Talk:British Isles

Anonymous IPs

Can we do something about these? How about reverting them? They invariably have nothing to add, and often spew grotesque anti-British vitriol in the mistaken belief that "British Isles" has something to do with the UK. Surely one of the reasons for this article is to educate such ignoramuses about the true origin of the term? ðarkuncoll 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So, Tharky, "British Isles" has nothing to do with the UK? How very idiosyncratic. Is there anyway we can do something about editors who refuse to face historical and political facts about the origin and use of this term? Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether TharkunColl is actually calling me an ignoramus in particular, or just getting annoyed about people who can read references that he apparently doesn't like? Other than that, I wonder where there's been any "grotesque anti-British vitriol" recently. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason you don't create an account? Although you are perfectly entitled to choose not to do so, editors with accounts are taken far more seriously than those without. It takes less than 30 seconds to set one up. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is beginning to enforce measures to slow them [1], but sadly I think we're a long way from seeing them being blocked from article talk pages. In the meantime they get to use this space like a forum. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason both of you don't create your own online encyclopedia with, say, the name Britipedia? Wikipedia allow ips to contribute. That is the way wikipedia operates. You have both been told this several times. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is no longer a wikipedia rule. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

WHen they say Editors will have to approve versions, do they mean any user with an account or admins? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

()This is an interesting section. However, I'll stick to what Wikipedia says about itself, rather than what a bunch of people with Anonymous silly names seem to think. "You do not have to log in to read Wikipedia, nor is a registered account required to edit Wikipedia articles" 213.155.151.233 (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

valid point. it is amusing to watch anonymous pseudonyms complaining about anonymous IPs - ClemMcGann (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a sad reflection on you that you find it amusing. Registered user names are a way of establishing a track record and relationships with others in this online community, even if we don't go by our real names. It doesn't matter what people call themselves as long as we know we are dealing with the same person behind the name and can see what that individual has contributed to the project. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not interested in the person, but in the sources. I don't really care if Mr.Red Hat exists or not. The sources do, or not. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that is amusing - perhaps you could provide some reliable sources to support your theories? Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source in support of my theory, it's the rules of Wikipedia. [2]. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.". My existence as a human, a number, an hyper-intelligent dog or simply an agent on a Turing machine are all beside the point, as is whether or not I have a funny nickname. The sources matter, I do not. Mr.Red Hat's (or any nickname's) relationships with other editors also do not matter. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Most editors already know my views on IPs who refuse to create an account. Therefore, I won't repeat it. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell us them again, GoodDay - just for the craic ;-) Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Rugby Team in the Alternative Names Section

I'm happy that a reference has been found to show that the rugby team was renamed, and indeed that it was for "politically corrrect" reasons. I'm still not bowled over by the reliability of it (where was it published, aside from someone at a university putting it in their public html directory? who peer reviewed it?). Regardless of that though, it's ridiculous to have a long statement about the fine details of a rugby team in a section on alternative names in an article on a geographical entity. The alternative names section should state that alternative names are Britain and Ireland (ref: Folens, NatGeo) or in adjectival form British and Irish (ref: paper mentioning rugby team). In other words, these should just be inline references supporting the alternative names. The full details on the rugby team should be in the sports section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 08:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

ps HighKing - as someone who has repeatedly reverted here on the grounds that there is "no consensus", how about following your own rules? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 08:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: (1) change the intro wording as follows: "The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, which after several centuries of British intervention and rule was partitioned in 1922 into two, six counties in the north opting to remain within the United Kingdom, with the remainder of the island leaving the UK." (gives some background as to British/Irish history) (2) create a "Naming Issue" section and move the text that was in the intro there (3) do as I suggest above by making the road atlas and rugby team supporting reference for simply stating what the alternative names are. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 09:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose im not sure i like the sound of that, its politicizing the intro even more than it already is. I think the current introduction is reasonable, first paragraph covering what the British Isles is and the second covering the problems, objections and alternative. Seems ok to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't explain, anywhere, the shared history which is why this is such a hot potato. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A section on the background including the political side would be useful but i dont think it need go into detail about that in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Your proposal won't make the lead any shorter, and complicates it. Also, why are you proposing a new section and moving the "naming issues" to it when you shot down a similar proposal by me involving a simple list earlier? --HighKing (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

