Talk:British Isles

---

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 summarize 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 similar 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 haven't 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 [1]. 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 no-one 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 dis-empowerment 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 burden 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 hitherto 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 enough 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)

Hi all. Should we replace the proposed Merger tag on this article? As per my note here, I removed the tag from this article on May 13th or so and no-one objected. By some oversight I didn't immediately remove it from the other article. I did that yesterday [2] and Matt Lewis has reverted the change today saying "when close this when so much has been 'open' for so long? It is not closed.. " [3]. I don't know what the heck his comment means, but if there's a merge tag on the other article there should really be a merge tag here too, or if there's no merge tag here there shouldn't be a merge tag there. Which should it be? I felt & feel that the consensus was no merge. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. There's silence here. I'm going to remove that tag from the naming dispute article again.Wotapalaver (talk) 17:12, 7 June 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) [4] 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)

Hi. I just thought I'd add my 2 cents because I came here wondering about the Faroe Islands myself. Why aren't these generally considered part of the British Isles? Their closest neighbour is Shetland and they are about as remote to Shetland as Shetland is to Orkney. If Shetland is a geographical extension of the British Isles why wouldn't the Faroes by as well? They are not that remote from the rest of the British Isles and certainly the Rockall archipelago (YES! it is TWO islands not just the one) is far more remote than the Faroes!

Being a part of the United Kingdom is not essential criteria for being part of the British Isles as the Republic of Ireland, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are all part of the British Isles without being part of the United Kingdom. British Isles is solely a geographical term and has been for the far greater part of the history of the term. The term has existed for approximately two thousand years, long before the United Kingdom existed and it's always included both Great Britain AND Ireland. Great Britian and Britain are not the same thing. Britain refers to the whole archipelago (or at least in a political sense Great Britain and Northern Ireland), which is why the archipelago is not called the Great British Isles.

The British Isles only gained a political context when Ireland and Great Britain were united politically in 1801, before then and since 1923 they have been solely a geographical term, but they have always been a georgraphical term. The Irish have just as much a claim to be British as anyone else in the archipelago and they shouldn't view it as diminishing their Irishness, but rather as something that is in addition to it. There are four similar but distinct major and unique nations that form the British Isles, England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales and together those four form Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.96.234 (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also curious to how the Irish are not British? Aren't those in Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, Irish people who are British? Aren't there people there that consider themselves to be both Irish and British like a person in England may consider himself English and British (a Catholic Unionist for example)? Aren't there even people throughout the island of Ireland that consider themselves Irish and British? Does Irish and British have to be mutually exclusive? Isn't Irish the equivalent of English, Scottish and Welsh and isn't English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh together the four main "ethnicities" that make up the British people? Since when was British only a political definition? If the Republic of Ireland can be part of the British Isles, which it is, then it proves that British is not mearly and doesn't have to just have a political definition. The Irish are British by their culture, history, heritage, geography and genetical makeup. The only definition where they are not British is politically and that limitation only applies to the Republic, the people of Northern Ireland are British in every sense of the word.

The British Isles was a geographical term first and foremost and only acquired a political meaning in 1801 until late december 1922. Since then, it reverted back to principally a geographical definition again. Perhaps its meaning could be viewed like this: Geographical (prinicpal meaning) - Either: Great Britain, Ireland and the Isle of man and their surrounding islands Or ("extended" geographical term): Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, their surrounding islands + Rockall, the Faroes and the Channel Islands (including Chausey). Political definition: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Lordship of Man and the Duchy of Normandy (the British Channel Islands). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.96.234 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you mean British as in the UK? then yes, the people of Northern Ireland are British. But, if you mean British as in the island of Great Britain? then no, they're not British. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean British as in part of the British Isles. A geographical definition of British is not limited to just Great Britain. Geographically, British has always included both Great Britain and Ireland so the people of Ireland are British as they are part of the British Isles. Those in the Republic may not be politically British, but British is not limited to solely politics. The people of Northern Ireland on the other hand are usually both geographically and politically British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.96.234 (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

By that definition New Zealanders can consider themselves Australians as they are part of Australasia. Don't tell a Kiwi he is an Aussie, he/she won't take too kindly to it, just as people from the republic of Ireland won't take too kindly to being called British. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no continent called Australasia, it is simply called Australia. So New Zealanders can consider themselves Australians in the same way that United Kingdomers can consider themselves European. New Zealanders are part of the continent of Australia and not the country that also has the same name. New Zealanders can also consider themselves British New Zealanders if they are descended from the people of the British Isles. The Irish can consider themselves British as they are from the British Isles and have British Isles descent. The Republic of Ireland being a currently seperate sovereign state does not change this and neither does the citizens of the Republic of Ireland's unwillingness to define themselves as British either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.96.234 (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was actually referring to Australasia. You say New Zealanders can consider themselves Australians due to living in the continent of Australia, well my previous point stands, they would never call themseves Australians, I know, I lived there for some time. There is no such thing as British New zealander, unless they are new immigrants. They are very proud of being New Zealanders and don't need any other names for themselves. --Jack forbes (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think a people and their government can call themselves what they want! I don't comprehend what you mean by British Isles descent, how can you be descended from a geographical term? --Jack forbes (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Australasia is still not a continent though, rather it is a geographical region. Not that I see much point, but New Zealanders could refer to themselves as Australasians, as Irish people could refer to themselves as British islanders (Britain being an alternative name to British Isles in the geographical sense). New Zealanders wouldn't usually refer to themselves as Australians of course because although they are part of the continent of Australia they are not part of the country of Australia, so to call themselves Australian would be viewed as them claiming to be part of the Australian nation. They are still however Australians in the same way that the British are Europeans. Context and understanding that context when applying terms that have multiple meanings is the key! Now is someone of British (Isles) descent who has New Zealand citizenship not a British New Zealander? Is someone with Canadian citizenship who has French descent not called a French Canadian and is someone who has Irish descent in the United States not called an Irish American? Why then would someone of British or English descent for example, in New Zealand not be refered to as an British New Zealander or Anglo New Zealander? Even if they are not refered as such or they do not define themselves that way, are they still at least technically not that anyway? Yes, people can call themselves what they want, but if someone is a French Canadian without being a recent immigrant, and someone is Irish American without being a recent immigrant, than someone is also a British New Zealander without being a recent immigrant. Whether any inidividual defines themselves in those or differing terms is another issue entirely.

I use the term British Isles descent because I believe that whether someone is Irish, English, Scottish or Welsh they are British overal and that their Britishness does not contradict or lesson their Irishness, Englishness, Scottishness or Welshness, it does in fact compliment it. It is nothing to do with politics and it does not imply that the Irish are part of the UK, as only part of them currently are, in Northern Ireland. Descent and nationality aren't necessary the same thing and can't be considered the same in relation to the British Isles when they are currently divided into two sovereign states. A so-called Ulster Unionist is still Irish and a so called Irish Republican is still British. The people of the British Isles are Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh as well as being British. The only difference is when it comes to their nationality. They may either be British nationality (UK), Irish nationality (Republic) or both (NI).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.96.234 (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your understanding of certain issues is...well...lacking in subtlety, if I can put it that way. But your arguments do point precisely to one of major reasons why many Irish dislike and reject the term 'British Isles'. So, in that respect, thanks! You are a living illustration of the reasons for some of the objections. Your entire definition of the Irish as British is dependent on the term 'British Isles' being the accepted name of the islands (and even in Northern Ireland, British, as an identity, is, by international agreement, now optional.) Nuclare (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, it is just my sincerest of beliefs that Britishness does not necessarily have to be so narrowly defined to exclude Ireland just because most of Ireland is no longer part of the United Kingdom. The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom and it never has been but it is still part of the British Isles. British Isles is simply the name for the archipelago that Great Britain and Ireland belong, whether that archipelago contains 1 sovereign state, 2 or 20. There are several different ways to define what is British and just because the Republic of Ireland cannot be defined British politically that doesn't mean it can't be using other definitions, geographically being the perfect example. So Ireland is British depending on what definition is being used - British in the sense of its culture, heritage, history, the descent of its people, language etc certainly as well as Irish, just as England, Scotland and Wales would be both English, Scottish, Welsh and British using those criteria, but in terms of its nationality and politics, Ireland is only Irish when referring to the Republic of Ireland.

The Irish, unlike the English, Scottish or Welsh, are more complexly defined due to the prevaling political situation that exists within the British Isles, specifically in relation to Northern Ireland. Generally, citzens of the United Kingdom within the mainland home nations, ie England, Scotland and Wales, are either English/Anglo British, Scotch/Scottish British or Welsh British. Citzens of the Republic of Ireland are British Irish. Their nationality is Irish but they are British by descent, Ireland being part of the British Isles and the British family of nations alongside England, Scotland and Wales. For example, a very similar situation exists concerning the Irish American. The Irish American is Irish in the same sense that the Irish is British, by descent rather than nationality. So the Irish American is in fact a British American, just like the English, Scottish or Welsh Americans are British Americans. The Irishness, Englishness, Scottishness or Welshness being just one of the components that make up peoples of British descent.

Specifically concerning Northern Ireland, the situation is more complex. Northern Irelanders could be chiefly defined as either:

A) Irish British - The equivalent to Scotch/Scottish British, Anglo/English British and Welsh British. B) Irish British AND British Irish! - Both United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland citizenship. C) British Irish - Only Republic of Ireland citizenship, the normal situation that also exists within the Republic of Ireland.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.96.234 (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but It's not about your sincere beliefs. It's not about what CAN be in some great theoretical. It's not about you at all. It's about what the Irish people choose. Theoretically, the Irish could consider themselves anything: in fact, as residents of an island that looks distinctly like some McDonald's Chicken McNuggets, I hereby propose the Irish be called McNuggites. Or they could call themselves These-ers, in deference to a much used alternative to to BI, 'these islands.' Or DrinkalotofGuinness-ites. Or anything. Most Irish people, however, (certainly Northern Ireland unionists being the most numerous exception--some of whom do not consider themselves Irish, btw) do NOT consider themselves British and do not wish to be considered as such, regardless of what you think they can or should be. Only someone who takes some perserve pleasure in calling people that which they do not wish to be called would in 2008 make the arguments you are making. That there are people in Ireland who consider themselves both Irish and British is an absolute statement of fact. That British and Irish is the identity of most is absoultely not true. I think the Irish are well aware that they **COULD** accept being classed and called British. Most, however, have chosen otherwise. (btw, there's a source at the BI references page that disputes some of the historical claims about the term you've made here. It's the John Morrill quotation. Nuclare (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the references page I mentioned: [5]. The quotation starts "Geographers may have formed the habit..." Nuclare (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting..a question above is "I'm curious how the Irish are not British", based on the idea that they're from the British Isles. A better expression of the problem many Irish people have with the term "British Isles" could hardly be attempted. The clearest expression I've heard of the issue is "Irish is not a sub-set of British. They're friendly and related, but one is not a sub-set of the other".

