Talk:British Isles

---

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 [1] 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.[2] Oddly enough, "FFAI or Flying Fifteen Association of Ireland. This is the national association, to which the local clubs affiliate to."[3] 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)

'Tis best to leave the article as is (as an article). To change it into something else, mean creating alot of headaches. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Headache or not, getting it right is the important thing. Would not a headache be worth it if the truth were written? Celt 63 (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes: the truth. I believe we have an essay about that: Wikipedia:The Truth. Rockpocket 03:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't say what the truth is, I say giving the reason for not changing an article because it will cause headaches is no argument. Celt 63 (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

True. Rockpocket 05:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the truth doesn't matter at all on Wiki; verified lies are much preferred. I have no less an authority than Jimbo Wales for this. But, in fact, the naming of this article has little to do with truth or lies and is all about the simple insertion of majority (US/UK) pov into the article title - a title which also happens to be grossly offensive. (Though of course that doesn't matter in Wiki either - unless the majority think it does, in which case the rules can be set aside to support majority POV). Sarah777 (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I grumped before; if yas wanna tweak the content & omit Ireland from the BI's description (putting it in a historically wording)? be my guest. Heck, gut the whole article out (if yas want); just don't move the article. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems the article causes headaches whether the name is changed or not. What happens when both sides of the argument can cite sources, is it then a matter of a majority concensus? Personaly, I have no strong opinion either way, but it seems bringing in people who don't feel too close to the debate could bring in a more neutral view. The difficulty being of course, how do you know when someone is being politicaly neutral. Celt 63 (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Someday (IMO) this article will be giving a 6-months rotation on it's Title. Rotaing the names British Isles & British-Irish Isles. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Great idea Good Day! I am 100% behind this idea. How can I do this?

Johnpigg (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

British Isles usage

Hi, recapping numerous discussions here, I believe that a consensus had been reached on the British Isles being a valid geographical term. As a guideline, this has been very helpful in helping editors form opinions and reach consensus on individual articles. All great. Unfortunately there are a number of different type of uses which are not clearcut. Is there an interest in developing general guidelines, perhaps using examples? Just indicate here if you are interested or not. If there's enough interest, we'll work out the next steps... --Bardcom (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting here that the term geography covers human geography just as much as it covers physical geography. TharkunColl (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Having (maybe) got the country debate out of the way for a bit, it would make sense to try and resolve this related issue. Makes sense --Snowded (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, I'm not aware of any consensus that the term "British Isles" is a "valid" geographical term. It is widely used. That's a fact. Whether or not it's "valid" is a value judgement. There are different opinions on its validity. In any case, I saw a recent reference to a dictionary that describes the term as obsolete. I must dig it up. Can it be obsolete and valid at the same time? Wotapalaver (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need our to make our own guidelines for when it is and isn't appropriate to use the term - just stick to what references say. If a reference says "British Isles" and you think it's meant to say "United Kingdom" then leave it as "British Isles". Verifiability, not truth. Besides, any such guideline would have to acknowledge that Ireland is part of the British Isles and that the term should therefore appear on the Ireland article, and a number of other Ireland related articles. Sadly there's currently too much WP:OWNing going on with those articles for that to ever happen, even if there's a Wikipedia-wide consensus that WP:CENSOR should be applied (which, of course, there already is). Waggers (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the first step is to "frame" the discussion and it might be best to use examples from articles to help group similar usage together. Once that is done, we can discuss each usage type. I used to follow the References and Verifiability guidelines, but recently this is no longer acceptable by some - see River Thames frost fairs as an example. At least with community agreed guidelines, it's progress of a sort... --Bardcom (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is discussion necessary in the first place? I don't see this happening for other terms on Wikipedia - even controversial ones. If an editor finds a reference that says "X is the biggest Y in the British Isles" and adds a sentence to that effect to an article, why do we need to discuss it here? Just let it be. Waggers (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Because we've now seen two articles where this isn't the case. This article appears to be governed by an agreement reached whereby the term British Isles wouldn't be inserted into Ireland-related articles if it wasn't already there. There are also a number of other articles, such as River Thames frost fairs, Furry Dance, Guernsey Pound, and Unitised insurance fund with no references and a number of editors fighting to keep the term in. Having simple guidelines would help resolve these and related matters. Alternatively, if you like to visit the articles I've mentioned and have success in changing them, perhaps the objections are really only stemming from the fact that I'm an Irish editor....which would really be a nasty problem to confront. --Bardcom (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no such agreement. No discussion has taken place, nor consensus reached. TharkunColl (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"with no references and a number of editors fighting to keep the term in." - certainly some of those articles do have references, and editors would only "fight" to keep the term in if there were other editors "fighting" to take the term out. As I said, just let it be. Then there'll be no conflict and we can all get on with doing something a bit more constructive. Waggers (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. Of the article I've mentioned, perhaps Guernsey Pound has a reference, but the rest most certainly don't. And of course you'd prefer if everyone just left it be.... --Bardcom (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see the point in creating a lot of fuss and getting a lot of people's backs up over such a small issue. It's nothing more than WP:POINTing. Waggers (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, better handled article by article or use a work around (as happened on Frost Fair from what I can see). --Snowded (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I see. SO Waggers starts out by justifying the editing of the River Shannon article by saying If an editor finds a reference that says "X is the biggest Y in the British Isles" and adds a sentence to that effect to an article, why do we need to discuss it here?, but when it's pointed out that there are many unreferenced uses, it's now a case of 'nothing more than WP:POINTing. Double standards anyone? @Snowded, up till now, I was editing on the basis of it being handled article by article - and indeed it would continue to be my preference, but a number of editors are now unhappy with this approach and simply revert any edits that result in the term "British Isles" being removed from an article. Doesn't matter if it's a good edit. So in order to avoid edit wars, the choices appear to either agree on guidelines, leave the articles (incorrect usage or not), or edit war. --Bardcom (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically the problem is one where the two "sides" are not listening to each other. Some people point out - correctly - that the term is widely used and others point out - correctly - that the term is not generally acceptable in Ireland if it's used to describe Ireland. The side that say the term is widely used are inclined to deny that the term is offensive in Ireland, which is rather more relevant than if it were offensive in Thailand. The side that say the term is offensive in Ireland don't want to see the term used anywhere on WP, despite the fact that the term is widely used around the world. Worse there are partisans on both sides but - from what I see mostly {and I don't claim that my view is complete} - there are more partisans trying to unnecessarily insert the term into Ireland related articles than to unnecessarily remove it from indubitably British related articles. Also, the "pro" side tend to present "anti" arguments as unreasonable and political - even though they're very well referenced. A little courtesy and listening might help! Wotapalaver (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The term is used in Ireland. TharkunColl (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is, just not very often. Similarly terms like "British Isles and Ireland" are used in Britain, just not very often. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Anf the term, British state terrorism in Ireland, is used in Britain to describe the actions of your most civilised state in Ireland. I trust you will now accept the legitimacy of that term as impartial and apolitical? You have your tribe, and the Irish have theirs. You just want the "British Isles" myths of your tribe to win this one. Unfortunately, the Irish still remember, and feel...the hyprocrisy of the British on, well, everything connected with political power and colonial claims and misrepresentation of Irish identity. You, being what you are, will never wish to conceive of the true gulf between your British nationalist claims to Ireland, and the opinions of the vast majority of the people on this island. How many bombs does it take? How many Irish people must vote for explicitly Irish nationalist parties; is 83% of the island's population not enough? "British Isles"? You people are nutjobs. Fanatical scum without your empire to be sent to, to smash the skulls of blacks and Paddys alike. Instead, in 2008, you are stuck on wikipedia trying to lord it over the native Irish. Roll on smart bombs... and a lower birth rate among the plebian class in mother England. Censor this, but you will never censor the resistance to your self-serving British nationalist claim that we, the Irish people, are British. You people, the British, murdered and slaughtered and dispossessed us for centuries. And then, from the Ashbourne Land Act in 1885, you made us pay for our own land back. Civilised British? Impartial British? Disgusting. Rapists. Jesus Christ. I better stop (in the English language). 86.42.100.185 (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was considering 'deleting' your hate-posting 'again'. But perhaps it's better to let you show all of us your 'political views'; let you show your true emotions. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and maybe then I'll start deleting Tharks hate-posts. Sarah777 (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If it'll help create a calmer enviroment? go ahead. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(references)The idea of references is turning into a laughable concept. There are many articles without references that are being "protected" by a group of like-minded admins and editors. Trying to discuss the article or point out references is met with name-calling and derision. Attempting to bring the item to the notice of admins results more of the same. The idea that a minority of editors can act in a coordinated way in an attempt to hijack the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia is worrying. More than that, the silent majority sit on the sidelines. Come on people - let's hear you. Good or bad, agree or not agree, this is *our* project. What is the consensus here over the term British Isles? Geographical? Political? Change existing article for correctness? Leave alone? --HighKing (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that a small group of editors have worked together to spread anti-BI propaganda across Wikipedia - claiming, for example, that the term is universally hated in Ireland, and suppressing evidence to the contrary. It is they who have distorted facts for political reasons, not anyone else. TharkunColl (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Objection. There is a difference between pointing out the term is political, not NPOV and that it is "universally hated in Ireland". We know the British living in Ireland don't hate it for example. Sarah777 (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Check my compromise-proposal at British Isles naming dispute article. It ain't perfect - but neither is edit wars & page protections. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion was very good (and similar to what was previously agreed), however it is obvious that any compromise that doesn't involve shoving the term BI down our necks is totally unacceptable to the British Nationalist editors and their Admin support. Sarah777 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto to the objection on TharkunColl's assertion of anti-BI "propaganda". If nothing else, the person that Thark himself found to have first used the term in English is described as writing propaganda. So, the Greeks first used the term in ignorance and then it was used as propaganda? Cool. The fact remains that there are eminent references that the term is offensive and widely unacceptable in Ireland (note widely not universally). This is verifiable fact, whether TharkunColl likes it or not. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, please show us where it was "previously agreed". TharkunColl (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom/HK, would you ever link to where that was agreed? Sarah777 (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"British Nationalist editor" could be viewed as a pejorative term and I suggest those using it watch their step. CarterBar (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But edit comments about editors being "terrorist supporters" wouldn't be pejorative? (Of course not - I forgot the judges (Admins) in all of this are mainly British). And the Irish ones are struck dumb while Irish editors, one after another, are blocked and banned. Sarah777 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Having abusive terms aimed at one does not justofy using similar terms back: we are meant to have matured beyond that stage. Do not use "British Nationalist" again, and if you see similar terms aimed at yourself, merely alert an administrator. Action may be taken if such insult-swapping is continued.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully all those hurtful terms: Irish Nationalist, British Nationalist, terrorist, suppressors etc; will someday ceased to occur. It's pains me to see my cousins, tear each other apart (printing wise). GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, I recently read a bit of Davies - he of the Isles - and IIRC part of his argument was that the "British Isles" idea was part of a conscious nationalist English (or Tudor, so therefore Welsh/English) attempt to create separation from the mainland of Europe.

