Talk:British Isles

NOTES from LILY'S MAP of GREAT BRITAIN, 1546

NOTES from LILY'S MAP of GREAT BRITAIN, 1546

http://www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/hantscat/html/lily1.htm

These notes are taken from poor reproductions of the map of Britanniae ie the British Isles, by George Lily, Rome, 1546, and a number of derivative editions in the 16th century. The reproductions are given in:- Shirley, Rodney W: 1991 (revised edn): Early Printed Map of the British Isles: Antique Atlas:: ISBN 0 9514914 2 3

map type: HantsMap & Lily 1546

The notes are particularly biased towards Hampshire interest. This map is the first map of the British Isles issued as a single sheet. It was printed from two copper plates; its size is wxh = 535x745mm. George Lily was an english catholic exiled in Rome at the papal court. R W Shirley gives a concise note of the possible sources for the map's content.

MAP FEATURES title cartouche strapwork cartouche coat of arms Printed upper right is a strapwork title cartouche:-

BRITANNIAE INSULAE QUAE NUNC ANGLIAE ET SCOTIAE REGNA CONTINET CUM HIBERNIA ADIACENTE NOVA DESCRIPTIO Remember that the islands are not one nation at this date. Above the cartouche are two coats of arms: the lions of England quartered with the three fleur de lys of France; and the lion of Scotland in its double tressure. There is a decorative tudor rose above the cartouche.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• But if that's true, then BRITANNIAE INSULAE QUAE NUNC ANGLIAE ET SCOTIAE REGNA CONTINET CUM HIBERNIA ADIACENTE NOVA DESCRIPTIO

would translate to BRITANNIAE ISLANDS etc etc etc ........... ...... I'm getting a feeling of OR here, as quite obviously the text does not refer to "isles". Tfz 23:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Latin: Insulae

French: Îles

German: Insels

English: Islands has identical meaning to Isles.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have studied Latin, and forget far more than I can remember. But I clearly remember this, Insulae = Islands. Tfz 23:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Tfz ...

What is the difference between Islands and Isles in A.D. 1546?

Answer ... NOTHING.

British Isles meant British Islands back then ... in other words [insult deleted] wordsmithing.ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives, you have quite obviously lost it, and it's you who is word-smithing. Tfz 00:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you, User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!. It's an absolute pleasure to be one of the 'stupid pin-headed Irish' in the circumstances. Dunlavin Green (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ArmChair, you have just come off a one month ban for disruptive and abusive behaviour. You were also warned that the next ban might be permanent. I strongly recommend you delete and apologise for the above comment. --Snowded ^TALK 07:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded's advice, Armchair. I find your anti-Irish comments offensive.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Apology to Jeanne Boleyn (talk)

To Jeanne,

I am sorry for my anti-Republican Irish slur. I got very upset, and said some inexcusable things. Your opinion of me, means quite alot to me. My ancestors were Loyalists from the County of Antrim (my small Irish link).

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22County+of+Antrim%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1

Barney Gumble "Thankfully rare. Never seen except when pissed."

(pissed ... i.e., really angry)

Take care, your friend ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the way how you've all get offended by this. I didn't see any of you complaining when Troll777 was posting inflamatory and offensive comments. Perhaps you should go about getting those comment removed first. User:Snowded should perhaps bear that would-be administrators need to be objective. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't offended Wiki-Ed, just trying to give ArmChair some advise (and deliberately not reporting him). I can't see Troll777 but I've only been on wikipedia intermittently for the past week so I may have missed it. --Snowded ^TALK 12:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree, should not be encouraged, and will only get Armchair blocked again. Tfz 01:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Troll777? Now who could be the subject of this breach of WP:NPA I wonder? Sarah777 (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good God, you weren't talking about Sarah were you Wiki-Ed? --Snowded ^TALK 06:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Should Megale Britannia (Great Britain) and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) be referenced in the Main Article British Isles ?

From "The prehistory of Britain and Ireland" (2007)

http://books.google.com/books?id=W4J1S-vl1Q0C

The relevant passage ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=W4J1S-vl1Q0C&pg=RA1-PA3&lpg=RA1-PA3&dq=%22Little+Britain%22+Hibernia&source=bl&ots=KEYuZVebYC&sig=Csly0oelrBKAbgayTb8dauJOAqw&hl=en&ei=dTIzSsvME47YsgOi-83mDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

"... account distinguishes between Megale Britannia (Great Britain) which refers to the larger island, and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) which describes Ireland. Elsewhere he refers to them as Alvion and Hivernia, respectively. Ireland was better known by its Greek name Ierne or its Latin equivalent Hibernia (Rivet and Smith 1979: 37-40).

Ptolemy's map was conceived as a strictly scientific exercise, but accounts of their inhabitants took a different form." ...

Ahem, to re-illustrate...

Megale Britannia (Great Britain) is to Alvion

Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) is to Hivernia

Well ... should it?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never given it any thought. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay. Please give it some thought, and let me know your opinion. Your opinion means a great to me (just like Jeanne Boleyn's). By-the-way, I put alot of hard work and study into digging out the referenced terms Megale Britannia (Great Britain) (i.e, Alvion) and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) (i.e., Hivernia).

Take care eh ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've sorta fell behind on the goings on at this article. What are you trying to add or delete from the article? GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay.

I would like to add a few lines of text ... about the referenced terms Megale Britannia (Great Britain) (i.e, Alvion) and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) (i.e., Hivernia) to the Main Article British Isles.

http://books.google.com/books?id=W4J1S-vl1Q0C&pg=RA1-PA3&lpg=RA1-PA3&dq=%22Little+Britain%22+Hibernia&source=bl&ots=KEYuZVebYC&sig=Csly0oelrBKAbgayTb8dauJOAqw&hl=en&ei=dTIzSsvME47YsgOi-83mDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

I would like to know if you would be for-or-against this.

Take care eh, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, I don't see how it adds anything to the article. PS: I always take care. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay. In my opinion, the inclusion of a "few-lines-of-text" referencing the terms Megale Britannia (Great Britain) (i.e, Alvion) and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) (i.e., Hivernia) would show that long before the brew-hah-hah over the Partition of the Island of Ireland the term British Isles was just a geographical term.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add it, go ahead. I've no strong feelings about it, either way. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay. Thank your for the consul. I appreciate it alot. I'll wait a few days, and then add something.

Claudius Ptolemaeus (born A.D. 90) used the geographic terms of Megale Britannia (Great Britain) (i.e, Alvion) and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) (i.e., Hivernia). The Island of Hibernia article bears this out as well.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

When Armchair added the item this morning I moved it to the history section which was accepted. However the translation as British Isles has not been agreed above. I therefore put a neutral phrase in instead. ArmChair has now reverted twice and is not seeking consensus so I have placed a tag on the section and suggested a self-revert pending discussion here. --Snowded ^TALK 07:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Britanniae Insulae in English means British Islands or British Isles.

Insulae in English means Islands or Isles.

Britanniae Insulae in English means British Islands or British Isles.

The meaning (i.e., the geographic context) of British Islands or British Isles is the same.

I am willing to risk a permanent ban over this.

Now ... Snowded contests this ... but has not yet addressed why ...

Anyone else?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read the above exchanges you will see that not all editors agreed with your translation. The form of words I used was neutral. I'm not sure to be honest anything should be added at all, but decided modifying the text was more collegiate. My latin is too old to argue the case one way or another, I leave that to others. However if the translation is ambiguous then best to use archipelago. --Snowded ^TALK 07:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowded ...

(1). Please sign your posts ...

(2). The translation means British Isles ...

(3). I accuse you of deliberate abuse-of-process to obstruct something YOU DO NOT LIKE...

To bad. Live with it.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) I did

(2) See above conversations from other editors

(3) See above conversations from other editors

--Snowded ^TALK 08:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowded ...

I am willing to go the "full-court-press" over this. I suggest that you carefully consider ANY funny-business that you might pull. I will tolerate NONE of it.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, although I was always a loose forward (number 7) in Rugby, never played basketball. Joking aside, just read the above comments from other editors and you will see that there is not a clear consensus on the translation. As I say its not my area of expertise (Latin Translation), nor I suspect yours. At the moment you do not have any consensus for the translation you favour. Accusations and threats may be interesting curiosities, but your basic obligation is to respect the need for consensus (and editing standards please see WP:INDENT) otherwise you are in that disruptive behaviour zone again. --Snowded ^TALK 08:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

...and PS to AVDL - edits of >1000 bytes are not "minor". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowded ...

(1). I have been studying Latin translations for 3 months now,

(2). The specific book is referenced below,

Hermann Conring (1601-1681), [Discursus novus de Imperatore Romano-Germano. English] Hermann Conring's New Discourse on the Roman-German Emperor, Edited and translated by Constantin Fasolt (1951- ), Publisher: Medieval Renaissance texts and studies, Volume 282. Neo-Latin texts and translations, Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies (ACMRS), pp.122, (2005).

(3). I repeat ...

Insulae in English means Islands or Isles.

Britanniae Insulae in English means British Islands or British Isles.

The meaning (i.e., the geographic context) of British Islands or British Isles is the same.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ArmChair, the issue is not your expertise (Although I am not sure how confident I would be to advance a position based on three months study). I have no idea if the translation is correct or not. If it is correct then your wording is fine, if not then it shouldn't be there. At the moment and this is the issue, there is no agreement amongst other editors so you should seek consensus rather than just asserting you are right and everyone else is wrong. Pending that consensus you should not edit war to assert your definition in the article, let alone remove a tag. Your quotation above may give you citation support which would outweigh another editors opinion. The whole point is that you need to engage in that discussion and get agreement. I am taking no position on this particular content issue per se, what I can see is that its controversial. And (for the Nth time of asking) please read and respect WP:INDENT. --Snowded ^TALK 09:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can see (and AVDL's approach ensures that it's not clear), AVDL has still not addressed the fundamental issue that the map does not state "Insulae" (islands / isles), it states "Insula" (island). So, this whole discussion seems irrelevant to me, and any reference in the article to what AVDL suggests would be confusing and wrong. Do other editors here agree? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC) PS. I support MITH's reversion to the earlier version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, insulae had another meaning in Latin - it also meant "blocks of flats". So the term Britanniae Insulae could be translated as either "British Isles" or as "British Blocks of Flats". I'm sure those who wish to avoid, at all costs, translating the Latin term as "British Isles" will have a field day with this. ðarkuncoll 10:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle ...

(1). Lily's First Edition (Copper-Plate Map) A.D. 1546 has Britanniae Insulae

http://www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/hantscat/html/lily1.htm

BRITANNIAE INSULAE

(2). Lily's Second Edition (Copper-Plate) A.D. 1559 (from Bookseller shows Britannia Insula) which is probably a re-prodcution "boo-boo" (my opinion OK ...).

Next ...

(3). On Megale Britannia Insula stands the Kingdom of Scotland, and Kingdom of England

(4). On Mikra Britannia Insula (i.e., adjacent) stands the Kingdom of Hibernia ...

(5). Megale Britannia Insula et Mikra Britannia Insula combine to form the Island Group of Britanniae Insulae.

Lastly MITH has deleted the whole thing I added (under something called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BRD ) ...

You know what ... Snowded , Ghmyrtle, and MITH you win. You folkes are not interested in the truth ("Pearls-Before-Swine").

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In the Italian language, the word island translates as isola, whereas islands is isole. It obviously derives from the Latin, so I believe Armchair is correct when he says Insulae means Isles or islands. I'm not taking sides in this dispute, I am merely stating this in an objective manner based on the fact that Italian is my second language.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiya AVD. I've been 'going over' the responses to your translation proposal to the article. All your fellow editors (I'm neutral) reject your proposal & are becoming annoyed with your pushing of it. Also, some are frustrated with how your posting style is using up so much talk-space. I highly recommend that you giveup on your idea & accept that there's no consensus for it. I fear the others are seeing you as being disruptive (a perception that could lead to your getting blocked). GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay ...

Listed here below (for the last time) is the body of text that I tried to add to the British Isles article. I place it in the lead-section and there was some more wording ...