That awful phrase "parity of esteem", which was used in the NI negotiations and treaties applies too and represented official British recognition of the same thing, that Irish isn't a lesser identity. One could reverse the IP's question to see the full problem, as seen by many Irish people. "I'm curious how the British are not Irish". That way around there's obviously a problem. Funny that many people don't understand that. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, The ip's argument should be kept and cherished for any future discussion concerning the naming of the British Isles. Jack forbes (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

John Dee and the first use in English of "British Isles"

The article currently lists first use of the phrase "British Isles" as being in 1577 in a book from John Dee. I haven't seen the actual text of the book. I believe TharkunColl provided the source. Can he please provide the relevant text? I ask because I came across a mention of Dee and it suggests that Dee's use of the term "British Isles" doesn't refer to the British Isles as meant in this article. The piece I found is from the book "The Ideological Origins of the British Empire" (Armitage, Cambridge University Press), page 106, seems to paraphrase or quote Dee, references the 1577 work and says "..over all of the oceans adjoining Britain, Ireland and the British isles". If that's the way that Dee used the term then it doesn't mean the same as the "British Isles" now and that the first use of "British Isles" with the modern meaning goes back to 1621, as per OED. So, I'm asking for verification of the Dee reference. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Care to give us the full quote, rather than a small extract, so we can all get the context, not just your interpretation of it? If its paraphrasing a 1577 work, it could quite likely be talking about countries (political) and islands (geographical). Without the context, we have no idea. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The full quote is LONG, so I gave only a little. But, thanks to Google, here's the book. [6]. Look on page 106, middle of the page. The text reads to me as if Dee's British isles are the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, maybe Shetlands, etc. Maybe the full reference is clearer but I don't have that. As I say, I believe that TharkunColl put it in the article so he should have it. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The source is here [7], but I'm not a subscriber to JSTOR so can't access it. I indeed found it on a hunch, and if you go here [8] you'll see the only bit I was able to access. However - and this is most important - acting on my tip off SonyYouth accessed the whole article and wrote the section in question. The paraphrased reference from the book mentioned above is a tertiary source and is not therefore reliable. TharkunColl (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that we can't actually check or verify the text in the cited reference? (the first reference you gave above is a sample from Jstor which doesn't contain the whole paper and the second is a link to a google search that gives a bunch of wiki mirrors) Meantime, the book I mentioned is a Cambridge University Press reference book which is eminently reliable. (quote from NOR "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.") Meantime, if the quote is as it appears in the book I can read then Dee's "British Isles" is not the same as the "British Isles" in this article. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR is a peer reviewed journal and any subscriber can access it. Wikipedia is full of citations from such. SonyYouth accessed it and wrote the section in question. Why don't you ask around if anyone is a subscriber? TharkunColl (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can SonyYouth produce the text from the reference? If he wrote it he has to produce it. At the moment we have an unverifiable reference that says one thing and a verifiable reference that says something different, about the same thing. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking from the grave, S-Y cannot veryify this claim by Thark. Indeed, S-Y doesn't even know what Thark is talking about. --84.203.238.83 (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that you Sony? Sorry, I thought it was you who wrote that section. Was it someone else? TharkunColl (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely (to be Sony); Sony wasn't living in Cork, or Ireland. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce)First mention I can find of the reference is by TharkunColl on 25 November 2006. It's in a talk archive page, [9], and you can just search for "Dee" in your browser window. As far as I can see, after discussion on the talk page, the information given by TharkunColl in talk was subsequently put into the page text by another editor during December 2006. I don't see any mention of paid JSTOR access in talk. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference in Elizabeth as Astraea is on page 47 of the journal, and the paragraph in question reads:

As is well-known, it was Gemistus Pletho who gave the impulse to those philosophical studies which, as devloped by Ficino and the Florentine Academy, had such a far-reaching influence on Renaissance thought. There was a political as well as a philosophical side to Gemistus Pletho. About the year 1415, he addressed two orations to the Emperor Manuel and to his son Theodore on the affairs of the Peloponnesus and on ways and means both of improving the economy of the Greek islands and of defending them.² A Latin translation of these orations had recently been published,³ and Dee is of the opinion that they would be of use "for our Brytish Iles, and in better and more allowable manner, at this Day, for our People, than that his Plat (for Reformation of the State at those Dayes) could be found, for Peloponnesus avaylable."⁴ In spite of the difficulties of Dee's style and punctuation his meaning is clear, a meaning which he repeats on subsequent pages, namely the advice given to the Byzantine Emperor by Pletho is good advice for Elizabeth, Empress of Britain. He therefore reprints at the end of his work the greater part of the first oration, and the whole of the second, with curious marginal notes.

[2] The orations are reprinted in Migne, Patr. graec., CLX, pp 822 ff

[3] The orations, with a Latin translation by Gulielmus Canterus, were printed in the volume containing the Ecolgues of John Stobaeus, published at Antwerp by Plantin in 1575.

[4] Op. cit., p. 63.

I've had to transcribe this by hand as the journal is scanned (and so doesn't support copying and pasting); it's possible that the odd typo may have slipped in as a result. I hope this is helpful.— ras52 (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very useful. It is now clear from the context that Dee is referring to the whole British Isles, and not just minor outlying islands as has been suggested. It also seems clear, to me at least, that the term is not a new coinage in English, by the almost off hand way Dee uses it. Still, we'll have to wait until an earlier citation turns up before we can say that in the article. TharkunColl (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! Thank you Ras52. However, I have to say that it's NOT clear to me from the context that Dee means what we currently mean by "British Isles". There's no definition implied in the sentence and given that the OED says that the first use of British Isles is 45 years later we should have something like clarity before we make brave claims. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear that Dee is referring to the whole archpelago and not just minor outlying islands. The OED is simply wrong. It's not unknown. In fact it regularly sponsors events, such as the TV programme Balderdash and Piffle, to improve its knowledge and find earlier citations. I've just e-mailed the OED to bring to their attention this Dee quote. Maybe it will appear in the next edition. TharkunColl (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks indeed, Ras. Wotapalaver, I fail to see how you can assume he's not talking about the British Isles. Funny how when I say that some author giving his opinion that "many" object, without saying what he's basing that on, is not a useable reference, you respond that it can be used; but when the tables are turned, you use the same (my) argument to say it doesn't matter what the reference says, we don't know what Dee really meant... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bastun, there are refs in the /References page that explain "many", including one that says almost verbatim what's in the intro, complete with "many". The reason I say that I'm not sure that the "British Isles" in the Dee quote aren't the same as in modern meaning are that there's a similar quote (ref'd in a talk contribution by me above) which has Dee saying "Britain and Ireland and the British Isles". In that case he seems to mean the smaller islands only to be "British Isles". In the case here immediately above it's possible that he meant to include Iceland, the Faroes, etc. Did he? IIRC the Tudors considered seizing Iceland (came across the reference in an old talk page) and Dee considered Iceland (as Thark mentions below) part of the British sphere of influence. I merely ask a simple question. Have we any good indication of what he meant - from the sources available to us? So far I think not. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow - I'm extremely impressed! The OED have written back, and this is what they said:

Thank you for your message. As it happens, we have recently revised all the entries dealing with BRITAIN and BRITISH, and these entries will be published in the online dictionary later this year. I cannot quote from unpublished text, but I can tell you that the first quotation for BRITISH ISLES is now dated 1577 and is taken from John Dee's Arte Navig.

It was kind of you to write about Dee's use of the phrase.

[name]

Oxford English Dictionary

So my hunch has now been confirmed - excellent! TharkunColl (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. I wonder where the OED initally heard about this - from here perhaps? Anyway, the quote says our Brytish Iles, and the date is 1577. It's clear that the term is used in a way that denotes ownership - Our Brytish Iles. I can only assume that the reference is in relation to those islands that made up the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Ireland. Scotland had a different monarch until 1603, while England and Ireland shared a monarch. Hard to know if Scotland was considered Brytish at that time or not... So it's definitely a political term, not a geographical term, since its first usage was in relation to a region that had an economy and required defense. --Bardcom (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the OED have indeed been watching this page. But as for your assumptions, they are wrong - no Englishman would have called either himself or his political institutions "British" in the 16th century. The fact that the term was used very strongly implies an attempt to be non-political, or at any rate all-inclusive. As for the Scottish issue, Scotland was already de facto under Elizabeth's control, with James VI (and his advisors when he was still a child) doing everything he could to stay on her good side so he could inherit her throne. Elizabeth did indeed control the whole British Isles, in one way or another. But Dee's use of "our" doesn't even imply any sort of political control. I could just as easily say "our" British Isles today, meaning ours - the place where we live, collectively. TharkunColl (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick search in Google Books for "The Ideological Origins of the British Empire" and "Dee" confirms beyond doubt that Dee used the phrase as a political claim. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are not reading the passage in context. The context of the passage seems clear to me that the term is being used as a political term, as I said, especially when you take into consideration the context the term was used - referring to both an economy and defense. --Bardcom (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth ruled the British Isles. There is no contradition in using a geographical term to describe the extent of someone's political authority. Why is this such an important issue for you? TharkunColl (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, even a carrot could tell you that in 1577 Elizabeth I of England was in rebellion against the entire island and was, since spring 1570, deemed to be a heretic in the small area of Ireland that was under direct English occupation, the Pale (in fact, I'm certain you'll find that in 1577 the "old English of the Pale" were imprisoned in huge numbers for resisting the English crown's occupation of the Pale). But let not historical reality impede your traditionally teleological British jingoism. Oh, and I'm off to ask the OED are they going to place a usage guide next to the term. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary then James VI ruled Scotland, and the politics were of course more complex than you suggest. More significantly, the Tudors weren't exactly English – they reinvented British identity to reinforce their claim as descendants of Arthur to rule the island as a whole. . . dave souza, talk 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth I ruled the British Isles? NOT. She only ruled England & Ireland, if my memory is in tacked. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