You see, the reality is that we're all cousins..including the Dutch (all those Orangemen, see!), the French (all those Hugenots), the Germans (all those Kings and Queens of England), the Norwegians, Swedes and Danes (all those Vikings). It wasn't in Davies but it was somewhere similar that said that part (part) of the reason that Ireland didn't like the British Isles map image was because it was isolationist and cut the islands off from their cultural heartland. Anyway, apart from all the nearer nationalities, nowadays we need to include the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Russians, West Indians, etc.,etc.,etc. as "cousins" Wotapalaver (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Read yesterday in the Oirish Times that the (British) mandarins produced a report on the Common Travel Area in which they kept calling the island of Great Britain the "UK"; to distinguish it from the island of Ireland. Progress continues....Sarah777 (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps they were just stupid. The British authorities were originally quite happy to use .gb as the top level country domain for the UK, until someone realised it left out NI. ðarkuncoll 13:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thark, being optimistic by nature I'd reject the "stupidity" theory and take it as an indication of official thinking. All-ways look on the briiii-hight sigh-hide of life...whoo whoo, whoo whoo, whoowhoo whoowhoo whoowhoo whoowhoo whoowhoo...Sarah777 (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Never, ever underestimate the capacity for official stupidity. It can be truly astonishing at times. Like when a civil servant posted a cd containing the personal details of every single mother in the country receiving child benefit, and it got lost. Or the same thing with all driving license holders in NI (I think it was). ðarkuncoll 13:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well TG I'm not a Public Servant or I'd have to report you for WP:NPA. Phew! That was close :) Sarah777 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think some people are exempt from that rule, such as politicians for example. How do you know a politician is lying? Because he's got his mouth open. ðarkuncoll 15:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: .gb ad "forgetting" about Northern Ireland, no great shakes there. GB was registed by the state centred mainly on the island to my right as their 2-character code in 1974. It was "Great Britain", apparantly all on it's own, that faught in the first World War, so I cannot see how they could complian if we would not join them in the second. It was a "Great Britain" olympic team that took such exception to Irish athletes refusing to compete under that name (something missing form the WP article) or flying their own flag. One wonders why bother with a union at all, if you will call yourself Great Britain (and British) before and expect the other person to call themselves that after. But then, we only have to look to the island to our right to see that "English" is normal, and attesting any other national character is deviant and subversive. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(reduce)While I've read the same story about the Irish athletes in a couple of places, that source on the 1908 Olympics has to be regarded as dodgy since it describes the Finnish athletes refusing to parade for the Soviet Union. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Channel Isles

See John Cary's A New Map of the British Isles, from the Latest Authorities 1807. This is the earliest map that I can find that categorically excludes the Channel Islands. Is anyone aware of an earlier reference that includes the Channel Isles? Is anyone aware of an earlier map that refers to the British Isles? Lucian Sunday (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A good place to look is Google Books. For example, this children's atlas from 1834 explicitly includes them. How do you mean that John Cary categorically excludes them? --89.101.103.144 (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To use the book you mention to include Channel Isles as Part of BI would need some creativity - it is not the explicit reference I am looking for -and it lumps in Jersey & Guernsey as part of Hampshire! You can see John Cary's map on his wikipage; Shetland is off the map but is displayed via an inset; Alderny & part of Guernsy are not detailed like the BI and there is no inset of the Channel Islands. Lucian Sunday (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"some creativity"?? See the table of contents for England and Wales, they are listed as Jersey and Guernsey (i.e. the Channel Islands). Maps are on page 312. That (like the OED definition) is an explicit reference. You are right that the Channel Islands do not appear in detail in the map shown on Cary's Wiki page, but that is an inference - and a long way off "categorically" excluding them.