"An early description of the British Isles (i.e., Britanniae Insulae) distinguished between Megale Britannia (Great Britain) which refers to the larger island, and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) which describes Ireland. The same text also uses Alvion and Hivernia, respectively. Ireland was better known by its Greek name Ierne or its Latin equivalent Hibernia.."

Listed here below (for the last time) is the body of text that Snowded edited and moved to the history-section of the British Isles article.

"An early description of the archipelego (i.e., Britanniae Insulae) distinguished between Megale Britannia (Great Britain) which refers to the larger island, and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) which describes Ireland. The same text also uses Alvion and Hivernia, respectively. Ireland was better known by its Greek name Ierne or its Latin equivalent Hibernia.."

Now, I wanted the text "British Isles (i.e., Britanniae Insulae)", and Snowded wanted archipelego (i.e., Britanniae Insulae) text to stand in its place. You all with me here (Snowded, Ghmytle, MITH) ? The archipelego is Britanniae Insulae. As well, the island group Britanniae Insulae refers to Megale Britannia Insula et Mikra Britannia Insula. None of the above is in dispute (it is ALL REFERENCED).

So here comes the road block. Insulae is Latin for Islands or Isles (NOT in dispute). Therefore Britanniae Insulae is Latin for British Islands or British Isles. In the geographic context British Isles and British Islands MEAN THE SAME THING. From about A.D. 132 to A.D. 1978 British Isles was alone on the linguistic map. The very recent invention of the term British Islands by the UK Parliament in the Interpretation Act 1978 does not have any baring here. It does not apply.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don;t necessarily want any particular solution here. I simply edited your insert to something that did not assert one side of a controversy on the talk page and moved it to a better position. In doing that I was trying to help you, it was tempting to simply revert it. What I do want is for you to pay attention to discussions and realise that however convinced you are of your position that you should seek and abide by consensus. You are simply repeating here what you have already said several times. I would also really like it if you would learn to format your comments, in particular to abide by WP:INDENT--Snowded ^TALK 21:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Will somebody ...

Hello Dunlavin Green.

The "Map" in question ...

http://www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/hantscat/html/lily1.htm

These notes are taken from poor reproductions of the map of Britanniae ie the British Isles, by George Lily, Rome, 1546, and a number of derivative editions in the 16th century. The reproductions are given in:-Shirley, Rodney W: 1991 (revised edn): Early Printed Map of the British Isles: Antique Atlas:: ISBN 0 9514914 2 3

map type: HantsMap & Lily 1546

http://www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/hantscat/html/lily1.htm

BRITANNIAE INSULAE QUAE NUNC ANGLIAE ET SCOTIAE REGNA CONTINET CUM HIBERNIA ADIACENTE NOVA DESCRIPTIO

Now ... Britanniae Insulae is clearly indicatied in the First-Edition (Copper Plate) Map A.D. 1546 by George Lily. Now the map that I linked above was a RE-PRODUCTION Second-Edition (Copper Plate) Map A.D. 1559 by George Lily. The bookseller clearly states in the English Language summary that the map is of the British Isles (i.e., Britanniae Insulae ).

Why does the Second-Edition (Copper Plate) Map A.D. 1559 by George Lily only have Britannia Insula (i.e., not Britanniae Insulae ) in the margin? I do not know. My opinion ... it was a re-production error.

Lastly ... you won't have to "suffer-my-presence" here at Wikipedia anymore. People like you get to waltz-in, use foul-language and get away Scot-Free? Nobody has said "boo" to you about the blantant abuse that you have just heeped on me with impunity. Dunlevin Green you are welcome to the this place. Goodbye.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reinstated all the material referred to above. It's entirely appropriate to include it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Needs Consensus tag is still in place, so I would hope the text can stay as a working version and can be fine tuned by discussion here. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Retained the consensus tag - but on the basis of earlier discussion there is no chance of that being achieved around the text inserted by AVDL. Note that the map showing Ptolemy's description does not contain any reference to "the islands" collectively, only the names of the individual islands. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not in dispute. Armchair noted the names of the individual islands. So far this discussin has just attracted trolls of the calibre of Dunlavin Green, so consensus doesn't seem to be much of an issue. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So how are they relevant to this article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

More early maps

http://www.orteliusmaps.com/book/ort16.html Eckerslike (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, for information, this 1609 map by Ortelius of "Insularum Britannicarum Typus", which to my eyes translates as "figure of the British (or Britannic) islands (or isles)". Google searches suggest that the original version of this was published in 1590 - Ortelius died in 1598. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

..and this, which is Mercator's map of c.1570. Although the catalogue describes this as showing "the British Isles", the map itself does not show that name (in English or Latin). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)#

Ive had enough latin to last a life time after the above "debate". This is important because of the bit in the intro about John Dee being the first to use it, i think now it mentions the fact its the OED that says he was the first to use it takes away the main problem, but we do need the ref for that and if it cant be found it should be removed. Ive not liked Dee being mentioned in the intro from the start. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection

You all know the drill: Please talk politely, edit warring is bad, discussion is good, dispute resolution guidelines are here. Or simply wait six hours and restart the edit war then, but don't complain if the next admin sees things differently and blocks you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello SheffieldSteel.

I promise not to edit war. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The above was clearly a lie. You have done nothing but edit war. As a result I have requested page protection. Someone may revert your edit (again), I don't wish to be blocked for edit warring so I am ceasing to try stop your disruptive actions. I recommend you self revert your change ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! unless you wish to serve another block.MITH 12:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

British Isles and British Islands both translate in Latin to Britanniae Insulae

The basic "road-block" as far as Snowded's coined "Controversy" is summarized below ...

British Isles and British Islands both translate in Latin to Britanniae Insulae

The Wikipedia article for British Isles and the Wikipedia article for British Islands distinguish them in two different contexts. The latter (i.e., British Islands) is a political term to indicate the territory upon which the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands stand.

It would stand to reason that the British Islands covers slightly less territory that the entirety of the British Isles, because the independent country legally described as the Republic of Ireland is NOT included in the legally described term British Islands. To put things in a mathematical context ...

British Isles = British Islands + Non-British Islands

So ... in the Interpretation Act 1978 the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland tried to invent a legal description of British Islands to out-do the Republican-Irish at their own game. Well the Irish (both the Northern Irish and Republican-Irish) can not be bested in that department. They will out wordsmith you every time.

Down-to-Brass-tacks...

Britanniae Insulae refers to Megale Britannia Insula and Mikra Britannia Insula.

2 refers to 1 + 1

Why the road block?

Cayman Insulae refering to Megale Cayman Insula and Mikra Cayman Insula

Megale means Great (Grand, Grande, Groβ) .... i.e., Big One

Mikra means Little .... i.e., Small One.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lmao cute map BritishWatcher (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I throw in my tuppence-worth here? I studied Latin for several years; now, having done two Masters' degrees in English I'm entrenched in a PhD on the subject. I perhaps have some little expertise I can bring to bear. And it would appear that this is a very strange argument, with a debate being fought on entirely the wrong grounds. I hope I can clarify the debate, without necessarily finding a resolution - I just want to make sure people are all on the same page.

1. This mostly has nothing to do with Latin. Leave 'Britanniae Insulae' aside for the moment.

2. Are the words 'Isles' and 'Islands' synonymous in English? In common usage 'isle' is merely an abbreviation of 'island', and etymologically appeared as such. In 1640 Ben Jonson referred to Great Britain as 'this sea-girt isle'.

3. The 1978 neologistic meaning for island is used in Parliamentary acts relating to the business of government. Therefore, bizarrely, the dispute concerning 'British Isles' versus 'British Islands' is a technical name' versus 'common name dispute, and should consider Wikipedia guidelines on the subject.

4. Given the late date (1978) of the term 'British Islands', it is more historically-appropriate to translate 'Britanniae Insulae' as 'British Isles' because, as the Jonson reference demonstrates, that term was in common usage for the vast majority of the time it required translation.

Please feel free to disagree with my logic, but please ensure you do so in a courteous manner. I have no more desire than anyone else to be flamed. BlackMarlin (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Addressing Objections: Ghmytle, Snowded, MITH (i.e., Ghmytle et. al.)

To Ghmytle et. al.

(1). MidnightBlue (Talk) wrote this ... (Result : Britanniae Insulae Paragraph re-inserted, Needs Consensus Tag re-inserted)

I've reinstated all the material referred to above. It's entirely appropriate to include it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Needs Consensus tag is still in place, so I would hope the text can stay as a working version and can be fine tuned by discussion here. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(2). Ghmyrtle (talk) wrote this ... (Result : deletion of Britanniae Insulae Paragraph, Needs Consensus Tag retained)

Retained the consensus tag - but on the basis of earlier discussion there is no chance of that being achieved around the text inserted by AVDL. Note that the map showing Ptolemy's description does not contain any reference to "the islands" collectively, only the names of the individual islands. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(3). MidnightBlue (Talk) wrote this ... (Result : notes that deleted Britanniae Insulae Paragraph is Referenced Material)

That's not in dispute. Armchair noted the names of the individual islands. So far this discussin has just attracted trolls of the calibre of Dunlavin Green, so consensus doesn't seem to be much of an issue. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(4). Ghmyrtle (talk) wrote this ... (Result : concedes that deleted Britanniae Insulae Paragraph is Referenced Material)

So how are they relevant to this article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Defintion of Dispute with Ghmytle

Ghmytle advances that the citation of Megale Britannia (Great Britain) Island and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) Island are not relavent to the Wikipedia article on the British Isles (i.e, Britannia Islands).

(i). Ghmytle I accuse "your objection" as being baseless and illogical.

(ii). You are not ignorant on the subject of translations.

As-per, Ghmytle's comments on Ariconium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ariconium

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A strange objection indeed on the part of Ghmytle. Why should these descriptions of the two major components of the British Isles not be relevant to the article? I fail to see any valid reason whatsoever why not. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Because I agree with Nuclare's point below - "There's lots of referenced material that isn't on the page, nor should it be." In my view, it's just not that important, interesting or relevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghmytle, I am forced to conclude that "your view" is meanless.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There's lots of referenced material that isn't on the page, nor should it be. There once was info. about names that historically the Irish themselves seem to have used for the islands but that's been removed, as far as I can see. If this were a study of the history of all the naming issues surrounding all the islands throughout history and/or a detailed thesis on the classical worlds' view of Britain and Ireland, fine. But you can't just say 'a source says so! So lets lead off a 'History' section with it!!' Classical writers (almost none of whom ever set foot on the island of Ireland) said all sorts of goofy things about Ireland. In fact, "Goofy things said about Ireland by those who've never visited it" could actually make a fasinating Wiki article, but this here ain't that. What's the specific relevance of this Great Britain/Little Britain stuff to this general encyclopedic article and what makes it more important than the material about historical names that was removed? And a "Because a Greek Once Said So" scale of weighing what's noteworthy for this article is dubious.

And, btw, the book you linked above, AVDL, for the reference to the Greek-version "Great Britain"/"Little Britain" names, called "The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland" (he didn't you will note call it "...of the British Isles"--heck, maybe this Cambridge Univeristy Press published author is one of Wiki's anti-British Isles brigade!! He could be here amongst us right now removing references to British Isles EVERYWHERE....oh, run for the hills, pray to your gods, save us from the endtimes, the horror, the horror...!!!)...Ahem, sorry...anyways, here's what this book--your source--has to say on page 11: "It is no longer accurate to talk of the 'British' Isles since most of Ireland is an independent country" (from The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland by Richard Bradley) Shall we quote that here as well? But, anyways, thank you, AVDL, for another BI-not-good-to-use reference. Nuclare (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Nuclare.

You wrote the following,

"And a "Because a Greek Once Said So" scale of weighing what's noteworthy for this article is dubious."

A Greek?

Claudius Ptolemaeus (A.D. 90-168) in his second book Geography, which is a thorough discussion of the geographic knowledge of the Greco-Roman world.

Ptolemy's world map

Just any Greek? In field of Cartography (i.e., Maps) ole Claudius Ptolemaeus (A.D. 90-168) was one of big dudes .... "THE FOUNDERS" of the whole bloody science. I would be inclinded to quote his description of Megal Britannia (Great Britain) Island (i.e., Avalon) and Mikra Britannia (Great Britain) Island (i.e., Hibernia). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nuclare.