She didn't even rule the so-called "English Pale" of Ireland. Where do you people get off with your acceptance of English and British masterrace claims over the Irish as being the reality. Pathetic. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

86.xx.xx, weren't you given a warning at your IP page (days ago); to keep your opinons in check? PS- You look familiar to another 86.xx.xx IP, that was blocked (weeks ago). GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Who do you think you are? You want to steal my country, rename it and then deny me my right to defend my Irishness and my country's history. Go keep your own "opinions in check" you arrogant WASP bastard. Oh, and I do hope that I have made myself impeccably clear. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes you've certainly made yourself clear, to all of us. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Scotland, to use a modern term, was a satellite state. The deposed Mary was imprisoned in England and the Scottish king, James VI, did everything in his power to keep Elizabeth happy in order to be declared her heir. It's true that she had no legal position in Scotland, but her will was exercised there nevertheless. It's also true, in answer to the previous point, that the Tudors were originally a Welsh family. However, Elizabeth was born in England, was self-consciously and extremely patriotically English ("I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and a king of England too..."). Her mother was English, and her father's mother was English. To say she wasn't English is simply untrue. As for Dee, he was of Welsh family, which may account for his favouring the term British Isles, but in fact the Latin version had been appearing on maps all that century, and Dee was a great scholar and geographer, and would have had copies of them. It was most assuredly not his invention. TharkunColl (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Last point first, I think it's fair to say he was the first known to use it in translation from the Latin term which had been rediscovered from Ptolemy's geography. Looking again at the brief history of the term, Snyder's point is that British wasn't seen as an alternative to English (or Scottish) identity, it was an additional prestigious identity tracing back genealogy to pre-English times, used by earler English monarchs and picked up by the Tudors (including Elizabeth) to celebrate rather than be ashamed of their Welsh ancestry. . . dave souza, talk 21:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

More John Dee:

Diary entry for 30 June 1578:

I told Mr Daniel Roger and Mr Hackluyt... that King Arthur and King Maty, both of them did conquer Gelinda, lately called Friseland.

On a map he drew in 1580:

Circa Anno 530 Kyng Arthur not only Conquered Iseland, Groenland, and all the Northern Iles compassing unto Russia, but even unto the North Pole (in manner) did extend his jurisdiction and sent Colonies thither, and unto all the isles between Scotland and Iseland, whereby yit is probable that the last-named Friseland Island is of Brytish ancient discovery and possession: and allso seeing Groeland beyond Groenland did receive their inhabitants by Arthur, it is credible that the famous Iland Estotiland was by his folke possessed.

He seems to be basing his claims to British rule in the North Atlantic on supposed conquests of those places by King Arthur, some of which he has taken from Geoffrey of Monmouth and others I have no idea. All this is steeped in Welsh legend, not English. Dee was Welsh, and he sought to flatter a Welsh-descended monarch by urging these claims on her. It would be a great irony of history if the British Empire did indeed come about through the urgings of this rather intriguing individual - he was also a clairvoyant and ceremonial magician, who called on spirits and looked into crystal balls, indulged in wife swapping with his Irish friend and assistant Edward Kelley a.k.a. Talbot (who had had his ears chopped off for some criminal offence), and would later tour Europe to try and con the Holy Roman Emperor out of a huge fortune. He was also Elizabeth's chief spy on the Continent, and used the codename 007. TharkunColl (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

One last try

We are all going to be a laughing stock if this carries on much longer without a resolution. I want to make one last attempt at suggesting a way forward but suggest that if we can't resolve very quickly then this goes to mediation and the page is protected again during that process.

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable , the Irish government also discourages its usage

had some consensus, but there was and is controversy over the word "many". Evidence has been presented as to many but it is not conclusive to all editors. There is no evidence that it is not true, although there is argument over the where the burden of proof lies.

So I don't think anyone believes that it is not right to say that there are people who find the use objectionable and that in a political context it still is. What evidence there is for "many" relates to its political use not its geographical use.

So now about this:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable when any political meaning is implied , the Irish government also discourages its usage --Snowded (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

support: Hopefully this version will appease everyone. Jack forbes (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

support: Hopefully this will end the arguing & bring stability to this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. "when any political meaning is implied" is speculation, isn't it? Also, the links and refs have disappeared. Wotapalaver (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Refs can go back in - I was trying to get agreement on text. The references also support the above statement. I can't see why you object to a compromise. --Snowded (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Why not simply miss out "many" in the original proposal quoted in this section, which would surely resolve the controversy over its use, and would not introduce any uncertainty about whether "when any political meaning is implied" is speculation or not?  DDStretch  (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That was tried some time ago and failed to get support) mind you nothing may --Snowded (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if the objections were different to the one that states that the sentence was not specific enough, then it seems likely that the new proposal is bound to fail to reach consensus if nothing else has changed, because the new proposal only differs in being more specific from the one I suggested. If something else substantive has changed, then perhaps the reaction to my suggestion might possibly be more favourable if put to people?  DDStretch  (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure specific is the right word here. If you read through all the debate, the issue on offence is political not geographic. I am attempting to make that explicit. --Snowded (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I accept that, and I also accept that the term is viewed as offensive because of past outrageous behaviour associated with it, and so it is heavily politicized. In which case, as "many" could be criticized as being in need of additional verification, just miss the word out from the second proposal., or add some verification for its use.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If I could ask a question of Wotapalaver, is'nt it the fact that many Irish people disagree with the term because of the political connection? Jack forbes (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who is still trying to include "many", the last thing you should be doing is trying to narrow the objections. I'm sure a lot of the objections to the term are political, but not all. "British" is a disputed concept in Ireland in all respects. Geographical and political. Look at the Irish embassy statement: "we are not part of Britain, not even in a geographical sense." Look at the Sunday Business Post article, for another article, even when the company came back with an explanation that they were only using the term geographically to describe an archipeligo, the objection was not assuaged. Aside from those (such as the Anglo-Irish, Ulster-Scots) with tracable Great Britain lineage, I don't know that there is evidence that the people of Ireland, generally, ever in any sense embraced the concept British for themselves or their island. So that the idea that the attachment of "British" to Ireland is only spoiled by politics is not something I think can be fully supported. Nuclare (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What do we mean by "political meaning" in this suggestion? Is, for example, classing someone as British because they are from the geographical unit called the British Isles (an argument I've heard a number of times) political? Nuclare (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes that would be and it would be offensive, hence the suggestion. You have the word "many" in the above phrase and its linked to the essence of the objection namely making imperial assumptions--Snowded (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC).