why is the intro length an issue? Re your proposal I disagreed with a "list of examples". Here I suggest listing the alternative terms and putting the "examples" as inline refs. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Any why has the content of the reference, from an academic source, been edited out again and the dubious tag been replaced (other than that the source contradicts what some people learned at school)? 213.155.151.233 (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to replace the tags with the ref, fine. But expanding text which is already the subject of a dispute as to why it is in that section is not ok (not without the consensus that is demanded by Snowded and Highking every time anyone else attempts to make a change.). It cuts both ways. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't rate this source particularly highly. There are numerous other sources which give varying explanations, and which are more rugby-specific. (This source, for example, has "On the tour to New Zealand in 1950, the team officially adopted the Lions name".) That it is an "academic" source does not, IMO, make it expecially credible on this point - it appears only as a footnote in a paper about team selection in golf, the writers are not experts in rugby, according to their research interests, and as far as I can tell have not published anything on the subject. It is highly unlikely that the note would be fact-checked or peer-reviewed, and they do not supply a source for their assertion. --hippo43 (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Support RHoPF's proposal. --hippo43 (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The journalistic source is from a cricket and rowing buff. So we can have a cricket and rowing buff or a Professor of Sports Studies from Stirling University. Also, the Times (as shown previously) also says that the Lions name was a nickname only. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"A cricket and rowing buff"?? No, a professional who regularly writes on rugby, writing an article specifically about the Lions name, published by a respected source. You're making my point for me - even the Times contradicts itself, so trying to be so specific and claiming that this one source is authoritative just because it is 'academic' is spurious. --hippo43 (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Kidd is the source, and your opinion that he's "a professional who writes regularly on rugby" is worth SFA. Besides, Kidd has written (apparently) about four times as much about property as about rugby, and nowhere near as much as he does about cricket. The academic source is a professor of sport in a respected British University. No contest. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Having been away for a bit I'm frankly amazed. We have an article by two academics from a respectable university who write an article about the whole issue of naming and clearly state that the name was changed in 2001. For anyone who knows anything about Rugby the name change in 2001 is well known (witness the programmes etc.), the issue has been to find something that will satisfy those who feel that using such evidence is OR. Yes they are also more commonly just called the Lions, but the official name changed in 2001. I can't understand why people are getting so worked up about this. The name change happened, its worthy of note it really should not be an issue. --Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What is getting lost is that this is an article about the British Isles, not a rugby team. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

While I believe what's getting lost is an objective and neutral POV. --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So best also mention that they continue to use the term then. [3] "The Tri-Nations champions scored four tries in the first half - two of which were intercepted efforts from jet-heeled winger Bryan Habana - to end their tour of the British Isles on a positive note." Yet again, we see it's not as simple as the cherry-pickers would have us believe. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Especially when the quote isn't referring to the team name, which is what this discussion is about. Cherry-pickers indeed.... --HighKing (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remind me, why is the team name even relevant again to an article on the British Isles? Oh yes, because it's supposed to mean something about changing patterns of usage, isn't it. Oh wait, but we've just found - yet again - the body which has supposedly banished it because of its political incorrectness still using it. Oh how inconvenient. I know, let's try the same tactic that we did for the road atlases. (Yawn.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well - since you asked. Fact: The team name was changed. If you want to maintain that it was because of political incorrectness, please provide a reference. I haven't said it was so, and it seems you are attempting to attribute a motive to editors that disagree with you. Try to keep the discussion on the content please. (Fart in your general direction) --HighKing (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fact: the surface of the sun is very hot. Not relevant to an article on the British Isles though, is it? Same goes for a rugby team changing its name. So why even bother mentioning this in the article, which is about a geographical entity? You tell me. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