Nuclare wrote,

"Ahem, sorry...anyways, here's what this book--your source--has to say on page 11: "It is no longer accurate to talk of the 'British' Isles since most of Ireland is an independent country" (from The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland by Richard Bradley) Shall we quote that here as well? But, anyways, thank you, AVDL, for another BI-not-good-to-use reference. Nuclare (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)"

The author when he states

"It is no longer accurate to talk of the 'British' Isles since most of Ireland is an independent country"

is expressing a personal opinion within a peer-reviewed Book. In other words the author's personal opinion is noted. Period. Nothing else.

Now, by the same token, the HISTORICAL FACTS expressed by Claudius Ptolemaeus (A.D. 90-168) in his second book Geography, which is a thorough discussion of the geographic knowledge of the Greco-Roman world.

http://books.google.com/books?id=W4J1S-vl1Q0C&pg=RA1-PA3&lpg=RA1-PA3&dq=%22Little+Britain%22+Hibernia&source=bl&ots=KEYuZVebYC&sig=Csly0oelrBKAbgayTb8dauJOAqw&hl=en&ei=dTIzSsvME47YsgOi-83mDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

"... account distinguishes between Megale Britannia (Great Britain) which refers to the larger island, and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) which describes Ireland. Elsewhere he refers to them as Alvion and Hivernia, respectively. Ireland was better known by its Greek name Ierne or its Latin equivalent Hibernia (Rivet and Smith 1979: 37-40).

Ptolemy's map was conceived as a strictly scientific exercise, but accounts of their inhabitants took a different form." ...

Ahem, to re-illustrate...

Megale Britannia (Great Britain) is to Alvion

Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) is to Hivernia

The put it bluntly the author Richard Bradley of "The prehistory of Britain and Ireland (2007) has WEAKENED HIS CASE. This is because of the following,

Island of Megale Britannia refers to the Island of Great Britain

Island of Mikra Britannia refers to the Island of Little Britain

and taken together with this

Island of Little Britain refers to the Island of Ireland

To sum up the authors book title can morph as follows,

"The prehistory of Britain and Ireland" (2007)

"The prehistory of Great Britain and Ireland" (2007)

"The prehistory of Great Britain and Little Britain" (2007)

"The prehistory of British Isles" (2007)

Personally I like the last one ...

"The prehistory of British Isles" (2007)

Should I write Mr. Richard Bradley about this?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Should I write Mr. Richard Bradley about this?" Yes, good idea. Why shouldn't he suffer too, like the rest of us? 86.133.200.115 (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello 86.133.200.115 (talk). Could you please sign in?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? Facts is it? And the text after the reference to the names Great Britain/Little Britain in which the author details the attitudes of Ptolemy's text toward the inhabitants of the islands: The British were barbarians and the Irish were even bigger barbarbians. Should we post that as FACTS too, since The Big-Dude-Roman-Citizen-of-Greek-or-Egyptian-Ethnicitiy said so? Like I said, if we want this to be a study of the history of all the naming issues surrounding all the islands throughout history and/or a detailed section on the classical worlds' view of Britain and Ireland, fine, let's put it. But it has to be put in context, and there's no reason to, then, not also reinsert the bits about the native people's of the islands' terms for their own home islands as well, which is actually more interesting than what Mr.-Big-Roman-Citizen-Who-May-Have-Been-Greek-or-Egyptian had to say. But to slap Great Britain/Little Britain in to the beginning of an otherwise underdeveloped History section as if it's the whole story and as if the NAMES he attributed are the whole story is, I'm sorry, dubious. Nuclare (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nuclare.

Your UserPage says "Je suis Américaine". Well the United States of America (or its short-form name America) is certainly NOT something the Native Americans would of named themselves.

PS ... point-of-interest ,

"Je suis Américain" (Female Gender)

"Je suis Américaine" (Male Gender)

Are you a Male of Female?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Armchair, would you PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read the various wikipedia style guides on how to edit a talk page. Every intrusion is an essay with repetitions spread over many lines, you never conform with WP:INDENT, you seem to think that every point you makes needs a blank line before and after, . You have many examples here, and I've tried to help a couple of times by formatting your comments to show you how it is meant to be done.

On the issue in hand, rather than an edit war how about a simple poll on if we think this is relevant to the article in the first place. If it turns out that it is then we can sort out the translation issue? --Snowded ^TALK 04:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded.

Please do not bring up the indentation issue (i.e., WP:INDENT) again.

Whosonfirst 00:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Me two--Whatsonsecond 00:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought you didn't like indentation, Whatsonsecond--Why 00:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Me three--Idontknow 00:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought you didn't like indentation either, Idontknow--::Because 00:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that too, Because--Today 00:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Me four--Tomorrow 01:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)}}

If you look at my recent edits they follow (with "lip-service") to the WP:INDENT guidelines. Please note that guidelines are guides ... i.e., voluntary (i.e., not mandatory)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep bringing it up as long as you fail to confirm to it ArmChair. You have graduated to using indentation within your own comments, but the idea is to show a thread of conversation. You are also ignoring guidelines on white space, creating excessive section headings etc. etc. Its verging on disruption. As to the above comments, what is the purpose of all these Me links to pages that don't exist? What is the relevance? --Snowded ^TALK 05:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded.

As-per the the indentation issue (i.e., WP:INDENT) they are guidelines ... guides. They are voluntary (i.e., not mandatory). I am not required to conform. Feel free to keep bringing it up until you are "blue-in-face". ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti British Isles Brigade

I see today there was another attack on wikipedia by certain people pushing their point of view. [1]. Will their campaign to rid the world of the British Isles never end? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you know that for a new editor like me looking around this space and these topics, there appears to be a campaign all right. The editors that vent their fury at anyone editing around usage of British Isles is very much based on questioning the motives of the editors and claiming that a nefarious campaign is afoot. Just an observation. You'd be better off arguing about content. BTW, in this case I think the editor was correct. Qaziphone (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

For these people it isnt about content. They dont like British Isles so they go around like a virus seeking to destroy it and remove it from history. The edit wasnt even correctly done and the edit summary about making it more neutral was clearly pushing an agenda. I sometimes think the world has gone mad. There is a debate on September 11 attacks about if the people who carried out those attacks are terrorists or not, How neutral do we have to be??? jesus BritishWatcher (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What youve said is that it is irrelevant if the edit made the article any better or not, but anybody who edits and removes the term British Isles is engaged in a campaign? That doesnt make sense. Is that what you mean? Qaziphone (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Certain people are clearly engaged in a campaign to remove British Isles from wikipedia, im not saying its some organised plot but the patterns of the endless war on the term by many different editors is disturbing. If making changes to an article clearly improve it ofcourse that is fine, removing something just because you dont like the term is unacceptable and thats what he put in his edit summary. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not a "campaign" at all (and certainly not an "attack on Wikipedia"), but rather a reasonable point of view which is shared rather more widely than you believe. Worth considering, perhaps. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the things in that article dont make sense but the edit made was clearly for one reason, the edit summary said about making it more "neutral". British Isles is a geographical term, it is wrong for people to try to justify removing it because its not "neutral". That is clearly pushing an agenda and it is disgraceful, i see it as an attack on wikipedia, we have seen this agenda non stop. We have been here enough times having to fight off people trying to change this article itself because they dont like it.. it really takes the biscuit. As i have said many times, i totally understand why many people in Ireland hate the term British Isles but we can not rewrite history or redraw the maps (except when some Irish-American pressure groups impose their will on private companies, but it shouldnt happen here on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

BW, please try not to ascribe motives to people, without any justification. I'm sure the motives vary between individuals - on both sides of the argument - but we do need to focus on content at all times. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Ghmyrtle, ofcourse there are two sides to everything and i accept in the past some people may of gone around inserting British Isles for political reasons, but that is something ive never done. The only places ive commented on these issues as far as im aware is when someone has tried to remove it. In some cases i see it as justified like on [{Derry]] where we can talk about Europe instead, in cases like British Empire i see no justification for its removal but accept some of the reasons given for wanting it removed. In the case i mentioned earlier though it was a clear cut case of someone not liking the term and seeking its removal because they can not accept its as neutral. Again i understand why they hate the term, but they cant go around removing things just because they dont like it. British Isles is not just a term known in Britain, its known in many places. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello BritishWatcher.

If I may ...

Great Britain Island refers to Avalon

Little Britain Island refers to Hibernia

Therefore we have ...

British Islands refers collectively to Great Britain Island and Little Britain Island

British Isles has an identical geographic meaning to British Islands

British Isles refers collectively to Great Britain Island and Little Britain Island

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Armchair. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What is Little Britain Island? FF3000 (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ye olde island of IRELAND. --De Unionist (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry DU, but Ireland isn't Little Britain Island. FF3000 (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello FF3000. Actually the Island of Ireland is also refered to as the Island of Little Britain. Oh yes .. it is.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Armchair - put your text back and let's take it from there. BritishWatcher - how did you spot Dublin1994? I sometimes wonder if others are going about quietly removing British Isles and we don't know about it. It's too tedious counting up the linked pages to the article. Anyone know of any gadget that could help with monitoring the situation. BTW, I don't know of any current editors going around doing the opposite, but in the spirit of fairness, that should be monitored as well, if possible. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here's an editor doing just that. Tfz 01:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Had that page on my watch list for some time i saw someones revert of Dublins edit. I had come across him before though, he kept trying to insert "Ireland got independence from Britain in 1922 on History of Europe" the other day as though it was a major point in European history lol.

I too would like to see some recent attempts by editors to insert BI on wikipedia, because every case ive come across has been where its been in the article for months and someone is trying to remove it. funny that BritishWatcher (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I doubt if Dublin1994 was an Irish editor. The name is a bit too obvious, and they knew virtually nothing about Ireland. Most likely that it's just some editor up to some mischief, trying to stir things up. Tfz 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Another comment Actually, I think Dublin1994 was right to mention Ireland's independence. It is a notable event for a country to gain freedom. We know all the fuss that was created over Kosovo getting independence last year, and that was merely a dot. FF3000 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if hes Irish or not, i admit i presumed he was but that would make little difference really, intentions are clear. On the Irelands independence bit, if the article listed everything that happened in Europe then ofcourse it should mention Irish independence, the trouble is that article covers everything throughout history, it leaves out huge chunks of information and focuses on the major points like world wars. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's another - [2]. I've reinstated it (with ref.) MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case i think removal of the whole sentence was justified and dont think it has anything to do with British Isles being mentioned. Ive undone it for the time being, there probably is a need for talking more about Ireland there and mentioning British Isles would be acceptable but i really do not like the way it mentions such a minor and disgusting party like the BNP. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's everything to do with British Isles. Have a look at some of Qaziphone's other edits, then have a look at the edit history (you'll need to go back long way - long before Qaziphone was editing) of those articles, then consider his comments on various talk pages, paying particular attention to his wordage. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Theres certainly a focus on the British Isles issue yes, but in the case of the nation state article i do think its justified it was only recently added anyway by one editor. I dont know why Griffin is important enough to be mentioned there im sure there are dozens of other nutty MEPs who could be mentioned on that article too. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought the addition was quite pertinent (and one where a new mention of BI would be accepted, maybe by the anti-BI brigade as well). It highlights an unusual proposition; one that serves to illustrate the concept of a nation state very well, particularly within the context of the UK. Don't forget that Wikipedia isn't censored and our own political beliefs should not influence anything here. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the edit by Qaziphone that I find most intriguing is the one he made to Boxing Day. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that talking about the British isles and a view of shared nationhood is a good thing there, i didnt have a problem with the fact BI was used just didnt like the whole sentence as it seemed focused on the BNP which is a tiny party whos opinion doesnt and shouldnt matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