I wouldn't be so surprised about the Channel Islands being included as part of Hampshire. They are still treated along with Hampshire for many sporting associations, for example athletics, golf and rugby. --89.101.103.144 (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose we merge this conversation with Talk:Terminology of the British Isles#Are the Channel Islands part of the British Isles? Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to vary agreed consensus on use of term

TharkunColl is attempting to modify the previously agreed consensus on the words in respect of the Irish Government's attitude the term British Isles. I have opened this section so he can bring the discussion to the talk page rather than initiating an edit war. --Snowded TALK 23:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus reached, should be respected. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What's there to discuss? That particular Irish government is no more. We have no idea what the current one thinks. ðarkuncoll 23:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you will have to go through every Government article on every country page modifying any statement for any prior administration. Government's have continuity of policy. At any rate TharkunColl that is not really the point. You know how long it took to get an agreement on the text, you know the change would be controversial, why not just raise it here first given the history and suggest the change? Why reject the request to take it to the talk page? That is normal practice on any issue which had this level of discussion. --Snowded TALK 23:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So is it still British government policy to try and recover Normandy and other lost possessions of the crown in France? When was this centuries-long policy rescinded? ðarkuncoll 23:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice debating point, but I think the claim and any reversal precedes Hansard so its a bit difficult to check. Going back to the middle ages is an interesting tactic. Given that the statement is in the recent past I think my point stands. It is completely normal for a statement of this type to stand unless it is rebutted by the government. This seems like an attempt to reopen an issue which was put to bed in the fairly recent past rather than an attempt to improve the article. --Snowded TALK 23:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just an attempt at truth, that's all. Not that that ever cuts much ice around here. ðarkuncoll 23:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You do throw the words "truth" and "fact" around a lot you know. Either way I think my view above stands, lets see if anyone else wants to disrupt the previous consensus. --Snowded TALK 23:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) TharkunColl does have a point, but it should have been brought here first rather than edit-warred about given the previous history. It seems to me that the two versions of the phrase under dispute are these: (a) "the Irish government also discourages its usage." (b) "a previous Irish administration has also discouraged its usage.", with (a) being the one achieved by means of consensus. I suggest that a possible compromise might be to consider the wording (c) "an Irish administration also discouraged its usage." which would make it much more stable in terms of not having to be attended to if the administration changes, or its opinion changes (at which point, a suitable addition to the phrase could be appended, such as ", though the current one has a different opinion..." Of course, they need to be suitably sourced. It maintains the continuity idea, though suitably weakened in the light of the uncertainty brought by the change in administration.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would not object to your "an" compromise per se, but the manner of the attempted change was at best insensitive to the history. However I think we should see what other people think. If there is no evidence of the current Irish Government using the term I don't see the need for a change. I also note that other editors on other pages have argued that the term is less likely to used now than in the past. They might want to provide some evidence along those lines. I suggest we leave it for other comments for a day or so and see. If no one feels strongly and Tharky wants to press the issue then your compromise would be a reasonable way forward. I do think that the continuity of government issue is key however. On Tharky's argument we would have to go through thousands of articles every time a government changed --Snowded TALK 00:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree that a consensus is needed for any change given the history of the matter. My compromise was just one way of trying to reach some common ground to see if that might help a consensus emerge. It does need discussion, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say the prior supposed "consensus" (ie 'eventual vote' - when did they become the same thing?) over this Irish gov line was a bloody circus, IMO. A total clumsy farce, in fact. I object to the maximum in it being alluded to as any kind of sensible consensus! A couple of new faces go involved, that's all, and one is currently not allowed to edit here. If if people give up in utter disgust it doesn't make outcomes of poll etc credible. In a true consensus, people like me would be happy - I couldn't be less happy with this line. It is simply a wind-up to call it "consensus" when it is so contentious. It's just gloating from a currently victorious side. Winning little 'votes' and consensus - why do people confuse them so much? They are not the same!

I've revised the new guideline at WP:BRITISHISLES if anyone wants to look - and corrected the mistakes in it that were in there when I first put it up. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Eleven editors were involved in the Souza proposal, with only one dissent to the final phrasing. That is kinda of how it works around here. Making everyone happy is not possible. Using phrases like "bloody circus" and "clumsy farce" is hardly assuming good faith in respect of those eleven editors. If something is to change, then it will change by discussion here. --Snowded TALK 01:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on, they just wanted it over - and there was only one option on table in the end. Souza himself supported my own proposal, as did Waggers and others, til I retired after the "Souza" nonsense took over. Having just jumped into the article, did you even realise the supposed "proposal" was only an insignificant single-word change to the article as it stood?? I ended up retiring as a direct consequence of this, albeit for just a month. What you Christened the "Souza proposal" (though you kept confusing what the actual words were at first!) was just little more than a question by him!!! He didn't even vote (having not "proposed " anything) - or even comment again after posing it!! I simply cringe when I hear the words 'Souza proposal'. People bow to the extremism in this article as it gets fought with by brandished claws - it's the fulcrum - the melting pot - the main article. And the Inro counts.

I had been working on this line in the Intro for a couple of months - and the way my initial proposal went from my choice of sensible options (which were being discussed and developed by people) to an insignificant one-word-change championed by you and the article-blocked Jack Forbes, was just typical of how people get quickly pissed off with things here. It was ultimately an acceptance of non-change - a finalisation to a pointless poll. Nobody was proposing anything for most of it! Sometimes lines in articles have to stabilise for a while for sake of sanity - it does NOT equal consensus. It just simply suits you personally, Snowded. Others - no. It is no consensus. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, when an agreement has been reached on things, then the general process is to discuss changes here before changing them again. That is all that anyone is saying here. If you want to attribute motives to people (including me) then feel free but you are addressing the person rather than the content. Whatever your frustration it might make sense for you to check out WP:NPA --Snowded TALK 02:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have completely protected the article and urge those engaged in gaming the system by going up to the 3rr limit on edit warring without discussion that this is not good behaviour: it will lead to consequences if it is shown again. I completely protected the article as a preventative measure to try to minimize disruption and to ensure discussion takes place here without any editor getting a block for edit-warring.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

He's the one, by the way, who gave me a two-week block for merely making a comment on a talk page. It seems that uncongenial opinions really aren't welcome around here. ðarkuncoll 23:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is edit warring up to the 3rr limit that aren't welcome, and you know it.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And how about blocking for refusing to be told not to comment? ðarkuncoll 23:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thark; you are going over old ground here. I supported you (as did others) and you were unblocked. I'm not a fan of invoking edit-war blocks before 3RR; way too much Admin discretion. As we Roman Catholics were taught; such power may become an Occasion of Sin. Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

May or Do?

This article says many people "may" find it offensive. Surely, even the citations support the replacement of "may" with "do". I am thinking in particular of the reference to that effect from the democratically-elected government of Ireland. But its removal from school atlases and many other references easily support that many "do" in fact find the term British Isles offensive rather than simply "may". 78.16.186.184 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As you well know, the well runs dry far far too quickly in term of real-life examples of any "offense" taken. Even the Folens atlas people said they had no parental complaints, and it was precautionary measure. There are not anything like the kind of contemporary examples you would expect - there are virtually none in fact, outside of academic works that have their own internal weight. The fact we are allowing people to appropriate the word 'many' into this article, and re-weight it to refer to mainly themselves(!) is a total blight on Wikipedia.