()The rugby team was called the British Isles. The sun is hot, but it's not called the British Isles. The rugby team changed its name and there is academic source to say that it was for reasons of political correctness, to change away from British Isles. It's 100% relevant. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is all getting very silly. The term British Isles will continue to be used for some time, no one is disputing that fact (some people think it shouldn't be used but that is another matter). The fact that institutions have been renamed formally to British and Irish is significant in the context of this paragraph. it is different that than the casual use of British Isles in a newspaper article, and its not cherry picking to say so. All it says is that there is a change in terminology, that is what we should report. --Snowded ^TALK 14:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So, it seems that the dubious tag should be removed and the reference replaced. Objections? 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, on what basis are you "ruling" that casual use of "British Isles" in a newspaper article is not important but the name of a rugby team is? If this sentence stays in then we need a balancing statement reflecting the millions of hits on the internet and in Google books. The way it reads it seems that organisations are falling over themselves to stop using the term. That just isn't true. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The way it reads it seems that organisations are falling over themselves to stop using the term C'mon, are you taking the piss? Seriously, I'm surprised you'd resort to tactics of hyper-exagerration - extreme positions like this just make your argument weaker. All that comes across is that you've a problem with any mention of a fact that indicates that "British Isles" is not being used as much by different organizations and publications. The best argument you can find is to read stuff (mostly a hyper-exaggerated emotive POV) into the article that isn't even there, and you refuse any suggestions (a simple list). We're just going round in circles on this one.... --HighKing (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Resorting to ad hominem attacks, now? I'm emotive and taking the piss? Anyway. If you want to state that alternative names for the collection of island exist, and put - as inline citations - supporting references for that, fine. But what you want goes much, much further than that. You want to list only the organisations that don't use the term under cherry-picked circumstances (road atlas cover OK, ignore road atlas description; rugby team name OK, ignore mentions on rugby team website). And why do you want to list them? Because you want to demonstrate changing usage. So what about all the stuff you aren't mentioning? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look very very closely, there is no ad hominen comments made. I asked a question - are you taking the piss by trying to make out that the article even comes close to making it sound like organizations are falling over themselves to stop using the term. I note you didn't answer the question. I also did not call you emotive - are you taking the piss again with that comment too? And would you care to elaborate on all the stuff that's not being mentioned? --HighKing (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a most surprising rant from a noted ad hominem attack spotter. By the way HK, testing the waters again are we - Benjamin Franklin? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No surprise to see a barbed comment from MDM. Typical that you wouldn't bother to actually read what I'd actually said. --HighKing (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Red Hat, I honestly think you need to sit back and take a more objective look at this, you're getting sucked into a extreme position which appears ideological committed to maintain the BI label and denigrate any change even when referenced. The official change of name of a team is significant. The fact that a newspaper uses a geographic term to describe a tour is a so what issue. BI is a valid term, that use is legitimate (they comple, it has NOTHING TO DO with the issue, which is a shift in the names used. No one is saying that people are falling over themselves to change the name, if the wording says that we should change it (I don;t see that it does but I am open to argument). What is being reported is a simple set of facts.--Snowded ^TALK 22:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why was there a change in terminology? Do we know? Perhaps we could find a reference. In itself the change within the context in which it appears in the article is not at all relevant. It is the reason for the change that may be relevant, so I suggest that unless we can find a reference to explain the change we should not be mentioning it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A reference from an academic source has been produced so we do know why the terminology was changed. There's also been a news report about a NI politician complaining about the same reason as mentioned in the academic source. The name was changed to a name that was more politically correct. I think "politically correct" is a direct quote. 89.204.241.211 (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to it please (I note the one from the Times)? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think HighKings recent change improves the sentence and makes it less problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The current phrasing, with since - now is creaky and horrid, if HighKing will excuse me for saying so. Looking back there was a very simply phrased version, with reference, that was clearer and easier and had the university reference. 83.147.165.129 (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Substitute "are now" with "has been" - perhaps? MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd go along with that. --HighKing (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't. It's in deep dark passive voice, which is generally awful unless you at least say who did what. We know that the national unions renamed the team, and why. So here's a better version. In 2001 the British Isles Rugby Union team, often known informally as the British Lions, was renamed the more politically correct "British and Irish Lions"(ref). It's accurate, it's short, it's got the reference to support it. 89.204.234.0 (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And it's rubbish. Who says it's more politically correct, whatever that means? All we have so far is an opinion. Until someone can find a reference from the team itself stating why they renamed themselves then we've still got a problem. MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence started out OK, but I dislike the ending, especially "renamed the more politically correct". --HighKing (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's in the reference. It's verifiable. 83.147.165.129 (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Britannica or POV?