MidnightBlueMan, if there is such a thing as the "Anti-British Isles Brigade" well then you are most certainly the leader of the "Pro-British Isles Brigade". It is very obvious that you love the term, as you enforce it and you've even created your own userbox saying "This user lives in the British Isles". FF3000 (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said to you elsewhere, put another record on. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, I do have to put on a record from time to time, don't I? I suppose you don't exactly always vary your comments either though, to tell the truth. FF3000 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How many articles has Midnightblue randomly inserted British Isles into? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

FF3000, to answer this question feel feee to trawl though my edits, but I'll save you the effort and tell you that it's zero. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said that I trawled through your edits. You just said that I constantly repeat myself, and then I said that it is actually you who repeats themselves. --FF3000 (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You just said that I constantly repeat myself, and then I said that it is actually you who repeats themselves....said FF3000...repeating himself... BlackMarlin (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The term British Isles will always be used on Wikipedia, it can never be completely deleted (nor should it be). Anyways, the name of this article shall continue to be as it is (British Isles). GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "British isles brigade" was coined a couple of years ago, can't remember exactly where on WP, but any derivative of the original term is plaguerism.) Tfz 19:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that Tfz im sure we are all glad you managed to drag urself back to wikipedia after last night. Nobody is claiming ownership of the phrase and it can be used in any one anybody wants. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And on it goes! They're having another crack at Britannia. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, MB, the "cracking" will continue if a compromise isn't reached! And unless you give a more civilized response, then the edit warring will continue. FF3000 (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounded like a direct threat. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a "direct threat", but I'm being serious, that MB has to give more civilized responses, rather than giving ones whih spark off a debate. FF3000 (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here we go again, another insertion of the term British Isles. It's happening everyday. Tfz 16:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the article we have been talkng about above. British Isles has been moved to the second sentence and it seems like a reasonable compromise to the wording because it makes more sense. If this is happening every day give us more examples of where an editor has randomly added British Isles into the text. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK BW. I must commend you for not pushing the term in that instance, but it still got on, and the title of this section states the 'other' is happening on a wide-scale basis. I don't believe that, and there are always a couple of edits we can find here and there, but it's not endemic as some would suggest. Tfz 16:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This was the first case ive been involved in where someone has within the past few weeks added British Isles to an article for no reason and i dont have a problem if it is completly removed from there, the question of sources for some of the stuff added may still lead to more changes. I dont know why the IP added British Isles in that case, they certainly made the article inaccurate but looking at other contributions by that IP i cant see a pattern. Lets not forget the removal of the term wasnt because it was wrong, they didnt consider it "neutral" enough and replaced it with something that was also incorrect.

Ive always accepted that there are troubles with both sides, but i can think of about 6 cases recently where some have tried to have British Isles removed (some cases were more justified than others), this is the first case where ive seen it added for no reason at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Islands of Great Britain (Megale Britannia) and Little Britain (Mikra Britannia)

Hello MidnightBlue.

MidnightBlue (Talk) wrote,

"Armchair - put your text back and let's take it from there. BritishWatcher - how did you spot Dublin1994? I sometimes wonder if others are going about quietly removing British Isles and we don't know about it. It's too tedious counting up the linked pages to the article. Anyone know of any gadget that could help with monitoring the situation. BTW, I don't know of any current editors going around doing the opposite, but in the spirit of fairness, that should be monitored as well, if possible. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC) "

The text for the Island of Great Britain (Megale Britannia) and the Island of Little Britain (Mikra Britannia) has been re-instated for discussion. Take care and best wishes, Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought the idea of page protection was to prevent edit warring? Immediately reinstated a disputed text after the protection ends just seems to risk starting the edit war up again (and is hardly discussion).

Also why yet another section heading? Why cut and paste chunks of text that have already been read? Why separate every sentence with white space? --Snowded ^TALK 05:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded.

Please refrain from lecturing me. I am well within my rights to re-instate in the British Isles Wikiepdia article ... the deleted material. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To MITH, Ghymytle , amd Snowded ...

In the British Isles article, the deletion a referenced contribution showing the (c. A.D. 132) description of Megale Britannia (Great Britain) Insula and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) Insulae is happening without any rationale. This KEEEPING this in establishes the geographic usage of the term Britanniae Insulae (British Isles) many years before December 6, A.D. 1921 (i.e., its political usage).

Please ... do not delete it.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Armchair, you should study history, you seem to have a flair for it. Tfz 13:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reported AVDL at WP:AN3 - we're just waiting for a long block to be implemented now, I hope. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User conduct

I would like to remind everyone here that the Wikipedia editing process should be polite, respectful, civil, and collegial. I think most, if not all, of the contributors to this page should consider their own recent conduct, choice of words, and attitude, and whether it can be improved in future. Ask yourself if your contribution is raising the standard here, or lowering it.

Going forward I will consider issuing a short block to any editor who I think is being deliberately insulting, provocative, or counter-productive on this page, or is disruptively editing the article page. In order to avoid this, please ensure that your comments are focussed on policy, sources, and content, not on other contributors or their conduct. Worry about your own behaviour, please.

I understand that this is a contentious subject and feelings are liable to be strong. That's all the more reason for everyone to take more care before hitting "Save Page".

Thank you all for your understanding. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Challenging the assertion that the term British Isles does not relate to Ireland

The text below ...

"The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to its usage due to the association of the word 'British' with Ireland"...

seems to me to not be valid as

Megal Britannia Insula refers to the Island of Great Britain

Mikra Britannia Insula refers to the Island of Little Britain

and

Island of Little Britain refers to the Island of Ireland

Seems to me. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That phrase in the intro doesnt mean its disputed if British Isles includes Ireland, it just means people in Ireland dont like it because they dont want to be associated with the British and see it as some type of ownership issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello BritishWatcher.

Ptolemy (A.D. 90-168) in his second book Geography (c A.D. 132) coined the Cartographic terms Megale Britannia (Great Britain) Insula and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) Insula for the Britannia Insulae. Now Britanniae Insulae translates to British Islands or British Isles. In a geographic context they both have the same meaning.

Now Megale Britannia (Great Britain) Insula and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) Insula refer to Alvion and Hivernia, respectively. Thus, the term Little Britain refers to Ireland. So this whole name debate is held hostage by the people who live in the legally described county known as the Republic of Ireland. I am very tried of this.

Note following ...

the English, Welsh, Scottish can be refered to collectively as the "Great British"

the Irish can be refered to collectively as the "Little British"

the the "Great British" and "Little British" can be refered to collectively as the British.

Do you see where this goes? It simplifies the terminology greatly.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's accept for now that Ptolemy referred to Ireland as "Mikra Britannia" in the second centry AD. So... what...? You haven't yet shown that this source has any bearing on whether the term is controversial today. Note that Wikipedia is not here to answer the question of which term is "correct" (assuming such a question can be answered). We're here to document the notable views on the subject. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, our edits overlapped. I believe the term "Little British" when used to refer to the Irish is (1) original research and (2) provocative to the point of being utterly non-productive. Please try a different line of argument, based on reliable sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello SheffieldSteel.

The exclusion of Ptotemy's name Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) when refering to Ireland (island) guts the basis of my arguement. If it is excluded ... then I have been wasting everyone's time here. I have nothing more to add.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello SheffieldSteel.

The Irish (of the South) base their distaste of the term British as they contend that British refers only to Great Britain. Thus they claim the term British Isles is a misnomer, and offensive. However, the existence of the pre-existing term Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) refering to Hivernia soundly destroys the basis of their arguement. The term British means Great Britain and Little Britain, collectively. Do you see my point?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not see your point. I cannot see any argument that could be reasonably used as the basis for improving this article. There's nothing you've proposed that's verifiable with reference to reliable sources. Your line of reasoning seems to be entirely based on original research. That is simply not acceptable as the basis for changing the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello SheiffieldSteel.

Claudius Ptolemaeus (A.D. 90-168) expressed in his second book Geography, which is a thorough discussion of the geographic knowledge of the Greco-Roman world.

[Please click here ... this is NOT original research. Not]

http://books.google.com/books?id=W4J1S-vl1Q0C&pg=RA1-PA3&lpg=RA1-PA3&dq=%22Little+Britain%22+Hibernia&source=bl&ots=KEYuZVebYC&sig=Csly0oelrBKAbgayTb8dauJOAqw&hl=en&ei=dTIzSsvME47YsgOi-83mDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

"... account distinguishes between Megale Britannia (Great Britain) which refers to the larger island, and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) which describes Ireland. Elsewhere he refers to them as Alvion and Hivernia, respectively. Ireland was better known by its Greek name Ierne or its Latin equivalent Hibernia (Rivet and Smith 1979: 37-40).

Ptolemy's map was conceived as a strictly scientific exercise, but accounts of their inhabitants took a different form." ...

The recent book is by the author Richard Bradley of "The prehistory of Britain and Ireland (2007).

Nothing here is original research .... Mikra Britannia(Little Britain) is a bone-fide referenced term. It was originally coined by Ptolemy in c. A.D. 132 in his book Geographia, and it was then again re-stated by the A.D. 2007 book of Richard Bradley. Thus, it spans about 1875 years (i.e., (2007 - 132) = 1875).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

All Bradley's book does is *document* one of the ways a map drawn up two thousand years ago labeled Ireland. He doesn't endorse the label and he isn't talking about the present; in fact, as pointed out above, Bradley, when it comes to present-tense usage, says the the word 'British' isn't an accurate means of naming Ireland. Nuclare (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nuclare.

The term British does not apply only to the Island of Great Britain. The term Great Britain is the correct term. The Great British live on the Island of Great Britain (not the the British).

In short the recently in-vogue term Britain and Ireland (for the British Isles) is WRONG. It should be Great Britain and Ireland (i.e., not Britain and Ireland). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving the discussion forward

If I might make an attempt to steer this discussion in a productive direction... Ptolemy is said to have in the second century A.D. described the island that we now know as "Ireland" as "Mikra Britannia (Little Britain)". Discussion as to whether this material should be included in this article might (I do not want to put words in anyone's mouth) focus on one or more of the following points:

• This article is written in according to the guidelines at WP:Summary Style. As such the section British_Isles#History ought to be a concise, neutral summary of the lead section of the article History of the British Isles. Is the contested information important enough to appear there?
• There may be a concern that this information gives undue weight to one particular viewpoint. If so, should more information be included to redress the situation, or is it a mistake to try to cover all viewpoints here?
• Is it possible to find a compromise - a way of including this information that is less controversial, e.g. perhaps siting it elsewhere in this, or in a different, article?
• There may be concerns with synthesis or original research - i.e. using this primary source as a way of expressing a viewpoint that the source does not, in fact, express. Can we agree on what this source does and does not say? Can we agree on how this material should or should not be used?
• Is it productive to consider drawing a distinction between terms which have been used in the past and terms which may, or should, be used in the future? Should such questions be restricted to the British Isles naming dispute article?

