Talk:British Isles

---

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" [1] - 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)

i am irish and i was just thinking (about the word british as claimed to be seen by irishmen) "why doesnt the guy round the back of the irish embassy in england tell the guy in the paper?" it may sell papers but sadly .. again why is it relative what the guy in the embassy said? it is a bit like the first paragraph where the author rattles about how they dont understand why the Isle of Man would be included as a british isle (the biggest island located right in the middle of britan and ireland) maybe its a part of france or africa. well i should bleeding cocoa. 89.204.230.38 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 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)

Matt, I'd suspect you are trolling here were it not for my assumption of WP:AGF. It would appear from that remark that you are monumentally ignorant of the history of these islands and that you have not read the numerous times your question has been answered in the archives of this very talkpage. Perhaps it might be an idea to actually read the full discussion before displaying extreme British nationalism? Sarah777 (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Extreme British nationalism"? Me? I missed this before - you really ought to be more careful Sarah. If I was ripped off by an Irish gypsy (to pick what can be a negative example of the Irish that exists today) would I have the right to take it out on you? No. To resent the very word "Irish" for it? Most people are bigger than this. The word British exists. Britain exists. I am British, and am proud to be British - I've told you many times before not to make the term British into an automatically negative thing, because of whatever has happened in the past. I consider it to be nothing less than a form of racism, and I'm just getting tired of it, as I can see it in so many places now. I don't believe for a moment that you see youself as being bigotted in this way - but maybe you should give it a little thought? You seem so intent on re-igniting British/Irish history that you appear to are blind to what you are doing (and who you are offending) to achieve it.

You may take offense over the word "British", but clearly the majority of people either find the term a potentially misleading anachronism, or are not bothered by it at all. We simply don't have the stats, as so few references exist on the matter. The "many take offense" idea is truly gross. I've never met anyone so intent on digging up the past as you: in a climate of such long-awaited peace I cannot understand it at all. Honestly - what will you gain? You won't remove the term, only time will do that. All you and Wotapalava are doing is 'hate mongering' by using the word "offense" in this way, and in applying the word "many" in a present tense you are bending a very finite clutch of references way past breaking point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:53, 3 September 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)

I've change the intro per this suggestion: "offense" in this present tense is an unreferenced progression of the word "objectionable". --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:53, 3 September 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)

Get yourself a name and I'll answer you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, have you ever thought of getting a neutral point of view? It appears this argument is being discussed by people who have their own politics to push. Do you all think people in the real world spend their time arguing over the term British Isles? If you want a neutral point of view, just ask, I may even tell you. Skipper 360 (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to tell you anyway. The term British Isles will die out eventually, which is not a bad thing, but while it is commonly used it cannot be ignored. It has to be used, many people will not be happy with this, but they must take consolation in the fact it will one day be a redundant term. There you go, a neutral point of view. PS: If a neutral point of view is not welcome here, I apologise for interfering in your discussion/argument. Skipper 360 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You've done nothing wrong Skipper 360. There's just to much politics & possible censurships issues around these topics. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is there censorship, I understand politics, but who is censoring this article? Skipper 360 (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My apolgoies, censurship is too strong a description. I'm just plain frustrated. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no need for an apology, I'm just trying to understand. Skipper 360 (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting Skipper, but you do realize you are not telling us anything that isn't already in this article? The term *is* being used here and isn't being ignored, as clearly this is a BI page and there are thousands of BI references on Wiki. The article, then, states that many people are not happy with this. That is about all the substance produc<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John254/Addtabs/monobook.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>ed by what you call your NPOV. So, what's the problem? What has all of what you call your neutral point of view produced on this page that isn't already here? Nuclare (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"many people are not happy with this" is certainly a lot better that "many may find it offensive"! But there is no evidence that "many people ARE not happy with this". There are simply no present-tense refs for this statistic. We only have the instance of a handful of Wikipedia editors that it is true, and a very finite clutch of refs that are being bent into present tense to hide the lack of direct examples. I don't know what GoodDay originally felt when he used the word "censorship", but when I've attempted compromised changes to the Intro in the past (simply to the make a way-OTT lead a little more balanced), and have been brushed back so harshly (immediate 3RR's etc), that I've certainly felt myself that reality is being censored here for highly political motives. And I feel it even more when the article is locked. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I forget what I meant on August 22. I was very peeved then. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I feel you are trying your best here but I am utterly puzzled by your difficulty with the manifestly obvious fact that many Irish people find the term "British Isles" objectionable when applied to Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Objectionable" is certainly better than "offensive", but

1. We simply don't have anything like the kind of references for "many" that is needed to support the appropriation of it into the introduction. It's a policy thing. And the government line is non-policy too: we should ('at best') give the ambiguous line and let people make their mind up what was meant by it. And as for that scolling bold-blazened ref list.. policy and guidelines are out of the window!
2. I'm of the opinion that most Irish people are not in the mood for this, to say the very east. The climate is clearly for peace, however awkward the term may be.
3. They Irish have arguably the strongest national identity in the whole word, even taking those in Northern Ireland into account. I've honestly never met an Irish person insecure of their Irish identity! Outside of Wikipedia I could perhaps say - although, politeness aside, I do suffer from perpetual NGF in here. AGF to me is like an enforced pagan religion: I can act it when spears are at my throat, but I could never believe in it. People here know nothing of each other, so policy must come first.

I simply do not think that a handful of people on Wikipedia represents Ireland at all. Hence the lack of real world examples on this "many find it offensive/objecionable" matter. I'm happy to show the dispute, even in the lead, as WP:consensus is about Wikipedia (not at all the real world). But I have a voice too, and I insist things are done fairly. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "enforced pagan religion"? ðarkuncoll 00:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - the Aztecs or something. People with spears. I'm not an expert. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand the big deal over British Isles. If I were an Irishman desperate for independence and got it I wouldn't give a fig what they called the "British Isles". I would just be cockahoop we were independent. I've been to Ireland on a number of occasions and never heard this topic being raised. Where are all the demonstrators with their anti British Isles banners? I honestly think this has been blown out of proportion. Skipper 360 (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: Heres what I think. Your average person in Ireland just get on with their lives not thinking about politics or history, in fact, if they are same as most people around the world they know very little about either. If you say British Isles to them 99% would not blink an eyelid. Now, take for example, a university educated Irish person, particulary one educated in Irish history, a history that will not give a good light to the British Empire, rightly or wrongly, a proportion of them will object to the term British Isles. Does this indicate a large amount of Irish people object to it? I don't think so. For those who object to it, sticks and stones people, sticks and stones. Skipper 360 (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you say British Isles to them 99% would not blink an eyelid. That is the sort of rubbish that makes people get irate about this issue. 99% don't go "demonstrating with their anti British Isles banners" - that isn't the issue; they find it offensive (not 99% but most people). To claim otherwise is to be phenomenally ignorant of Ireland. The bizarre notion that finding something offensive must be validated by "demonstrations with anti-British banners" or is negated by the fact that "your average person in Ireland just get on with their lives not thinking about politics or history" is daft it hardly merits a reply. "Your average person in England just gets on with their lives not thinking about politics or history" - does that mean they'd be perfectly happy if Wiki described them as Nazis? Bull. Please use some intellectual rigor here. Sarah777 (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If wiki and the rest of the world described us as Nazis you can bet your life we would march with banners. I'm sorry if I'm not intellectual enough for you. I do try. Skipper 360 (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(a) I doubt you would; (b) the "rest of the world" don't call us British. Sarah777 (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Crikey, next time I post here I'll wear a helmet. Skipper 360 (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if you start by throwing rocks into the air you should not really be surprised by the need --Snowded TALK 05:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there were no rocks being thrown. If anyone can prove to me that more than 50% of the Irish population find the term offensive then please do so, until then there is no point stating it in talk pages as though it were true. As for Sarahs comment "the rest of the world don't call us British" I don't recall saying they do. Snowded, should I keep quiet in case someone is offended by my opinion, is this what you mean by throwing rocks? If only someone had told me opinions were not welcome I wouldn't have bothered with wiki in the first place, and I won't.Skipper 360 (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to bring up Irish Sea; but I won't. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No need to keep silent, but then no reason to complain about needing a helmet if someone reacts to your remarks! --Snowded TALK 22:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa (Islands of Western Europe)

Under the year 1584 in the Annals of the Four Masters: 'M1584.2. Sir Niclas Maulbi gobernóir chóiccidh Connacht d'écc i n-Áth Luain fá initt, fer foglamtha i m-bérlaibh & i t-tengtoibh oilén Iarthair Eorpa esidhe' (http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G100005E/index.html) which translates as 'Sir Nicholas Malby, Governor of the province of Connaught, died at Athlone, about Shrovetide. He was a man learned in the languages and tongues of the islands of the West of Europe' (http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T100005E/index.html). So much for the idea that the Irish had always used the term British Isles, and that it was simply a recent nationalist trend for them not to use it and instead to "invent" alternatives like the 'Islands of Western Europe'. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about English here, not Gaelic. This is, after all, the English Wikipedia. ðarkuncoll 07:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain the relevance of that statement. The text has been translated into English, for those of us who are ignorant of the Irish language. Are you saying that all translations are, somehow, suspect? Or, only this one? Daicaregos (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that "British Isles" translates into different languages in different ways, and some languages use different terms altogether. But WP policy is to use the most commonly used English-language name - so it's a general thing: as far as naming is concerned, other languages don't count. Waggers (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So all latin references should be ignored? Crispness (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as deciding on the name for the article and usage of the term in the English language are concerned, yes. Waggers (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Greek and Latin names are important because the English name is a direct and deliberate translation of them. There is no such continuity from Gaelic, which has influenced English not at all on this issue (nor indeed many others). ðarkuncoll

NO MORE RACISM

I am working hard to help improve Wikipedia (offline at the moment), and will not tolerate any more anti-British racism. Every time I see the unproven "objectionable" return, or the word "may" recmoved I will revert it. I don't give a shit about "3RR" when racism is concerned - racism is racism and I'm not putting up with it. I don't give a toss if I'm banned for it either. WERE ARE THE REFS?????? I've had ENOUGH - a handful of babies are not just running the creche here, they are running the entire bloody floor.

Do you small group of crazies really thing Wikipedia can prevent the use of this term? Jesus! We are an encyclopedia not a flaming soap box.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have restored the text to that which was agreed by several editors as part of a mediated consensus. That does include "may" which I have left in place. I have no idea where you get this idea that the current words are racist, but I strongly recommend you calm down and abide by normal wikipedia process.--Snowded TALK 23:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The single-word change was suggested on this talk by Waggers (per other suggestions for change without using the word), met with no disapproval at all, and was tellingly accepted on the main page with no disapproval either. People are happy with this extra nonsense-word being removed. Is that not consensus? I believe it is.

Your supposed "consensus" (from almost exactly 3 months ago) is just a mere speck in time that is well-hidden in these labyrinthine archives. What you wrongly keep pretending is "consensus" was a meaningless moment that signified nothing but an end to a 'debate' that totally confused , then completely turned away from the original proposal, just to settled on a one-word change simply to close it. I didn't vote in it, nor did a number of people on this page. Those attending was actually a 'roll call' of one side of the nationalist argument. It was not about the word "offensive" - it was about no-change being settled on (ie a typical story with changed, confused and broken proposals). The main proposer wasn't around to follow his original proposal through, as you very well know (having seen him retire). The mediator wasn't even needed, and said as much. It was no 'consensus' - as you very know: the words "mediated consensus" simply mean "it is what I want to see".--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Matt been drinking?ThatsGrand (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit personal, isn't it Wikipeire? --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I fear the coming storm. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's that flipping poll you didn't agree with, but voted in anyway to get it all over with again. If there was ever a lesson to be learnt! --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The references are there for "offensive" and "many" (footnote 4, for instance), should you calm down and take the trouble to read them. You are making this girl, Anna23, seem rational. Seeing as you have brought it up, I'm quite sure you are "working hard" and that your involvement with wikipedia is entirely impartial and is not shaped by your nationality; it's just that this edit history indicates a strong emotional attachment to British-related issues, especially concerning British pride. It is great, though, to see racism-free rationality dovetail so perfectly with one's national prejudices. Funny how that always happens to nationalists! 86.42.119.12 (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a reference specificially for "many" and "objectionable" and removed the speculative "may" (we are guided by facts not maybes aboud here). The citaion I've added is Hugh Kearney, 2006, The British Isles, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge:

“ The title of this books is 'The British Isles', not 'Britain', in order to emphasise the multi-ethnic character of our intertwinded histories. Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable, much as the Basques or Catalans resent the use of the term 'Spain'. ”

Now, let's bring this pettiness to an end. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We all know the Kearney book - it's the only ref for the present tense you have. It is written in Kearney's context - not Wikipedia's. We need more refs to appropriate the word "many" - we can't just take Kearney's. I own the book and Kearney actually uses the term "British Isles" for contemporary life, and Ireland today. So how do we know what kind of 'many' he means? Not enough to refrain from using the term himself, clearly. So where are the other "umpteen" refs for how the Irish feel now? They don't exist, Gold Heart (or whoever you are).--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Heading towards protection again

Just a word of warning, after being stable for a while this article is heading towards being protected again as the same edit warring seems to be breaking out again. Canterbury Tail talk 11:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It may be the only way to get discussion on controversial issues here before changes are made, especially when an agreed consensus is called racist. --Snowded TALK 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's called the consensus racist. Remember it takes two to edit war, and right now you're one of the two. Waggers (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So if you ask someone to take to talk page to discuss, they revert and threaten to keep reverting you should just let them do it Waggers? Please ....--Snowded TALK 16:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All this disruption now has been caused by you alone. That "consensus" poll of 3 months ago was no consensus at all: Where was Blessed Saint "Souza"? where was I? Where was the original proposal (or suggestions around it)? Were was Tharcuncoll et al? You have no right to treat it as a statute because it clearly suits your POV. As the original change proposer (of this time) who wasn't around for this particular poll, I personally consider it an insult, and it should clearly be put behind us - instead I fight it every time you comment in here, like it's the 11th Commandment. The single poll-within-many was an object lesson on why NOT to have a pointless poll just to end a discussion. No wonder Wikipedia strongly frowns on such polls (and so many do not join in) - this one has been abused to the maximum by you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

eleven editors were engaged, I did not fully agree with it but it was the best compromise we could agree at the time. It can be changed by discussion. You are one editor making a series of statements about that agreement. Just engage Matt, no one is trying to enforce a POV here, just make sure that people discuss and agree before editing --Snowded TALK 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Engage? It's all I do. You have a bloody cheek you really do. You just go around reverting to your POV. You have the article locked again now too - yet again you get what you want.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Issues

OK these are the two questions - would people please quickly express the views here. --Snowded TALK 16:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Should "may" be included

• Weasel word and unnecessary --Snowded TALK 16:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Absolute weasel words. Are there any citations supporting the opposite view that might cast doubt on to what is provided by the citations - that the term is objectionable? --62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• THIS IS POV SHOCKER COMBINED WITH THE OTHER POLL. I REFUSE TO VOTE IN SUCH AN OUTCOME-CONTROLLED POLL. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A "POV SHOCKER" - ?? How can you be shocked when there are umteen references from top UK-based publishers supporting the it?? --62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The poll on "may" here is clearly designed to try and keep the word "many" in on its own. "Umpteen" - was it that? The new word for "one"? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Umteen"? It means 'many'. As in the umteem references in footnotes 4, 6, 8 and elsewhere to support the statement that the term is objectionable to many in Ireland. Are there any references to support an opposing view that you insist on casting doubt on verifiable sources through the insertion of weasel words? --62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But for offensive? Only one ref says "many may find the term offensive": It is Kearney's own context, and he frequently uses the term for modern Ireland himself. He does not verify the statement (weakening it as a reference), and we cannot verify Kearney ourselves with any other references at all for the present tense. Yet we appropriate it as if it is true. It's not on.

As for "objectionable" - there is a finite amount of refs for that too. They fall off into academic tracts. Nothing like the amount we need to put it in the intro like this - although I accept that Sarah et al have most of the power regarding that (we are 'consensus'-lead Wikipedia after all). But "offensive" is way outside of policy. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis' POV trumps umteen sources published by leading UK-based presses? Yawn. When will you get it that this is not big deal and your panic over it is driven by nothing more than your nationalist POV? Sources, Matt, umteen published sources vs. your personal campaign to have it your way. It is tiresome. Yawn. --78.152.194.24 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you the world's ultimate difficult teenager? Yawn? Or are you perhaps a basic troll and a committed misinformer? It's not the "press"!! It's the content!! The verifiable sources far too quickly tail-off and simply disappear, and academic presses never stop rolling either. One would rightly expect a veritable wealth of choice given the "many object" way we currently deal with this - but we simply have only a motley clutch of close-but-not-close-enough often-ambiguous mostly single-opinion esoteric references! Why do you think that all the meagre sources that have been painstakenly collected over the years have been gladded-up in blue-rinse 'maskara', like a defiant streak of hair drawn over a bald man's head by his absinthe bewildered wife? For some reason (I don't quite now why myself) there are simply bugger all references to show any kind of unacademic non-esoteric popular dissent, loud or quiet, big or small. All the alternative name stuff is there - but the dissent?? The anger?? The offense?? Good god - you don't think it's because - shiiiiiit - you don't think it's because - shi shi shi shi - you don't think it's beacuse? Oh my go oh my go!!! QUICK - ALL HANDS TO BOARD ALL HANDS TO BOARD!!: THERE ARE UMPTEEN SOURCES THERE ARE UMPTEEN SOURCES THERE ARE UMPTEEN SOURCES!! PEOPLE ARE RAVASHED BY THIS!! THE INJUSTICE, THE INJUSTICE!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Matt, there are umteem sources. Please provide a source to the counter if you believe it not to be the case. Otherwise, around here, your opinion is just that - your opinion. And it counts for nothing. --78.152.216.124 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"May" should NOT be included. 89.129.142.89 (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Should "offensive" be included

• I think the sources support this --Snowded TALK 16:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Offenseive" is ridiculious. Objectionable is supported - but offensive!? No doubt Sarah777 will bound in to equate 'British' with 'nigger' - but the rest of us are hardly "offended" by the word, merely "object" to it. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• NO. Quote two sources that say that "many" people find the term offensive in the present tense (the tense we give)? There are no "sources" (in plural) at all! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For "offensive" no, but sourced were provided for "many" and "objectionable":

1. Hugh Kearney, 2006, The British Isles, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge:

2. Bennett, Martyn (2003). "What's in a Name? the Death of the English Civil War: Martyn Bennett Examines How the Terminology We Use about the Great Conflict of the Mid-Seventeenth Century Reflects and Reinforces the Interpretations We Make". History Review.

Both of these were used as citation in the revision that you reverted.

To them, you may add The Dynamics of Conflict in Northern Ireland: Power, Conflict and emancipation. Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd. Cambridge University Press:

Geographical terms also cause problems and we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles';...

--62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Only Kearney uses it in the present tense, and then goes on to use the term for contemporary life! Who are we to appropriate his context? --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. So we should have a mix of present, continual present, future and past and continual past? Basically, you say, the sources support the assertion that many Irish find the term objectionable now, for the time being, in the future, in the past and have have found the term objectionable for some time? OK. I'm fine with that. Put that in. --78.152.194.24 (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Saying offensive is OTT. Objectionable is fine. I don't know why this is such a big deal.ThatsGrand (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Until somebody goes door-to-door, getting signitures of those who find the term offensive? There's not much reliability in any sources provided as evidence. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that a vote against us using "offensive" along with objectionable then? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, offensive is supported by the existing sources. And here's another one: Timothy Baycroft & Mark Hewitson What is a Nation? (Oxford, 2006), p. 273: 'The "British Isles", however, does include the island of Ireland, although the adjective "British" used in this context is often found offensive by Irish nationalists', and another one, http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/british-isles/. 213.202.160.91 (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That web linke is an "under construction" amateur site - it is not a WP:reliable source! What is a Nation qualifies with the word "Irish nationsists"!! You have given two examples - and neither work for the current introduction. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources, smources. Was there a national poll held in the republic, to determine the percentage of those offended by the term British Isles? GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is offensive in a major portion of the land area to which the term applies! It must stay - anything else in naked censorship and imposition of British nationalist POV. Sarah777 (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

All of that is your personal opinion - not a word of it can be proven. The censorship here is in the disallowal of any information that crowds the word "offensive". It is surely the single worst case of censorship of this type on Wikipedia.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious. Has anybody ever gone door-to-door throughout the republic; to get a percentage. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that relevant? And I assume you know the answer to your own question. We don't verify things on Wiki by going door to door; we use third party sources. At least that's how I understand the system. Sarah777 (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't have "third party sources" (in plural) for the current introduction. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Sources, smources." Yes, GoodDay, sources. "Was there a national poll held in the republic, to determine the percentage of those offended by the term 'British Isles'?" Not according to the sources. They state it simply as a well-known fact. It is tiresome how you campaign against facts. Or is it knowledge that you have contempt for? --78.152.194.24 (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Offensive or objectionable mean much the same thing in this kind of context. Needs to be included. 89.129.142.89 (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversion by Snowded

Snowded,

You are reverting the removal of "may" (which you agree is weasel words). On your last reversion, you wrote: "am simply restoring the the last agreed version." Exactly how the inclusion of weasel words an "agreed version". Not just it is counter to policy, but looking through the history, all is see is days of people removing it only to have it put back in for days. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like "may" but it was a part of the compromise reached. I hope most people here want to remove it. But it is and was an issue so it should be discussed first. Hence this talk page to end an edit war. --Snowded TALK 16:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a democracy. It doesn't matter what "most people" want. Facts are facts. Weasel words are weasel words. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree, I said "discussed" not voted. and we need citations etc. Hopefully we can improve this. --Snowded TALK 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"May" is indeed weasel. 89.129.142.89 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Offensive to the Irish

As a great liker of the Irish people, I find it personally offensive that a small group of them come on here and demean their country by making it seem like they're a nation of petty-minded bigots stuck in the 17th century, with nothing better to do all day than object to phrases in the English language and try and tell the rest of the world how to speak. ðarkuncoll 17:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I object to any English person liking any Irish person. It's against nature, I say! Go like someone on your own island! (And take your lovey-dovey words with you, as well!) --62.24.204.7 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, most English are wankers. And being English I'm allowed to say that (and may even be one myself). ðarkuncoll 18:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing offensive about this article is that certain eurosceptic wikipedia editors are still claiming Ireland to be in what they term the "British Isles". That, and the "concern" of the same editors for the feelings of the Irish. Things don't get more surreal. 213.202.160.91 (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder, are UKers offended by the term Irish Sea? Just curious, folks. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you wonder, but not near as much as I do about the speciousness of your comment. If it offended your friends, they would have changed it in the same manner that they changed everything else that bothered them about the Irish people, such as Irish placenames, Irish people living under Irish law, speaking Irish, owning Irish land and ruling Ireland (to name but a few). Yes, the tolerance of your friends is legendary. 213.202.160.91 (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to my comment above about how posters here are making it seem like the Irish are stuck in the 17th century. ðarkuncoll 08:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

G'Day - you have made that pointless remark now a dozen times and it has been pointed out that (a) nobody cares what you call that sea because (b) nobody lives in it. Sarah777 (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah! Not in it, but around it. The Irish Sea has a British coast. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Britain has a British coast. The Irish Sea is next to the British coast (and an Irish coast). What's your point? Nuclare (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is - it's proper name could've been British-Irish Sea.GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, call it the 'British-Irish Sea' if that will make you happy. Again, what is your point? It's not a question of 'proper' names; it's a question of names that people from certain areas accept or reject. Many Irish people reject 'British Isles.' I don't know of any British people who rejects 'Irish Sea.' If you do, fine, post your evidence at Irish Sea and take it up there. Nuclare (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Manxmen and Manxwomen live in the Irish Sea. ðarkuncoll 08:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Have they evolved webbed feet yet? :) Daicaregos (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't. Nuclare (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Since the edit warring continued past the last warning, and before anyone has to be blocked for 3RR, I'm re-protecting this article for a period of two weeks. You all know why. Remember, protection doesn't indicate a preference or support of the current version, it's just the version the protection was implemented on. Canterbury Tail talk 18:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good move. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you actually enjoy articles being locked sometimes GoodDay. Have you ever once seen it work in here? --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that - but the second question is the interesting one. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, no. Frustratingly, shortly after things have settled & this article in unprotected? Somebody, somwhere, will light another match. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks of this ongoing racism? I'm sure if I can accept that. For me - either it is unprotected after we decide in the enforced poll above that the word "offensive" is not warranted, verifiable or needed - or Wikipedia will be an anti-British quantitly for two whole 2 weeks. I despair when people like Snowded can so easily get a page locked like this. We must realise that a locked article is what Snowded and people like him want: and admin (for whatever reason) have always kept it on the disrupter's prefered version - unfortunately that can't be denied with this article, and page protection has simply helped prevent the introducion from progressing for a long time now, as it gives all the power to one side of an argument. It is honestly a major part of the reason why we simply cannot get anywhere: someone reverts, an IP pops up, the page is locked and people get demoralised. There are people who have openly said they are not interested in this disruption, and keep away from this talk page. We have people who have admitted they will vote on the 'status quo' if it gets the article unlocked. The current status quo is not Policy at all, but this perpertual "toy-fling article-lock" cycle has simply kept it in place. This amount of power given to one side of an issue makes a mockery out of Wikipedia's supposed fairness, and is a huge insult to the people who actually work hard developing this place.