I was "bold" and edited in a single word, mirroring the phrasing in Encyclopedia Britannica. It was immediately reverted. My edit was 100% supported by reference and should stand. The reversion was - as far as I can see - based on nothing more than denial, as is apparently usual around here. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted for two reasons. First of all as it was a change to the introduction you should of atleast mentioned it here first to see if there was support for the change considering the long attempts to get consensus for the current wording. Second you mention you want it to be inline with the Britannica source, well your change did not do that.

The source says " it has become increasingly controversial, especially for some in Ireland who object to its connotation of political and cultural connections between Ireland and the United Kingdom."

Your change said..

"The term British Isles is increasingly controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to its usage"

That doesnt sound exactly the same to me, the source says "some in Ireland object" which is rather different. Although Britannica articles are always awfully worded anyway and we should not be copying things word for word, i think thats against the rules. Adding the word "Increasingly" changes the balance of the sentence, so you should have mentioned it here first. In future please do NOT be bold on the introduction of this article, because i will revert anything i have the slightest problem with. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

BW would you tone it down a bit. There is now a reliable source which uses "increasingly" and either by quotation (which is allowed) or my paraphrase its legitimate to included it. You have to have a valid reason for reversion and "I have a slight problem" is not one. --Snowded ^TALK 13:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

BW's reasons (doesn't make same claim as source) are as valid as any of your reasons for reverting in the past, Snowded. However in this case I have to agree with my bearded Welsh friend. I don't think the edit was a problem. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse there must be a valid reason for the revert, although it depends on peoples point of view if its justified or not. I think in this case both reasons i gave were valid. Id have been ok with the change had it been reworded to..

""The term British Isles is increasingly controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are some objections to its usage"

Although for the introduction i do think we should always try to seek opinions here on making a change first to the current agreed wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Britannica mentions that the term is increasingly controversial and then says that's the case "especially for some in Ireland". The Britannica article indicates that it's increasingly controversial in general and that the problem is especially acute for some in Ireland, not that there are only "some objections to its usage". We have references saying that other terms are increasingly preferred or favoured, which is totally in line with Britannica's description of the main term becoming increasingly controversial. My change was the smallest possible change that I could make and respect the references that I can see, or that I'm aware of. The term is increasingly controversial...Britannica, check. The term is controversial primarily in relation to Ireland...other references, check. From reading through the (painful) archives of this article it's obvious that the some, many or most, argument has been done to death and that there's been consensus not to include any modifiers on the amount of objection because different sources indicate different things and that the references should speak for themselves rather than editors to-and-froing all the time. No-one seems to be happy with that approach but everyone seems to be equally unhappy, which is one way of reaching stable consensus. Therefore I suggest that my edit was good.
On the point of when to be bold and when to revert, I absolutely reject the suggestion that "I have a slight problem with it" is any kind of grounds for reverting. If there's a reference that contradicts Britannica or which indicates that Britannica is exaggerating then let's see it. Otherwise it's purely personal opinion driving the revert. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have the right to revert any change i disagree with once if there is no consensus here on the talk page. As i said before, please avoid being bold with the introduction when it took a long time to get agreement on the current wording. I still consider the change you made to alter the balance of the sentence, which needs to be adjusted elsewhere in the sentence to keep it neutral. Im not a fan of Britannica as a source anyway, they have some horrible articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Point of order - 1R is not a "right", in the same way that 3R is not a "right". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has a problem with an alteration done to the article, they have a right to revert it. Being BOLD and making a change with no discussion, depends on peoples right to revert. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll second the point of order. There is no "right" to revert or to make any other edit unless the change the editor makes is sustained by verifiable reference. There is no indication that there is any such sustenance in this case. 89.204.241.211 (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see where it states i do not have the right to revert something that has not been discussed that i disagree with, especially when we are talking about the introduction which took a long time to get agreement on. There have been endless number of reverts on this page, its why we currently have the 1RR in force to prevent edit warring.