As a double compromise (over "many" and the spokesman quote), the line should be something like this: '''Although commonly used worldwide (especially in a 'technical' manner in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history), the term British Isles has been controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people have found it objectionable.[r][r}[r] The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage its usage".[r]'''

All the extremely finite examples of the offense taken are built up over time: there is nothing to suggest it is commonly and notably in dispute as we speak, outside of people like yourself on (and often using) Wikipedia. The argument that the words "have found.." suggests the term is now fully accepted is just blatant stonewalling - it does nothing of the kind. It is only acceptable compromise IMO - really the word "many" should be removed, and a totally non-specific statement should be made. "many may" was a compromise but is just a doubly 'weasel-worded' expression.

Nobody in the Irish gov since 1947 has suggested that the term is discouraged, other than this 'spokesman' - so he should be quoted, if he is to be used at all. It was a quote - so why not quote it? Or we hiding an ambiguity here? He does not say in what capacity the term is discouraged - certainly is not legal terminology in the ROI. Maybe it is just in that capacity? We suggest they universally discourage it, with no evidence at all.

Compromises aside, the line should really just say that people have taken issue with the inherent ambiguity in the term, due to the Republic of Ireland not being part of Britain, and that though a number alternatives have been suggested, only 'Great Britain and Ireland' has really been used in its place. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Although commonly used worldwide, especially as a 'technical' term in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, the term 'British Isles' has been criticised for having the political term "British" within it. This is controversial in relation to Ireland [r][r}[r], as the Republic of Ireland in the island of Ireland is not British, and the citizens of Northern Ireland can have Irish-only, British-only, or joint identities, and hold British, Irish or dual citizenships. The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage its usage".[r] A number of alternatives have been proposed throughout the history of the term, although many have been criticised themselves[r], and only variations of 'Great Britain and Ireland' have been widely used. There is evidence that a form of "Britain and Ireland" has being increasingly used in mapmaking over recent years.[citation needed]"

• Line added: "and the citizens of Northern Ireland have a choice of British or Irish citizenship, or both." --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Revision added: "and the citizens of Northern Ireland can have Irish-only, British-only, or joint identities, and hold British, Irish or dual citizenships." Nothing is as good as explaining the situation. If progress here remains deliberately stonewalled, and this information continues to be censored I'll take it to Arbcom and fight it on the widest scale I can. Enough is enough. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Added words: "a form of "Great Britain and Ireland". Some maps, like a National Geographic one, are using "Britain and Ireland".

• Added clarity: "and only variations of 'Great Britain and Ireland' have been widely used. There is evidence that a form of "Britain and Ireland" has being increasingly used in mapmaking over recent years.[citation needed]"

I'm not fully sure about the last line, as "Great Britain and Ireland" has always been used in tandem with "British Isles" for maps. Is it really being used more now? We really need a quote that says this. You have always been able to get geographical and political ranges of maps and globes - they are each labelled differently. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you find any British Isles atlases published in the last 2 or 3 years? AA was publishing them for a long time annually, but they seem to have stopped around 2002. While there are plenty of Britain and Ireland/Great Britain and Ireland atlases published in 2008, 2007, I haven't been able to locate any 'British Isles' titled ones, even though these clearly were being published previously. Are there any? What publishers?

On your latest wording: I know for your BI guideline you want to specify the ROI for specific consideration, but it simply isn't true here to confine the controversy about the term to the ROI. The sources don't back this up either. There is, as I assume you are aware, an international agreed treaty that makes British *identity* optional in Northern Ireland. *This* is a big part of what makes the term problematic on the island of Ireland. I'm not advocating anything in regards to the BI guideline, but we cannot insert language here that isn't accurate in describing the nature of the controversy. It is NOT just because of the ROI and to say so just isn't accurate. Where is the "throughout the term's history" claim coming from? I'm perfectly supportive of quoting the Irish embassy spokeman directly and attributing the quote to 'a spokesman for the Irish embassy to the UK". Nuclare (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll re-write it to include Northern Ireland! --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've simply added "and the citizens of Northern Ireland have a choice of British or Irish citizenship." Good idea - makes it much better. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Some would dispute that wording. I don't think citizenship is the right word to use. The less debateable way of wording it would be in terms of identity. And I'm not sure adding more sentences on this issue to the intro. is the best solution. Nuclare (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the "best solution" then? The sentences are notable, verifiable and relevant - they only haven't happened because certain editors have wanted the Intro kept short, sweet, and dispute-heavy. In Wikipedias terms that is 100% unacceptable. I'll put in 'identity' of you wish, though I can see what is coming: it will eventially be called "too long". But I know all the games. Progress will NOT be stopped forever. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with maps is that I can always remember "Great Britain and Ireland" road maps being in existence. Without a decent quote, it's verging on Original Research - but I'm happy to help construct a highly plausible case, certainly. I noticed National Geographic has moved BI down to the small text - but still used BI in their website. I honestly think been happening naturally over the years - I'm not sure there has necessarily been a great 'move' recently. But I'm willing to wave my doubts if a case can be made.

The issue wouldn't be the presence of GB&I, it would be the absence of BI. I know that this could verge into OR, but I'm not so much interested in inserting language into the Wiki page concerning this, as simply knowing what sources are or are not out there using the term or not. As I said, I'm still searching for evidence of whether some of the companies that clearly were regularly publishing BI atlases (AA, Reader's Digest) still are. I can't find any, thus far. Can you be more specific about where the NG "moving...to the small text" is? Nuclare (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the one. It says "British Isles" in the small text on the map (you can zoom in and see). It use to be the "British Isles" map. I'll look through the archives for my original link - I think the original webpage had the words "British Isles" in it too. Interesting that it is now "Britain and Ireland" - not "Great Britain and Ireland". It shows how NI is commonly seen as being in Britain, as well as being 'British'! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt - I typed in the words "british isles offensive" into google and first up was "In Ireland, the term 'British Isles' has been considered as at least mildly offensive since the time of the struggles for Irish independence" [4] - in what, oddly, seems like a rival version of Wiki! Point is, there are innumerable references to the fact that the term is unpalatable, in varying degrees, to most Irish people. Constant denial of this fact is becoming irritating and is impeding any chance of progress here. Sarah777 (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The "at least mildly offensive" example you have given (Citizendium is not a reliable source!), and your own concluding' words: "there are innumerable references to the fact that the term is unpalatable" simply do not combine. Who are you trying to kid? I'm going to construct a table that will force you to find 36 'reliable sources' past and 36 'reliable sources' present. I'll find them for usage of the word, and I'll start you off too. You will severely struggle for 'past', and as for 'present'? It will make you look foolish. I'll do the work involved as I'm tired of this shameless madness myself. All you have to do is withdraw just a little from a wildly untenable position - but you just simply won't budge. So I'll keep it up til you have no choice but to play fair, and the shrill screams of "no!" will finally be sent to bed. You have someone in me who is prepared to allow for your POV as much as possible. But your feet are just hooked to the floor.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty full of yourself I see Matt - nonetheless I had to chuckle at the idea that you could make me look foolish! Remember two things Matt re your 36 thingies: (1) I don't do tricks for the children (2) I don't play by your rules. Sarah777 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-censored proposal for Introduction

I'm making this a proposal, as it appears the article is currently locked due to this matter! --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Current line:

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

Proposed lines:

"Although the term is used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, it is periodically criticised for the way the political term "British" suggests that Britain owns all the isles.[r][r}[r] This is controversial in relation to the dual-nationality island of Ireland, as the Republic of Ireland and its islands are not part of Britain, and the citizens of Northern Ireland can have Irish, British, or joint identities and citizenship. The term is not generally used by the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish embassy in London has said "we would discourage its usage".[r] A number of alternatives have been proposed throughout the history of the term, although many have been criticised themselves[r][r][r], and only variations of 'Great Britain and Ireland' have been widely used. There is evidence that forms of "Britain and Ireland" have been increasingly used by cartographers over recent years.[citation needed]"

• Revision made: "specifically" for "especially" in first line.