Can this page be unlocked after the poll on the word "offensive"? I need to know this, because one or two people here are able to stonewall any more complicated changes (ie two or more words) forever. If we can sort out that one word things can settle down a bit (as they had before Snowded kicked the apple cart). Yet again the article suffers from the actions of one editor.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the last time I locked the article I got criticised for locking it on a pro-British stance. Now I'm being criticised for it being on an anti-British stance. Not possible to win around here (and I'm not looking to win.) Protected is better than disrupted. It can be unlocked if there is a genuine consensus among editors for everything currently being fought over. Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken here. The last time the article was locked it was criticised for being an anti-British stance. The problem is that it is always that way - because the cycle has simply kept the article that way. That's my point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No tis you that are mistaken. Last time I protected it (19 May 2008) I was criticised for it being pro-British as seen here. Canterbury Tail talk 20:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Now now Ben! What I asked was: Does British pov merit a higher lever of protection from the Wiki-Admin "Community"? I wasn't accusing you of being pro-anything except pro-NPOV! (And my next post in that sequence was effusive praise in that regard for your good self. Ben, you have cut me to the proverbial quick, so you have :( Sarah777 (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought you said the last time it was locked. Either way, that is a protest by Sarah on your talk page: and how was that page lock possibly a British POV? It's like calling the sun green. She didn't even give you a reason! Forget the automatic accusations by Sarah (who doesn't want Wikepedia to use the term with Ireland involved at all) and look at the reality: the clear cycle is massively anti-British, and it's about time someone addressed this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Matt, I am getting to the end of my tolerance of your constant and nonsensical attribution of motives to me (and others). Please try to behave like a civilised editor. You have some severe ownership issues that you need to address. --Snowded TALK 21:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am past the end of my tether with you, and have been past it for a while. This article being locked right now is entirely down to you edit warring and not letting the accepted edit settle (with an IP and ThatsGrand - who you know damn well is a sockpuppet of Wikipeire - backing you up). Either this article and the editors working on it start following Policy, or it will carry on being locked in this totally disgraceful cycle forever. I can't actually express how badly I feel about how this cycle has gone on and on here. It is treating decent editors appallingly - letting them talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk with no benefit at all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the false accusations and personal attacks.ThatsGrand (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I'd recommend letting the checkuser run its course. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting forward a case. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:It was not an accepted edit Matt; try reading your own threats to revert and revert again if you can face up to some self-reflection. Get a grip, stop throwing insults and try treating your fellow editors with some respect. --Snowded TALK 21:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You, an IP and a sockpuppet didn't like it. But it's all it takes in here. Are you really happy in that company? One thing you are not is a socker - so why don't you step back and reflect yourself?--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Any word on how ThatsGrand fared in the checkuser? Is he good for a vote? Sarah777 (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "vote"? --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I make decisions on content and process Matt not on who is involved. If we have another sock puppet then it can be checked, but we should assume good faith until proven one way or the other. As I said (but you did not read) I am not necessarily against the content of what you do, but I do object to the process by which you assume you are somehow or other free from the requirement to discuss things first (or in this case to ensure you have agreement). I do find it ironic that you complain on the one hand that two editors is "all it takes", but on the other hand think that as one editor that you can ignore agreements reached by ten. Even if you won't reflect, I do suggest you stop the rapid fire insults, its not helpful. --Snowded TALK 05:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my process at all. It is your poll-insistent process (on anything you don't like) that is the problem here. Your 3 month-old '10 editor' wall of usual suspects was a disaster - but it's no wonder you have been obsessed with polls ever since. The mediator (although he didn't have to do a thing) should be totally scolded for letting it pass. You managed to completely obliterate a proposal and its subsequent discussion and get every anti-British person to sign a list for no change, and you haven't stopped gloating about it since. You know it had no significance, weight or integrity, but you have used it like it is the law of Moses. I retired during it and I feel like retiring every time I think of it it annoys me so much. Wikipedia is completely vulnerable to the machinations of people obsessed on polls. Wikipedia simply doesn't recommend them. It is very rare that they don't alienate a group of people, and simply just do a count for the other side. I've worked my arse off saving a number of polls (incuding the one at Wales you're recently used as the reason to revert my change) - next time you are involved in one I'll just let it fall around you. We must go by policy not polls. We must feel our way through changes (as so nearly did just lately), not force everything into a militaristic roll call. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarify - ..get every anti-British person to sign a list for no change?. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK - as you said, you voted just to get the article unlocked. And Waggers too of course (who felt the same I'm sure). And maybe Batsun.. I'd like to know what was on his mind. But the rest was an eager line up for sure! --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you have become disconnected from reality, attributing motives to people which cannot be sustained. Accusing people of being anti-British just because they disagree with you. You have ownership problems every time you edit that you are incapable of acknowledging. You make intemperate accusations of racism and prejudice where at the slightest excuse. It is impossible to deal with you on the basis of evidence, citation or fact. You use mediation as a threat to try and force agreement, then back off if anyone takes you seriously. The distressing thing is that I think you genuinely believe that what you say above is true. Sorry its just not worth attempting to engage with you any more. When and if I edit on these or related pages I will do my best to treat each of your edits afresh as if you were a new editor with no history. I think its probably the only way I can assume good faith on your part. --Snowded TALK 07:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The term is often offensive in Ireland, to many people. There's no "may" about it. This is also supported by the references that I can read. Whether or not this should be the case is entirely beside the point. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Disappearing "British Isles"

Somebody earlier asked about the removal of the term "British Isles" from modern maps, such as by the AA and even major non-British corporations such as National Geographic. Why are these very important changes not mentioned in this article? I decided to google to find out a list of other companies who have dropped the use of "British Isles" from their maps and replaced it with 'Britain and Ireland' or 'Great Britain and Ireland' in recent years. A quick Google reveals that even Philips has removed the term "British Isles" and replaced it with "Britain and Ireland" for all their maps, road and desk. Philips maps are the most memorable from my childhood, and were often free with British newspapers and consequently in our budget-crushed classrooms. In the map section of my university their old Philips map has "British Isles" in large writing. Now, however, there is the Philip's Britain and Ireland Desk Map and Philip's Road Atlas Britain and Ireland . A search of "British Isles" on their website has maps for "Britain and Ireland" (http://www.philips-maps.co.uk/index.php?nID=product&id=&ISBN=9780540089178). I wonder do they put it back in when the maps are given to The Daily Telegraph? The actual evidence from Philips' website is, however, that "British Isles" is removed from their modern maps. "British Isles" has also been removed from the modern Michelin Map, and replaced with 'Great Britain and Ireland' (http://store.randmcnally.com/product/international+maps/europe/united+kingdom+and+ireland/michelin+map-+great+britain+&+ireland+(713).do, and indeed Rand McNally has now no result at all for a search on its website of "British isles" (http://store.randmcnally.com/p2p/basicSearch.do?keyword=british+isles). Collins maps have also removed the term "British Isles" from their maps and replaced it with Great Britain and Ireland Road Map (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Britain-Ireland-Road-Map/dp/0004489802). Interestingly, South-West England and Wales now appear in a series entitled Great Britain and Ireland Road Map: South West England and Wales Sheet 2, and should there be any doubt that Ireland is not in the "British Isles" according to Collins, the series is given the subheading in parenthesis, '(Collins British Isles and Ireland Maps)' (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Britain-Ireland-Road-Map/dp/0004489802). So, from this very brief search of these map companies, the term "British Isles" has been removed from maps published by:

• AA
• National Geographic
• Rand McNally
• Michelin
• Philips
• Collins

In addition a quick search of Google Maps, the most influential map publisher in the world, has no record of "British Isles" either and instead has simply the name UK over the UK and Ireland over Ireland (See here: http://maps.google.com/). Google's solution is of course the most intelligent, and further evidence of the antiquated meaning of "British Isles" (why isn't this "British Isles" article a historical article?). So, Google Maps can be added to a list of major map-making companies which do not use the term "British Isles".

• Google Maps

Please add to this list accordingly, because this article is (inexplicably?) underplaying all these extraordinarily significant changes in the use of the term "British Isles" and this article is consequently representing a very traditional British nationalist take on events, but at the same time purporting to be an article on a modern name, without giving due weight to fundamental modern developments regarding that name. It cannot be both ways. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You have some points but here, but there is exaggeration also. Philips always made "Britain and Ireland" maps. There was never that many British Isles maps! Political and road maps are usually different from geographical ones (the labelling etc is different too: politic/road/geographical). NG uses "British Isles" in the text on the map, but has changed to "Britain and Ireland" for the heading. As for the "inexplicable" absence of this evidence from the article - you have completely lost me with that! I offered changes involving mentioning cartographers above - but nobody would accept it because it meant losing the word "offensive". The sad truth is people here would actually prefer keeping the word offensive near the word British than include all the kind of detail I would personally like to see. GoodDay liked it, but Sarah and Snowded rejected for not showing enough dissent. It needed work sure, but what can you do? When the admins act as badly as they do here, even one singular dessenter would have all the power in this article. A couple of flown toys and it's locked. How about getting an ID by the way? I've had it up to here with IP's lately. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Disappearing British Isles II

When was the last time anybody heard the term "British Isles" used on the BBC, ITN/UTV, Channel 4 or even Sky News weather forecasts? I might have heard it on Sky News about 5 years ago, but that is a big 'might'. I would expect to hear it on Sky given its ownership/politics but in fairness I do not hear it at all. Today's BBC weather over a map of Ireland and Britain is, for instance, focused only on the UK and headed accordingly (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ukweather/). Channel 4 is precisely the same (http://www.channel4.com/news/weather/), while Sky's weather covers all of Ireland as well as Britain and the term "British Isles" is not used (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Weather). I couldn't find ITN's online weather news page. On a daily basis the term "British Isles" is invariably avoided by all the main British news/weather stations. Needless to say, I have never heard it used on Irish weather forecasts. Again, should this avoidance of the term by both British and Irish news/weather channels not be given due weight if this article persists in claiming to be an article on a modern name? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just rubbish I'm afraid - I hear it on TV regularly enough, especially on geographical programmes (which I watch a lot of). What point are you trying to make anyway? Nobody says it's used everyday, or on the news etc, why would it be? None of this proves dissent - or proves anything really.

Like the maps - it was never used every day on TV - so why the dramatic "disappearing"? And so what if it is being used less anyway? That gives us no reason to say that "many people object" to it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the point he/she is trying to make. As I read it the editor is suggesting that is being used very rarely by international companies. I agree the term is used in Britain, I hear occasionally it on the BBC. The point has nothing to do with people objecting to it in a direct sense, just how using ther term BI might not be the international standard anymore.ThatsGrand (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would something that is only discussing the UK use, or deliberately avoid using, the term British Isles? It's not relevant to that. Canterbury Tail talk 21:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And why would someone discussing something in Ireland use the term "British" Isle? Sarah777 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't be, unless it's relevant. Shannon being longest in British Isles is relevant, as is Lough Neagh being largest in British Isles. However the examples being given above of the weather forecasts where they only discuss the UK, it isn't relevant to mention the British Isles. Canterbury Tail talk 11:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Shorter non-censored proposal for introduction

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Shorter 4 paragraph revision: The British Isles (Irish: variously Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha, Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór;[r] Manx: Ellanyn Goaldagh; Scottish Gaelic: Eileanan Breatannach; Welsh: Ynysoedd Prydain) are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which comprise Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands.[r] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland.[r] The group also includes the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and can, by tradition, include the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago.[r] There are other common uncertainties surrounding the extent, names and geographical elements of the islands, and the general popualarity of the term.[r] Although the term is a geographical one, and is used in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, it is periodically criticised for using the political term "British", which suggests a British ownership of the archipelagos.[r][r}[r] This possibility of a mistaken interpretation causes the term to be controversial in relation to the island of Ireland, which is largely Irish and only British in Northern Ireland, which is about one sixth of the island. 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] I hope this doesn't sound to evil. Half the Introduction is given to the controversial nature of the term. I think that is fair enough, as long as it keeps to the details and doesn't mislead, or insidiously tell people what to think.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC) I've added "British Isles naming dispute|general popualarity" to the first paragraph. This can lead to the dispute page, and offer the dispute refs. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC) As much as I hate doing it, I feel forced into using a vote: support. I'm actually off out now (strange for a proposal, I know) - can I urge people to take this seriously? --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC) I have no problem with it. Good work.ThatsGrand (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose; the current intro is much better; it is important to point out that he term is offensive to many Irish people. This possibility of a mistaken interpretation causes the term to be controversial in relation to the island of Ireland is pure speculation and WP:OR and is thus inadmissible. Sarah777 (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Extremely Strongly Oppose "Although the term is a geographical one, and is used in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, it is periodically criticised for using the political term "British", which suggests a British ownership of the archipelagos." The author has clearly never cast an eye over WP:NPOV. The deliberate association of one POV with science and learning is intended to undermine the opposing POV (strangely so, while the same author attacks references in support of the opposing POV on this discussion page for being drawn from the academic press). "This possibility of a mistaken interpretation ..." So Wikipedia now has an opinion on this matter? One POV is "mistaken"? The other, I presume, is correct? Please, Matt, if you have time in between panic attacks over perceived attacks on your nationalist sensibilities, take a wander over to WP:NPOV - and when you are done there, why not take a look at WP:VERIFY as well. You may be interested to know that around here facts trump your narrow-minded nationalist POV. --78.152.196.12 (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Very excellent point on the association thingy Mr 7815219612. Are you someone's sockpuppet? We should be told 'cos apparently ThatsGrand (above) is, according to some, part of a whole regiment of puppets. It seems calling folk puppets isn't a breach of WP:CIVIL - at least not if they are suspected Irish puppets. So, self-styled 7815219612, j'accuse. Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC) I'm no sock puppet, but and while you are being civil I would consider calling someone a sock without good reason a breach of WP:AGF. We have encountered before on the ROI talk page. Please (everyone) see the outcome of this request to ANI arising from discussion on that page. On that occasion the editor that raised the possibility that I might be a sock turned out to be a puppet master himself (discovered my Matt). All contributors should be conscious that IP-based contributors are no more likely to be socks that anyone else - indeed, those contributing from non-static IP addresses (not I) can be certain not to be a sock. Be aware, however, that there are other IP-based contributors contributing to this discussion. Not all are me. --89.19.81.44 (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC) I be aware.....very aware! ;)Sarah777 (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Good God! Wikipéire was a sockmeister!! Paranoia uber alles! But I still gotta ask 864211912 (below) - Sir, are you, or have you ever been, a SOCKPUPPET? Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Sorcha, a ghrá mo chroí, how could you mistake me? It's not every poster who puts your fine self up with Maud Gonne and her hurling the little streets upon the great, and the eternally feisty Caoimhe and sure I'd marry you myself for that passion and fieryness in the morning but for you're a city girl and city girls don't feed us country lads properly. Alas! It is beyond funny watching all these British nationalist upstarts tell you what your identity is, and that your country is British. To paraphrase Anthony Daly this afternoon about the Kilkenny team, you're like Pacman, you just eat all the little fuckers up as they come at you. God bless you. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Strongly Oppose. It's obviously not a serious proposal. It is patently designed to minimise the controversy ('controversy' is a euphemism) surrounding the name and sideline Irish resistance to this name by mentioning irrelevancies such as the extent of this supposed "British Isles". And these details are, from an Irish persective, irrelevancies. It's like a man coming into your home, attacking you and then turning around and chatting about the diversity of the garden. He may talk about the garden but all you are thinking of is the attack he has just made on you. Similarly, the words "British Isles" at the top of this article covering Ireland, and ultimately imposing an antithetical identity on the Irish people, evoke a similar desire to fight the name, the claim, the assertion- and, yes, the offence (we are quite happy to be Irish, thank you very much)- implied in the term "British Isles" first and foremost. It doesn't require much empathy to understand this. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Strongly oppose it is wordy, excessive and unnecessary. The current version is fine (maybe minor modifications) but nothing like this. --Snowded TALK 07:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Can you explain in discussion what is excessive, and what is unnecessary? It is a standard-size four short-parag introduction. The current fairly-short two-parag revolves around the word "offensive and objectionable"!! It is THE most badly-weighted introduction of the whole of Wikipedia, for any article of this level.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Its too long. all we need on a geography article is a note to the effect that the term is objectionable and offensive (I could live with one if it came to it). The proposed edit is in effect a statement of opinion and places too much emphasis on a particular POV. --Snowded TALK 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Stronly oppose - this notion is evidently a misleading pro-British imposition. The whole article deserves being tagged with Template:POV for its sheer existance under the current title(added subsequently). What about renaming to The isles of Ireland and Britain or North Sea isles (but then one should cogitate about Helgoland)? At any rate, preserving such a prejudicial title should involve the aforementioned template. Bogorm (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC) You don't want the article to exist? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC) False, I do not want its current title. It is offensive to the people of the Republic of Éire, it is clearly stated in the introduction! It sounds as biased as if there were an article Ostpreußen stating "O. is a geographical region encompassing Königsberg oblast, Western Lithuania and part of Poland. However, its usage by the Polish, Latvian and Russian governments is discouraged" - inane, is not it? I agree completely with the Éireann people. Bogorm (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC) When you amend your text (as you have just done) it is polite to say that you have done it - not attack someone for misinterpreting the previous unclear version! When the term is used, Wikipedia has no right to change the title. Wikipedia fairly presents facts, it doesn't consor, or promote change! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC) It would be more veracious to underscore that at first I deplored the misrepresentation and eventually I added "under ..." in order to prevent other lectors from attaining the same seeming conclusion. Now, when that is explicitly tagged, I hope you are content. Bogorm (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Comment to admin: - you lock this article to encourage more discussion (by which you can only mean proposals - take a look at the archives), someone works on a level-headed proposal, and look what happens? Two regular "No"'s, two IP's, and someone who things the article shouldn't exist!! All "strong opposes"! Can any admin convince me that this article won't be locked in the same position for years to come? Is no-one embarrassed about it? It is what some people clearly want - so why not out on a 2 year lock right now? How can you win against someone who doesn't want the article to exist? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Please cease misrepresenting mine opinion - it is clear-cut and does not infer the existence, but the current colonial title/name/dub, as you prefer...! Bogorm (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC) You since amended your text! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC) See one Absatz above. Bogorm (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Discussion I'm no longer concerned with the content of this article (too much hassle). However, I'll repeat it again - the article's title must not be moved. Why? you ask? 'Cause British Isles is (at least) a historic title. Historic titles stay put (examples: Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Irish Sea, English Channel, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland etc). GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC) I remarked amongst the three Irish names for the isles one which is deprived of the British connotation and is probably neutral as a name: "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa". Could someone render it in English, it is interesting? Bogorm (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Hi Bogorm, 'Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa' means Islands of Western Europe, which is of course far more accurate than calling Ireland after the name of one of the islands. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Hi! Of course it is neutral and non-POV. This expression used here as title is a vestigial rudiment from the 19th-century imperial times, which needs renovation. Bogorm (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC) The title must remain. If ya'll don't like it? create a new article called Great Britain and Ireland (I believe Sarah777 attempted that, months ago). GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC) "Must"?- you're opinion? This title must (see, we can all do that) not remain over Ireland in any wikipedia article other than a historical (an historical as lesser educated people say) article. It is more of the age-old British imperialist claim to Ireland. That historical article should make clear that its use in English arose in tandem with the emergence of British identity, and particularly with the assertion of British claims to Ireland from the 17th century. I suspect that that sort of historical accuracy would not be welcome to you. I note, also, that you are refusing to integrate the extensive evidence about its removal from maps, weather forecasts, academic books and much more into your views concerning the justification for the current title on an article purporting to be on a modern entity. This refusal simply accentuates the entire British pov agenda behind this article, from title to content. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC) You can do as you like with the content. Ya can even put in that British Isles isn't used anymore. Better yet, create a Irish mirror article called Britain and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC) I concur unanimously with 86.42.119.12. My nation suffered similar tribulations and I have full understanding for the willingness to detach the must-be neutral Wikipedia from obsolete pov empire-conscious notions. Bogorm (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC) I wish you'd both reconsider. But, it's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Shorter non-censored proposal for introduction (revised)

This is an even shorter version:

The British Isles (Irish: variously Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha, Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór;[r] Manx: Ellanyn Goaldagh; Scottish Gaelic: Eileanan Breatannach; Welsh: Ynysoedd Prydain) are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which comprise Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands.[r]

There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland.[r] The group also includes the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and can, by tradition, include the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago.[r] There are other common uncertainties surrounding the extent, names and geographical elements of the islands, and the term has been objected to throughout its usage.[r]

Although the term is a geographical one, it is periodically criticised for using the political term "British", which suggests a British ownership of the archipelagos.[r][r}[r] This possibility of a mistaken interpretation causes the term to be controversial in relation to the island of Ireland, which is largely Irish and only British in Northern Ireland, which is about one sixth of the island. 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 to suggest that alternative terms like "Britain and Ireland" have been increasingly used by cartographers over recent years.[r]

It loses the details on geographical usage, and makes the unpopularity link to the 'BI term dispute' article even clearer. The above is NOT a too-large introduction. Over half of it is now about the disputed element - but this is OK - as long as it does not infer that the word "British" is "offensive" in itself (and with only one non-verified non-nationalist citation to even support us using the word!). --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support: --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support as a starting point - we still need summaries of the other paragraphs in the introduction, but this wording is an improvement. Waggers (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This could be hard when the article is locked - but we can still keep to four parags, a decent size and get some other stuff in too.I'll give it a go - maybe if more meat is in it, less people will turn away. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Extremely Strong Oppose (still) The "revision" does nothing to address the neglect of NPOV in stating that one POV is correct ("the term is a geographical one") and calling the the other a "mistaken interpretation". It also deliberately marginalized the opposing POV by reducing the matter to something that is only "periodical" (never mind "mistaken"). The evidience from the sources (not to mention this discussion page, and anecdotal evidience from those of us who live in Ireland) is that objection to the term in Ireland is not "periodical" but on-going and common-place. There is no need for a longwinded rigamarole when the current version is matter-of-fact, thoroughly sourced, to-the-point and doesn't labour unnecessarily upon an otherwise trivial matter. All that needs to be said: "The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term offensive or objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage." --78.152.202.100 (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The actual sources (in plural) do not back-up "objectionable" for 'general people' in a present tense - only one does, and it is unverified and is not enough for the line we use! The sources do not back up "the Irish government also discourages its usage." either. Who do they discourage? The people of Ireland? We don't know, and we have nothing to verify it with to support the particular line we use. So we can give the quote. Why do you object to showing the evidence? Is it becasue you want to suggest more? This is all about suggesting more, isn't it?

