a very strong statement". Others may have in the past, but I have been advocating a statement that is practically a verbatim quote from any one of several Oxford/Cambridge/etc. books on the British Isles. Matt Lewis, on the other hand, insists that even if there were 100 such references he would not accept them. I suspect a search for consensus is impossible with someone who ignores the foundation of Wikipedia. For Matt Lewis the rule seems to be "if it doesn't match what I think, it doesn't go in Wikipedia". As for Matt Lewis' inability to find the reference where it describes how the Irish are happy with the term, we're not talking news, we're talking scholarly references, and the scholarly references available pretty much all say the same thing - that the term is objectionable, offensive, etc., to many Irish people. Wotapalaver (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

When I say stop "exaggerating" - do you know what it means? You are behaving like a 'one trick pony': You ignore all my points and exaggerate some aspect of what I've said, and then further exaggerate about the evidence you have. You do this almost every time. You can only have problem finding the citations I am asking for. "the scholarly references available" you say all "say the same thing" are merely the ones you can find that back you up!!! But an account of dissent is merely an account of dissent. Look at the amount of times British Isles is used normally in historical and academic texts (let alone anywhere else)! There is no comparison. You are imagining this world of criticism based purely on a motley and limited handful of mixed citations that quickly tail off into minor tracts. They are not enough to counter such a widely-used geographic term such as this. Please - step back and have another look.--Matt Lewis (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) And more reference. "The British Isles does include the island of Ireland although the adjective British used in this context is often found offensive by Irish Nationalists.....it is as simple to refer to Britain and Ireland or to recognize that the term 'British Isles' was in widely accepted and common usage during the period covered by this chapter." What is a Nation?: Europe 1789-1914 By Timothy Baycroft, Mark Hewitson, published by Oxford. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A nation is a notion shared by like-minded individuals. Sarah777 (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) When references are found, can you make sure that they make their way to the reference page [2]. With regard to the debate, keep in mind that there is no requirement for everybody to share the same opinion, and Matt is entitled to voice an opposing opinion and is acting in good faith. It's enough that a consensus forms, and from the references, and the comments here, I believe a consensus has formed that use of the word "many" is fine. Can we agree on a sentence for the lead paragraph? The references page can be linked to the sentence. By my reckoning, it's now something along the lines of the following:

• The term British Isles is controversial to many people when used in relation to Ireland
• Many Irish people object to the term British Isles in relation to Ireland

Progress is still being made. If there is not the basis of agreement in one of the sentences above, please make further suggestions. If many people object (relatively), let's straw-poll some sentences to test where consensus is at. --Bardcom (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Over such a word? No - we can't poll over this. Consensus is more complex than a head count. There are plenty of people out there who will follow my sense, even if few here do. This issue has always been crowded by the same clutch of anti-BI people - I wouldn't accept a straw poll by them, or anyone really (I follow Wikipedia's recommendations in not favouring them and sticking to discussion. Polls work where this issue is benign and everyone is happy with the poll taking place).

Again, the new Matt Lewis fact acceptability criteria;- "if it doesn't match what I think, it doesn't go in Wikipedia". Woohoo! As for Crowded by "the same bunch of anti-BI people", Matt Lewis is again asserting things with no evidence. A read through the archives gives many different people over time. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt, a straw poll is not a vote, so it doesn't matter what the editor volume is. A straw poll attempts to test a consensus based on discussion, references, etc. It will give an opportunity for the many editors that are keeping quiet and reading this page to voice their opinions. Polls are not for simple benign issues either - it's to test to see if a consensus exists or if a different consensus emerges. So far, the consensus appears to accept that there are enough references to support the assertion that many people object or find the term contentious. Your objections have been well articulated and have been heard, but do not appear to have affected consensus. Moving on from that, I have suggested two sentences above. I believe these sentences adequately make the point, in a NPOV fashion, and without the bloated references that existed before. If you have any further points to make that we haven't heard before, feel free to make them, and I would like to hear if you agree to any of the suggestions or if you want to propose a suggestion of your own. --Bardcom (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the facts - as demonstrated by the references - are serially challenged by people who believe they have a particular personal-and-all-holy-source-of-knowledge on the topic, keeping the references is important. At the moment the objections to "many" and "often" consist of asking idiotic hypothetical questions like "what if a source said that Hitler was a Finnish pole vaulter?" and deserve no further consideration. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Population density

The map illustrating the population density, as well as its caption, do not state the unit. So one may wonder whether it is people per square mile or km. I would guess square km. Is any one sure and would like to add this information. Tomeasy (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That graph was made by user Sony Youth. You'll have to ask him. It's difficult to reliably back calculate. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. In the meantime, I have found it out by myself. It's per km^2. I am just waiting for the page protection to be mitigated. Tomeasy (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why must these Irish rebel?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why must these Irish persist in offending everybody? We can all get along very well until the Irish persist with this Irish thing. One would think that they ought to be grateful for inclusion in Britain's domains. Britain is, after all, the greatest power in world history. It has helped hundreds of millions of rather underdeveloped (to be polite) persons across the world. To be included is the greatest honour for all. The British Isles is a glorious concept uniting all the disparate tribes under Her Majesty, the Queen of England. It is, in its truest sense, civilisation. Such talk about a separate Irish identity would send a shiver to the spine of any person concerned that these islands do not return to the barbarous state in which they were when those Irish ruled their own affairs. The British Isles, and its symbolism, should be defended by all who cherish our hard fought freedoms and advances 86.42.102.87 (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Hear hear. Britannia rules the waves. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC) None of this ranting, is helping. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I think I detect a double agent. TharkunColl (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC) 86.42.102.87 & 86.27.230.177 does seem similar. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Ranting? If there's any ranting done here, old boy, it is by those troublesome Irish. Everything was quite fine until those Irish rose up and started with this Irish thing. Now the glory that the term the British Isles represents is expected to be sacrificed at the altar of their recent discovery of an Irish identity? Unacceptable. They should just accept what we tell them they are. If we let them away with this Irish silliness before we know it the entire realm will be a cacophony of barbarous identities. All is lost. The noble work of forging a shared English identity on these islands by Elizabeth, Oliver and William- all lost. They've just got far too cocky since we allowed them to have their land back. 86.42.102.87 (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, very droll. Incidentally, I doubt if any real Englishman would speak of forging a shared "English" identity across the British Isles. Go back and do a bit more research into your character, old boy. TharkunColl (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC) One may not speak of it, and of course we are speaking Welsh and Irish here and living under Celtic law with the headquarters of the British Isles in Dublin, Ireland rather than London, England. The British Isles is diversity on England's terms. Without England, it is just chaos once again.

Hmmmmm. And certainly well worth archiving it is too! (Not me btw). Sarah777 (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean you didn't archive it or you didn't write it? It was no way written by a "Brit"! --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Very droll Matt. I neither wrote nor archived it! Though I suspect it was written by a troll - of whatever nationality. Sarah777 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And while I'm at it I wish to state that I'm not IP 78.19.204.211 either. Honest. Sarah777 (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

National Geographic drops usage

The National Geographic can now be added to the long list of organisations which have dropped this [rather jingoistic] British term. They have replaced it with the term 'British and Irish Isles'. I have added The Sunday Tribune article on this story to the opening paragraph as the Irish Government's objection to the term is articulated in the same article: http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_scope=Tribune/News/Home%20News&id=82652. P.S. If the democratically-elected government of Ireland has put on record its objection to the term, a stronger word than 'many' is needed to describe the amount of objections to this very controversial term in Ireland. That this objection is then incorporated into all international agreements between the Irish and British states leaves absolutely no doubt as to that objection, and acceptance of this objection at the highest level of the British state. 'Many' is an understatement. 213.202.151.22 (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is all wild exaggeration (so I have amended the section title - I removed "drops"):

Dreadfully illiterate bullshit. Restored.213.202.151.22 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Where has National Geographic itself said it is dropping usage of the word?

It must have dropped the entire sentence on your head. Let's try it again for baby infants (no offence to any baby infants reading this): 'The plate in the National Geographic Atlas of the World once titled "British Isles" now reads "Britain and Ireland."'

Confirmation of the change is on the National Geographic's style guide: http://stylemanual.ngs.org/intranet/styleman.nsf/Alpha+Summaries%5C-+B+-/$first/?OpenDocument I direct you especially to this part: 'The plate in the National Geographic Atlas of the World once titled "British Isles" now reads "Britain and Ireland."' Well? 213.202.151.22 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

They changed the larger name on that plate, they still use the term "British Isles": I think I've seen this example before - I think it's even on the plate amongst some text! They sell the "British Isles Political Map" on their website which also has a main heading of "Britain and Ireland" and mentions "British Isles" in some text. This certainly represents a change of tack (ie using the political terms instead of the geogrphic ones - and there are always political and geographic maps), but they haven't "dropped" the term. So I'm changing the section heading again - Wikipedia cannot mislead people like this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. National Geographic has clearly, and explicitly, dropped the name "British Isles" from its atlas. Oddly enough they have not dropped the term on the atlas they produced 10 years ago, if that's what your argument is. In fact, not only have they dropped "British Isles" from their atlas from 2008 on but they have, as a matter of policy, said it is being replaced with the title "Britain and Ireland". A common sense description of these islands that will undoubtedly be reflected in the final name for this wikipedia article when when common sense finally overthrows the irredentism of certain British posters. Ah common sense, that most unfortunately uncommon characteristic. 78.16.126.36 (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is just an anecdotal story (from the mouth of someone who saw its use as "absurd error"! He might disagree with its definition, but it was hardly an error by National Geographic!)

Oh, is it now? Somebody needs reading classes. See above. 213.202.151.22 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No - National Geographic still use it. Try reading around a bit yourself. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Irish gov merely confirmed that it's not a "legal" term - it never was!

Wrong. It said it is consciously not used by the democratically-elected government of Ireland as a matter of policy because it is objectionable. 213.202.151.22 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Where? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent reference shows that in 1947 the then Irish govt stated that the term "British Isles" was a misnomer and not to be used. Recently reiterated in the whole kerfuffle about Folens.Wotapalaver (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Who are you anyway? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to know who you are. What you clearly and unmistakably are is another British person with jingoistic and irredentist notions concerning Ireland and the Irish people. No surprises, then. You personify a tradition of some note in Ireland. 213.202.151.22 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

213.202.151.22, please keep your personal opinons in check. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I find that story quite scary - that a respected organisation can cave in to political pressure like that. Oh well, last time I buy National Geographic then. Who knows what other facts they have compromised for the sake of expediency? I wonder what they'll call the British Isles after Scotland becomes independent? "British, Irish, and Scottish Isles" or something? And why aren't the Manx complaining about being left out? TharkunColl (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Read it again - its actually a nothing story. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

and like your use of the British Isles is not rabidly political at all. Sheer coincidence, all that British rule in Ireland since the 17th century and the use of this term since the 17th century. 213.202.151.22 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever about a magazine deciding to be tautological - please leave the synthesis and OR out. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Luv these British vs Irish disputes. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So now we have reference back to 1947 with the Irish Govt objection, a recent note from the National Geographic saying Be aware that the Irish may object to the name British Isles, even in a strictly geographic sense. The plate in the National Geographic Atlas of the World once titled "British Isles" now reads "Britain and Ireland. and although NG does obviously still sell maps with "British Isles" on them they're apparently changing that (although British-Irish Isles is an awkward name). A prize to anyone who finds the date when Michelin and Reader's Digest changed, because they have. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha

I have removed "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", as it translates to British Islands, and inaccurate in the encyclopedia. User:Bastun insists on reverting me, but obviously doesn't know his Gaelic. 78.19.55.51 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I gonna have to request 'Full Protection' for this article, to stop the edit warring? GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I am not edit warring. Matt Lewis and Bastun are edit warring. And if you request protection, please protect my edit. Thanks! 78.19.55.51 (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made 1 edit merely to replace the preceding version of the introduction (without the "Many") - looks like you did two things in one edit.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That statement is cited to a reliable source. The burden of evidence lies on the person who challenges this to prove it is wrong. If you )78.19.55.51) cannot prove that the translation is inaccurate, you have no justification for tagging it. And even if that statement does translate to what you say it does, it doesn't make any difference because Gaelic does not have seperate words for "islands" and "isles." That language uses "hOileáin" for both words. Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for bursting your bubble, Gaelic does have separate words for Island and Isle. It's a POV edit, and that's a fact. Suddenly everyone around here is a fluent Gaelic speaker. 78.19.55.51 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Translation is always idiomatic in any case. TharkunColl (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

All of you are edit warring. I suggest ya'll cool off. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• When I was studying Gaelic "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" meant the Islands belonging to Britain, and "Na hOileáin Eireanna" meant islands belonging to Ireland. 78.19.55.51 (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Which means that the first one exactly translates the Greek and Latin names for the islands. Remember that the term "belonging to" doesn't imply political control, but rather geographical association. TharkunColl (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Your endeavoring to split hairs here. The Gaelic does mean the political sense here in this case. The Gaelic is very complicated, with many more cases. 78.19.55.51 (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW - http://www.englishirishdictionary.com/dictionary returns "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" --Bardcom (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Although in fairness, The national terminology database for Irish, developed by Fiontar, DCU, with funding from Foras na Gaeilge http://www.focal.ie/Search.aspx?term=british+isles returns the term as "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór" which translates as "Ireland and Great Britain" :-) --Bardcom (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And this translates the term according to whether you want a geographical, polictical, or historical translations http://www.acmhainn.ie/focail.htm

• Breataine/ na hÉireann (Geog.) (lit. British/Irish)
• Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór (Pol.) (lit. Ireland and Great Britain)
• Poblacht na hÉireann agus an Ríocht Aontaithe (Hist.) (lit. Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom)

Seems to me that the term doesn't really directly translate into Irish very well... --Bardcom (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" looks like a neologism. 78.19.55.51 (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe less than 15 years old. See here: https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9707&L=GAEILGE-A&P=4369 --Bardcom (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And wouldn't have general acceptance, or approval? Like some other input here, unfortunately. 78.19.55.51 (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

78.19.55.51 - you are enforcing two different issues in your one edit - stop this. If you must war, at least do it one issue at a time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we have some references to indicate that real Irish Gaelic speakers ever use those other terms that translate as "Islands in Western Europe", "Islands belonging to the Atlantic", or whatever? Or are these just neologisms? TharkunColl (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

One of them is in a 1927 dictionary. Hardly counts as a neologism anymore. A bit late for "neo". As for getting sources describing balance of usage between three terms that probably aren't in very regular use at all, Irish itself isn´t very used any more, so that might be tricky. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, dictionaries use all three (different) phrases. Maybe there are more different phrases, but there's no reference yet. Wotapalaver (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, it's just POV POV POV -- just like the article itself. British Isles is unacceptable by many people throughout the world, and term means the "islands belonging to the British", and Ireland isn't British. A very deep insult to many Irish people after enduring the genocide by the British, including the famine. It's like calling Israel German, how vulgar? I don't discount that the term exists, but the article, which should be a 12 liner, is just an exercise in "British Nationalism". Pathetic stuff. 78.19.204.211 (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an exercise in pushing a certain 'anti-usage' POV which even has its own fork article! Why are people into maintaining some standards (notability and weight etc) "pathetic"?--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's reference to objection around the world, then let's have it. Meantime, the term exists, many (not all) Irish people find it objectionable and there seem to be various translations for the term in Irish. No POV there. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

USA government don't use it, British government don't use it , Irish government don't use it, etc etc. I have supplied these references some months ago. 78.19.204.211 (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know where those references are today. Put them in the article. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"British Isles" never was a 'legal' term in that sense! It's like saying Scotland isn;t a country because the UN lists the United Kingdom! It's just different criteria. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my Irish is rusty. Anon IP, care to tell us what the Irish for "Isles" is, if it isn't "Oileain"? The term "British Isles" does not mean "islands belonging to Britain" - the term meaning "islands belonging to Britain" is British Islands. And yes, please avoid enforcing two or more changes in the one edit with a misleading edit summary. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Bastun, very rusty indeed, therefore please recuse yourself from this section, and maybe create some new articles from your vast knowledge. 78.19.213.117 (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh... no. Please supply a reference showing that "oileain" != "isles". Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Isles in English means "islands"; in Irish they didn't bother have two different names for the exact same thing. So the Irish version means both. Sarah777 (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Irish does have more than one word for an island. An oileán is a larger island than an inis. Both can be seen through modern-day placenames. Inis is a small island, like Inis Ní (Co. Galway), or Inis Mhóchaoí (Co. Down). Olieán is bigger, for example Oileán Thoraigh (Co. Donegal) or Oileán Mhic Aodha (Co.Antrim). The term "the island of Ireland" is "oileán na hÉireann" whilst "the British Isles" is (yes, you've guessed it!) "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha". Despite the fact that "inis" has similar connotations to that of "isle", it would be inappropriate in this case (linguistically from a Gaelic perspective at least). "Na hInse Bhritanacha" is thus incorrect. I have already provided citations above for uses of the term "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" - this issue has already been discussed (see Talk:British_Isles#Irish_language_.22Translation.22). "The islands belonging to Britain" would be "oileáin de chuid na Breataine" or "oileáin faoi chumhacht na Breataine". D.de.loinsigh (talk) 16:51, 04 May 2008 (UTC)

Collins Atlas

I noticed today that Collins Atlas latest edition has dropped all reference to the "British Isles" - check the index; you'll find everything from "British Solomon Islands" to British Guyana - nothing to indicate anywhere called the "British Isles" exists. Sarah777 (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If true (which I don't dispute) then there´s potential support for the whole "increasingly disputed" point, or a "less used" point. Michelin, Collins, Reader's Digest, National Geographic all avoiding it. Probably take another century for other languages to catch up, but potentially an interesting language study case. Wotapalaver (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But other languages don't matter on EN:Wiki do they? They aren't called the "British Isles" in Irish and nobody seems to consider that relevant. Sarah777 (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, other languages don't really matter. I can't comment on what they're called or not called in Irish. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, looks like there's definitely a case to be made for saying its now being used less often in publications, at any rate. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus. Fuck. Honesty! 86.42.90.145 (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute tag?

Is that necessary Sarah? The term IS used, which many find annoying, and many find it annoying, which some refuse to believe - but which is very well referenced. Wotapalaver (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it not rather obvious that there is a dispute? Hence the tag. Sarah777 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that Matt Lewis is reverting again, yes. I have reported him for breach of 3rr. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was locked over this and we clearly have to discuss proposed changes! You are just carrying on in the same vein. How on earth have I 3RR'd? And who is this IP address backing you up? How have you reported me anyway? - I don't remember a warning. You can provoke and push - but without consensus you cannot get your way. You are trying to re-write the article to be a huge propaganda page for your POV! I'm being tough on weight becase you are simply spinning exaggerations. You ought to know that I have compromised already - the article I accept is OTT on the "controversy" issue as far as I'm concerned.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The same vein? If that means gathering reliable sources and trying to make the text reflect the reliable sources, then yes, I'm guilty. I went to the reliable sources noticeboard and got comment, editors from there came to the BI page and commented. That's the "same vein". In your case it means deleting text that reflects the reliable sources. As for 3rr, I counted what your own edit summaries described as reverts. Maybe I counted wrong, but I saw 4 in the last 24 hours. I put a warning on your talk page. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You are supposed to warn me BEFORE you report me - not after. If feel like I've been stitched up by an IP address (who I wonder?), and am not happy with you at all. All you will do is get the article locked again. It is hugely in your favour already! Do you want to simply just rename this the dispute page? (which is an unashamed POV fork anyway!) - you are too greedy by far, and your examples are just not strong enough to warrant the language you use.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be careful with mainpage edits here - any sign of warring on pages such as this and one comes into the scope of a standing Arbcom Fatwa. They might not even bother counting to four. Could I appeal on behalf of Matt that he be allowed one bite? Sarah777 (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't looking at the IP - hopefully they won't take it seriously, as warring here especially clearly helps no one. Surely Wotapalava knew what he was doing though. I'll try and get a 'point by point' criticism of the refs done over the weekend - we will have something new to get our teeth into then. I planned to have it done by now, but some banned idiot was trying to say Wales isn't a country and I got waylayed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wales? What's that? I thought it was an English principality. I definitely think all the Paddies should go over there and shove some outsider's offensive perception upon your society. Spread your peace, so to speak. Ut sementem feeceris. 78.16.126.36 (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) @Matt Lewis, you're again suggesting that the IP address and I have some sockpuppet relationship. Make a formal accusation or withdraw the suggestion. As for warning you, I went to warn you, came back to this page and found you had reverted again so did the 3RR notification. @Sarah, at this stage, since there are editors who revert supported text, I believe that some step like a formal dispute resolution is needed. This is getting ridiculous; a page of references from reputable sources and editors can still impose their own bias. Wikipedia needs to stamp them out or die. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You have never listened to the argument that a couple of the sources being "reputable" (ie Oxdridge) is simply not enough - it does not give you carte blanche to use words however you like! This is totally unprofessional - a historian should be like a detective, not a politician.

We have to apply weight in the sence of 1) the amount of sources in not cumulative - they must all be quality and compared to counter-sources. (WP:Neutrality and Verifiability (Policy)) 2) Wikipedias own encyclopedic context should outweigh that of any sources WP:No Point of View - Undue Weight (Policy) 2b) Is the source focusing on the point (ie an account of dissent is just that). 2) anachronism - the time of the quote (WIkipedia cannot present a comment of a certain time as typical of the present. 3) There 4) We cannot make it seem like the public supports the feelings of a group. 5) we must be aware of the "academic glut" - masses is published these days (many by small presses, including tracts): how is this taken up by major historians, the media, the public etc is the key. 6) Counter evidence - what is the weight of counter evidence? 6b) Ask questions if any expected evidence you would expext to back up the WP articles weight is missing? Would a term be in such use (by the BBC for example in its recent big-budget history programmes like 'Coast' and 'British Isles') if it is so disliked? Have the broadsheets picked up on it? Have evidence like Folens caused a stink or a whimper. Did Folens have public backing for the change as you might expect given the WP articles line (they didn't). 7) Use language that suits an encyclopdic article (the word "many" would simply only work on Wikipedia if the evidence is irrefutable. IT IS NOT. Consider Wikipedias place, and how in certain situations it has to be fair and get it right. 8) Question the auience: Comparatively too many people would feel the current climate in Ireland IS NOT THE TIME to stir up rancour about a 'British' past (which I've seen done in here). 9) complare other situations. Dublin was built by the British - do people complain about that? Look at other countries too. Also 10) Avoid exaggeration: Wikipdia is a neutral encyclopedia not a political manifesto. Don't pluralise single examples and exaggerate events. I've found all this across the British Isles-related Talks and articles. 11) Don't create forks and litter all the pages with a POV, bendy Wikilinks that go to forks etc, 4/5-line quotes, repetition, 'leading' language and exaggeration etc. I'm busy this weekend but as this it happening (and was partly my fault) I will definitely go through the FOR quotes one by one - I've looked at them objectively (despite constant claims I havent) and they have never equalled due weight to me - they actually always ask questions comfiming the other picture - and have generally backed-up my thoughts that today is not the climate for this, and that if you walked around Ireland looking for a "many" you would not get the interest and even the odd frown. You would have to try and whip people up somewhere imo. I would simply not be here writing this if this was an (in encyclopedic terms) "many" issue, believe me - I just wouldn't. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, again you're obviously NOT reading the sources - or you are happy to misrepresent them. (1) The sources are quality, especially compared to the "counter-sources" since there are NO counter sources. (2) The prominence given to the objection is appropriate, since it has appeared in recent histories of the British Isles, to give one example, and NO prominence should be given to the view that objection is a "tiny minority" since that view appears nowhere except among a core of wikipedia editors who don't read the references. (2b) The sources include Histories of the British Isles by Cambridge AND Oxford presses. These are not histories of dissent, whatever that is. (3) What does "There" mean in this context? (4) We cannot do anything. The sources say "many" and "Often". It is not up to us to decide how the public feels, it is up to us to use the verifiable sources we have. (5) Academic Glut? I hope you are not describing Cambridge, Oxford, Irish broadsheets, Routledge, MacMillan, etc., as "academic glut". The other sources may not all be as eminent, but they're good. Instead of tarring all with your "glut" brush, make a specific accusation of "glut". (6) Counter evidence? Where is it? Please produce it. So far there is NONE. (6b) I would expect that many people in Britain are unaware that the term is disliked. I am not surprised that the BBC used the term, but it's also true that many map makers DO NOT USE THE TERM ANYMORE AT ALL. (7) The word many is suitable for Wikipedia because that is EXACTLY WHAT A VERIFIABLE SOURCE SAYS. (8) The time is irrelevant. If the term is offensive to people then it is offensive to people. The fact remains the same. No-one is stirring up anything anti-British. I am certainly not. (9) Dublin was built by the British?? It was founded by Vikings, expanded by Normans, ruled from England, became Irish in the 20th century and - particularly with the recent building boom - has at least been re built by the Irish (and the Poles). In any case it´s a separate subject. (10) There is no political manifesto. I've said it before, so here it is again. If the sources said "a few rabid republican wikipedia editors dislike the term" then the article shouldn't even represent such a minority point of view. The sources say that the term is "often" offensive or objectionable to "many" Irish. Maybe you've found objection to the term across all sorts of pages because lots of people object. (11) I haven´t created any forks. I haven't "littered" the page with POV. As for you, you keep saying you'll go through the sources one-by-one, but we still haven't seen it. I think you'll struggle to rubbish them on any one-by-one basis. Finally, I again don't care what you think you know about the term or it's "many" support in Ireland. I can only comment on one experience in London where I was in a mixed British/Irish group and a Londoner used the term British Isles, IIRC about cliffs in the West of Ireland being the highest in "the British Isles". One of the Irish asked him not to use that term about Ireland and no-one of the Irish group said "don't be silly". And it wasn't a group of IRA members either. The British people were ALL surprised that any Irish people didn't like the term, never mind all of one group. Other than that I look at eminent historians who say "many" and "often". Wotapalaver (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You are borderline trolling with the way you consistently exaggerate other people so you can put them down. Nobody has said it is "tiny" amount (As oppose to "many")- if you are saying the opposite of "many" is "tiny" then you are clearly a fool. You say eminent historians use the term "many" and "often" - but they actually use the term themselves for modern situations (Kearney in his "British Isles" esp): in Wikipedias context (not one of jsut focusing on dissent) that goes a long way. There is just such a dearth of examples: we can't have Wikipedia make it look like a serious movement abounds when IT DOESN'T. There is however enough going on to cover properly in the main article. The existence of the fork especially over-weights the "dissent" and am am totally unhappy about it. Wikipedia is constantly being used politically and it is quite scary.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, I am not trolling by insisting that the references are quality and clear and I never said that the opposite of many was tiny. I said that the sources say many and often. The page of references is dominated by Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Routledge (another academic press), Westview (ditto). The references in the article include two Irish broadsheets. The historians say clearly that the term is offensive/objectionable, etc to many Irish, often, etc. One calls it a solecism (look it up). The sources meet ALL of Wikipedia's quality standards. Additionally, there is NOT A SINGLE counter-source. There is no need to find any more references because the ones already there are so clear. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where you are getting the "now is not the time" notion? Now more than ever I'd say - and I live here. Prior to this, being seen to take offense at the term BI could have been conflated with supporting "violence" - so people kept their heads down. At least the more cowardly amongst us did! Sarah777 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Are these things popular in times of peace and reconciliation? The "many" statement suggests it is: I don't see the evidence. Wiser heads abound in Ireland I'm sure, and the media of weight (TV, broadsheets etc) have simply found nothing much to report either. I just object to the undue weight. I don't want to see any political pushing on WP (and I always argue when I see it) - it doesn't do anyone any good, not even the cause.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've actually read your very long post above. You ask for references, and they exist here -> Talk:British Isles/References. You then say that it's quality not quantity - but all the provided references *are* quality, from broadcasters, governments, and newspapers, never mind companies that make it their business to produce geographic content like atlas makers and travel/culture magazines. To present a fair and balanced situation, you have been asked for any references to counter-balance the argument put forward, which I would recommend you also place in the References section of this Talk page.