But why is it necessarily an 'imperial assumption' that someone from a place called "British" is British? The people I'm talking about tend to respond that they are not making imperial/political assumptions; they are just speaking purely geographically: The Irish are from a geographical place called the British Isles, so they are part of a subset of the concept "British," in a geographical sense--in the same way people from geographical Europe are Europeans, geographical North America are North American. I'm not saying they are correct, I'm asking how (actually I'm struggling here to word this the way I mean it...Augh!) can this sort of thing be summed up as political? Nuclare (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very political. Names have great power and if you look at the systematic attempt by the "English" dominated British government to eliminate the Irish and Welsh languages, to rename places to confirm with the dominant language you will see the way that language is used in the exercise of power. I do a lot of work with aboriginal people around the world and it is interesting to see my grandmothers experience (being beaten for speaking welsh in the playground of her school and being humiliated in the class room for the same) matched by First National people in Canada and elsewhere. There is a massive history associated with the word "British" which is less the case for concepts such as Europe and North America which have never been used as names for political powers, they have always been geographical. To say that the Irish are in any way a subset of "British" even as a concept is to ignore history. Can I commend to you the compromise I have suggested. We need to move on here. --Snowded (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sort of losing you Snowed. It's not that I disagree with what you are saying; I'm just not following how anything you are saying supports the accuracy of contending that Irish object to the term British Isles only when it is used politically? We need to be accurate more than we need to move on. I'm not convinced that this suggestion is accurate. The Irish embassy spokesman doesn't seem to agree with it either. Nuclare (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about (sort of losing you). I was trying to explain why some of the phrases you were using wre offensive. If in the pursuit of accuracy you ignore political reality and history then we will not move on. I think the very clear context of the Irish embassy spokesman and the much discussed dust jacket are political not geographical In twenty years time the phrase "British Isles" may have been replaced by "Atlantic Archipelago " or similar. For the moment we are stuck with a geographical term which has strong political associations. So in the interests of accuracy and moving on I have suggested acknowledging that. I think my suggestion is accurate. --Snowded (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am ignoring political reality and history. Of course, there are objections to political use of the term. But keep in mind there have been edit wars at Wiki over the (indisputably only meant as geographical)statements "Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the British Isles" and "The River Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles." The Irish embassy statement seems rather political-usage at first glance, but there's that zinger tossed in there: "even in the geographical sense." Phrasing the objections in relation to Ireland as if BI is only objectionable when its given "political meaning" doesn't strike me as accurate. (BTW, there is no "dust jacket".) Nuclare (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In part that is why I used the word "implied" to cover offensive use of the geographical term (the Irish Embassy zinger). The point is that they think the geographical term can be used politically and suspect (as to other editors) that is is being used carelessly at least. So I do think my proposal is accurate but I am open to changes. What is very clear is that the some qualification is needed, we are not going to resolve the "many/not many dispute otherwise and we do need to move on. --Snowded (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) OK taking all of the above into account let me make another minor modification: The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable when any political meaning is implied or interpreted; the Irish government also discourages its usage The references would also go back in here (to deal with an earlier point from User:Wotapalaver). Will that do it? --Snowded (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with that (anything to stop the bickering!) Waggers (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not an edit warrior. You've never to worry about me on that account. But there is something about it still that rubs me as dubious. It's not that this version isn't true, so much as it sounds like we are stretching meaning to the point of making something akin to a statement of the obvious. Its got one of these 'we're trying too hard' vibes about it. But my addled brain is beyond the point of being able to explain what I mean in a coherant fashion, so...I'm hardly an editor that will stand in your way. I just wish maybe there is one living soul here who might get the gist of what I'm trying say. Or not as its probably not clear. LOL! Nuclare (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree - the "when any political meaning is implied or interpreted" seems to have come from nowhere and also seems to dilute things too much. Do you think it's better without it? Waggers (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't come from no where, its an attempt to distil the substantive argument or difference between warring editors. Remove that and you are straight back into the win loose argument. It doesn't dilute, it clarifies. --Snowded (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not that I think this wording is coming out of nowhere; it's more that in this case I think there is evidence that counters tying the objections only to politics, even though there are sources that seem to do just that. I would rather lose "many people" altogether and use something like "where there are often objections to the term" than straightjacket the issue in regards to Ireland as being *only* and always definable as "political". Nuclare (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the objections to the geographic use are its political associations. You can try out another phrase but I think you will just move us back into a sterile "many" "not Many" dispute. --Snowded (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"the objections to the geographic use are its political associations." Not always. Some of it can be more pro-Irish at its root rather than anti-British-political associations. Nuclare (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Once again you are attempting to negate objections by qualifying them. There is no other interpretation of the term "British" used over Ireland than political. This proposal implies that there is. I'm certain if somebody attempted to claim your country as being in an entity named after another country (not to mention that one that brutalised your people for centuries- but let's avoid that most unpleasant of matters) you would have greater clarity on this issue. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you please stop with the ranting? GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well technically I could reclaim "British" as something to which Anglo-Saxons and Normans have no entitlement. I could complain about any recognition of the word Irish given their behaviour in Anglesey in the early years of the Kingdom of Gwynedd. The history of these Isles is complex and not susceptible to stereotypical good guy and bad guy arguments. The term British Isles is used without political intent its a legacy term, in a decade it may have died out for now it is still in use. --Snowded (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to Snowded' efforts here, I do have some issues with both the wording and meaning of the last suggestion, so I thought I'd throw out another suggestion. It's a bit of a departure and may be rejected outright, but...:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where its use may cause offense and is often rejected in favor of alternative ways of referencing the islands. Referring to "British Isles," a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy to the UK has stated, "we would discourage its usage." Well, voila. Nuclare (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Never sure what someone means when they say "with all due respect" but I would accept the above. --Snowded (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"is controversial" implies universality... replace that with "can be" or "is often" and I could cerainly go with that. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 07:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Nuclare's version plus Bastun's tweak looks good. Bill Reid | Talk 08:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree - looks good although sounds awkward if "is often" is used twice, and I'd prefer (but not mind otherwise) if the phrasing is like this:

The term British Isles is often controversial in relation to Ireland where its use may cause offense and alternative terms may frequently be used. Referring to "British Isles," a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy to the UK has stated, "we would discourage its usage". --Bardcom (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there were too many "is oftens" and you've done well to get rid of them, but now there are too many "may"s! How's this: (outdented)

I don't reject the tweak, but I would dispute that the universality of "is controversial" implies all uses are always controversial. Its universal only in the sense that "is controversial" means it *is* ongoingly controversial. Nuclare (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The term British Isles is often controversial in relation to Ireland where its use may cause offense and alternative terms are frequently used. Referring to "British Isles," a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy to the UK has stated, "we would discourage its usage". Waggers (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - Perfeck. --Bardcom (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support --Snowded (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No. It's too long and convoluted - typical Wikispeak. All we need to say is that it can be contoversial in Ireland, though is still used there, followed by a link to the dedicated article. We also need to remove most of notes 4 and 5, which virtually constitute an article in their own right, and represent a sneaky way of putting back into this article information that belongs in the controversy article. TharkunColl (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. It's long and convoluted, on that I agree with TharkunColl. The term IS controversial in Ireland. The "may" was an attempt to soften "many" to reach acceptability. Without "many", "may" just isn't right. The term IS controversial in Ireland and does cause offense. Look at the additional Irish Times ref that Nuclare provided, which describes "British Isles" as unsayable in Ireland. I don't understand what was wrong with dave souza's suggestion. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any tweak that stays with this basic form that you would accept? I went through about a dozen different versions of wordings concerning "offense"--with the understanding that "many" wasn't going to fly: "it can cause offense," "can sometimes cause offense," "sometimes causes offense", etc. Will any of these be accepted by you (or Bastun, for that matter)? This version does have "frequently" as far as chosing to use alternatives, which, frankly, I think is more interesting than quantifying how many Irish get steam rolling out of their ears when they do hear BI. Where is the 'convoluted'? The second sentence? If so, I don't care much about that, but I thought it was more precise. Nuclare (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Or, wait a second: Bastun, didn't you imply above you were okay with the source that said "often offensive to Irish [somethingorother]? Would some form of "often cause offense" go beyond what would be acceptable? Nuclare (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be absolutely fine with me. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. So, how 'bout this: The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland where its use can often cause offense and alternative terms are frequently used. Referring to "British Isles," a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy to the UK has stated, "we would discourage its usage". Nuclare (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Waggers (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Does anyone see any alternative to mediation? Any attempt to make progress here is rejected by one or another faction for whatever motivation. --Snowded (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on :-) Hereby withdrawing my objection to "is controversial", per Nuclare and Wotapalaver. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, for every statement saying how "offensive" and "unsayable" it is in Ireland, we need an equal statement pointing out that the opposite is also true, and that it's even used by government ministers and MP's, to name just a few. To do anything else would be dishonest. It's best to say hardly anything. TharkunColl (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this one again. TD's often use the term "British Isles" in a way that excludes Ireland, as TharkunColl knows well. Not saying that they never use it the "normal" way, but certainly not how it's always used - if it's used at all. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To check Batsun would now support The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland where its use may cause offense and alternative terms are frequently used. Referring to "British Isles," a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy to the UK has stated, "we would discourage its usage". I can go with that Tharkun's point is covered as the statement is only made about Ireland. --Snowded (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I was referring to Ireland, where Irish government ministers and MPs, to name a few, still use the term. TharkunColl (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you reveal ignorance, there are no MPs in the Dáil Éireann they have deputies. Even if they do I don't see how it negates the phrase controversial --Snowded (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So does Ordnance Survey of Ireland. Bill Reid | Talk 11:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A search on their web site reveals one paper on a new geoid model authored in the main by peope from the UK, Scnadinavia and Northern Ireland, the last listed authors (and its not alphabetic so they were no major authors) are from OS Ireland. Not much evidence --Snowded (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not much evidence of what? Bill Reid | Talk 12:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Of the OS Ireland using the term British Isles in any meaningful way --Snowded (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only is the OSI a major partner in producing that document which quotes: "In 2001 a consortium consisting of the Ordnance Surveys of Great Britain (GB), Northern Ireland (NI) and Ireland invited tenders for the computation of a new geoid model for the British Isles," – couldn't be more meaningful than that. Bill Reid | Talk 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't change my view. One example (on the whole of their web site) and very very geographical --Snowded (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)As has been said before, those who don't like the term are against it whether its use is geographical or anything else. The point is that an Irish quango has no problems with using the term.Bill Reid | Talk 17:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Imagine the headlines!

New Admiralty chart uses "British Isles and Ireland"! (true)

Admiralty officially rejects term "British Isles" (probably false).

One swallow does not make a spring.Wotapalaver (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Wasn't going to bother replying to smart alicky remarks such as this but I need to know the truth of the Admiralty statement so please give me the chart reference number so that I can check it on Monday. The Admiralty continue to use the term British Isles as their website attests so probably false is definitely false. Bill Reid | Talk 17:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read the article well, have you, before you threw "smart alecky" remarks around? In any case, my point is that the fact that they have used the term "British Isles and Ireland" doesn't indicate that they don't use "British Isles" any more. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't help yourself, can you. New Admiralty chart uses "British Isles and Ireland"! (true) – False. An ADMIRALTY NOTICES TO MARINERS used the term in 2005 but the UK Hydrographic Office website does not have the phrase British Isles and Ireland anywhere on their website and their most recent notice to mariners (April 2008) [10] provides the following in page 1A.3: British Isles - continued it states IRELAND - West Coast, Killarly Harbour and approaches. I just wonder why an old mistaken phrase is referenced while the uptodate version clearly puts Ireland in the British Isles. Bill Reid | Talk 17:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well fair enough, so change my text above from "chart" to "Admiralty NOTICES TO MARINERS". The point remains the same. One swallow does not a summer make. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland? Hmm, last time I checked, that was actually part of Ireland. TharkunColl (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Its part of Ireland (the island) but it isn't part of Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean (of course), not part of the Republic of Ireland (better known as Ireland). GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

This is getting no where. We have three groups

• Get rid of British Isles, or at least state than many people find the term controversial
• Opposed to above do not want many
• Neutrals trying to find a way to accommodate the disputants

