Talk:British Isles

Cutting down lede paragraph 3 into something more streamlined

How about we cut out some of the historical political stuff which can be expanded upon in the article itself and linked to and more on the influx of different peoples? This is the current:

“ Celts were inhabiting the islands by the time of the Roman Empire, which expanded to control most of Britain. The first Anglo-Saxons arrived as Roman power waned in the 5th century, eventually occupying the bulk of what is now England. Viking invasions began in the ninth century, followed by more permanent settlements and political change - particularly in England. The subsequent Norman conquest of England in 1066 and the later Angevin conquest of Ireland from 1169 led to the imposition of a new Norman ruling elite across all of Britain and most of Ireland. By the Late Middle Ages, Great Britain was separated into the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, while control in Ireland fluxed between Gaelic kingdoms, Hiberno-Norman lords and the English-dominated Lordship of Ireland. The 1603 Union of the Crowns, Acts of Union 1707 and Acts of Union 1800 consolidated Britain and Ireland into a single political unit, the United Kingdom, with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands remaining as Crown Dependencies. The expansion of the British Empire and migrations following the Irish Famine and Highland Clearances resulted in the distribution of the islands' population and culture throughout the world and a rapid de-population of Ireland in the second-half of the 19th century. Most of Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom after the Irish War of Independence and the subsequent Anglo-Irish Treaty (1919–1922), with six counties remaining in the UK as Northern Ireland. Scotland and Wales both voted for devolution within the UK in 1998, leading to the creation of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly in 1999. Devolution of government for Northern Ireland also took place in 1999 following the Belfast Agreement of 1998, although devolution was suspended between 2002 and 2007 due to ongoing security and political problems. ”

This is a proposed change culled mostly from a paragraph in the lede over at British people with additions. It does largely gloss over political entities though and covers essentially immigration, cross-breeding, and emigration - key elements in the history and development of the islands.

“ The population of the British Isles are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled in the British Isles before the 11th century. Prehistoric, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended under the Normans, Scandinavian Vikings from northern France. Conquest and union facilitated migration, cultural and linguistic exchange, and intermarriage between the people of the different states in the islands during the Middle Ages, Early Modern period and beyond. The 17th-18th centuries saw an influx of European immigrants, most notably French Huguenots and German Palatines. Since the 19th century, and particularly since the mid-20th century, there has been immigration to the United Kingdom by people from Ireland, the Commonwealth, other parts of Europe and elsewhere. The expansion of the British Empire and migrations following the Irish Famine, Highland Clearances and religious persecution resulted in the distribuation of the islands' population and culture around the world. ”

Its not perfect but a possible start? Mabuska ^(talk) 13:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Much better. You're sig. got lost, so I've added it back. AJRG (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work. My initial suggestion below. Huguenots and (especially) Palatines are a bit obscure, and I think we should also try to avoid confusion between the history of the islands as a whole (this article) and that of its constituent countries (other articles).:

“ The population of the British Isles are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century. Prehistoric, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended under the Normans, who invaded England, Wales, and, later, Ireland. Conquest and union of other parts of the islands facilitated migration, cultural and linguistic exchange, and intermarriage between the people of the different states in the islands during the Middle Ages, early modern period and beyond. Since the 19th century, and particularly since the mid-20th century, there has been immigration by people from the Commonwealth, other parts of Europe and elsewhere. The expansion of the British Empire and migrations following the Irish Famine, Highland Clearances and religious persecution resulted in the distribuation of the islands' population and culture around the world. ”

Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I got stuck on the first sentence when I started looking at this last week. What I would like to do is tweak the second paragraph and then include something in the first sentence of the third referring to earlier periods of colonisation which would tie it closely to the information on geography and ice ages. The source I was looking at was this news article [1] and the associated journal entry. I don't think we need to include the speculative bits, but the first sentences could read something like:

“

Early humans first crossed the land bridge and settled in the isles nearly a million years ago, but the population was wiped out by an ice age. The pattern of colonisation and collapse was repeated eight times until the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. The current population of the British Isles are descended mainly...