He was BOLD, i reverted. Its then meant to be talked about here and if people support the change it can be readded. I reject the suggestion that anything i have done has not been fully within the rules and perfectly acceptable considering the environment of this article. If i make a change to the intro now which is backed up by references and can not be disputed, do people not have the right to revert it? ofcourse they do. Had he made the change to any other part of the article, i would not of been bothered.. but i watch all changes to the introduction and as i said before i will revert any change i disagree with that isnt discussed on this talk page first. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅BW I think you just reverted a correction of a quote. Aren't you getting a bit 1RR trigger happy? --Snowded ^TALK 10:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

He made a change to the intro too adding the word "many". Ive recorrected the if/is thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It does seem that there's no objection to the insertion of increasingly except BritishWatcher's dislike of it. Since it's from Britannica, that does trump dislike. 83.147.165.129 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As no one else seems to have a problem with "increasingly" being added then ill re-add it. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Now we have increasingly used twice in the (short) paragraph. It doesn't read well. Can we get rid of one of them, at least? MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Undone the change for the moment. Is there an alternative word that could be used instead of increasingly in one of the cases? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Howabout 'more frequently'? GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No opinion on the issue at hand, but are there really, as Britannica suggests, people who object to the idea that there are cultural connections between Ireland and the United Kingdom? Who are these people, and why should we care what anyone who is so obviously divorced from reality has to say about anything? john k (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Regretably there are such people, and nearly all of them seem to be editors on Wikipedia. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen people on Wikipedia who object to the idea that there are political connections between Ireland and the United Kingdom, I've not yet seen anyone who has openly and explicitly objected to the idea that there are cultural connections. It's just a very strange claim. john k (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

All things are relative. We have cultural connections to all of humanity nowadays. We share 98.9% of our genetic code with chimpanzees and are discovering cultural similarities as research progresses. We are more heavily influenced, culturally, by America for the past half century than by Britain. I'd guess what people are objecting to is the neo-Unionist assertion that we are the same culture. Sarah777 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

English, Irish, Scots, Welsh; they are all fundamentally the same race and share a common culture. That common culture is influenced by American culture due to their world domination of the media. As for the sub-races of the British Isles, they influence each other all the time. The Irish are no more separate from the mix than the English. The only differnece is that a majority of the Irish live in a country that's politically independent from the others. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