Bardcom - I have seen that link and I've talked about it a few times: When I originally read through it, I felt it tailed off (re academic weight) to the point where I felt the case for "many" being too-strong a word was even stronger after reading that list of evidence of dissent. I used to run a secondhand bookshop that had masses of texts like that passing through it: you can compile a list like that about almost anything like this. Same with the Folens example - the inherent lack of wider support reinforced my view, rather than changed it. You must understand that I approached this objectively looking for the equivalent weighted re-life evidence, to support the weight given the "dissent" on WP. I've still not seen it - but I keep seeing examples of it's uncontested use in situations that I simply believe would not naturally happen if the level of dissent you want to suggest exists actually existed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, if it is so easy to produce a list of references like this, please produce a list of references that say the term is only objected to by a "tiny minority" in Ireland. PLEASE. As for Folens, perhaps the reason that the publishers removed the term was because as soon as it was pointed out their reaction was "oh yeah..that shouldn't be there" and they didn't need any public outrage. Perhaps the public approach in Ireland, where a vast majority of books published come from UK presses, is generally resigned annoyance where people feel there is no point in making their objection known. The Tribune story is an example of such a case. In this case an Irish publisher IMMEDIATELY removed the term. This could mean that the wider support was so obvious to the publisher that he acted as soon as the "problem" was pointed out. It could also mean there is no wider support - in which case there should have been outrage at removal of the term, and there wasn't. As for what you believe about the level of dissent - try practicing this exercise. Repeat this phrase 100 times "Original Research is not allowed on Wikipedia." Wotapalaver (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"tiny" is hardly the opposite of "many"!! There is just not the interest in the subject around to lead to examples of people saying "there is no evidence that "many" Irish people find the term offensive": and it's not my burden to do so. Folens actually stated they had no complaints from parents: they said they did it to remove the possibility of a future problem (per company policy). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But there is enough interest for eminent authors to state that the term is offensive/objectionable to many Irish, often, etc. That's strange, isn't it? There's enough interest to say that there is a problem but not enough to say that there isn't. IIRC correctly, Folens reacted to a comment from a teacher - a geography teacher. That's what I seem to remember from the article in The Times. Again, try this phrase "Original Research is not allowed on Wikipedia". Wotapalaver (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on the concept of consensus. I feel that this particular discussion has run it's course without being resolved or an acceptable solution worked out. It's time to see what consensus has formed and to test it. --Bardcom (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Time for your straw poll, you mean - I disagree. Don't think I'm too worried about the result - I just honestly think it's a really bad idea right now. Wikpedia doesn't like polls for good reasons, and I don't see what positive purpose it would serve right now.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) It's time to depend on verifiable, reputable sources. Nothing else. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One, some, many, lots?

Can we try to avoid descriptively quantifying how many people find the term objectionable? Undoubtedly, some do, but we have no reliable source to indicate whether that's a very vocal minority (apparently all it takes is one complaint to Folens and National Geographic and it gets removed, after all), or many, or whether the vast majority never give it any thought whatsoever... I believe this has been covered lots of times before in the talk page. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well - so who complained to Collins - maybe their Irish marketing Executive?! Anyway this name game is being played by more than the Paddies; see the amazing 10 Downing Website statement that NI/England/Wales are "countries within a country" - which appeared just when the Wiki argument for such a daft claim was failing to locate reliable sources......Sarah777 (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, for the record, I have always been sympathetic with NI, but I personally see it as a created country: I am entitled to do so, and it seems pretty obvious to me that is what it is: people were planted there who eventually became Northern Irish. George Best is an example of a Northern Irish countryman imo. I am aware that most prossibly don't see it as a country - I have no problems with that. I have no idea how long NI will last - if the UK dissolves what would happen? I'm saying this as I've had a gutful on the recent Welsh matter - people have different opinions and Wikipedia simply must detail them fairly. Saying Wales cannot be a country did not have weight (and was the work of just two people, one banned), with NI it is different certainly - but people can still have their own opinion. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There are sources (highly reputable sources) that say many, and similar sources that say often. That's what we have. Find sources that say anything different. Otherwise we have people's own personal view.Wotapalaver (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

A source can say "some", "many", or "often" but I've yet to see one pointing to a definitive survey or opinion poll (apart from a couple of online polls - but seeing as how A Nation Once Again is the most popular song in the UK according to a BBC online poll, I don't think we can put much faith in them :P ). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a definitive source saying that "British Isles" is liked by anyone? in the UK? I'm not saying there needs to be, but right now there are sources that say the term is offensive to many and that say it is often offensive. These are from reputable sources. Is there a source that says anything else? Since this has been going on for a while and no such source has been produced it would seem not. Therefore we have reputable sources that say one thing and NO reputable sources that say the opposite. End of story. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a totally different understanding of Wikipedia to you. It would be utterly corrupt if people used the "disprove it" logic on all language like this! I am using your own evidence to disprove the term "many" - funnily enough I don't have any 'pre-made' quotes on the net! You have to acknowledge that the argument is over the qualifying word "many" - you must show good faith about this. If you are saying that editors here are suggesting no criticism of the term exists - this would be foolish as nobody is. We obviously know that at least some like the term, and at least some don't: The difference between "some" and "many" in the encyclopedic context of Wikipedia is enormous! It couldn't be larger. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no references that anyone regards the term as unproblematic, or any references that say there is a problem that is confined to a minority, tiny, vocal or otherwise. I don't even see references to back up the claim that the term is the preferred one in the UK, and there are even a few references that suggest it might not be. I see lots of references saying that the term is problematic/objectionable, etc., to many and often in Ireland, or even just without qualification saying things like "often offensive to Irish sensibilities", which would (potentially unreasonably) suggest that it is offensive to ALL Irish. I see editors mischaracterizing the references, with TharkunColl claiming that they include letters to the newspaper (they don't), and you claiming that the sources are "academic tracts" and untrustworthy. Meantime we have uncontradicted sources of the highest quality saying many and often - which sources you are still resolutely ignoring and/or claiming are dime-a-dozen despite them being from major British and American academic publishers of the highest rank. I'm dying to see how you manage to go through them one-by-one to demonstrate that they should not be given weight. Been waiting a while already. As for corrupting Wikipedia, you are obstructing it with OR, POV, and ignoring verifiability. If you can produce ANY references that suggest that objection to the term is confined to a minority then that would be useful. I'm just following as close to the references as possible and saying "many" and "often", not "all" or "all the time", just "many" and "often". I checked with the Reputable Sources noticeboard and they agreed that such use was supported. One of the editors who works on that board came here and commented too, agreeing that "many" was well supported. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Get a Grip!

Get a grip, folks! This article is not too long and is not POV. The controversy is, however, grossly overstated in this article, making it a far from encyclopedic offering. There should not be a reference to it in the lead paragraph, so I've taken it out. Heavens above, there's a whole section about it later on. That is enough. Stop your edit warring. CarterBar (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that the controversy is "grossly overstated"? The references say what they say. Also, the controversy caused a whole content fork in the past and now it´s "overstated" to mention it in the introduction? That's ridiculous. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's overstated to mention it in the introduction because it's not a key point about the British Isles, which these days is a purely geographic name. Only put key points in the intro, non-key points may be seen to be pushing a particular point-of-view when included so early on in the article. By all means have a section about the controversy, but that should be sufficient. Anyway, someone has already come along and undone all my edits, so it seems like the "enthusiasts" here just won't take no for an answer. Says a lot for Wikipedia really. I'm wondering if I've come to the right place. 86.27.184.206 (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC) --- Sorry, this comment was me, forgot to log in. CarterBar (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh how very wrong you are here. The name of this article is, far and away, the key point of this entire article. Nothing is as important as the name. Everything else is incidental. The British have been imposing their identity on Ireland for far too long. This is more of the same. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"British Isles, which these days is a purely geographic name." Interesting admission. When did the "British Isles" stop being a political term? Was there some announcement? Sarah777 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It never was a political term. Except to those who seek to turn it into one. TharkunColl (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It is of course a political term; I was just a bit surprised to read CarterBar admitting that it was. Sarah777 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I assure you it is not a political term - not for the vast majority of people who use it. But in order to object to it, you must first pretend that it is a political term, otherwise your objection has no justification whatsoever. TharkunColl (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, British Isles is both a geographic & political term. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thark, if it had no political implications/overtones why would anybody object to it? That is like saying a large number of Irish people would collectively decide that "Australia" was a political term just so that they could then object to it! Meaningless. Sarah777 (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is simply the result of a mistaken assumption, namely that "British" refers to the state known as the UK. In fact it's a much older word, and originally referred to those we would now call Celts ("Celt" is a modern term, of course). In the 17th century the English objected to being called British, a term appropriated by the Scottish Stuart dynasty. Cromwell's regime avoided the term British entirely, because they associated it with the deposed monarchy. From a much earlier time the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has accounts of battles between the English and the British. By accepting the term "British" for themselves by the beginning of the 18th century, the English were making a pretty big compromise. TharkunColl (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"I think it is simply the result of a mistaken assumption, namely that "British" refers to the state known as the UK." Given the kind of issues that I deal with and work I do, I quite often encounter people who argue for including Irish people and things under a tag of British or Brit who justify this with "they are from the British Isles." This is not a mistaken assumption on their part that British refers to the U.K. This is from an assumption that geographic terms that happen to exist in the language can be used to define identity. In other words, even geography is not purely geographic. Do you consider it "mistaken" to call Irish people British "because they are from the British Isles"?

"...originally referred to those we would now call Celts..." It pressumably referred to certain tribes of what we would now call Celts, who may or may not have had anything (or something very limited) to do with Ireland.

"By accepting the term "British" ... the English were making a pretty big compromise." That's interesting as far as English history goes, but I don't know what it has to do with Ireland. The Irish are under no obligation to make such a compromise, if that is what it was. Nuclare (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the Irish make that "compromise" at all. If a majority of people in a place call it by a certain name, then that's its name (see Derry). The population of the UK outnumbers that of Southern Ireland by about 15 to 1. TharkunColl (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What has a country that existed in 1922 got to do with this? Thanks to the Irish diaspora the numbers are much more equal in number of both nationalities. (As much as hate to admit it) Derry is not the name of Derry. In its charter Londonderry is its official name. As British and Irish governments refuse to use to use the term British Isles you could say its officially (de facto) not the name of this Archipelago.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 23:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

A country that has existed since 1922 has nothing to do with it, for the simple reason that states don't make language. The Irish "diaspora" makes no difference at all. As any dictionary will confirm, "British Isles" is the standard designation. TharkunColl (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The country Ireland and Irish people have been here for longer than since 1922! You called it Southern Ireland. That's about as up to date as naming Turkey the Ottoman Empire. A dictionary that states the British Isles as the name is more than likely reasonably outdated. Dictionaries that have been recently published refer to 'these isles'. Folens also republishing their books suggest the change in use of name. Nearly every modern map or atlas refers to it as Britain and Ireland.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 00:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankun said: "If a majority of people in a place call it by a certain name, then that's its name..." -- Except the dispute is about what constitutes this "place" in the first place. You are setting the boundaries and then, big surprise!, claiming a majority based on YOUR boundaries. In any event, your 15:1 statement assumes that the issue divides by that mythical land you call "Southern Ireland" vs. everyone in the UK, which, clearly, it wouldn't. Nuclare (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The boundaries are set by geography. And the people who use the term, use it to include the whole of Ireland. You're right of course to say that the controversy doesn't actually divide along the Ulster border. As we know, for example, many people in Southern Ireland use the term. TharkunColl (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"The boundaries are set by geography." It's geography that includes the Channel Islands, then? And it was geography (without politics) that lead to the championing of the term's use in the 17th century? The Scottish kings weren't actually kings at all, but vague blobs called Geography? You're rather free with your use of the word "many" there in regards to that mystical place "Southern Ireland." (Contrary to your own claims about naming, you also seem to have no qualms about naming even places you don't live and where you wouldn't be a majority if you did.) Your so-called Ulster border is hardly the only thing that works against your 15:1 claim. How about people of Irish ancestry in GB? Do they all fall into your 15 side? How about those in GB who currently use the term BI to not include Ireland? There are certainly some of those. How about all those in GB who don't use the term at all, or don't care if it's continued to be used, or don't care if it includes Ireland or not? How many is that? Nuclare (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on consensus. I thought you knew that! 78.19.213.117 (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, 'If a majority of people in a place call it by a certain name, then that's its name' can we now get the EU to change Britain's current name from the Commonwealth of England to European Union? By the logic of the "British Isles" brigade this is perfectly reasonable; those English being a mere minority in the commonly accepted place, the European Union. It is about time this article was merged into European Union. If it continues I want my distinct cabbage patch that is overgrowing into my neighbour's farm in the far corner of the field to have its own wikipedia article just like "British Isles". 86.42.124.125 (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What a ridiculous thing to say. The fact that Ireland is part of the British Isles does not mean it is no longer called Ireland. TharkunColl (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, wait a minute. I think the IP is on to something important here. Any names for places in the UK should be the name used by most Europeans in the EU or in Europe following the reasoning of the "British Isles" supporters. Not sure if that leads to any useful suggestions - what do the Germans call La Manche? Sarah777 (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, wrong. We are only talking about the English language here, because this is the English language Wikipedia. The foreign language terms are put in the lead by Wikipedia convention, but only the native ones. And I don't give a toss which Irish Gaelic version is used as long as we only use one. TharkunColl (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please keep WP:CIVIL at the forefront of your mind Thark. Have you any references for this "native" concept you keep referring to? I'd like to examine them. Sarah777 (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a well known Wikipedia convention, but I can't be bothered to look it up. Any place gets its English name (if it has one), and its native name or names. Since Irish Gaelic is a language native to the British Isles, it's included. TharkunColl (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I take can't be bothered to look it up as another way of saying "I made it up". Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Straw Poll for the Lead Paragraph

After the discussions last week where it appears that a consensus formed around the lead paragraph (my opinion), we're back to what looks like another edit war. Perhaps, at this point in time, a straw poll is required to test consensus. I suggest a number of polls for each contentious item.

This is not a straw poll to see what straw polls we require. Just that there are a number of edits that seems to continue back and forth ad nauseum and the article is a mess and unstable as a result.

• I believe we need a poll on how to phrase the sentence relating to the term being controversial - the use of the word many etc is causing a difference of opinion.

• We may need a poll on how many references are required. Perhaps we just need to reference Talk:British Isles/References or a page similar.

I hope we don't need a poll on the translations. But...

• Irish terms/translations used. DO we really need 3? Is one enough? Perhaps 2 is a compromise?

If there's a general agreement for a straw poll, let's get it started. If people feel that this can be worked out without an edit war or any more page protections, etc, then I'd prefer that route. --Bardcom (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking this to an RFC on the page then - if necessary - further. I cannot believe what I'm seeing on this page. Wikipedia depends on verifiability and reputable sources. We have reputable sources saying EXACTLY what went in the introduction. Anyone denying this and deleting references is a vandal. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There is now an entry on the RFC page for history and geography articles. [3]. There seems to be some problem with the auto-function on the RFC pages, so the RFC has to be added manually. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a straw poll is not a good idea and that an RfC is more appropriate, or are you suggesting a parallel approach is taken, or what? Since wikipedia is not a democracy, etc etc etc, why do you believe an RfC is required, and do you believe an RfC will fix the problem? --Bardcom (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the present state of the article places undue weight on the alleged controversy. I do not think we should write the article to placate the minority viewpoint. Three translations to Irish are too many too. --John (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Given such a wrongheaded and provocative intervention as that John I presume you will not be supporting your Anglo-pov with your Admin powers? I think that last contribution illustrates perfectly the Wiki-problem with its dominant Anglo-centric ghetto mentality. I would have thought that someone as experienced as you would realise the folly of using redundant political terms in a geographical context. Sarah777 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This Irish born and bred editor agrees with John, thinks there's nothing particulary Anglo-centric about his views, and wonders how some Irish editors think they have the power to speak for all Irish editors. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Watch WP:CIVIL Bastun. Please show me where I claim to speak for all Irish editors? And what has your nationality got to do with this? You - in my opinion - have also got an Anglo-centric minority viewpoint so I don't know how you'd think I'm claiming to speak on your behalf. I'm solely interested in ensuring we improve this article by ensuring it written from a neutral point of view - and I see John's comments as good faith (but inadvertent) acknowledgment that he doesn't grasp the WP:NPOV concept. Sarah777 (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if we could get the lead paragraph sorted first. It's smaller, and I believe that if the lead paragraph was stable and agreed by consensus, the article would settle down. --Bardcom (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a Merge with the fork article (the BI dispute article) will have to happen at some point. The forks existence (and he wikilinks to it) are messing with the overall weight' on how the issue is presented. I am trying to prepare case to show how the evidence for the word "many" do not collectively carry 'due weight' - I hope we can develop from it. I have decided to put up the merger proposal template between the fork and here. Any objections? We surely need to focus on one article rather than juggle between lines here and there - we will never get it right then imo. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Watch WP:CIVIL yourself Sarah. With respect, I think anyone who disagrees with you is likely to be labelled as having a pro-Anglo viewpoint. Without getting into that whole area (which is actually the antithesis of AGF), it seems to me that having three translations in Irish (355,000 fluent or native speakers), and one in English (0.5–1.8 billion speakers), is just a little bit out of proportion. --John (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

John, I have no views at all on how many translations there should be. It was your statement that the opening placed undue weight on the alleged (sic) controversy and your references to that I found provocative and unhelpful. Also your suggestion that dealing with the articles main problem in an open way constitutes writing the article to placate the minority viewpoint. Are you claiming that only a minority are interested in upholding the principle of WP:NPOV? And while we're all at it might I ask that you, too, pay more heed to WP:CIVIL? Sarah777 (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why we need to have the names for the islands in Celtic languages in the lead. Wikipedia is not a language dictionary. If it's really important to this article's demographic to have them, have 'em in another section. They are atm, besides being of extremely limited encyclopedic value, cluttery; add to that they cause controversy ... well ... zap 'em! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Deacon has a point, people. Afterall, this is the English language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I dunno about the Welsh ones but the Gaelic terms, as with so many terms in the modern languages, are neologisms based on translating the English phrase. Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa and Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór do not translate as "British Isles", but as "Islands of Western Europe" and "Ireland and Great Britain" and are presumably an attempt to describe the islands employing alternate usage rather than reflecting common usage. As far as my own [historical] knowledge goes, "real Irish" just called them the "islands", as the experience of Irish speakers was never in general broad enough to require such specificity. If these were genuine alternate usages of historical depth then they'd be important perhaps, but they aren't. So ... with more strenght ... zap 'em. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Zap 'em. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Far from zapping them we need to add many more to this article. The Wiki Manual of Style for Irish-related articles specifies an Irish language version be supplied and as you folk are claiming that "British Isles" is an Ireland-related article I'll need some help adding the Irish name for the Isle of Wight; Guernsey, Shetlands etc etc. Any Irish scholars out there can help me with this urgent work? Sarah777 (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles is certainly Ireland-related as Ireland (whichever definition you use, island or state) is within, and forms a substantial part of, the British Isles. Ireland is not within Guernsey or the Isle of Wight; those subjects are not Ireland-related. Similarly, the articles on the Earth, Solar System and Milky Way don't need Irish translations since, although those entities contain Ireland, Ireland isn't a substantial part of them. It's worth noting that the MOS you refer to doesn't define what is meant by "Ireland related"; perhaps it should, to avoid such confusion (although I think a bit of common sense is all that's really needed) Waggers (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe use this, http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/British_Isles, as a template. It seems pretty well done, and POV-free to boot. 78.19.213.117 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no discussion on the Citizendium Talk page: someone just wrote it all without leaving any discussion! This is actually typical of CZ - it only has a small number or editors and a few thousand articles (too many of them very poor). I joined it for around a week when I was fed up with this place, and was quite shocked by how bad it was, so resigned! I thought the editors there would be a higher quality at least - but they are not at all: too many people who couldn't get past consensus here, I think. Inaccurate stuff can stay on CZ for ages without getting attended to, as the 'bigger' editors (who all seem to know each other) are hugely over-worked trying to increase the article count.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. But I was talking about the article. 78.19.213.117 (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Scary Stuff!!, http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1485 78.19.213.117 (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Harmless really - but I do like the observation "many of the administrators — who can be thought of as "editors with friends" since they are elected by other editors to a position of more power and authority — selectively use these policies to promote their own biases." Touché! Sarah777 (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's move this forward. One Irish translation and move the stuff about the controversy out of the lead. Agreed? --John (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes to the single translation, so long as it isn't Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha (which is merely a literal translation of the misnomer into Irish). But a big NO to moving the problem with the article out of the lead. Sarah777 (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

On the translations, there are apparently several translations. If the English Channel was variously called "La Manche" and "Le Canal Anglais" in French, which translation would you pick? How would you decide?

On the controversy, John's contribution is typical.."in my opinion". Funny that recent histories on the British Isles, maps, atlases, have a different opinion but the opinion and actions of major publishers apparently don't matter if they don't match editor's opinion. Scary....and he's apparently an admin too. Remember, Oxford histories, Cambridge histories, National Geographic, apparently now Collins, Reader's Digest, Michelin, etc.,etc.,etc have either described the term as offensive or have just downright stopped using it....but John knows more. Just a mystery HOW he knows more since - again - not a single reference is produced suggesting that the objections are "from a tiny minority". The Irish govt has described it as a misnomer since at least 1947....but John doesn't care. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of how to resolve the 3RR complaint

User:Wotapalaver opened this 3RR complaint against Matt Lewison onthe 3RR noticeboard. As an admin who was hoping to close this complaint, I saw a number of unappealing options, and decided that actually solving the edit war was the highest priority. My plan is to close the 3RR complaint without any blocks if the participants can agree on a compromise text of the article. If no agreement can be found, I suggest that some combination of article bans (of specific editors) and 1RR restriction (for everyone) should be imposed for the rest of May. After you have read the text linked above, the discussion continues here. Please comment below on how you think the 3RR case should be resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Because restricting anon IPs really works... Matt Lewis and I both reverted a SPA anon IP who has a very clear bias (see the BI talk page, where s/he talks of British genocide, etc.), whose edit summary claimed to be reverting an incorrect translation (which is disputed in itself), but whose edit was also including other PoV changes to the article. Editors are supposed to do that. Appreciate your good-faith attempt at a solution, EdJohnston, but personally I'm not in agreement. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because of the "British genocide" in Ireland, many Irish people feel a deep insult to have the word British conferred on them, therefore the lines about "disputed". These are facts Bastun, don't shoot the messenger. The Irish translation is neologism, and is not standard, whatever the ref. 78.19.213.117 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the facts: referring to "British genocide" may or may not be appropriate wherever the IP used it (I don't know) but is manifestly NOT "very clear bias" - no more than dislike of the Holocaust can be called anti-German bias. The above tells us more about Bastun's POV than it does about the IPs! Sarah777 (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the proposed solution inappropriate. Matt Lewis (and others) are deleting text that is PRACTICALLY A VERBATIM QUOTE OF REPUTABLE SOURCES LIKE OXBRIDGE, ROUTLEDGE, MACMILLAN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, etc., because he doesn't like what they say, no matter who puts the text there. As for me, I've tried several different variants of the text, have added references, and Matt Lewis just reverts. I've gotten input from the Reputable Sources noticeboard that the text I am entering is reasonable, other editors have said the same. The text I am proposing is basically the same as was on the article until very recently when Matt Lewis (and TharkunColl) started being unreasonable. There can be no debate about the validity of the content that WAS on the article until recently and no debate that the text I'm trying to put BACK in the article is valid either. If Wikipedia admins can't tell the difference between text that has support of verifiable sources and someone who wants text that reflects their own bias then there´s a BIG problem. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

PLease don't exaggerate - I've spent countless hours in various Talks over this since the end of last year (I'm embarrassed to toll it up). I talk and talk, but am generally ignored. I will go throgh your example one by one this weekend I promise. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Interesting idea, EdJohnston. Your plan would require clarification: would it be necessary for all four editors to agree before any of them would be freed from the ban? Or would two editors, one from each "side", agreeing on a compromise be freed? Would they be restricted to 1RR for this article only, as opposed to all articles? "Delayed 3RR block" would be better worded "delayed editwarring block", as I think not all the editors mentioned violated 3RR. However, I think that implementation of a ban would require community consensus, perhaps discussion at WP:AN/I; see WP:Banning policy.

Especially since some didn't violate 3RR, restricting them from even non-controversial edits to the page seems unnecessarily restrictive. One alternative would be to restrict the five editors to 0RR on the article instead of an article ban.

A simpler solution would be to just put the article under 1RR for the rest of the month. Again, I suppose community consensus would be required.

I see that there's a fair amount of discussion on the article talk page and I hope it will lead to solutions.

Wolapalaver, if one version is clearly more acceptable than another, then a remedy such as EdJohnston proposes will probably allow the more acceptable version to become established. Article content is decided by consensus among editors; admins are not arbitrators of article content. The arguments you give above belong on the article talk page. Bastun, even if good-faith edits are unconstructive, repeatedly reverting them is still editwarring. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, my first revert was made on RC patrol and the second was because the reason I was given for the "dubious" tag being there (that the Gaelic name translated to "British Islands" instead of "British Isles") is totally crazy because Gaelic does not have separate words for "isles" and "islands". I do not care what the article looks like, so you don't need to ban me from it. Thingg^⊕⊗ 14:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind on the outcome (on what EdJohnston is suggesting) - having unintentionally 3RR'd I'm just happy I wasn't given the ban. I'm planning to go through the evidence on the "many Irish" issue this weekend, so will basically keep up the Talk regardless of what happens. I won't be editing the article itself until I have conclusively argued all my points - I certainly won't 3RR again. Hopefully we will then have a solution on the "British Isles" debate that people can support. I suspect it will involve a merger with the "dispute" page: it is too un-WP to maintain such a fork, and its existence just adds to the weight problem imo. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment A straw poll to test consensus will be carried out on the Talk Page with the intention of agreeing and accepting an opening paragraph. I propose that if any edit warring takes place on the lead paragraph afterwards, then a ban would be appropriate. I don't believe that Matt intentionally 3RRed, and while he may have strong opinions and occasionally act aggressively, he appears to act in good faith. He is not a vandal. Also, it's crazy to suggest a ban of Bastun - one of the calmest and learned editors on this topic. In summary, don't bans, but perhaps lock the article until after the straw poll. --Bardcom (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Bardcom - you are keen to straw poll but I have explained why I don't like them (and they are not recommended by Wikipedia for various reasons) - what purpose would it serve other than for people to argue over? There are too many IPs around too. I don't like it - we need to talk, not poll. Most questions we could decide on would probably be 50/50 at the moment - but so what? We are bound to disagree on the questions too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Can you clarify what you mean by "aggressive"? - I didn't appreciate reading that at all, despite what you said about me not being a vandal. It is entirely your opinion that my opinions are "strong"!. You comments here are unnecessary, unfair, and sounds like bad faith mixed in with some faint praise! I have certainly been 'tough' and persistent with my comments - but I have had to be as they usually pass without comment (aggressively ignored perhaps?). Is "toughness" what you mean by aggressive? It takes at least two to be in a dispute, and I do not see how I am an "aggressor". I don't let these kind of comments pass unchallenged certainly: I know Wikipedia too well - it is littered with these little 'personality paintings', and I've found these exaggerations about me - left by another editor - on the Talk pages I find reason to visit. Lets stick to the facts. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder to everyone that, regardless of whether or not you agree to a ban, you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't violate 3RR. If you won't agree to any restrictions, perhaps the only thing we can do is take a hardline stance on that policy.