One other point that I would like to make: The usage of bold type for these terms, in the article, is at odds with the guidelines in our Manual of Style, and on the Talk page, is distracting. One ought to be able to make one's point without the necessity of shouting. I would be very grateful if User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! were to avoid using bold text so liberally in future. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheese SheffieldSteel, I see you have protected the version that there is little consensus for. Armchair should be banned from this article. Tfz 20:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No he hasn't. Well he did to start with, but then he decided to endorse a version prior to Armchair's edits. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection isn't an endorsement of any version. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well in that case I invite you to return the article to the version immediately prior to protection. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the correct decision was made to return it to the version prior to AVDL's unnecessary and highly contentious additions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be the "correct" version then? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm...no such thing, it's all work in progress. But better before AVDL's intervention than after it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the key point above is that this is a summary article. Aside from the issues over translation which need some expert view, the material in a modified form belongs in the history article not this one. It is completely disproportionate to the rest of the material. To be honest I am confused as to why warfare has broken out over this, you can't really translate from a reference over a thousand years before Dee to anything which casts real light on that debate. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the wider use of BI debate which way it is translated. My vote goes for (i) its not relevant to this article (ii) an accurate translation and reference may be appropriate to the history page and (iii) anything or anyone who can get ArmChair to read and abide by style guides will win my undying gratitude.--Snowded ^TALK 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better in the history article, and for a similar reason let's also move the majority of material about the so-called naming controversy to the terminology or naming dispute articles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No MB. It must be made clear that it is a controversial term. It may not be in your eyes but it is in ours. --FF3000 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Ours" ? Anyway, by all means make it clear, but as has been pointed out, this is a summary article, so the detail of the so-called controversy doesn't belong here. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree (mostly) with MidnightBlue on this (!!) The historic terminology issue should be at Terminology of the British Isles#Historical aspects. (Oh - it already is.) The naming dispute should be mentioned in this article, but not given disproportionate weighting. It also seems to me that WP needs to have an article summarising the shared history of the islands, and the changing relationships between its nations, which doesn't duplicate other articles more than necessary. The existing History of the British Isles article could be a starting point for that, but it would need a lot of work, and there will inevitably develop a problem over its title. In an ideal world (which WP isn't), editors from all corners would collaborate on writing the article on "the shared history of these islands" first, and then decide on its title. Is there a better, or more realistic, way of achieving the same end? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The detail should be on this article but the name dispute must be made clear, and have a link to the more detailed page. It can't be hidden from the reader. FF3000 (talk)21:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No chace of it being hidden. I've just been reading the terminology article and I thought I was reading the naming dispute article. In the terminology article almost every mention of "British Isles" is accompanied by a reference to the so-called controversy. It's a bloody disgrace of an article. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(off-topic post removed, per guidelines) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am done. Do with it ... as you folkes wish. Take care eh ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

An Honest Question: How is this related article (British Isles naming dispute) not Original Research?

Hello SheffieldSteel.

This is an honest question ... I am sincere.

Question:

How is this related article (British Isles naming dispute) not Original Research?

My sincere point is that the article entitled the British Isles naming dispute is an invention of Wikipedia ... is it not. I am sincere when I say that is not an attempt to disrupt the Wiki-Process. I just want to know.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Something I have long thought myself. The fact is, that the existence of that article elevates it to the status of something like the Macedonia naming dispute, whereas in fact there is no dispute at all, outside the minds of a few politically motivated editors of Wikipedia. ðarkuncoll 07:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Listen, TharkunColl, people in Ireland only extremely rarely use the term because we don't like an impression of British being put on our country, whether it be a political or geographic term. It is an issue, not in Britain, but in Ireland, which is in the area that the British Isles covers. FF3000 (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with FF3000. --- Tfz 10:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps as a first step towards eventual deletion of the article we put an OR tag on it? I've just re-read the article and its style is more thesis than encyclopedia. MidnightBlue (Talk) 09:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A good indicator pointing towards the article not being OR would be some similar text elsewhere. I haven't been able to find any, but so far I've just tried the Internet. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Article British Isles naming dispute tagged as OR. MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Tag removed. There is no shortage of evidence showing that there is "dispute" (to put it mildly) about the term "British Isles" being applied to Ireland. Read the references link at the top of this page and, for that matter, read this article. That some people don't want to acknowledge the widespread rejection of the term in Ireland does not mean there is no dispute no more than my refusing to acknowledge the rain outside means it's not raining. They are two entirely different matters. 78.16.10.204 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy 78.16.10.204

Welcome to Wikipedia. Via the usage of this handy-dandy IP Address Locator linked below,

http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation

we can all see that you hail from the City of Dublin, in the independent country legally-described as the Republic of Ireland. Could you please sign-in. This just a request (it is voluntary to sign-in, it polite but it is not mandatory).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to spell this out in words of one syllable or something? Yes, there are people who don't like the term, and those who avoid it by using an alternative where possible, but none of that constitutes a dispute. A dispute would be where, for example, the British Government used "British Isles" in a political sense and the Irish Government formally objected to it. I say it again; there is no dispute, there is just a load of opinionated writers who don't like it. The "dispute", such as it is, only exists here, at Wikipedia. Tag put back. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute. The Irish government object to it's use as much as possible, the USA government will not use the term, for heck's sake even the British government avoid the term, as do National Geographic, UN, etc, and all the great organisations of the world. Tfz 22:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tfz.

Actually, we are wrong. That is We ... "the Wikipedia Community" can not artifically declare a "Dispute" into existance. Only the "International Stage" has the possession of that right. To sum-up ...un-offically the Government of Ireland (aka one quoted Diplomat in London) only "discourages" the use of the term British Isles. The Government of Ireland offically does not forbid its usage.

There is no bone-fide dispute "on the International Stage". A "Dispute" being only here at Wikipedia ... does not count.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello MidnightBlue.

I completely agree with what you wrote below ...

"... A dispute would be where, for example, the British Government used "British Isles" in a political sense and the Irish Government formally objected to it. I say it again; there is no dispute, there is just a load of opinionated writers who don't like it. The "dispute", such as it is, only exists here, at Wikipedia. ..."

In the case of Macedonia, the Government of the Hellenic Republic has formally, "on the International Stage" forbidden the use internationally of the Name of Republic of Macedonia by the Government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A.D. 1750 British Isles Map

The Britannica Insulae are

Britannia Major (i.e, Albion)

Britannia Minor (i.e., Ivernia)

This link is here ...

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~3908~480110:Britannicae-Insulae-in-quibus-Albio

Short Title

Britannicae Insulae (A.D. 1750).

Long Title

Britannicae Insulae in quibus Albion seu Britannia Major, et Ivernia seu Britannia Minor, juxta Ptolemoei mentem divisae, tum in suas majores partes, tum in populos exhibentur, a Nicolao Sanson, Christ. Regis Geographo, Revisae, et ad Observationes astronomicas redactae, accurante Robert de Vaugondy filio, Cum Privilegio Regis, 1750. Guill? Delahaye sculpsit.

If people care about the truth...

Addenda: Insula versus Peninsula

Island of Great Britain: Insula Britannia Major (i.e, Great Britain)

Island of Little Britain: Insula Britannia Minor (i.e., Ireland)

Peninsula of Brittany: Peninsula Britannia Minor (i.e., Brittany)

It is important NOT to quote just the words Britannia Minor. It can refer to two different items,

(i). Insula Britannia Minor (i.e., Ireland)

(ii). Peninsula Britannia Minor (i.e., Brittany)

One has to very careful about this, lest you confuse the two with each-other (this illustrates the dangerous nature of using short-form names instead of using long-form names).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

White space?

There is a lot of 'white space' on the article talk lately. The archives are already circa 30 in number. At this rate there will be another 30 archives building up very quickly. Tfz 23:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We are certainly getting through alot of text, although clearly one editor is helping the most with that. We may have to archive the archives :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tfz. My posting style reflects the way that I construct my thoughts. I recognise that this results in "White-Space". I will try to cut that down. In posts that I feel do not need a precise structure (i.e., clearly showing the relationship of long-form name(s) and short-form name(s) ) I will try very hard to be as compact as possible. However, for posts that emphasise the relationship of Name(s), I reserve "the-choice" to insert White-Space.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland need to be used.

Howdy.

"The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands.[7] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland.[8] The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group.[9]"

When this article gets unlocked I intend to edit the first paragraph as follows,

"The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland, and numerous smaller islands.[7] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland.[8] The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group.[9]"

In my opinion, the insertion of Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland need to be used. The term Great Britain can now refer to TWO THINGS at the same time,

Island of Great Britain

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Additionally, the term Ireland can now refer to TWO THINGS at the same time,

Island of Ireland

Ireland (the independent country legally-described as the Republic of Ireland)

That is what I intend to edit folkes, indeed. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Such an edit would be wrong (as well as ungrammatical). As stated at Great Britain: It (i.e. Great Britain) makes up the largest part of the territory of the sovereign state the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the term Great Britain is sometimes used inaccurately to refer to the United Kingdom. Please note - inaccurately. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ghmyrtle. I have made the follow edit,

The British Isles are an island archipelogo off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the Island of Great Britain and the Island of Ireland, and numerous smaller adjacent islands.

The usage of the long-form name of the Island of Great Britain, and the Island of Island are correct, and in accordance with the Oxford Style Manual (2003) Style guide. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for this change. It is mis-spelled, ungrammatical, and confusing (for example, some of the isles are not "adjacent"). The existing unaltered wording is clearer and preferable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ghmyrtle. I disagree. The explicit statement of the long-form names of Island of Great Britain, and the Island of Island are neccessary, clear, and grammatically correct. As per it being mis-spelled, could you please tell where? I would appreciate the help very much with this. Thank you again. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm usually very helpful to other editors, but in the face of your persistent obstinacy I must make an exception in your case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

lol Ghmyrtle. Anyway im happy with the current wording and dont see a need for change. Its clear the first sentence is talking about islands, and the second sentence is talking about sovereign states. This is not something to get into a war over. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Armchair's new version before its reversion was nonsensical. An island archipelogo [sic] doesn't make sense. Archipelago = cluster of islands so an island archipelago = island cluster of islands--go figure!. The use of island of in front of Great Britain and Ireland is superfluous and makes the sentence look daft. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Armchair has been sat upon - now blocked for a month. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very funny. I'm sure AVDL appreciates your humour. LevenBoy (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected again - please read WP:BRD

I've protected this article again, due to another edit war over what ought to be a trivial and uncontroversial detail.

I would like to ask all editors to avoid treating Wikipedia content disputes as extensions of real-world political disputes. That is, if you see someone reverting someone else, do not involve yourself in an edit war based on which version of the text you think is more favourable to the "British" or "Irish" position. Instead, discuss the matter on the Talk page, be reasonable, and attempt to work towards establishing a consensus.

Please review the essay The Bold-Revert-Discuss Cycle and follow it in future. If someone makes a bold edit which doesn't have consensus, then another editor may revert the edit saying "Reverting per WP:BRD. No consensus / please discuss" or similar. But once an edit has been reverted, that's the end of the dispute as far as the article in concerned, and that text should not be changed again until a consensus for it has been established here.

In future I will block any editor who reverts a revert on this article. Block durations will be based on prior block history for that editor, if any, per WP:Blocking policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(off-topic material moved to User talk:Sarah777)

Ummm can i just get clarification on this Sheffield, you say anyone who reverts a revert on this article will get blocked. I think i reverted a revert of a revert... did i do anything wrong and if i did that again would i be blocked? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to this revert, the answers are yes and yes. Of course, the previous edit would have got AVDL blocked, and hopefully it would not have been made in the first place. The solution - and this is always the solution when there's an edit war - is to discuss and get a consensus as to the correct form of words in the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

But i was restorinng the previously stable version. AVDL made an edit, Ghmyrtle undid it saying no consensus. AVDL reverted back to his new version (clearly breaking ur 1 edit rule). But then i undid that and restored the previously stable version. I dont understand how i did something wrong n that case, if no normal editor is allowed to undo something we have to wait for a admin to arrive on the scene to ban him and restore the original version?????? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find this is not going to work. BRD depends on the D. This will just encourge R and no D, or maybe if there's no D another R is OK? And another thing, if you dole out blocks like you're threatening to do, some editors will just reinvent themselves as someone else, and who can blame them (some of the comments you've removed from here are relevant). LevenBoy (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If editors re-invent themselves, they'll make themselves very obvious indeed and will be blocked in turn. Also, such disruption will inevitably lead to the article being fully protected for an extended period, which there is plenty of precedence for in nationalist disputes. Black Kite 22:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:There is no deadline. Wikipedia is in a process of continuous improvement and the version you see today might be gone by tomorrow. You need to ask yourself if you think the current state of the article, right now, at the moment you're looking at it, is important enough to get blocked over. If you think it is, you are likely to get involved in edit warring, which is disruptive and unproductive, and you are liable to be blocked for it. I understand the desire to revert to the stable, pre edit war, consensus version of the article, but such a revert is indistinguishable from taking part in the edit war - unless you wait until it is clearly over. Reverting quickly in this case is unfortunately counterproductive, and an edit summary won't necessarily make any difference. The only way to de-fuse the situation is to get consensus on the talk page, even if it's just a temporary agreement to restore the previously stable version which a new consensus is established. And of course, if you can't get consensus to go back to that version, all the more reason not to revert to it during an edit war. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Very well i wont make such reverts again, i never knew such actions were unacceptable. I thought aslong as you didnt break the 3RR or 1RR where applied it was ok to restore to the stable article if someone has undone a revert. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Normally, you'd be correct in that making such a revert would not be considered disruptive. It is only the unfortunate fact that people are willing to edit war over such trivial edits that has made it necessary to impose such editing restrictions here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, i understand now. Thanks for clarification BritishWatcher (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot agree that my original remarks were "off-topic" as they were a direct consideration of you stated blocking policy on this very page. Why you dumped the off-topic bits on my page I'm frankly at a loss to understand. Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think, given the current policy regarding this article, we should all move elsewhere and abandon it. And I'm talking across the board here - those in favour of BI and those who reject it, nationalist of every shape and form. Maybe this is something we can all agree on. The article, has, in effect, been sterilised. LevenBoy (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who has views "in favour of" BI, or "against" it, should indeed move elsewhere. We (some of us, anyway) are here to create an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, if you have questions about blocking policy, then WT:BLOCK is the best place to ask them - but I should point out that taking prior history into account when considering blocks is scarcely unusual. If you have concerns about my conduct, post them on my user talk page, and if you're still unhappy, at the admins' noticeboard. This page is for discussing improvements to this article, and this thread is for clarifying the editing restriction I've put in place, not for attacking admins or discussing blocking policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence edit.