”

Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I like it, my only slight quibble is with this line -

migrations following the Irish Famine, Highland Clearances and religious persecution resulted in the distribuation of the islands' population and culture around the world.

This gives a lot of weight to 'forced' emigration from Ireland and Scotland - and yes, that's certainly important. But remember that 2.35 million emigrants left England and Wales between 1861 and 1900, and 14 per cent of those came from the West of England, which was one of the most important emigration regions. (cited from Dudley Baines (1991), "Emigration from Europe 1815-1930") Economic conditions were amongst the biggest 'push' factors for emigration from Britain in the 1770s, around 1801, 1815-20 and in the 1880s.--Pondle (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Pondle is there a particular expression or event that might be used to describe this? What about "economic downturns"? BTW I think this is a big improvement on the current para. Bjmullan (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A reference to "economic migration" from England and Wales would do it for me.--Pondle (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Pondle, the population of Ireland halved in the latter half of the 19th century. It is a demography that is unparalleled anywhere in the world. In the past, when people talked about Ireland they talked about a populous country, almost as densely populated as England. Contrast that with today. Today, the population of the island of Ireland has just returned to what it was at the time of the Act of Union. Think about that: Ireland lost two centuries worth of people.

Over the same period, the population of England has increased five fold. Wales grew five fold in the 19th century. Scotland grew three fold in the same century. England grew from 30 million to 50 million over the course of the 20th century, whereas the population of Scotland and Wales have increased little 1901.

Demographic data for the UK (including all of Ireland) can be seen here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/fom2005/01_fopm_population.pdf

--RA (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of (former) countries that have been completely depopulated and have never recovered, notable today only because of the ruins in the middle of jungles or deserts. But anyway I don't think that's the point: no-one is disputing that Ireland is less populous than it could be. I think Pondle simply wants to improve the breadth of coverage. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Does it compare in significance to the topic? The rapid de-population of Ireland in the latter half of the 19th century completely changed the demographic picture the archipelago. We went from the population of both islands being proportionate to each other to 90% of the (remaining) population being on one. That in the course of 50 years one of the two major islands in the archipelago emptied out of people is surely a little more note-wothy than saying that people immigrated from England and Wales to the New World - sure, people did that everywhere in Europe. --RA (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

RA, I'm not trying to belittle the Irish emigration experience. But as the line is currently written, it looks (to me) like the Irish Famine and the Highland Clearances are being described as the main factors responsible for "spreading the population and culture of the British Isles around the world". That's not true. The demographer Campbell Gibson concluded that in 1990, 49 per cent of the US population descended primarily from the settler and black population of 1790, 51 per cent from immigrants after that date. And the settler population of the US in 1790 was 60 per cent English and 80 per cent British. And according to Dudley Baines, emigration from Britain between 1815 and 1930 totalled 11.4m compared to 7.3m from Ireland. Obviously the migration rate per head of population was much higher for Ireland, but do you see why I think that economic migration from England and Wales was just as significant is "spreading the islands population and culture around the world"?--Pondle (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I wasn't looking at the "spreading the population and culture of the British Isles around the world" but the comparison of demographic change in Ireland against emigration from England to the New World. The statement that the migrations from Ireland and Scotland "resulted in the distribuation of the islands' population and culture around the world" is in fact misleading. The major factor resulting in the spreading of the "culture of the British Isles" (viz. English culture) around the world was of course primarily the empire, not the migration of people. English is not an official language in countries from Botswana to Zimbabwe because people from these parts emigrated there. It is because we did tours of duty there. (Something we Irish like to wash our hands of whereas in fact we formed half of the army at the time.) --RA (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The population of the British Isles are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century." - This kind of gives the impression that there was just a mess of unspecified "tribes" (or somthing like it) before the the 11th century. What about the Scots, Picts, Briton of classical times? The Anglo-Saxons. The Norse. England, Scotland and Ireland existed as definite kingdoms at the time (although that shouldn't be confused with "peoples" exactly). The Normans didn't suddenly bring order to it all. Order very definitely existed before.
• "Prehistoric, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended under the Normans..." - It was hardly the Normans that did the blending. If "blending" even happened. Consider that "Scot"-land is named after people from Ireland. Modern Scotland is a blending of "Scots" and Picts that predates the Norman invasions. Blending a plenty before they every arrived.
• "Conquest and union of other parts of the islands facilitated migration, cultural and linguistic exchange, and intermarriage between the people of the different states in the islands during the Middle Ages, early modern period and beyond." - Whoa! So much here I can't even think of where to begin asking for a reference. Let's start with "linguistic exchange", just for the heck of it!
• "...immigration by people from the Commonwealth..." - Very GB centric. Can the same the said for the other major island?