Meanwhile, I'm thinking maybe we head for ANI with this, as it's getting a bit complex for this board. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How do people feel if this whole thread is moved over to Talk:British Isles, since that is the Talk for the article suffering the edit war? I would change the status of the 3RR complaint to 'On hold pending discussion.' Please comment if this conclusion is acceptable. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

---

End of thread copied from WP:AN/3RR. Please add your new comments below this line. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So what we have now is a discussion on how editors might be blocked for violating 1RR, but someone who has ALREADY violated 3RR is being "let off", apparently on the basis that he was so intent on reverting that he "forgot" how many times he had already reverted....WOW! Wotapalaver (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New comments on how the 3RR case should be resolved

As Matt has promised to avoid warring and as I tend to agree with him re IPs (though I like this particular one!) can we not just close the book on this 3RR case? I strongly believe that reverting IPs should not count as edit-warring anywhere. But that's just my POV. Sarah777 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Slap this article with a 1RR restriction for the rest of the month. That'll keep everybodies 'revert' fingers on hold. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Proposal to completely merge British Isles naming dispute with this British Isles article. I've kept the merge discussion here rather than on the MERGEFROM page (the normally recommended place) for obvious reasons. The fork isn't huge - it's half of it refs, many of which are duplicated here. This article should maintain all aspects of the term "British Isles". --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

For merge: Lets deal with this in one place. We can deal with WP:weight better then. Having this fork is posing all sorts of problems imo: this article keeps getting locked partly due to disagreement over how to summerise this in one line. Some editors trying to get links in to that other article is part of the problem imo.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge; I thought editors were supposed to shorten the British Isles article? 78.19.213.117 (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed 78.19.213.117. And by far the best way to do that would be to remove all reference to Ireland from the article. Then there'd be no need for this article either. A win-win. Sarah777 (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

'And by far the best way to do that would be to remove all reference to Ireland from the article.' Absolutely. With this "British Isles" article the British just want to let on to the world that they have more power than they really have. It's pathetic. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a basis to removing Ireland from this articles as there are many people British who like the Irish use the term British Isles just to refer to Isles that are just British. 1, 2, 3, 4, many more.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 14:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We can remove some of the long quotes in the "Footnotes section" for a start (this only happens on controversial topics where some people cannot trust the public to follow a link - very telling imo). We can merge and keep this under 100K. Many historically-based 'Featured Articles' are 100K. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge; pointless move which will lead to drama and warring. Sarah777 (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlike now? How can a fork article help when weight is an issue?--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Weight an issue? Not with you Matt....Sarah777 (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge; because if those articles were merged; they'd eventually be split up 'again' or another article would be created simliar to British Isles naming dispute. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know? And even if that happened it is important for the subject to be got right in the main article - splitting is supposed to happens afterwards. I suspect this fork was the 'bad kind' stemming from disagreement or propaganda (ie a POV fork). I personally don't think it warrants its own article on 'weight' grounds, though I'm not focusing on this reason for the proposed merge.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If we merge? This article will become dominated by the 'name controversy'. PS- Could somebody out there, go door-to-door throughout Northern Ireland & the Republic of Ireland, to find out how many people are offended, by the BI word? GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose also, because it would be better to tackle one thing at a time, and we're already trying to get agreement on the lead paragraph. Trying to get a merge discussion going in the middle of this would only serve to distract. --Bardcom (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We havent managed it over a long time - I believe the fork is one of the problems. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons above.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 22:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The ones you've given yourself? Sock-user alert. 'Gang' alert, in fact. The sad truth is it will help.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt; I expect User:John will be warning you about WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF for that disgraceful comment above. Consistency is the least we may expect from him so you are forewarned. Sarah777 (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeirre has used socks and trolls me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we know the lay of the land now. Wikipedia comes first? Hmmm. Forks double the work for everyone but the supporters of the fork. These forks are strangling Wikipedia. This is number one priority for me: We have to make this a reputable Wikipedia article first - and that means no pointless undue fork. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this disgraceful hysteria [4]. Is that you Matt? 78.19.213.117 (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - though I promised the editor to archive it (thanks for reminding me). Why is it disgraceful? I've had my own up and down history with that editor, and he admitted error too. It's hardly brave for someone to act like you are doing, by the way. I've never personally used an IP and never will.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to defend Matt here, the main protagonist (and initiator) of that mediation has just been banned from editing indefinitely for repeated use of sock puppets. A few of us got sucked into that exchange. --Snowded (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm no fan of the British Isles naming dispute article. However, I've been around Wiki long enough to know, this British vs Irish struggle isn't going to cool off or end. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop characterising this as British vs Irish. It isn't. Sarah777 doesn't speak for every Irish editor, and TharkunColl doesn't speak for every British one. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

She, and the very many other editors who have opposed this article, certainly speak for me. Indeed the very first edit to this article in 2001 was opposing the name "British Isles". Is it all a "minority" conspiracy? Why is the term avoided in the Irish media? And by all the leading Irish academics? Is that also another "minority" conspiracy? The views of all these people are also far closer to the stated Irish government position. This is very much a British v. Irish conflict. You clearly have extremely close roots in British society, even if you do claim to be living in Ireland now. That, with all due respect, is your problem. Maybe your children or grandchildren will grow out of this emotionally fragile "oh don't offend the Brits" mentality. This "British Isles" claim is a claim that me, my family, my friends are something we most expressly are not: British. This claim is more of the traditional identity-destroying and identity-imposing actions of British colonialism in Ireland. We are not their people. The arrogance. This is Ireland, European Union. British? With all due respect- and due is clearly the operative word- fuck the British. Culturally, the British who make this claim do not understand the concept of "live and let live". They have to take everything from their neighbours. They can never take our dreams (obviously if they could see them they would). I don't understand women, alas, but I can appreciate and even enjoy them. I can neither understand, appreciate nor enjoy British people when they feel an impulse to claim Ireland and the Irish as "British". Did you ever. It's bad form, bad breeding and downright indecent behaviour from our neighbours. That, I thought, was confined to past. If the British want to carry on that past in the "British Isles" title of this article, I'll take them on with all the antediluvian canons of that past. Your choice for this article: the past or the future? 86.42.124.125 (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To my request that Sarah and other (mostly) Irish editors not to presume to speak for me or everyone in Ireland, I'll add a request to you, anon IP, not to presume to interpret me or my views. I'm Irish, working class, born and bred. Far from "obviously having close roots in British society", I've spent no more than a month there, in total, including holidays and work. I've had family living there, but then that's true for most Irish families. Where have I said its a minority view? Read elsewhere on this page and you'll see I've said noone knows the number actively objecting. My own view? Its a non-issue. The vast majority of Irish people couldn't care less and don't spare a thought for what the island group is called. And if pressed would probably go for "Ireland and Britain" - which would be my own preference, too. Why? Because It. Doesn't. Matter. Ireland's better than that, a thriving modern country punching above its weight in international terms. All this chip-on-shoulder, 800 years stuff is of no relevance or interest to the vast majority of Irish people. Its the 21st century. We've moved on. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm descended from an earl, the "Earl of *****", but that doesn't give me any edge here either. The big problem here Bastun it trying to get a balanced article. I too don't give a frig about the name, but why let British Nationalism have dominance over every sentence an reference. That's my view. 78.19.13.108 (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Batun, it evidently does, in fact, matter if people avoid using the term, a reality which you are acknowledging. Non-use is a statement, assuming you accept that people think about the words they use. It is extraordinarily intellectually inconsistent to state "we've moved on" from 800 (sic) years and then advocate that we accept a label which was created in 1621 as an assertion of British hegemony over Ireland. It is utterly patronising to hold your "British Isles" claim while telling us, from your pedestal, to "move on". Things will not "move on" while these claims remain current. Why on earth is this very, very basic point so hard to understand? Again, the past or the future. The choice is yours. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, 78..., I do care entirely about the name. Names form worlds and pictures and representations. Controlling representations of people has been central to every colonial power in world history. It has been at the heart of dehumanisation and disempowerment of societies, and much else. The "British Isles" is designed to assert a British claim to Ireland and the Irish world. That outdated term is a symbol of the dynamics at the heart of the British state's historic relationship to Ireland and the Irish. It is a completely and utterly unacceptable term in a modern society. It reeks with layers of unacceptable and pre-modern meaning. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had a balanced article here a month or so ago. Recognition that the term is used and what its used for; that it can be confusing (with an appropriate link); and that it is disliked in Ireland and avoided (with a link to the naming dispute article) - all in the lead. That seemed to cover all the bases and had been relatively stable for quite some time. (And as an aside, when we have to reference Kevin bloody Myers to show its objected to... ) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with merging the dispute article into this one is that those editors who love the dispute will be loath to see any information be lost, no matter how trivial or repetitive. Such a merger will overburden this article with political POV - in orders of magnitude greater than it already is. TharkunColl (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We have to at least try things the proper way though, don't you think? I'm happy for all the information to be in one article - covered fairly. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per... well, various, including Sarah777 and TharkunColl :-P Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The dispute page was created to relieve this article with the burdern of explaining the entire dispute. Without it over half this page was concerned with the name. josh (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. The history of this page seems to be people on one "side" saying that the term "British Isles" is found offensive and objectionable and producing references that clearly state this. The other "side" insists that the term is not objectionable or offensive and producing not a single reference to support this. These are the two "sides". As far as I can see user TharkunColl, who insists that the dispute is overstated but produces no references to support this, was the user who created the dispute page. Now we have user Matt Lewis saying that the dispute is overstated (and similarly producing not a single reference) who says the dispute page should be rolled back in here. Meantime, both of them deny that the dispute exists and both insist - without producing a single reference - that the dispute exists only among a tiny minority. Either Wikipedia goes by verifiable sources or it does not. If it does, then it doesn't matter whether there is a separate dispute page or not, but the dispute is clearly documented. If WP doesn't go by sources then the bizarre views of Matt Lewis and TharkunColl might prevail, the "dispute" doesn't exist and there shouldn't be a dispute page. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As you have hithertoo expressed the need for a merge, it's a shame you couldn't simply put the "for" word here - I vainly hoped you would (and I think this is what I mean by "pack" mentality). I always point to your own examples to explain why then word "many" is too strong: they are not good enought examples, and they would have to be overwhelming ones (instead they are limited). As for finding examples that say "The term 'many Irish...' is incorrect": I go back to my "Hitler is NOT a Finnish pole vaulter" example: there are never 'reverse' quotes like that. Not appreciating that is just not playing fair.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The article is not foundationally strong with the fork around - it has broken the article. We need to make a proper article which covers the British Isles properly. I find some of the above lazy-minded: Wikipedia does not like forks like this for a reason - no one can deny that. Difficulty is no reason not to do something properly!!! We are certainly getting nowhere in the present state: the fork is the overriding reason as far as I'm concerned. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment:, most of the article is a POV-fork. All the bits of history and geography are done on other respective pages. Wikipedia does not like pov-forks. 78.19.13.108 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose seems to be the conclusion here. For the moment I'm removing the merge proposal tag from this article. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Translation help required

As the article is, as currently written, an Irish-related article then according to the Manual of Style we need Irish versions of all these - can anyone please help in providing them?

The larger islands that constitute the British Isles include:

• clockwise around Great Britain from the north:
  • Northern Isles
    • Orkney
    • Shetland
    • Fair Isle
  • Lindisfarne
  • Farne Islands
  • Mersea Island
  • Isle of Sheppey
  • Portsmouth Islands
    • Hayling Island
    • Portsea Island
  • Isle of Wight
  • Isle of Portland
  • St Michael's Mount
  • Isles of Scilly
  • Islands of the Bristol Channel
    • Lundy
    • Steep Holme
    • Flat Holme
  • Islands in St George's Channel
    • Caldey Island
    • Skokholm
    • Skomer
    • Ramsey Island
  • Bardsey Island
  • Anglesey
  • Islands of Furness
  • Islands of the Clyde
    • Isle of Arran
    • Bute
    • the Cumbraes
  • Hebrides
    • Inner Hebrides
      • Small Isles
    • Outer Hebrides
      • St Kilda

• clockwise around Ireland from the north:
  • Rathlin Island
  • Lambay Island
  • Ireland's Eye
  • Great Island
  • Sherkin Island
  • Cape Clear Island
  • Valentia Island
  • Blasket Islands
  • Aran Islands
  • Inishark
  • Inishbofin
  • Inishturk
  • Clew Bay islands
  • Achill Island
  • Arranmore
  • Tory Island

• Isle of Man
• Channel Islands
• Rockall

Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, all these articles (you've listed), should have Irish language counter-parts? GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And Welsh and Scottish Gaelic as well. Or then again, perhaps we should stick to the languages used in those areas. That's why British Isles has all of them, because all those languages are used there. TharkunColl (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

G'Day - Just an Irish version of the name as it appears the "British Isles" falls into the category of an Ireland-related article. I'm shocked we have not spotted this before now. Thark, is there such a thing as a Welsh-specific Manual of Style? If so then I guess if the Welsh editors wish we could include their version as well. You don't happen to know the Irish for the Isle of Wight do you? I'll start with that. Sarah777 (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No but the Latin was Vectis, so perhaps it's quite similar to that (with the various Gaelic language mutations applied). TharkunColl (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of the Manual of Style we need specifically the Modern Irish' version. Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. Irish Gaelic is not spoken natively on the Isle of White, therefore we don't need it. Irish Gaelic is spoken natively in the British Isles (albeit by a tiny minority), therefore we do need it. TharkunColl (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry old chap, I beg to differ. The MOS says zilch about an Ireland-related place needing a quota of Irish speakers. Anyway, I'd be rather surprised if there weren't one or two on the IoW. Law of averages and all that, what? Sarah777 (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why I said "natively". By the way, is Europe classed as an Ireland-related place? TharkunColl (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No ref to "natives" in the MoS. See IP suggestion above: I think we need to look at Ireland and the UK as Europe-related places first. Sarah777 (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. Is Europe classed as an Ireland-related place? What's the Irish Gaelic for Gotland, then? Or Lake Geneva? The analogy with British Isles is perfect - namely a geographical region of which Ireland forms part. So either British Isles and Europe are Ireland-related places, or neither are. TharkunColl (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly can't agree with that Thark - too simplistic. Everywhere is a world-related place. No, an area would need to cover 10% or more of the bigger geographical area before whole becomes related to the part. The 10 Downing St Website explains these issues rather succinctly. Sarah777 (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get that 10% figure from? Did you just make it up? TharkunColl (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent)So, TharkunColl, are you asking someone for references? Such irony! You have a record of (A) ignoring references produced and (B) not producing any. It doesn't matter what your opinion on this subject is, nor whether you are British or Irish or Russian. You could be Boris Yeltsin, George W Bush, Ian Paisley, or Gerry Adams. What matters is what's in a verifiable source. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No way does Isle of Wight require an Irish Gaelic translation. I don't see that anywhere in WP:MOS so I'm not sure where Sarah777 has got this bizarre idea from. In any case, MOS is a guideline not a policy and if there was such a requirement in it then this is surely a case of ignore all rules. Waggers (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The Irish Manual of Style, Waggers. And since BI is deemed an Irish-related article those rules apply. You may wish to ignore them but I won't. Sarah777 (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't said where you got that 10% figure from that you mentioned earlier, which enables you to claim that Europe is not an Ireland-related article. TharkunColl (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The guideline may apply to the British Isles article but it doesn't apply to every constituent part of the British Isles. Waggers (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Seeing as this latest what to put in the article dispute has expanded. Perhaps, ya'll should start considering MEDIATION. PS- Could somebody refresh my memory? What started these latest disputes? GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already proposed an RFC on this page. I believe that the MEDIATION would be an appropriate next step once, as seems inevitable given the refusal of editors on the page to respect Wikipedia policies, and probably finally Arbcom or some other formal process. The key WP policy that is being ignored here is this.."In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.". We have ALL of these as sources, and still we have editors asserting that dislike of the term is limited to a "tiny minority". Wotapalaver (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Who said "tiny minority"? You exaggerate almost everything Wotapalava, again and again - it is truly tiring. You are saying: LOOK! We have ALL these sources! In my clear view: taken together they simply prove the word "many" is an exaggeration. There is virtually no evidence of public feeling on the British Isles issue - and there should be masses of it for you to use the word "many"! Istead, there is silence where you expect to be volume, and unashamed usage where you expect to be reticence. The mixed examples merely highlight the striking dearth of evidence - they are the extent of what can be found. In my opinion, the only way to solve this Wikipedia dispute is to cover the issue properly and fairly in one article: but people are refusing to do this. We need to get rid of the fork and focus in one place: we must highlight the terms usage historically, and weight the evidence of use and non-use.

Actually describing a general "dispute" (who else does? It is, in a way, Original Research to use that word) and having this fork is totally unencyclopedic and has made consensus impossible. This is an encyclopedia not a manifesto! Certainly there are and have been people who don't like the term: we must put it all IN CONTEXT, chronologically (no anachronisms), and with no leading rhetoric, no pluralising single 'events', and no ambiguous or exaggerated language. We CAN do this properly in a way we are all happy: it is very hard to do it over two articles though, and there is nothing to warrant having these two articles, other than the 'dispute' adveresly effecting the main article (which is THE worst reasons for a fork).

One other point: Lack of sufficient evidence aside, it is also like saying "many" Welsh object to the term "Principality" - it is too complex and you cannot use language like "many" in this case: Both "British" and "Principality" have older meanings (than English-related ones): and we must be careful to suggest the are always linked to animosity too. We must be careful not to suggest that many Irish currently dislike the British too. I have never been happy that this isn't an intention of some editors (expecially from comments I've read in discussion).--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, I believe that several people have said "tiny minority". As for "unashamed usage where there should be reticence", look at Michelin, Reader's Digest, apparently now Collins, National Geographic, Folens, Irish government, apparently also Irish schoolbooks, newspapers, TV stations, etc. The fact that the term is very widely used in the UK, the USA, the rest of the world, is not contradictory with the well documented fact that the term is offensive, objectionable, rejected, not used, etc.,etc., in Ireland or by the Irish. Read the references. Look at Michelin and Reader's Digest guides and maps from a few decades ago and now. The name has changed. You may not like these facts, but they are verifiable facts. Meantime, Wales and Anglesey are irrelevant to this problem. The problem here is that editors refuse to accept verifiable sources and continue to insist that their own ignorance or political preference should take precedence over serious scholarly view. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Your above list is an exaggerated - Folens is the Irish schoolbook publisher and the Irish press reported it, maps have actually used "Britain and Ireland" for years (there are tradionally different Geographical and Political maps in the map business) - National Geographic uses both. They don't edidence dissent - although NG mentions that it can be disliked (whilst still using it). The truth is the media use it all the time - would they if "many" Irish objected? The BBC (which use it even for programme titles) is watchable in Ireland (as you would expect with such close ties between Britain and Ireland) - and don't tell me that Irish TV isn't full of BBC programmes - it simply is. But I've been through it all with you so many times - I'm writing the detailed point-by-point Section I promised to stop you from ignoring me and keeping asking me this stuff, as if I've never heard it from you before (which is extremely rude).

Mark Lewis, can you answer me this question. Is Anglesey a British Isle, or is it a Welsh Isle? And if both, which is it first? 78.19.13.108 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm dealing with a particularly irritating troll on the Welsh page at the moment, so I'm particularly cautious of IPs. It's part of the archipelagos known as the British Isles as far as I'm concerned: as you are an IP and I'm being trolled I'm not going to go into my feelings on Welsh/British identity.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt can obviously answer for himself, see, I've left him some space, but let me explain the situation. This type of question is sometimes asked by people who don't understand the subtle difference in terminologies, and Anglesey indeed serves as a good example. Anglesey is both a British isle and a Welsh isle. As to which comes first is down to personal preference, there's no rule. It's like me; I'm English and British, and I give them equal weight. However, I'm also Eurpoean, but I give that aspect of my nationality less weight. Some English people might consider their englishness to come ahead of their britishness, or vice versa; it's up to them. Now let's look at the island of Ireland. Ireland is only partly a British isle (due to Northern Ireland). Note that the phrase "a British isle" denotes ownership, hence Anglesey is a British isle. The user who asked the question (above) used the words "British Isle" with a capital I (incorrect). So we have Ireland being partly a British isle, but it is undoubtedly one of the British Isles (capital I is correct). The phrase "the British Isles" does not denote ownership. It is merely a geographical term in the same way as Irish Sea is - another term that does not denote ownership. So to summarise the situation regarding Ireland, which is what the original question is really about. Ireland is partly a British isle, and is also, in its entirety, a member of the island group known as the British Isles. The question is irrelevant as far as the Republic or Ireland is concerned - it is not an island. However, the ROI is within the British Isles. Hope this helps. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask it another way. Is Anglesey one of the British Isles? 78.19.13.108 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bingo, actually I was expecting that exact answer, amazing! Long, long ago, before you were born, the British Isles just meant Great Britain and Ireland. There were only two on the list. The rest of the islands were just an ancillary list belonging to either of the two "Isles". Fact, but a long time ago that was. 78.19.13.108 (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that, and you may well be correct. However, modern usage, which is prevalent in the article, includes all islands, even the Channel Islands. I personally would exclude the Channel Islands since their inclusion detracts from the purely geographic nature of the term, but the superior race of beings that decide on these matters have included them. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Another thought - do we have the concept of an Irish isle? I suppose we do. If so, the island of Ireland is such an isle, in its entirety, I would suggest. Rathlin Island is both, a British isle and an Irish isle. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If it were up to you, then, Matt, what would this article say on this subject? How would you phrase it? The sources that are currently posted at BI variously say that: BI makes the Irish "angry"; It "no longer pleases all the inhabitants of the islands"; "Irishmen reject" it; it is "now a politically incorrect term"; it is "often offensive to Irish sensibilities"; it is "increasingly unacceptable to Irish historians"; and "many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable." (I'm also wondering if someone can lay out in precise terms what we KNOW -- as opposed to what we've heard-tell-of -- about the Atlases. I've seen lists of Atlases that apparently don't use it or no longer use it, but I'm not clear on the precise story of what we know about all of these that have been mentioned. Which do we know once used it but have since removed it, etc.?) I can agree that we need to tread lightly, particularly with a word like "offensive," which is used only by one source. It's not a word I would use. But, collectively, angering/no longer pleasing/rejected/offensive/unacceptable/objectionable all point in the same direction. Something along the lines of "reject its use" might be how I'd word it. And/or maybe "unacceptable." These don't depend on claiming to know the emotional response of individuals (as does a word like "offended"), but comment only on the end result for a term like BI: That is, non-use or wishing for non-use. That wouldn't be an overstatement of the sources, if anything it's understating them--by leaving out the more emotive terms. This then leads to the question of quantifying the rejection, and is it the Irish we reference or 'in relation to Ireland'? and where in the article to place such a statement. Personally, I'd put it in the lead paragraph, because it goes to the very name/topic itself. The other two questions, I haven't figured out a wording for, yet... Nuclare (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, a suggestion: We say something like "It has been used since (a period)...and... its use has been seen as controversial in relation to Ireland since (a period). (("Today" - if it ever was a legal term)) "It is widely regarded as a geographical, not political or legal term." (we can quote the non-legal use statements). We MUST have a Controversy section lower down. Standard Wikipedia stuff, and NO fork. In the Controversy section we can say something like "There is evidence in recent times that map makers are favouring the term "Britain and Ireland" over the more traditionally used "British Isles", and some combine the two terms." (eg National Geographic). I would then have a decent sub paragraph on "History of dissent" - It will be in context then. I just want professionalism, and not propaganda.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Nuclare, I don't know if it can be presented without appearing as OR, but it's easy to look up - for instance - old Michelin and Reader's Digest atlases. The old ones are called something like "Road Atlas of the British Isles". The newer ones are called "Road Atlas of Great Britain and Ireland". Amazon.com sells old books so it's easy to verify, although I'm not sure how easy it is to present without becoming OR, although the simple fact that they used to use the term and they don't use it now is definitely verifiable without any synthesis or dispute. The recent statement about Collins maps is something I haven't tried to check. The National Geographic position is well supported now. As for whether the "dispute" belongs in the lead, for me it's clear. The very name itself is objected-to, so this needs to be stated immediately. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with putting the 'Name controversy' lower down in the article. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Given the scale of the problems from a WP:NPOV perspective I'd say the naming issue needs to be highlighted much more strongly in the article lead; at least until the name is corrected. Sarah777 (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree also. The controversy must be highlighted in the lead paragraph - at least until an article called "Great Britain and Ireland" or some such takes over as the main referencable article.... --Bardcom (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Although commonly used worldwide, the term British Isles has been controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people over the history of the term have found it objectionable.[4] The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a sokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage it's usage".[5]" I have changed to this, which I'm happy with. I haven't yet found the time to go through all the in Talk evidence as I promised - but it is not enough for me to suggest that "many" NOW object to the term - and I still find the evidence weak ('Oxbridge' I know, I know, I know) overall ie compared to what one would expect, and the wide usage of the word in the face of it. It is also history-based evidence - I've tried to reflect that too (whether the history book is modern or not!). The Irish govt does not discourage everyone using it - we have a 1940's note and an Embassy spokesman quote - neither talk about the people, so we shouldn't suggest it does. Such terms are often not 'legal' ones too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

this at least is evidence that the Irish government do indeed discourage the use of the name British Isles. --Jack forbes (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's the ref that is still in there! It's the one I'm using. In what way does it "discourage its use? Read it!:

"However, Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern has ruled that the term is not used by the Government and is without any official status....It was made clear by him that the term is not recognised in any legal or inter-governmental sense....The Irish Embassy in London has also been urged to monitor the media in Britain for "any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation".