"The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands". From a simply grammatical point of view I am changing this to 'Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands'. I went to the shop with John and Mary, and Tom - I went to the shop with John, Mary and Tom. It simply sounds better and would be more likely to be said. This is in no way politically or personally motivated and should not be offensive to either party! Fionnsci (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the change. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nor me. Not happy about the use of white space in comments on this page though - brings back bad memories... :-} Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, i must confess that i checked Fionnscis contributions because i thought at first it might be a certain banned editor. ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Snap! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think anyone here has any problem with Fionnsci's edit, or contribution to this page. This formatting is quite understandable when attempting to make clear an edit. I'm sure Fionnsci can understand, after paging up a couple of times, why other editors might be a bit jumpy  :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, although I agree with the edit, there's a more subtle grammatical point to be made here (and to reiterate - I agree with the edit!). It is acceptable to use 'I went to the shop with John and Mary, and Tom' because it implies social structure. It could be that John and Mary are partners, and need to be seen in that light. Or it may be that John and Mary were the ones you primarily wanted to come to the shops, and Tom tagged along as an afterthought. In both cases the grammar makes a point about importance. Now, in the case of 'Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands', the grouping that is done has political implications to do with ideas of dominance (Great Britain and Ireland are 'more important', whatever that means, than, say, the Channel Isles or the Island of Man - I think those are their correct names, yes? ;-) ). And that, I think, is something we'd do very well to avoid in an article as disputed as this one... BlackMarlin (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

John Dee first mention issue

Given that this has come up again (see earlier insertion) I think we need to resolve this. Todate the article has gone with the referenced material which shows the first use as being John Dee, which also coincides with the de facto start of the British Empire. We had the various ArmChair exchanges above with issues over translation etc. It seems to me that:

• The translation of the map is at best ambiguous
• We see no further use of even ambiguous language until Dee
• The modern construct or use of the term is clearly tied up with post-Elizabethan use which also accounts for the multiple controversies over the name
• In any event the phrase "the first english use" is wrong

I still don't understand why this is a political issue by the way. Its a minor issue and not central to the main debate on the legitimate and illegitimate uses (I take the position that there are both) of the term. --Snowded ^TALK 18:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get this "first use in English" thing. "British Isles" is an English language term, and an apparently similar term in a different language such as Latin does not necessarily have precisely the same meaning. "Insulae Britannicae" can be translated as "British Isles", but that is not the only translation, as I've said before - it could be translated as "Britannic islands" (small "i") for example, which does not have the same connotations of sovereignty/domination at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars are occurying, so the article should probably be locked for another week lol. The current dispute on use of the word English probably depends on what the OED source says, but as of yet no body has produced this source so how do we know if they say Dee was first to use the term in English or just first to use it. Im still very unhappy about Dee being mentioned at all in the introduction, i dont think its justified BritishWatcher (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got access to the OED. What do you want looked up? -- Evertype·✆ 18:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well whats the entry under British Isles on there? does it mention Dee? apparently it says hes the first guy to use the term, but different people not just armchair and his maps have disputed this. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, his is the first citation in the OED, and I have put in that footnote. Also I have added a section on etymology (based on what's in the OED), so you can look at that too. -- Evertype·✆ 18:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the citation: 1577 J. DEE Arte Navigation 65 "The syncere Intent, and faythfull Aduise, of Georgius Gemistus Pletho, was, I could..frame and shape very much of Gemistus those his two Greek Orations..for our Brytish Iles, and in better and more allowable manner." 1621 P. HEYLYN Microcosmus 243 (heading) "The Brittish Isles." -- Evertype·✆ 18:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But does that say he was the first person to ever use the term? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The OED wouldn't usually say that about any word unless it was a coinage like hobbit. It's just the earliest citation. Either Dee coined the word (no evidence either way) or he wrote down something that was at least somewhat current (which would be the predominant paradigm). -- Evertype·✆ 19:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Then the current wording is incorrect and the source provided doesnt back it up. The claim in the article is very clear according to the OED Dee was the first person to use the term. If the OED Doesnt say he was the first to use it, the whole sentence needs removing or atleast for it to say "one of the earliest uses of the term is..." BritishWatcher (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting question BW. If it was any citation I would agree, but here it is the OED, so if there was an earlier reference you would expect that source to list it. --Snowded ^TALK 19:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But that is still very different to what we currently have. Theres a difference between being the first KNOWN to use the term and the first to use the term. Whilst i was always agaisnt the inclusion of the Dee guy i was under the impression the OED actually said something along the lines of "the first to use the term was Dee", i didnt think it was just the first thing they mention. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, fine, that was easy enough to fix. See the relevant sentence. -- Evertype·✆ 20:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

VEry good change thankyou, this fixes the problem in my view although i still dont think it belongs there. We dont say on the Europe article when the word "Europe" came about in the intro but atleast the intro isnt wrong now. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re the new etymology section - although I don't speak Welsh, I do know that "ynys" means island, singular, not "isles", plural - so it presumably relates to Great Britain not the Isles...? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Etymology section could certainly use some sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Same OED entry as the Dee citation. S.v. "British Isles". -- Evertype·✆ 19:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"S.v."... ?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The nomenclature of Britain/GB etc is as potentially misleading in Welsh as in English, however one would never use 'Ynys Prydain' (lit. 'The Island of Britain') for "British Isles". 'Prydain Fawr' ('Great Britain') is also widely used for the island and, as in English and just as incorrectly, strictly speaking, for "Great Britain" as in "UK of GB and NI". Historically, Ynys Prydain had the principal meaning of 'territory of the Brythons', roughly equivalent to Roman Britannia (for this use of Welsh ynys in the sense "land, realm", compare Latin insula). Similarly, 'Prydain' ("Britain") was interchangeable for 'Ynys Prydain' and had the same meaning, and in modern usage should really only refer to the island of Britain itself and, at most, its offlying islands, i.e. England, Scotland, Wales = 'gwledydd Prydain' (a popular modern term meaning "the countries of Britain"; note it doesn't include NI). For "Britain and Ireland" in the geographical sense one would normally say 'Prydain ac Iwerddon', quite logically. 'Ynysoedd Prydain' should, strictly speaking, only be used for the territories of England, Scotland and Wales: does not include Ireland, north or south. Of course, just as in English - and largely thanks to the influence of that language and Anglo-American culture - you will find examples in everyday usage which might appear to contradict some of these definitions! Hope that helps. I'll copy this and add it to the talk page for "British Isles", but I'm not going to be drawn into a protracted and pointless debate (hey, the summer's here, just about!). Enaidmawr (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added an edited version of the above, referenced, to the Etymology section. A bit rushed, but it's Saturday night and I'm going to put my feet up for a while. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I will edit the Welsh refs included by Enaidmawr, which in my view go into too much detail at that point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

⬅I'm not sure why we have the "not necessarily this" added in on the Dee issue. There are two issues here. One is the etymology, where I think we can rely on the OED as an authoritative source that this is the first reference in terms of the derivation of the modern phrase (that is after all the purpose of the OED so if its lists no earlier examples ....). The issue of Dee's politics and his creation (with others) of the myth of Britain is a more complex one and we really need a stand alone cited sentence don;t we? --Snowded ^TALK 09:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. You can't bang out this new sentence in less than a day and hope its alright. It doesn't add anything to the intro.MITH 09:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If this stuff about Dee goes in the intro it needs some caveats to make it really clear that it is highly contrived, very close to being anachronistic OR, and pushes a particular POV. Since Dee was writing in early modern English the compromise would be to move it to the etymology section so it sits after the Greek, Latin, Old English, Middle English versions, and before the Modern English. The easier option would be to take it out altogether - the need to clarify and caveat every sub-clause with citations and comments in parentheses speaks volumes about it's value. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree i really do think this whole Dee sentence should be removed from the intro. The thing was added without debate or agreement moments before the article was locked for a couple of weeks and sadly it has remained there for over a month. It now turns out that the article was incorrect. We were claiming the OED said Dee was the first person to use the term, after being told what the OED actually says its clear they dont say that. Remove it all or the major caveats must remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. The OED shows the etymology of the term, if its first use is Dee then that establishes first use. --Snowded ^TALK 12:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but i still think theres a big difference between the OED listing the first recorded use of the term and having the intro saying Dee was the first person to use the term. those two things are different and until a few days ago we didnt even have the disclaimer that it was the OED saying that. It was placed in this intro as undisputed fact. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole point about etymology is that it shows origins of the modern term. The fact that people may have talked in the past about the British Islands or the Brittanic Islands or whatever is not relevant to the origins of "British Isles" which has a specific meaning. --Snowded ^TALK 12:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, could you explain (with sources) how different people in different ages meant different things when using the same term ("British Isles"). One would think they meant exactly the same thing, even if the spelling changed. Of course, if they did mean different things could you provide a source showing that Dee explicitly included Ireland in his use of the term? Or that King Alfred, Caesar or Pytheas did not? Also, could you explain why you think that we should link the early modern Brytish Iles with the modern English British Isles, but not link the former with earlier spellings of the same words? I'm afraid the logic escapes me. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The word Britain means very different things in Roman Times to what it means today Wiki-Ed. Words and labels mean different things in different periods. I have no idea of John Dee included Ireland or not. What matters here is reliable sources, hence the OED gives us the standard on etymology unless you have something else. --Snowded ^TALK 13:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be pretty obvious, without refs, that Caesar and Pytheas, at least, did not use the term "British Isles". They spoke different languages. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that I thought it was obvious as well, but if not then explanations are necessary. In parallel with I am handling some US Government Knowledge Management people who object to my using the term "evolution" as its a belief so I admit I am in a state alternating between despair and amusement and should probably take a break from editing in consequence .... --Snowded ^TALK 14:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, you're quite right that Caesar and Pytheas were speaking different languages, but the same could be said of Alfred (Old English) and Dee (Early Modern English). That's not really the point - the term has jumped from language to language - there is no reason to isolate it's first use in a moderately comprehensible English as its absolute first use. The OED is telling you that the term derives from modern English's immediate predecessor but we know that derivation is but the first link in a chain. While the OED source is reliable, its usage in this context is not. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The words used by Caesar and Pytheas are not the "same words" as used by later writers. The translation of the Greek and Latin terms which they used into the modern English term "British Isles" is just that - a translation, that is "the interpreting of the meaning of a text and the subsequent production of an equivalent text.. that communicates the same message in another language... Newcomers to translation sometimes proceed as if translation were an exact science — as if consistent, one-to-one correlations existed between the words and phrases of different languages, rendering translations fixed and identically reproducible, much as in cryptography. Such novices may assume that all that is needed to translate a text is to encode and decode equivalents between the two languages, using a translation dictionary as the "codebook". On the contrary, such a fixed relationship would only exist were a new language synthesized and simultaneously matched to a pre-existing language's scopes of meaning, etymologies, and lexical ecological niches." It's worth noting that the translation of Insulae Britannicae into "British Isles" occurred in a time and in a place when the potential connotations of the term "British Isles" were not being probed as forensically as they are on this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, which is why attributing modern-day concepts to a Renaissance author is wrong. On your point about translation you'll note that "Brytish Iles" is not modern English. Most people would work it out, but then again, most people would also work out what the Latin and possibly even the Greek nouns referred to. Since the religious and scholarly parts of society often spoke Medieval Latin in Dee's time it's disingenuous to suggest this term suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Norman Davies isn't shy about describing the etymology in his The Isles, which I assume is mostly agreeable to both sides of this discussion so there's no objective reason why people here should be getting fixated on this. We're not talking about the translation of a whole book and the myriad idioms that might hide within; we're talking about a single noun that has survived and skipped from language to language, albeit with a few spelling changes, for two millennia. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are missing the point. "Brytish Iles" is an English language term with a spelling slightly different from the current spelling. Britannia is Latin, a different language. The individual words "British" and "Isles" clearly had older origins, but we are talking about the first referenced use of the two word term in English. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea when the term was first used or who used it. All im saying is we originally said John Dee was the first person to use it quoting the OED, but the OED apparently doesnt say that, it simply lists John Dee as the first known person to use it. I dont think John Dee belongs in the intro at all, but aslong as its explained John Dee is the first known to use it (like it does now by saying the earliest citation of it is..), rather than a presumption that he was the first to use it then its ok. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, all references in the OED and elsewhere to "first use" are to the first referenced use. Who knows what terms were used in language before they were written down and recorded? No-one. This is getting silly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Im happy with the current wording. Im just pointing out despite several people raising concerns over the past few months about this John Dee guy being included in the article which have been ignored or dismissed, it didnt say what the OED said. Theres a difference between "First use" and "first referenced" use, and ive always wanted that distinction to be made. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If Dee is the first recorded use of the term, then it follows that that is the first use of the term. Pure and simple. Tfz 14:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on people. The earliest attestation in the OED is Dee's from 1577. I already mentioned this above: If Dee had coined the expression, then it does date to 1577. If he did not, he was using something more or less current at the time. The OED citation means that the term is AT LEAST as old as 1577. It could be older. Tfz, you are wrong; "first attested" or "first referenced" mean that and nothing else. Neither means "first use". It is not "pure and simple" as you say it. You can't play fast and easy with lexicography. -- Evertype·✆ 14:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the free lecture, that was implicit in what I wrote, and it is simple. If you can find an earlier reference, then it blows Dee out, as first referenced use. Quite obviously we cannot say it was in use before that, or there would be a citation available. Otherwise we go with Dee. Tfz 14:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Dee is the first use recorded and used in a political context Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Þjóðólfr you've violated the 1RR on this article. I suggest you revert yourself. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