--RA (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand why you removed mention of the development of the UK. Or the succession of Ireland from it and the complicated devolution in the UK. Surely these are important to the political/cultural/ethnic make up of the islands today? --RA (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Also (also), feedback from the peer review was that, "The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. It ideally should neglect no major parts of the article, and it should not include important material that is not mentioned in the main text. About half of the existing lead is devoted to history, but the article has no history section. The lead does not mention "Etymology", "Transport", or "Culture". In short, it's not a summary of the article. WP:LEAD has details." --RA (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can sensibly reduce this paragraph and maintain neutrality. It took several editors quite a while to put it together and balance it: taking one part out (as BW has done) will invariably lead to arguments. There is an argument for removing political history entirely and leaving it to the body of the article (in violation of WP:LEAD), but there is no argument for snipping bits of text out to the extent that the paragraph become imbalanced (in violation of WP:NPOV). Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I did say it wasn't perfect and did say that much of it is culled from another article and that it was only a possible start. Don't start shouting about stuff being left out as it is only a possible suggestion that others can work with.

The mention of French Hugenots and German Palatines is not specific to England only. They also settled in Ireland, Scotland and more. In fact the Huguenots were instrumental in the creation of the Irish linen trade which was a major economic factor for the north of Ireland.

On RAs points:

• "The population of the British Isles are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century." - This kind of gives the impression that there was just a mess of unspecified "tribes" (or somthing like it) before the the 11th century. What about the Scots, Picts, Briton of classical times? The Anglo-Saxons. The Norse. England, Scotland and Ireland existed as definite kingdoms at the time (although that shouldn't be confused with "peoples" exactly). The Normans didn't suddenly bring order to it all. Order very definitely existed before.

There was a varied ethnic stock. Its hardly stating there was a mess of "tribes". Before the 11th century there was lots of migrations of peoples within the islands and from outside - Romans conquered and settled and along with them their slaves. Gaels settled in Cornwall, the Isle of Man, Wales, and western Scotland. The Norse settled England, northern Scotland and the Scottish Isles and the Isle of Man and Ireland. Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc settled parts of England and expanded into Briton territory and as far as Lothian, Scotland. Picts are alleged to have settled in northern Ireland as Cruithin or something. People of Celtic culture are noted as having migrated into Great Britain and Ireland such as the Belgae. The Britons still existed in Anglo-Saxon territory though their actual territory shrunk to present-day Cornwall and Wales, and the northern part of the kingdom of Strathclyde which became part of Scotland.

There might of been kingdoms prior to the 11th century but they weren't toally united cohesive units - they mostly consisted of rival over-kingdoms and minor-kingdoms that were continually subject to invading peoples. The kingdom of England was only created in the 10th century. The kingdom of Scotland was only created in the 9th century (and even then excluded the Western Isles and the Shetlands etc. until later). Wales was never a kingdom of its own though only in the 11th century did they recognise a single ruler over their remaining territory. The kingdom of Ireland didn't exist until the 16th century unless you count the High-Kings who only claimed lordship over the whole island but most of them hardly held authority over the whole island and were subject to continual usurption attempts, with the over-kingdoms and minor-kingdoms still subject to interwarring and invasions of Vikings. <- if you have a problem with any of those statements then please change their related Wiki articles.