Have I not covered that ref better than merely to say "the Irish gov discourages the term"? It needed clarifying - yet every clarification I make gets reverted. This article has been about controlled exaggeration, and IPs and socks-users (like Wikipeire) have been used to do it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename Article to Britain and Ireland

This is a totally ridiculous name to have on an article which is supposed to include Ireland. Nobody but a few contrarians and presumably very nationalist British people use this term. A quick look at its history is instructive; from its very first appearance on wikipedia it has been the source of controvery. The first edit in 2001, and the overwhelming majority of objections ever since, have been consumed with objections to the name of this article. The title British Isles is the product of a shotgun wedding, at best, and dates no earlier than 1621 when the British conquest of Ireland was in progress. It might- and that's a big might- have a place as a historical article. It has no place- no place whatsoever- as a description of the position of Ireland in the modern world. It is hard to believe this article is still bearing the current title. As an editor wrote in 2001 the current title discredits the entire wikipedia project. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion is one of the dumbest I've seen on Wikipedia for a long while (no offence meant). 86.27.162.213 (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

>>> Absolutely none taken. Quite the contrary. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the term "British Isles". Are you saying it doesn't exist? - or shouldn't exist? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - not a manifesto! --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

>>> I'm saying that like Nigger, "British Isles" does exist, and like Nigger it reflects an old power dynamic. I'm also saying that "Britain and Ireland" also commonly exists and, like African-American, it should be the modern name of this article, with "British isles" confined to a historical article on a prejudice just as Nigger is. Because saying Ireland is in an entity called the "British Isles" is so very pre-modern. I trust that is clear. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion actually. The existence or otherwise of "The British Isles" is of no interest to me. The claim that Ireland is a British Isle is both untrue and offensive. Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipdedia as an encyclopedia? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt, it's a manifesto, of that there's no doubt. 86.27.162.213 (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

>>> And "British Isles" is simply another coincidence of history. As with, well, everything else in Britain's relationship with Ireland since 1603, there is no manifesto there, at all. Once again the nice British colonialists just, well, stumbled into all these colonies and gave them names which had no purpose. Sheer coincidence. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact is, the term (at least) was used in the history of Great Britain and Ireland; therefore the name of this article 'remains' British Isles. PS- We've had these 'page movement' request before & all were turned down. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

>>> "Was" yes, like thousands upon thousands of other names in world history. Those names are not used to describe places and people today when they are deemed to be offensive. They are historical articles. They are not articles claiming to represent current peoples or areas in 2008. If that were the case, please go over and delete the "neologism" African-American and replace it with Nigger as its modern name. This "British Isles" article should be confined to a discussion of a historical prejudice/claim. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

When the truth is at stake, like freedom, earlier failure is just another reason to try again. Sarah777 (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Freedom to censor an encyclopaedia? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RE the PS above on other mergers being "turned down": this merely demonstrates that the dispute page is closely guarded imo. I expect we have all the usual objectors grouped now - lets see some new blood. An WP:AfD can be a possible route to merging too: a (theoretically) impartial decision is at the end of it, and it can attract new eyes. I believe it is both recommended practice and best for the subject to merge a fork like this one into the principal article.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Could the whole article go to Arb? 78.19.13.108 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What aspect should be arbitrated? Silas Stoat (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

People, believe me. You may remove BI from Wikipedia articles or move BI around. But, this article's name shall remain (for historical reasons). For example: If Northern Ireland were to 'someday' leave the rest of the UK & join the RoI? we'd still have an article called Northern Ireland (albiet with 'past tense' content). GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

86.42.124.125, firstly please read the header at the top of this page - you'll see that this thread is out of place here as we have a separate page for discussing the name of the article. Secondly, your assertion that the term "British Isles" is only used by a small minority of people with extreme political views is simply not true; if you're going to push that point you certainly need to back up your claim with some reliable sources. Finally, a note to Matt Lewis - this article is not about the term "British Isles"; this article is about the British Isles. Waggers (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Waggers. Matt is certainly correct on one thing: the article is about the "British Isles". Sarah777 (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's both. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair point about me using "term" Waggers - but you know where it leads when you start talking in the definitive: reams of more 'mini-debate'! I actually compromise and revise my language quite often here, believe it or not. I just want to see one single fair article called "British Isles"! There is no reason this article can't cover "British Isles" as a term that is disliked - I just object to it having a fork article too, and all this exaggerated language everywhere. Any "dissent" movement is a Wikipedia creation as far as I can see! The dearth of strong examples and the widespread media/academic use of the word prove this. We must tone-down and do it properly: heavy exaggerated language helps no one. We must detail the dissent in context - and not with the use of the word "many" wikilinking to a fork that was a week or so ago hugely biased and inaccurate! I edited out lots of exaggeration - but why the hell should editors have to monitor both articles? We only need one article on this.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose silly idea. The term "British Isles" should always have an article. For a long time, at least a couple of hundred years and maybe in the future, it was/is the most common name for the group of islands; it appeared in the name of thousands of books, was used millions of times. Even if, in a few years or decades, the article ultimately contains a few lines like "The British Isles was the name previously given to the island group consisting of........", there should still be an article with this title. Since the definition of the group is largely political (the inclusion of the Channel Islands makes it so) it would probably get a treatment more like nigger, kike, jap, etc., where an article remains containing an exlanation of what the term used to mean, than terms like Bombay where a simple redirect is used. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

>>>Support Nothing at all silly about it. If you are looking for African-American you don't find it under 'Nigger'. You do find 'Nigger' as an article dedicated to a study of a common past prejudice. Such a historical article is, as I said, fine. However, this article is claiming to be a modern name for Great Britain and Ireland. It is not. Like 'Nigger' the term 'British Isles' is representative of a historical power dynamic. It has no place as the modern name for "this archipelago". That is my point. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

While in terms of archaic offensiveness "British Isles" is more akin to "nigger" than "Bombay" I think for now a redirect to " Great Britain and Ireland" is more appropriate. When the term becomes totally redundant in both polite circles and the mainstream media we can resurrect it as per "nigger". Sarah777 (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean like "nigger" about which there is a decent article, not a redirect to a more politically correct term. It really doesn't matter how offensive any demographic finds a term, if there is something to write about it based on reliable sources, then it can have its own article. Rockpocket 23:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Rock; Nigger is a pejorative term originally used to refer to dark skinned people - yes an article on the "British Isles" akin to that would be fine. So long as it was an article about the "term"; not the subject of the pejorative term. Matt? Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See Rock, the situation we currently have (analogically) is that we can't create an article about these islands without calling it "Nigger"; a situation imposed on us by anti-fork British nationalists (or the white Southern racists of our analogy). Sarah777 (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources available determine what the article is about, and that is a discussion I'm sure everyone would be willing to have. However, that is a very differant argument than proposing it be redirected because it is considered pejorative by some. If we can all agree that there should be an article, then we can move on and concern ourselves what it should be about. Rockpocket 00:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be an article on the area covered by the term "British Isles" as there are not enough distinctive geographical similarities and consequently all that is left is a political interpretation. Nevertheless, if there is going to be an article on this archipelago, it should not be under the name "British Isles". "British Isles" should be a historical article; Britain and Ireland a modern one. After all, when the English conquered Scotland they didn't rename the entire place Greater England. No, they sought Scottish co-operation/cannonfodder and renamed the extended English state "Great Britain" to make the Scottish feel a bit better. No such wisdom today; this name and this article is about forcing a term from British nationalist history upon Ireland and the Irish. Nothing more, and nothing less. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, if there is going to be an article on this archipelago, it should not be under the name "British Isles". WP:COMMONNAME disagrees. Waggers (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm indifferent as to whether there should be an article about the "British Isles" but I've no big problem with an article about Great Britain and Ireland and the adjacent islands; which is what the current article is. The inclusion of the Channel Islands in the article called "British Isles" proves, if there was ever any doubt, that "British Isles" is a political, not geographical, term. Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, going back to the risible "rationale" for claiming that BI is a geographical term and yet includes the Channel Isles ("established usage") I will start an article on Great Britain and Ireland, a purely geographical entity that excludes the Channel Islands. This article will refer to a clearly defined geographical area. May I assume that I will be supported in this by all the editors involved in this discussion? Sarah777 (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I expect it would probably end up being merged with this one since I'm not sure there is much more to say that isn't already here. Rockpocket 01:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just a geographical term. The fact that the islands, including the Channel Islands, have a shared history, culture and language also plays a part. TharkunColl (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly the term has political conotations and origins too. It was coined politically (see the references in the article), it is perceived as political (see the references in the naming dispute page). Ultimately if it didn't have political conotations then there would be no need for people to keep trying to insist it was a purely geographic term, which it isn't. Mind you, this "shared history, culture and language" is a bit of an isolationist dream. Everywhere in Europe has "shared history, culture and language" to a pretty large extent. The shared history is a bit more shared between Britain and Ireland than between - say - Britain and The Netherlands, but not a whole lot. The language is only shared since the latter part of the 19th century and the shared cultural aspects include, ehm, the common features of Northern European culture, i.e. beer, football, TV. The idea that Britain and Ireland share something that none of these Johnny foreigners have is - in my experience - an attempt to deny the UK's position in European shared history, culture and language. The language sharing used to only ever exist for an elite, first in Latin, then probably French, now in American. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It was coined by the Ancient Greeks (see references in the article). The nations of the British Isles share far more linguistically and culturally than they do with Continental Europe. I don't know any English person, for example, who would regard the Irish as foreigners. There are many millions of Irish people and their descendants in England (quite possibly more than in Ireland), but never, ever have the tabloid press ever so much as raised an eyebrow at this - unlike their relentless and vociferous campaigns against the influx of people from outside the British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But above you told us it was a "purely geographic" term. So, which is it? Nuclare (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent)@TharkunColl. No, "the British Isles" was coined when the Ancient Greeks were long dead. As for the English/British "shared culture" regarding the Irish, your opinion must reflect a very recent change in the UK, which is historically quite seriously anti-Irish, or you are simply (again) bringing your incorrect opinion in place of easily verifiable fact. Think about the approach of magazines like Punch in the 19th century, almost any comedian in the 20th, the UK police and justice system approach to the Irish in the 20th century. This approach was not so distinctly different to the approach of the English/British to other "enemies" at other times. The Punch cartoons of the Irish during the 19th century, as beasts and monsters, were representative of the Victorian view of the Irish as hardly better than apes. This is well documented. The view of the Germans at the same time was that of a kind of spiritual brother of the Englishman, at least until WW1 later intervened. Is that "shared culture" between Britain and Ireland. Did the Irish also view themselves as beasts and monsters? Pretty fundamental really. How about anti-Irish racism in England in the '50's, '60s, '70s and '80s (No blacks, no dogs, no Irish). It was typical of any other racism but hardly indicative of "shared culture". Germans trying to get jobs or flats in London at the same time did not suffer similar problems. Can you have a shared culture if one party to the shared culture regards the other part as sub-human? The police and justice approach at various times, particularly the '70s and '80s, was not untypical of a frequent police approach to any "undesirables", and this view was also not uncommon in daily life (ever heard a Paul Brady song called "Nothing but a bunch of murderers"?). As for the tabloid press, how about the Daily Mail being accused of "incitement to hatred against Irish people" in 1997, as well as other anti-Irish views [5], including saying "As soon as you arrive in Ireland you leave the modern world" in 1998 and being successfully sued for it? The Sun has also engaged in anti-Irishness at various times. Is that "shared culture"? How about anti-Irish humour in Britain? Is that "shared culture"? And before you start, it's well documented that anti-Irish humour was distinctly different to Scots or Welsh jokes. From my own personal experience, I was at a serious industry Xmas Dinner (black-tie event, several hundred pounds for dinner) in a hotel on Hyde Park in the mid-1990s with people from several countries, including one Irish guy I depended on almost entirely to get my job done. The main speaker spent about 5 minutes making nasty anti-Irish jokes. It was awful. How about comments in an NHS publication? "Although not as overt as in the past, anti-Irish racism still persists in the form of "Irish jokes" and stereotypes around alcoholism. This impacts at individual level, making people angry, uncomfortable, rejected and even feeling inferior. A lack of understanding of Irish culture on the part of healthcare practitioners, can affect diagnosis, treatment and recovery from mental illness." This illustrates that they don't believe in a shared culture. One of the references on the references page says that the islands have developed very different intellectual cultures. A 1995 publication (MacMillan) on Irish women in Britain opens by saying "The Irish are largely invisible as an ethnic group in Britain but continue to be racialized as inferior and alien Others". Just because you don't know any English people who would regard Irish people as "foreigners" doesn't mean your view is correct. It may be innocently ignorant, but it doesn't seem to be correct. As for "vociferous howls" about other immigrants, the Poles were briefly worried about but it was hardly relentless and they certainly never suffered "No Blacks, no dogs, no Poles". Wotapalaver (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Your mention of the alcoholic stereotype is interesting, because that exists on the other side of the world as well. The Simpsons (Kent Brockman) - "Drunkenness, violence, and the mindless destruction of property: is this what we think of, when we think of the Irish?" Family Guy, when the lead chacter goes to find his biological father in Ireland, every single "joke" concerns the Irish and booze. It's not just a British invention, so one starts to wonder where it actually comes from. Speaking personally, if I were to use such a stereotype as part of a joke, I would be doing so indulgently, rather than with malice. Because, despite what some people may think, I actually like the Irish. It is perfectly natural - perhaps even a British characteristic - to poke fun at things that we like. Just possibly, this has been misunderstood by those on the receiving end. TharkunColl (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea of the well-intentioned racist is a little difficult to sustain. "Well chaps, in my view they're all drunken animals and I wouldn't have one in my house. Better lock them all up really, bloody terrorists the lot of them. Now, let's talk about how much culture we share with them, eh? Jolly good, what!" Right. TharkunColl, you may actually like the Irish. Unfortunately you may be a minority. The idea of shared culture between two peoples when one has a history of characterizing the other as sub-human, drunken oafs, dangerous murderers, etc,. and knows little if anything about the other culture is just a bit of a stretch. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I fear you have a serious misunderstanding of the English, if you think we all (or even most of us) hate the Irish and/or think they're subhuman. Indeed, your stereotype of us as racist bigots would be serious grounds for taking offense, if we lacked the sort of national self confidence that allows us to revel in such insults. TharkunColl (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no serious misunderstanding of the English and I never made any stereotype. I pointed at external verifiable facts. Like them or don't like them. They're not my idea and they're not insults so stop making ad hominem digressions. The anti-Irish racism of Victorian England is beyond doubt. The racism in the 1950's, etc., has been discussed in The Telegraph, which is hardly likely to misunderstand or insult the English and is similarly undeniable. The MacMillan publication is a MacMillan publication. The NHS is the NHS. Another site that talks about anti-Irish racism in Britain (mostly England) is IIRC related to the UK National Archive and covers immigrant experience in general. These are hardly anti-English organizations and it took 5 minutes to find them. However, the question still remains. If this is the historic context, when exactly did the two countries get so much shared culture? I'm sure there has been a lot of successful assimilation of Irish in Britain, but assimilation is not the same as saying that the two source cultures are the same. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a quote from Britannica [6] will illustrate that I am not misunderstanding or insulting the English. Here's a sample..."The English had had a long history of separating themselves from others and treating foreigners, such as the Irish, as alien “others.” By the 17th century, their policies and practices in Ireland had led to an image of the Irish as “savages” who were incapable of being civilized. Proposals to conquer the Irish, take over their lands, and use the native peoples as forced labour failed largely because of Irish resistance. It was then that many Englishmen turned to the idea of colonizing the New World. Their attitudes toward the Irish set precedents for how they were to treat the New World Indians and, later, Africans." Now, this covers the period up to some time around the 17th or 18th centuries. 19th Century is well described above. 20th century we have "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish", the MacMillan ref describing how the Irish were treated as alien Others, and probably a long list of anti-Irish rants in the British press, but hey - there's a unique shared culture across the British Isles. Oh yeah. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

People had lots of weird prejudices in the past. Historically, the level of anti-Irish feeling in England and (esp) North America is exaggerated (there is a recent article debunking these myths somewhere), though of course it existed (as it existed for all non-English people). Much of it derives from the Irish themselves, the Anglo-Irish who cultivated anti-Gaelic prejudices and communicated them elsewhere. Prolly about 90% of current anti-Irish feeling on the other island can be found at Rangers games, the bulk of whose supporters are themselves Irish or of Irish origin and who by accent and culture are far more like the Irish than the English or even other Scots. In all honesty, the people in the British Isles who suffer most from prejudices and cultural hostility of the English are the Welsh (incidentally the most linguistically distinct part of the islands), about whom some of the most obscene things are still acceptable to say in English culture. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Irish support Celtic, not rangers! Rangers are generally anti-Irish, I lived in Scotland for 2 years. I remember it well. 78.19.222.154 (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever noticed how many Red Hand flags are visible among Rangers fans? Many of them are indeed shamefully anti-Irish, but it is Irish anti-Irishness of the Ulster kind, that aspect of Rangers deriving from immigrants from Ulster. Its origins can be found in the community feuds of Ulster, and indeed, a large proportion of Rangers' most hardcore support come over from Ulster every two weeks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ironic that the red hand of ulster is strongly rooted to Irish Gaelic culture, isn't it?WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 16:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• (unindent), The "red hand" flag is cultural appropriation, it can be argued. I think those Ranger fans are British, through and through, certainly wouldn't consider themselves Irish, and some of the biggest defenders of the British Isles, in my experience anyway. Scotland should reject the British Isles too, because "British = English" in peoples perceptions. 78.19.222.154 (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Could you guys please remember that this page is for discussing improvements to the British Isles article? There are places on the net where you can discuss the broader issues, but this isn't one of them. Thanks. --John (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

John. There is a fairly frequently repeated assumption here, and this feeds into the article, that the islands have some sort of unique shared culture. It's important to explore this to identify why people think this, what counter points exits, etc. If there is little or no shared culture, then this can impact the content/approach of the article. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

They speak English, and language is the main carrier of culture. What else? Do you want a simple list? How about pubs then? TharkunColl (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ireland (outside Dublin) mostly speaks English only since the latter part of the 19th Century. The Dutch, Norwegians, Swedes, etc., almost all speak English since the latter part of the 20th Century. Meetings in large Belgian companies are fairly often held in English because the Walloons don't speak Dutch and the Flemish don't speak French, but they all speak English. As for pubs, Belgium, Holland, Germany, etc., have pubs too. It's hardly a unique shared culture between Britain and Ireland. Some of the references I mentioned above contradict that idea, although there are certainly many shared elements of culture, much as there are across Europe. Recent Polish immigrants in the UK fitted right in, demonstrating a very similar culture. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean Franco-German? 78.19.222.154 (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, English. Not sure what Franco-German is but if you mean the various Germanic languages descended from Frankish (such as Dutch) then no, English is quite separate and mutually unintelligible. TharkunColl (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is actually really simple. The BI comprise two main islands, of 60,587,300 and 6,090,000 population respectively. It is fair and reasonable that all points of view be represented here, but WP:UNDUE constrains us to represent minority views proportionately. Even if the term is hated by every single Irish person (RoI and NI), that would still be less than 10% of the people living in this archipelago. Our coverage should reflect that. --John (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A graph of the populations of Ireland and Europe indexed against 1750 showing the disastrous consequence of the 1845—49 famine.

Population shouldn't come into it. If it weren't for Britain and their government, the Irish Famine/genocide (whatever you want to call it) wouldn't have happened and who knows what the respective populations would have been. The fact is theis is two seperate groups.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 13:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if population does come into it, which is doubtful and which would require proof that everyone in Britain DOES use the term, it would still not be undue weight to cover the problems with the term. On my talk page, where he was accusing me of incivility, John compared the view that the term is offensive/objectionable to the view that the Earth is flat, which is such a wildly out-of-whack analogy that it's breathtaking. see [7] for John's approach. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion by User:John is absurd. First, by his "majority" logic everyone else in the EU can decide what to call the British. For that matter, arbitrarily decide to throw Iraq in with the United States and the native Iraqis all of a sudden become a minority with no claim over their own society. As I said, absurd. Second, there is no evidence at all (as another user just pointed out) that "British Isles" is anything like a majority term over in Britain. User:John's equation of the British population with such a prejudiced term betrays a belief in some ideological conformity to the myths of British nationalism. Such ideological conformity might comfort him, but where is his evidence for equating both? I have yet to hear the BBC, ITV or SKY use the term "British Isles", something which indicates that the term "British Isles" is, ironically for him, actually a minority term in Britain. In the meantime please don't equate the population of Britain with such a prejudiced and anti-Irish term. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest you watch the BBC weather reports each day. TharkunColl (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, watch the BBC weather on a quotidian basis. I, too, have yet to hear the BBC use the term "British Isles" in their weather forecasts. Have you any evidence for this? [I see below that you have failed to produce it] 194.125.86.251 (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Two Articles

Hmmm, I like Sarah's idea. Make this article historical & create a new article called Great Britain and Ireland. As long as it doesn't break OR, I would find it acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also approve of this.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also approve. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not approve. Such an article title ignores all the other islands in the British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree with the concept of the idea though? There are many potential names which can be sorted out at a later date.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It is not Wikipedia's job to try and influence language for political reasons. TharkunColl (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very good idea. Nobody disputes that the British Isles was a historical British term. It is, however, Wikipedia's job to reflect language use and language change. There is abundant evidence from reputable English language sources that the term "British Isles" has been, and is being, replaced across the anglophone world. Wikipedia should keep with that. 194.125.86.251 (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Then don't say its the title you disagree with! I'm pretty sure editors here are trying to reflect on language use not influence it!WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is a cyclical one. The most common name for the entity Sarah's talking about (the one which excludes the Channel Islands) is still the "British Isles", therefore such an article should be called "British Isles" according to WP:COMMONNAME. But when we look at what the available reliable sources say about the British Isles, we see that some (but not all) of them include the Channel Islands as part of their definition. So if you want to obey WP:COMMONNAME and include all the relevant information from reliable sources, you end up with the status quo. If you really want to pursue Sarah's idea and obey the naming conventions, you'd actually end up using some form of disambiguation - the two articles might be called "British Isles (including Channel Islands)" and "British Isles (excluding Channel Islands)". I can't see how that would add any more value to the encylopaedia than having a sentence saying that some sources include the Channel Islands while others don't. We already have that sentence in the article. Waggers (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

European Commission Style Guide

Along the lines of Nuclare's question above, here's an interesting reference. It's interesting too, although potentially anathema to the anti-Europeans among the editors. The European Commission has a style guide. The editions until January 2008 say that writers should write English as it is used in "the British Isles".

For reasons of stylistic consistency, the variety of English on which this Guide bases its instructions and advice is that spoken and written in the British Isles.

The April 2008 version says

For reasons of stylistic consistency, the variety of English on which this Guide bases its instructions and advice is the standard usage of Britain and Ireland (for the sake of convenience, called ‘British usage’ or ‘British English’ in this Guide).

The term "British Isles", which used to appear in the style guide, is no longer in place. The newer version is available as a downloadable PDF. The older version is still in the google cache if you view it as HTML. Google apparently hasn't bothered to retranslate the document.

Mind you, if you want correct English you'd be better off using "English as it is spoken and written by the Norwegians, Swedes and Dutch". Wotapalaver (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that the EU obviously regards "British Isles" and "British" as one and the same. Would they - for the sake of convenience - regard Bosnians or Kosovans as "Serbs"; given they all parlez Serbo-Croat? Sarah777 (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A good example of institutions differentiating between political and geographic use. This has happened slowly over many years: I had a Britain an Ireland road map years ago. So in 2007 the EU used the term "British Isles" in a document and has now changed it? It has nothing to do with wording such as "many Irish find the term objectionable" being OTT. Why can we not have a fair and balanced article documenting all this usage? I object to the fork and the rhetoric not covering the truth: why can't we just do this properly?--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The recent changes have everything to do with the Irish finding the term offensive. Reality check for Matt et al! Sarah777 (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - can you actually read what I write? --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can Matt. Your written English is adequate in grammatical terms. Why do you ask? Sarah777 (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

@Matt Lewis & @Sarah. I don't know why the term is no longer used in the document, just that it is not. However, it is a sample of the term being less used. @ Matt Lewis, the document is not clearly using the term either politically or geographically, although when talking about languages it may be more reliable to assume geographically since the replacement term isn't using political names. "Britain" isn't the nameof a state. Wotapalaver (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

When talking about language or culture or ethnic ancestry, a geo-political term like "Britain" or "Great Britain" is fine, especially if the geographic region corresponds to a political region. A geographical term like "British Isles" is not. --Bardcom (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles is used for this and there is no other term. Irish medievalists don't seem to have any problem using it either ... there is an archipelago and this is its only common name. With all due respect to some of the users above, it is not in general controversial ... it is not even controversial among all Irish people. While I realise it may be an irritating term to many, wikipedia is not here as a platform for change to the English language, and besides there are loads of terms irritating to many (for instance "Old Irish" and "Scots language" irritate Gaelic speakers in Scotland, "Macedonia" irritates Greeks), and I'm sure everyone has a few, but that's just a consequence of living in a diverse world. If nothing else, there are plenty of Scottish people who find being called "British" annoying because the term is effectively interchangable with "English" (as it seems to be in Ireland :P ). The best editors can do is avoid using it if possible, but that can't be taken so far as to obscure meaning. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

'there is an archipelago and this is its only common name'. Quite untrue. 'Britain and Ireland' is a very common name for the geographic area covered by, well, Britain and Ireland. A quick look back on this talk page has several long meticulously-referenced discussions showing this. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And no references. Can you provide a reference for it is not even controversial among all Irish people? Or references for your use of the term irratating? I believe stronger adjectives have been used. --Bardcom (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

References? Is the default position (proved in some other universe) that all Irish find it offensive? Since I have many Irish friends and have lived in Dublin, I know this to be the case. But just search google books for the term and you'll see lots of Irish historians using it. Not so long back from a lecture by Professor Roibeard Ó Maolalaigh, who used the term many times. To the anon, "Britain and Ireland" is not understood widely as a synonym, and it looks to refer to only two of the islands. Man, Islay, Uist-Harris, etc, aren't in Britain or Ireland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Equally, is the default position that is it not in general controversial? --Bardcom (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As with any term in the English language, yes, the default position is indeed that it is not controversial. In the other direction lies linguistic chaos and total breakdown in communication. TharkunColl (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But the British Isles used to be just Great Britain, and Ireland, there were just 2 on the list. The rest were just ancillary. Problem is, the BI's means different things to different people, and the article should reflect every aspect of that diverse understanding. 78.19.222.154 (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that statement? I have never heard it and don't believe it's true. TharkunColl (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The references state that it is offensive/objectionable/etc., to many Irish, or often to Irish, etc. They don't say it's offensive to all Irish, nor that noone in Ireland uses it. As for Islay, Uist, etc., they're in Britain, or certainly in Great Britain. Man is another messier issue. As for other terms, "British Isles and Ireland" is used a lot. "Great Britain and Ireland" is used a lot. "British Isles" is apparently increasingly avoided. It's also sometimes used to mean the UK. You don't have to agree that it should be, just that it is. Maybe not using the term is the height of nuttiness. Maybe. This is an encyclopedia so we shouldn't judge whether what's happening is sensible or not, just that it is. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But they're not in Great Britain .... which is an island. A large proportion of them are further from Britain than Ireland is, and some of them are closer to Ireland than to Britain. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Politically, "Great Britain" describes the combination of England, Scotland, and Wales, and therefore also includes a number of outlying islands such as the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Isles of Scilly, the Hebrides, and the island groups of Orkney and Shetland,...<snip>". From WP. (Great) Britain includes the Scottish islands. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And the Isle of Man? TharkunColl (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See what I already said. It's another messier issue. I suppose it's either in the British Isles, or the British Isles and Ireland, or British Islands, or it has to "belong" to Britain. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Politically , there is no such thing as Great Britain. We're talking geography anyways ... and Great Britain is just an island. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Concise Oxford English Dictionary. "Great Britain. England, Scotland, Wales". That would mean that Uist, Harris, Shetland, etc are in Great Britain. As for Great Britain politically, it's the part of the UK outside Northern Ireland. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's one shorthand definition, but geographically Great Britain is just an island. Politically, there is no such thing as Great Britain. The highest legal subdivision of the United Kingdom is England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's "one shorthand definition"? It's OED. If there's dispute over the definition..... Wotapalaver (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Wotapalaver, you're not seriously arguing that Great Britain is not the name of the island, are you? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I'm saying the OED and political definition of Great Britain includes ALL of England, Scotland and Wales. Shetland, for instance, is in Scotland. The Isle of Wight is in England. The UK consists of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so Great Britain, in the definition of the UK, includes England, Scotland and Wales. It's simple really. The UK is NOT called Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all the other islands around Great Britain that we can't include by name because it would take too long, and Shetland is NOT outside the UK. Since it isn't in Northern Ireland it must be in Great Britain. The term "British Islands" exists to include Isle of Man and Channel Islands. Harris is in Great Britain, unless it's not in the UK, which would be news to me. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Great Britain" is sometimes used as a collective term for England, Scotland and Wales; in a geographical and real sense, it is just an island, and is used by extension to refer to England, Scotland and Wales and less commonly England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Google "Britain is an Island" or "Great Britain is an island", and compare with "Great Britain is a group of islands" (1 hit ... this talk page!), and you'll see what English speakers actually say. But to reiterate, Great Britain does not exist politically and, save for one century (an 1/8th of the period Ireland was ruled by the Kingdom of England and its successor states), never has done! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Then take it up with OED and the Queen, so that her ministers can change the name of the state. I only report what I find in verifiable sources. As for "Great Britain is a group of islands", if there's only one hit it's because you wrote it, not me. Oops, I guess now there are two hits. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding. Terms have multiple meanings stemming from each other. Who says they don't? And take what up? There's no state called Great Britain, or any political unit or administrative organism. Are you recommending I get a time machine and complain to 18th century London monarchs? Well, I wouldn't do that even if I could as then the term did have a political meaning then. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly why Irish people use the term Britain and Ireland most often. 78.19.222.154 (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wotapalaver, you're just making this up. The reason the name British Isles exists in the first place is to avoid such issues and have a clear, unequivocal term. Language abhores a vacuum. This is something that the politically correct brigade simply don't appreciate. TharkunColl (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl, whether or not there's a problem with a replacement term is a separate issue to the term "British Isles" being offensive/objectionable, etc., and that is ALL that is being discussed. The term "nigger" in the USA was unacceptable. Some of the replacements are daft, e.g. "people of colour". It doesn't affect the first term being unacceptable. And I'm not making anything up. Meantime, please provide citation as to why the term exists to avoid these issues, or are you making it up? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to provide a citation for the bleeding obvious. Why does any word exist in a language? The nigger analogy is flawed I'm afraid, for two main reasons. Firstly, 90% or more of the inhabitants of the BI have no problem with the term. Secondly, the term "nigger" is currently in the process of being "reclaimed". Will the Irish be reclaiming British Isles then? TharkunColl (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's "bleeding obvious" it should be very well referenced. Your assertion that "90% of the inhabitants of the BI have no problem" is (again) unsupported by reference. The "nigger analogy" is pretty good. No analogy is ever perfect. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where do you get this 90% figure from? The republishing of books suggests your figure is very wrong.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The actual difference between the populations of the UK and Southern Ireland is 15 to 1, so 90% was being quite generous I think. Use of the term by the BBC suggests your book publishing factoids are irrelevent. TharkunColl (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be, if you had a reference to 100% of the term British Isles in the UK but you don't. As for "factoids", the factoids include modern/recent non-use of the term by Michelin, Reader's Digest, The AA, apparently Collins, etc., i.e. people who make maps. Oh, most of these are UK published too, so 100% becomes not only hard to support, but actually impossible to support. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say 100%, just like you can't say 100% of Southern Irish dislike it. TharkunColl (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I never tried. I doubt that it's true. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict again) Where is this Sourthern Ireland you keep on talking about? Are you refering to counties Cork and Kerry? And what's this about the BBC? You mean the way they also use it to refer to [just British Islands]? The reprinting of loads of English language books is not irrelevant!WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