See? I guess that is the sort of thing causes Britannica to state that many folk are hostile to the theory of a "common culture". Sarah777 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Where do they state that? MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No point in arguing with Unionist myth-making Sarah --Snowded ^TALK 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Monday's papers from the two countries are indicative of the level of cultural sameness. The Irish papers were covered - front and back - by Sunday's sporting spectacular. The best game in years, possibly the best team of all time, a run equaling a record that stood since the 1940s by a team which contained names that are still renowned 60+ years later, and all played to a capacity crowd in one of the biggest stadia in Europe was all over the press and radio. The UK papers contained no mention whatsoever of the same events, even in the sports section. A common culture, really? No, not really. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some peculiar activities do take place only in Ireland, and others, equally peculiar, only in England, Scotland or Wales. I didn't say the common culture we share is the sum of the culture of the islands, I said we share a common culture - each country also has its own unique elements. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Increasingly is in the references and we shouldn't worry about searching for synonyms.83.147.165.129 (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• MidnightBlueMan, you are missing something. English, Irish, Scots, Welsh, Africans, Latin Americans, South Asians, Chinese, Japanese, and so on are all fundamentally the same — we are all human beings, and we have similar needs and wants. Race is a social construct; an individual should be judged on the basis of merit, not on the basis of race, ethnicity, or nationality. AdjustShift (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The points you make are totally irrelevant to the issue being discussed, but they do support what I say. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't support what you say. The "common culture" is no more common than any random selection of places in Northern Europe. Kerry and Lincolnshire have far less culture in common than Gt.Yarmouth and Ijmuiden or Devon and Brittany. Several of the largest sporting and cultural events of the year in Ireland are total non-events in the UK, and vice versa. This isn't a case of "peculiar activities", it's a case of different cultures. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

MidnightBlueMan, the points I made are relevant to the issue being discussed. You said "English, Irish, Scots, Welsh; they are all fundamentally the same race and share a common culture." There is no such thing called "English race" or "Irish race" or "African race"; there is only one race — the "human race". And Britain and Ireland don't share a "common culture". As Sarah777 has pointed out above, Ireland is more influenced, culturally, by the US for the past half century than by Britain. I'm not from the US, and a non-native speaker of English. I grew up watching WWE and movies like American Pie, eating hamburger, and I developed a deep interest in the American Old West. I share more common things with the American than with the people of my neighboring country. The same applies with many Irish people. Many Irish share more common things with the Americans than with the British. AdjustShift (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think the people of your neighbouring country don't like hamburgers, American Pie, WWE and the Old West? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You are not getting what I'm saying. I share more common things with the Americans than with my neighbors. The people of my neighboring country may also share common things with the Americans than with the people of my country. AdjustShift (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So if you have things in common with Americans, and the British have those same things in common with Americans ... then Hey Presto, you have those things in common with the British! And possibly some other things too. What I mean is, Britain and Ireland share a lot of culture, even if some of that culture is American. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your point. AdjustShift (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Another thing worth mentioning just in case it's been forgotten, is that the USA was colonised by the English and not the other way around. I might also add that British English is taught and spoken in Ireland, not American English.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

<>The Spanish, Dutch, Italians, Germans, Irish, Poles, and others also had a hand in the USA. As for the English in Ireland, it's a hybrid and is neither American or British English. 89.204.251.182 (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The original 13 colonies which formed what is now the United States of America were British, which is why English is spoken in the USA and not Polish or Italian. Oh, you left out the French. They were early explorers and colonisers of North America.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And the west coast was Spanish or Russian, with most of the middle being French. So? The point remains that the USA is not culturally specifically English. 89.204.242.122 (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

But the founding colonies of the United States were English/British. Many things about America traces its roots back to Britain, be it common law, the bill of rights, the language, etc.. perhaps even greatness ;) But im not sure what this has to do with anything related to this article which needs changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Germans had a huge influence on the early USA, with German language seriously being considered for the national language of the new state. Imagine a German speaking USA, special relationship. The Yankees made America the country it is today, the good and the bad. The Germans have always been culturally a very advanced group, and much of British culture as we know it today was imported from France Germany, Holland, Spain, and of course Italy, with Ireland influencing the northern part of Great Britain. It's a mix, and has a totally different 'feel' than Britain. Tfz 13:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever about the USA, the relevant point for here is still well illustrated by a recent point about last weeks UK and Irish papers. 89.204.243.228 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Etymology again