It is not going to be resolved here. I suggest mediation and it would not surprise me if this ended up in arbitration. --Snowded (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that there's a connection between (a) "Get rid of British Isles" and (b) "state that many people find the term controversial". I, for one, haven't pushed a but I do agree with b, because it's from reputable sources. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your perception is *your* reality, but it's very pointed to make the assumption that the people who are trying to state that many people find the term controversial are also trying to get rid of the term. That's not true in *my* reality. --Bardcom (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not my intent, but some would like to get rid of the term completely if you look back over the threads (and they go on for a long time). I actually think its controversial but don't want to get rid of the term so I should maybe have put four groups. However, for the purpose of moving to mediation I will amend it. --Snowded (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's time for Mediation. PS- Who'd a thought? all this disputing over a single word. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a single word that's supported by reference! Wotapalaver (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent)So do all editors agree to mediation? As I recall it has to be a consensual process and we need to agree a statement of the issue. Anyone want to volunteer to state their position (one per faction)? --Snowded (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly have no personal preference. Let's just say, I have no problem with using the word many. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If we say that many people find it offensive, we also have to say that many don't. TharkunColl (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, TharkunColl will provide references that say "many don't", won't he? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) so can I take it that User:TharkinColl will draft a paragraph for the "many do and many don't position" and User:Wotapalaver will do the same for the "many position? Any others? --Snowded (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Gotta say I heartily dislike this "factions" idea. I've said that I support the dave souza suggestion from a while ago. I stand on that suggestion. It's accurate, as short as reasonably possible, supported by reference, unemotive and well phrased. If someone believes that dave souza is in a "faction" then they should go inform him. I think he might find the idea that he's in a faction to be slightly amusing. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no need to say it at all. We should just direct people to the controversy page. However, if we do say "many" people object, we must also say that many don't. TharkunColl (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

With the same criteria being applied as to the quality of references and citations, of course...otherwise, we don't have to say many don't. Fair's fair, considering the amount of pressure over the past months to produce references for many. --Bardcom (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with Bardcom. If TharkunColl can provide references, then perhaps we'll say it. Of course, reading the talk pages people have been asking TharkunColl for references like that for a LONG time. So far, not one has been produced. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, I have no particular objection to "many" (and have not argued against it here). The problem is that "many" is so imprecise. It could just mean half a dozen, but in the context of a country of five million people (north and south), one would really expect it to mean at least more than half, which is of course a ridiculously impossible thing to prove. The word "some" is even more imprecise, but because of this it may be preferable. TharkunColl (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that you are saying that you cannot provide references as to many do? --Snowded (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the beauty of using a quotation is that an interpretation does not need to be provided. "Many" can mean anything the reader wishes it to mean.... --Bardcom (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In such cases, then, we need to apply Wikipedia guidelines on sources as strictly as possible. Newspaper articles are simply not good enough, yet that's what most of the references saying "many" are. Are there any peer-reviewed academic papers that say "many"? TharkunColl (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think any of the sources saying "many" are newspaper articles. Nuclare (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation cabal request now made --Snowded (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that consent to mediation is required from all editors --Snowded (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably easier to assume that silence = assent. Perhaps if the editors that object could make their objection here. --Bardcom (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We might have to, however the mediator has requested assent on the mediation page so I suggest we respect that wish --Snowded (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the mediator require assent from everyone, or a majority? --Bardcom (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that is up to the mediator. However this stage cannot mandate a resolution, its open to one person to refuse to accept. However once we have been through this we can go up a level for resolution so we have to go through it. --Snowded (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I consent. Nuclare (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't. TharkunColl (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Nuclare (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Because any change is just going to tip the article even more towards a certain POV. TharkunColl (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you are being perverse. mediation means bringing in someone from outside to see if a compromise can be achieved. Refusing that can make no sense unless you think you don't have a case to make. Does anyone support TharkunColl --Snowded (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think mediation is necessary, but I'm not going to stand in the way of consensus if everybody else does think it's needed. I have two reasons: firstly that the problem is simply that we're struggling to establish consensus, and frankly I don't think mediation is going to help us do that; and secondly, I still think we pretty much have a consensus on Dave Souza's suggestion; there was only one editor who opposed that, and the said editor has now apparently retired from Wikipedia (although I hope he changes his mind on that). Waggers (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If everyone is now OK with Dave Souza's suggestions then we can withdraw from mediation - but I think it has to be an "agree" not an "agree but .." which reopens the whole debate. --Snowded (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair play. In that case, I agree! Besides, the mediator seems to have read this and all the associated articles, and is still interested. Now that can't be bad! Waggers (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• My name is Iamzork, and I am the mediator for the Mediation Cabal case 2008-06-06 British Isles. It seems you guys (no offense intended to any female users - the internet is somewhat ambiguous in that sense) are starting to come to a solution by yourselves. Thanks for making my job easy so far. If you do end up wanting to withdraw from mediation, that is a simple enough process - I can just close the case (and I can reopen it if a proposed solution is not reached). Regardless, you all are doing a great job working this out yourselves. Until consensus is reached (by yourselves or with my help) or until all parties who have agreed to mediation agree to close the case, I will leave it open. Thank you for your cooperation. (By the way, with reference to Waggers' comment above mine, I would like to thank all parties involved for introducing me to this interesting topic.) --Iamzork (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Souza proposal

A reminder, this was: The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable , the Irish government also discourages its usage The "many' needs the citation inserted (would someone give it here)? Can we now put this one to bed? --Snowded (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than have edit wars on a tag in the main article would

• [[User:Bardcom}} and User:TharkunColl confirm if they are happy with the Souza proposal above.
• Wotapalaver please provide the citation for "many" ideally a referenced document
• If User:TharkunColl has citations that say many people in Ireland are happy to use the term would s/he provide them and as per Wotapalaver earlier agreement we can add them

--Snowded (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. --Bardcom (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The citation says that many people in the "Irish Republic" object to the term. What's that? TharkunColl (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's suppose to be the Republic of Ireland (another potential discussion, in itself). GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The important point I was making, of course, is that how can such a source be trusted, if it is ignorant of the name of the state? And as far as I can tell, that's the only source that uses "many". This is an extremely flimsy citation. TharkunColl (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The citation says that many people in the "Irish Republic" object to the term. What's that? TharkunColl (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets get the citation or citations listed here and see. Please answer the question on citations that many people find it acceptable. There was an evident consensus earlier that if you could do this people would be happy to say that as well. --Snowded (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Many people use the term - even Irish government ministers and MPs. Why is a citation necessary when we all know it's true? TharkunColl (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't insist on a citation one way, but deny its need the other. Please provide a citation to support your view --Snowded (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no particular objection to saying that "many" object, because it's clear that many do (at least half a dozen or so and probably more). By the same token, many don't object, and in the interests of balance this too needs to be said, if we say that many object. TharkunColl (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a citation them people will accept that. Please do so then we can end this. --Snowded (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a citation for the patently obvious. To insist on one is obstructionism. I'm not insisting on a citation for "many object", because I know it's true. What I was doing above was pointing out the flimsiness of the current citations - just get rid of them and state the obvious, that many do and many don't object. TharkunColl (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. So you were the one that insisted on a citation to state that "many" object (and are even objecting to the reference), but you don't see the irony of stating that "You don't need a citation for the patently obvious".  :-) You made me laugh!! Can I give you a barnstar for that.  :-) I'm still smiling. --Bardcom (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I was highlighting just how flimsy the citation actually is. The facts that many object, and many don't, come under the category of the bleedin' obvious and don't require citations. But both must be included, or - my preference - neither. TharkunColl (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is patently obvious then it should be easy to find a citation. If you can't or won't then there is no basis for including the statement.--Snowded (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the bleedin' obvious is often the most difficult thing to find citations for. Not including it is just obstructionism. TharkunColl (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the ratio between 'many do's and 'many don't's? If they are not close to equal your proposed wording could be deceptive. The "many" documents that there is controversy. I don't know that we have to document that which isn't part of the controversy. If we were saying "all" or "the vast majority" than that would imply no or few "many don't"s. "Many" leaves plenty of room without having to state it that not everyone is part of the controversy. Nuclare (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source for "many": "Geographical terms also cause problems and we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles';..." The Dynamics of Conflict in Northern Ireland: Power, Conflict and emancipation. Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd. Cambridge University Press. 1996. ISBN:052156879X. Nuclare (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent lets use that one --Snowded (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Another source doesn't mean delete the existing ones... Wotapalaver (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

True, you can always add them back in

Done. Particularly for two reasons. (1) We have editors again saying that there is insufficient reference. Should we somehow point people at the whole /References page? (2) The single reference re the Irish Government that was left on the page dated to 1947. There are more recent references too. Having refs from as long ago as 1947 and the more recent ones indicates to readers that this topic isn't a wiki-fantasy, as often asserted. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully that will close it off. I don't think we should let ourselves get sucked into repeating this debate unless substantial new material is introduced. Its had a good airing and a fairly solid vote. --Snowded (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) Note, dave souza's original proposal was ever so slightly different from the transcription that Snowded put here above, e.g. a semi-colon instead of a comma.. I've made a couple of edits to bring the page text into line with the original Souza proposal. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My fault for picking up a copy not the original - thanks for making the corrections. --Snowded (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to vote

As far as I can see we have agreement on the Souza proposal. One editor who was against has withdrawn. One editor remaining TharkunColl has both refused to provide a citation for a contrary view, and has also refused mediation. I don't think it is possible to achieve a consensus on that basis.--Snowded (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Vote for the Souza Proposal

(please do not include comments or arguments here use the section below)

• FOR --Snowded (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree --Bardcom (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Wotapalaver (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Bill Reid | Talk 18:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Waggers (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Against --G2bambino (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Nuclare (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Jack forbes (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Crispness (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We have seveneightnineten in agreement, one against two editors previously engaged not voting and one new editor expressing "dislike". I think that resolves it and we can now change the main page.

Comments

Dislike "...many people may...", sorry for the dissent after everyone's efforts, but i think we should be more assertive in the lead section of the article. My preference would by:

The British Isles (...) known also by several alternative names, is an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe comprised of Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands. Although still in use, the name British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many find the term offensive or objectionable.