BBC use it daily on their weather reports. As for Southern Ireland, I am merely using a common English name for the state. TharkunColl (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• RTE never use it daily on their weather reports. 78.19.222.154 (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reference that they use it daily in their weather reports. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, can't be bothered. Have a look at their website archive. Incidentally the link provided above by Wikipeire makes no suggestion that British Isles excludes Southern Ireland. TharkunColl (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to claim? They don't report on the state called Ireland. It's left blank and they skip it. So by your logic the BBC use the British Isles to just refer to islands that are British! Thank you!Can't be bothered = making it up. The article is about GB and it also calls it the British isles at the end. 2+2=4 TharkunColl.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That is you making an assumption. That article describes weather in the British Isles, gulf stream and all that. There is no reason at all why it should exclude S. Ireland. TharkunColl (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't be bothered equals can't find such a reference. Mind you, here's one of the BBC reporting a UK govt minister talking about "British Isles and Ireland", in the Isle of Man too! [8]. Here's another talking about a canoe trip around the "British Isles and Ireland".[9]. So, can we stick to references or must we educate everyone in the building one-at-a-time? Wotapalaver (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Government ministers do not define language. TharkunColl (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"British Isles and Ireland" would be incomprehensible to English-speakers who didn't know the politics behind it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is that exactly? It make perfect sense. Isles that are British and Ireland. Even people in Britland (a common name in Ireland like your S. Ireland in England) would understand it.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds utterly moronic. If you want to sound moronic, please feel free to use it. TharkunColl (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who can't get the name of a country right is a moron - especially after being corrected on numerous occasions.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 17:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Likewise for a geographical region. Touché. TharkunColl (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Government Ministers do not define language. They're just unusually prominent users of language and it's not the only example. The canoeist isn't a govt minister. As for "British Isles and Ireland" being incomprehensible or moronic, one must ask why, or whether there's a reference saying this, or whether we have more "I know best even though my view is completely unsupported by any verifiable source I'll defend it to the death." Basically, if it's really moronic and incomprehensible then one would expect there to be scholars of language saying so. Are there? No? Oh. Besides, one would be in good company. The BBC, British Government Ministers (hmmmm..they can indeed be moronic), the publishers of British Admiralty charts, etc. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As British Isles is a proper noun which includes Ireland, the term is self-contradictory. It's frankly very clumsy English, and if it weren't used on that BBC article it would just be dismissed as that rather than prompting an investigation of what the author meant. It wouldn't make any sense unless one understood that many Irish people objected to "British Isles" including Ireland and that they wished to take Ireland out of it ... hence why politics would need to be known for comprehensibility. The intended meaning might be more transparent if something like "Ireland and British islands" were used, but I'm not sure what that'd mean either.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read most of this discussion and have yet to see any cources that back up these claims, can you provide them? --neonwhite user page talk 01:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for everyone. To clarify what Great Britain is: it says it includes all islands tHAT are part the UK here.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that is a verifiable source. --neonwhite user page talk 01:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is silly. I, for one, have never disputed that the term "British Isles" is very commonly used. I even entered the words "very commonly used" on one edit I made, but was reverted and the word very was removed. This fact is NOT contradictory to the fact that the term is found offensive/objectionable/rejected, etc, by many people - especially in Ireland. This fact is apparently anathema to several editors here, who will not accept what reputable sources tell us. This is Wikipedia. It's not about truth, it's about verifiability. Stop telling me what you think you know. Bring references or be quiet. If the BBC, the UK Hydrographers office and the Lions Club are all using "British Isles and Ireland", then the term apparently isn't so incomprehensible or moronic. Wishing it was won't change anything. Ciao for now. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Silliness is imputing "wish"ful motives on users trying to engage in a constructive discussion. Obviously, in a language with half a billion speakers usage will vary enormously, but on a general encyclopedia obscure usage is not preferable to "general usage", esp. when the former contradicts the latter. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OED doesn't mention users, constructive discussion or anything like that in its definition of silliness. In any case, the article is still called "British Isles" and there doesn't seem to be much argument that is has been - at least until recently - the most common term. Of course, that may be changing. There are a lot of indications of this. You may decide you personally think that is silly or that you quite like the change. Your view is not relevant, in either direction. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for going off topic; but some of you are indenting your postings to the extreme. It would be easier to select how much to indent you posting & stick with that. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Scandinavia

Scandinavia is a name for a cultural and geographic region with a shared (and often bloody) history, and the name is derived from Scania, a historical province of Sweden. So why don't the other Scandinavian countries object to this blatant attempt at Swedish linguistic colonialism? Because they don't want to be the laughing stock of the world, that's why. Perhaps some editors here should take note of this. TharkunColl (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You should read the article, it might be an eye-opener for you. 78.19.222.154 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How embarrassing. That article couldn't be anymore about politics. Embarrassment aside this is clearly trolling by TharkunColl and not discussing improvement of the article. This is not what the article needs.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 23:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say that Wikipeire is a punished sock-creator, a very obvious sock account given his full edit history - and a particularly underhand troll. He/she is forever hiding his tracks through lies, denials, sudden u-turns and new user-page edits designed to throw the reader. There is no way I'm letting-pass him calling anyone else a "troll". My advice to anyone crossing him is to try and ignore him.

Progress won't be made by fighting over issues in here as too many of us are too partisan - the article needs to be laid out in a proper encyclopaedic way - which means no fork, and a Controversy (or suchlike) section that’s puts all the points into context. The issues can then be weighted in a proper encyclopaedic article. Having forks, endless stonewalled debate and occasionally locked articles etc is the perfect situation for some editors.--Matt Lewis (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, despite the politics, and the enmity between those countries, they have no problem with the term Scandinavia. How very different to the present situation as presented by the POV pushers. And how very embarrassing for those POV pushers, given the example of the Scandinavians. TharkunColl (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: 'laughing stock of the world' - what self-centered nonsense! (Typical of the Anglo-centric mindset). 99% of the world don't give a s*it what we call Scandinavia or Great Britain and Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think most sensible people would think it risible that a small group of political POV pushers imagine it's worthwhile to try and change the way people speak. TharkunColl (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole point is it has changed! You are just ignoring it. Anyway check out Scandinavia's [talk page]. It's more argumentative than here! Saying that it doesn't have racist stuck up editors trying to insult a whole nation. Your point = muck. Same now with your credibility as an editor.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Buckfast is good stuff, must have a glass. Cheers!! 78.19.222.154 (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Who are the racist stuck up editors trying to insult a whole nation here? If you had said racist stuck up editors trying to embarrass a whole nation (their own) I might have agreed with you. TharkunColl (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish ya'll would learn to play nice. PS- and please stop the 'edit warring'. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - shocked am I. There goes WP:CIVIL out the window! Sarah777 (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) Whether or not Scandinavia is controversial depends on whether or not sources say it is. In either case, it has no direct relevance for the British Isles. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

John Dee

Why do the political POV pushers keep reverting my John Dee edits? The sources do not support the statements that had hitherto been in the article. Perhaps they hoped that no one would ever notice. TharkunColl (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tharkum, leave at talk for a couple of days at least, no need for edit-warring! 78.19.222.154 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just requested 'page protection', fellas. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we get rid of those lies about John Dee first, please? TharkunColl (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to me. You can bring such concerns to an Administrator, I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how these articles always tend to get locked on the most tendentious versions. A small, vocal and politicised minority can always get their way on Wikipedia through sheer persistence. Those of us who value truth are fighting a reargard action it seems. TharkunColl (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how the same small vocal group managed to get their way with the British, Irish and US governments, the EU, UN and every dictionary and road map published since the turn of the century!WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 00:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No Thark, you are edit-warring, it's you who want to make change without discussion, please hold and refs will be examined in due course. 78.19.222.154 (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust me Tharky, my page protection requestes aren't calculated. I'm not the Darth Sedious/Palpatine of these Troubles related articles (I just dislike edit warring). GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not an edit-war, it's just a skirmish! ;) 78.19.222.154 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you do relize that you both can go to the protection page & protest my request (afterall, I'm not demanding protection). GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected this article. The IP is a banned editor who is agitating, those with accounts can continue to edit at will. Rockpocket 01:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Point of FACT for a minute. TharkunColl is deleting text from the article on the basis that is says things about John Dee that don't appear in the reference. WRONG. Possibly a conscious lie and deliberate vandalism. 15 seconds in the reference finds the text, which says "Most writers accept that Dee created the phrase "British Empire," but otherwise argue that his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism...". So TharkunColl, references state pretty much EXACTLY what you were deleting and exactly what your edit summary said did not exist. [10]. Why is this not VANDALISM? Wotapalaver (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't mention the British Isles. Why's all that stuff about the British Empire even remotely relevant? Did the writer wish his readers to subconsciously conflate the two concepts? TharkunColl (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The text you deleted represented the source very accurately. You said "(PLEASE READ THE SOURCES, THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE PREVIOUS TEXT)". The source completely supports the text that was there and is from the Canadian Journal of History. It was in context, in sequence and didn't misrepresent anything and you deleted it using a totally misleading edit summery. Vandalism. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The entire tone of that section seeks to conflate the terms British Empire with British Isles. There's even a map of the British Empire. Why is this? TharkunColl (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You beg to differ. You're deleting references you don't like again. That's what you're doing. Vandalism. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? I have no idea whether TharkunColl's edits are good or not. I reverted the edits of a banned contributor as per policy, irrespective of the merit of the edit. If you think the IP's edit was a good one than reinstate it under your own name. Problem solved. Apologies. I am getting confused between this article and the other one! Let me try again. No, I didn't check the merits of the IP's argument. He is banned, so he is not permitted to edit not matter how good his arguments are. If you think his points are valid, feel free to replace his edits under your own name. Rockpocket 08:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough if the other editor is banned. Perhaps TharkunColl should be banned too, or at least blocked for a while. Multiple RR on a page where we still have a pending 3RR decision, and worse, the reverts are deleting supported and correctly referenced text. Naughty!! Wotapalaver (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments above. The quotes about Dee were referring to the British Empire, not the British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And the text clearly said so in a short section about John Dee (who - reading the archives - YOU brought into the article) and you deleted just the section of the text you didn't like, which text was a near-verbatim quote from the Canadian Journal of history. Vandalism. In any case, since the British Empire included everything west to the center of the Pacific Ocean and north of 45 degrees north that were either already discovered by British subjects or remained terra incognita and were outside of the territory granted by the papal donation to the Spanish and Portugese, it included both Ireland and Britain. The Roman Empire included Rome. The Japanese Empire included Japan. The British Empire included Britain and Ireland and the other islands. Vandalism. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did indeed discover Dee's mention of the British Isles, beating the OED by half a century. Dee, incidentally, also believed he was in contact with angels through having his colleague stare into a crystal ball. Should we mention this, as well? TharkunColl (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. What I do know is that you are a serial deleter of references to reputable sources and that you actively misrepresented this latest deletion. That's vandalism. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reputable sources that do not refer to the subject matter of the article. TharkunColl (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reduce) Your wriggling and excuses don't wash. The text was relevant to the section of the article it was in, was properly referenced, and you only deleted a little piece of it that you didn't like and you said that it was because it wasn't supported by reference, when it was. Vandalism. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why having a whole section on the British Empire, including a map, is the slightest bit relevant to an article on the British Isles? TharkunColl (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Can you explain why you are deleting perfectly referenced text while your misleading edit summaries claim the text isn't supported by reference? Vandalism. As for it being "a whole section" on the British Empire, disingenuous descriptions and sophistry can't create excuses when there is none. Vandalism. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Then please do so. TharkunColl (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

GUYS PLEASE, this is filling up my watchlist, whatever the rights and wrongs it is now mutually abusive. I think it is clear that there is going to be a section of the British Empire here otherwise the history is incomplete. The origins of the term are also of importance and need to be there. However its not clear to me from the above what the real issue is. Is it possible, for the sake of other editors for each of you to state (without any commentary on the other) what you think should be included or deleted and why so that the rest of us can engage and resolve this? --Snowded (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there´s a right and a wrong all right. Look at this diff [11], which removed text reading "Current scholarly opinion is generally that "his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism", the edit summary "Removed something that was not in the reference", and the text from the reference "Most writers accept that Dee created the phrase "British Empire," but otherwise argue that his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism,". TharkunColl then repeatedly deleted the same text although it was reinserted by at least two other editors. We have two real problems. I can solve one by reinserting the text. The other can only be solved by an admin giving TharkunColl a good talking-to, both for vandalism and for multiple (invalid) reverts on a page where there is still a 3RR decision pending. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. To help me would you say on which of the 22 pages in the authority the statement is made? Its late at night, I have an early flight and you can probably go there straight away. That should be easy to check and then we can look to TharkunColl's response. --Snowded (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Page 2 of the reference, which is where the text of the article really starts. It's gotta be in the first paragraph of the main text. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Snowded, stop the grudge match. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Grudge match? Vandalism deserves strong opposition, or don't you think so? Anyway, Wikipeire already fixed problem number one. Now, where's an admin when you need one. There were several here earlier. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting notion of "fixing", kind of a Godfather flavour to it. Couldn't be less appealing. You've been in touch with at least one admin complaining to the ref - must they come directly to you now? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what I fixed but anyway, I agree that the issues of the article need to be clarified.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 22:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Enough. First of all, please read WP:VANDAL, Wotapalaver. Is will become clear, "vandalism" does not accurate describe TharkunColl's edits. Calling anyone with more than a few good edits to their name a "vandal" is generally a bad idea, repeating it incessantly and provocatively becomes name-calling. So stop it now, please. That done, I would strongly suggest you both state your case at why the content you wish to see added/removed should be and what exactly you wish to add or remove. Do so without reference to the other. We can then review the dispute in terms of the content, not the personality or motivation of the people. Thank you. Rockpocket 22:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I did read the policy. It looks like a mix of blanking and sneaky vandalism to me, especially given the edit summaries, which had accusations of POV and then repeated loud capitals stating the text wasn't supported by reference, which it was. I call it as I see it, and I haven't seen TharkunColl making good edits, sorry if I'm a bit too direct. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

For further reference: vandals don't usually remove a reference and discuss it in the talk page. They tend to be friends of gays or men with big penises. I wouldn't like to comment on whether TharkunColl fits either of these, but his editing certainly does not indicate it. Therefore unless someone is boasting about their mammoth appendage, or giving a shout out to a homosexual buddy, my advice to you is to not call them a "vandal". Doing so tend to escalate, rather then diffuse tension. Rockpocket 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You are supposed to asume good faith. You know, on these pages the English have been accused of genocide, racism, bigotry, and all sorts of terrible things. What do you think might happen if I, right now, started slagging off the Irish? TharkunColl (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thark, that isn't "slagging" - that is merely stating recorded fact. (Though I prefer to use the term "British" rather than "English" - on the whole more accurate). And Rock, non-vandals would discuss on the talkpage first and then remove the references if there is consensus. Sarah777 (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And you haven't edit warred without discussion first, Sarah. Does that make you a "vandal" too? Come on now. Everyone: just lay off the rhetoric and name calling get back to the content. Rockpocket 01:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent)This wasn't "editing", it was repeated deletion of supported text with totally misleading edit summaries. That meets the definition of vandalism "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles." The fact that what TharkunColl did more closely meets the definition of sneaky vandalism rather than that of the most common types of vandalism doesn't stop it being vandalism. Sneaky vandalism is "Vandalism that is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Some vandals even use edit summaries such as "rv vandalism" to mask their changes." Seems good to me. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. We have established what you think, despite the fact that two admins (and one other editor) have independently informed you that they disagree with you. But you know best, I guess. Irrespective, what is entirely clear that continuing to argue the point is entirely without a constructive purpose. And consequently continuing use of the term will likely be considered purposely tendentious and disruptive. You have been warned. Now please focus on the content, not the contributor, before you find yourself unable to. Rockpocket 07:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My position is very simple. There is no need whatsoever to mention the British Empire (still less have map of it) in an article on the British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Where not the so-called "Brutish Isles" the heart of the Evil Empire? Sarah777 (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a separate debate and I suggest you open a new section to discuss it (with more of an argument than the above assertion). The immediate issue is the reversal of the reference - did you check it before reversing? --Snowded (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't plough all through the pages. My point, as I said, was simple - why have any reference to the British Empire at all? TharkunColl (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WOW. TharkunColl didn't "plough through all the pages" but he felt competent to three times delete the text, each time stating that the text wasn't in the reference. Also, he didn't actually bother to mention that he hadn't read the reference until offered it as an excuse - he just deleted the text three times with grotesquely misleading edit summaries. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, nor have I - who is John Dee? What is this row about? I merely came here to counter your defence of the Imperial Entity. Sarah777 (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Which of course you might think I shouldn't; as it isn't helping to improve the article to the casual observer. But i ask you to suspend your disbelief on this one. Sarah777 (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

John Dee is - according to the references in the article - the person who first used the terms "British Empire", "British Ocean" and "British Isles". There were approx six lines of text about this and about him. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It was the Ancient Greeks who first used the term British Isles. Dee was a scholar and antiquarian, and it is no accident that he used a Classical term such as this in his writings (indeed, knowing Dee's interests allowed me to act on a hunch when I found his reference, predating the OED's by half a century). The point is though that he did not coin the term. As for the term British Empire, he may well have coined that, but even here we need to tread carefully, or we might lose its significance. In other words, why didn't he call it the English Empire? The answer is because he was a Welshman, i.e. he was British. To English ears in the 16th century "British" meant Welsh. Dee sought to bolster the ancient traditions of his own people, which is why he also wrote quite a lot about King Arthur and his supposed conquests in the northern seas. TharkunColl (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Greeks called them the Pretanic Isles. Note it doesn't say British but Pretanic. Very different. The British Isles was invented from what I can see by John Dee. The Greek term isn't offensive to the Irish people but John Dee's term is.WikipÉire ^♣ 08:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Greeks called them αι Πρετανικαι νησοι (ai Pretanikoi nesoi, literally "the British isles"). "British" is the exact English translation of the Greek Pretanikoi. If "Pretanic Islands" isn't offensive to the Irish, but "British Isles" is, how about the intermediate Latin form, Britanniae? Is that offensive? TharkunColl (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It actually translates as Brittanic Isles not literally British Isles. You just made that up. Or rather John Dee did. Britanniae isn't offensive to me but I can't speak for the rest of Ireland like I can for the term British Isles.WikipÉire ^♣ 09:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"British" and "Britannic" mean essentially the same thing, except that "British" is the natural way of forming the adjective in English, rather than using an artificial Latinate form (and was even more natural in Dee's day). Also, please explain how you can speak for the whole of Ireland with regard to the term British Isles. But I suppose at least we're getting somewhere. If you don't think it offensive for Ireland to be classed as part of Britanniae, then perhaps there are grounds for optimism. TharkunColl (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

They don't mean the same thing. British means the UK/Britain, Britannic means Ireland, Britain, Iceland/Faroe islands etc. Very different meaning. Its a widely accepted fact that the term British applied to Irish people is offensive. Everyone has cited dozens of sources above showing this so don't start that again. If you called an Irish person British 99.9% of the time you'd get a punch. Similary they find the term British Isles applied to the island offensive too. How are you not getting this? This has been explained in huge detail before.

You are disgracefully putting words in my mouth. Where did I say I don't think its offensive for Irish people for Ireland to be classed as part of Britanniae. I said I don't find the exact word or noun offensive. Thats it. You are trying to wind me up now. You are not contributing to the improving of the article anymore.WikipÉire ^♣ 09:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"99.9% of the time you'd get a punch". You're not trying to imply that the Irish are violent, are you? Anyway, you're wrong. Quite a lot of Irish, especually in Ulster, are very proud indeed to be called British. TharkunColl (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually agree with Tharkun (particularly when he says things that blatantly contradict each other, as he did up the board, and the silly Scandanavia wind-up), but I do agree with Tharkun here. 99.9% finding the term offensive is blatant exaggeration, 'getting a punch' is even more exaggerated. Both even if we are talking only about non-Unionists. I assume you weren't being literal, but still. I'd personally be careful with the term "offensive" altogher in this discussion. Nuclare (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

None of this is relevant to the fact that TharkunColl was repeatedly deleting text with grotesquely and deliberately misleading edit summaries. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl is also clearly trying to wind up all the Irish editors too.WikipÉire ^♣ 10:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not "trying to wind up all the Irish editors", unless you think that pointing out a few facts constitutes such. But then, when have facts ever got in the way of a good political POV? And why is it okay to impute such base motives to me? Isn't there something about assuming good faith? Because I assure you all I'm interested in is the truth. TharkunColl (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If we should assume good faith then explain why you deleted text with grotesquely and deliberately misleading edit summaries? Because you did exactly that. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've quite got the hang of it, have you? Assuming good faith does not mean banging on and on about the same thing for days on end. TharkunColl (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've got the hang of it all right. I assume good faith until I see evidence that good faith should NOT be assumed. You deleted text that is 100% supported by reference, while simultaneously saying "Why do the political POV pushers keep reverting my John Dee edits? The sources do not support the statements that had hitherto been in the article. Perhaps they hoped that no one would ever notice." and then following up with "It's funny how these articles always tend to get locked on the most tendentious versions. A small, vocal and politicised minority can always get their way on Wikipedia through sheer persistence. Those of us who value truth are fighting a reargard action it seems." and with edit summaries like "Removed something that was not in the reference" and "PLEASE READ THE SOURCES, THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE PREVIOUS TEXT".

You were deleting supported, referenced text while claiming, in edit summary and in talk, to be removing unsupported text that was put there by "POV pushers". So, I see iron-clad evidence that good faith should NOT be assumed on your edits and that you will deliberately mislead other editors. Unless of course you can explain why you deleted text with grotesquely and deliberately misleading edit summaries. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This will be the last time I answer the same question that you've asked over and over again ad nauseam, and which I've already answered many times. The quotations referred to the British Empire, not the British Isles. Now please stop trolling. TharkunColl (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This was another time you refused to answer the question and tried to divert attention through misdirection. At least you finally admit the quotations existed in the reference and that the text which you deleted with deliberately misleading edit summaries was completely supported by reference and not - as you claimed - inserted by "POV pushers" and that your loud edit summaries "PLEASE READ THE SOURCES, THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE PREVIOUS TEXT" were, well, economical with the actualité. Glad we all agree on that now. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thark, are these guys annoying you? You want me to...eh....give them a punch or somesuch? Just say the word. Sarah777 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

When you guys are prepared to have a rational debate and stop throwing mud at each other perhaps you would let the rest of us know so we can discuss it. A simple pro and con summary for a start woudl be a good idea. In particular woudl Wotapalaver and TharkunColl please draw a line under the past and start again with the isseu--Snowded (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that TharkunColl deleted text with deliberately misleading edit summaries, deleting text that he said was not supported by reference, when it was. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you truly believe that that's the full extent of the issue, then you should have reported him to WP:AN/I or WP:AIV by now. You haven't, and there's clearly more to it than that. TharkunColl may have been hasty or unclear in making his edits, but he has explained his reasons here - he didn't feel the text was relevant to this article (as opposed to the article on the British Empire or elsewhere). From what I've seen, rather than concentrating on countering that argument, you've repeated time and again that he was wrong in the way he attempted to address that issue. Please can we now move on from there and talk about what we want to happen now rather than arguing about what has already happened? What is the outstanding issue? Waggers (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The reasons given in the edit summaries were that the text was not supported by the reference, not that the text is somehow not directly relevant to the article (it probably is). In any case these are two separate issues. The edit summaries were accompanied by talk page assertions that the text had been inserted by "POV pushers" and in loud capital letters that the text was not supported by reference, with not a word claiming that it wasn't really relevant. The text, which was inserted ~18 months ago by a user originally called Sony-Youth was then deleted not once, but at least three times, each time with the loud assertion that it wasn't supported by reference. The claim that the text was not "relevant" arose as a distraction once the references were actually checked and the text was found to be verbatim supported by reference. Now that I know what ANI is I should probably report TharkunColl on there because - despite what admins have said here - I still feel this qualifies as vandalism of some sort. I do not believe that TharkunColl was looking at whether or not the text was relevant. The relevance is an issue that can be separately addressed.

As for your belief that "there's clearly more to it than that", what more is there? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You have already been advised against pursuing this personal vendetta on your own talk page by others. If I remember rightly there was also something about trading links going back to Saxon times across the North Atlantic which I changed at the same time. But that's not really the point of course. The real point is the knee-jerk reversions of all my edits within seconds of me making them. TharkunColl (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a personal vendetta, it's an insistence that truth and verifiability be honoured. As for your deletion of the text about Saxon times, those are mentioned in the reference too so you shouldn't have deleted that either. As for the knee-jerk reversions of your edits (A) I didn't make ANY of the reversions and (B) since your reason for the deletions was untrue, reversion seems appropriate. Perhaps the other editors were reverting you for personal reasons. I am insisting only on truth and verifiability. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) Following Wagger's suggestion, see [12] It ends here. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SS

Most of this article is pure WP:CFORK. This is supposed to be the article on the archipelago. There are full-blown sub-articles to all topics, history, terminology, geography etc., no need to repeat this at any length, certainly not to draw it out over 100k. dab (𒁳) 08:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet another reason to get rid of this politically-motivated "British Isles" article. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(Ignoring the troll) I think that's a good point, dab. Each section only really needs to be a summary of what's in the related, more detailed article. There may be one or two bits that don't have separate articles that would need all the text to be here, but in the most part there's probably too much detail and not enough summary on the main BI article. A shorter article would hopefully give those argumentative folks less to argue about, too! Waggers (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Waggers I'd caution you keep WP:CIVIL in mind. The contributor is not a "troll" and makes the excellent point that this is a POV fork. Sarah777 (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(Ignoring that bit of trolling, too...) Waggers (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. See little need for:

• Transport
• Political co-operation within the islands
• Sport and culture
• Most of the History section, but
  • instead populate it with lists of articles where historical information on England, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales can be found
  • keep section Names of the islands through the ages or make an article of it and point to it. - Bill Reid | Talk 15:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree, also. See little need for:

• British claims to Ireland in 2008. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, summarize and link to main articles on the subject. Keep this article on topic. --neonwhite user page talk 17:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The only meaningful contributions I see here are those by Users 86.42.124.125 and 86.42.90.145. the rest, in my humble opinion, is, in some cases, uncivil POV pushing. Sarah777 (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Put in or take out what ya'll want. But, don't change the article's title. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Without the name that is on this article this is simply another jejune article on one of life's less interesting topics. With this name, this article is a claim that me, my family and everybody I know in Ireland is British. That, my friends, is a myth of the most British imperialist proportions. That, dear people, is your British nationalism working very, very hard at imposing identities on another people, my people. So, not to put too fine a point on it my lovely British nationalist and WASP friends, go fuck yourselves. Thank you very much. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The article makes no such claims. --neonwhite user page talk 23:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope; the title stays. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL prevents me from fully endorsing those keenly observed and rather accurate comments by 864290145. Sarah777 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out - it isn't the title "The British Isles" that is under POV attack here; it is the article about Great Britain and Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see an adult conversation. Can those in favour of British Isles not understand the reasons why some editors are offended by it? It would at least go some way to raising this debate above name calling and childish replies if they recognise the other sides opinions whether they agree with them or not! --Jack forbes (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal objections are completely irrelevant to editing wikipedia and the development of this article. If you can't edit without turning wikipedia into a soapbox then you shouldnt be editing. Wikipedia is not censored and contains much information that may be objected to --neonwhite user page talk 23:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not suggest for one minute someone should make an edit on the basis of hurt feelings, but when you are having a discussion it does no harm to understand the other side of the argument withought agreeing with it. It can often stop the discussion turning into a shouting match. Have you never said to someone "I understand where you are coming from but I don't agree with you?" --Jack forbes (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I do understand the opposition to British Isles. It's the IP's suggestion, that's unacceptable. Anyways, life goes on. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you object to a group of rocks? josh (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, how do you object to a group of rocks? --Jack forbes (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can avoid the need for an article on "British Isles", but it is clear that the term is an historic artefact of Empire, not in current use (and if so used would be offensive). All of that should be spelt out in the introduction. Technically of course the term British relates to the pre-Roman inhabitants of the various Islands, the subsequent hijacking of the term by the inheritors of the Norman Barbarians and the addition of "Great" is to be regretted. --Snowded (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Great" referred and continues to refer to the island's size, not (inter-)national prowess. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That was the origin I agree although it should have been "Greater", but then it was transformed. Although speaking personally (and nothing to do with the debate) the sooner we can talk about Wales, Scotland, England and Ireland without the need for GB or UK the better --Snowded (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be mindful that "article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views". --Jza84 |  Talk  10:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lighten up Jza84 I am not suggesting an edit on the perversity of the English Empire! My edit suggestion above is neutral and respectful of different feelings. If I can't inject a bit of humour into the process then god help us all --Snowded (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm here to write a good encyclopedia. Humour has its place Snowded, but soapboxing personal political aspirations on an already charged talk page doesn't help with the spirit of collaboration or move content along. Indeed thats four wasted messages encounting... --Jza84 |  Talk  10:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Collaboration"? Maybe, just maybe, the real problem is that the collaboration you wish for is not forthcoming? Maybe, just maybe, calling this article the "British Isles" is about as likely as being accepted by the vast majority of Irish people as calling the 'African American' article 'Nigger' or the Native American article 'Indian' would be to the majority in those communities? The Irish people are not British, and while every society will have its native collaborators with the coloniser's projects, the coloniser will go home and the natives will ultimately reclaim their own country. This article is going nowhere as long as it claims that my people, the Irish people, are British. It's time a lot of British people grew up and discarded their outdated nationalist claims to Ireland. And that really, really is the problem here. You can make a historic article called the "British Isles" focusing on Ireland under British occupation and assorted joys; expecting that a modern article entitled "British Isles" wins acceptance is utterly inconceivable. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Writing a good enclyclopedia and having a sense of humour are not mutually exclusive qualities, and lightening the tone on this talk page, given some of the exchanges, seems to be in the sprit of collaboration. Neither by the way am I soapboxing, just being honest. You know my serious intent from other exchanges so please lighten up. --Snowded (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If that was humour, don't call us, we'll call you. -Bill Reid | Talk 13:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's OK Bill, taking yourself too seriously is a sign of pomposity and I would prefer to avoid calls from people who take themselves too seriously .... --Snowded (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem on this article is the one best criticized by an American politician. "You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts". Very few editors on this page will accept this. The name "British Isles" is likely still (and might remain) internationally the most common name, therefore WP policy says it should be the name of the article. Many people don't like this. Many people object to the name. Others don't like that. Both are facts.