And why are you still hiding behind a dynamic IP? What will happen if you register? I can only assume you are afraid of someonw connected your edits, and a checkuser revealing who you are.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"The actual sources (in plural) do not back-up "objectionable" for 'general people' in a present tense ... " Of the top of my head, here's three:

"On the top of your head" - what rubbish! These are all you have. It's actually the word "offensive" I've always principally argued against - the fact that you demand them both, when objectionable on its own has no verified refs.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles';..." - Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd, The Dynamics of Conflict in Northern Ireland: Power, Conflict and emancipation

But do actually they verify it? Cambridge or no, these academic presses never stop (I know very well, having run a secondhand bookshop near a university for a period of my life) - I'd have to read it to see their context, too. You must read all of the WP:verify page - including the WP:REDFLAG section, and WP:undue weight too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Be aware that the Irish may object to the name British Isles, even in a strictly geographic sense." - National Geographic Styleguide Manual

They say "may", and still use it in the embossed text on the front of their "Britain and Ireland" map. It's only good enough for "may". Again - they don't verify this - it's just "may". --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it [the term British Isles] objectionable ..." - Hugh Kearney. The British Isles, A History of Four Nations

Kearney doesn't source it (ie it's non-verified), and goes on to use the term for modern Ireland thoughout his book called British Isles. We don't know his context (nationalist?). --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"... and it is unverified ..." These are all verifable sources.

No they are not!! You simply don't understand verify at all. The WP:REDFLAG is the part of the WP:Verifiability page you need to read! And look at WP:Undue weight too! You fail on both. These kind of comments need to have a significant amount of verified sources to be appropriated into an encyclopedia. We don't have them, yet we put the word "objectionable" next to the word "offensive"! And the word "offensive" is my particular beef anyway - it's simply too much.

There are only two refs for "offensive", and neither are verifiable. We simply must have many to use the word "many"! But we only have two for "many" - both non-verified sources. And they are the same refs too (so you can't add up all the '2's!) Where are they all? Where are all the abundant refs I am entitled to expect? We should have many for them all if we are to use these serious words, in this serious context, in this serious article.. -Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"The sources do not back up 'the Irish government also discourages its usage.' either. ... So we can give the quote." The current edit contains two refernces with quotations:

• "... its use should be thoroughly discouraged" Mary E. Daly, Journal of British Studies 46

1947 is too long ago for a government letter to be used in the present tense. It wasn't a statute, and was a completely different government. It is simply deceptive to use it for the the present tense "Irish government disourages its usage" that we use. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• "... We would discourage its usage." The Times of London, October 3, 2006

That is the Embassy spokesman that we use. Does he mean they discourage the gov or all of Ireland? He wasn't clear at all. The intro currently says "the Irish government also discourages its usage." - but who do they discourage? Themselves? Ireland? Again, it is misleading people. They do actually use it from time to time and where are the other refs/proof you would expect? I haven't seen any real world examples. Even Folens stressed that no actual parents complained of their atlas = it was a precautionary change. Why can't we document this without pretending we can justify saying "offensive or objectionable" in the introduction? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"And why are you still hiding behind a dynamic IP? ... I can only assume you are afraid of someonw connected your edits, and a checkuser revealing who you are." Please aquaint yourself with fundamental Wikipedia policy, particulary assume good faith. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

When you hide civility Warnings from your talk page? AGF after that is a bit difficult.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• If inferring that the word "British" is "offensive" in itself is your fear, than why not just leave it basically in it's shorter, current form but add that it is Ireland's *inclusion* in the term that can offend the Irish, rather than simply saying that the term itself is offensive to them. The type of wording used in this source (Timothy Baycroft & Mark Hewitson What is a Nation? (Oxford, 2006), p. 273) would work, no?: 'The "British Isles", however, does include the island of Ireland, although the adjective "British" used in this context is often found offensive by Irish nationalists.' That certainly doesn’t imply ‘British’ is inherantly offensive. Of course, we can’t plagarize this source, but this sort of way of wording, perhaps? On the ref's page, I count 5 sources (including the one I just quoted) that use offend/offensive, which one's are you dismissing as nationalist? Or are you referring to sources elsewhere? Nuclare (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are doubling on the same sources for different words if you count as many as 5! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not doubling; there are five separate uses there. But, taking a closer look, it didn't register in my earlier search, the 5th is the recorded opinion of a politicican--Scottish rep Denis Canavan. Here's the page. 1)"The British Isles (a term which is itself offensive to Irish Nationalists." John E. Joseph. 2) The "What is a Nation?" one I just mentioned: "...the adjective "British" used in this context is often found offensive by Irish nationalists.' 3) "...we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term British Isles..." Joseph Ruane. Jennifer Todd. 4) ...the "British Isles"--a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities.' Peter Lambert. 5) --this is the politician one, but, -- "...referred to as a 'Council of the British Isles' by David Trimble. This would cause offense to Irish colleagues." British Irish Inter-Parlimentary Body. Denis Canavan. Nuclare (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed there are many many sources to simply put this issue to bed and get on with our lives. The trouble, appears, that a certain Welsh contributor simply doesn't like it. --62.24.204.7 (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"many many"?! It just isn't true. You would "many many" given the way the Introducion goes about things - but you just don't have many many. - you have an awkward, non-veified few. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Dear heavens! 81.32.182.214 (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Four paragraphs of explanatory fairness really sticks in people's gullet doesn't it? To not be allowed just a small sharp intro with the words "offensive or objectionable"?? Dear heavens! What is the world coming to? We have to use an encyclopedia to explain things?! Dear heavens! Mary - get my gun.. I being told to be fair! I'm being told to explain! Dear heavens - we are doomed!--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Matthew, you are clearly losing this argument once again. Please revise your posts and temper your tone. Thank you. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Could one ask how many times Matt Lewis has lost this argument before? The references are pretty clear, and the introduction should surely be short and sharp and accurate - not a long windy rant. 89.129.142.89 (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

The fourth paragraph on alternative usage and how cartographers seem to be changing is where we actually have all the compelling evidence of the term being unwanted. I support using this (and other facts) rather than keep the intro as short as possible and let it rotate around the word "offensive". I still can't find any non-nationalist use of the word in the present-tense outside of Kearney, who goes on to use the term himself for modern Ireland, and doesn't verify it either. If this article is to remain unlocked, we MUST stop appropriating his word and context (whatever it was) and use the English language to do this fairly. We are an encyclopedia - this is not our own personal book. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph is the clue to resolving the name inferring the tribulations caused to plenty of Irish people during colonial reign - please move this page to "Britain and Ireland", so that the neutrality prevails, especially since cartographers have an incontestable propensity thereto. (with two users supporting the move I consider a request therefor imminent.) Bogorm (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. On the cartography thing, it's worth mentioning that hardly any "Britain and Ireland" maps include the Channel Islands, which means they're not referring the the exact same entity as the British Isles. The use of "Britain and Ireland" could therefore be down to that reason as opposed to any problem with the term "British Isles" itself; if we're saying that mapmakers are actually changing their usage of the term (ie. used to use "British Isles" but now use "Britain and Ireland" instead), we need cast iron references to support that - not just a list of "Britain and Ireland" road maps. Waggers (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's one, very explicit reference for starters. It's the National Geographic style guide: 'Great Britain, or Britain, since 1707 has comprised England, Scotland, and Wales. The United Kingdom, formed in 1801, comprises Great Britain plus Northern Ireland; the present Republic of Ireland was included until 1922. The British Isles comprise Great Britain, Ireland, and the adjacent islands, including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Be aware that the Irish may object to the name British Isles, even in a strictly geographic sense. The plate in the National Geographic Atlas of the World once titled "British Isles" now reads "Britain and Ireland." (http://stylemanual.ngs.org/intranet/styleman.nsf/Alpha+Summaries%5C-+G+-/$first/?OpenDocument)86.42.119.12 (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What is complicated is that there are not just differently produced political and geographical maps (with the geographical preferring BI), but road maps, which are different as well. Did the ever use British Isles? It's a bit OR, but we could do with a table on maps - showing changes, not just usage. I'm into including the parag, even though I suspect a very slow move away from BI has been going on slowly (and naturally) for years - possibly as the industry has developed. National Geographic changing its BI title to "Britain and Ireland" - but keeping BI in the 'symbolic' map text, is a good example though - It looks like they've made a conscious decision to look at the name, and to compromise. They still print a very old BI map too, which may include the Channel Islands. On top of that, Folens did their precautionary move, based on that one complaint. It's enough for me to have the line on it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. It's a verbose monstrosity. (This "oppose" is to both the proposed introductions. This comment just got misplaced a little.)81.32.182.214 (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So speaks the IP who removed "may" from the article on the 5th Sept during an edit exchange, knowing damn well that if he did it at that time, the article was guaranteed to be locked. Looks like IP's rule the roost in here to me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so speaks this IP, who has as much right to express a view as "Matt Lewis", but who had no idea an editing war was underway. Oh, while we're at it "may" is nonsense. It is. 89.129.142.89 (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it 2, the idea that the reference to "nationalists" in Ireland somehow means that offensiveness of the term is limited to a small number of people is nonsense. For instance the party that is currently the government in ROI, and has been government for a long time describes itself not only as nationalist but Republican. In an Irish context Republican is generally taken as being a more extreme nationalist than any other.89.129.142.89 (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the proposal was speedy close - not moved per WP:SNOW 199.125.109.124 (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Note: At 18:54, 7 September 2008 Bogorm (Talk) requested that British Isles be moved to "Britain and Ireland". Explication for the request: 1) As is stated in the introduction of the article, this term by encompassing the Republic of Ireland is offensive to the majority of its citizens. It sounds as biased as if there were an article Ostpreußen stating "O. is a geographical region encompassing Königsberg Bezirk, Western Lithuania and part of Poland. However, its usage by the Polish, Lithuanian and Russian governments is discouraged" - inane. 2) Its historical significance is explained by 86.42.119.12: "It is more of the age-old British imperialist claim to Ireland. That historical article should make clear that its use in English arose in tandem with the emergence of British identity, and particularly with the assertion of British claims to Ireland from the 17th century." and its usage is thence convenient only for historical articles, not at all for modern ones (cfr. Ostpreußen, a historical region as is this one) 3} In the Irish language one of its names "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" means "Islands of Western Europe" and it is high time the English language accepted the British became detached from the terminology of the colonial times (before 1947) and accepted a similar neutral attitude. Since noone has a propensity for original research, the most appropriate proposal is the already existing and widely used in scientific materials "Britain and Ireland". Move. Bogorm (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose. Feel free to create an article called Britain and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC) With respect G'Day, I did exactly that and it was instantly deleted by POV warriors as a "fork". Sarah777 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Move. Feel free to move this article title to the confines of a historical article on wikipedia. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose. For all the reasons that has resulted in this not being moved the last God-knows-how-many-times this was proposed. Rockpocket 19:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Please don't move. The present name is what the rest of the English-speaking world, and the majority of the inhabitants, call the archipelago. The way to change the English language is to persuade the anglophones; if you succeed, we will then change Wikipedia - not the other way around. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC) OpposeBI is the most commonly used name in the English language. Valenciano (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Spot on, Pmanderson. Oppose. Common regrettable usage is still common usage and we're expressly not here to proscribe terms in the English language. Some terms are inaccurate, some are controversial, some are both. But English speakers use them all the time, know what they mean and get by just fine. We mirror their usage. Knepflerle (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC) The objection about the language has been reckoned with. Bogorm (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Huh? This isn't an article just written by British editors, and the title is used by English speakers outside Britain. Knepflerle (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose. "Britain and Ireland" rarely, if ever, includes the Channel Islands, whereas some definitions of the British Isles do include them; hence the two entities are not the same thing. Also, "Britain" and "Ireland" (presumably you mean the state) are political entities whereas "British Isles" is geographical - this is about the islands, not the states that occupy them. Waggers (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Comment: Merriman-Webster, Dictionary.com, Free Dictionary, to take three quick examples, do not include the Channel Islands in their definition of "British Isles", so that point, which you have repeated earlier, is a non sequitur. Therefore "Britain and Ireland" would fit the definition of British Isles. Collins and Cambridge dictionaries have no record of the "British Isles". Furthermore, you have not supported your claim that "Britain and Ireland" maps do not cover the Channel Islands as this, for instance, is clearly covering it. In other words, there is at least at much consistency as to what "Britain and Ireland" covers as there is in the standard definitions of what the "British Isles" covers. Have you evidence to the contrary?86.42.119.12 (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC) As a clearer case, is the Isle of Man Britain or Ireland? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose It is a valid geographical name, but opposition to its use needs to be a short reference at the start and it would be very helpful if people stopped placing the BI name wherever they can find any excuse to do so. Sensible use would make it less controversial. --Snowded TALK 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Move/Support For the numerous reasons already given this is a much better, more acceptable and more appropriate name than the current misnomer. Sarah777 (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose The user has no other contributions besides this vote. Bogorm (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC) The user may have other edits on other IPs if they're using DHCP, and have right to comment Knepflerle (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Per policy: "... the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. ... [D]ebating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." Can an administrator please close this discussion down per WP:SNOW as it is counter productive to the purposes of the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.202.100 (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose - British Isles remains the common name (And lets not forget that it includes more than Britain and Ireland, but many little islands). Narson (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC) The little islands east and south of the Island Britain are all British, appertain to no other nation, provided that no OR emerges, which claims Helgoland or Færøerne with the sole purpose to disrupt the sensible proposal. Bogorm (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Comment: So, let's get this straight, Narson: You object to "Britain and Ireland" because there are other places in the archipelago that do not fit under Britain and Ireland. Funny, then, that with this logic it never occured to you that a major reason why "British Isles" is inappropriate is because it is including at least one major island, Ireland, which is most certainly not British. Or, wait, are you telling us Irish that we are British? Want to visit Ireland, and tell us that? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Hold on there IP 86? That last line of your post, could be viewed as a threat to Bogorm Narson. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC) >>>Yes, of course it could be... if you're a complete and utter gobshite and miss the opening line addressed to, well, a different person, for starters. I know, however, that you did not miss that opening line, GoodDay. :-) 86.42.119.12 (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC) I think that was directed at me GoodDay. Sadly people seem to think that because I favour British Isles as a name that I favour British hegemony over Ireland. Narson (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC) You are favouring it because, you imply, it is inclusive, whereas "Britain and Ireland" does not include all the archipelago. You completely avoided the fact that "British Isles" is about as exclusive and "hegemonic locuation" (to quote the most prominent historian of Early Modern Ireland, Nicholas Canny) as you can get due to the minor matter that Ireland is not a British isle. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC) The gobbie comment made me chuckle IP.86. You're quite entertaining - jolly good show. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC) I had thought only about Færøerne og ¨Helgoland, I simply wanted to say that Britain and Ireland is a legitimate substitute, since no other nations' islands are included in the hstorical notion (which is inappropriate at present time) British isles. And I thought mainly of the isles south and east of island Britain, because User:Narson tried to involve other countries in this question beside Britain and Éire. If I have perpetrated any misunderstandng, I apologise and I hope it is already unambiguous. Bogorm (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Achill Island and Gorumna are little islands of the British Isles, but not British. Whether the self-governing crown dependencies which are members of the British Islands are simply British I would not like to say. Knepflerle (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Comment: Great, so by this logic I can be born and bred in Europe, and live here all my life but I am not European??? Hello? That is precisely the logical conclusion to your argument. Cut it whatever way you wish, but if you claim Ireland is in this "British Isles" name used by British nationalists, you are claiming us, the Irish people, to be British. And do you know what you can do with that little notion? Do you know anything about Irish history? Anything? Anything at all? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC) No, it isn't the logical conclusion. The British Isles consist more than just British isles. And it's a term used by more than just British nationalists. Not everyone who lives on the British Isles is British. Not even everyone on Britain. My knowledge of Irish history is quite sufficient for needs, thank you for enquiring. Knepflerle (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC) No, that is precisely the logical conclusion. If you are born, bred and live in London, Paris, Berlin etc etc all your life, you are a Londoner, Parisian, Berliner precisely because of that status. By claiming Ireland to be a British isle, the same logical conclusion applies. And I can tell you this for nothing, if you do not feel offense, anger and immense hostility at being given the name of the people, culture and ideology that has brutalised Ireland for centuries, you do not have a sufficient knowledge of the Irish experience of British colonialism. Yours, respectfully. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC) British Isle, not British isle, if you will accept the difference.. The term 'Britain' predates 'Britain' as a nation. The nation takes its name from the geography, not the other way around. Britain as a nation gets its name from the name of the largest island in he British Isles, Great Britain, which is also the former political entity that was absorbed into the United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Ireland, as it was then. Narson (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC) With respect, saying Britain predates Britain, the modern nation, is akin to saying the Swastika is a Hindu symbol of peace. Both are true. But both words also have had fundamental changes in their meanings since they were first recorded. Languages change, meanings change and the British Isles is offensive wholly because of what has been done in the name of the modern state in Ireland, against us. Of the many other names in use in ancient times, the one which corresponded with British imperial ambitions, British Isles, was taken and promoted by that modern state. In fact, the Oxford English Dictionary says "British Isles" was only first used in English in 1624, which corresponds with British political designs to conquer Ireland from the late 16th century. Names don't come much more politically charged than this so please don't attempt to distort reality by placing some innocuous ancient meaning on this term. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC) An excellent point. However, not one I agree with. British Isles is not a loaded term, certainly not any more, within most of the world. It remains an issue for some Irish men and women, I will agree. I believe some find it offensive, yes. Then again, people find a lot of things offensive that we include in wikpedia and a vocal minority should not be able to force their will upon the rest. I do believe on this, we will have to disagree. Narson (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC) EDIT to add: The OED etymology is not always the best. Islands of Britanniae was there, for example, before the late 16th century. It is also worth adding that the late 16th century is where Modern English starts to appear, which might explain them only having it go back so far. Anyway, drifting off into OR there. Narson (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Ireland is in the British Isles, using the common definition thereof. Ireland is not a British isle. The large difference is carried the capitalisation. Whether this difference is always observed or used correctly is a separate matter. Whether I or anybody else either endorse the common usage or imply anything further with its use are separate matters. But it is the common usage. Knepflerle (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose per Waggers. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Well, there's a surprise!! Sarah777 (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC) hehe. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Hardly. Just like your own vote. What's your point? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose: I think this article is making the British Isles look like a war zone. The article is more anachronistic than the term. It's not clever, it really isn't. Some people in life actually have pressing reasons to fight these things.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Some people in life actually have pressing reasons to fight these things. I don't follow you Matt. That statement is too, dare I say, deep and meaningless? Sarah777 (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Me 'spelling out' this comparative suffering point has never really worked for you though, has it? It seems to me that Bogorm opened this Move because he is associating Ireland with the breakaway nations in Georgia etc (my take on conversation with him, anyway). He has been mislead here into thinking this is a political situation, in my opinion. Now how could that be? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose: Most of my reasons have already been covered above, but I'll run through them briefly. British Isles is the most common name for the archipelago and so to call it anything else would not be NPOV. Britain and Island is exclusionist in that it does not cover the other islands. Finally, the term relates to physical geography, not political entities. If people can't understand that then our role is to educate them, not to pander to their ignorance. You would not propose renaming the whole of America simply because it might suggest to some ears that the whole is under the control of the United States. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Should we close? Maybe I'm being pre-mature, but? We seem to have a snowball effect in favour of keeping the article named British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC) G'Day, what is a "snowball effect"? Is that the same concept as "mob rule"? We have Wiki policies to protect here and as is obvious, the term "British Isles" is inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Frankly I'm somewhat disappointed you don't seem to support WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC) See WP:SNOW. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 'Our foes are strong and wise and wary; but, strong and wise and wary as they are, they cannot undo the miracles of God Who ripens in the hearts of young men the seeds sown by the young men of a former generation.... Rulers and Defenders of the Realm had need to be wary if they would guard against such processes. Life springs from death; and from the graves of patriot men and women spring living nations. The Defenders of this Realm have worked well in secret and in the open. They think that they have pacified Ireland. They think that they have purchased half of us and intimidated the other half. They think that they have foreseen everything, think that they have provided against everything; but, the fools, the fools, the fools! — They have left us our Fenian dead, and while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree shall never be at peace.' 86.42.119.12 (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC) You've got to be a speech writer; you're quite good. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC) hehe. Amn't I just? (gently clobbers GoodDay's head against the quotation marks and link to Pádraig Pearse (1879-1916) :) 86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC) You should also read WP:SOAPBOX before continuing to discuss this subject along these lines, 86.xx. Please leave the political rhetoric off this page. Rockpocket 00:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Well, Rock, please leave the British pov off these pages and I'll support you in that call. You sound a bit like the Brit Gov trying to claim Kosovo is utterly different from Ossetia. Not very credible; not very consistent. Sarah777 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC) I will ask the same of individuals who quote lengthy political orations of any flavour in response to a comment about process. I don't see any quotes from Churchill, Thatcher or Cromwell on this page (yet), but when they appear, I will be sure ask the same of the quoter. Rockpocket 00:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Pah, Rock. I call thee a dogged contrarian. Sarah777 (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Why thank you. Is there a barn star for that ;) IP86.xx does his position no favors in couching his opinion in those terms. Using the language of a political activist tend to have the unfortunate effect of making one appear to have the motives of a political activist, rather than an encyclopaedian. If he wants his points to be considered as a serious attempt to improve the encyclopaedia (and some of them are good points), then less of the "foes" and "fools", towards those who do not share his opinion, would be advisable. Rockpocket 01:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC) I've just read it and by my reading of it, the title "British Isles" falls under propaganda piece, and articulates the opinions of one particular community and, most certainly of all, this title does not represent a neutral point of view. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Indeed Mr IP, we know that. But when you have the weight of numbers you don't need to obey the Law, be consistent, fair or least of all WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC) For you Sarah (emphasis mine): Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. And from that I can understand where you are coming from, however the next paragraph reads: Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources. Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used. See Wikipedia:Naming conflict for further guidance. There has been no attempt to assert that Britain and Ireland is the common name for the entire British Isles. To briefly address the complaint of NPOV, isn't excluding the channel islands, Isle of Mann etc just as POV? Perhaps the next suggestions is to just list every single island in the British Isles....though we will all need wider screens to accomodate the title on our explorer bar. I an understand that a small group seek to be offended by such names, but once again, we should not be pandering to that, but following policy. If a good policy argument can be made, then it might be a different case. Narson (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC) I guess I was premature, calling for closure (see top of section). GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC) When does this Move get closed? It needs to be archived as it is blocking discussion on a proposal. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal

I propose that Talk:British_Isles/References should be a standard link at the top of every talk page (added: attached to this "British Isles" article). I've been reading the archives and came across it. It is easily the most informative list of (primarily academic) references concerning this name that have been collated on a single database. I did not know, for instance, that a letter in 1993 from a man in Athlone to the French channel TV5 resulted in TV5 removing the term Îles Britanniques (British Isles) from all its coverage and replacing it with the French for 'Great Britain and Ireland'. By placing this reference list at the top of every page, readers will have easy access to a wide range of published views on the name. Most people on this talk page are probably currently unaware of this list. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with myself (it's a good feeling, yes).

• Agree - I was unaware that the French abandoned the POV term "British" Isles nearly 20 years ago. Sarah777 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But unfortunately they still use it in their Wiki: Îles Britanniques as do the Germans too. I have a propensity towards proposing to rename it in the French and German Wikipedia - if you acceded thereto, you could inform the Francophone Irish community and we could request to rename it on French and German Wiki by underscoring the facts quoted, if it backfires here, ok? Bogorm (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what the french wikipedia rules on canvassing are, but I'm not sure we should be gathering support for a move change on annother wiki here. Narson (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is merit in starting some changes on French/German Wikis. After all, such Wikis often start their articles based on initially translating En Wiki ones, so errors here like "British Isles" get replicated. Also, those Wikis might be more amenable to rational argument and less prone to Anglo-pov in terms of the balance of numbers. Worth considering if it is "legal" by the local rules. Sarah777 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Every talk page? You've got to be kidding, right? Rockpocket 01:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rock, that is picking nits and cheap point-scoring. You know what he means. Are you not ashamed that someone of your weightiness would come down to our level? Sarah777 (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No Sarah. I don't know what he means. Does he means every archive of this talk page (which I would not oppose), does he means every page that mentions British Isles in the title (which I also would not oppose), does he mean any article that mentions British Isles in the text (which I would) or does he mean every talk page (which is what he said, but surely cannot mean)? There is nothing in what he says that distinguishes between these options. Rockpocket 01:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, every talk page attached to this article on the British Isles is the subject. Your alternative meaning was creative, I'll give you that. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You never can tell, there are all sorts of crazies out there, 86.xx, so its worth being sure exactly what one is agreeing to. My advice to you is to be bold. Adding a link to relevant sources on a relevant talk page can only help inform the discussion. If there is serious opposition to it, someone will likely revert, and then a discussion can be had. Rockpocket 02:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So when did this Talk page turn into a party? I suppose if IP's can get an article locked, we may as well let them run wild. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be forced to delete this if it gets out of hand, by the way. Nothing like fun, is there? --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry Matt, we'll restore it if you do. Crispness (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, then, I just put that references list concerning the name at the top of the page. One of you may know of a better 'notice' symbol or wording than the one I basically copied from above it. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

BBC Article on the Matter

Not sure if this is of interest to those discussing this topic. Though it certainly comes down on the 'pro-British Isles' side (or at least, it asserts the definition in fairly clear terms) it does also give a pretty reasoned and balanced discussion I think of the issues at hand. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7604057.stm (lights touchpaper and walks away...) Pretty Green (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is very inaccurate. Great Britain + Republic of Ireland + Channel Isles + IoM = British Isles

Thats not true. Great Britain is not a country, ROI is not the name of a country either. NI seems to not exist and the Channel Islands are not necessarily in the British Isles. What that article has to do with this issue I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatsGrand (talk • contribs) 17:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, voluminous neglect of Northern Ireland, there. So, "England, Scotland, Wales = Great Britain"? OK. And "Northern Ireland + Great Britain = United Kingdom"? OK, too. But "Great Britain + Republic of Ireland + Channel Isles + IoM = British Isles"? (sniggers) --78.152.231.112 (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty balanced I think - it illustrates that because England is overwhelming in terms of size in Britain, abroad the idea that Britain = England (and thus Scotland is part of England) is inevitable. Thus describing these islands as "British Isles" inevitably misleads people into believing that Ireland is British. Which is why Wiki should not use the name to include Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Err, the BBC article says "UK + Republic of Ireland + Channel Isles + IoM = British Isles". Note, that's UK, not GB as you two have read it as. So by using the UK they have included Northern Ireland. (sniggers) Deamon138 (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Err, quite obviously they corrected that error, but then didn't fix the rest. It said GB intially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.215.157 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Acctually thats a correction to their article, Deamon138. Then again, why we are using the magazine section of the BBC for anything is beyond me. Narson (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC) (EC)

There are quite a few inaccuracies in that BBC article, including "GB also includes Isle of Wight, Scillies, Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland, but not Isle of Man and Channel Isles" - actually, Great Britain is an island, so does not include other islands. England includes the Isle of Wight, but strictly speaking Great Britain doesn't. But then again, this is the BBC, which is allegedly a reliable source, and Wikipedia is about reliability not truth, so maybe we're all wrong. How depressing. Waggers (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But isn't that the point? These terms are all fleixible??? The sooner the pedants on this article learn that the better. Pretty Green (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland is not in the British Isles (obviously)

^^^On the other hand^^^...Why is Ireland even under this title? Where is the unanimous agreement that Ireland is part of this "British Isles" entity? A quick Google search reveals that there are countless, and I mean countless, sources which exclude Ireland from this "British Isles" thing. Nobody has yet defended why one particular culturally-determined viewpoint- i.e. that of British nationalism- is determining that Ireland is part of the British Isles, when a case can equally be made for its exclusion. Where is the evidence that the current definition is the most common definition? Here are ten websites that specifically exclude Ireland from this "British Isles" entity (I have neither the time nor inclination to spend years posting the rest: the burden of proof lies with those who contend "British Isles" includes Ireland):

• http://www.the-british-isles.com/ (first result on Google after Wikipedia)
• http://www.chelmsfordexpress.co.uk/
• http://www.britishorthodox.org/directory.php
• http://ldsworldtrips.com/britishIsles_072007.html
• http://www.gotthegift.co.uk/index.php/cd/dvd-games/around-britian-dvd-quiz/p_233.html?review=write
• http://bima0.tripod.com/bima/
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/born_abroad/html/overview.stm
• http://www.walshbrothers.co.uk/Update/zippo_great_britain.htm
• http://www.redbirdacres.net/links.html
• http://www.jmr.nmm.ac.uk/upload/img_400/British-Isles-7-yrs-war_l.jpg

Oh, and here's the Google result for "British Isles and Ireland": http://www.google.ie/search?hl=ga&q=%22british+isles+and+ireland%22&meta (and let's say nothing about all the "British Isles" definitions that admit the politics of the term by being precisely coterminous with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) 86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"I have neither the time nor inclination to spend years posting the rest:" The old "time and inclination" chestnut. You obviously prefer your trolling antics! I notice that you gave us the first entry your Googled "British Isles" -"Ireland" list. But what was the second? This was. And the third? And the fourth? And what do they include when you can be bothered to look into them? Ireland! You are a chump. Oh by the way.. I didn't have the time or inclination to look down any further. But I could guess what was coming (actually I couldn't resist... it's 9 out of the first 10 for a search that excludes the word "Ireland"!! I stopped there.)

I tell you what. On my next proposal I'll bring in this, combined with some of the history that Waggers asked for. I've starting to wonder if most trolling isn't simply an inability to actually create anything. You can't make a case for exclusion of 'British Isles' in this article's form! These terms that share the same meaning must be targeted to the most commonly-used article, and that article must deal with those other terms (assuming - like this one - they are used).

You are basing your non-Ireland British-Isles "most popular" assumption against "British Isles" -"and Ireland" (and that only shows up articles that exclude the words "and Ireland"). But it still shows up more than your "British Isles and Ireland".--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

May

The term may in "The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[4] where many people may[5] find the term offensive or objectionable" should be removed. Its predictive; we should be descriptive. We are not a wikitravel, our job is not to describe what a reader may find there. If that is not what is meant, then the term is redundant, because either "many people" find it or offensive or they don't. Either way, it shouldn't be there. If there are no objections I will remove it. Rockpocket 01:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "may" is weasel wording. Ditch it quick.89.129.142.89 (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lose "people" too. Unless the dogs and cats are the ones who find it offensive it is safe to say that "many" would mean "people". 199.125.109.124 (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And in the interests of balance and accuracy, we should also say that many don't find it offensive - backing this up with quotations from government ministers using it (Sile de Valera), and its use in Irish parliamentary reports, for example. ðarkuncoll 08:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Except the fact of occasional usage is not the same as evidence that many don't find it offensive. Also, from reading the dispute page it's also clear that when Irish parliamentary reports use the term they often use it in a way that excludes Ireland, or at least ROI. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to put forward an totally unwieldy proposal that is actually balanced in this kind of way, simply to force people into taking my considered proposals seriously! We could present a fully detailed ref list (using lots of bold of course) for each one of theirs, and insist on presenting the positive first, per MOS:"many Irish use the term[r], and many find it uniting[r] [2], but many may find it offensive or objectionable[r]. The Irish government has discouraged its usage, though the spokesman did not specify who they are discouraging[r]; there are examples of them using it themselves,[r] and in 1999 a British Irish Council was formed in London which gave constitutional recognition to the British Isles.[r]" We only need a couple of examples to match theirs, and we can fill the talk page with cries of "many many many"! Turn your nose up at every course and what do you end up with? Fish heads.--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the obfuscation of simple proposals with unwieldy comments, its not clear whether you actually object to this or not. Rockpocket 18:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Could this new unwieldy proposal be more unwieldy than the proposals above? In any case, the interesting fact for most readers is that the term is controversial in the first place. That's often new information for readers. Interestingness is a good criteria for inclusion in the introduction. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

" a British Irish Council was formed in London which gave constitutional recognition to the British Isles. It isn't called the 'British Isles' by the Council, so I'm confused by what you mean here. If anything the fact that there is a institution exactly contiguous with the 'BI' but which chose rather consciously *not* to use "BI" seems to reinforce the idea that "BI" is an unacceptable name, if anything. Or what are you trying to say here? It is also a distinct possiblity that the reason the spokesman didn't specify who they discourage is because it was a general discouragement to *everyone*. Who would he specify?? And has anyone got a Irish govt official using the term "BI" in the last couple years (since the Dail comments on the issue)? That's a sincere request for sources, if they are out there. Nuclare (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"May" was inserted as a compromise. If its coming out, then it should be changed to "some" find it offensive - or better still, a form of words should be used that avoids putting a number on how many find the term offensive, unless it is sourced. At present, it isn't.

Anon IP - only last week I posted examples of FF TDs and Senators using the term in the Dáil specifically including Ireland within BI. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at the history of the naming dispute page shows that such examples, and examples of usage in the Irish parliament that excludes Ireland have been there for a long time. It's still entirely beside the point of "many" or "may". If you are not offended but others are offended then an example of your use is no proof of anything about others. Similarly, my point about the description "nationalists" being incorrectly used to argue that only a small number find the term offensive is still valid. You can't present "nationalists" as being a minority in a country where the main political party describes itself as Republican, whether or not you can find occasional use by members of that party. To do so would be a logical nonsense, apart from being OR. Meantime "many" is well supported by reference. There seems to be lots of IDONTLIKE it about that fact, much as there is lots of IDONTLIKEIT about the fact that the term is in common international use. 89.129.143.43 (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"May" is a pretty poor compromise, since it informs nothing about the number of people at all. If we need a term to deal with the number issue, then lets do that. "May" doesn't. For example, if the point is that a number or proportion (of unknown size) of Irish people find it offensive and a number or proportion (of unknown size) don't, then simply say: ""The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[4] where a proportion/number of people [5] find the term offensive or objectionable". This seems to be most neutral way of presenting the facts, without attempting to be quantitative. Rockpocket 18:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you go by the number of refs they have you may as well un-bracket "5"!

I've tried things like "have found" and have been told that it makes it look like its only in the past!. The proportion isn't unknown to us - we would expect many sources to be around if "many" people were offended and objecting to it. Instead we have many sources of people using the term, and a clutch of negative refs compiled over months.

It's not just the lack of evidence, the evidence itself (esp the 'no complaints, but precautionary removal' Folens example) shows us that it's not as significant as the rather loaded term, "a number of people" would wrongly suggest to readers that it is. That is surely as ambiguous a compromise as "may" - but a lot more weighty, imo.

Evidence permitted, the logical thing to say is "where people can find it offensive or objectionable." but it would be outrageous abuse of completely unverified and far too-finite refs for us to do that. So we are trading weasel words. We need to use other language altogether to deal with this - not appropriate words from the unverified context of a couple of selected authors. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of a "a number of people" or "a proportion of people" is that it means exactly what it says. That number my be a handful or may be millions, the proportion may be tiny or may be large. Neither is implied. By avoiding adding a quantitative value to the number or proportion removes any implication, unlike "many" or "few". If I understand you right, your argument is one of due weight: that those that find it objectionable are insignificant enough for it not be be mentioned in the lead. That may be so, I really don't know. But for as long as the sentence is there, it should couched in better terms than it currently is. Also, "where people can find it offensive or objectionable" is either redundantly meaningless or grammatically incorrect. People can find it objectionable anywhere, so why should we single Ireland out? The point is that, according to the sources presented, an undefined proportion of people do find it objectionable in Ireland. "Can find it" and "do find it" do not mean the same thing. Rockpocket 23:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the sources presented, many do find it objectionable or offensive. No source is presented to demonstrate that many don't find it objectionable or offensive. If such is the case then sources must be provided. It's not sufficiently obvious to stand without sources. Similarly, "may" is an unsupported weasel word. On the basis of the sources it's not "may" it's "do". 89.129.143.43 (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is clearly that you are joining this without seeing all recurring dialogue over the last 6 months or so: Nobody wants the word "may"! The problem is that it's the only thing a group of editors have allowed to temper the "objectionable and offensive" line - hence why I (and others) replace it when it is plucked out. It's to stop the intro from being even worse. Replacing it is the only edit I'm ever allowed to make on this part of the artice - and even that can lead to the article getting locked again when it only been open to edits for a week or two!

This chat is a distraction by a couple of IPS's - it's been over and over, and only new words will make it right. We have to stick to proposals: the article locking admin always asks to see 'consensus' before it is unlocked (which, if you look back, I have many sour opinions about, given the "over my dead body" environment in here regarding changing the lead. There has been an endless lock-on-previous cycle that has kept this lead in place for probably all year. One edit inevitable exchange happens, and an IP and a sock come from nowhere, and its locked again - its that easy for them to the article they want. This place is were a jovial quote of that "there's no wrong edit to lock an article on" essay is truly painful to behold. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You see, all I can see is a few editors arguing that their personal view is to be believed rather than references. Many is in the references, not some or few or most or almost all or a majority or nearly everyone or just a few nuts, but simply many. Offensive and objectionable are both in the references, not other words but those ones. The issue, as far as I can see, is that there are people who want to put weasel words in the article because THEYDONTLIKEIT. Arguments based purely on IDONTLIKEIT deserve no respect in Wikipedia. 89.129.143.43 (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - "may" is used as a weasel word - not to mention that it is meaningless in the context: In what sense do we mean "may" 1) that many "possibly" find the term offensive; 2) that many "are allowed to" find the term offensive or objectionable; or 3) that many "are wished to" find the term offensive. (2) and (3) are ridiculous and (1) is not the kind of speculation that this encyclopedia engages in - not ever, never mind when there are at least three references that use the words "many" and "objectionable" in the same sentence and goodness knows how many more supporting references for the matter generally. It is a fact: "many" find the term "objectionable". There is no need to labour the point, dwell upon it, or give it undue weight - but it is an injustice to this encyclopedia to disguise it in order to mollify the sensibilities of the few that for whatever reason would deny it. ("Offensive" is OTT, however.) --78.152.249.77 (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Only if we also point out that many don't find it objectionable. To state one without the other gives Undue Weight to a particular opinion. ðarkuncoll 23:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why, pray tell, is "offensive" "over the top"? It is not. I do not merely object to people assuming I am British because of this "British Isles" claim: I am unequivocally offended by that assumption. Do you really think Irish people should not be offended at being thought of as British, the culture which has persecuted so many nations, including our own? You may feel it is "ott", but the sources support offensive. And there is centuries of offense (to put it mildly) in what the British state has been doing in Ireland since 1603. It is absurd that we must defend our Irishness against you people. We are Irish, not British. When will your fanatically imperialist British culture just leave the Irish people alone, and accept their right to reject your nationalist political projects like the propagation of Britishness? And you do have a fanatically imperialist culture, unless you are all denying your state's extraordinary history, in world terms, for the past few centuries. I am offended to be associated with that barbarism and abject inhumanity: deeply offended. I really do hope that I have made myself impeccably clear. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone call Dave Souza again. He sorted this out last time and his proposal got consensus at something like 11-1. In any case, "may" is not supported by verifiable sources whereas "Many" is supported by verifiable sources. The dissenter the last time was, unless I'm mistaken, Matt Lewis - who has been maintaining this war for months now, apparently purely on the basis of HEDOESNTLIKEIT. Surely this counts as disruption? 89.129.143.43 (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave Souza supported my own original proposal! Someone made a usurping poll out of a comment of his (originally mistaken), and I had reisgned by the time it went to vote - and you were still slagging me off after I had gone (in your actual account). It was a vote for No Change from the usual suspects, including at least one sockpuppet, and at least two editors voting just to get closure and the article unlocked again. Dave Souza hiself didn't vote (I wonder why?). --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipéire talking to Watapalava - how sweet! (and how easily proven too). Only in this article. Wotapalaver - you not logging in makes you the biggest coward on Wikipedia. Really - what a coward you are. You've cowered away ever since I wrote that. The amount of time you say my full name as an IP is painfully pathetic to read - but then your were 'crossing the line' with my name just a 'tad' when you chose to log in though. Get aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa life.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that calling other editors cowards is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Also, your idea that an editor would cower away because you wrote a comment on their talk page is eye-opening. 89.129.143.60 (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, must you insist upon this extraordinary paranoia each time you don't like what Irish people have to say on this topic? A quick perusal of your edit history reveals that you are traversing numerous talk pages belonging to wikipedia editors expressing this paranoia about a wide array of editors (in between referring to editors as "chumps", etc.). Do you not think your actions are all just a bit OCD? Deep breath, disengage. Have a pint. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

86.xx. Whether you are offended is entirely irrelevant. If you continue to couch your arguments on this page in terms of your personal distaste of being considered "British" then I will begin to delete your comments, because the are entirely unhelpful. This is not a forum, stop using it as one. Mat and 86.xx - how many times do you have to be told to quit the personal attacks? Despite the claims and counterclaims, on current evidence you are both, quite frankly, as bad as each other. If you are not able to discuss the content without soapboxing or trading insults then I'll make moves to have you both put on a probation and restricted from this page. C'mon guys, pull it together.