• Revision made: "The term is not generally used by the Irish government" for "The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government"

• Revision made: "Although the term is used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, it is periodically criticised for having the political term "British" within it.[r][r}[r]" for "Although commonly used worldwide, especially as a 'technical' term in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, the term 'British Isles' has been criticised for having the political term "British" within it."

• Revision made: "criticised for the way the political term "British" suggests that Britain owns all the isles." for "criticised for having the political term "British" within it." --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Revision made: "and its islands" added after Republic of Ireland in the second line. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For me the proposal is simply a standard unbiased Wikipedia style approach. It uses notability, verifiability and weight. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with this proposal. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A much simpler approach for the lede, linking back to extensive and recent discussions would be : The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[ref group] where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable; the Irish government has also discourages its usage.[ref group]. I have inserted "has" in deference as a compromise with Tharky's original proposal. Of course if additional citable material is available then then might change. The material on changing use of language in respect of atlases is I think a useful addition for the main body but not the lede (although I think National Geographic are using "Britain and Ireland" as a geographical not a political term by the way). The issue on citizenship and identity is inappropriate for a geography article (which has already got enough political issues). A variation of that, incorporating some of the above text would be: The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[ref group] where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable; The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage its usage". I prefer the shorter version but the second version is also fine. There may also be an argument for a note containing some of the additional text in Matt's proposal. --Snowded TALK 17:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no prob with this proposal, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on - the "extensive and recent discussions"? You know how long I've been at this, Snowded, as I've told you. Your word "recent" simply starts where you want it to! The real 'extensive discussions' (including thousands of words from myself) have gone back for much longer: You are rather casually ignoring all the work I and others have put in more much of the year! The words "many"/"many may" have never been a happy solution since long before you joined the discussion, I have to say. And what have we got now? Another locked article. "Many may" has to go - and we have to move forward. We can only do it by being open and honest about the situation: and the above is all relevant.

To answer your question on the map, "British and Ireland" is the new National Geographic "political" map. You should not go around Wikipedia telling people that things are inappropriate when they cross geographical/political lines, especially when it happens to suite your own politics (no less)! It's stonewalling progress to the max.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Matt it went to mediation at one point, then was settled by 11 editors (you withdrew I think). I'm allowed to reference that and even to suggest it is left in place for a period. I have a different interpretation of the National Geographical site to the one you do. I also think we need a short sentence not an elaborate paragraph with material which is better handled elsewhere. None of that is stonewalling and you really need to stop making accusations, every intervention you make is becoming personal, please engage with the content not the person and remain calm. --Snowded TALK 18:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You are the biggest wind-up merchant on Wikipedia. Nothing was settled by 11 editors but the 'status quo' after the initial proposals were left behind. It was a total shambles, and your part in it was simply embarrassing ("Souza proposal" indeed!). And you know damn well why I withdrew. You are totally full of it! I stuggle with AGF because I cannot stand dishonesty. You are a total bully against progress - you simply don't want to see any. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This diff speaks for itself Matt and to quote the mediator at the end of the process Case Closed. Great job coming to consensus without even needing the requested mediation. I'm trying to stay polite in face of the increasing vehemence of your attacks, if you want to interpret that as a wind up then so be it. --Snowded TALK 18:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Your constant provocations are the worst I've seen. You threw my last Proposal off track, I got distracted, and despite early support for my change, people in the end simply voted for no change - ie your inconsequential one-word difference!! It was a simple status quo job, and my proposal was usurped - it never even got to a vote! It was your farcical "Souza proposal" or nothing. How fair was that? That is ALL that happened before. Your edit-buddy Jack tried his hardest and succeeded to get me blocked (which he later admitted to) and I retired - you were as quiet as a lamb to me when that all happened. Not a peep. Neither event will happen again - I'm following this through to the end and no block nonsense is going to happen to stop me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait to see what others think; we've got time. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree --Snowded TALK 18:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just popping in from my self imposed exile. I fear that Matt Lewis's and Snowded's attempts at squaring the circle are near impossible. But here am I with my input. I find it a wee bit incongruous to say many people may find the term offensive. If its a may, then you could say a small number of people may find the term offensive with equal validity. Better to say (verifiably) a number of people find the term offensive—the numbers of people are unquantifiable. AFAIK, the Irish government haven't legislated on the term BI so I don't think the term legal terminology of the Irish government could be valid here. So may I suggest a simplified section of the lede:

"Although commonly used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, the term 'British Isles' has been criticised in Ireland for the use of the word British and has been discouraged from use by Irish goverment officials. Alternative terms have been proposed although none have found universal favour."

That's it, good luck, I'm off.-Bill Reid | Talk 19:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look again at the "legal terminology" bit - I didn't mean it in the leading 'legal' sense - maybe it's too wordy. It's a shame you feel negative, and feel the need to stay in exile. Your simplified version (although a bit too curtailed re techincal use/common usage at the begining for me) is certinly a lot better than the one we currently have. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government" - Actually it is. [5] But not used again since 1928. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at this part again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Is" - present tense Bastun. Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth is it relevant whether it's part of the "legal terminology" of the Irish government? Governments don't define language. The term is valid because it is used in English to refer to the islands that it names. ðarkuncoll 20:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've said (twice) - I'm looking at this part again . Would you rather the article just suggested that the Irish gov discouraged the term's usage wholesale? As it currently does, in fact? It's a compromise - or rather an elucidation. The Irish gov is relevant in a line about the Irish gov. I could easily be stuck in a two-way shitstorm here, so you could be a little more helpful.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to do better than "not generally used by the Irish government". It's true - they don't generally use it, but at times they have. We can't do any better than tell the truth. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If we keep to the word "generally" the line "and a spokesperson for the Irish embassy in London has said "we would discourage its usage".[r]" could probably be removed?--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading it through again, what I like about the new approach is that it manages to impart a feeling that the term is genuinely used partly for want of a better option. This, to a large degree, is very much true. I think what personally upsets me so much is the constant (though sometime subtle) drive or assumption placed in the text that the term is being actively used in the face of dissent, to make a political claim. It is simply being used by 99.9999999% percent of the people who use it, to describe the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, without any malice intended at all. The vast majority of those who use it simply do not stop to consider any eternally-arguable element of 'dissent'. This version gives more of a flavour of that reality. Currently the article is very much 'oppression-heavy', and I've always found that genuinely upsetting. I know some people will say "well I find the very term upsetting!" - but it's not comparable at all. The term simply exists, and Wikipedia exists only to describe things properly. We must do all the aspects of the term justice, and not fight like rats to push any one particular point of view. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem here Matt is that the term is being actively used in the face of dissent, to make a political claim. The fact that some folk may use it apolitically is neither here nor there. Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - your dissent. You'll have to play ball sooner or later, because when things get back to the edit tables, blocks will eventually be dished out. Sooner or later less-friendly admins will step in, and simply not accept having locked articles all the time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I take that as a threat Matt; and another example of the way British POV is nakedly imposed on Wiki through the blocking and banning of numerous Irish Editors. Please note that I am FAR from the only voice of dissent here - also note that you have several times now stepped over the bounds of WP:CIVIL in your remarks to me. A short while ago you were complaining that you were representing the British Nationalist pov here because they were not here to represent themselves. Not it appears I'm a lone voice. Make up your mind Matt. Sarah777 (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