—eric 18:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the length of time this has been going on we really need to resolve it and introducing another phrase at this stage opens everything up again. I would like to make a suggestion. Your sentence above includes the "many", please accept "may" as a compromise for now. The point about alternative names which I think is very valid would then be a new edit --Snowded (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out above; there seems to be a consensus in place. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The majority vote doesn't make a consensus, and it doesn't make things right. The qualifier "many" is not properly sourced. Sure, a couple of sources have been dug up in which an individual states that they think many Irish people object to the term, but that isn't definitive proof that many Irish actually do. "Many" is unquantifiable and should be avoided, and its use is the only real problem with the "Sousa proposal." --G2bambino (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In a single day we've gone from one very pro-BI poster telling us we need no sources to support 'many in Ireland' because it's "bleedin' obvious" that many Irish object, to being told we need more sources. Never a dull moment on Ye Olde British Isles board. Nuclare (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And I thought we had this one signed, sealed & delivered. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There comes a point where any discussion has to stop and I think we all reached there. If G2bambino is not prepared to accept this I suggest he moves back to mediation but for the moment leaves the page as it is. Many, was a compromise like many things in Wikipedia. --Snowded (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Many" was a compromise but, again, that doesn't mean that it lacks sources. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Many" may have been a compromise, but it compromises neutrality in the process. How many people in Ireland find the term offencive is so far unquantified - unless there's a poll, out there somewhere, on the issue. So, there's no percentage to compare to the total population and say whether it qualifies as "many" or not; you're just using the seemingly weakly supported personal opinions of other people to support your own. The most simple and npov solution is to just remove the word "many"; Although still in use, the name British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where people may find the term offensive or objectionable. No added personal interpretations there. --G2bambino (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are in a very clear minority here and the discussion has been extensive. The quote is cited. If you are unhappy with this I think you have to take it to mediation. You are presenting no new arguments which were not part of the original discussion. --Snowded (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer a proper response to the points I raised, as opposed to sarcastic apologies and red herrings. Whether or not the points were raised earlier, they clearly have never actually been tackled. --G2bambino (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) You have not introduced any new arguments. The response to your point can thus be found by reading back through the material. You are reopening an issue which has been resolved and your statement that they have not been tackled is your POV and not justified by the facts. --Snowded (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You know this would be re-opening a pandora's box? It could be messy? GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"May" is then unsupported and inaccurate. If you go to "...the name British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where people find the term offensive or objectionable" you'd be fully accurate and NPOV, no personal interpretations. Are you happy with that? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"May" is not unsupported. Sources prove that some people, at least, object to the term; therefore, within a selection of the population, it is completely plausible that one may come across an objector, or may not. Your version without "may" was actually my initial thought; however, it didn't seem to leave room for those who don't find the term offensive. One could say the name British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where people may or may not find the term offensive or objectionable, but it seems redundant to do so, as "may" already implies that others "may not." --G2bambino (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I love it! "May or may not"!!! Wotapalaver (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling that redundant would be the understatement of the year: It's not redundant; it renders the statement completely meaningless! And we can't just take "many" out without the implication being that there may be no one in Ireland that objects, which would obviously be false. Nuclare (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In reference to the MedCab case, Case Closed. Great job coming to consensus without even needing the requested mediation. Thanks to all involved parties, and happy editing! --Iamzork (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

a cite we can add for WP:NPOV

just noticed this page and chipping in with cites I found:- Other Irish people are less concerned about the use of the term [11] One letter to the editor showed an English person thought avoiding use of the term was "political correctness gone mad." [12]. Ok you might not like to use a letter to the editor one, but we could use the 'others are less concerned' one. Sticky Parkin 02:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

May I point out that the gentleman in question did have an English father and may have been influenced by his politics. I'm not sure he would be typical of the general population of Ireland. Jack forbes (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a fine cite for the naming dispute page. Unless we want to re-open the discussion on the lead?? (not me!) Wotapalaver (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It said 'others are less concerned' not just one bloke. And in another article the atlas creator said he personally had received no compaints from parents, only a geography teacher. That implies not everyone sees it as a big issue. If this article is going to say that it's an offensive term or something, this article should include that it's not all irish people are that annoyed by it, at least some of them. Whether it's in the lead or not is up to you lot. :) Sticky Parkin 12:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe they say others, then choose one man to give an opinion whose father was English. (nothing wrong with that, but as I said, it may influence his opinion). Anyway, as GoodDay say's below, the article says many not all. --Jack forbes (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But the article doesn't say all people in Ireland; it says many. Besides, we've already settled things. GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, some of us hope it's settled. I do anyway! However, here's an interesting "letter to the paper" from a pro-British Isles write in an Irish newspaper 10 years ago who describes the term as "almost taboo among those of Irish nationality". [13]. Hardly Oxbridge, but still. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though he thinks there is nothing wrong with British Isles, he gives another alternative because so many Irish people disagree with the term British Isles. This is someone willing to negotiate. :) --Jack forbes (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

just an fyi, I found a series of letters to the editor in the Irish Times archive. I only posted the one at the ref page, since it was from someone identified as a rep for a TV network, rather than just random individuals. But, for amusement's sake--since we may or may not need a bit of that 'round here--I'm going to post one, which I hope at least GoodDay will enjoy: "Sir, - In the ongoing debate about the use of this term [BI], the fact that the sea between Britain and Ireland is called the "Irish Sea" has been mentioned. I am sure that the good people of Britain would not begrudge us a little bit of sea. After all, we never had a grand empire on which the sun never set. Nevertheless, perhaps we should change the name of the sea to the "British Sea". Maybe then Britain would be less keen to dump all its nuclear waste in it. - Yours, etc.,...Belfast." Nuclare (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Giggle giggle, it's been awhile since I used the Irish Sea in my arguments. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Augh, maybe I shouldn't have posted that then! You're not going to start bringing that up again are you?? :-)) Nuclare (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope; too risky. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a minute? "others are less concerned"- and the "others" is...David Norris. Have you ever every heard Dáithí speak? You can hear the fine Irish accent of this individual here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayMtgwkH0C4. It's not from An Cheathrú Rua that he is now, is it? David Norris is a legend precisely because he... how does one put this...stretches the bounds of Irishness? [God, I should be in politics] Oh, and he's also the senator for Trinity College Dublin, that bastion of Elizabethan civilisation in this dark barbarous land. You certainly choose your "Irish" supporters of the term "British Isles". 86.42.91.234 (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be the IP's opinion that David Norris "stretches the bounds" of Irishness, but that's an opinion. Interesting that the current president of Ireland was born in the UK. Ireland may be comfortable with people who stretch the bounds. Jack Charlton was granted honorary Irish citizenship, so don't be too sure that David Norris isn't 100% Irish. Some would say that Ian Paisley is 100% Irish too - it's complicated. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just what is "interesting" about the fact that Irish people living in Ireland are still being born in the country while its under British occupation, an occupation that is currently going under the guise of the "United Kingdom"? It must have been "interesting" for all the people of Ireland prior to 6 December 1622, then? I'm sure you have a point...somewhere. Or, wait, are you saying all the Irish were not actually Irish because they were born in Ireland when all the country was under British rule? We, the fortunate Irish, were "foreigners" until we broke free from the UK? And we suddenly became Irish again? Go on, go on: let's hear this one out. We "stretched the bounds" of Irishness because our country was under foreign rule? Go on, Einstein. Let's hear it for the Americans, formerly Iraqis, of Iraq in 2008. Mary McAleese is Irish born and bred regardless of the British state's occupation of a small part of our country. There is no "stretching the bounds" of anything about her Irishness. She is as Irish as Aodh Mór Ó Néill and Gearóid Óg Mac Gearailt. This evidently bothers you, and it most certainly bothers your powers of logic. David Norris is neither Irish born, nor very acclimatised to his new environment. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

86.42.91.234, would you please stop with the 'ranting'? GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be offensive- and evidently you do- then here's my brief psychoanalysis of your fine self, God bless you. I strongly suspect that you are ultra-conservative because you are acutely aware of your limitations; clearly on to a "great line" you have repeated the "ranting" accusation many times now. I notice you have similarly repeated some vacuous "love these British-Irish disputes" line elsewhere many times as well. Try, please try, and be somewhat more creative in your insults. Bring something: some passion, some conviction, some heart and most of all some knowledge to this discussion. It is far superior to your currently jejune contributions; you have yet to display a scintilla of understanding of what this term means, what it is designed to mean, and what it is designed to negate. Although paradoxically your support for the term attests to much of that raw tribal WASP instinct to represent the native world in terms which fit into your own tribe's understanding of the world. Alas, us natives are still alive, online, and worse, with no intention of allowing your tribe to represent Ireland as a "British Isle". 86.42.91.234 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OOOh....I'm all a-quiver. Only days ago I was part of a nationalist plot and now I'm bothered by Mary McAleese being born in Belfast, apparently on the grounds that I'm a British stooge. I love it! Of course, Eamon de Valera was born where again? Oh yeah...outside Ireland to a Spanish/Cuban father. It didn't seem to limit his idea of his Irishness, but it's pretty non-standard profile really. Meantime, I can't for the life of me figure out what happened on 6 December 1622. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And alas that indicates too much about the historical knowledge behind your views on Mary McAleese's Irishness- you're not Nora Owen, by any chance? Your view on Mary McAleese is a minority one, as McAleese's election following Owen's remark demonstrated. On 6 December 1922 the Free State took over from your friends, precisely one year after the Anglo-Irish Treaty. So everybody in Ireland before that day, being "born in the UK", must also have been "British" in the world according to you. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Heavens..86.xx.xx is a funny guy but he's going to get a hernia trying to set up so many straw men all at the same time! Apparently now I'm either a British stooge or a former Irish government minister. Either way "the historical knowledge behind my views on Mary McAleese's Irishness" is indicating something to dear old 86.xx.xx. Cool! I just wish I could understand anything dear old 86 is talking about. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

GAA Official and "the British Isles"

In a BBC News report on the deaths of two young GAA players we have the Ulster GAA Secretary stating:

"According to the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young, eight of these deaths happen in the British Isles every week"

GAA deaths 'cannot put kids off'

I thought that was interesting, modern usage from someone from a nationalist background.Starviking (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm sure that examples can be found. One question. How do you know he's a nationalist? Wotapalaver (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, he was indirectly quoting a UK-based organisation (Cardiac Risk) (not to mention that the man himself is based in the UK). Wotapalaver - gaelic games in Northern Ireland? - you can almost be certain that the man is of a Catholic/nationalist background, though I wouldn't over politicise the individual just because of the sports he plays. --89.101.102.10 (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough on "almost certain". It's a workable assumption for talk pages, but not for article text. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