The term "British Isles" is less used by many organizations than it was before. Fact. It's still used by lots of others. Fact. All are true and don't contradict each other; facts can't contradict each other. Deal with it. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as though you are sitting on the fence . You wrote a good piece here and finished with"Deal with it". How would you deal with it? Jack forbes (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Until there's a reference that another term is more common, COMMONNAME should apply, no? If/Once another name is verifiably shown to be more common, or if there's a policy that official views should be respected, the article name should change. In the meantime, the simple fact that the term is disliked and increasingly avoided should be prominently mentioned. Seems simple. Debates on whether the British Empire was a brutalizing or civilizing influence in the world can be kept for other forums. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

One can still find people using the term British Commonwealth rather than Commonwealth of Nations. Would that justify a separate article, rather than a redirect? ClemMcGann (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If the term British Isles were to redirect to another article name which name would that be? --Jack forbes (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In 1947 Ireland’s Department of External Affairs drafted a letter to the heads of all government departments...... The expression “British Isles” was “a complete misnomer and its use should be thoroughly discouraged”; it should be replaced “where necessary by Ireland and Great Britain.”

We have an answer. We have to acknowledge this -its the Irish government! The 10 downing street website says 'country within a country' and all Scottish, Welsh and English editors start rolling around in it saying 'The government says it..it must be true!' And here is the Irish government expressing its dissatifaction of the term and suggesting an alternative. It has to be likewise accepted.WikipÉire ^♣ 18:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems its a problem among a few Irish editors, not all, but the rest of the world DGAF. - Bill Reid | Talk 18:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wikipeire here(gasps in shock). I cannot in all honesty defend my own position on Scotland, Wales etc if I don't accept the word of the Irish government! this also confirms it for me.the rest of the world DGAF? Just as well those remaining do GAF! --Jack forbes (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack, Folens are only ceasing this map for the Irish schools. The British maps will continue to use British Isles. Alex Salmond is well on board for retaining British Isles. Their manifesto had the following: Finally Scotland will seek to assist in the establishment of an Association of States of the British Isles which will include England, Wales and Ireland. This anti-British Isles is a non-issue for the vast majority of English speakers. Past my bed time. Bill Reid | Talk 19:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Folens also stated that they never had any public complaints, but were pursuing their policy of nipping possible problems in the bud as they appear. 'British Isles' is not a legal term in the Irish gov in the same way that 'Wales' is not a legal term to the UN. They use another term. They may have suggested (on occasion) that the term would be discouraged internally - but what does that really say? The intro currently suggests the Irish government discourage it full stop! Is it right for Wikipedia to suggest that? Beware reports that pull together various quotes and incidences to build a picture that is bigger than the sum of the parts. It's why I keep asking for the Independent, the Guardian and papers like that. Ther Folens example was always a weak one to me (especially as they said they had no public complaints).--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The so-called "vast majority of English speakers" that you mention just happen to be the ones who actually live over in Britain, like the Scots. How shocking that the British support the name "British Isles" to include another country. I am really, really surprised that British people might have some sort of tradition of claiming other people's lands as "British". This is shocking. If this heretical train of thought continues we might even discover that the entire basis of the creation of British identity rests upon the English buying off the Scots by allowing them to share in the claims to other peoples' countries via the British Empire. Surely not! 86.42.90.145 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not! This is one Scot who has no interest in claims to other countries via the so called British Empire.When the English bought off the Scots it was not the people they bought off, it was those in power, in fact there were riots in the streets as it happened! Please don't paint everyone with the same brush. --Jack forbes (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I know. Jack. That is why I used clarified his 'vast majority' claim with "so-called". I like the Scots. I am surprised to see the Scottish Nationalist Party using the term, though. That does not bode well for Scottish nationalist attempts to break free from English nationalist claims that are in reality the origin of the concept of Britishness. I suspect they may have been trying to include Ireland as a means to separate themselves from England. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that Alex Salmond is a very clever man and politician. What he does not want to do is alienate many voters, so it is a matter of keeping them onside for the moment. I have no inside information on this but I have kept a close eye on him since he came in to power and before and I think he is doing the smart thing here. Once Independence comes (God willing) I think you will see a different story! --Jack forbes (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Clever he is, but I think he more wise in the way he looks at history. Why would Salmond be against the term just because he is a nationalist? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Salmond wants Independence, Salmond wants to break up the Union, Salmond does not want to be British! Like I said, I have no inside information but does he sound like the kind of man who would fight tooth and nail to keep the term British Isles? Let's just say, if there was any kind of agreement to stop the use of the term I don't think he would lose any sleep over it. --Jack forbes (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The SNP doesn't see Scotland as being part of the "British Isles" as a political thing. It clearly doesn't make them British in itself, so why would they? It is similar to how the Brazilians don't see themselves as American because they from the Americas. The question is - does Salmond see it as an insult to be connected with the word? Does Salmond dislike the British, or the term Britain in any way? There is no evidence at all that he does - and no necessary connection with being anti-British and Scottish nationalism either. Salmond has always made a point of not being anti-British and of valuing 'British ties'. I see no reason not to believe him, and independence simply would not work without those close ties anyway. It is interesting that you see the SNP "alienating voters" if they were against the term - which voters? Being pro-Scotland cannot possibly be about being anti-British and still succeed.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you get it? When Scotland becomes Independent we will no longer be British, we will be Scottish and nothing else. Whatever is left of the union can still call themselves British and that's fine, we can all get along with them, but Alex Salmond won't be British and he won't care what the islands are called! I'll take Bill's advice and leave it there, so if you reply to this I'll read it and no more. --Jack forbes (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"It clearly doesn't make them British in itself... It is similar to how the Brazilians don't see themselves as American because they from the Americas." It's a good point, Matt, but I think there's a difference. Brazilians don't get called and classed as Americans in the frequent way that the Irish get called and classed as British. Some of it is just mindlessly done, but some of it comes with a justification of 'well, they are from the BRITISH Isles" or that sort of thing. Nuclare (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, I think we've all had enough now so can we get back to what this thread started off as? Maybe some technocrat could put this debate in one of these drop down banner thingies.Ta. Bill Reid | Talk 17:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring (again)

I'm not certain how everybody here feels. But IMO, the edit warring on this article is getting (putting it politely) annoying. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the edit in question? --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the majority of editors here prefer? use it. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you hate all kinds of edit warring GoodDay, but have you ever wondered whether those kind of glib comments might be a just tad (putting it politely) annoying themselves?! In plain speaking: What do you think of my edit?--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've no personal preference, Matt. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, I don't quite understand your edit summary, "The better ones deal with historic use: the others are not stong enough in the face" - an Irish Times article from 2000 is simply not historical, as you are trying to state, and it is no "better" than a Cambridge University Press publication from 2005 that basically says the same thing. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've argued this so much but it's scrolled out of view (again). IMO this article has just been bullied out of any sense. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case, I'll revert. I'd understand if the references were from say, the last century, but saying that a reference from 2005 is "historic" is simply pointless, and it won't advance your own opinions as to the rest of the article any further. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 19:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit terse - bad day. I meant over-weighing history accounts of dissent in the face of prevalent usage. The cited Kearney book "British Isles" covers dissent, but also uses the term for describing contemporary life. An account of dissent is an account of dissent - it has its own context - but we must have a wider one. We are an objective encyclopaedia. It is simply undue to so forcefully weigh a highly-limited group of accounts above the prevalence of modern usage. There is still no real evidence of what people feel now - yet the intro says "many Irish find the term...". I do find it more political than encyclopaedic, but in fighting it I have to fend off that accusation myself. I'm just here for Wikipedia - we can get it all in fairly. In fact, nothing else on this earth offers us the space to say so much. Why demand more? Why must those people who dislike the term "British Isles" have it all - like a forked 'dissent' page, an exaggerated main article, alternative-name pages, huge lists of refs (who else has this?), dominated and 'crossing' talk pages full of IP addresses etc. It's all been about controlled exaggeration, gaming the sytem, and a war of attrition. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User Matt Lewis has been promising for weeks to provide some commentary/critique on the sources that document "many" and "often" finding the term offensive/objectionable, since he feels they are "academic tracts" of poor quality, etc, even though they're seriously good references from Oxford and Cambridge, Routledge, MacMillan, broadsheets, etc. This promised critique is still pending, but apparently he still feels that it's OK to revert other editors and text that had started to look stable. As for Schambo removing the "may", I had put that there as a "softener". I thought it worked ok, neither denying the "many" nor being easy to accuse of overstating the case. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already come up with them repeatedly - but they will be safe all together in my 'user space' when I've finished - away from the scrolling madness of this Talk page (have you seen those archives?), and from your repeated exaggerations like "broadsheet..."! Small reports on the same subject compared to widespread broadsheet usage of the word is undue weight - it's all a motley collection of compiled refs that are most notable in proving the absolutle limit of their scope. They do not warrant "many" in the 'now' sense at all (we still no evidence for that). I change it to being "over history" and I am snidely reverted. I clarfy the Irish gov refs to being more inter-governmental and not a 'message to the country', and I am reverted. Why? Why? Yes I will break it down.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Schambo - did I misread the diffs? It wasn't you with the "may". Wotapalaver (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Not sure why this thread was so savagely hijacked, but let's try and get back on topic. The wording of each summary section would have to be done pretty carefully. Ordinarily I'd say be bold but instead may I suggest that each summary section be proposed and debated here first? I know it'll be a long and drawn out procedure but hopefully consensus here will reduce future edit warring. (I live in hope...) Waggers (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started putting in some additional Main Article links already. It's a small contribution. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the list of islands, which overlapped completely with another article. The other article had more information and was better formatted. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to Intro (clarifying "many" and the Irish gov)

I posted broadly this same comment in a section above, but am making it again down here - above was the relevant section once, but this talk moves so fast. My edit - now a "proposed change" - got reverted too quickly imo, without any real discussion (apart from some further down under "Editing warring" above).

Exisiting text:

Although commonly used worldwide, the term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable;[4] the Irish government also discourages its usage.[5]

Proposed change:

Although commonly used worldwide, the term British Isles has been controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people thoughout the term's history have found it objectionable.[4] The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage its usage".[5]

The verry long References list with all the bold in it is exactly the same (though I'm not happy with the way that "Footnotes" is exploited here - this is the 'British Isles' article, not a second fork of itself). I've changed two parts - the words surrounding the controversial and loaded word "many", and have tried to better represent the actions of the Irish govt (which we actually have little evidence of).

There is not enough evidence to suggest that "many" Irish object to the term RIGHT NOW - and I still find the evidence weak overall when compared to the evidence we should expect to find - and when compared to the wide usage of the word in the face of any 'dissent' (and though some 'Oxbridge' is there - that means nothing in itself). Most of the refs are also history-based evidence (whether the history book is current or not!) - I've tried to reflect that too in the proposal. In his "British Isles" book, Kearney consistently uses the term himself for life today, and does not give any evidence for the "invitably many find the term objectionable" in his preface: on Wikipedia we need to find and show evidence, and to weight that evidence according to our own wider context. The examples of dissent given are by no means all Irish either - and in my opinion filter out into 'tracts' (whoever the publisher is - and it is very easy to get published today). I have never found the evidence for this 'level of current dissent' strong enough: the limited amount of it has always told me its own story. Where are the major broadsheets? I see a very small Times report on the 'mixed' Folens example (a preemtive change to an Irish school encyclopedia after just the one complaint).

The Irish govt does not discourage everyone on Ireland using it - we have a 1947 inter-departmental note, and a recent Embassy spokesman quote - neither explicitly talk about the people, so we shouldn't suggest they do. We can't find similar official comments backing them up - so they need this clarification. Terms such as "British Isles" are often not 'legal' terms in 'official' situations. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There is not enough evidence to suggest that "many" Irish object to the term RIGHT NOW Where is there evidence that many Irish right now don't object? You acknowledge many used to. Where is your evidence that it has changed? Other than an actual official survery on the matter, government announcements and newspaper do show it is a current problem and issue in Ireland. It is a lot more concrete than you saying its not an issue for most without any sources, this edit you propose is you reading into things and your Original Research rather than backed by any real evidence. If you want to change it you will have to back it up.WikipÉire ^♣ 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The "many" in this more reasonable context (given the scattered evidence) is over time, obviously. If newspapers showed it as an "issue in Ireland" (ie RIGHT NOW) like you say, I would not be writing this - but they simply DO NOT show this. Far from it - examples like Folens show there is (unsurprisingly given the time) no public apetite for it at all.

How is my clarification "Original Research"? I am not offering anything new, but better using the provided evidence, and am avoiding the exaggeration that has dogged this subject. I am not removing any of the evidence, but am compromising here by keeping it all. What do I need to "back up"? That's just an impossible demand, and is simply stonewalling imo. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers do show it is an issue in Ireland. The Kevin Myers piece from 2004 is a good example of that. What is wrong with that? The term 'British Isles' is very seldom heard in Ireland so you can't expect loads of articles on the subject. Howver when it is mentioned, it does cause offence. Asking for a reference on how many Irish people find British Isles offensive is about as hard as finding a source which says how many Welsh people find being called English offensive. There is no direct source. However when a government expresses a wish as seen above, it is on behalf of the people. You can't disprove that.WikipÉire ^♣ 21:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Kevin Myers" ref is a dead link (that is subscription too) but nobody dares to remove it - or even touch those extended refs do they? This article has been hijacked by bullies and socks, and nobody has the appetite for the inevitable 3RRs. I could counter-balance it with something like this, but what's the point? I'm not getting in a ping-pong argument over support/no-support evidence: the issue is about exaggerating the word "many" and the intentions of the Irish gov. You are simply wrong about the government talking "on behalf" of the people: you ask for "proof" but it is simply obvious I'm afraid. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the references on the page are to printed books, not online versions of anything. Many libraries will have back issues of the Irish Times. A reference need not be online. Many are not. Your point on the government not speaking on behalf of the people is correct and Wikipeire is wrong. As in the UK, in Ireland the government speaks only on behalf of the government. Only the Head of State, Queen or President, has the right to speak on behalf of the people. She may decide to do so on instruction or suggestion of the government. However, the text of the article correctly reflects the reference and doesn't claim that the government represents the people. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Over the history of the term? Sokesperson? Apart from the grammar and spelling, you're complicating something simple. The sources are reputable, verifiable, eminent, timely, etc. and they say many and often, if they use modifiers at all. Unless you can actually find a contradicting source the text and the references are well matched. If you can find contradicting references, great. If you can't, great, but keep the OR to yourself. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you say the same thing: what is the "WP:Original Research" I have commited? And "Timely"? How do you work that one out? Is that a political comment from you? The truth is the provided sources (that have slowly built up over a year or so) are in short supply and tail off quickly. There are never counter-references to such matters: that is another impossible request - I would have to find "It is not true that many Irish dislike the term British Isles". The broadsheets simply have NOT dealt with it either way, and the media simply use the term. So how am I supposed to find a quote like that? All the media usage of the term, and the pausity of evidence for it being disliked (especially regarding public support) is all self-evident (and the only evidence I need to objectively weigh things up) but you simply refuse to aknowledge it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your view that there is a paucity of evidence is only your view. Your view that the references "tail off quickly" is only your view. Your view that it is impossible to find counter-examples is only your view. Using "only your view" as the basis for text is OR, plain and simple. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish I never asked you to ignore spelling and typos - you have digged your claws into them ever since. It won't endear you to people. I am making simple sense - and you are ignoring it because it is not on your "timely" agenda: that is the issue here isn't it?. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed to: "where many people thoughout the term's history have found it objectionable." Better grammar? I am trying to keep the word "many" remember.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

IIRC there is reference to show that the term was entirely or almost entirely uncontroversial at various times in the past (e.g. the 19th century). I believe your proposal is not factually correct. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So you think there is more dissent now than in the 19C? I don't see any great evidence for dissent right now - in the 19C Ireland was British due to conquest - are you saying they were happy with the term 'British Isles' during that time? Perhaps you could point me to that evidence - it's interesting. The line "many people thoughout the term's history have found it objectionable" is not that exacting - can you show how it is factually incorrect? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking of one reference in particular, which is the page of references I have pointed towards several times. You keep claiming that you're doing a one-by-one critique of the evidence, so you should know the one. Please just read the references. I'm tired of pointing you towards them. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You make the claim, but you wouldn't point the exact evidence would you? You always "etc, etc..." when referring to your evidence - you rarely point anything out. I totally resent having to do write the thing I'm writing, by the way - it is essentially because of you, and I know how you will treat it. All the criticisms and suggestions I'm compiling you have heard and either ignored or bludgeoned past with your Andrex-roll page-movement tactics - you have no right to say "C'mon where are they then?". It's been a thoroughly unpleasant experience working on this article, and I can't see a way out even if I continually refer to the points in my user space - as 24/7 people like you have all the power on so many subjects. In short - you have ignored me in your own snotty and demeaning way up to now whatever I have said or suggested (even on an admin's talk page I had nothing to do with - just to make me sound like an incompetent vandal), and I run the risk of being similarly brushed-off when I have finished the "critique". I have seen no evidence of anyone being willing/able to stand up to you and it's not a pleasant feeling knowing I'm probably wasting my time. You yourself have a POV fork, a biased article, a scrolling refs-list full of bold text, 'alternative name' articles, a page that just lists "evidence" (convincing only in that it is its own page), IPs and a sock user around that help remove edits you dislike, plenty of time obviously, few it seems other Wikipedia interests, and only the occasional "problem" like me (in your own words) to bother you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) The reference I mention is pretty clear in what it says. Just read through the references (PLEASE, FINALLY) and you'll see it. As for the rest of your post, unless you provide references to support your views you are probably wasting your time, yes. If all you can do is continue to claim that Oxford and Cambridge published reference books are POV academic tracts then your views won't ever carry much weight. Meantime, the references that exist are from reputable sources, are clear, and are reflected accurately in the article text. The content fork was TharkunColl's idea. Attack him about it. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems with "throughout the term's history" is that it raises the issue of what IS the term's precise history? Are the Greek/Latin versions of the name part of 'the term's history' -- if, yes -- and yes seems a reasonable answer -- one has to wonder how many people in Ireland even knew that their island had been dubbed part of something called Pret/Brit. At what point did they? Did they pick up on using it? If so, when? Even in much later centuries, how much was 'BI' actually used by average people or in contexts available to average people? (These aren't rhetorical questions, btw -- do we know the answers?) The other problem is that--even if you don't find them convincing--the sources we have don't speak of 'throughout the term's history,' they seem to speak of the present. The interesting thing about the one source, the Kearney book, is that the first edition of the book didn't have any mention in the intro. of the objections to the term in Ireland. That was added to the intro. in a re-printing. (I didn't re-read the whole intro., much less the whole book, so I've no idea what other changes were made.) Make of that what you will. :-) Nuclare (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Many publishers even outside Ireland have stopped using the term in their maps and atlases, and AFAIK they've done it in the last couple of decades. The Folens example was a late example. Others had done it before. As for whether the term was used, there's reference that it wasn't in common use in Britain until at least the late 17th century, maybe later. References indicate that before that time other terms (non Pretanic) were used in Britain and Ireland for approx 1500 years. Other reference says British Isles was generally accepted up to at least 1914. Irish government objection is dated, so far, to no earlier than 1947. The references now are mostly from the last several years. At least one mentions "increasingly" in describing how "British Isles" is avoided or how other terms are used, even in Britain. I don't think there is reference to support any presentation of objection to the term with any confidence other than now, recently, at the moment, so the Matt Lewis suggestion doesn't work for me. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Folens said they no public complaints - where is the evidence of public dissent "right now"? it might be your time for it Wotapalava, but is it really anyone elses (a few of your fellow Wikipedias excepted)? We have programmes called British Isles, we have common usage. We have virtually no examples of broadsheet/public/media dissent. Where is the evidence of "many Irish" objecting to it now? I think they have other things on thier minds right now, a peaceful future being one of them. It may be "timely" for you, but who else? --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent). OK, deep breath. The evidence is in the references. I'm sure that we could all have a more peaceful future if you'd read the references and try to ignore your own preconceptions for a moment. Don't expect more responses from me today. I've said the same thing enough times already. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither should be in the lead at all. The lead is a summary of the article and this does not feature in the article to any extent that i can see. It needs moving to a 'controversy' section as having it in the lead is giving it undue weight. --neonwhite user page talk 21:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Neon, there's a whole fork article about the controversy, hence this needs to be in the intro. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The fork creates massively undue weight on the subject. And a main article intro too? And all the forked refs and exaggerations? It is serious having your cake and eating it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Only if you believe, as you seem to, that there is little or no actual dislike of the term. The references say otherwise. Please find contradicting references or stop this continual harping on about your opinion. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is where you are most misguided: Please have a look around Wikipedia and see how other articles deal with controversy. The do not hijack the article with huge 'ref lists' full of bold, and have a fork article (and if they do they often get deleted). If you disagree with the fork article by the way (which you often hint at), why didn't you say so in my Merge proposal? Many people said "No" to it largely because of you, and worries about what this article could get like with a controversy section - ironic don't you think? The only way we will ever deal with it properly is in one article.

I don't need to 'counterbalance' a phrase that I don't agree with! You act like you've planted a flag! I have never ever said "some Irish do not object", or "they have never objected" - I am saying we do not have anywhere near enough evidence to say "many do object". We categorically not have the evidence required for the use of such a word in the context of an encyclopedia! You completely misunderstand Wikipedia if you think word appears in citation = so word is used 'freely' in article = is something that now must be disproved is the formula to use. Consensus via Talk is supposed to iron this kind of thing out. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Neon, furthermore, on WP:UNDUE. Since the references on the objectionability (wd?) of the term include several reputable reference books, it's actually perfectly supportable that the majority view is that the term is objectionable to many in Ireland, meaning that UNDUE doesn't apply. Even if you were to argue that it's a minority view, there are unarguably several eminent adherents. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get a single response when I suggested a controversy section. Probably bacause it could involve merging the fork and nobody has the appetite for that.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you made a section I would certainly support it - some editors will expect an introductory statement though, so I do think we have to get this one right. I don't mind dissent mentioned in the Intro myself - but it must be done objectively and fairly.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the current introductory text is objective and fair. It reflects serious references concisely, clearly, and honestly. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesnt mean it's anymore than a WP:FRINGE view in one single country based on politics, severly misguided in some cases [13] that differs from the mainstream view. Political boundaries and geographical naming is unrelated. There is no evidence whatsoever that a majority have this view. We cannot make assumptions on this it has to be sourced better and as there is an article on this all it really needs is a section title naming controversy that says something like 'The use of the term British Isles can be controversial see...' and link to that article as is done in many articles or we have severe overlap. Let the article deal with the details are it is redundant. --neonwhite user page talk 13:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's a fringe view, please supply reference that it's a fringe view. Others have supplied reference that it's not a fringe view. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wota said Many publishers even outside Ireland have stopped using the term in their maps and atlases, and AFAIK they've done it in the last couple of decades. Can you list for me please, thanks (oh, I know about Folens who are to make changes to the map for Irish schools only) Bill Reid | Talk 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the talk archives. Examples include Michelin and Reader's Digest, whose guides used to be called "British Isles", now aren't. National Geographic recently commented on the name. Collins have apparently also recently changed, although I haven't seen a reference. Of course, these are all fringe publications. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The term has gradually been used less over the past couple of decades in maps - maybe over longer - I've noticed that myself. It's worth noting that some maps are "geographical" and some are "political" (they are two different formats - with different colours and labels etc) - so I wouldn't trust any refs from "the archives" without following them up. I had a "Britain and Ireland" road map years ago, as I've said, and I see it as a perfectly natural progression - things change in these kinds of way all the time. The National Geographic map called "The British Isles" has "Britain and Ireland" in big letters and the term "British Isles" in a small block of text. Doesn't it show how changes are often gradual?