checkpoint

Actually Matt I don't have any great objection to the paragraph as it is developing (assuming some tweaks) but it is just too long for the lede. Given this is a geography article a single sentence is needed there at most, with either a note or a subsidiary section. You could for example take the first sentence of your paragraph (I would remove worldwide as too wordy but otherwise fine) and substitute that for the current sentence, then have the rest in a note for those who want to read it. --Snowded TALK 03:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here by "current sentence" - if the one here is fine (apart from "worldwide), why then substitute it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you ike parts of it, but I'm still not happy with your insistence that this article must be 'pigeon holed' as a "Geographical Article", and therefore 'political terms' are not suitable for the Intro. We must surely move out the reference to 'dissent', if that is true: is that what you are suggesting - I'm not sure? Although we are trying to build Wikipedia-specific usage guidelines at WP:BITASK, in the wider world the term is used in both a technical and a cultural/political sense, as you surely know. Why can't we accept that and build an introduction that accepts it too? There are far too many "notes" here as it stands. It's a 'cop out' (at best) in my eyes, and I am certain that things have to be done properly if this article is going to settle. According to WEIGHT, if the dispute can only be fairly represented via notes, then the dispute simply shouldn't be mentioned in the Lead - as we cannot misinform people. But I think we can cover it faily and concisely in the lead. Either that or we keep the 'dissent' issue to its own paragraph, which I know some people think should happen anyway (though I think it is Intro material myself).

Note on Introduction size: Leads (or ledes) can be up to four paragraphs long, according to Wikpedia's Manula of Style. We have a very short Intro here, and in my honest experience of Wikipedia introductions (and I've contributed to a number of them), the shorter they are, the more edit warring and general fighting occurs over the inclusion of relevant information that suits more than just the one point of view. Sometimes covering the all the wished-for relevant issues concisely is simply the best route:

Guide to intro building

1) The four-paragraphs max recommendation must be considered.

3) The info must be covered elsewhere in the article.

4) WP:VERIFY: VERIFIABLE information must be used.

5) WP:NOTABILITY must exist for both the article and the introduction too.

6) WP:WEIGHT in representation must be correct according to VERIFIABILITY and NOTABILITY.

7) WP:WEIGHT between any opposing points must be correct according to VERIFIABILITY and NOTABILITY.

In difficult Introductions like this one, this is the best way to go for everyone. There is certainly a 'technique' to making a good lead - but it can be done. Keeping it as short as possible is never going to make everyone happy – on the contrary, it makes life very unhappy, as this article has proved. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you've hit the nail on the head with your comment that in the wider world the term is used in both a technical and a cultural/political sense. This is the point that I believe distills the argument.

Some will assert your statement is true. But others disagree. (As an aside, personally I wonder if a trend towards the cultural/political use of the term could be correlated with historical usage, or with cultures that are heavily influenced by the UK. We'll probably never know....)

But I believe that there is also widespread recognition that the statement is insensitive. In one respect, it's an evolution of language and the assertion of an Irish identity, and a respect for the sensitivities of people from the North and South of Ireland, etc.

But so what. The question we need to ask is, where is the term today? Since Wikipedia is there to inform, and not necessarily be politically-correct or sensitive, does the term still carry enough common usage to still qualify as a "cultural/political" term? This is the crux of the current argument that has split this editing community.

In my opinion, this question was already asked and answered in the recent past, and back then the response was that it was no longer a cultural/political term - although it is accepted that it was in the past, therefore in a historical context it can still be used in this way, but it is not acceptable any longer. It was accepted though as a valid Geographical term. More recently though, even that appears to be objectionable on Irish-heavy articles....

In summary, consensus can change. I believe the community can express some extreme views, but that it is also ready to acknowledge what the majority can agree on. Perhaps we should avoid any conceptions made in previous agreements and test consensus from this basic starting point? --HighKing (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should start afresh from now, especially with the WP:BITASK taskforce under way. Currently the proposed Guideline at BITASK is explaining the term fully - ie addressing all the aspects of the term, and I think that is wisest. It is also focusing more towards 'physical geography' for it's use on Wikipedia. You are right - it doesn't matter so much what the sensitivities (etc) are, ar are not, outside of Wikipedia. This is a consensus-driven place, so the guidelines must suit us, and suit us all - and per the general guidelines on Wikipedia that already exit, of course.

I'm happy for Wikipedia to define a 'preferred use': it should be Geography-preferable with British Isles, and we should also go for it to ideally not include the Channel Islands too, imo. These are what guidelines are for - Wikipedia is entitled to choose an approach in these particular situations where ambiguity exists. To enforce anything though is to go against one of Wikipedia's strongest rules - no censorship. We can still make some very strong guidelines however.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

response

There was considerable debate when this first came up and a group of editors (of which I was not one) wanted no mention at all of the controversy arguing that the article was geographical. It was finally agreed on the grounds of citation that the controversy should be mentioned. There was debate about that sentence which has been previously referenced.

My view is simple on this, I like your first sentence and I think that is better than the sentence which was previously agreed (that is what I mean by current sentence). I think the rest should be a note not in the lede. If those who argued that should be no political reference are happy to something more lengthy then I would have no objection, but I think you will have problems. At the moment there is here (and on the task group) too little involvement. --Snowded TALK 18:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Which first debate are you alluding too? It sounds like it was quite a while ago. When I encountered you in here myself you pushed for no change: and at the moment the Intro is very political indeed! (in fact, it couldn't be more in my eyes - it's basically a form of propaganda as it stands, IMO.) We need to sort this now - the WP:BITASK taskforce is now, and it is all about now - especially as the article is locked over the issue.

RE editor involvement: when is this page due to be unlocked? I can't believe it's got locked over this again - It was so 'out of the blue' that I actually missed it happening. Looking at the edit history, it seems to be just you and Tharkuncoll 'edit warring' - I'm not sure at all that DDStretch should have moved in to lock it when he did, esp as he was very involved in the Taskforce at the time. No 3RR seemed to happen - you surely would have both just stopped, but it got locked instead. Why? You calling the line a "hard won consensus" in an edit note wasn't fair in my opinion as I have said - your "consensus" was a farcical single-option poll at the end of broken and hijacked debate! Whatever else it was, it was no true consensus however you go on about the eventual 'landslide' vote for the only option on the table: no change and it get's back to normal.

This article shouldn't be locked, and locking it hasn't helped proceedings at all. Actions like this just demoralise and entrench people. We need people to be positive.