John Dee was an occultist not a statesman; ergo, he appears to have used the term in a metaphysical sense and not imperialistic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Says which WP:RS? Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

His article describes him as an astroger, mathematician, occultist, but not a statesman, hence one has to be prudent when describing him as an advocate of British Imperialism in the political sense that we know it today. England was not ready to challenge the might of Spain in 1577.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is an extract from the Oxford DNB biography of John Dee which I've got through my uni account. It is clear that he was an imperialist, and about when he became an advocate of it: 'From about 1570, however, he emerges, both in manuscript and print, as the advocate of a policy for strengthening England politically and economically, and for imperial expansion into the New World. The first survivor of these manuscript tracts, Brytannicae reipublicae synopsis (1570), perhaps a schematic digest of a larger work requested by Dee's friend and patron Edward Dyer, concerns itself with trade, ethics, and national strength. Six years later he began a much more ambitious project, The Brytish Monarchy, of which only the first part, General and Rare Memorials Pertaining to the Perfect Art of Navigation (1577), achieved print, albeit in a limited edition. Another volume of great bulk was to consist of Queen Elizabeth's Tables Gubernautik, but has not survived; a third volume was destroyed, perhaps by its author, while a fourth, Of Famous and Rich Discoveries, remains only in Dee's now very imperfect manuscript. Concurrently with these writings Dee was producing another work, the Brytanici imperii limites of 1576–8 (extant only in a manuscript by another hand).' 86.44.22.65 (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is why we like to have multiple sources. (1) If, as this source claims, he advocated "strengthening England politically and economically" before England was unified with Scotland was he talking about a "Brytannicae reipublicae" in the sense of a global empire or an empire within the island of Great Britain? (2) Imperialism as a theory developed in the nineteenth century and is quite a lot more complex than increasing "national strength". I think we'd need a peer review of a source which claims this. (3) The foundations of what would become the British Empire had already been laid, so he certainly wasn't the first to come up with the idea. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we sort these out?

From recent debates we have two hangover issues. Before anyone else gets banned can we resolve them?

1 - The history section is currently at its long term stable position, can we now remove the concensus tag?

2 - The John Dee phrase is currently set at "According to the Oxford English Dictionary[citation needed] the phrase 'British Isles' was first used in 1577 by John Dee, whose writings have been described as being politicised.[15][16]". How about we go with this:

• The first referenced use of 'British Isles' was in 1577 by John Dee (OED citation) whose writings have been described as being politicised.[15][16

--Snowded ^TALK 04:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

1- I would suggest the entire text is removed leaving only the redirect.

2- I believe it was Peter Heylin's work that was described as politicised. Dee has been described as an Imperialist - not least as a result of his coining the term British Empire as well as BI. Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to appear contentious, but why doesn't Dee's article describe him as an Imperialist?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Imperialism as a historical theory developed in the 19th century. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would accept the suggested wording, if the current wording cant be kept or the whole mention of Dee cant be removed from the intro. As long as it points out the OED isnt saying he was the first person to use the term, simply hes the first referenced or cited. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that he is the first referenced or cited; an earlier cite may or may not be discovered. PS Jeanne I am working on a section for the Dee article. Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

He might be the "first referenced or cited" in early modern English, but not in history and not in modern English. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

OED etymology not good enough for you? What other citations do you have? --Snowded ^TALK 18:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How about my modern English OED which says "British" is not spelt with a 'y' and "isles" has two 's's? It also says that "etymology" is "an account of the origins and the developments in the meaning of a word", not "the previous version of a word but not the versions that preceded that." So if we use your proposed wording it would need to be amended to say something like: "The first referenced use of "British Isles" in early modern English was in 1577 by John Dee..." to make it clear that it's not modern English term and it's not an original use of the term. From the current wording one might think Dee suddenly conjured (geddit?) up this word and introduced it to English. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The OED reference, as with its etymologies for all its words, goes back as far as the word's origins allow, be they 100 years or 1000 years. In this case the entry under "British Isles" makes it clear that the earliest reference to the term is only in 1577. It's referenced, and the reference is from a source which most British people would view as reliable. If you have a better source, present it. Otherwise this is just a charade. 86.44.22.65 (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It "goes back as far as the word's origins allow" does it? No. There are plenty of sources (try looking at some of those cited in the article) and even other editions of the OED claim differently: my OED [3] says "Britannia" has Latin origins (actually Greek [4]) and below that, it says "British" has Old English origins. Hardly consistent. And if you want more of the sources try looking around - there's quite a few mentioned at the bottom of this article and quite a lot more on all the related forks. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course the individual words have older origins, but that is not relevant here. You are missing the point entirely. We are talking about the use of two words together - "British" and "Isles". Not Britannia or Insulae Britannicae, but a two-word term in the English language - "British Isles". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant. Remember this? Newcomers to translation sometimes proceed as if translation were an exact science — as if consistent, one-to-one correlations existed between the words and phrases of different languages... Language evolves. Etymology is not about the "first" use of a term in a given dialect, it's an account of the origins and the developments in the meaning of a word. Even a cursory glance at a dictionary shows how English incorporates words from many different languages. Do you not see the irony in saying we must focus on "a two-word term in the English language" when the first word has a Greek root?

The second point, which you're missing entirely, is that early modern English is not modern English. If you include that then why do you not include middle or old English? Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Because "Brytish Iles" does not need translating into "British Isles". Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus with one dissenter. Given that the consensus is cited via the OED and the argument against is a form of OR I think this settles it? --Snowded ^TALK 16:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think there's a consensus when only two editors are discussing this properly. I'm very tempted to put a "dubious" tag on the sentence: (1) The OED I have on my shelf says it has Old English roots (2) Other OED editions suggest Peter Heylin was the first to use it in 1621. (3) Various c16 maps (e.g. reproduced above) use it before Dee appeared, even if they are in medieval Latin. We can compromise by putting caveats in to explain why you think it belongs in the intro (which would be very messy because you would have to address all three points I've just made) or you can move it to the etymology section and put it in order. If an article disagrees with its intro then there's clearly something wrong. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

None of those points are relevant - (1) refers to individual words, not the two-word phrase; (2) has been superseded by the Dee citation (see earlier talk); (3) in Latin, not English. All those points can be discounted, and Snowded is correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) You're asserting that the distinction is significant. (2) Yes, but clearly there's a question mark hanging over the reliability of a source which relies on Wikipedia editors to provide information. (3) Yes, scholars across Europe spoke medieval Latin so this should not be a surprise. Why is this translation into a vernacular tongue being accorded special significance? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) Yes. (2) Citations have been provided. (3) Because "British Isles", the English language term, is the term which this article is about. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, you can't say that people have to discuss the issue to your satisfaction in order to have an opinion. This really is a simple issue and I have asked for a review of this (and the issue below) to see if we can proceed to make the change. --Snowded ^TALK 19:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was a simple issue then this talk page wouldn't have 30 archives. And yes, you're entitled to an opinion, which you often supply, but it would be more helpful if you engaged in a discussion of sources and their usage. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I have Wiki-Ed you just don't like it and I'm really not interesting in constantly repeating the same points. l There is far too much of that on this page and the BI related pages in general. Its tedious. For most editors here the OED seems definitive (Although I see you have been lobbying. Oh, by the way please layoff the snide comments they are uncalled for.--Snowded ^TALK 22:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the wiki-stalking eh? And you're right, I don't like subjective synthesis. You may have noticed that repeating the same points doesn't make them correct. This sentence has been debated again and again for six months. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You have a distressing habit of attacking editors when you get frustrated over content issues. Please stop it. I've left comments on Tharky's page so he is on watch. Its Wikistalking if I track down all your edits and reverse them or similar.--Snowded ^TALK 18:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you start making condescending remarks don't be surprised if you get the same back. Wikistalking is following someone around and watching what they're doing; adding comments or reverting their edits simply announces it to the rest of us. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In truth, it's impossible to ever know who created the term British Isles. Reliable sources is the next best thing. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, yes, but we have multiple reliable sources. The argument is over the framing criteria used to determine which one is correct. Some are looking at the origins of the term, some are looking at what they think is the most relevant development in its history. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If multiple sources dispute each other, then they would be un-reliable sources. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It's entirely possible to have two reliable sources presenting differing perspectives on the same topic so long as each side is represented proportionately (as per WP:WEIGHT). But this is not about the weighting of sources; this is about neutrality, specifically selective citing and making something more important than NPOV would present. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

⬅We have a reliable source which supports the wording suggested above, with one dissenting voice. From the dialogue above I think we have consensus (or at least as far as we can). There is not citation yet for any alternative --Snowded ^TALK 19:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Might be time for an RfC on the neutrality of including this phrase in the intro. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the suggested changes also. It looks like a consensus to me too. --HighKing (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear i would rather the current wording on the article than the suggested change. Although the suggested change is far better than what we had for over a month previously which was misleading and inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the intent of the phrase "whose writings have been described as being politicised"? It seems to me to be to be implying that he was also using "British Isles" in a "politicised" way. In other words, the article is taking the following position:

• Premise 1: John Dee used the term "British Isles". (verifiable)
• Premise 2: John Dee's writings have been described as politicised. (verifiable)
• Conclusion: John Dee used "British Isles" in a politicised way.