I'm going to repeat my suggestion: if the number of people who do and do not find it objectionable is the problem then use language that is non-quantitative. This is the obvious way to ensure neutrality and balance without misrepresenting sources. Is anyone able to look past their entrenched positions on this issue or are we going to continue going round in circles? Rockpocket 04:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But your non-quantitive suggestion seemed more suggestive (even conclusive) than the word "many" itself. I don't want to be told I'm as bad as a socking IP! It's not my fault this page has got like it has - I've done nothing but try and work on it in the face of this. It's bean treated appallingly by editors an admin alike if you ask me. If you want more evidence you will have to read upwards. Have you read the last proposal? What do you think of it? I'll keep off this page until I improve on it per suggestions - I'm not going to risk being sectioned! If you read all my prosals I am anything but entrenched. What I've always done is compromise fairness in the most positive may I can, as fairness itself has simply not been allowed in here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The number of people who find it offensive/objectionable has been described in verifiable sources as "many". IIRC, in other sources the phrase "often" was used. There is no further problem and avoiding the words used in verifiable sources would certainly qualify and misrepresenting the sources, and as counter to correct editing. 89.129.143.60 (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time, as attempted before, to start a formal process on this. This ongoing rejection of verifiable and highly reputable sources is tedious, to say the least. The last time we started a formal process we got to consensus pretty fast. Suddenly the people with personal views and no references seemed to fade away. 89.129.143.60 (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Rockpocket. We have two references for "many" there, and they both say many "object" - nothing about "offense". Neither reference indicates where exactly they're getting their facts from. In the absence of real data, non-quantitative wording is the way to go. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We have non-quantitive wording in "many". "Many" does not imply a majority e.g. "many books on Amazon cost over €30 but most cost less than that." This is in part what is so wrong about using "may" in that context - what does it mean? "A large number might find it offensive (depending on their mood)" or "it might be that a large number find it offensive"? "Many" by itself is pulled directly from the refs and no more about it that what is known - a large undetermined number find the term objectionable. (Again, "offensive" s unsupported and should be removed IMHO). --Ip user account (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. However the problem with "many" is that it implies relative quantity ("many" is typically more than "few" but less than "most", for example). So it is perhaps more correct to say it semi-quantitative, rather than non-quantitative. The further problem is is not likely to be quantified: someone decided that "many" object without ever actually ascertaining how "many" that is (because if they had, they would have told us instead of using the word "many"!) In other words, it is an impression (though, perhaps a very educated one), rather than a cold, hard fact. The question then is how reliable are the source(s) that use many? Are they sufficiently authoritative and neutral to use their "many" without qualification? If so, then, then great. If not, then "many" can still be used, but should probably be attributed (i.e. "term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where according to X, many people find the term objectionable"). This should be balanced up if we are serious about having a balanced, and nuanced, article. Rockpocket 02:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But do you have an opinion on the sources, Rockpocket, in relation to this issue? Both those at the BI page and at the Refs page? Nuclare (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a read though of all the sources and I would say that there are multiple independent sources, with no obvious bias, that use the term "many". However... there are also multiple independent sources, with no obvious bias, that use the term "some," and others that claim "The Irish" or "Irishmen" find it objectionable (clearly meant as a generalization). Others still document that "Irish Historians" or "Irish Nationalists" object to the British Isles, though these groups are mentioned in context, and presumably not meant to be exclusive. None of them strike me a so authoritative as to give one significant weight over the others. So, if the argument is that "many" is sourced (and it certainly is), then one could also easily replace it with "some" or "Irish Nationalists" and provide multiple, reliable sources to back it up. Taking all that into account, I would still recommend the use of entirely non-quantitative language ("a number" or "a proportion" of Irish people...) which can be justified by all these sources without bias or prejudice. As far as I can tell, that is the only solution that does not result in the cherry-picking of sources to justify a particular POV preference. Rockpocket 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read the sources too. "Many" regard it as objectionable or offensive. "Some" regard it as less appropriate or "not an easy term to accept". We could put both of those in. "...many regard the term as objectionable or offensive, while some only regard it as less than appropriate or not an easy term to accept". Cool. That way we respect even more of the sources. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

At the outset let me say that I have no problem with dumping "offensive" and just using a broader term that would take in everyone from the deeply offended to the slightly annoyed: "...where many object to the term," for example. There's just something about the wording "a number" or "a proportion of" that doesn't sound right. They're as weaselly as 'may.' "A number" has the vibe of something you could count on your fingers and 'a proportion' is soooo vague as to be almost meaningless. If one looks in detail at the 'some' sources, they don't actually refer directly to Ireland in the same way most of the "many" ones do: 1) "However, like other such terms it is probably not an easy term to accept for some who inhabit one or other part of these islands (particularly Ireland)" This 'some' does refer to Ireland, but it is also doubling for 'other part of these islands' as well. The "particularly Ireland" comment implies that whatever is meant by "some," Ireland's "some" has to be significantly higher than the other parts, rendering "some" incredibly broad and vague here. 2) "...once most of the island of Ireland became the independent Republic of Ireland it seemed to some no longer appropriate." This doesn't even refer to the Irish. It's a general comment that would be referring to anyone anywhere approaching the subject. 3) "Since the early twentieth century, that nomenclature has been regarded by some as increasingly less usable.". Again, the Irish aren't even mentioned here. 4) "The very concept of 'the British Isles' is rejected by some Irish historians." This does refer to the Irish, but specifically historians. 4) "Geographical terms also cause problems and we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles'" Another example where "some" is being used more broadly without reference to the Irish. But when the Irish are specified, they switch to "many." Nuclare (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Nuclare asking for example of the term being used in the Dáil recently, there are (to use a word we love) many examples - see here for Google results. It has to be said that many (to use the word again) are examples of our esteemed deputies objecting to the term. Indeed the exchange recorded in the first of them could have been lifted from this very page. --Ip user account (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I see from that "recent" example that a 'Mr Donegan' used the term "British Isles" in 1968. Surely this was not Paddy "Thundering Disgrace" Donegan, a man who makes Margaret Thatcher seem like a communist? My instinct was right about the sort of people who use this term. Meanwhile I see recently, in 2007: 'The Minister for Education and Science could also come to the Chamber to update Members as to why maps provided in primary schools currently include Ireland in the British Isles.' And Enda Kenny's clear definition of "British Isles" in 2007: 'If Great Britain intends to have an electronic border around the British Isles, Scotland, England and Wales, what does that mean in terms of entry to Northern Ireland from Great Britain?' My favourite one comes from 10 October 2007 when a Senator said: 'Many parts of the British Isles,including the North and South of Ireland, could reap dividends from this.' The immediate response from an undisclosed number of Senators was: 'The British Isles?' hehe. And not even an election in sight. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually what I was looking for were govt officials, as distinct from 'ordinary' members of the Dail. And more specifically uses after D.Ahern (Sept. '05) made his comments in the Dail saying that the govt doesn't use the term. If that search you've posted is exhaustive (do we think it pulls up all uses??), in terms of Dail use, looks like it's pulling up 8 uses of BI in the Dail since Sept. '05, one of which is members immediately questioning why the term was used, one more is a statement of someone who doesn't think maps should show Ireland as part of the BI, 2 more are uses where BI is being used as something distinct from Ireland, one more is someone using the term only as part of the naming of an organization, and one more is used by a guest speaker rather than a Dail member. So, that leaves two uses by two (non-govt) Dail members since Sept. 2005 (one of which was immediately found questionable by some fellow members). Well, at least that's what that search is accessing. Nuclare (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but completely irrelevant. Even if everyone in the RoI stopped using the term (which they haven't), they would still be vastly outnumbered by the population of the UK - by about 15 to 1. If 94% of the people who live in a place call it by a particular name, then that's its name. ðarkuncoll 07:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless you live in Daingean Uí Chúis. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My, do we like distorting reality to suit an agenda. Seeing as he has brought it up, User:Bastun omits the minor matter that most people in An Daingean were not allowed to vote in that above alluded to plebiscite as the 1946 Local Government Act defined the town as extending to a single townland and in the process forbade two-thirds of the present town a right to vote. Ooops.. Oh, and the leaders of the 'Dingle' campaign happen to have been outsiders, to be more specific blow-ins from Clare and Roscommon, among other places. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good old-fashioned anti-Irish prejudice, of course. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For Bastun, who counts only two examples of "many" finding the term "offensive". At least one example on the references page says that it is "often" offensive. Is "often" more or less than "many" or are they roughly equivalent? Other examples say the term is "grating" and "almost unsayable" (paraphrases, not exact quotes), and indicate beyond argument that "many" is a neutral and accurate word. The Dail and Senate exchanges linked are also illustrative. 1952, 1968, etc., with phrases like "what was one time known as the British Isles", "we are not in the British Isles", plus the comments recorded only as the Senate reacting to the very use of the term with disdain are all significant. Again, people may not like that the term is regarded as offensive/objectionable by many people in Ireland, but it is - and the references unambiguously support this. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So if being more vague is not accepted, why not be more precise? The term British Isles has been rejected by the Irish legislature in the past as <insert what they thought of it>, a view that is also seen <in parts of Ireland/in the wider community/Whatever>? Personally I've no objective to many or some or groups within Ireland. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Because if we make the intro longer certain editors will scream that the issue is being given too much importance. Currently the intro is short and precise and supported by reference except for the weasel word "may", which is neither precise nor supported by reference. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

British Isles used in Italian schools

Archived per WP:FORUM. Please people, lets keep this page focused on improving the article. If you wish to discuss Britain and Ireland in general with other Wikipedians, use IRC #wikipedia
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My children attend school here in Italy and the term British Isles is used to describe the islands comprising Great Britain, Ireland, and the Shetlands, Scilly Isles, etc.The geography books also use the term. Honestly, I'm about three-quarters Irish by blood, and I've never understood the fuss over a name that happens to be the correct usage internationally. Why do so many people neact like Pavlov's dogs anytime the word British appears? The original inhabitants of Ireland and Britain were the some exact race, by the way.--jeanne (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC) If you were actually Irish rather than American, you'd understand. Italian geography books must be quite dated as international usage is changing. Not sure what the race point has to do with anything, err everyone was the same at one point. 194.125.117.53 (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC) What does my American birth have to do with Italian geography books? And no, they are not dated.I merely stated that the populations that inhabited the two islands prior to Celtic invasion were the same genetically. Actually I am an Irish resident and two of my kids reside in Ireland so don't try to stick the plastic paddy label on me thankyouverymuch.--jeanne (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC) And the page for the archipeligo is located here at BI and will remain here for the forseeable future. But, if you admit that there is a 'fuss' and that "many people" react in such a way when 'British' is applied to Ireland, than do you object to the insertion of language concerning such issues(since it is sourced) here, which is mostly what these discussions are about? Nuclare (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC) No, people are free to object to anything they personally find offensive. I, personally do not find the term offensive, although my father did. In fact, he and I would often disagree over Irish issues. Most Irish people born outside of Ireland are in point of fact more anti-British than the average person you'd meet in Dublin. Also, may I be allowed to mention that the Italian media is very sympathetic to Ireland and less so to Britain. And yet the geography books use British Isles. I resent the tone of the unsigned user above who implied my American birth makes me ignorant of Irish attitudes. LOL, I was married into a republican Dublin family who was strongly Fianna Fail. In fact, my ex-husband's great-uncle was a former Attorney-General of Ireland. My opinion is that Ireland and England have a lot more in common historically, culturally and genetically than is politically-correct to acknowledge.--jeanne (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I go along with all of this. My first beef with this article was that there is simpy just a clutch of awkward refs to support the particlar wording and emphasis we place on the offense that the term supposedly causes (none of them verified by the authors, and they took ages to compile) - I initially expected many refs for the intro we currently have - but they are simply not out there, and I did look really hard for them. I'm still here (on and off) after the best part of a year, as I've never been allowed to make a edit on the meat of the introduction, and it's the only article I know where this is the case. This BI issue simply isn't the kind of 'political situation' that a few people on Wikipedia are making it out to be. Ireland is for peace at the moment - not all this OTT nonsense. I want to show the historical dislike of the word, but fairly. The word "offensive" here is guarded like the holy grail, though.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC) All possibly true, on both sides. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC) When I lived in Dublin, I had only one person-a guy from Donegal- react negatively when I used the term British Isles. Just the one person. And the author Dervla Murphy in her book A Place Apart, explains why she accepts the term "British Isles", for want of a better name. There just isn't a suitable alternative. Nobody in England objects to the Irish Sea. Then we can always bring up the issue of "American" being used to describe the citizens of the United States, thereby excluding Canadians, Mexicans, Central and South Americans. Sorry, I just think the name British Isles should remain.--jeanne (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC) The rest were probably just being polite, many people don't want to start an argument with an American who just didn't know better to not use the term.194.125.117.53 (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Just as likely - the rest didn't care. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I have to agree with Bastun. Most Dubliners just couldn't be bothered to argue over something so trivial. Back in the 1980's the people of Dublin were quite apathetic to the Northern Irish issue. Remember there was chronic unemployment back then and most people I knew were only concerned about getting their dole money to last over the weekend. As for being polite, well...I'd say they wouldn't have shied away from an argument had my words truly pissed them off. Now had I said Londonderry instead of Derry, that would have provoked a sharp rebuke I daresay, especially from my boyfriend who came from Ballymurphy. Aye, I even used the term British Isles to him and he didn't object. But as I have expressed on my User page, I am rather street-wise not the wide-eyed naive Californian tourist to the "Ould Sod" that the unsigned user above is trying in vain to depict me as.--jeanne (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Your American birth clearly has everything to do with it. You are not Irish; you do not feel our collective experience. You are a foreigner brought up in a WASP society with a very long history of discrimination against us Irish, and yes I do mean the United States of America. And as for your specious 'blood' nonsense; what medieval time capsule have you come from? My maternal grandfather was English born; so that makes me support the same imperialist herrenvolk warmongering culture that has marked British culture since 1603? No, it does not. I am my own man, and like everybody else on this planet I'm only accountable for my own actions. When I support the actions and cultural values of that imperialist culture then I can be legitimately part of that tradition. I do not support that tradition out of which comes terms like "British Isles", and I shall not be held captive by people such as you to retarded concepts such as blood-based identity. Ridiculous. I am Irish because this is the society that I feel part of, proud of, ashamed of, happy with, sad with- the whole shebang. I am also European for the same reasons, although those feelings are less intently held at present. My identity is complex, overlapping and fairly fluid. I have never, however, been British (or French), and I feel little but revulsion at the ultra nationalist culture of that society's tabloids, invasions of sovereign states, royalty and similar cultural values. No amount of proclaiming my country to be in this "British Isles" will impose that insufferably arrogant and parochial identity upon me. If you have a problem with Irish people like me rejecting that British tradition and, moreover, asserting their Irishness and their Europeanism, then that really is your problem. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I missed this gem explaining your real political motivation for embracing the term "British Isles": 'My opinion is that Ireland and England have a lot more in common historically, culturally and genetically than is politically-correct to acknowledge.' And there you have it in one succinct sentence. Ragingly political motivation, there. Screaming at us. Thank you so much for your honesty. Some British here have been denying that this term is political for a long time. What next? "The famine was a shared experience between the British and Irish peoples"? Please, please, stop such "common" links between us and the British. P.S. Your blood-centred basis for identity persists, I see. Odd how these genetic similarites end precisely where British nationalists want them to end: in this "British Isles" entity. What about the even stronger Irish genetic similarities with the Basques, for instance? And English similarities with Germans? And so on. Of course it is also nonsense, but if you must persist in basing modern identity on alleged genes, your argument should be shown up for what it is. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Just as a point of fact, the term British Isles derives from the Ancient Greeks and Romans, so cannot possibly have been an invention of the post 1603 British state (which took its name from the islands, and not the other way round). And in English the term dates to 1577 and was introduced by a Welshman, John Dee, specifically to avoid the connotations of "English" (no Englishman would have called himself "British" in the 16th century, because in those days the term meant what we would understand by the modern word "Celtic"). As for British Imperialism - good or bad - it has done a lot of positive things for the world. I think the British can be rightly proud of most of what their ancestors did. ðarkuncoll 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC) In fact, its use in English is entirely a product of the expansion of the English state across Britain and into Ireland. According to the OED, it first appears in 1624, even if one English person is (according to the archives here) recorded using it in the late 16th century; he is the same person who instructively is credited with coining the term "British Empire" as well and was according to all his biographers an enthusiastic supporter of creating a British empire covering Ireland. In other words, its use in English has a solid imperialist origin, and its greater use from the early 17th century corresponds with the colonial expansion of the British state over Ireland. At least be honest about this. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC) The new edition cites it from Dee in 1577. But that's not the point - Dee was a great classical scholar and geographer, and introduced the term into English because its Latin version had been appearing on European maps since about 1500. These were produced by people with no political axe to grind whatsoever. At least be honest about this. ðarkuncoll 18:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Funny! I wonder where that quote is again about how all maps at the time were political. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Most of them were European - indeed all of them I think - and not English at all. Political maybe, but certainly not pro-English. ðarkuncoll 18:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC) NOT A FORUM - "The new edition cites it from Dee in 1577." Out of the frying pan and into the fire, then eh? Does this discussion have anything to add to the article? Or is it simply an opportunity for some anti-Americanism on behalf of 86.42.119.12, some obsessive hand-wringing on behalf of Matt Lewis and an ill-informed history lesson on behalf of TharkunColl? Thank you, jeanne, for your contribution, but Wikipedia is not a forum. Can a administrator please start observing this discussion page and remove contributions to it that are discussion like. We need to get a lid on this. It has been allowed to run out of control for far too long. --78.152.255.89 (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I have archived it as you requested. Rockpocket 20:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretanic Islands and Britanniae

The earliest known names for the islands come from copies of ancient Greek writings.

These texts may have been used as a source by later writers but it is a simple fact that there are no originals and there are no copies.

Ancient Greek refers to a period until 146 BC. This is different to people who wrote in greek such as Ptolemy, a Roman citizen, born and bred in Roman Egypt. Indeed all the greek terms in the article, Ρρεττανοι, Πρετανικαι νησοι etc originate from the Roman Empire.

When the protection is lifted I propose the above sentence is reworded.

The earliest known names for the islands come from Roman writings Lucian Sunday (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman writings in Greek. So, when you say 146 BC as the end point for "Ancient Greek", do you mean January 1st or December 31st? Or indeed, a date inbetween? We need to know this so as to be able to correct the tens of thousands of articles that presumably make this idiotic and totally unforgivable blunder. ðarkuncoll 23:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the years used to start in March? Anyway, I was foolish enough to use wikipedia Ancient Greece as my source. Lucian Sunday (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And according to the article the Greeks/Romans included Iceland and/or western Norway, possibly also the Friesian Islands in their descriptions so the ancient term doesn't map onto the modern term exactly. Then, after the Romans, there was a gap of about 1500 years before the term was resurrected during the period of the Tudor conquest of Ireland. As Nicholas Canny puts it in his book, the term is "politically loaded". 89.129.143.60 (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Romans included Thule in the BI, but there's no evidence this meant Iceland at the time - and the inclusion of this factoid in the article is another example of how it has been derailed to suit that anti-BI brigade. It could have meant the Shetlands. It later times its meaning changed, but this was much, much later. The term BI in Latin was resurrected in the early 16th century, long before the Tudor reconquest of Ireland, and by Europeans with no pro-English motivations. ðarkuncoll 12:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(point of order) - Lucian Sunday, propose away. The article can still be edited while it's protected. Make a proposal here on the talk page, and if there's consensus I (or another admin) will make the change. Waggers (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Romans included Thule in the BI, but there's no evidence this meant Iceland at the time ..." Six days sailing north of Britain and close to the Arctic circle, according to Strabbo. You're right, they could have meant Norway. "... inclusion of this factoid ..." Don't want the history of the term discussed - or the history discussed only on your terms?

Back onto topic, this seems like a minor, matter-of-fact change - even if some dislike accuracy being added to the article. (different IP user to the one above) --78.152.255.20 (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't the earliest names come from copies of Ancient Greek writings? Pytheas etc.? Correct me if I'm wrong. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pytheas's work no longer exists. From Pytheas#Notes Strabo, like Diodorus Siculus, quotes Pytheas through Poseidonius.