The Normans when they came settled in England, Wales, and Scotland and after the 11th century, Ireland. There might of existed kingdoms before them but it wasn't until the advance of the Normans that the people of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland became more unified even though they consisted of different groups of people, but their gradual assimilation with each other lead to them becoming nations of distinctive but related culture and language.

• "Prehistoric, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended under the Normans..." - It was hardly the Normans that did the blending. If "blending" even happened. Consider that "Scot"-land is named after people from Ireland. Modern Scotland is a blending of "Scots" and Picts that predates the Norman invasions. Blending a plenty before they every arrived.

The blending sentence is copy from the article i stated, its not my work. Though modern Scotland is not the simple blending of Scots and Picts. Modern Scotland is actually a blending of Scots, Picts, Britons, Norse, Anglo-Saxons and Normans. And many of its most notable Scottish rulers had joint heritage such as the Norman ancestry of the Stewarts and the Gael-Norman heritage of Robert the Bruce. Scotland may be named after the Irish Scots however its identity was formed by the combination of its people in opposition to the Normans even though many Norman familys themselves settled in Scotland and became Scottish septs in their own right. Just as many Hiberno-Norman families became "more Irish than the Irish themselves" but in the form of the "Old English" many would unite with the native Irish in opposition to Englands attempts to enforce Protestant control over their Catholism.

• "Conquest and union of other parts of the islands facilitated migration, cultural and linguistic exchange, and intermarriage between the people of the different states in the islands during the Middle Ages, early modern period and beyond." - Whoa! So much here I can't even think of where to begin asking for a reference. Let's start with "linguistic exchange", just for the heck of it!
• "...immigration by people from the Commonwealth..." - Very GB centric. Can the same the said for the other major island?

Whilst i agree Commonwealth immigration is more centered on GB maybe we could just state that its centered more on that island. Linguistics in the British Isles are very related. Gaelic has influenced Welsh, Cornish, Manx and Scots-Gaelic and to a lesser extent Ulster-Scots. The Norse have influenced Manx and Norn. Old-English has influenced the Scots language, which is the central basis of Ulster-Scots. Norman-French has influenced English. There are many words in all languages that are borrowed from the languages of other peoples in the islands. I'd call that linguistic exchange wouldn't you say?

Personally i can't be bothered going on any more about it as i was only suggesting a possible way of condensing it down, though i do have sources for most of the comments i've made above. Just whether i can bothered going through all my history books for them is another matter. I'll let you guys settle on what to include. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