He's almost certainly from a nationalist background, and probably Catholic. Whilst he was quoting from a UK-based organisation, he could easily have said 'Britain and Ireland' if the term 'British Isles' had been too distasteful for him. I think it's good enough for article text, as the controversy is over usage of the term in Ireland.Starviking (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

He most likely a Catholic, but I'm not sure what this example illustrates that we don't already know. Nuclare (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he did say that he found the term distasteful but that wasn't reported. Maybe he used the term and then described how silly he found objections to the term. Who knows? I'm sure that many of the anti-BI posters here have used the term British Isles in this discussion and they didn't always append "But of course I find the term distasteful" every time they did. In either case, he was apparently quoting another organization. An individual example of a non-prominent Irish person living in the UK quoting a UK organization using the term "British Isles" is hardly news. Anyway, maybe like many other UK organisations they mean UK when they say British Isles. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "living in the UK" is relevant here. In fact, it's quite possible that Irish Catholics living in NI, as a group, are MORE bothered by the term than any other group in Ireland. I can't prove that, but it certainly wouldn't be surprising. On the other points, I agree. The simple fact is the article wording already accounts for the fact that there are non-unionists in Ireland that use the term. If it were only unionists, we'd be able to say "a majority" or even "most" rather than "many." Nuclare (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he actually said "Britain and Ireland" and the Beeb changed it to suit the 'house style'? Maybe we should ask him what he actually said? Ask him is he a nationalist? Was he just quoting a term he never use hinself normally? Is he British? So many questions! Sarah777 (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777, your User Page indicates you are a Citizen of Ireland - so you should know that the GAA is a nationalist organisation - of course he's a nationalist, and probably does not see himself as British. But still he used the term "British Isles".Starviking (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

ROFL!! Just checked the Cardiac Risk website ... turns out our mysterious "British Ises" is actually the UK, and does not included Republic of Ireland! --89.101.102.10 (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, unknown user, what's that got to do with it? If you searched the site you'd see it does not include the term 'British Isles' anywhere on its pages - it's used solely by the GAA Official concerned. He could be referring to the UK by using it - but I've never heard anyone in the North use 'British Isles' for 'UK', in fact a nationalist would prefer to use 'UK' over 'British Isles'. I think it's more reasonable to assume he used 'British Isles' to include the Republic too - however incorrect that may have been due to the statistics quoted being UK-only.Starviking (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Touché! Even the cardiacs are more up-to-date than Wiki! Doubtless that is how our GAA man understood the term as well - it being the COMMON USAGE these days. Sarah777 (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not common usage in the North, UK does not equal British Isles there.Starviking (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So? BI isn't the common name in the South - it is the most common name for the UK and the various little bits and scraps of islands in general use. Sarah777 (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Never heard it myself, and I've lots of Southern relatives.Starviking (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent)Enough already. Too many "maybes". Wotapalaver (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly why we need a dab page - "relatives in the South" isn't a standard Wiki 'verifiable source'. Sarah777 (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming they were a 'verifiable source'. I was just pointing out I'd never heard 'British Isles' used the way you suggest, even though I had a very good chance to. By the way Sarah, in your post of 08:14, 18 June 2008 you seem to be unaware of the fact that the GAA is nationalist and not in any way British - which begs the question: are you an Irish resident?Starviking (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland goes under the British Isles usage (along with the UK). For some Irish? it stinks. But hey, my country is on a continent called -North America-. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So are you on record now as thinking "North America" stinks? But, don't underestimate the importance of that modifier 'North.' And, as often as Canadians are mistaken for Americans, I think the tendency to *knowingly* treat Canadians and things/places Canadian as a subset of American and, therefore, calling them just American is far less than the frequency with which Irish people/things/places get knowingly called British.

The issue of 'usage' is interesting. When names have no official status, usage is pretty much all that defines them. How much variation in usage can exist before what is 'correct' varies. Something to ponder, anyways... :-) Nuclare (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've no problem with 'North America'. I was just trying to console the Irish (dishonest? yes; but I'm soft-hearted). GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, and it's come up here not too long ago, many South Americans DO have a problem with the USA and USA'ers appropriating the term "American". Still, it's a separate issue. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

New Serious Problem with the term "British Isles"

See the section above. It is now clear that there are serious disambiguation problems with the term "British Isles" as it appears it is commonly used to mean "the UK". We need to move it to a dab page that gives the options of (1) The Archipeligo sometimes known as the BI and (2) the UK and surrounding minor islands. Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What, move this article? GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree Sarah777, for reasons outlined in the above section.Starviking (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• *Yawn*. Or, y'know, we could leave it as is, and thereby educate people... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, this article is not gonna be moved. At the very least, the term British Isles did exist. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, it still does ;-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I trust ya. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it didn't exist or that it doesn't exist. I'm saying there is no clarity around what it refers to. Hence it should be moved to a dab page. Bastun, I am preparing a formal proposal in this regard and you can give yer smug facetious remarks a further workout then. I note an increasing level of remarks that breach WP:CIVIL coming from you Bastun and frankly I'm a bit disappointed. Sarah777 (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oo. Who's your mentor again? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as no admin has ever had a problem with my civility, I think I'll let our respective block logs spek for themselves. Suffice it to say you're in no position to question my civility. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am especially well qualified to question your civility as I have an absolute right to expect the "community" which imposes such extraordinarily and exceptionally high standards of 'civility' on me makes sure that any incivility towards me is dealt with. Sarah777 (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(Interjection about the interchanges developing between Bastun and Sarah777) Can I suggest that this nascent dispute between Sarah777 and Bastun ends immediately? First, the fact that Sarah777 is trying to reform her behaviour is not giving any editor leave to refer, even if joking, to any mentoring as if some drawing of attention of the mentor to this discussion would be appropriate. So, Bastun, enough of this "Oo Who's your mentor again?" Secondly, the use of unwise language that makes inferences and assumptions about the intentions of others is cetainly to be avoided. So, to Sarah777, I think your choice of words like "smug" and "facetious" were unwise and could hardly be supported given the medium of communication we have here, where intentions and other aspects of communication are lacking. Even if either of you suspect your comments could be true, then it is not helping this discussion to make them. If you cannot discuss matters in an appropriate manner, walk away from the matter. Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You are of course right; I was mildly ribbed and I characterised the ribbing as "smug and facetious" (which it certainly read like) but I would have been better to ignore the remarks. Still, if I hadn't raised them nobody else would (see Bard's comments on Rockpocket's page) - so how do I address incivility towards me if the very act of doing so is interpreted as an offence?) But it is my fault for including "smug and facetious" in my response and I apologise. (I wonder will Bastun apologise for his part in this?) As far as I'm concerned this incident is now over. Sarah777 (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) It's not a "new" problem. There are references on the page already that show that many organizations who say "British Isles" mean UK, or even Great Britain. I'm not for or against any idea on what to do about it, just noting that it's not new. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It is new in the sense that I only became aware of it when the GAA man above was quoted. Clearly a dab page is required. Sarah777 (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

One GAA official quoted in the context of accident statistics? Come on, that is hardly a significant issue.--Snowded (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It drew my attention to a significant issue. Sarah777 (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not anything is done about it, or whether or not it's significant that a GAA official recently MAY have done it too, it's not a new issue. For quite a while (although not any more) if you googled for "British Isles" you'd see this page [14] in the top 5 of results. It's a "British Isles" association but it's only active in Great Britain, uses /gbr as the index for its webpages, and is described elsewhere as the "British" association. It's just one small example, but it's not a new issue. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite amusing. Since they're seagoing boats, the national boundaries won't mean much, and indeed Irish boats competed at Largs recently.[15] Oddly enough, "FFAI or Flying Fifteen Association of Ireland. This is the national association, to which the local clubs affiliate to."[16] So that would seem to exclude the NI clubs, while doubtless RoI clubs would turn up their nose at BIFFA. So it goes. . dave souza, talk 16:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Flying Fifteens are not seagoing in any realistic sense of the word. They're racing dayboats. I'm sure that Irish boats also competed in events all over Europe recently, it's beside the point. The "British Isles" association is GB only. This isn't a new issue. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"So that would seem to exclude the NI clubs ..." Not according to their list of members. Oh, it just gets so confusing, Dave, we have to get to the root of this Mountain with Three Peaks before it drives us all mad. --89.101.102.10 (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the "Ireland" association includes the clubs in NI. In fact, I think that 4 of the 5 clubs listed on the "Ireland" webpage are in Northern Ireland. In any case, it isn't about the Flying Fifteen association. That's just one example. This isn't new. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so. It seems rather insensitive to proclaim "the national association" when it should be "the multinational association", then of course the BIFFA name is inaccurate if it excludes Ireland, and insensitive to anti-British sentiment if it includes Ireland. The joys of changes in language. Goes off to suck Imperial mint :-/ dave souza, talk 08:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you suggest we disambiguate this page to? And on what basis? I don't think one quote from a GAA chap on the BBC is particularly good evidence that it is commonly used to mean "the UK", particularly considering a search of the BBC website shows many other uses where Ireland is explicitly included. But even if that is true, lots of terms are used incorrectly (I'm thinking particularly that England is often used when people actually mean the UK or Britain), but clearly we don't disambiguate England for that purpose. Why should this be any different? Rockpocket 01:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC

Maybe "England" should be disambiguated for that purpose? Many people do say England when they mean the UK and probably search on WP for England when they want the UK. In any case it's a separate argument. Various organizations, beyond this one one GAA official, have used "British Isles" and mean the UK, or Great Britain. It's not a new thing. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely we should - great idea Rock - we need another lateral thinker here - I was starting to feel lonely. After all we dab call Ireland the "Republic of Ireland" because we want to cater for our confused readership - why should "England" be any different. I'll work on a proposal. Sarah777 (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is with the use of the word "British", not the term "British Isles". British, and indeed Britain, are already disambiguation pages. There's no need for a third, which would largely mimic one or both of those. Instead, as a compromise, I suggest that links to these be added as "See also"s or "not to be confused with"s, using {{distinguish}}, {{otheruses}} or similar. Waggers (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