Lucian Sunday (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

<deident>While I've no objection to the change, I should point out that ancient Greek is different to Ancient Greeks (As highlighted by the original poster having to pipe his link for Ancient Greek to Ancient Greece). --Narson ~ Talk • 10:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I should explain that I piped the link Ancient Greek (Ancient Greece) as the current version does this. According to WP Ancient Greek refers to a period until 301 BC. Lucian Sunday (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

@Lucian, I realise Pytheas' work no longer exists, but what do we then call the works derived therefrom? Copies may not be the best word. What is? Derivative works? 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This article section is an example of how The wiki article could be phrased (as well as providing some insight on Wonky Scotland!. Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I knew about the reason for wonky Scotland, but where does that article give an example of suitable phrasing? 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Its nice to know that someone knows the reason. I would suggest

The only coherent, though often deficient source for knowlege of the (British) Islands that has come down to us from the most flourishing period of the Empire, is the map of Ptolemy, the result of a combination of the lines of roads and of the the coasting expeditions during the first century of Roman occupation. One great fault, however, has crept into the map by his having made use of a totally different source, namely the astronomical fixations of lattitude executed by Pytheas

Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Shelta spoken in America

The article states that there are 86,000 Shelta speakers worldwide, mainly in America. The article does not give any more details nor does he cite that assertion. I did not realise there were so many Irish Travellers who had immigrated to America.--jeanne (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If there's no reference then either have a look for one yourself, or tag the content with "citation needed" then come back in a week or two and delete it if no-one has given a reference to support the content. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have found a reference. It is www.christusrex.com/www1/pater/JPN-Shelta.html When the page is no longer under protection, I shall add it.--jeanne (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnologue is the usual "ready-made" citation for these kind of things. 86,000 is cited in their entry for Shelta. --89.19.91.84 (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnologue says 86k speakers with 6k in Ireland and the rest in the UK and USA. It doesn't say that they're "mainly" in the USA. The majority may be in the UK, no? The other site doesn't open for me. I get a page not found error. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe so many Irish Travellers are in America. It's more likely they are in the UK.--jeanne (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As above, it doesn't matter what you find hard to believe. According to http://www.language-museum.com/s/shelta.php there are 50k Shelta speakers in the USA, 30k in the UK, 6k in Ireland. Same statistic is shown on the www.christusrex.com site. I can't speak to the reliability of either of those sites. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe because the article on the Irish Travellers fails to mention the presence of so many in America. This article also fails to do so. Therefore, one must question the reliability of the sites you have listed. Note I said question not deny.--jeanne (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't vouch for the reliability of the sites I mentioned. I don't know anything about them. My only point was that your beliefs are unimportant compared to references. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken.--jeanne (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring 2

I came to look at this page to find it was blocked becarse of edit warring. What is there to war about???92.4.245.131 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

<Soapboxing removed, I did warn you 88.xx> The edit warring is largely over disagreements over the use of the term "British Isles" in relation to Ireland (the state). Rockpocket 22:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket: You are mistaken to view it as an objection just to its use over the state, Ireland. The term British Isles is at least as rejected in the hills of Mullaghbawn, Ballycastle, and Coalisland, to take a quick handful. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. The point is the edit-warring is over the article, not the actual Irish/British conflict. Rockpocket 00:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let us not forget that the Irish Republic only covers part of Ireland, and was gerrymandered to exclude those elements of the Irish population who favoured continued union. In short, it's an illegitimate state (insofar at it claims to represent Ireland). Be that as it may, it can do nothing to affect how the English language is used worldwide, and indeed in the British Isles, because no government can legislate for language. ðarkuncoll 23:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever read any reliable history books Tharky? --Snowded TALK 23:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. ðarkuncoll 23:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you have but let's start with this, seeing as you have chosen to digress. The Irish Republic covers all of Ireland (even if its realisation is currently on hold) whereas the Republic of Ireland does not cover the whole country. If you cannot get the basics correct, what hope is there for your more substantive views? Views, such as the matter of gerrymandering, which was in fact done by servants of the British state in alliance with the Unionists without any reference to the majority population of Ireland, whose representatives refused to take part in the partition of their country. This is basic. As for your most peculiar view of the English language as stagnant, I've read the English language at various times in its history and, as shocking as it clearly is for you, there have been enormous changes in that language. Words change, meanings change, usage begins, usage declines. Shocking, eh. But a quaint little idea of yours at any rate. P.S. Concerning your belief that a government is unable to legislate for language, I think you'll find that various British governments in Ireland have done precisely that. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the distinction you are trying to foist on the rest of the world between "Irish Republic" and "Republic of Ireland" - I simply regard it as risible, considering that the two phrases have been interchangeable in English for decades. And yes, I also know full well that the gerrymandering was done at the behest of the Unionists, and that Southern Ireland was therefore gerrymandered by default - but this doesn't mean it wasn't gerrymandered though. And not once have I ever said that the English language is stagnant. Meanings can and do change. In this particular case, however, that of the British Isles, no meaning has changed - just consult any dictionary. As for governments legislating for language - if the Irish government sent an armed force to any area that was using a phrase it wanted to change then it might be able to legislate for language. But it doesn't, so it can't. ðarkuncoll 07:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

'the distinction you are trying to foist on the rest of the world between "Irish Republic" and "Republic of Ireland" - I simply regard it as risible, considering that the two phrases have been interchangeable in English for decades' -hilarious. So now the 'interchangeability' of use between people who are, as a matter of fact, utterly ignorant and misinformed is to be favoured over an accurate command of the Queen's English? I thought-nay, I hoped- that this sort of anti-intellectualism in English political culture died with the iconclasts of the seventeenth-century British Taliban. Alas. Your entire approach to Irish-related terminology on Wikipedia appears strongly to be based on WP: I Don't Like It, rather than on an acceptance of realities in Ireland. If the contrived terminology used by British nationalists such as you (as opposed to open-minded, confident and intelligent Englishmen like Tony Benn) were to determine accurate use of English on wikipedia, wikipedia would not last as anything other than a British version of Stormfront. The new Irish article would be titled 'Eire' and would be permeated by little Punch portrayals of Irish people. It's 2008, not 1848. Get over your loss of empire and grow up. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that User:TharkunColl is again going around wikipedia imposing "British Isles" into articles just to make a political point- such as here.86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. To impose something implies it is not welcome, and I have no political point to make whatsoever - indeed, I am opposed to political insertions or exclusions. And in any case, in the above example I was merely reverting a politically motivated removal of the term. ðarkuncoll 07:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well the travesty of history above clearly indicates a political POV --Snowded TALK 00:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. It is political POVism that I have been editing against all this time. ðarkuncoll 07:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Tharky, have you ever read M:MPOV. Sort of fits doesn't it. Have you heard the one about the proud mother watching her son's passing out parade, who exclaimed "Look, they're all out of step except my Freddie!", and she belived it! Crispness (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Very funny. The fact is that this article has been hijacked by those with a political and nationalist axe to grind. All I'm doing is trying to redress the blance insofar as I can. If you think that's megalomaniacal then you have a pretty insubstantial grasp on what the word actually means, in my opinion. ðarkuncoll 08:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Tharky, if you have got to the point where you believe nationalists gerrymandered the break up of Ireland to exclude unionists from the republic then you have moved into a realm of unreality from which you may never recover. --Snowded TALK 09:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually bother reading what I wrote above? Unionists gerrymandered Northern Ireland, so Southern Ireland was gerrymandered by default. It was still gerrymandered though. Had an all-Ireland state been established instead, it would have developed very differently indeed, with its large Protestant minority. ðarkuncoll 09:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a point to this guys? It seems Rocket's proposals above are far more interesting to discuss than you chaps circling around the drain of incivility and playing Smack My Historical Bitch Up. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As above, can this section be archived in the same way as British Isles used in Italian schools was, from the post beginning "Let us not forget that..." onwards. It has descended into a forum. --89.19.91.84 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If people want to make ridiculous claims about Irish history, go over to Boards.ie, let me know, and I'll deal with you there. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Last Night of the Proms

In a fine example showing just how imprecise the term "British Isles" can be, the Last Night of the Proms broadcast from London, Glasgow, Cardiff and Belfast on BBC1 on 13 September 2008 included songs sung by Bryn Terfel. Wearing a specially made suit displaying the flags of the United Kingdom, Wales, Scotland, England and the republic of Ireland, it was introduced as a Folk-Song Medley out of ditties from all four corners of the British Isles: The Turtle Dove sings for England, we’re on the Scottish waters of Loch Lomond before hearing the Welsh Cariad cyntaf and joining sweet Molly Malone from Ireland. [3]. The last of these was referred to in the program as coming from Dublin. Bazza (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, use or don't use BI wherever yas want on Wikipedia. But, this article's name remains as is. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't post the part of the intro. that most clearly points to the 'problem' with the term "BI": The medley is introduced as "genuinely British traditional." So that, here, the 'four corners of the British Isles,' = British. Nuclare (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw the proms too - it was fully in line with the standard definition of "GB and the island of Ireland", but they used "Ireland" in its geographical sense, and used GB as three other "coners"! It is correct in a sense, but it's a mix of the geographical and the 'cultural' (or 'political'). It basically should be "five corners of the British Isles" if they do it without mixing. But the BBC has no singular approach with this, as we often see.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mustn't forget the IoM and les isles de la Manche. The British Isles must have at least six corners thus proving that it cannot, in fact, exist. Sarah777 (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they'll find them in CERN right next to Higgs boson! Sarah777 (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The title remains, do as ya'll wish with the content. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you GoodDay.--jeanne (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, all I'll say is it was also asserted with the same confidence that the Irish people could not survive on their own unless they were ruled by the British. Actually, that's not all I will say. This name is going nowhere because it represents a uniquely British nationalist perspective of the subservient place of the Irish people in this world. Irish people, as made clear in the removal of British rule from most of Ireland, reject this British nationalist view of Ireland as a member of their "British Isles". Those people wishing to impose this name on us are wilfully resisting that Irish reality. They fail, intentionally it must be added, to grasp Irishness, in particular the principal experience that has shaped modern Irishness: British colonial rule. We have tasted freedom. We are not going back. It's over. Let me, therefore, assert: this name, like countless others in world history, will be changed because its unique purpose is to offend a large amount of people. The name is consequently experiencing a steep decline across academia, media and political circles, as detailed extensively in these archives. Most people do not wish to offend and simply want to get through life with as little hassle as possible. For that reason, people like this assume power in democratic, market-driven societies: they work with people, not go out of their way to offend them and lose business/listeners/readers. That is the real reason this article title will be changed. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Or alternatively, people will go out of their way to be offended as an excuse to soapbox. Please, for political discourse we have news channels and plenty of websites. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The title remains, do as yas wish with the content. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"May" and "offensive"

So there seems to be support with references for "offensive" and no support with references for "may". Can the page now be unprotected and have "may" removed? 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please have both "may" and "offensive" removed. And simply keep it "where many people find the term objectionable". Repeating "offensive" and "objectionable" is a tautology in this context. "Objectionable" is what we mean, rather than offensive. --78.152.239.22 (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever makes it easier. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again: I am distinctly and unequivocally offended to be classed as British, as the term "British Isles" does when it claims Ireland. That's not my history, and they are not my people. Stop trying to impose the myths and nation-making projects of British nationalists upon Ireland, upon Irish people, and upon our own distinct experience of British occupation. We suffered precisely for our difference, the British dominated us based upon embracing that difference. Now, however, we are all, it seems, happy Brits. It's so contrived and ahistorical that it's pathetic. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, no more soapboxing, please. --Narson ~ Talk • 08:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But the references not only say objectionable, but mostly say offensive. "Geographical terms also cause problems and we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles'", "In an attempt to coin a term that avoided the 'British Isles' - a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities....", "Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable, "...the British Isles (a term which is itself offensive to Irish Nationalists)", "The British Isles does include the island of Ireland although the adjective British used in this context is often found offensive by Irish Nationalists".

And please, don't anybody start with calling "nationalists" a minority when the main party in government in ROI describes itself as "Republican". 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the Republic of Ireland is a "republic", it's not likely that the main party in government would refer to itself as "monarchist"! The term "Nationalist" does not necessarily mean "Republican". Look up both words in the dictionary.--jeanne (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Arn't those sources saying we should use many? Personally I'd stick with neither may or offensive and just go with objectionable. --Narson ~ Talk • 08:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

@jeanne. The meanings in an Irish context are clear. In Ireland republicans are all nationalists even if not all nationalists are republicans. Also a recent leader of Fine Gael, the main opposition party, made a speech to clarify that they were nationalists too - in case anyone thought otherwise. And I have a dictionary, thanks.

@ Narson. As for "many", yes, the sources typically use "many" or "often". 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I do realise that in Ireland all republicans are nationalists. The point I had made, you have just stated, namely not all nationalists are republican. I was only joking about the dictionary. It's patently obvious that you own a dictionary- probably more than one, I daresay. --jeanne (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, so if the two biggest political parties claim they are nationalist in one way or another (i.e. republican or not) then there's no way to argue that "nationalist" is some odd minority in Ireland. This leaves the references saying "many" and "offensive" unambiguous and unarguable. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But, you are referring to politicians, not the man in the street. Honestly, do you really think the average Dubliner gives two s..tes what geographical term is used?--jeanne (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We are probably getting into a folly by trying to talk aout the people using political parties. The turnout at the last election was 67% and the Fianna Fail got less than half of that. Even if you add in the Fine Gael, you are still only at 68.9, which still gets less than 50% of the population. If a source says nationalists, we don't synthesise that to mean everyone. Perhaps, if the sources say Nationalists find it offensive, we should say that Nationalists find it offensive? --Narson ~ Talk • 14:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now that sounds like a good solution. Nobody can argue the point that Nationalists do find it offensive. The problem was in the word "Irish", which implied that the majority of Irish people-even those non-political- found it offensive.--jeanne (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No-one is synthesizing "nationalists" to mean everyone. The term is "many". I'm simply saying that the previous argument that "nationalists" meant almost no-one is unsupportable whereas an argument that "nationalists" means lots of people is easily supported. I've never argued majorities because there are no references, but even jeanne's "less than 50%" is still many. As for saying that "only" nationalists find it offensive, that's misleading and unsupported. The term is still described in reference as "often" offensive and offensive to "many" Irish, let alone the places where it's described as objectionable. Simply removing "may" from the current introduction gives a simple clean and supported text. All the maneuverings are apparently driven by some personal agenda. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, one could provide citation that "The great majority of Irish people are nationalists to a greater or lesser degree...", from a survey in 2006 (http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/04/02/story13121.asp). That might support "many", and then we don't need to over-politicize things. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on. This is more of the same old sh!t from the same auld suspects. The Irish are 'nationalists'- but the British? the English? No, they are of course far above such things. Duh. We've seen it all before. My status as an Irishman objects to being told I am not Irish. When my forefathers throughout the centuries resisted English and British rule, they were not 'nationalists'(a term only traceable in its modern form to 18th century Europe): they were Irishmen sharing a common culture and a common interest. Would that some day we could be Irish again and not simply 'nationalist' when we refuse to be 'British'. It must be the water over there. There's something wrong with you. Many Irish people, very very many Irish people object to, and are offended by, this absolutely fu@king ridiculous British imperialist term used by eurosceptic troglodytes from the dark ages. You're annoying me now.86.42.119.12 (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Who's annoying you? Whether or not the Irish are nationalists has no bearing or relevance to whether or not the English are. It's apparent from the citations I've provided that most Irish people are nationalists and it's apparent from citations that many people have provided that many people object to, or find offensive, the term "British Isles" when applied to Ireland. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mo dhuine above is annoying me with her raiméis that 'many' might imply 'most'- "The problem was in the word "Irish", which implied that the majority of Irish people-even those non-political- found it offensive". Jesus, Mary and Joseph- I thought my grasp of the cursed foreign spleen was lacking. The vast majority of the population of this island is clearly 'nationalist'; if they were not one would see calls for a return to British rule. There are no such calls. The ceolán above is attempting to soften reality by replacing the word Irish with the word 'nationalist' because she refuses to accept that the vast majority of the population of this island has rejected the British nationalist pipedream of a nation covering their beloved "British Isles". Are the English and British 'nationalists' because they do not want to be ruled by a foreign country? Nope, 'nationalism' is for the lower, irrational sort. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

<reduce indent> "Most" may very well be true but there is reference for "many". You can read "many" however you want to. As for "nationalists", the original argument was that "nationalists" were only a few of the population. I'm afraid it was me who pulled up a reference to show that it's the vast majority, so please calm down. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you can remove any mention of the Republic of Ireland from this article (maybe even the entire island of Ireland). But the name of this article stays, as it's at least a historical name. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So why is "many nationalists find it obectionable" never allowed? Or anything but "many find it objectionable and offensive" It is why we have to defend the tempering word "may".

I wouldn't even accept "many nationalists" based on the evidence we have. We simply must use other words. ON WIKIPIPEDIA, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVE WHAT WE APPROPRIATE INTO THE TEXT, OTHERWISE WE MUST AT VERY LEAST MAKE IT CLEAR IT IS THE OPINION FROM THE SOURCE! We only have a few refs and they are not enough per WP:REDFLAG in WP:verifiability to prove anything!!! And the WP:weight we give the dissent in the intro (and bold refs etc) is totally unjustified with the language we use. We show nothing of how it is used every day.

What's the point of going on about one word anyway, when we have been told to address the other problems in the intro too? The Irish politicians line needs addressing too (a 1947 document and a rather unclear spokesman are the sources we have for that) . See this proposal from above for ideas. It needs some history in it too. Any ideas? --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Typical from MattLewis. He wouldn't even accept "many nationalists" although there are reputable sources and he has not a single countervailing source. There is no point discussing with someone who refuses to respect basic policy of verifiability. Formal Process starts as soon as I can find how to do it. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

Y'all are clogging my watchlist: {{editprotected}} Please remove the word 'may' from the second sentence of the article. Filtering the noise from this section and the "May" section above, it looks like there's pretty good consensus that it is a poor compromise.—eric 17:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? There is no consensus of the kind! "Filtering the noise"? Does that mean completely ignoring one point of view? You need to read more than the the two sections above - which are dominated by a notiorious banned user's IP (not that anyone cares about that - a disgraceful fact, I'm afraid).

What do you have without the word "may"? The word "many" on its own!!

I, as others do, object to the removal of the compromising word "may", unless the wildly OTT line "many find it offensive" text is re-written in a fairer way. If you can be bothered to read the ongoing debate over the last months - that is what the score is. Don't let the admin-favourite User:Gold heart run the show whatever you do. He's been given the keys to Wikipedia, but he can't make a consensus on his own. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

N Declined. Please use {{editprotected}} only after consensus is achieved.  Sandstein  18:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, please desist from this relentless paranoia. You are sinking further into the abyss every time you accuse editors here of being somebody else. It's a sad spectacle, one which is very tiresome, and probably against a number of wikipedia rules. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

'May' is a weasel word; the evidence is for 'many' people being offended. It is the above mentioned editor who is refusing to accept this. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto from here (and I'm not GoldHeart). "May" is an unsupported weasel word. References abundantly show that "many" find the term "offensive". They've been listed, highlighted, backed up, again and again and again and the only response is unsupported assertations of OTT, POV, etc. The references are there, they're solid, they're unambiguous. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"abundantly" in bold is bluster and bullsh*t. Unfortunately people read it and believe it, whether it is from an IP account or not. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Q) Are there many sources for the word "many"?
• A) No - they dry up after a hard-found few.

• Q) Do we have a right to expect many sources for contentious line written as authoritatively as this (where the very words are appropriated into the text)?
• A) Yes, of course we do: WP:REDFLAG in WP:verifiability, and WP:weight (regarding the intro), demand it.

• Q) Do possibly all the people who insist on "many" (especially) and "offensive" (in particular) often unashamedly express a hang up with 'the British'?
• A) As far as I can see, without doubt.

• Q) Do people ignore this article because they are sick to death of it?
• A) Yes - people have said so.

We have been told to deal with all the problems with the introduction if we the article unlocked.--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Are there sources? Yes, there are several unchallenged sources of this highest order. As for the idea that this is a "contentious" idea, there isn't a single reference to suggest that it's contentious. As for whether the people who support "many" and "offensive" have a hang up with the British, it doesn't matter, the references stand anyway. Are people sick of unsupported assertions from people whose only argument is IDONTLIKEIT, yes. I'm gonna call for a formal process again. This business of people with no evidence asserting things again and again and again is just too much. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you sign in first? Using "many" in the way you insist upon is contentious is the extreme! I don't like it because it flies in the face of all of Wikipedia's policy, guidelines and principles. To prevent improvement from happening to this article, you keep demanding the opposite of improvement - more extremity through the removal of "may". It is this clear stonewalling of progress that has got to stop!

Nobody challenges Kearney's context when he chooses to use the word "many" - be we can't appropriate his context! He goes to use the term "British Isles" himself for present-day Ireland. We nave NO real world examples (why not?), and another source specifies "nationalists" (again in the writer's context). Pollock was a polemicist promoting "the Atlantic Isles" - that has to be taken into account (if you take Wikipedia seriously that it). What is left? It makes no difference that the few we have are academic presses. Academic presses never stop rolling, and you are unadvanced in academia if you haven't published: it's part of the career.

When I fist looked at this I honestly expected to find many sources backing up all the anger I saw - but they simply do not exist in anything like the intensity shown by a small goup of people on Wikikpedia. They also surprised me in their small number, and then I started to notice then how much the term is actually used. So we show all the problems and criticisms of the term in another cleverer guideline-based way (like I've suggested recently above, and in various forms previously - always to screams of "pathetic British POV"!). There should not be a problem here, but this article is simply being used as an attack dog, mostly by socks and IP's.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you cite a single source that using "many" is extreme? Ah, yes, you say it yourself...there are no sources to cite, it's just that YOU DON'T LIKE IT. Nobody is challenging these authors because what they are saying is common knowledge. As for socks (I'm not) and IPs, it's Wikipedia policy that IPs have as many rights as usernames. After all, User:Matt Lewis could actually be Angela Merkel. Wikipedia doesn't have to care who you are, just that you can provide verifiable sources. I do, Matt Lewis doesn't. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to provide a diametrically opposite 'counter-quote' for something that is already red-flagged by verifiability and doesn't remotely pass due weight!

How was your holiday is Spain by the way? What gets me on top of everything else is that you so easily lie. 86.42 above is Gold heart (not Wikipeire, or the same person as him, as I first thought) and you are Wotapolaver. It's fully provable but I've had my fill with all that lately (so you are lucky aren't you? But I wouldn't push it..). In less than two weeks you can do what you want here. I'll have a proposal for this article's introduction before then that will be so fairly balanced and inclusive of article content, that it will truly show the inner valuelessness of Wikipedia is if it ends up denigrated by IP's and un-voted-for by everyone else. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask this again, IP.79 & IP.86 why are you both so afraid to sign-in? Even I'm beginning to become suspicious. This refusal to sign-in, is getting annoying. GoodDay (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is none of your business whether I sign in. You still assert that something has been red-flagged. Please provide any reference to support this. I might as well red-flag that gravity exists but I wouldn't find too many reputable sources to back me up. You're in a similar situation. You have your opinion but no sources. Your opinion is worthless. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, until you both sign-in (as you've no excuse not to), I personally shall no longer respond to both of you. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Do we have a right to expect many sources for contentious line written as authoritatively as this (where the very words are appropriated into the text)?" Matt, name a number that will satisify you and I will produce that number of references. What are your criteria? Do they need the words "many" and "objectionable" in them or would a different phrasing with the same meanign satisify you (e.g. some sources will say that "many in Ireland find the term objectionable" another may say that "Irish people find the term objectionable" would both of these satisify you? If you are unwilling to propose some criteria that would satisify you, it can only be concluded that you are here to troll and/or push your narrow and unsubstantiated view on the rest of the world.

Before I undertake this endeavour, I would however suggest that you familiarise yourself with WP:VERIFY as I don't think that you yet quite understand it.