History

With all this talk of the history in the lede I thought it might be a good idea to bring forth the fact that there is more paragraphical information in this article about the history of the British Isles than in the actual page History of the British Isles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia is not a forum. Let's keep discussion focused on the improving the article. --RA (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, that article is yet another one which was unilaterally renamed to include the jingoistic term "British Isles", in this case it was renamed 'History of the British Isles' by a British nationalist, from its original name 'History of Britain'. There are other articles on Wikipedia which have been unilaterally renamed to include the term "British Isles" by these people, the same people on this article who claim Ireland is in their "British Isles" and wish to censor and marginalise all Irish objections to this latest British colonial claim upon Ireland and the Irish people. We've had centuries of you people. Propagating the term "British Isles" is now their raison d'être for being on Wikipedia. Dunlavin Green (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I was shopping for tea the other day, in the foreign foods isle of the local grocery store, and before picking up my regular box of PG Tips, I something calling itself "Irish Blend". It was shelved in the British Isles section. I think that there is more to this than "jingoism". SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC) There isn't, actually - particularly given Ireland's history at the hands of the British state over a period of centuries. The term does have an obviously jingoistic context which is clear to anybody with the balls to be honest about it. It has not suddenly become innocuous or apolitical. Life doesn't work like that. You would never, ever see such a section in an Irish store. Add to this the countless number of quotidian examples in Irish society where other names and terms suffice for the jingoistic term "British Isles" and there is a conscious avoidance of that term in one of the two countries which, in British eyes, apparently constitute their "British Isles". To write that avoidance (not to mention explicit rejection by the democratically-elected government of Ireland) off and claim a popularity for the term which is based on an incident in British culture, the offending culture, is plainly more about embracing that jingoistic culture and comforting oneself with the familiar than about dumping outdated ugly and offensive terminology which claims other peoples and other lands for one's own tribe. Dunlavin Green (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC) You went rather quiet in the debate above about the paragraph mentioning the controversy. Did you realise you were wrong? How about an apology for your foul attack on certain editors in that mistake of yours? Every time you post on this page it is usually full of disgusting attacks on British editors and claiming some form of oppression of Irish people. It is utterly pathetic, offensive and after awhile becomes very boring too. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1. When it comes to British claims to Ireland and the politics of this term, I am not wrong. Unlike you and your allies, I have an exceptional knowledge of Irish history and of British imperialism - and the Frog-hating, Paddy-hating, Britannia-rules-the-waves strand of British culture in particular from which you and your allies come. 2. There are decent Brits, and there is your sort. Only in the wildest Tory/BNP fantasy can you hope to equate "British editors" with an attack on rightwing British nationalist flag-waving europhobes such as you, User:Wiki-Ed, User:MidnightBlueMan and User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (to name four of you). You people are a minority, as much as it makes you all even more paranoid about EU intentions, immigration and all the usual nationalist causes. Oh, and considering it is your sort who are, like your psychopathic racist sectarian land-occupying, dispossessing Irish-hating British forefathers, claiming Ireland to be part of your "British Isles", the source of the offence and aggression is clearly neither me nor the Irish people. Now, please go away and evolve. Dunlavin Green (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Hello Dunlavin Green. Uuum ... no. I won't "go-away". ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC) lmao, i guess that was a no to an apology then. Does the Republic of Ireland claim ownership over the entire Irish sea? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Far from still laying claim to Ireland, the British have been trying to give it back to the Irish people since the Government of Ireland Bill 1886. Vested interests with privileges to lose have fought a rear-guard action for over a century, but they have never represented the opinion of the British population as a whole. AJRG (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Native names

Why is French listed in the infobox under "native name"? This might have been relevant when the Normans were in power, but not in the 21st century. Hayden120 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The loyal toast in the Channel Islands is "La Reine, notre Duc" and they are held by the Queen under the residual Dukedom of Normandy, French was also the legal language of the British Isles for a substantial part of its history so overall it seems reasonable. --Snowded ^TALK 04:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"French was also the legal language of the British Isles for a substantial part of its history". Mhm, so was dansk tunga. Hayden120 (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dansk Tunga? Excellent idea ... http://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C4%93afods%C4%ABde

We should do just that ... Dansk Tunga ... I like it!!! ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm? Are you suggesting that an Old Norse Wikipedia should be created, similar to the Old English one you have linked? There is a small test wiki... or, alternatively, you could visit the Icelandic Wikipedia. It is remarkably similar. Hayden120 (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Hayden120.

As far as I am concerned only the term British Isles (i.e., the English language version) should be up there (i.e., the far-and-away majority language is the English language). The other ones like Irish Gaelic are technically official in the Republic of Ireland but there again, the majority speaks the English language.

http://www.englishforums.com/English/BritishParliamentFrench/nrcqq/post.htm

Interesting link ... worth a gander!