User:Ghymyrtle left the following message on my talk page which really belongs here: Please self-revert. The Foster ref. p.1, says "Pytheas... refers to the British Isles as the 'Pretanic islands'". The Allen ref, p.174, makes no ref to the naming of the islands at all, and says that "Diodorus employed the name Pretannia.. to describe the country..." (without explaining what is meant by "the country"). Neither of the refs support the assertion in the current text that "The British Isles first appeared in the writings of travellers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia." The Allen ref seems totally irrelevant. I don't deny that Massalian travellers referred to islands, and those references may (according to Foster) be to what is sometimes now called the "BI" - but that is precisely what my amendment would show. It is wrong to state "the BI" first appeared in those writings - obviously, it was not the islands themselves that appeared, it was a reference to them, and the term "BI", in the English language, came much, much later. The current text, frankly, is nonsensical and not supported by the refs.

The only nonsensical text would be weasel words like "References to the islands later known as the British Isles..." This isn't an article about a has-been popstar; it's an article about the British Isles and the section in question is describing the evolution of the term. Stop trying to split hairs. The Allen reference - the first line of the previous paragraph shows he is talking about the "British Isles" and the relevant sentence actually says, in full: "Diodorus employed the name Pretannia, Latinized from Pytheas' Pretannike, to describe the country, and Pretani for its inhabitants." Pytheas came from Massalia. Foster and all the other sources make it quite clear he was writing about the British Isles, not writing references to them. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The current version states: "The British Isles first appeared in the writings of travellers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia." It is untrue. The term "British Isles" did not appear in those documents (obviously - different language). The Allen ref is irrelevant - it refers to a "country", not specifying whether that term means one island, part of an island, or something else. His preceding paras refer variously to "Britain" and "the British Isles". The ref certainly does not state that the term used by Diodorus refers to the specific group of islands which later became known as the "British Isles". There is a problem with the Foster ref - self-evidently it exists, but, so far as I know, Foster provides no evidence for his assertion that the 'Pretanic islands' are the same as what became the "BI". We don't know. What we do know, for certain, is that the term "British Isles" did not exist at the time of Pytheas, because there was no English language. It is therefore wrong to state that "the British Isles first appeared" then, and more correct to say that "References to the islands later known as the British Isles..." first appeared then. It's not splitting hairs, it's being accurate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not have strong feelings on this matter and dont know the history of the term / its usage, so if clarification in that section is needed thats fine with me although agreement will be needed on this talk page first so the revert was correct. "References to the islands later known as" is not something i like the sound of at all, would we describe Europe in such a way? "References to the continent later known as Europe".. i highly doubt it, but nobody look for an example to try and catch me out! lol BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Grammatically it was awkward saying that "The British Isles first appeared in the writings", so I've amended it to "The first references to the islands as a group appeared in the writings ..." and have clarified it subsequently as "providing several variations referring to the geographical area of the British Isles, including Britain and Ireland, which have survived." Trust that's clearer. . dave souza, talk 14:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise I think that's clear and accurate. It saves us a debate on Ghyrtle's bizarre language-related argument, questioning the validity of the sources and revising history etc. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The revisionism is surely the unreferenced and bizarre claim that the term "British Isles" was in existence in the 4th century BC. But let's move on... Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Good change that wording is far more clearer. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