To "GoodDay" - when you stop hiding behind a made-up name, then - and only then - are you allowed to lecture anyone on anonymity. Read WP:AGF and understand that on in site we ALL contribute anonymously. (A different contributor to the above.) --62.24.204.7 (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

To IP 62; not good enough. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Lazy 62 (a cybercafe IP if ever I saw one) - nobody is saying the term is not without its problems! Have an actual read of this - my proposal from above. What on earth is wrong with an approach like that? (apart from not covering any historical info - but the current intro lacks that anyway). You pontificate: "If you are unwilling to propose some criteria that would satisify you, it can only be concluded that you are here to troll" - why not read the prior debate before spouting off like that? I positively encourage you to go looking for new sources (as many as you can) - but you should know that the ones presented now took a good while to compile. You might think the internet is brimming with signs of active objection or offense, but it very much is not. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Irish people, as a rule, avoid giving names to English people. I, for example, walked back from Super Valu this morning and I had to pass Gallow's Hill, so called because somebody gave names in 1798 and, well, the rest is history. This morning, like every other morning, it was not lost on me. I felt the terror of that time as I looked up. It's fine for you lads in mother England. We live here. With your ideas about what we should be, you don't get the significance of what, and where, we actually are. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, irrellevent soapboxing. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, you do not make the same points to your friends above who have several issues with IPs, despite the fact that IPs have an equal right to be here according to wikipedia policy. That is not soapboxing? Or is it just that it appeals to your preferences? And we won't say anything about the breaches of wikipedia policy by those posters when they allege dishonesty, impersonation and other acts. Have you even bothered to listen to that Matt Lewis chap with his paranoid ramblings that breach wikipedia policy here and elsewhere? No, that's grand by you, isn't it. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If Matt started moaning on about IRA bombings or some clap trap to get sympathy for his POV, I'd tell him to quit soapboxing too. We do not need Anglo-Irish history rehashed on this page, go find a web forum if you want that, just stick to the article here. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Bold

I have been following the discussion of the last few weeks and contributing on occasion, mainly to try and stimulate discussion towards middle ground. One thing is clear, and that is that there is no solutions that are going to make everyone happy. But my interpretation - as someone with little personal interest - of the a fair compromise, with regards to the lead, is:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[4] where many people [5] find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage.[6]

I'm going to be bold and make this change and hope that, while its unlikely to be anyone's preferred solution, it does reflect the spirit of most of the sources. It also more-or-less treads the middle ground between the disparate opinions expressed above. There is a pretty good chance someone will revert this to their preferred version, and I certainly will not be warring over it. However, I would hope that enough of the contributors would sense that this is the best compromise, and marginalize those who continue to push for one extreme or the other. If we can settle on this as an acceptable compromise in the meantime, then that would give a basis for discussing an entire rewrite, like that proposed by Matt above. Rockpocket 23:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that Rockpocket. I had some concerns that many might sound like majority or some other term, but reading it in that sentence, it seems to be just right. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In a way it actually sounds starker and slightly harsher to me (the ambiguity of many!!), but I think its a step in the right direction: any succeeding change is a huge step in fact, so I'll certainly back it up by putting it back if it's reverted. Effectively we are all on 1RR (2 at a push - against an IP perhaps?), so others who want movement will need to offer support. I know it's currently frowned-on to say that so openly, but I think that sometimes frustrated editors have approached 3RR simply because others have backed off from touching it at all. Whatever we do in talk to create consensus, the editing table is the only way to ultimately prove it. When situations are so fought over like this one, lose the courage to do it and you may as well have no consensus. The weasel word "may" had to go somehow, and least we've lost the double-whammy word "offensive"! --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket's proposal sounds like the best solution. I personally support the wording.--jeanne (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing both "may" and "offensive" is probably a reasonable compromise and keeps it to a sentence, which is the most a geography article should have. You might get some opposition to jumping in after protection was removed without proposing it here, but I for one don't object. --Snowded TALK 05:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing "offensive" is a sop to the IDONTLIKEIT brigade so I object. Do I have to list all the sources that use "offensive" again? IIRC it's the most common characterization in the references. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Actually, let's see those remarks in the references again. But the references not only say objectionable, but mostly say offensive. "Geographical terms also cause problems and we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles'", "In an attempt to coin a term that avoided the 'British Isles' - a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities....", "Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable, "...the British Isles (a term which is itself offensive to Irish Nationalists)", "The British Isles does include the island of Ireland although the adjective British used in this context is often found offensive by Irish Nationalists". Combined with reference that shows that the "great majority" of people in Ireland are nationalists, we have some huge evasion going on if we remove the word offensive. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And if anyone is interested in seeing a non-reputable source's opinion, have a look at http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1998/07/01/opinion.htm. This is a letter in an Irish paper from 1998, pretty much pre-Wikipedia (IINM) and describes the term as "regarded by seemingly most Irish people as offensive" and as "almost taboo among those of Irish nationality". Now this letter writer was writing in favour of the term, so perhaps those who like the term would finally manage to realize that it's not a pro or con argument here, it's a question of recognizing reality as it is, not how you think it should be. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the most offensive things I've personally experienced is the amount of times you have made me go through your same clutch of references over and over, over most of this year. 50 times, counting utterly exhausted breaks? I expect you read about 5 of them, no-matter how much point-by-point analysis I had written. Your 'QED' conclusion from these refs is just nonsense. You have actually found a new reference now - well done. But "seemingly most" from a letter writer isn't good enough. And who knows what he's been reading, eh? Using the term "seemingly" as he does, '10 to 1' he's been reading the politicised rantings of and Gold heart and yourself, over this and the 'naming dispute' article (which for a while was outrageously biased - so much so that you simply couldn't reverse my amendments to it, even though you slagged them of repeatedly). I notice one other available ref which you never use - the one that actually refers to Wikipedia. By the way, did you fail to get your dog through quarantine? You've been there a while.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, multiple references that some people refuse to actually read. Meantime, here's another. How about this...."Of course, many Irish dislike the 'British' in British Isles.......... In response to these difficulties 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming a preferred usage...". Now, it's only from an academic publisher of the highest order (Routledge). Several people have previously suggested that "British Isles" was in decreasing use. Now there's a reference to support that. Intro needs a re-write. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What I would suggest is putting any mention of the term being offensive into a footnote, and removing it from the lead altogether. After all, it's only a vanishingly small percentage of the population of the British Isles who find it so. ðarkuncoll 23:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

'Offensive' does indeed seem to be well referenced, and the decline of its use and its replacement by 'Britain and Ireland' is especially well referenced (e.g. maps by international publishers mentioned earlier). This article should accurately and honestly reflect these changes, regardless of the opinions of a small minority editing this article.(different user to above) 78.16.179.151 (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. If anything the gross offensiveness of referring to Ireland as if it were still part of a genocidal Empire should be much more strongly highlighted. Sarah777 (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it about time to ban the above editor (again) from Wikipedia? This constant reference to the British Empire and other things British in the most objectionable terms imaginable is really quite offensive to me and I guess many other level-headed people. This editor continues to drag Wikipedia into the swamp. 86.24.126.222 (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Some editors may find a statement that the British Empire genocidal offensive, but it is a view which is held and for which there is some supporting evidence. I think its a bit extreme, but it is a valid view. On the other hand saying that an editor is dragging Wikipedia into a swamp is personal abuse. At least the editor concerned declares herself rather than hiding behind an IP address making provocative comments. --Snowded TALK 21:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I edit using an IP is a total irrelevance. I stand by my comments. The editor is well known for provocative, distasteful views aimed at all things British. By the way, validity is not a feature of someone's view. A view is a view, not a fact. 86.24.126.222 (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

An IP address with no edit history, jumping in with provocative remarks on a controversial page? Don't make me laugh, of course its relevant. the words "provocative" and "distasteful" are views, and they constitute personal attacks on an individual editor. A view can be based on facts by the way. Most empires have genocide or near genocide in their history, trying to deny it is "distasteful" to the memory of those who have suffered, its a matter of honesty really. As I say I think you seeking to provoke a response, its called baiting and its not helpful --Snowded TALK 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You obviously don't like IPs and I guess you would prefer Wikipedia didn't allow them. However, they are allowed, so I suggest you hold back from discriminating against them. My "view" is that people should not be forced to have a total edit history to their name, and as you might say, my view is valid. As for the extreme and nasty views of some of the editors here, I'm coming to the conclusion that what's needed is for all reasonable editors on both sides of this argument to abandon it completely. Leave this, and similar pages alone, don't be provoked by the hateful, 19th century views of certain editors; let them stew in their own juice. Simply stop entering into a dialogue with them. 86.24.126.222 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If I judged all Irish people on those I've met on Wikipedia, I could call them nasty aggressive, obsessive, racist, deceitful, childish idiots! Would that be fair? I can give you evidence if you like. My own rising distaste one of the reasons I can't wait to get out of this place. IMO, a small group of people have stained all the UK articles with your absolutely pulsating hatred of Britain with no perspective of time and place! Policy never means anything to you regarding these matters. Above, Sarah, you are "agreeing" with Wikipeire (as I'm sure you know - and the sockpuppetry of whom you have openly defended on Alison's talk) - but look what he did to Wales and Scotland! Do you support Gold heart too? Some of these characters are armchair criminals as far as I'm concerned. I'm working at IDTF for an Irish country I'm actually starting, for the first time in my life, to actually dislike. If it is really true that Ireland is full of people like you and Gold heart et al absolutely insist that it is, then it seems like an unpleasant place to me. Is it an unpleasant place? All the Irish I've seen in real life have been nothing like that, but I can't help feeling that maybe Ireland really is an unpleasant place? There is so little evidence of this active offense on the net, but maybe they just keep the hatred in the pubs, as has been suggested? Maybe the Irish keep coming over into Britain just to 'rip off' the old British enemy, rather than to live and settle and inter-breed? Are all the mixed children accidents? Unlike some, disliking another culture doesn't sit well with me at all. --Matt Lewis (talk)

Matt, given the direct reference to Irish editors this comment constitutes personal abuse. I deleted a similar extreme anti-British diatribe earlier and was tempted to do so this time. However I think it would be best if you simply reverted the comment (and this one). Phrases like "armchair criminals", "racist" etc could easily earn you a ban, something that I for one would not want to see happen. Sarah is talking about an entity (the British Empire) not the British per se as individuals. She may be going too far with the phrase genocide, although there are several episodes in the history of the Empire which get close. --Snowded TALK 15:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, as usual, smudges the line. I've toned it down. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, given news like this (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/ireland-is-ranked-friendliest-place-in-the-world-13474671.html), one might wonder why it is that MattLewis has such an untypical relationship with so many Irish people. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the more moderate objectionable seemed the best compromise between the disparate interpretation of the multitude of sources. I'm not asking anyone to change their view, I'm asking that people seek consensus by compromise. If "GB&I is becoming a preferred description", which may be the case, then you need to make clear by whom, because I'm pretty sure everyone, everywhere doesn't have that preference. Perhaps you mean among the Irish population? Perhaps you actually mean it is the recommended description [by someone], rather than the preferred desciption? Either way, as it stands the language is extremely weaselly, and needs some sort of attribution or specificity. Rockpocket 00:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The line about "preferred description" is an extremely close paraphrase of text from a Routledge published book, written mostly by University of Sussex academics, with one or two Cambridge academics. As for objectionable without offensive, it isn't a compromise, it's an evasion.79.155.245.81 (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issue. Let me rephrase it: who are the University of Sussex academics, with one or two Cambridge academics referring to when they say "GB&I is becoming a preferred description"? If you don't know, perhaps you could reproduce it here in context. Rockpocket 00:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, what is it with may around here? Critics may prefer? They may do whatever the hell they want, but documenting their free will isn't particularly insightful. We what to document what critics do, not what they may do. Rockpocket 00:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If the majority of the Irish find the British genocidal then why do so many Irish people live "across the water"? Can anyone answer that?--jeanne (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

@Jeanne. Sarah777 seems to find aspects of the British Empire's history to be genocidal. I don't know if she feels the British are currently genocidal and I don't know if anyone else shares her view. AFAIK there is no reference to support any statement that "the majority of the Irish find the British genocidal".

@Rocketpocket. The text of the reference is easy to find online. I believe that the authors are saying that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description at least in Britain and in Ireland, but they may mean everywhere. That would match my personal experience, but my personal experience is not relevant. As for "may", I'd be happy to lose it from that sentence too. It seemed an accurate word in context. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I can shed some light on my own statements; but first to clarify what I didn't say: "the majority of the Irish find the British genocidal".

The fact that the Empire was genocidal is more a matter of established fact than opinion. The "controversial" part? Because "British" is still the term used today to describe the people of the neighbouring island, is it appropriate to speak the truth about the British Empire in Wiki conversation? Many editors feel it isn't.

However, the importance of this issue - so long as British editors (and some others) insist on describing Ireland as part of the "British" Isles - means that the truth cannot be avoided in this debate. However offended some folk might be. (Especially as the Anglo-American educational system doesn't apparently teach that their respective states engaged in widespread genocide, some British editors exposed to the facts by us more knowledgeable folk can be shocked to hear the truth). Sarah777 (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(Am I the only one who loves the irony of using Anglo to refer to the UK in a conversation about whether British with respect to Ireland? I didn't realise Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland were English) Scroggie (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, the truth never shocks me. Just the use of genocide applied Solely to the British Empire, while ignoring far more murderous regimes, annoys me very much. In fact, it Bores me, if you want my honest opinion. I used to argue quite frequently with my father about Irish/British issues. Another thing, the world does not revolve upon an Irish/British axis. And finally before I go to prepare for what passes as a Sunday lunch here in Italy, the Anglo/American educational system had/has it's faults, but I wouldn't advocate sending childen to the Christian Brothers. Would you?--jeanne (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the stupidity of others in just a character trait of the obsessed I'm afraid. We are just not sensitive and knowledgeable enough to see how evil the very name "Britain" is. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

>>> Given that this article is about things British (including Ireland, so this story goes), it wouldn't make much sense for her to be speaking about, for instance, the Mongol Empire and other, allegedly, 'far more murderous regimes". Please keep focused. 78.16.214.238 (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Acctually, the British Empire isn't regarded, academically, as genocidal. At least not universally. The usual first example is either the Belgian Congo (The personal fief of Leopold II) or the death marches in German Africa. British slaughter generally occured not through a desire to slaughter, but through a lack of caring as to the survival of a group (Not that this isn't as bad, just not genocide/biopolitical extirpation). There are some good lectures I can point you to if you want, Sarah. Now, that being said, there is no requirement for you to spout 'truths' as you see them (To expose people to them as you put it), nor for other editors too, nor for me to spout truths as I see them as I just did (Ah, sweet hypocracy). We are here to discuss the article. If editors here find the term offensive, it is irrelevent to the discussion, only what the sources say and what consensus is reached. Edited to add: Can we have references to geographical terms being replaced etc sourced to geography books, preferably? An introduction to post-war literature and society is a bit flimsy for such a statement. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Edited: 10:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeanne; personally I don't read stuff that bores me - maybe adopt that tactic? I'd also be interested to know what the relevance of the Rwandan Genocide has to this British/Irish issue. How would we work it in to the debate? No, I wouldn't send my kids to the brothers either probably but again what has that got to do with the BI naming dispute? "Another thing, the world does not revolve upon an Irish/British axis.". You don't say? Who said that it did? Sarah777 (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Narson; thanks but I don't need lectures. I state truths I don't "spout" them. If folk repeatedly imply that the term "British" applied to Ireland can't be deemed "offensive" then we must continue to explain, in our plodding patient way, to the chronically underinformed exactly why it is offensive. It is tough and unpopular work but someone gotta do it. Sarah777 (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I've got a brilliant idea. I'll phone my eldest sons, who happen to live in Donaghmede, and tell them to take a wee survey around the pub tonight and ask their mates whether the "geographical term" British Isles offends them at all. Now, if the answer is nay, I'm sure that you'll just breezily put it down to their being "chronically uninformed". (Now where did I hear that phrase before- ah, yes from someone whose opinions I did not blindly agree with). Actually, it wasn't moi who brought up Rwanda. Seeing as we were discussing empires I was thinking along the lines of the Ottoman Empire, Spanish Empire, etc.--jeanne (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting new take on objective research. Two sons of an avowed royalist tarot reader and amateur astrologer conduct a vox pop in a pub on a Sunday night, curious. --Snowded TALK 12:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I'm not sure anyone says no-one in Ireland finds the term British Isles offensive/objectionable. Hell, considering some people find offense at the Teletubbies, I'm suprised by nothing. The only debate is over the leve of objection and what proportion of the Irish population and how to word it. I am sure you will accept that not every Irishman considers the term offensive, so that is where the discourse lies. Going on about genocide and, as 86 was doing, how you are owed some great debt does not forward those decision. Rockpocket's edit seems pretty good, at least to me. I don't think the sources say that everyone draws offense, they do however show that a large portion find it offensive/objectionable and with an absolute majority clearly findin it objectionable. What about it upsets you? That it uses objectionable rather than offensive, objectionable being a less emotive term? Or do you disagree with many? --Narson ~ Talk • 12:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

@Narson. Pray tell, is there a source that shows that an absolute majority clearly find it objectionable? I'm unaware of that one. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, pray tell me what Tarot cards and astrology have to do with my point on the British Isles? Namely that the average bloke in Darndale or Artane really doesn't give two s..tes about a geographical term, nor the fact that the mother of their mates is "an avowed monarchist (Royalist was a term used during the English Civil War). And I'm sure the average Dublin girl doesn't either. So why not settle for Rockpocket's proposal and let's move on to other issues.--jeanne (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Snow's point, and I agree with him on this, is that original research and anecdotal evidence has no place here. We arn't trying to decide the right of the matter, only what should be in an aricle. The only thing we may engage in is looking at the sources and working otu how best to represent them in text. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also agree. You really love name dropping as if you know what you're talking about. It just original research. There are a number of social issues in most of the areas you've mentioned so I don't know what point you're trying to make. What someone from Darndale thinks is completely irrlevant to an encyclopedia, its what the nation as a whole and what the references say that matters, not your opinions.Tempac (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Narson, you have it right. I was responding to the boleyn girl at the same level of relevance as her original argument to make a point. However I will apologise for calling a monarchist a royalist as it appears to be a matter of some importance to said editor. --Snowded TALK 13:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The point the Boleyn girl is trying to make is this the average Irish person has more important issues to worry about than what to call the islands of Ireland and Great Britain which at this point in time and place are still referred to as the British Isles. I was not "name-dropping". Since when does a reference to two Dublin neighbourhoods constitute name-dropping!!!! My God, to enter any discussion here one needs to don a suit of armour. I have merely said I agree with Rockpocket's wording. Isn't it better to reach a compromise than waste time and energy fighting over a few words?--jeanne (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are you, Dev- you know what the average Irish person thinks? Please stop claiming to speak on behalf of the 'average Irish person'. I have yet to meet an 'average Irish person' who is a British royalist, as you claim to be. I am a Fine Gael-voting GAA-supporting PAYE worker and I don't know if that qualifies me as 'average'; I do know that the term "British Isles" has never been used by anybody in any discussion that I have had with them. I'd notice that, but then again despite the above I do not consider myself 'average'. At any rate, that is neither here nor there: there is, according to sources on these talk pages, an abundance of evidence testifying to this term being used less, and there are also sufficient references to support 'offensive' over 'objectionable'. That is what matters, not the subjective opinion of a wikipedia editor.78.16.214.238 (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tempac and 78.16.214.238 is the same editor double-attacking someone, on the back of other people too. Yes it's the banned User:Wikipéire again (Pureditor, ThatsGrand etc) showing what an unpleasant person he is. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your paranoia is incessant. And no evidence to support your latest allegation either. So much for AGF. It's quite clear that you are attempting to discredit every person who supports all these sources, namely that the term is rarely used in Ireland, is in decline and is offensive. It's surprising you've got away with these tactics for so long. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The evidence was placed, the indef block followed. Click the Tempac link. I'm making these comments when I see fit, as there is simply no on-screen record on Wikipedia, for when someone does what Wikipéire tried to do above - which was gang up on someone with his latest sock and his IP. What gets me is that you always excuse clearly poor acts like this. Isn't it funny how I am always paranoid? It's never bad behaviour by anyone else. Elsewhere in the world of Wiki you come on so self-righteously grave heart, but in here you simply show yourself up.--Matt Lewis (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Irish author Dervla Murphy in her book A Place Apart, published 1978, says how the term "British Isles", made her aggressive as an adolescent and then later on, made her wince. Then she adds "Now the pendulum has swung the other way and I rather favour it as a recognition of certain psychological and cultural facts, themselves the outcome of completed historical processes which it is much too late to reverse. It therefore pleased me to hear many youngish Northern Catholics casually using 'British Isles' as a natural description of these two islands." This is a quote from an Irish author, not my subjective opinion. Therefore, unless someone conducts a door-to-door survey throughout Ireland, the word offensive is a hyberbole and should not be used for this article.--jeanne (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "offensive" is used in verifiable and reputable sources in this context and therefore should be in this article. You may think it's hyperbole and others may think it's an understatement. Doesn't matter. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It matters in every way - because we need to follow our collective judgement to decide upon the nature of the sourced information. You simply do not understand WP:V, Wotapalaver. The first few lines of the Verifiability policy is unfortunately misleading to those you really want to believe something is Verifiable and therefore fact. These clutch of important sources are finite, and they have their own context, so cannot be appropriated as fact the way you want them to be. We need explanatory covering words for all contentious matters that don't have the kind of sources backing them up one would reasonably expect them to have. It is the part of the Verifiability policy called WP:REDFLAG. This is only a problem with this article because some editors have demanded these sources to be taken and written as fact, and have consistently edit-warred back to the locked status-quo to make sure it is the case. Wikipedia has its own encyclopedic context - it has to consider weight, quality and neutral point of view. Merely having 'reliable sources' is not enough to appropriate their content as fact.

According to Jimbo Wales in WP:WEIGHT, for the opinion of the significant minority (like we we must assume we have here, as we can't prove it's a majority), we should name the prominent adherents. Which would be Pollock as the principle polemicist, and Kearney who in his book British Isles, said "Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable". But that is for outside of the Intro! In the Intro we should allude to the controversy without making the value judgements that we do. The "many" here would need 'many' sources to back it up - but we just don't many sources - despite the few who childishly say "many many many" like broken records. If we can't say who the many are, then "many" is actually a weasel word in itself. It should be "many nationalists" at very least - to say it on its own as fact when we don't remotely know who the 'many' are (let alone back it up as questionably as we do) is just not encyclopedic at all.--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Weight requires that we give representation proportional to reputable sources who say differing things. Please provide reputable sources. Meantime, the reputable sources we have now support "offensive" very well indeed. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Again you misunderstand policy. Weight requires that we don't over-weigh, which includes the way, where and how that things are presented! We only need to balance if there is a balanced argument to do it with, but you can't balance against weasel words! It's actually notoriously hard to balance against the kind of negative statements of which people are unlikely to go around expressing the positive opposite. The disproportionate weight here is ultimately in the breaking of policies. NPOV, VERIFY and WEIGHT have all been broken here. And Wikilawyering like the above is the only answer to the charges. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

arb break in bold

(outdent) now we have removed "may" it seems reasonable to allow "objectionable" to stand alone, it makes the point and offensive is just a variation on the same. However if you have a clear list of sources then can you list them here, with the specific page or other references so they can be checked. If you have done this before then I have missed it in which case list the diff. --Snowded TALK 10:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

They are all in bold at the base of the article. They have a few others on a page somewhere, but they are more polemical, from more minor academic presses. The don't say "offensive" - they just highlight the problems/difficulties/criticisms etc with the term.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Then its not evidence and the case for "offense" fails. Would have to be specific and reputable to count I think. --Snowded TALK 12:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(PS) Matt - your insertion of the fact request, didn't you find some atlases which had start using the phrase Britain and Ireland? If the "preferred" was modified (as you modified the reference to archipelago) and those references inserted then the edit would be reasonable? --Snowded TALK 12:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC

The "offensive" references are mostly listed in the /References page. They are from serious academic presses and other such reputable sources. They say "offensive" more often than anything else, although the term is also called "a contentious term if ever there was one" among other things. I have (twice) recently listed a sample of these sources without giving full citation details as these references have been available for months - and shown to MattLewis many times. The sources meet all the criteria of verifiability. Have a read yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles/References

As for editing the additional line in the intro, I hope we're not going to have another situation where IDONTLIKEIT is used to try to counter a serious verifiable source. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cartography was always the most persuasive argument for change to me (see my last proposal) - but as I argued in the discussion (or possibly the one just before it) - it is actually hard to prove. National Geographic have (recently I think) made a clause on the term, and changed the title of their modern British Isles map (the still sell the historical one) to 'Britian an Ireland' (although it says 'British Isles' in the fancy text on the map itself). It clearly seems to me they are compromising. Folens is a less of a good example, as they actually had no real complaints - but they did change it though as a precautionary measure. My only problem was that 'Britian and Ireland' road maps were always around (in my memory at least) and road, political and geogrpahical maps are all laid-out and labelled completely differently to each other. BI was only really ever used for the geographical maps surely? I've was always happy to exaggerate the map issue in terms of the available sources though (it's a kind of OR that a consensus can easily pass) - as it has the ring of truth about it.