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

G'day ArmchairVexillologistDonLives. Thanks for the link, but I'm quite well aware of the history of the French language in England. However, it is exactly that: history. Yes, the influence of Norman French can still be seen in the modern English language, but it is no longer used for literary and administrative purposes as it once was in England. Hayden120 (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a small hint in Dieu et mon droit: It is an official language in the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey. --RA (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the motto is irrelevant in this discussion: it was adopted when Norman French was still the dominant language of the ruling class. It is currently 2010. I forgot to consider Jersey and Guernsey, though. That would be the only reason to keep French in the infobox. Hayden120 (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned the UK motto only as an aside. The nub is that French is an official language in two of the jurisdictions of the isles. The info box lists the names of the isles in each of the official languages of the jurisdictions within the isles. --RA (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Mhm, and point taken. It was simply an oversight of mine not to consider the bailiwicks. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No bother. It is a nice thing about this topic that no matter how familiar we are with it there is such diversity in it that is never ceases to surprise. --RA (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rannpháirtí anaithnid,

http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpregion/europe/uk/channisle/channelcol.html

Let us "run-with-this" ole Standard French really isn't the real deal here. The Norman-French later developed into ...

"Though English is now the dominant language on the Channel Islands, each island of Jersey, Guernsey and Sark has its own native local French dialect: respectively Jerriais, Guernesiais and Sercquiais. These traditional spoken vernaculars of the Islands are varieties of Norman French. The original Normans who came from Norway and Denmark spoke Norse and there are still a number of Norse elements in the Islands' dialects. Though standard French has never been an everyday spoken language in any of the islands it has served as an official language of legislation and debate in legislative assemblies."

so ... Jerriais, Guernesiais, Sercquais, and of course Old Norse eh!! ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think standard French shouldn't be used as the Norman languages of the Channel Islands and the Normandy region of France are not the exact same. However having previously done a bit of research into what term the Norman language would use for British Isles, it would seem to be the same as standard French. I just think that the language name should be changed to the actual family group the Channel Island languages belong to: Norman language as they are not the same as standard French.

You tell me how the Jerriais for England; Angliétèrre is the same to the standard French; Angleterre. And same again for the Irish Sea; la Mé Irlandaise (Jerriais) and mer d'Irlande (French). Northern Ireland; d'l'Irlande du Nord and Irlande du Nord. United Kingdom; lé Rouoyaume Unni compared to Royaume-Uni. Lots of spelling differences.

I think this would be a pretty uncontroversial change so i'm going to implement it. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As a follow up - whilst we shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source i do think that the speakers and writers over at the Norman language Wikipedia (which is written largely in Jerriais) know what they are on about with spellings: Îles Britanniques. Also standard French isn't declared as a regional language of the UK, its the Channel Island dialects of Norman that are so its also misleading the way it was.Mabuska ^(talk) 10:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Qwerta369 (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Cornish language?

In the “Native Names” section Cornish is not there. Is there a name for the British Isles in Cornish? --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Island is "ynys" so perhaps it's something close to the Welsh "Ynysoedd Prydain"? Perhaps one of our Cornish editors can help. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Enesow Bretenek", "Enesow Breten", or "Enesow Bretennek" would be the name in Cornish. Various names for islands have been used in the various orthographies of Cornish, including "ynysow" (sng. "ynys). However, with the new SWF, "enys" has been chosen as the "correct" way to spell the word, with its plural form rendered as "enesow". I'm not entirely sure how the SWF is now treating the adjective "Bretenek/Bretennek" - i.e. with a single or a double "n". --MacTire02 (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is useful - do you want to mention it at Talk:Cornish language as well MacTire02, as it sounds like maybe you could do with some discussion on it to clarify maybe? Thanks for your help with this. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

We should avoid using Cornish. A few individuals deciding how to describe things in recent years hardly really justifies being in a list of native names. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If Manx and Norman French are in there, we can have Cornish BW - this isn't a matter of Wikipedia approving of something, it's just acknowledging the existence of a real-world and referencable phenomena as well as creating the depth of interest in the articles we all love when browsing something we know nothing about. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