Our problem is that these examples are being used to 'fill out' a very motley and highly limited list of references - that are compiled almost solely to try and prove with their 'combined weight' that "many Irish find the term objectionable". I find their combined weight far too light, and I have tried various alternative wording here - but it is exaggeration or nothing for some people I'm afraid. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The "many people think" thing is an example of an argumentum ad populum and is listed (among the "other problems") at WP:WEASEL as something to be avoided. That one source outside of Wikipedia uses that the word "many" doesn't change the fact that it is against WP's style guidelines and should be avoided in a neutral encyclopaedia. That doesn't mean we should ignore the controversy issue, it just means that we should use wording that accords with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines if we can. Waggers (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is very well put. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's not an argumentum ad populum at all. Argumentum ad populum is quite different. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What language, in regards to defining the nature of the controversy, would you accept, Waggers? (and I agree with Wotapalaver, I don't think this is an argumentum ad populum.) btw, how many is 'many'? Nuclare (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an "argumentum ad populum" through 'intent', but not quite technically, no. The intent is to suggest that "many" Irish find the term offensive, and therefore that it must be offensive. How many is many? Well, quite: Not exactly encyclopedic language is it? Given the huge amount of weight given to the 'dissent' issue now, people might be forgiven for thinking "many" is hell of a lot - and the term is objectionable indeed. If many people think it, it must be true.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so, as long as we interpret "intent" into it, *then* it's argumentum ad populum. Right. Got it. :-) I say keep "many," dump 'offensive.' Heck, we don't need to subliminally throw off 'intent'. How 'bout "...where many object to the term"? That leaves the "many" free to find it offensive, or objectionable, or angering or slightly annoying or inaccurate, or archaic, etc. etc. Nuclare (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the reference no. 4, well, it seems four people at least consider the term controversial - the authors of those referenced items. Their assertions are, in each case, backed up with weasel words, so we are really none the wiser. Now, if someone can find a reference to a public opinion survey carried out in Ireland about this issue, then we might be getting somewhere, and we could have a reasonable reference. As it stands the reference is worthless, so it, and the statement, should be removed. Can anyone justify inclusion of this trumped-up statement that "many" in Ireland find the term objectionable? I know Ireland quite well but I've never come across anyone complaining about the term. I suspect it's just a small number of opinionated busy-bodies, who can't find decent references themselves. Most Irish people are just not interested in this non-issue. So - please find a verifiable, meaningful reference to back up this assertion, or goodbye statement. 81.5.133.201 (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Here we are again, this is perhaps why more and more references have to keep getting added. In any case, there are more where those came from. Should I add more? Also, those people are authors of reference books published by highly reputable publishing houses and they say "many" and they say "often". The Reputable Sources noticeboard thinks they're valid sources. The fact that "you suspect that it's just a small number of highly opinionated busy-bodies" may be something you find interesting, but your suspicions are exactly worthless unless there are references that say the same. So, either counter-references, which I've been asking about for weeks, or statement stays. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you're talking utter rubbish there Wot. First point, my view that ...it's a small minority etc... is just that - a view. I'm not claiming it as fact, and importantly, it's not in the article. Next, there is an assertion in the article backed up by poor references (opinions of authors who don't back up their opinions with any sort of objective assessement), so the assertion has to go. As for counter-references, what a totally bizarre concept! How can you have a reference to a non-assertion. You mean something like "there's no controversy and here's a reference that says there isn't"? No, the reference has to back up the assertion. In this case it doesn't, well, not adequately. Get rid! 81.5.133.201 (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"You mean something like "there's no controversy and here's a reference that says there isn't"?" That's not an unreasonable expectation. Given that the controversy has been stated a number of times by historians in scholarly texts, it wouldn't be at all strange, particularly if these claims are indeed utter rubbish, for another scholar or a reviewer of these sorts of texts to call them on it. Is there any refutation amongst scholars to the sorts of controversy claims made by the sources? Nuclare (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that there hasn't been controversy! It's about the word "many" - how many Irish people object to the word? The article currently provides a motley collection of evidence and opinion, and it hasn't been said a great deal of times in scholarly texts at all! The evidence it equivalent to an annual meeting in a Monty Python sketch. It's a mishmash of spam. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans. If it's not a real issue then no one will comment on it will they?

Kearney, the guy who's latest dust jacket provides the word "many" (and he may not have actually written the DJ by the way) actually happily uses the "British Isles" in his book ("The British Isles, A History of Four Nations") to describe life in both Britain and Ireland today: why would people then contest his "many"? The IP above should have said "how do we find a quote that says: "It is not true that "many" find the term objectionable"? All the compiled evidence is a contrived and ill-fitting mash (Folens, the gov, mixed atlases, Kearney, tracts - all but the tracts have mixed messages) - all squeezed together for the purpose of this article! They do not represent a recognisable 'movement' in any sense - so how could any historian refer to it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's talking about a 'movement'? And again, which 'tracts' do you refer to, or are you just being randomly disparaging about the references again? The references are mostly scholarly references, they're clear, from eminent sources, and they say 'many' and 'often'. The fact that many atlases apparently no longer use the term "British Isles" is not even used anywhere as part of any argument about 'many'. Perhaps it should be. It's a good point. I must think about how or whether that could be used without being OR. And, in line with Nuclare, we have scholarly references that clearly say the term is offensive/objectionable to many/often. Those references exist and are available. If other scholars thought this was nonsense then there would surely be counter-references, and Wikipedia policies talk about counter-references in discussion of verifiability. Perhaps other scholars think that the first lot are wrong but just haven't written their books yet. If so, we'll have to wait until they do. Wikipedia depends on verifiability and we have verifiable reputable sources of the first order. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You are obliged to consider discussion you have had, yet you consistently talk as if conversations have not existed (like about maps atlases, which you often bring up yourself). Your opinion of Talk is appalling - you use it to say the same comments repeatedly, but totally discredit it as a means of discussing the texts. You care nothing for consensus either.

We will NOT have to "wait" for books about "the first lot" appear: there is no significant "first lot" to write about: they are a disparate construction built SOLELY on Wikipedia over time (and boy did they take looking for! - I've watched a lot of it happen). Again you follow the formula: Wotapalava finds word in citation = word from a citation used openly in introduction = nobody is allowed to remove it unless 'diametrically counter' textual evidence for exact word is found = edit wars and page locking happens if they try to re-write around the word It's bullshit. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're still waiting for your long promised critique of the references. Perhaps, instead of ranting at me, you should address the references and explain why they're all unreliable and why Oxford and Cambridge etc., shouldn't have published these books because their views disagree with your personal knowledge. Meantime, I'm discussing this in tedious depth, but it comes back to one thing. I, and others - including people from the Reliable Sources noticeboard, consider the references good. You don't, but you refuse to say why beyond that they are a "disparate construction", whatever the heck that means, or that following references is bullshit. I, and others, and Wikipedia policy, disagree. Again, if you're right there will be counter-references. Go find them and we can have an intelligent conversation. Until then you're arguing with reputable sources, not with me. You can dislike that, but it's the fact of the matter. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"tedious detail"? You have shown no depth at all - you are all "etc, etc..." and insults (which I cannot help but return). The 'Reliable Sources noticeboard' do not weigh the sources or get involved at all - stop conning people that they are rubber stamping you - THEY ARE NOT. I feel obliged to stay in touch with your exaggerated way of getting the last word and misleading people - it is relentless. I leave Talk for a bit and all my points are scrolled out of view. I happen to resent strongly that I have to write this 'critique' just to deal with you - this a highly negative Wikipedia situation here - a real example of how it can fail to work. How dare you say "I don't explain"? Nothing I will cover I haven't already been through with you in detail (apart from some new suggestions), and will have to deal with your arrogant distain when I've done it. It is hard to complete because I usually have to work in bursts - and unlike you it's a long time since I've been to school. A thorough piece-by-piece detailing is all I can now do. Why should people put up with this crap? Who are hell do you think you are? Apart from clearly a wind-up merchant. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Please keep it civil. As for reliable sources, an editor who's a regular on that page even came here and commented on the specifics of some of the sources and even added some suggested additional sources. As for your explanations, I simply don't understand what a "disparate construction" is and it was your idea to go through the references one-by-one. Don't blame me if it's harder to trash the references one-by-one than to broadly damn them all as "academic tracts". I eagerly await your reasoning to explain how Cambridge and Oxford references are to be ignored. Oh, I think I'm a Wikipedia editor who respects sources. Who do you think you are? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Objections? Mar dheá.

There is no controversy attached to this title, and certainly no objection to it. The Irish people are resolutely delighted to be part of the British Isles. Did the Irish Privy Council and Her Majesty's Privy councillor Dermot Ahern have any permission from Her Majesty or the Privy Council to issue a statement to the contrary?It is mere contrivance to suggest that the Irish people would not be enthralled at being considered British. Any minute now these loyal lieges shall storm Her Majesty's realm, fall to their knees, proclaim their Britishness, and beg for forgiveness for their alleged objections to Britain's gentle loving concern for the Irish people since 1603. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this helps 86.42... If you have an objection to a certain aspect (or series of aspects) within an article, it would put you in good standing with others if you a) state it, calmly and politely, b) explain why you have this objection c) bring some citation to the discussion, d) suggest an alternative approach, and, e) allow others to share their thoughts.

Bringing personal perspective and personal politics in a way that disparages a certain group of editors is likely to elevate levels of stress and conflict, and make people go on the defensive, or worse, offensive, and is against the spirit of WP:TALK. The type of contribution above has many elements of those discouraged in our policy, WP:TROLL, violations of which could lead to restrictions upon your editting capabilities.

We all have an opinion here, and each have perspectives that are culturally informed. Shouting the loudest here or making coy, sarcastic comments will have little, if any effect upon editorial decisions for the main article, I can assure you. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The basic fallacy here appears to be the assumption that just because Ireland is one of the British Isles, its inhabitants, the Irish, must necessarily be "British". Now, I do not suppose there is any controversy surrounding the fact that Ireland and Great Britain are part of the same archipelago geographically? In this case, in order to claim there is a controversy, what alternative suggestions to "British Isles" are there as to the name of said archipelago? It sort of stands to reason that a group of islands may be called after the largest island it contains. There are some suggestions, such as "IONA", but clearly none of them is an arguable competitor to "British Isles" within WP:NAME. Accepting that, I wonder what the {{POV}} template is doing here. There may be a real world dispute, but the {{POV}} template isn't intended to draw attention to real-world disputes, it is used for unresolved disputes on-wiki. Once a real world dispute is detailed fairly and exhaustively, there is no reason to keep arguing about it on-wiki. It may be useful to keep in mind, too, that Πρεττανικη has been the term for the group of islands, not of Great Britain, from its first appearance in the 4th century BC or so. Thus, the British Isles aren't even called after Great Britain, it is Great Britain (formerly known as Albion) that takes its name from the name of the archipelago. dab (𒁳) 14:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be a variety of facts. The islands are apparently most commonly called The British Isles if they are referred to as a group, although alternatives appear to be getting more common. Many people in Ireland don't like the term "British Isles" to be applied to Ireland. Some other people don't like that people in Ireland don't like the term to be applied to Ireland. Your other points have been mentioned MANY times before. If nothing else, AFAIK there's no evidence that the term Πρεττανικη or any similar or derivative terms were ever applied (or commonly applied) in Ireland until the 17th century, but which time "British" meant "relating to Britain" and Britain had been Britain, not Albion, for a LONG time. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

well, but what "alternatives"? If "IONA" becomes current, fine, but I had never heard of that term before I saw the Wikipedia article. The term "British Isles" isn't "applied to Ireland", it is applied to an archipelago of which Ireland is the second largest member. If my points have been mentioned many times before, what is there left to discuss (WP:FORUM)? I am aware of the imperial history of the Kingdom of Great Britain. It's still as simple as WP:NAME: if a term like "Hiberno-British Isles" should ever become current, I'll be most happy to concede it is more neutral, but until it does, there is really nothing to discuss on WP:TALK. This is a debate within the real world, not within Wikipedia. WP:FORUM says it doesn't belong here. dab (𒁳) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

wow, there is even a single (1) google hit for "Hiberno-British Isles": The Long and Winding Road to Union: Scotland and the Hiberno-British Isles, 1560-1750 by Raymond P. Wells, University of Edinburgh (1999). I say that's a great term. Add to that three hits for Hiberno-British archipelago. Now if you can raise the number of hits to, oh, some 10 million (about half the number of hits for "British Isles") by 2020, we will be able to move this article to another title, in 2020. dab (𒁳) 16:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been advocating any other name. Even if I were to prefer another name it's not relevant here. Besides, if another name emerges it'll do so without my help, I'm sure, and it's only up to WP to report it once/if it does. Personally I doubt it'll be IONA. Some variant of "Britain and Ireland" or "The British Isles and Ireland" seems more likely. Meantime the article is called "British Isles". The "what's left to discuss" is what I mentioned above.."Some other people don't like that people in Ireland don't like the term to be applied to Ireland." Reading the talk archives is like watching time lapse of multiple seasons go by. The same arguments keep reappearing and keep needing to be addressed again, and again. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

so, according to you, this article has an "NPOV" template, because "Some other people don't like that people in Ireland don't like the term to be applied to Ireland". I'm sorry, are you saying this to justify the presence of the NPOV template, or are you just being sarcastic? I appreciate there is a dispute. The article duly notes its existence. Then why is there a {{NPOV}} template? dab (𒁳) 17:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the underlying sentiment expressed above. Current consensus is that the term relates to the archipelago and that it is a geographical term (i.e. name given to the group of islands). But there are problems with the principal that the term purely geographical. For example, technically, the Channel Islands do not belong - the reason they are included appears to be rooted in political history. And the political undercurrent carries over into other sections of the article too. There is an argument that the "History" and "Political Cooperation" sections, etc, do not belong in a geographical article (as it is currently written). And there's also lots of articles in Wikipedia that use the term "Britain" but link to "British Isles" - clearly demonstrating that to many editors that their interpretation is different that the consensus reached here. And I'm sure lots of people are aware of the objections raised when articles are corrected to use more appropriate terms (let's not go there). Clearly, the term is associated with "British" as meaning "of Britain", and this is primarily the objection that (few/some/many/none/all) Irish people have. There's no right or wrong, that's just the way it is. And clearly, that same amount of Irish people will push for change. But change doesn't/won't happen on Wikipedia. I suggest that this article is re-written as a purely geographical article, and the political stuff should be placed into a separate "History and Politics of the British Isles" article. --Bardcom (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happens, the title "British Isles" ensures that this article is most certainly not a "geographical article". A geographical article could be done, but not while carrying the name of one of the two states in the archipelago. And we will not get into the fact that the British state in question has, since its invention, been holding a claim to Ireland. This minor detail sort of annihilates (to be euphemistic) the whole "it's only geographical" argument. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry dab, I wasn't defending the POV template on the article at all. I was just adding my view of what goes on here and why the POV tag was added. You'd have to read the article history to see who added it. IIRC (and I'm not sure I do) it was Sarah777 and she was reverting to some edits by either TharkunColl or Matt Lewis. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

dab wrote: "The basic fallacy here appears to be the assumption that just because Ireland is one of the British Isles, its inhabitants, the Irish, must necessarily be "British." It may not necessitate it, but the reality is that Irish people do get called and classed as British quite often. I agree with you, dab, about the naming of the article issue, but the objections to the term are understandable. Nuclare (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles name, historical only or not

People, please bring the dispute here (instead of edit warring). GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, this article is about the British Isles - geography, history, flora, fauna, etc. - the article about the name is at British Isles (terminology). As is clear from your edit summary "There has to be some acknowledgement that the term reflects historical but not current reality", you are claiming that the term isn't current. It is, even if WP:IDONTLIKE or you don't. Please revert. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How about "current" with jingoistic British? [as obviously ordinary British would not claim Ireland to be British]86.42.90.145 (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Bastun, I made a few attempts with different wordings but you seem intent on direct reversal It seems to be that regardless of the various disputes above the article needs to start with an acknowledgement that the term is historic in nature. To say that is not to deny that it may be in current use. A few changes like this might (just might) make this into a geography article rather than a source of mass political controversy. How about trying to come up with a form of words which does that? I am not wed to my suggestion but I am sick and tired of the controversy over what should be, as you say a geography page --Snowded (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not use both as in The British Isles is the historical and geographical name for a group of islands.....--Jack forbes (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that would make sense. Such a change would also I think justify the removal of the POV title. Does anyone have any objection? If so then I think we need a list of what aspects of the article are considered POV --Snowded (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are completely right that the current article is, in reality, about a historical entity. However, it is historical and "geographical" (sic) only in the period from the 17th century. In 16th century Ireland or England the "British" were, consistently, equated with "Britons" who were, consistently, the people of Britanny ["little Britain"]. Holinshed's Chronicles, for instance, made this equation often. When he referred to "the Britons here in this Isle[Britain]" he was treating them as an ethnic minority from the past and their affect on English [ooops! "British"]history. Not once did he equate or imply that British or Briton was the name of all the people in Britain. In fact, the "British" were frequently banned by the sixteenth-century English Tudor colonial governors of Ireland from Ireland!(especially for taking fish which the Tudors claimed to be for English fishermen](See, for example, Calendar Patent Rolls Ireland, vol i, page 389 from September 1557-58] But this does not fit in at all, at all with British nationalist claims to Ireland since the 17th century. That last sentence sums up this entire article. This entire term is completely and entirely representative of a political claim to Ireland and to the Irish people since the defeat of the Irish in the seventeenth century. This political context is the clear and unequivocal history of the term "British Isles". Irish people know this; modern "British" people obviously would prefer to keep their nationalist egos alive by denying the political origins of the term in order to keep the current name as "British Isles". The title on this article makes the entire article a sham article, nothing but a vehicle for British jingoistic claims to Ireland. Most despicable of all is the dishonesty of wikipedia editors about the political agenda at the heart of this article. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I find the term "United Kingdom" offensive on the grounds that Wales was united by force, but I am not so far gone as to deny the legitimacy of and article entitled United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. I know of no current British Claim to Ireland and your last two sentences are a nonsense and bad faith. A recognition of the historical origins of the term and its limitations is surely enough. --Snowded (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Another sophism; the majority of Welsh people clearly want your United Kingdom; you personally are therefore in a minority in Wales. In contrast, British rule has been ousted from most of Ireland, a clear sign that British rule has been viewed as a hostile foreign occupying force by the vast majority of people in Ireland. Ergo, claiming Ireland is in your "British Isles" is simply a political assertion which is rejected by the vast majority of the population of Ireland, the entire country. The Welsh, on the other hand, are seemingly delighted to ride on the back of Englishness with a nod to Welsh identity once in a while sufficient to assuage their sense of regionalism. An entirely different situation, in other words.

2.Let me get this straight: you know of no "current British claim to Ireland"? Have you been hiding in a bunker since around 14 August 1969? Are they red postboxes I see from Newry on? Or British Union Jack flags flying over British military garrisons in Derry today in 2008? Wakey, wakey.

3. As for your view that "a recognition of the historical origins of the term... is surely enough", I propose that we now recognise the historical origins of 'Nigger' as sufficient and continue calling African-Americans "Niggers".

4. If there is as you claim "nonsense" being said here, I submit that it is a lot closer to you and your fellow British nationalist posters than me. I am fully cognisant of Britain's ignominious role in Ireland, both in the past and up to the present. You, and other people of your national disposition, are clearly intent upon keeping your heads in the sand about what has been carried out in Ireland in the name of Britain and Britishness. You really still think of yourselves as "civilisers" serving, at the end of your very long day, some "greater good" in Ireland. That suits where you all are coming from, doesn't it. Ireland in your "British Isles"? How dare you. The rapist is not naming his victim. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon, please remember the talk page guidelines and WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPA. Please also stop making assumptions about editors. I'm not, and never have been, a British Nationalist (capital or small 'n'). My view on the term are set out (somewhere) above on this page. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That is fine that you have set out your views. I have set out mine and when I am accused to talking 'nonsense' for expressing those views I will respond likewise. That you decide you do not like my reaction does not give you, or those of your frame of mind, the right to starve my views of the oxygen of publicity, as one nice Englishwoman put it in 1988. I do not have to accept any British nomenclature for my home. I live in Ireland; I therefore am Irish. I live in Europe; I therefore am a European. To claim that I live in what British people have termed the "British Isles" is, despite the wire-balancing act by some wikipedia editors, ultimately an explicit claim that I am British. That, son, is a profoundly political claim. It is hostile, aggressive and completely about imposing a British nationalist identity upon me, my family and everybody I know. It doesn't get any more political. Anybody who partakes in that British nationalist project is of that 'national disposition'. They are aligning themselves with that agenda for who I am. You cannot censor this view simply because it doesn't accord with your British Comics outlook on the world. While you were reading British Comics I was reading books like Edward Said's Orientalism (book) and Declan Kiberd's Inventing Ireland (book), both of which are books that emphasise the importance to colonial powers of controlling the representation of countries they have conquered. Claiming Ireland to be in this "British Isles" is precisely about that, about controlling Irish identity, Irish direction. It is disingenuous in the extreme to claim this title is merely geographic: it is merely political! 86.42.90.145 (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, "son". My contributions to this project listed on my user page (you're definitely not registering as an editor yourself, then? - how convenient!) may or may not bear any relationship to my other reading material, then or later. In any case, my reading of anti-establishment, anti-Thatcherite comics is irrelevant to this article. "the right to starve (your) views of the oxygen of publicity"? Er, sorry, you're here on exactly the same basis as the rest of us. That includes adherence to various policies such as WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPA. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I can't see any reference in Edward Said's Orientalism to the British Isles. Maybe I miss it. However, if 86.42.90.145 is so well read perhaps he could focus on contributing citations to books or other documents that do mention the British Isles and discussion on the name. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt you've ever read Orientalism, considering you have a marked inability to read my single sentence mentioning Edward Said. When you do actually read Orientalism you will discover that the entire book is about how the control of nomenclature/representation was vital in shaping occidental perceptions of, and demands from, what they termed the "Orient". If you do, however, want to read Edward Said on Ireland and how controlling representation through names was vital to the British colonial project, try Culture and Imperialism. He even devotes a section to Ireland under British colonialism, entitled 'Yeats and Decolonisation'. There you will find gems like: "One of Brian Friel's most powerful plays, Translations (1980), deals with the shattering effect of the Ordnance Survey on the indigenous inhabitants. 'In such a process,' Hamer continues, 'the colonised is typically [supposed to be] passive and spoken for, does not control its own representation but is represented in accordance with a hegemonic impulse by which it is constructed as a stable and unitary entity.' And what was done in Ireland was also done in Bengal or, by the French, in Algeria." (Vintage, 1994, page 273). And, felicitously, wasn't it Nicholas Canny, the foremost historian of Early Modern Ireland, who described the term "British Isles" as 'hegemonic locution' according to the long list of citations from academics in the archives of this Talk Page. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon, you are "beyond the pale" and I think beyond hope. Dpn't impute motives where you know nothing. Some of us were on civil rights marches in Belfast several decades ago and were then and now beyond this type of crude stereotyping. No one is making a claim that you are British. You aren't worthy of the inheritance that won most of Ireland independence, or of the modern day where the Boyne site can see a meeting that would have been inconceivable when I was growing up. You shame that inheritance by your intemperate language. --Snowded (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

But that British Isles = British equation is precisely the only conclusion to this article. If I live in Derry, I am a Derryman, if I live in Ireland, I am Irish, in Europe, I am European. If people accept the insistence of British nationalists that Ireland is in an entity they are calling the "British Isles" the only logical conclusion is that I am "British". That's not going to happen. It is illogical to say I am not British if you say I am in the entity you are naming the "British Isles". PS I accept the 'Beyond the Pale" comment with the greatest pride, and would believe my "Get your grubby hands off my country's name" attitude to this article is part of the finest historical tradition of all, a tradition from the glens of Wicklow in 1580 to Cath Chéim an Fhia in 1822 to the Bogside in 1969 which I am speechless with pride about. The British will never take my Irishness and impose the shame of their name on me. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What if you live in the Americas? I'm sure the Mexicans et al will be happy to here you calling them American. josh (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Us Americanos get along very well, thank you. Excepting the Canucks, that is.—eric 17:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop picking fights with people who have sympathy for your point of view. It makes me wonder what you would say to someone who did'nt! Jack forbes (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon - I am genuinely sorry for you, to live in a world characterised by so much hatred cannot be good for you. To believe that labelling a geography article by its historic name (and making that history evident) is part of some British conspiracy to takeaway your Irishness is absurd and if you genuinely believe it then you must be taking slight at so many things that you can't sleep at night. I had a drink in Belfast a month or so ago with a friend who is a Unionist. During the troubles we were at various times on opposite sides of the barricades although I could retreat for extended periods to Wales or Dublic. I remember being told one night during that time I could not go out because "I looked like a Protestant" and where the innocent question "which school did you go to" was far from innocent. Now we can have a drink and call each other Fenian Bastard and Proddy Dog as an affectionate reference to a past that is now behind us.

Until you live in the current day we will get nowhere. ' So to other editors.' If we label this article as using language which, while still in current use (ignorant, but innocent of deliverate imperial pretension), is historic and geographical but no longer currently political then can it go back to being a geography article?

@86, you have no idea what I've read. However, if Said doesn't refer to the British Isles as a term, then it would be your interpretation that he means to include it in his ideas about domination through naming. I expect he would include it if it was discussed with him, but if his books don't mention it - and I can't see that they do - then a discussion of Ireland in general isn't "admissible evidence" about a term in specific, at least unless you've got a specific section in ming that you'd care to share. Canny is already on the page of references you encourage me to read, although not with the specific example you mention. Instead of questioning people's reading skills you might add references. At least that's productive. As for the America's, like Scandinavia, it may be controversial or not. Either way it's a separate issue. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Still in use". Just on the intro. This makes it sound (to my ear) as if the term is "still in use" by some odd wierdos in sandals or in the hills of Kentucky. Is that just how I read it? If other's read it the same, can we agree that the term still in widespread global use? Surely, apart from the fact that that's a fact, if you oppose the term "British Isles" isn't it important to stress that it's still widely used and shouldn't be, and if you support the term "British Isles" isn't it important to stress that it's still widely used, and if you're just interested in the facts isn't it important to say that it's still widely used? Is this something all "sides" can agree on? Wotapalaver (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"still in use" means just what it says, it means it is still in use and is the most neutral statement. Widely not not is irrelevant, it adds no value and is easier to read as biased. I think we all know that (i) if it was named today it would not be called British Isles and (ii) that is what it has been known as. Keep it as "still in use" and we have a chance of agreement, add "widely" and I will begin is suspect another agenda. --Snowded (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm suspecting an agenda too... The term is, like it or hate it, still the most widely used name for the island group. Including "still in use" is not a neutral statement. On another issue - this article is about the archipelago - not the terminology. Can people therefore please leave the intro as "are a group of islands" (or archipelago, but in that case I want a decent climate!), not "a name for the island group". Feel free to write about the terminology at Terminology of the British Isles. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to try an atoll chain, calling it an archipelago won't help the climate.—eric 04:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

actually I don't think it is the most widely used term. There is no political agenda in "In use". I would be happy to say a "group of islands", but you need to state that the term is geographical not political and is historical in origin if still in use. I am proposing a simple device here to resolve a conflict and get this back to a geography article. Trying to divert it to Terminology of the British Isles is to be almost as intransigent as our anon contributor. The essence of WIkipedia is some give and take. --Snowded (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

@Snowded. Why don't you think it is the most widely used term? Wotapalaver (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly whether it is or is not the most widely used term is irrelevant, "In use" is enough and non-controversial. Secondly I don;t often hear it any more, an internet search reveals it in use for Wales, Scotland and England but not Ireland, as well as all four. I think it is unnessarily provocative to say "most widely" and it adds nothing. --Snowded (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And one other thing. If we describe it as geographical now, there are two questions. First, is it? Second, what about the past? Wasn't it a largely political term in the past? Wotapalaver (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What about keeping the "past" in a separate article(s). The term is accepted by consensus here to be a geographical term, it makes sense for the bulk of the article to be non-geo-political. --Bardcom (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't like that because then you'd lose the section on the names of the islands through the years, which is the most interesting bit on the whole page, IMHO. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't see why you'd have to necessarily lose all of that section, and could certainly appear in summary with the main parts moved to their own articles - could even have a "History of the term British Isles" article. Guarantee that no information would be lost, and that this article would be shorter, better, and with a lot less to arguments. --Bardcom (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree --Snowded (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) Two things. Let's try, as suggested before and started a little with the list of island names, to reduce the overlap with other articles. This is probably possible with the history sections, where there are lots of main articles already. Second, the specific piece on "the names of the islands throughout the ages" (which is different from "the history of the term British Isles") doesn't appear anywhere else so should be kept and should also be easy to retain after the other sections are shortened. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Originally it was a political term, but I don't think that there ever was a name for the group of Islands. Iceland was once included in an older related name. The Faroe Islands are in the same group, so they should be included in the archepelago list too. The Channel Islands are off-shore France, and do not belong to the group. So it mainly was a political name that has come down from the past. I know a lot of people in Ireland avoid the name, and see it as a political relic on older maps. It's rarely seen on modern mapmaking and printing. I have travelled far and wide, and have never heard the term being used in conversation. that's my 2 cent input here. Cherry rose (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

BBC TV (and radio) weather forecasts use the term to refer to all the islands; presumably because there isn't another name for it. A bit difficult to cite as they're broadcast rather than printed. Bazza (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Could those that currently see a need for the NPOV tag at the top of the article please briefly list their reasons below? It's at times difficult to follow every happening on this talk page.—eric 21:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The chances of this article being viewed as NPOV (no matter what's in the content)? is very slim. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't give up that quickly. If (as it is now) the term is acknowledged as being geographical not political, its origins are clear and offence noted then I can't see any rational for keeping the NPOV tag other than an argument for deletion or renaming. That needs to be resolved - let someone propose it, discuss it and agree or go to mediation. --Snowded (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Since no reason has (yet) been given for the tag, I'm removing it. Waggers (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there are people who edit this page who still regard it as in dispute. Just because they didn't come here today doesn't mean they'll agree. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikipéire - can you outline concisely why you feel the article is not NPOV? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article swings between being a political entity and a geographical one. The argument can't be made that its a geo entity considering the channel islands is defined as being in it. There's also the name issue and whether how offensive it is in relation to Ireland. Various editors opinions are defining whats being said. Therefore its not neutral. There's other reason too but you get the idea that the article needs to be sorted out.WikipÉire ^♣ 17:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree and the current article is very confusing in that it certainly combines these different "concepts" throughout the article. The consensus is that this is a geographical term. The historic/political stuff should be moved (and referred to where appropriate). THat would remove the NPOV objection (and about 90% of the arguments). --Bardcom (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I started out thinking a purely geographical article could be done but I now think the article can't avoid being geo-political in nature. Its easy to say its one or the other but in practice its difficult. If an article is written about a British Isle say the Isle of Lewis, it contains geography, geology, history, politics, economy, religion, etc. How is it going to be possible to have BI article that doesn't touch on these sort of areas. It must surely be possible, with good will, to write a neutral article that gives an in depth view of the islands collectively. -Bill Reid | Talk 18:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this, but I think that it can be done. The article on Isle of Lewis includes politics/economy/religion but it's not contentious or divided. It's not like you need a "North Lewis" article and a "South Lewis" article. There are better examples of articles - for example Outer Hebrides can summarize "The Hebrides under Norse Control" and point to a more detailed article "History of the Outer Hebrides". This is the model for the British Isles article. What do you think? --Bardcom (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Billreid....you long for good will! Good luck! Wotapalaver (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is not a political article. The article is not a geographic article. The article is an encyclopaedic article on the British Isles. That includes geography AND politics (and history, and much more). As with every other area of Wikipedia, we report what reliable sources say without injecting our own spin on them. So if some sources include the Channel Islands and others don't, then we report that. If some sources say the term is offensive to some people, then we report that. We avoid weasel words (like "many") and try to adhere to the other style guidelines. I really don't see why this is so difficult for some users to understand. Waggers (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

@Waggers, possibly, we are agreeing, but possibly not. It is a fact that the article is about the "British Isles". The British Isles has many different meanings/interpretations going back over time, but the current understanding is that it is a geographical term. Therefore the encyclopedic article should reflect this. What that also means is that it is NOT a political term or geo-political term. So this article, as an encyclopedic article, should reflect the consensus that it is a geographical term. If we can't get a general agreement on this point, then we need to re-test consensus - perhaps a straw poll will quickly do this. It's a very fundamental point, and requires consensus. --Bardcom (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is with the definition of "geography". Geography includes both political geography and physical geography. The inclusion of the Channel Islands (which seems to be the biggest stumbling block at the moment) doesn't stop the British Isles from being a geographical entity. The other point I'd make here is that verifiability is more important than talk page consensus. It's not for us as editors to decide how to define the British Isles or what kind of entity it is; we just report what the reliable sources say, no more, no less. Waggers (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

@Waggers, I agree with most of what you say, but "many" in the context it's in is not a weasel word. The only category of "weasel word" that might apply is the one where the weasel statement is "There is evidence that...", to which the Weasel Word policy asks "What evidence? Is the source reliable?". In this case the sources are reliable and they say "many" and "often". There's no weasel wording. Saying "some" would be weasel wording since it contradicts cited reputable sources.