@Waggers, I disagree that the issue - however large it is or isn't - is with "British" and not "British Isles". The issue may be that when some/many/a few people say "in the British Isles" then mean "in Britain" or "in Great Britain" or "in the UK". Now that may mean that the issue is with "British" and with "British Isles". Now, I haven't been advocating anything but I'm curious how those tags would work? Is there an example somewhere? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Distinguish and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Otheruses. Waggers (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"British Isles" isn't "commonly used to refer to the UK", that's a surreal suggestion. "British Isles" is the common term in English for the Arcipelago britannico. I know more can be said about it, that's why we have "Terminology of the British Isles". I really don't see what there is left to discuss here. There is most certainly no grounds for a move. dab (𒁳) 18:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

@dab. Are you setting up a straw man to knock down? You're the first person to say "commonly used to refer to the UK", so why are you putting it in quotes? Wotapalaver (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol - over here in the Arcipelago Hibernofactotum we have a phrase..."stirring the pot" ;) Sarah777 (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

To business: the dab page would look like:

• British Isles may refer to
• - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
• - A group of islands in Northwest Europe

Sarah777 (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah. That doesn't explain where we disambiguate the article to. One of them would be United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, what would the other article be? A group of islands in Northwest Europe isn't particularly helpful. If you have concerns that people (incorrectly) say British Isles when they mean the UK, I think we should use the {{distinguish}} template at the top of this article. Rockpocket 23:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving this article to anything, just doesn't seem advisable. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider who has been observing with interest, I'm reluctant to delve into this minefield of a subject (my utmost respect to all those willing to take on the behemoth), but I have to note my disagreement with the suggested disambig page. The term British Isles doesn't mean the UK, just as England doesn't mean UK, and we shouldn't create dab pages because people don't know the difference, because it's quite simply wrong. -Toon⁰⁵ 13:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

But we do, in fact, create dab pages for that very reason. And we take the apparent level of confusion of the random reader as the key determinant. I'm not saying the dab should only refer to the UK and the island group as possibilities; the term is also used to mean Mainland Britain and surrounding islands and may include or exclude the Channel Islands. But the commonest meaning is probably the UK. Sarah777 (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The commonest meaning (I thought) is Great Britain & Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No G'day; GB & I refers to the entire group of islands bar the Channel Islands whereas the "British Isles" usually refers to the UK only and usually includes the Channel Islands. Sarah777 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain of that; but I won't get too deep into it. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never come across that meaning for "British Isles" in Ireland or Great Britain Sarah. Where in Ireland or Great Britain is it used, in your experience?Starviking (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any sources to back up such a move? --Cameron (T|C) 19:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Google results for "British Isles and Ireland": http://www.google.ie/search?hl=ga&q=%22british+isles+and+ireland%22&meta=; 1st Google result for "British Isles" after the two wikipedia entries: http://www.the-british-isles.com/ Clearly, Ireland is not part of the British Isles. There are very many other sources. At the very least, what the term includes is, like the term itself, controversial. 194.125.126.237 (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed solution to the problem

Rock, I was just kicking off the conversation but I see the problem. How about this:

• British Isles may refer to
• - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
• - A group of islands in Northwest Europe sometimes known as the British Isles

So, we move "British Isles" (the article) to British Isles (archipelago) and create a dab page for "British Isles". Sarah777 (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. British Isles must remain an article. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Must? Is there some Law I am not familiar with?! Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, just my personal opinon (which isn't worth anything). GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with this solution. It just seems to be an Irish POV solution to the British Isles issue based on one source. I acknowledge that the term BI eis a problem but this is not the solution.Pureditor 00:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I see Sarah. I think there is a policy problem though, because the point of disambiguation is to direct readers to articles of the same name. What we would essentially be saying here is British Isles may refer to the British Isles or it may refer to the UK. The UK clearly isn't the same title as British Isles, so this example is not what we use disambigs for. What we do need to do, is direct readers to is the difference between the British Isles and the British Islands (since they sounds sufficiently similar, but have different meanings). I think the dablink at the top of the page does that pretty well though. So I guess I do not endorse this proposal. Sorry. Rockpocket 03:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough Rock - but in fact I've had the experience of having articles moved to a dab page because the title only roughly resembles a different thing/place. From my perspective I always seem to be playing uphill on the field of inconsistency in Wiki. And into the wind. And the slope is slippery. 'Cos of the torrential rain. Sarah777 (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely, as I've already suggested, placing Template:Distinguish2 at the top of the article would suffice. Waggers (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't Template:Distinguish2 be more appropriate? Though I agree that some sort of hatlink is far more appropriate than making British Isles a dab. ras52 (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd perfer ... 'To be confused with the United Kingdom.' :) --62.24.204.7 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that we already have a dablink to British Islands at the top of the page, it seems we've already solved this problem. Job done, end of. Waggers (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Waggers, I'd disagree less with your suggestion of 21:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC) than your suggestion of 08:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Sarah777 (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) We all went though this at length, neared mediation, pulled back and agreed an acceptable compromise. No new information of any substance has been introduced that I can see. --Snowded (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What was the compromise? Can you show me diffs? Sarah777 (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I will shortly take the failure to show the diffs confirming the "consensus" as evidence that there wasn't any. Sarah777 (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatcha mean, exactly? GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just look back on the history, multiple arguments over weeks a vote, sock puppets the lot. All the excitement of anything in the BI/UK/Ireland pages ..--Snowded (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This article shall not be moved, re-directed, deleted, disambiguated. It must remain in place as is (an article). GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Consensus on the lead was achieved here. [17]. Of course, consensus can change but it needs some valid reason. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Culture Section

I've begun looking for citations for the unsourced statements in it, but I think everyone can agree it needs some serious trimming. Any proposals? (Please don't let this be another fight starter...) -MichiganCharms (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess my question with that section is "What's it for?". Is it to show similarities, differences, what? If it's to show similarities, do they have to be more similar than similarities with other European countries? Ditto with differences. Or, could it just be a semi-random collection of generally interesting stuff? Wotapalaver (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Similarities or differences between who or what? (rhetorical question). The section is there to explain the culture(s) of the people(s) that populate the British Isles, not to promote any point of view around whether there are broad similarities or differences across the islands and their people. I agree the section is quite long as it stands - a quick win would be to add some subheadings or split it into three sections (culture, media, sport). Waggers (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cultural similarities or differences between the cultures. Otherwise you have to assert that there's a single culture, which would be difficult. As for "promoting" a point of view, I'll assume the remark isn't supposed to mean anything in particular. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To assert that there is a single culture (without references) would be asserting/promoting a particular point of view. Equally, to assert that there are several different cultures (without references) would also be asserting/promoting a particular point of view. The purpose of the culture section is to describe the culture of the British Isles. I don't think starting this discussion with a loaded question is a helpful way forward. Anyway, back to the point - what do you think about subsections, or even separate media and sport sections? Waggers (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think subsections is the way to go. As to the why, all it does is show the culture of the Isles, some of it is is shared, some of it is distinct... in the end, though, the existence of a culture can't be denied. On another topic, finding a cite that British people don't often watch Irish programs or read Irish papers is very hard, any suggestions? -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a tricky one, I'll have a think about it. I also think it's worth mentioning that although there isn't a great audience for Irish media in the UK, Irish people on British media are hugely popular. The most listened to radio show in the UK is that of an Irishman (Terry Wogan) and there's no getting away from likes of Graham Norton, Louis Walsh, and Diarmuid Gavin on TV. Waggers (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Subsections are fine by me. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Unclear descriptions of images

One image has this:
"Number able to speak indigenous languages as a percentage of appropriate population area in the British Isles. Note: Figure for English is for whole of the British Isles and includes native speakers only."
which I changed to:
"Percentages able to speak indigenous languages of appropriate population area in the British Isles. Note: Figure for English is for the whole British Isles and includes only native speakers."
but what does it mean?
What is or defines an "appropriate population area"? Can Kilburn be an appropriate area for the Irish language? Maybe Ireland (somehow chosen) is a example where nearly half can speak Irish but on what area is Shelta's figure based? If the speakers are numerically few but geographically wide-spread (letting their area be all the UK) their "statistic" cannot be used to compare or contrast with, say, the Welsh's.
Shouldn't "in the British Isles" be immediately after (my) "Percentages"?
"British Isles" is an ill-defined (malevolently-defined) multiply-defined term. JHC knows why but see the reams of 'Tis/'Tisn't on the talk pages, there is no English Academy and what people mean by certain noises is what language is. Since "British Isles" is ill-defined (not because it may be disputed) the term should be avoided or explained when used.
The first nine words of "Figure for English is for the whole British Isles and includes only native speakers" seem to be a deliberate contrast with the undefined "appropriate population area"s
What are "indigenous languages"? Looks like it means "honky-talk". But then is Cornish (a tweely artificially restored language) indigenous? What about third-generation Britons of, for example, subcontinental origin?
Who is caught or lost by "native speakers"?
What about British Sign Language, surely indigenous (ASL is different), even at only one in a thousand?
Another image said it was "data-generated", What's that? A plot, however imperfect, from any record, however imperfect, is generated from data yet data per se cannot create anything unless perhaps the collapse of a table under the weight of books on it.
The map of population densities is based on some unspecified regionalisation (and once more, sorry about Éire).--SilasW (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

On the language section: You could certainly apply percentages for the whole area as well as per "appropriate area". I think the appropriate areas would be as follows; English (whole area), Irish (ROI and Ireland as a whole), Scots (Scotland), Ulster Scots (NI), Welsh (Wales), Channel Islands Languages (CI), French (CI and whole area), Manx (IoM), Scots Gaelic (Scotland), Cornish (hmmm..dunno), Shelta (hmmm...dunno). Main problem is that there's no source. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The figure is silly and should be removed. 0% speak Shelta? 0% of whom? Of travellers? Of Irish? Of Irish, English, Scots etc. combined? It's meaningless. I'm pretty sure it's a bit of OR by Sony-youth aka Grahamzilch but since he has retired we'll never know. Scolaire (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)