semi-protect

Would someone semi-protect this? We've got newly created IPs who are very "knowledgeable" reinserting material against prior consensus. Given the Irr restriction this makes it very difficult --Snowded ^TALK 20:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is the "prior consensus" to remove the referenced information about John Dee's politics? Removing it is designed to deny that the term "British Isles" in its very origins is a politically contrived term. Removing well-referenced sources for Dee's imperialist politics in order to propagate a political agenda which claims this term is not political is ethically wrong and against wikipedia policy. Such a removal is, plain and simply, part of a British nationalist political agenda. Please have the decency to be honest about what is really going on here. 213.202.190.199 (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(i) look at the talk history, first use yes, speculation as to motive is OR, (ii) please avoid conspiracy theories and (iii) do us all a favour and list the previous IDs under which you have edited. --Snowded ^TALK 20:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no speculation about his motives: all of his biographers are at one that he was motivated by imperialism. As the DNB entry puts it (and the DNB is not one of those articles referenced in the article pointing out his imperialist ideas and views): "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)." The guy wrote several books about creating a "British empire". There is no "original research" there either. It is serious head-in-the-sand stuff to write this off as "original research". And "head-in-the-sand" is a generous way of putting what's really going on with the wikipedia editors in question. 213.202.190.199 (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we need an admin to come and block this IP for breaking the 1RR?? (if he has) , the history page is confusing im lost which are allowed to be reverted theres been several IP changes today. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The link between BI as a name and Dee's motives has to be established. Its not enough to say X was motivated by A, X said B thereofre B was motivated by A. That aside, how about answering point (iii) above. --Snowded ^TALK 20:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is well established. The guy was an imperialist, he advocated English, indeed British, imperialist expansion, and he is the first person, according to the OED, to coin the terms "British Empire" and "British Isles" in the course of that advocacy. To contend that there is no verifiable connection is disengenuous at best. To remove these references is letting political views of editors triumph over Wikipedia's requirement for referenced sources. Also, there are many other sources in absolute agreement about John Dee's imperialist politics. There is no authority on Dee in denial about his imperialist politics. But there are rightwing British nationalist editors here in denial. Ergo, these sources are censored.213.202.190.199 (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

it does not matter if the material should be added or not, it needs agreement here first. You added it, i have reverted it but then you broke the rules by restoring the information. Please undo that restoration IP because i have contacted admins asking someone to take a look. We can debate this matter here, but u need to undo that revert of yours. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If an admin comes they need to read the different edits carefully. Most of the edit warring has been over use of Republic of Ireland / Ireland. The only thing i have undone is the edit by the IP who added stuff about John Dee, this has not been agreed on the talk page so reverted it for the first time, nobody else reverted it so ive not broken the 1RR just so everyones clear on this.

On the issue of ROI which there is an edit war going on, im fine for that to just say Ireland. Perhaps it will be addressed later on after the voting is finished, not before. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Now the page is semiprotected from what i can see theres been two changes that need undoing to the previous stable version.

• Republic of Ireland changed back to Ireland
• Removal of the POV about John Dee

Both these things should be done so its back to the recent stable version, an admin will need to make these changes because otherwise we are breaking the 1RR. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• "POV" - are you for real? What planet are you on? John Dee is referenced material from British - yes, British - sources. This is more, much more, than what is offered by those who want to silence the politics of the earliest known user of the term "British Isles", that is John Dee in 1577. Rather, it is this insidious political agenda which seeks to cover up the imperialist politics underlying the term "British Isles" and instead propagate a notion that it is a harmless apolitical term which is, quite patently, the problem here. 213.202.190.199 (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: Just for clarification: "stable" means the version you agree with. This article, as a quick glance at its 34 archives of edit history (so far) demonstrates, has never been stable. It is exceedingly unlikely that it ever will be genuinely stable as long as it has the name "British Isles" on it. 213.202.190.199 (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No it does not mean the version i was happy with, id rather see Republic of Ireland remain but its been Ireland for some time so that is the stable version. The original research about John Dee was removed some time ago as well when it was moved out of the intro. There for the stable version is the one without those two changes that took place yesterday. Sorry but the article WAS reasonably stable for sometime, although alot of crap has hit the fan recently i must admit. If further information is needed about John Dee, it needs to be agreed to here. Now i dont want you punished, but i want the material you should not have readded which was in violation of the 1RR removed from the page. The edit page clearly states do not revert another editors revert. You reverted by revert in violation of the rules. That material must be removed thanks. It would save us all alot of time if you undid the revert yourself, rather than us needing to get an admin to restore it, who may have to punish you. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's high time this article was semi-protected, the editor (with his IP accounts) is merely causing disruption with his/her continued refusal to stop his/her 'edit first, discuss latter' style. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the 1RR only apply for 24 hours like the standard 3RR??? BritishWatcher (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)