I'm still not clear on what you want to keep in the Intro. Perhaps you could write your own version? Maybe then we can later have a fair poll that actually offers some choice, and offers something more than a single word-change too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt I really wish you would stop this confrontational style. Tharky modified the previous stable version and I asked him to take that change to the talk page. A position that was finally forced by locking the page. Your disagreement and comments on prior consensus are noted, it is however how things ended up; it is not wrong simply because you say it is wrong. My suggestion is to take your first sentence, use it to replace the existing sentence and then take your additional material and make it a note for those who want to know more. Whatever it needs more editors involved. --Snowded TALK 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I must agree that your rather petulant approach here is not helping. it's basically a form of propaganda as it stands, IMO - what is? Apart from the actual article title itself, where is the "propaganda"? Sarah777 (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How am I not helping? I am spelling everything out clearly, when some around me are simply fudging. The irony is that you think I'm not helping your own concerns, but I actually am. You can "agree" with Snowded, but he formulates all his reactions to me in a tired "oh dear, yet again..." format, while very rarely saying anything. But it will all come out in the wash - because what exists exists, and Wikipedia (for all its faults) is strong about core realities: Censorship, verifiability and 'common names' - all these 'core policies' have cemented this whole place surrounding us. Wikipedia is build on a foundation of rules. No minority can forever break it down, for all the fiercely emotional, guilt-loaded, foot-plodded, cabal-achieved shenanigans of the past. Things will find their place - and it will happen fairly!.

What is the "propaganda"? The "propaganda" I refer to is in the immediate reverting of every honest and fair edit, it is in the scrolling dissent notes that run dry as the bold ink runs out. Where is the evidence today of people (real people) not wanting the term? Where is the ref? Even when compiled (over a number of months) from self-verifying accounts of the past, there is nothing to warrant the censorship that is demanded here! No evidence at all exists to warrant exerting the one-sided weight to the 'dissent' you demand. The "propaganda" is in the quickly-archived blast-out of every sensible talk page and poll. It is in this supposedly huge weight of 'dissent', that can only actually be 'proven' in terms of the small-but-vocal presence on WIkipedia itself. It is in the battle of attrition that makes so many neutral editors recoil in either despair, or the realisation that life is more important elsewhere. It is the 'whoopsadaisy' article-locks for no valid reason by people who should (and probably do) know better. It is in the inflammatory 'fork' pages that make people elsewhere think twice before 'offending'. It is in the single-minded hours of the extremist at night, personal contributions that show little or no other interest at all. It is in the oft-spoken desire to see the end Britain, and the tragically blind belief that what could exist directly equals what does. It is the crazy insistence that what is and what 'can be' can be effectively bargained against each other! It is in the lowering of the bar, the sleazy approach, the gut prodding force. Who really cares about the words within the term "British Isles", apart from the simple acceptance that it actually is used and exists?

Only Wikipedia's rules will ultimately have their way, however strong some of its contributors feel they can be. Those like yourself can meet reality in the middle, or you can make it is hard as you possibly can for others to represent you more-than-fairly (as they will). Either way you will win! Not the all-out Europa you want, but your POV will certainly win thorough, you can be absolutely assured of that. Wikipedia is consensus-driven, and you and Snowded are nothing but determined (and thus strong) forces in this place. It is simply because you are both committed and do not stop. It's the same with myself. Anyone who thinks Wikipedia represents the masses democratically is completely misguided: outside of hobbyists Wikipedia is effectively a finite amount of very committed people - and that is it. It is true, isn't it? Look around you. We are completely consensus-driven - but we do have those rules. And that 'policy' will come into play - and when the British Isles guidelines go through the proposal process, a far wider audience will get a very good look at this too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt you are seeing conspiracies where none exist, you are reacting by preaching. It has become impossible to collaborate with you on this page (which is now a largely solo effort). You persist in saying that anyone who disagrees with you wants to see the end of Britain (your talk page diatribe about nationalists made so many assumptions about other people based on so little evidence I gave up counting). Calling people's approach sleazy, making the sort of accusations you make above and elsewhere is against every principles of the WIkipedia. If someone dates challenge you you "take it mediation" trying to get others to back you up. They don't, then a mediator arrives and you run away closing the request (I suppose an honest reaction as your behaviour would not stand up to independent scrutiny) I see from your talk page that you have take offence elsewhere and threatened to take someone else to mediation demanding apologies over what seems a storm in the proverbial tea cup. Can't you see a pattern here? All we have above is a diatribe of personal abuse which does you little or no credit and is becoming increasingly tiresome. Just complete your set of guidelines, base on your assumptions and put them out for public comment. Then it may be worth reengaging. For the moment this is Matt's personal page, Matt's personal project and Matt has some real ownership issues. --Snowded TALK 01:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The guy at MEDCAB asked me if I still needed the mediation, and I said "no" simply because nobody had commented on the page for a while (a clear dead end), and the whole issue is clearly about Policy to me now. He said I can re-open the mediation at any point - and I'm sorely tempted to do it now after your comment, but to argue with you Snowded, is a complete and utter waste of time. I stand by every comment I made in MEDMOS, but I'm going to push on with the taskforce and this article (which your like-minded email buddy DDStretech shamelessly locked to save you from 3RR I might add - I have no problem with saying that - it is as clear as a bloody bell, and if I could I'd support-edit the revision right now. Bloody scandalous - only you two were around and it gets locked after 30 mins just at that 'key moment'. I can't tell you how bad it looks - bloody appalling). --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing more conspiracies Matt? I've never been blocked or exceeded 3RR and don't plan to be. We had an editor (with a history of edit warring) who refused to discuss a controversial change on the edit page - that got it blocked. Your accusations against DDStretch are becoming seriously out of line by the way and I strongly recommend you cross that one out and apologise. Re-open MEDCAB, you could do with someone taking an objective look at your contributions to this. --Snowded TALK 02:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that it is serious, yes. I can't prove anything, but it fits in with a wider pattern I've seen, and what would it look like to you? Seriously - take a step back and ask yourself that. Why did you take it to 3RR? And why can't any of us edit it the page now? because it is locked. I'm entitled to be unhappy. You talk to me about "ownership issues" - you did it to defend your cynical "Souza proposal". To 3RR? No way should the page be locked because of this. And it's negatively effected the British Isles Taskforce as it has just pissed needed people off - as both you and DDStretch were fully aware of, I'm absolutely certain. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) this is getting sad Matt. I made three attempts to get Tharky to discuss his change rather than edit warring on what he knew would be a controversial and provocative. I'm unhappy that its locked and I dislike any editor who refused to discuss changes and just reverses, but that is the behaviour. Any admin would have done what DDStretch did, its basic Wiki process. Your Souza proposal red herring is a nonsense you know. When the mediator asked us to try and resolve it I went back over weeks of exchanges and the solution which had the most support was the Souza one (not mine, not my ideal solution but it had support), so I re-proposed it and 10 out of 11 editors agreed. If you check above you will see that I have been more than happy to change the sentence, even suggested one of yours, I just don't think a paragraph is necessary. Please calm down, look at the content not your conspiracy theories about other editors, apologise to DDStretch who does not deserve you accusation and get someone to look at the MEDCAB and related material and give an objective response. Refusing mediation, but continuing to throw out accusations is not good behaviour. --Snowded TALK 03:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll re-open the MEDCAB case - I'm not having you saying I'm "refusing mediation", it's a bare-faced lie as you know damn well I have refused nothing. Don't think it will be big 'high five' for you or any other usual suspect who will pop in to support you - you know how badly I think of how you have behaved on the whole matter, and I'll pull no punches with anyone if it's a proper mediation case. I may be pissed off right now but I had enough of your provocative approach and little digs. Souza's initial suggestion was based on my own proposal - it immediately got all confused (mostly down to yourself completely mistaking the "page as it stands" for a proposal by myself - you weren't following things properly) during which Dave Souza simply left the debate altogether! There was no 'proposal' by him all - it was something you took up and ran with when I was not around. I've seen you do nothing but game, game and game on nationality issue ever since, and wherever you have gone.