<irony>If one wanted to do weasel wording in the introduction one could say 'There is evidence that the term "British Isles" is regarded as grossly insulting to Irish people.' One or other of the Canny references could well be used to argue that such a characterization would not generally be regarded as unacceptable to popular wisdom and that up to 90% of people regard the term as inappropriate in modern use. That might lead to a situation that some people might view as weasel wording. </irony> Wotapalaver (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that "many" just doesn't read as encyclopaedic language. It doesn't actually mean anything different to "some" or "a few" - it's somewhere between "one" and "all". "Many" and "a few" have unquantifiable implications behind them (does "many" mean "the majority" and "a few" "a minority"?) and therefore could carry undue weight. Personally though I don't have a problem with using "many" in this case since, as you say, it's used in the source.

What we do need to avoid though is the implication that the majority feel incredibly strongly about the issue. I suspect that a minority feel very strongly, and the majority aren't really bothered but would say they don't like the term "British Isles" if they were pushed to make a decision. What we must avoid is combining sources that say these two things to imply that the majority strongly dislike the term. (I don't think that has happened, I'm just flagging it as something we need to look out for). Waggers (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected (again)

Right I've protected the page for a two week period. I had hoped it wouldn't be necessary but this continually warring over the placement of a tag is dragging the article down. Please discuss it, and please remember the protected version is not an endorsed version but just the version it was on at the time it was protected. Canterbury Tail talk 18:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

2 weeks excessive.

I think that a 2 week article lock is excessive. How can this be reviewed or changed? --Bardcom (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it could be lifted if all the disagreements are sorted out before then.WikipÉire ^♣ 11:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What about a policy of blocking any user who interferes with the POV flag before consensus has been shown to have changed (i.e. while discussion is ongoing)? That would encourage discussion and stop the edit-warring and leave the article unblocked. --Bardcom (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that 2 weeks is excessive. Either that or all the recent edit warring editors should be blocked from editing the article for a similar period. I mean, really, there was an edit war about a dispute banner! It must be a candidate for silliest edit war ever. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is consensus before such date then I'll lift it. However look at the page history. Look at the talk page. Is it really excessive? Considering the number of times this article has been locked an indefinite lock and admin only edits wouldn't be unheard of. Canterbury Tail talk 21:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, 2-weeks is not excessive. Infact, it might be too short. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I support removing the protection as Ben has clearly locked the article in a pro-British pov state (accidentally, no doubt). We should replace the tag and then lock it if necessary. Sarah777 (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's consensus for a change to be made, it can still be made by an admin while the page is protected. Given the behaviour of some editors recently (and particularly every time protection expires or is lifted) I'm almost inclined to support indefinite protection, to make sure there is indeed consensus for any change. Waggers (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Faroe Islands, geographically, is an intergal part of the group.

The article should be quite clear on some points, or some readers could become quite confused. Is the article about an entity called the British Isles, or is it about the main archipelago that lies off Western Europe? If it's about the archipelago, then we must include the Faroe Islands, as they were formed from the same Thulean basin that the rest of the islands emerged from, during the Paleogene period. Channel Islands are out, as they are not in the archipelago. As regards edit-warring, this particular article is a bit "untouchable", and judging by the edit history, it appears to be well-watched, watched like a hawk! Cherry rose (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Are the Faroes on the same part of the shelf? There's an image on the page that shows a "gap" in the continental shelf before the Faroes. Citation please! And yes, this article is a delicate beast. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Philip's Concise World Atlas, 8th edition, shows the sea floor dropping to between 500 m and 1000 m between Britain and the Faroe Islands, which means it is not on the continental shelf. The same is true of Rockall. If you're after a geographical definition based on the continental shelf, rather than a geopolitical definition, neither should be included. The Atlantic Ocean is separated from the Norwegian Sea by a submarine ridge running from Scotland to Greenland via North Rona, the Faroes and Iceland. It appears that the lowest point on this ridge is the Wyville-Thomson Ridge between the Faroes and North Rona. (This can be confirmed more authoritatively with GEBCO data, but the site is currently broken.) I hope we can all agree that Greenland is not in the British Isles, so we need to draw a line and say everything on one side is in the British Isles, and anything on the other side is not. From a bathymetric point of view, one obvious line is the Rockall Trough which runs up to the W-T Ridge, and separates the Faroes and Rockall from the main part of this island group. — ras52 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Iceland and Denmark argue that Rockall is outside the jurisdiction of either the UK or Ireland. They argue that the continental shelf marks the limit on any claim. Denmark claims Rockall on behalf of the Faroe Islands. This matter is still to be settled by the four governments. This map (Icelandic law) [14] shows the sea to the west of Ireland to be Icelandic territory! - ClemMcGann (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce)The term dates from a time before there were bathymetric surveys of the Atlantic so the current knowledge wouldn't necessarily mean that they couldn't be included. The Channel Islands are included for (purely) political reasons rather than geography. It's more a question of whether people mean the Faroes when they say "British Isles". My experience is that they don't, and similarly with Rockall. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, that map suggests that the island of Rockall is in undisputed British territory — the island is on the far east of the Rockall Plateau, and within the UK's EEZ (the area delimited by a black line) . My understanding is that the governments of Denmark, Ireland and Iceland no longer Rockall per se, rather they claim that it is an uninhabitable rock and that Britain can't use it to claim an extended EEZ further out into the Atlantic. (And this is what the Wikipedia article on Rockall states too.) But lets not argue about this, as it's not particularly relevant to the current discussion. Irrespective of which countries claims Rockall, the geographical status of Rockall is similar to that of the Faroes — they are islands outside of the continental shelf. And the map you link to makes this very clear. — ras52 (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was off reading the Rockall article too. It says that the UK claims Rockall and administers it as part of Harris, i.e. part of Scotland, i.e. part of Great Britain. Not sure how to fit that in with the definition of "The British Isles" Wotapalaver (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this paper confirms that geographically Rockall, and the whole Rockall Plateau, is not considered part of the British Isles. The Rockall Plateau is an extensive shallow water area located south of Iceland and west of the British Isles: it is separated from the British Isles by the 3000 m deep Rockall Trough. I think it has already been established that the term "British Isles" has both geographical and geopolitical meanings, and that the geographical and geopolitical regions are not necessarily coterminous. Perhaps Rockall is an example of something that is generally excluded geographically yet included geopolitically? — ras52 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Historically, the term was geopolitical. Current consensus is that it is solely a geographical term. But perhaps your assertion is closer to reality - and if so, it lends an enormous weight to those editors seeking a POV tag on the entire article. Geographically, as a term, it should exclude Rockall, and the Channel Islands. If consensus needs testing on whether the term is still a geopolitical term, then it's easy to test it. --Bardcom (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And if you want a reference for the UK's claim to Rockall, you probably can't get much more authoritative than the Isle of Rockall Act (1972). — ras52 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

so, Rockall can be part of Scotland but not part of the BIs ??? ClemMcGann (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Geo-politically, yet. Geographically, doesn't appear so... --Bardcom (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles used as a geographic term, yes! Jack forbes (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may wish it was a geographic term and is often described as a geographic term, but many scholars also describe it as a political term, or politically loaded, or politically incorrect, or various. It's hard to sustain an argument that it's a purely geographic term. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a purely geographic term. Political connotations are POV attachments. I imagine you're worried about a slippery slope whereby people will go from understanding that Ireland is a British Isle to thinking that it is or should be be part of Britain. I think you're worrying too much. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 19:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing pure about geography, though. BI is used as an identity term. The claim that the Irish are British because they are from the British Isles is something I hear often, even amongst people who know that Ireland is not nor believe that it should be part of Britain. Nuclare (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is still incredibly long. At the moment threads are archived once they have been inactive for 4 weeks. Does anyone have any objections to reducing this to 2 weeks? Waggers (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There were some very active threads recently. Best let them fade away then the page will be short enough on 4 weeks. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You must be joking! You are the last person we need in control of archiving: you are the ultimate stonewaller, and endless repetition and chatter suits you perfectly. If the page is long at 4 weeks it's long at 4 weeks - it's the minimum archive time as far as I'm concerned. People are entitled to refer back without being either forced into the archives or made to start again. You can't have it all!?--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Only had time to take quick looks in recently - followed thread wrongly so apologise for inaccurate commentabove .--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

ad hominen attacks are not tolerated. Your comment below makes it obvious that you were venting at Wotapalaver, regardless of what he said. Please WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --Bardcom (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for ignoring my apology and explanation, Bardcom - and for originally inserting your finger-wagging little comment just above it, calling it "your comment below". Bit of a hostile thing to do in itself, imo.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Nice that what I write is read with such care. Meantime, I added another reference to the references page. It says "Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles';". The publisher is Cambridge University Press, 1996. The book received positive reviews in Foreign Affairs and The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (whatever that is).Wotapalaver (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How about thinking with care? What new ref have you added in "the meantime"? You never had (and still don't have) anything like the evidence to support the way you exploit the word "many" (in Wikipedia's encyclopedic terms - not just your own biased terms) - but that will dealt with in time. Kearney, who wrote the book you keep quoting (but did he actually write the dust jacket, where the quote is from?) consistently uses the name "British Isles" for contemporary society within the book - a book, incidentally, you repeatedly refer to but never actually name: is that because it is embarrassingly called "British Isles", Wotapalava? --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Let's look at two diffs. [15] and [16]. The first is evidence of someone neither reading nor thinking clearly (Matt Lewis), and the second is someone providing references to add value to the article (me). As for the title of the book, like the article, I am not advocating a change, I am simply pointing out that reputable sources say that the term "British Isles" is often offensive to many Irish. Sorry if you don't agree but it's not me you don't agree with, it's a bunch of Cambridge and Oxford published scholars. Once more I am forced to suggest that you READ THE REFERENCES. (oh yeah, Eric R added another reference which is worth reading too. [17]) Wotapalaver (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously apologies for inaccuracies mean nothing to you - how foolish you are. As a general character ref it was certainly spot on. As far as new refs added to the British Isles article is concerned: Eric R added "British History: A Plea for a New Subject" on May 13th - it is a second ref by J.G.A. Pocock, left next to the single quote from his 3-page tract (so presumably the quote is the same in both refs). So hardly a compelling new reference!! Now what was it you recently added yourself?

Of course you are referring to the highly-irregular "Talk:British Isles/References" page, aren't you? (though you wouldn't want to make that clear when you shout "READ THE REFERENCES", would you?). Only you and Eric R have added a little to that motley list since the time I told you I have indeed studied it. Eric R added a large quote which says this: "It may seem at first bizarre and evasive, but it may be that within a generation or two 'These Islands' will be boldly emblazoned on maps where 'British Isles' once stood.". How does that back-up your enforced "many Irish" - the line I am concerned with? As for your own new ref to that 'ref-page' (added yesterday, for heaven's sake - and you have the rudeness to shout "READ THE REFERENCES"!!) - I have to take your word it includes the exact phrase "many Irish find the term offensive" (ie the exact way you want it, and not just a quote of the Kearney jacket either), as I haven't read the book. Considering your constant exaggeration and gaming (by which I'd simply refer to most of what you write - especially the above), I would like to see the book, to be frank.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. You would like to see the book. So, you haven't read the references. It's not hard. The ref EricR added discusses how the term "The British Isles" may disappear within a generation. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Meantime I suggested you READ THE REFERENCES because you asked 'What new ref have you added in "the meantime"?' indicating that you hadn't yet read the additional reference that I said I had recently added to the (perfectly regular) back-up page (the page which you previously said you were perfectly familiar with and which we're waiting for you to critique). I could easily move all the references into the article, but consensus has indicated that this shouldn't be necessary. As for me "gaming", I (a) reject the suggestion and (b) ask you to read the references. This is tiresome. Just read the references. They provide plenty of back up for "many" and - in a curious inversion - the reference discovered most recently is actually verbatim almost identical to the text in the article. I'm done talking to you until you read the references and/or provide some counter references. Otherwise no progress can be made. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Progress" - you have some gall! Try reading again my comment above - I said not having the book I will have to take your word for it, and I find that difficult to do. You have about 20 times now practically called me a liar regarding reference reading (telling me again and again to read them), so you can hardly take offense over that. The extra ref does not make any difference at all to the phrasing of the introduction, and the issues of bias, forking, ref-list abuse and weight surrounding it (all mainly down to you, and just a couple of other people). I don't have your kind of time at all, as I have said (where the hell do you get it from?). ALL your combined references are simply lacking in the context of your politically-driven weight. There could not possibly be any less amount of references available on any similar subject than those that you (and a dedicated few) have found over the past year or two for this one - it actually always surprises me how few you have, even providing for the widespread and totally unapologetic usage of the word. It is why you have to exaggerate and bully, and spin the context so much. If universal encyclopedias like this one cannot be freed from the likes of you, where would we all be? Totally controlled – ironic maybe (given that you feel such a 'victim'), but true. Wikipedia has to have it's own objective context - IT DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU. As you love repetition with capitals so much you can have some back - Wikipedia DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU. However much of a righteous 'anti-unionist' battle you think you are in. People like me are simply trying to protect Wikipedia (and for the best of reasons), not defending some kind of Modern British Empire. Can't you see that?--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A digitized google books version of Wotapalaver's reference can be found at this link, page xiv. Do not accuse other editors of falsifying quotes without any evidence. If you take issue with the way references are used within this article, please make your case on the reliable sources noticeboard or start an article RfC to gather input from other editors, these continuing unsupported assertions are unproductive.—eric 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What "continuing unsupported assertions"? I object to that: and I am a continuing discussion (though the way this page moves you may not have noticed that - I cannot support all my comments every time, though I take the pains to do it). I'd appreciate you just giving me the ref without taking an ambiguous and generalising swipe! The ref is another by Pocock, and just like the Kearney one (Kearney, who unlike Pocock actively favours using the term "British Isles") does not back up the claim - it is an unsupported bit of prose. At Wikipedia we have to treat it as such, and judge it based on ALL the available counter evidence we can find. I originally looked for evidence to support this claim, and have found endless 'real life' counter-evidence. You cannot directly counter a weaselly word like "Many" but you can ask salient questions: How many quotes like this would you expect? (more than a couple surely?) What evidence is there of reporting of this? Is the second/third stage notability quality? What do people think now? Is there evidence? Does it stand up (evidence like Folens actually suggest "many" Irish are not bothered). Remember that "many" is not put in quotes (and it has been reverted when I tried that): the article has simply appropriated the word as fact! Wikipedia now states "the term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable": OK, the word "may" has been placed as a 'compromise', but it is all too weaselly and leading for an encyclopedia. People simply forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The way the Ref Section scrolls onwards with bold text is a scandalous spinning of a paucity of refs, and we have a "naming dispute" article too: It's all too much weight for the "dispute", and it has been kept that way through stonewalling and edit warring by a very small group of committed people.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis again seems to think that I'm on some political campaign, "anti-unionist" no less. Nope. Just on a reference campaign. I know very well that I don't own Wikipedia and that the only thing Wikipedia should respect is reputable references. If Matt Lewis can find some references to support his feelings then he should get them, otherwise we should believe them as much as we believe (to quote Matt Lewis) that Hitler was a Finnish pole vaulter. There are no references to support Hitler being a Finnish pole vaulter, and no references to support Matt Lewis's beliefs about the term British Isles not being disliked in Ireland. Perhaps both are true, but until we have references they're stuck in an endless loop until Matt Lewis reads the references; and I mean read them, not just sneer at them. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting)How can you possibly be putting down this source? It is laughable saying that your made up everyday evidence somehow conteracts this. You clearly have not been to Ireland. You have no legitimate source to indicate otherwise. The Folens evidence you are talking about was a kids school's atlas. A teacher complained. Who else was going to complain, an 8 year old kid? This book thatWotapalaver sourced says many Irish find it offensive. You can ignore that, but Wikipedia can't and won't.WikipÉire ^♣ 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys ain't gonna agree, so why bother pestering each other here. Take your dispute to your personal pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How many more rounds are the two of you, gonna go? Why are you both arguing here (under the Archive posting section)? GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as there are editors (any editors) who prefer their own knowledge to reference then I'll keep supporting references. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"spinning certain references" you mean. The word "many" cannot be counter-reffed, as it is too weasely and generalistic: it is not an encyclopedic word: and there is still no evidence of what present-day feeling is in Ireland (there is a very telling lack of it). --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I just verify a factual point here. Matt made reference to Kearney's (Hugh Kearney rather than Richard Kearney, I assume??) comments being on the "dust jacket," which he implies may not be written by Kearney. Do we know that Hugh's comments are on the dust jacket and only the dust jacket? I thought it was in the Introduction. Is that not true? Nuclare (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To answer my own question, here's the Cambridge site on Hugh Kearney's book. It is here The "many in the Irish Republic..." comment is in the Preface. Specifically, the Preface to the Second Edition. Hugh Kearney's name is at the bottom of the preface. These comments are not from a dust jacket and they are being attributed directly to Kearney. Assuming this is the Kearney you are talking about, I don't know what the talk of dismissing the source by referencing 'dust jackets' is for. btw, the second preface is an interesting read, particularly given that the comments on the name "BI" are a second edition addition. Nuclare (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The dust-jacket factor was pointed out on this Talk page (I can't find it to say by who). It is actually extraneous to all my points and not a major argument of mine at all, and I have certainly not used it to 'base' anything on! I simply don't need to. I have always used the dustjacket point with a question mark anyway - this is just a case of someone chasing after a weak point, so I won't use it again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, as far as I can see, the comments in the reference EricR found are also an addition to the introduction in the 2003 version of a book originally published in 1973. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That would appear to be rational, yes - but where is the evidence of the increasing public support that this is supposed to show?? We are supposed to look for support for these kinds of generalising words (providing we consider ourselves serious encycolopedia compilers). I cannot, nor ever have, seen the kind of support for "many" that we would need to justify approprating it the way you have (as oppose to just using it - possibly quoting it - fairly). I find it expoloiting the article for political motives - as with the blown-out references, and "dispute" page - it's all exploitation of the "British Isles" article. But behind it all is a just a hollow wind where the daisies should be growing. You are absolutely fixated on your own hard-won and mixed-quality gang of references, and are just ignoring the lack of available evidence for the 'real life' public support (esp the papers - major or not - that feed the public) that we need. This evidence should be very easy to find indeed if we are to appropriate the word "many" in this way - where the hell is it?--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear to be rational. As for me seeing "public support", I've seen it. However, my personal experience doesn't count. However, I've also seen the references. They do count. You say you haven't seen "public support". Your personal experience doesn't count. Also, you have seen the references, if you've read them by now. They're from solid, scholarly sources and they say "many" and "often". Wotapalaver (talk) 07:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave it at 4-weeks. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, 4 weeks it is. Waggers (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Roger, over & out. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the archives

The Autoarchive User:Miszabot was told to archive using a poor choice of parameters which resulted in 1 thread per archive page. I've merged pages 14-32 into 13-16 and also turn on an indexer. I hope this is better for everyone -- KelleyCook (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Systematic elimination of British Isles

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you think there's a problem with this page, and with Great Britain and Ireland, it's nothing compared to what's going on elsewhere. I've been looking at edit histories of interested parties and it turns out that User:Bardcom has been systematically removing British Isles links from Wikipedia. Going back to about March, this user has removed literally hundreds of instances of British Isles. A whole range of reasons are given, including WP:NOR, removal of unreferened facts (where he has added the cite tag some time earlier), not being wholly geographic, subject not including ALL areas of the British Isles, and many others. In fact, User:Bardcom seems to have a priority mission for the removal of British Isles. So ... the arguments about this article will, in time, be academic. It will become an orphan article ... then deletion beckons. Just thought you'd all like to know. Oh, and another user's doing it as well - User:Crispness (to a lesser extent) 141.6.8.89 (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (Yawn) Another anon IP editor. The IP address traces back to BASF IT services in Mannheim Germany. --Bardcom (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Please note, the comments in this archive are very relevant to the British Isles article. Please read them. I too have noticed what's going on here. CarterBar (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC) This section has been archived for a reason. If you wish to discuss other users' editing patterns, then take it somewhere else, please. --Schcamboaon scéal? 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC) This is the place to take it, because it affects this article - big time! Failing that, where should it go? CarterBar (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Don't worry about it. The term British Isles, can never be completely deleted from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Another conspiracy theory. there not always true you know! Jack forbes (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC) If you don't believe that a group of people are trying to remove where possible, or negatively 'taint' the term "British Isles", you should check their edits histories (as the IP above suggets), and the archives too for the odd off-guard comments! Some editors would probably even admit it. It's hardly "X-Files" stuff! --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Hey I ain't denying that; I'm sure you'll agree though that there are also many editors intent on adding it where either "Britain" or "the UK and Ireland" would be far more appropriate. Probably balances itself out, I daresay. --Schcamboaon scéal? 20:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Politics of the "British Isles" in 2008

Somebody above says, 'Historically, the term was geopolitical. Current consensus is that it is solely a geographical term.' There is a school of history today in 2008 termed "New British" which contends that Ireland is part of what they term the "British Isles". The chief proponent of this school is a British historian called Steven Ellis. His specialisation is English administrative structure in late medieval Ireland. From this standpoint he has come to the conclusion that Ireland has been, as the English sources claim, a legitimate part of England's domains. He especially equates Ireland with his native northern England, claiming that Ireland was a border region of the English state from the late medieval period. For Ellis, the Gaels and Normans were simply variations in what he considers a diverse state. His thesis is that Ireland is a "British" region; his latest book 'The Making of the British Isles' contends that it is only the Irish education system from 1922 that started introducing a concept of Irishness uniting Gaels and Normans and that Ireland is, essentially, an integral part of Britain that has been undermined by what he terms Irish nationalism. The "British Isles" for him is explicitly a political entity breached by Irish rebellion against the English crown, the entity he promotes as the legitimate ruler of Ireland. Rather than varieties of Irishness in Ireland, Ellis speaks of varieties of Englishness in Ireland. This goes far beyond what even doyens of revisionism like Roy Foster contend. To Ellis, Irish independence from 1922 is the abberation, and English rule the impartial norm. Instructively in understanding his views, he travelled to Queen's University in Belfast to do his PhD, and has consistently linked his views on the past with his sympathies with unionism- most infamously in a History Ireland article in 1998 where he contended that the Good Friday Agreement of that year was simply an acknowledgement of British right to rule in Ireland. One of his articles complaining about Britishness being left out can be read here: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=30886960844883 and another arguing for making Ireland British here: http://www.stm.unipi.it/Clioh/tabs/libri/7/02-Ellis_21-32.pdf This is despite the fact that the British in sixteenth-century Ireland were foreigners to not only all the people in Ireland but to the English Tudor state. There is not a scintilla of evidence to say otherwise. As with much of Ellis's work, these issues are not addressed, and he has been in more spats than you could shake a stick to, most famously with Kenneth Nicholls in 1998. Nevertheless, Ellis's views are very much part of a British nationalist view of Ireland's position. They, therefore, cannot be dismissed as being simply in the past. In short, people are very wrong to argue that the term "British Isles" is not viewed in political- indeed, imperialist- terms by its proponents in 2008. The term is immensely political to them. Ellis should be read by everybody in this argument, if only to clarify the historical and political perspective motivating the remaining proponents of the term "British Isles" in academia today. 86.42.111.160 (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

and the point is? Ellis is in the same category as Holocaust deniers, he exists but any support is marginal and I'm not sure that a British Nationalist perspective exists as a coherent position. This article while geographical needs to acknowledge the historical political use and current sensitivity just as an article on the Falklands would have to reflect the politics of naming and ownership but could still be about geography. --Snowded (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that there remains a strong ideological perspective perceiving Ireland to be, politically, part of a greater union with Britain. That union, its proponents believe, is the "British Isles"- as the title of Ellis's book "The making of the British Isles" makes very, very clear. (Obviously, a geographical entity cannot be made by politicians or anybody else). In this modernday context, it is disingenuous for people to say "British Isles" is simply a geographical term. There are very many people who are clearly perceiving Ireland's position in traditional "British Isles" political perspectives, and this book, (published in 2007) is the most recent in this (albeit decreasing) tradition. The utilisation of the concept of 'making' the "British Isles" is especially significant and is an explicit rebuff to contentions that "British Isles" is a geographical term. 86.42.111.160 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)