NO!! This is synthesis: "putting together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." If it is not making such a claim, then why is the article even mentioning that John Dee's writings have been described as "politicised"? The sentence should simply read: "The first referenced use of 'British Isles' was in 1577 by John Dee (OED citation)", unless anyone can put forward a reference that explicitly discusses Dee's usage of the term British Isles. And in that case, the sentence would read something like ..."whose usage of the term has been described as politicised". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What about we use this reference then? John Dee The Limits of the British Empire. It states The book shows that Dee was an important propagandist of empire, that English antiquarianism was used to practical purpose, and that the legal foundations of the empire were not based solely on the indigenous, common law. --HighKing (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is it making the claim regarding Dee's use of the term "British Isles"? Again, it is engaging in synthesis to draw that conclusion if the reference itself makes no such claim. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Here, in David Armitage's The Ideological Origins of the British Empire (p.106) is an extensive discussion about Dee's 'concern to establish the legality of Elizabeth's claims to the islands of the northern Atlantic ....' This leaves no doubt that Dee was on an ideologically imperialist mission when he used the term "British Isles". 86.44.22.65 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself for the third time now. The reference does not explicitly make the same claim that the proposed sentence is clearly implying. See my premise 1/premise 2/conclusion outline above. You are merely substituting premise 2 for a similar one. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that in the absence of a citation linking the two phrases we go with RedHat's suggestion above, removing the implied linkage to Dee's politics. At the same time the above cited material is added into the Dee article so there is a clear context and we should pipelink to the Dee article. On a strict interpretation it is OR to link the two statements (although there are worst examples in the Wikipedia and I don;t think there is any real question that he used the phrase in pursuit of that agenda.). Thatt gives us a clear consensus on first cited use, provides the context of John Dee through the pipelink and allows us to move on. --Snowded ^TALK 04:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That just leaves readers wondering who John Dee is. It would read much better if John Dee had some sort of description (ie. Saint George, Patron Saint of England or John Major, former Prime Minister of the UK, etc.). I don't believe it's necessary to state that his writing is politicized, but I do believe a context should be established for John Dee. What about "John Dee, a noted 16th century scientist, magician, and consultant to Queen Elizabeth I"? HighKing (talk) 05:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with removing that phrase about his writings being described as politicised and replacing it with just a description of who this John Dee guy was which is far more helpful and useful to the reader allowing them to form their own opinions about the guys motives. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Replacing the "politicised writings" clause with an explanation of who Dee was sounds like a good idea to me. And as Snowded says, the newly found references can go into the Dee article if they aren't there already. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We would not David Icke as a TV presenter when decribing his later writings. Likewise it would be misleading to describe Dee as a consultant to QEI as he was not at the time. Dee made the comments wearing his "Imperialist" hat. Þjóðólfr (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In the 16th century the term Imperialist referred to those who supported or formed part of the Holy Roman Empire. Imperialism in relation to Britain derives from the 19th century as another editor corrected ponted out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If clarity is needed, I would suggest British Imperialist - Dee did after all coin the term "British Empire" Þjóðólfr (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No he didn't. The first record of its use that has come down to us is by Thomas Twyne when he used the term in 1573 in his book Breuiary of Britayne, 4 years before Dee's work. I'll amend the British Empire suitably. Bill Reid | (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference? Could you maybe quote what Thomas said here? --HighKing (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Double checking - H. Llwyd was author of Breuiary of Britayne; and Thomas Twyne was the English translator? Anyway, I concede Dee did not coin the phrase; however he still has the first recorded use, in English, of BE. Þjóðólfr (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Twyne was the author and Llwyd was the translator. Highking, the source is the OED; the tranlation is Breuiary of Britayne f. 92, Caduanne also, who from prince of Gwynedh, became Kynge of the Britaynes, and his sonne Cadwalla..whilst the British Empyre was in decayinge. --Bill Reid | (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dee was English not British as the Union had not yet occurred in 1577, hence referring to him as a British Imperialist is not entirely accurate, although it's an improvement on the single word Imperialist, which as I mentioned referred solely to the Holy Roman Empire in Dee's lifetime.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd always thought of him as Welsh. Daicaregos (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

His article says he was born in London of Welsh parentage.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) It's great to see this discussion has become a little more active. Can I just clarify that we have agreed that (a) labelling his writing as politicised is synthesis and (b) the sentence was included because it was believed to be politicised? If so, can we progress to the issue of neutrality, specifically selective citing and assigning undue significance to a verified source? If this sentence belongs anywhere it belongs in the (rewritten) etymology section, sitting alongside other developments in the history of the term. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

...er...no. A modicum of academic research shows that the content of Dee's work was "politicised". Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As per the discussion above, his work might be generally, but that doesn't mean this particular phrase that he used is. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite. It has been established that Dee's work was politicised. But that is a matter for the John Dee article. This article is about the term "British Isles" and unless one or more references are brought forward (via a modicum of academic research or otherwise) which discuss Dee's usage of the term British Isles then there is nothing further to say about John Dee in the article. Also I agree that this sentence belongs in the eytomology section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed "necessarily" to "specifically" as this is more accurate, pending resolution of the wording. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Name in Welsh

User:Mister Flash reverted my change, which had been discussed previously at Talk:British Isles#John Dee first mention issue, here and above at about line 1,107 (!!). I have asked on his talk page for an explanation. The only reason I made that edit was to shorten, without changing the sense in any way, the information provided by User:Enaidmawr which explained aspects of the terminology in Welsh, and the detail of which is not appropriate to that point on the main page.Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Enaidmawr gives a very full and logical explanation of how the term could be used in Welsh but surely at the moment it remains WP:OR until verifiable citations for its inclusion in article space are found. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but it is a corrected version (by a Welsh speaker) of what was previously not only also unverified but (more importantly?) incorrect. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, An Bhreatain Bheag ( Little Britain) has been the Irish name for Wales for at least 1500 years. The common Irish surname, Breathnach, is 'Walsh' or 'Welsh' in English. This would fit in with User:Enaidmawr's history and cast more doubt on modern claims that Ireland was some "Little Britain" historically. Welsh is simply an Old English name for 'foreigner' (O.E. Welisc). It is ultimately cognate with the word 'Walloon' in modern-day Belgium. 193.1.172.145 (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It appeared that some useful material was removed with the edit - Historically, Ynys Prydain had the principal meaning of 'territory of the Brythons', roughly equivalent to Roman Britannia (for this use of Welsh ynys in the sense "land, realm", compare Latin insula). Similarly, 'Prydain' ("Britain") was interchangeable for 'Ynys Prydain' and had the same meaning. Granted, the paragraphs need a bit of tidying up, but not to the extent of removing useful stuff. Another thing was there was no real discussion; about an hour or so from the debate opening to the change being made. Anyway, I thought we were on WP:BRD as a matter of course, just to ensure discussion. No worries, if you want to put it back and take the discussion from that point I won't revert again. Mister Flash (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No probs, but I don't want to get blocked. The material I deleted doesn't seem to me relevant to this article, as it just refers to the one island rather than the "isles" plural. As I read the policy, you would need to self-revert. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I was just going to self revert but was met with an incredibly stupid "in your face" CAUTION about reverting other editors' work. Looks like my revert wouldn't qualify but what the hell. Stuff the article if that's what it's got down to. Mister Flash (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest posting a request on SheffieldSteel's talk page. He is doing the right thing by the article but is more than reasonable. --Snowded ^TALK 16:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake! If we're all too frightened to revert something when there is agreement on it things have gone too far. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the history of this article and the edit wars we just have to live with it for a bit. Its a lot better than the grief of edit wars between groups who will not compromise. I placed a request for comment on SheffieldSteel's talk page a few minutes ago. --Snowded ^TALK 16:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What is it, that ya'll want reverted? GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see now. PS: I thought this article was under a 1RR restriction, but I see it's under full restriction. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I will not sanction any editor who makes an edit based on consensus reached through the bold-revert-discuss process.

If a revert leads to a discussion and a consensus, then this editing restriction has worked. Conversely, if editors feel they can't make an edit that they all agree on, then it hasn't, presumably because I haven't explained well enough, and I apologise for that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that SS. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology section

This section is currently a bit of a mess. I think it should draw from this article which seems to be moderately comprehensive and use a few headings to describe the evolution of the term through the ages. I would suggest keeping the first sentence (The term derives from the adjective British and the plural of the noun isle.) and then breaking up the remainder and inserting headings thus:

• Greek exploration

Original Greek naming and link to Britain (name)

• Roman conquest

Classical Latin derivation and usage of Britannia (etc) linking to article.

• Anglo-Saxon conquest

Old English derivations and usage by Bede and King Alfred etc.

• Norman conquest

Derivations via Old French and Medieval Latin linking closely to:

• Modern usage

Describing how fifteenth and sixteenth century geographers, scholars and John Dee returned the term to vernacular usage. It could also explain the history of the controversy at this point.

• Welsh usage

It's not clear how this fits in or why it has been included at all given certain editors' insistence that only early modern English and after is relevant. It might have a place, but only if it's tied in.

I also wonder whether "etymology" should really sit at the top of the article on a geographical area while "geography" and "geology" sit half way down the page. I'm guessing it's probably not worth trying to change that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No objections if the material is cited as etymology rather than been a collection of references to "British" and "Islands". The evolution through the ages would also need citation (from whenever I make no comment on your categories) I don't see why the welsh is there to be honest provided the correct welsh equivalent is given along with other non-English languages. I also agree that it would be better further down in the article. --Snowded ^TALK 23:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It would not need to do much more than link to the "Britain (name)" article - there is no need in this article to go into the etymology of "Britain" / "British" in any more detail than is absolutely necessary - and it would probably be confusing if this were to be attempted. This article is specifically about the origins and use of the two word English language term, "British Isles". I agree that the Welsh ref is not absolutely necessary - my previous comments on that were simply to correct earlier misunderstandings. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Who says this article is "specifically about the origins and use of the two word English language term"? The intro says it is a geographical term and etymology would cover the origins as well as the development of that geographical term. I'll draw together some of the material in other articles at the weekend. It seems to have been forked off at some point. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

British Isles naming dispute

Please be advised that I have nominated the above-named article for deletion. Please comment on the AfD Talk page (follow links from the AfD tag on the article or go to the log page here). MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Dee, "whose writings have been described as politicised"

I have gone ahead and removed this phrase, given that it constitutes synthesis and noone has put forward a reference to show otherwise. To recap, the problem is the unverified claim that the sentence is blatantly implying by sticking two verified claims together:

• Premise 1: John Dee used the term "British Isles". (reference verifies this)
• Premise 2: John Dee's writings have been described as politicised. (reference verifies this)
• Conclusion: John Dee used "British Isles" in a politicised way (NO!! This is synthesis: reference does not make this claim).

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

The question has to be asked; in an article about a major geographical entity such as this one, why is half the lede paragraph devoted to a squabble about naming, especially when we already have a complete article about said squabble? This could be covered in a single sentence, if it should even be in the lede at all. Black Kite 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting political PoVs accompanied by edit wars, is why. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm completely aware of the conflicting PoVs, I'm wondering why something so trivial is in the lede rather than in a separate paragraph, that's all. Oh yeah - same answer. Anyway, I propose to move all apart the sentence explaining that there is a naming dispute to a separate paragraph per WP:UNDUE. Please discuss here. Black Kite 14:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved the Dee sentence out of the squabble sentence, since - per my post above - its presence there was part of a synthetic argument, ie no reference supports the claim it was blatantly implying - and after removing the synthesis, it no longer belongs in that paragraph at all. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll can do as ya wish, I'm quite neutral, when it comes to this article's content. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh no you can't "do as you wish" - even if it is the 12th of July. This was a major change made when Irish people were off at GAA matches and when the Dublin wikipedians are celebrating. The matches are over now so watch this one explode. I've reverted it to the agreed version. GoodDay, I get the impression that you are more "neutral on the side of the British" than neutral per se, but whatever. 78.16.173.206 (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Truism

"The term derives from the adjective British and the plural of the noun isle.". What a great definition! Presumably the term "United Kingdom" derives from the word "united", meaning "joined together", and "kingdom", the lands ruled by a king? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed this sentence. Although this first struck me as a truism, which is grounds enough for removal, on further reflection it strikes me as deliberately implying something. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)