How you can you say any editor would have "done the same" as DDStretch and locked this article is beyond me. Half of Wikipedia would be shut down if all admin "did the same" as DDStretch and simply supported their favoured edit and editor on 2RR by locking an article. Neither of you would have 3RR'd - you know that damn well. And if it wasn't locked we wouldn’t be having this conversation - it is pure frustration, and all brought about by an admin and an editor sharing a single-minded pursuit. As for apologising to him - he knows where I am and can speak for himself. His lock was at once another stupid play against Tharkuncoll (all of which I would say has got none of us anywhere), another move to support yourself (and as an admin he has absolutely no right at all to take sides) and a clear move to prejudice the guideline towards his own clear 'use-limit and dispute-heavy' POV. To prejudice the building of a Wikipedia guideline is a serious matter. It doesn't get much more serious than that in here, surely. And I can do without your constantly personal edit notes too. So you are tired of me? I am tired of you. I don't care what tracks you leave - you don't have a leg to stand on. I'll see you back at MEDCAB - at least it will keep this crap out of here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pleased to see the intent of opening the MEDCAB Matt, look forward to the reality. I'll ignore the chain of insults that follow. --Snowded TALK 11:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The MEDCAB that I originally opened all about you has now been requested to be re-opened. You must think people are as daft as brushes. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

I am unprotecting the article now. I hope that discussions will lead to an absence of edit warring, which was the motivation for imposing the protection. I have not had this article on my watchlist since about a day after the protection, as I no longer wish to engage in any over-heated discussion on any of this. All I will say is that if the protection was viewed as being inappropriate, one could easily have gone privately to any other individual administrator and asked for them to review it. I have not had a chance to read through any of the long discussions, above, but I believe that it would be unhelpful to do so, since matters are getting out of hand. I suggest that people step back, and particularly stop making unwarranted assumptions about motivations here, which are expressly to be avoided in all discussions. If the MEDCAB matter is re-opened, I will not contribute other than to announce my withdrawal from the issues and to describe the extent of my non-involvement from a few days ago. The decisions and protections that I made to various articles can easily be reviewed by approaching other individual administrators if required, and this is all part of normal wikipedia functioning. As for myself, I am washing my hands of this whole controversy, because I am not convinced that accusations made against me can ever make any of my views on the matter have any perceived positive contribution any longer. I have much more pressing real-life matters to concentrate on for the next weeks.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

Why don't we take the suggestion from Bill Reid for the lede as follows: Although commonly used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, the term 'British Isles' has been criticised in Ireland for the use of the word British and has been discouraged from use by Irish goverment officials. Alternative terms have been proposed although none have found universal favour. Additional data in Matt's paragraph than then be put in a note as supporting material? --Snowded TALK 11:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it does nothing that WP:LEAD requires. It focuses on the name controversy and nothing else; it doesn't describe what the British Isles are or summarise the article. The naming controversy is not a major attribute of the British Isles, it's a minor aside. It hardly needs to appear in the lead section at all. Waggers (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a single sentence was a means of avoiding a renaming dispute as I recall, one sentence to acknowledge the controversy in several paragraphs seems reasonable. The current version does this and was stable until recently. --Snowded TALK 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the current version; I don't see any need to change it or expand it. In particular, I dislike the "Although commonly used" thing as it suggests it shouldn't be commonly used, and that's not neutral. Waggers (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to accommodate Matt but the current version is fine by me if we can avoid edit wars. --Snowded TALK 11:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I trust that we do not wish to "Move on" from my proposal in the sense of it being a thing of the past! I've only recently proposed it, and the article has only this morning become unlocked. Waggers - if you are happy with the Intro as it is, why did you propose a variant of my proposal a couple of months back? Surely you will accept change here? An issue I have with a good few people here is they clearly - to me at least - want to have the smallest Intro as possible, so it doesn't 'rock the boat' - and each person seems to offer their own caveat on this. I find this both anti-Wikipipedia, and completely adverse to its intended effect. That admin seem to wish it too is not a good sight for me - the negativity all around is not good in general.

Surely the only way through this is simply by having an honest and open introduction? It is difficult to cover both "sides" fairly and keep it as tight as we possibly can (not that we've exactly tried to be fair). When the squeeze happens, one 'side' usually bulges through - and it is completely obvious when reading this Intro which side it is here! And the bias has been allowed to prevail too, and has been protected like nothing else I've seen on Wikipedia. I cringe over the Intro as it stands - it simply deceives the readers rather than informing them. It makes it look like the 'dissent' is running strong in the world outside of Wikipedia (without any real-world evidence at all) and it makes it look like the Irish gov actively discourages its people from using it (also without any evidence at all). The extended notes with all the bold text is a shocker too (who else has this on Wikiepdia??).

And why would people take "offense" at British Isles, anyway? People might object to the inaccuracy, yes - by why offense? Queue all the anti-British rhetoric. This article is just another stab at Britain isn't it? I am British and I certainly object to that. I understand the dispute - but the "offensive" thing has no evidence and is stirring up a kind of nationalism that I object to in the extreme. We have to cover this term reasonably and fairly - it is simply all I want to do. - --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection to the introduction being longer - but if the controversy bit is made longer and the other bits aren't, then it would become disproportionate. The rule of thumb in an introduction is that the first sentence should define the subject, and then there should be a paragraph for each section in the article. What I don't want to see is undue weight being applied to the naming issue. Perhaps if the "offensive" is the problem we could remove it (as we already have the word "objectionable" there and "offensive" is a subset of "objectionable")? Waggers (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The intro is fine as it is (in relation to the "dispute"). It concisely, clearly and honestly mentions the dispute then moves on. In particular, I dislike the proposed rewrite that, "Although commonly used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history" as it begs a question and attribute greater weight and rationality to one point of view by associating it with science and learning. (In fact, it could equally be said that the term is not commonly used worldwide in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, natural history, etc. Exactly what proportion of scientific publications use the term? I suspect that it is not commonly used term at all. What proportion use the term in favour of an alternative phraseology for the same meaning? Unknown, I imagine.)

"And why would people take "offense" at British Isles, anyway? People might object to the inaccuracy, yes - by why offense?" These are indeed good questions, and answers to them would make fantastic substance for this article the article on the dispute itself. Unfortunately, I suspect you mean them rhetorically and are unlikely to research the answers to them as they appear in the literature on the subject. --89.101.103.185 (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Claiming Ireland to be in this contrived "British Isles" entity is offensive for the same reason a rape victim would find it offensive if her rapist decided to rename his victim in the possessive case... after himself. Thus the victim of George the rapist becomes "George's woman". That is an accurate analogy of what the British Isles brigade is trying to do. Alas for their reinvention of British history in benign terms, the Irish victim of centuries of British dispossession and cultural rape is acutely conscious in 2008. The victim is not the rapist. The Irish are not British. It's called dignity, self-respect, pride: consciousness. The British became rich and powerful from their sins; the Irish became poor and dispossessed from those same sins. Yes, what a "shared 'British Isles' history" indeed. Oh, and geographically Ireland is a European island, not a British one. 86.42.109.173 (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)