Showing change, and showing 'offense' caused by the word "Britain", are two entirely different things.

As for the Intro - it needs detail from the article too, as Waggers pointed out a couple a weeks ago. It's been mostly focused on the offense! I don't find the word "many" encyclopedic - as I've explained just above... for the opinion of the significant minority (like we we must assume we have here, as we can't prove it's a majority), we should name the "prominent adherents" in the text per policy ...Pollock and Kearney .. and the intro must alude to the controversy but not make value judgements. "Many" cannot be defined (who are they?) so is a weasel word in an encyclopedic context. I like reasonabley sized intro's and always did - we could make a fine one if people allowed it to happen. Look at all the space given to the controversy in my last one. It's only sour grapes and the insistance on the word "offensive" that has made some people snub what it offers. Now the word "offensive" is gone, there are many approaches we can make. It certinaly needs is some history of the term and the lands - this is supposed to be a proper Wikipedia article remember.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree I'm afraid. Its a geography article and we agreed a statement about the objections as part of a discussion about its deletion or renaming. A couple of sentences to make that point is surely enough. Expanding the explanation will involve more disputes and would make it more political. Expanding the etymology later in the article, making a note all would make sense but I would oppose expanding the lede. --Snowded TALK 13:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC

I don't remember any 'statements of agreement' - it must have happened when I was away! I have to say those kind of things are not really recognised by policy anyway, unless they go through Arbcom. They are a certainly a snapshot consensus, an can be useful, but they are not at all MOS.

British Isles is a geographical ‘’term’’, not a geographical article. The article is full of history and controversy. I don't understand how negative politics is a more of a possibility within a longer intro? Gold heart or someone is always going to try and crowbar in the word "offensive" whatever the article is like - now, yesterday, next week, next year. Certainly BI is geographical as a term, and we certainly have a political introduction now – because in insisting "many" is fact, it fails NPOV re weight and verify (the guidelines cross-link - see above). But in properly showing why the term is controversial and disliked, and in alluding to all the reasons and examples, and letting people make their own minds up, we are simply creating a normal Wikipedia article.

WP is an inclusionist place by nature - attempts to artificially keep things at bay always meet with problems. This has been a nightmare article because of an ultimately 'censorious' intention to keep it short and sweet, and not always from one side either. We just need to tell the story, and admins at least are starting to see some light there (and hence will naturally go for it, if it actually has a possibility of acceptance). This article deserves to be the same quality as any other WIkipedia article, not be kept darkened by Gold heart etc like it is a embarrassing secret. If it contains the history and the controversy, it will always have political content to some degree - but that is simply life. As a term though, it's geographical for sure. But it’s still controversial, so we me must fairly show why. After WP:BITASK is completed it will only ever have a certain circulation.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to keep things at bay Matt and I don't think there is anything "censorious" about keeping a political note on a geography page to a couple of sentences. Nothing is hidden, nor is the issue an embarrassing secret. Keep it simple, keep it appropriate or to use sales jargon KISS. --Snowded TALK 14:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep it simple? Sales jargon? This is a serious Wikipedia article! Do you really think I would work at this for a whole year not to wish for a serious article at the end of it? I am not at all an "imperialist British POVist etc" as I've been called by too many - I want a decent article here. How can I make it clearer? I really work at things - I don't just pass the odd comment. I don't even know where you are on what you are allowing now, and not allowing mow - but to reiterate my never-changed position: I want a classical Wikipedia introduction that sensibly and fairly covers all the requisite points. It must be NPOV, weight and Verified, passing all REDFLAGs. Something similar to my last proposal with some history. I am happy for it to more-than-fairly cover the controversy, as I see that as the best way of keeping this lock-cylce from starting again. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and as I've said to Sarah on a number occasions: lets get all the stuff in - you want it you've got it - just don't make it a simplistic and unpolicy political attack on the British.

Unless you have never bothered to read me, you must know that a serious introduction what I have always wanted, argued for and proposed on numerous occasions over the year, so why are we even talking like this? I really am here to build an encylopedia - it's not just a cliche with me. I keep finding that what I see as the 'short sharp shock' approach is what some people prefer. In my opinion, it totally demeans an article that deserves to be as good as any other. I find it like choosing to call someone a unfairly cruel and cutting name, rather than go into actual detail that has upset you. No explanations and no positive features given - just a stab. That is for me how the intro has been over this last year. I don't know where you stand on the policy arguemnt on words like "many" etc, but I hope that I've made my own unchanging position totally clear.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

<reduce>Matt, you have only ever argued to exclude serious verifiable references because - for some reason - you don't like what they say. Again, there are multiple reputable sources which say that the term is "offensive", "contentious", "disliked", "objectionable", etc., etc., etc and you have repeatedly tried to exclude this from the article even though you offer not a single reference to counter all the references provided. "Many" is supported by serious reputable verifiable sources, as is "offensive". You may not like that, but it's true nonetheless. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You are happy to copy and paste the same exaggerations for ever aren't you? You have done it all year long. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Except they're not exaggerations. They're on the /References page for anyone to read. You might try it. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt you have got to stop attacking people just because they disagree with you. A geography article needs a proper geography introduction. That should follow WIkipedia guidelines. Given the history of "British Isles" it needs some reference in the lede to the controversy, but a couple of sentences is enough. The current words do not attack the British (and I don't think I ever have being a British Citizen) but provide a balanced statement that indicate the term is controversial. Its enough as is. Now it maybe that people want something more elaborate, lets see. Oh, and there is nothing wrong with being simple. --Snowded TALK 20:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really attacking you (stop saying "I have to stop" all the time, it's really annoying and leaves an unfair message!) - I exasperated with trying to make this article a normal article, and of repeating myself too. You know my position on this artcle needing a decent and covering intro - its all I've ever expressed! The BI term may be geographical, but you can hardly say the whole article is. It's full of history for a start.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it comes accross like an attack Matt, even when I try not to read it that way, and the language is perjorative. I know your position and I disagree with it. Please respect that. --Snowded TALK 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, for all editors, user Nuclare has recently added a few references from Irish newspapers to the /References page. These show fairly widespread dislike for the term in Ireland. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And as if proof was needed that MattLewis hasn't read the references properly, an edit summary just now asks for text from a reference that's been on the /References page - which he claims to have read multiple times - for several months. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But not in the BI article, was it? People out there do read this you know - it's not all entirely for your own pleasure. I asked for the text to be quoted. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) The reference provided was perfectly good and gave all information needed to find the cited text which - in addition - has been on the /References page for several months. It is not required to transcribe the text of a source into the citation. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

its disputed so it is required (if you want it to be taken seriously) to provide more detail as to the exact quotation you are using. --Snowded TALK 04:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference has not been disputed. In any case, it was an additional reference, not one adding any content to the article. As for being taken seriously, you don't have to take me seriously at all, only the sources. They're serious, reputable and verifiable. I - on the other hand - may be fictional. If someone wants to transcribe the text into the article, it's already in the /References page. Go right ahead. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Greco-Roman?

A quick one. Wasn't Greco-Roman a subset of Roman, i.e. Greek-Roman like Irish-American, not an addition of Greek and Roman? 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Irish-American refers to someone American born but with Irish ancestry or an Irish-born person who acquired American nationality. Greco-Roman indicates the two cultures which formed part of the Roman Empire which often overlapped, hence in mythology the same gods having both Greek and Roman names. It does not mean Romans who had Greek ancestry.--jeanne (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember that there were substantial Greek settlements in Italy before the Romans came to dominate and the interaction of both cultures starts early. The meaning is nothing like Irish-American. It references a period of overlapping cultural influences in architecture, the arts etc. Neither word is a sub-set of the other. Yes it relates to the period of Roman domination but is represents not an assimilation of one culture by another, but a co-evolutionary process that created a unique culture in its own right. --Snowded TALK 14:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You put that beautifully Snowded. Where I live in the summer, there's a town close by called Taormina, and there's a beautiful Greco-Roman amphitheatre where one can see how the two cultures co-existed and produced marvels of civilisation which fortunately are still preserved for mankind to enjoy. The Greeks played a huge part in the settlement of eastern Sicily and left a stronger genetic imprint on the population than their Roman counterparts. In fact, my beach house is located at one of the first Greek colonies in Sicily. Unfortunately, it was later destroyed by the armies of the King of Syracuse, and all of the inhabitants put to the sword.--jeanne (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

@jeanne, most Romans didn't have Roman ancestry so that's not what I meant. I meant to query whether "Greco-Roman" meant the subset of Roman culture which had been influenced by the Greeks, or whether it meant an amalgam of the two cultures. Much Roman culture was not Greek influenced in any real way. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Romans ancestry was- perhaps Etruscan? But as to your question, it would have to be as Snowded and I have explained, namely a co-existance of the two cultures in the Roman Empire. Where I live one can see the evidence of the two civilisations, although Greek culture obviously pre-dates Roman. Sorry, ancient history isn't my forte. I prefer medieval.--jeanne (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed Etruscan, they were the original kings of Rome before the Republic. I'm not sure co-existance is the right term, the Greeks after all were invaded and defeated both on the Islands and mainland Greece as well as Greek settlements in Asia. Many were taken as slaves including some of the great minds in the Greek world. It was certainly an existance, Athens remained of course and was actually built upon by Emperors such as Hadrian. The Romans took what they wanted from Greek culture and actually forced some of their culture on the Greek world. As I said, I'm not sure the term co-existance is the correct term. Robert Spiers (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the original Romans MAY have been descended from the Etruscans. AFAIK it's not settled. Anyway, later Romans were from Gaul, Hispania, the East, Africa, etc.,etc.,etc., and had little or no "Roman" ancestry. In any case, my question has been answered. I think I'd still prefer to say "classical authors" rather than "Greco-Roman authors", but that's just me. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just as you say. There is no absolute proof they were descended from the Etruscans, although the Kings were Etruscans. just my opinion. I too prefer classical author to Greco-Roman author. Robert Spiers (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say classical author does sound more precise than Greco- Roman. The latter is normally used to describe architecture not literature.--jeanne (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, in point of fact, some Greco-Sicilian towns such as Tauromenium; today known as Taormina, enjoyed a nominal independence under Roman rule.--jeanne (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I inserted greco-Roman but I have no objection to classical author. (Though, idealy, I would like this linked). Lucian Sunday (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Norman intermarriage

If one studies the genealogy of the Anglo-Norman nobility who held land in England, one can see that they rarely married the native, primarily Saxon population, preferring French wives. However in Ireland, the opposite occured, with many Cambro- and Anglo- Normans taking Irish wives, and indeed becoming more " Irish than the Irish themselves". A notable example of such a union is that of Strongbow and Aiofe of Leinster. Today, the surnames in the respective countries reflect this, with the majority of English surnames being Saxon in origin, while in Ireland, Norman-derived surnames are widely dispersed throughout the island, irrespective of class. However, I believe they occur less frequently in the province of Ulster. The article needs to expand on this.--jeanne (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A good topic, but a proper treatment of it probably belongs in a more specialist article than this. The topic of the "Old English" which - IIRC - the Anglo-Norman families became after a while in Ireland is mentioned in many of the Irish history articles. Have a look there and see if there's already mention. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion probably belongs elsewhere but the arbitary deletion is not called for. On the subject - you find a similar pattern in Wales to Ireland. The Marcher Lords intermarry with the Welsh Princes over an extended period. Llywellyn the Great's wife was the illegitimate daughter of King John, Eleanor, daughter of Simon de Montfort was wife to Llywellyn the last. The Mortimer family was more or less Welsh in part. It think its the difference between immediate conquest (Anglo Saxon England) and years of warfare, co-existence (Ireland and Wales) over a few hundred years before final conquest. Overall its an important aspect of British identity. --Snowded TALK 22:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What arbitrary deletion? 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at this diff --Snowded TALK 04:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, The Normans did take Welsh wives and vice-versa. Besides the Mortimers, other Marcher Lords who took Welsh brides include the de Grey family, de Braose, Talbot, de Lacy, I could go on. In the Welsh case, the alliances were obviously political, whereas in Ireland a mixture of natural assimilation and political. In England the Saxons were already conquered and the Normans prefered to make alliances in France to increse their holdings there.--jeanne (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. It was all very interesting. However, proper treatment of this probably merits a section in the relevant history articles. It's too detailed for an article like this one. Inclusion of such specific topics (e.g. the Anglo-Normans, native flora, geology, 19th century politics) would make the article too big. As for the deletion from the talk page and the articles, it seems that it was done by a sock puppet. (is that confirmed?) While the history section of this article was a right mess, perhaps it's worth discussing it before deleting it. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about everything you say. I've already done a bit of editing on the Norman Ireland article. I have created a few articles on noble heiresses who came from Marcher backgrounds and I've included the intermarriage between the native Irish and Welsh with the Norman Marcher families. Also, Anne Boleyn is a descendant of such a union. (I added this in her own article). I was furious when I saw the deletion from the talk page, and I was equally pleased when I discovered another editor had restored it. Probably was a sock puppet, who knows?--jeanne (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have that level of detail Jeanne it might be worth an article in its own right (Marcher inter marriage) or a section elsewhere. If you do post the fact here and I'll happily get involved. --Snowded TALK 13:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are already two Wiki articles which deal with the Marchers, Welsh Marches, and Marcher lord. We would probably be better off adding a section called Marcher intermarriage to one of the existing articles. I have a lot of info on the families who did marry and whom. What do you think? I take it you are Welsh, if I may be permitted to ask a personal question?--jeanne (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Welsh Marches could do with expansion. The interaction of three legal systems there alone deserves more treatment. Yes I'm Welsh (although we also have an Irish branch though marriage). openly declared on my user page. --Snowded TALK 15:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just added a section heading on Marcher Lords called intermarriage with the Welsh. Unfortunately I cannot add anymore text due to lack of scholarly references. I just added the names of the families and a few of he notable people descended from such unions. It needs a lot of expansion.--jeanne (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Restore History Section??

While I'm not a fan of the history section on this page (rambling, disjointed, mostly unnecessary) its recent total deletion was an edit supposedly done by an editor being "Bold". If I'm not mistaken that editor was being downright naughty as they are a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned editor, and they've now been indefinitely banned themselves too. It seems appropriate to restore the deleted material, at least until it is discussed and deleted by an editor in good standing. Any volunteers? I'd be afraid to break the page if try to restore such a big chunk of text. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's rambling, disjointed, mostly unnecessary as you've said, then what's the problem? Claiming that it was "naughty" is a bit of a jump. If there are valid reasons for it being re introduced then that can be discussed. Many editors edit and watch this page so if it was indeed "naughty", I'm sure it would have been reverted instantly.SitNGo (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted some of SitNGo's edits, but also left several as I thought they improved the article. So I don't think its appropriate to restore it. The editor concerned has been making some useful edits lately on several pages and seems to making an attempt to reform past behaviour. In any event we should deal with the content not the person. A good edit is a good edit not matter who does it. So I would say leave it, do not restore. --Snowded TALK 15:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked this sock. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A large number of the recent edits were by SitNGo, Dessence, HellBhoy and Editstan, all of whom are socks of a single indefinitely blocked editor. Let's just undo the changes that were made (except perhaps where they made minor edits like moving a comma) and then address the areas properly. I rather dislike the idea of blocked editors continuing to abuse the system and even getting into a discussion of whether or not their edits are "good" (which is debatable) is encouragement for more abuse. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article should definitely have a history section; that may or may not be the one that was there, but often it's easier to start with something and mould it rather than to start from scratch. For that reason I think the history section should be restored. Waggers (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly; The history should be about mountain formations, silurian, devonian etc. This is easier to do from scratch. Lucian Sunday (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

People should improve the piss poor History of the British Isles before adding a worse (even than that) section here. Lucian Sunday (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree with Lucian Sunday, the former section was really bad and some of the changes made by the socks were good ones. Lets create something good, not restore something bad. --Snowded TALK 10:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's important though to remember that human geography is still geography. I agree mountain formations etc. make up part of the history, but so does farming technology, historic battles (and therefore politics), the expansion of settlements, building of canals, railways, roads etc. Waggers (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I agree that the History of the British Isles article is so poor. After all, it's a huge subject which is potentially a good reason for re-directs to other main articles. As for this article, I have already said that the history section was poor, but it did at least contain something useful for casual readers passing by (remember, other people just read Wikipedia, they don't all edit it). Let's restore what was there while we create something new. At least there's something to read in the meantime. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets get some perspective here. The material which has been removed is some fairly dubious stuff about ancient Thule. The Thule section is now about a paragraph which is more than enough with the pipelink. --Snowded TALK 13:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

At least some of the stuff about Thule that was deleted was the reference, not the text. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Then put the reference back in, but not the whole of a rambling paragraph! --Snowded TALK 14:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Snowded: Re my revert. I'm sorry - I hadn't realised there was on-going discussion about the edits. When I had a look through the changes, I had noticed that most of the deletions and moves were of paragraphs and sentences containing references. Considering the editor who made them, I had come to the conclusion that it was vandalism of some sort.

For what it's worth, I think we should consider putting any deleted text back in and then just sorting what ever might be wrong with it, a bit at a time. --Setanta747 (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I though that was probably the case (hence the rv good faith edit). Actually I think our sock did a reasonably job of getting rid of some nonsense! --Snowded TALK 16:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is four BI articles too much?

I posted this section at History of the British Isles the other day. I'm not interested in organising a merge etc myself, but I suspect this page isn't watchlisted by some people who aren't aware of it. Myself, I would put the timeline into this article as things stand.

You all need to decide about the dispute article too - do you keep it, or merge it back into here? Having four BI articles (BI, BI teminology, BI history, BI dispute) is too much to manage IMO, and although "British Isles" is certainly a geographical term, forcing the article to be geographical-only (the intention of these edits, imo) is simply non-policy. Ideally, we must have one singular sensible article - and branch outwards only when we need to. Some of these sub articles were made for the wrong reasons I feel - certainly the 'dispute' one was made after failed consensus, though may still be valid. We just need to keep to guildeines and policy, and believe that a fair encyclopedia can be written. AGF to WP. All per policy.

I think the closest people can fairly get to make this 'geographical only', is to actually merge British Isles terminology into this Birtish Isles article, and have serious separate history and dispute articles. Even then the main article can never be 100% geographical-only. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of History of the British Isles, although I hadn't watchlisted it as I thought it so disappointingly poor that it was beyond redemption. Having the the Bayeux Tapestry as the only illustration for the history of Britain, Ireland and all other island in the archipelago is breathtakingly insensitive. I think the list of links, and the timeline, are useful & relevant, but the lead paragraph ... Well, it could do with some work. I'm not convinced that the islands of Ireland, Great Britain and those surrounding have enough shared history to warrant a single article. However, any merge proposal would get my vote, if just to get rid of it. Daicaregos (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well a problem is that few Irish editors are going to work on improving an article called "History of the British Isles", are they? Maybe we should change the name to something more WP:NPOV ?Sarah777 (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate to merge articles into an article that already has a "too long" tag on it, as British Isles currently does. My preference is for there to be separate articles where there's enough content to justify them. Waggers (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically there is enough history to for here and a history article too, but it is being removed from this one without the other being developed. Subs are fine of course - but they should really be develop as extensions of the main article, and ideally be referenced in the main article too (so there would still need to be an appraisal of the history here at least). That means we should still cover some history in this introduction, whatever happens.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I´m inclined to agree with Waggers. This article is already very long, so adding extra content would (in general) not be helpful. The previous history section was pretty poor but I'd prefer to improve it in-situ rather than leave it deleted by a banned sockpuppet. As I said, then there is at least something for Wikipedia's actual readers to read while Wikipedia's editors improve the content. The resulting section may finally be considerably shorter than was there before and could well point directly to the "History of the British Isles" article for most of the content. The main "History" article will inevitably have many many pointers to other articles. There's so much content that it would be extremely ambitious to try to get it all into one article in anything other than the most high-level way. 83.36.123.176 (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit Wars

Can we please stop this nonsense. We know that the issues are controversial, we know the have to be discussed on this page. This is just going to end up with the page protected again. In response to the comment in one of the edits that the talk page is going no where and therefore tharky is right to make the changes - well that is true of lots of pages here. I could say the same about the ROI/Ireland naming controversy but people are keeping that to the talk page.

Not only that reversions in the face of consensus are clear 3RR even if you don't go to three. This is especially true where you have (as is the case here) previously made a similar change and ended up in an edit war with the page protected. --Snowded TALK 03:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk, talk, talk. That's all we ever get here, and 99.9% of it is unproductive and not related to improving the article. Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold and that's what some editors have finally decided to do. Yes, stop reverting! Thark didn't start it, he made some modifications which were then reverted without discussion. It's better to try and build on edits rather than just reverting. Try and use the current version as a baseline for further improvements - and keep anti-Britishness out of it. LemonMonday (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

* The existing text was agreed by consensus and supported by citations. Its more than good enough for purpose. Thark is knowingly taking a contentious position so building on that is not possible (other than by wholesale deletion and rewriting). This is classic case of not agreeing with a consensus, so coming back every few weeks to see if you can get away with a minority position this time. very bad practice. If there is a sensible discussion then let it take place here. There are more important things to do on the article than constantly war over a couple if sentences which are now stable. Oh, and Thark did start it check the history (as he started it some weeks ago in another edit war. As to "some" editors, we are talking about one editor and an IP which appears to have been created just for this purpose ...

• Its worth remembering where the current text came from. It was agreed to stop an edit ware over renaming or deleting the article. So being bold could involve going back to that dispute as well. --Snowded TALK 08:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Talk before deleting content. As for "anti-Britishness", there wasn't any. There were important facts, fully supported by reference from verifiable reputable sources. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have put the page back to the state recently left by Snowded. That is an interim step to restoring the content to the state is was before the banned sock puppet that recently came by and removed other references. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And who's the banned sock puppet, is it you by any chance? 141.6.8.89 (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)