But how can we be sure it is the "native name" if it is simply something agreed to by a group of people in the past few years as they have codified their revived language? Its questionable if all these other languages need to be there at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is Scots language not listed, there must be some other native languages too if we go far enough back. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are fair points BW - that's why I was suggesting further clarification. I also read that original Cornish forms are not known, as with Ogham, since no written form survived from earlier times, but perhaps I am wrong about that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it Ulster Scots is also missing. I think we should restrict the list to the main languages.. Irish, English, Welsh, Manx, and (what ever is spoken in the channel islands today). BritishWatcher (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Channel Islanders speak English though a minority do speak Norman. I don't really see the point either - the whole thing can be put in a footnote or a section of its own in article. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

@James: Unfortunately I do not believe it could be discussed at the Cornish language talk page. Although a standard SWF spelling system was introduced, there remains considerable debate and anger over spelling issues. My level of Cornish is basic at best, and therefore I would not like to get bogged down in a debate over there, or indeed to create another flashpoint for that page. --MacTire02 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the term "Native Names" necessary?

Is the term "Native Names" necessary? Is not British English the defacto official language (and Irish Gaelic in the Republic of Ireland)? Just who are the Natives (i.e., who are the Colonizers and who are the Colonized)?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's not necessary. But then Wikipedia itself is not necessary. However, if we as a community, wish to create a fully-rounded online encyclopaedia, then surely that includes providing as much information to the reader as possible. This would obviously include the names for the British Isles as rendered in each language that is indigenous to these islands. To leave these out would amount to the intentional hiding of information from the reader. It is up to the reader at that point to decide what he/she decides is important or not and what he/she would like to take away from having read this article. If we fail to provide them with the information then they are not given that opportunity. Regarding the name "native names" - I do not think we are talking here about natives being oppressed, suppressed, colonised, colonising, etc. - rather we are simply talking about the names for these isles as they are to be found in languages that are indigenous to these isles. --MacTire02 (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hardly "the intentional hiding of information from the reader"! When we must invent minority language terms for the "British" Isles where none exist in common parlance we are indulging in WP:OR. But that appears to be par for the course on this misnamed article about the islands of Ireland and Great Britain. Sarah777 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Indigenous (Native) to the British Isles hmmm,... by that logic the Continent of Europe should have how many translations under the "Native Names" category?

English, Frisian, Dutch, German, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Faroese, Icelandic,...

Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian,...

Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian,...

Latvian, Lithuanian, Russian, Bielorussian, Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Serbian, Slovenian, Croatian, Bulgarian,...

Greek,...

Albanian,...

Turkish,...

Maltese,...

Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, Manx Gaelic, Welsh,...

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be in favour of excluding "invented" ones, but if they pre-exist in local languages they can be in. There isn't any particular reason why they shouldn't be in the infobox, but how much weight they are given goes to notability I suppose. Denial that the British Isles exists is not a valid reason for rejection however, as the name is widely used in sources, absolutely regardless of the POV of any individual editors here in Wikipedia. Given how wearying that particular battle is, if it wasn't for defending NPOV I would be happy to see it go, but if we give up NPOV on such widely used terms, we might as well close Wikipedia and people can go off and start their own local ones, one for each mindset. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What you mean this isn't Anglophobapedia?? ;-) I think a footnote in the infobox might be better, with the main languages of English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish kept in the "native names" main section. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(i). English, (ii). Welsh, (iii). Scottish Gaelic, and (iv). Irish Gaelic,.... yep, I agree. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I would support that. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I never argued about the names for Europe in the various languages of Europe. That section is not to be found in that article, and indeed would be far too long to include in that article. However in this article, if we are to not include certain languages in the native names section then that indeed would be hiding information, as that information is currently represented on the page, and is hardly of any major inconvenience. To suggest we only show 1 (English), 2 (English and Irish) or 4 (English, Irish, Scots Gaelic, Welsh) languages means we have to remove Cornish, Manx, and French (be it Standard as is official in the Channel Islands, or their local variants). That amounts to hiding information for no good purpose. Secondly, there are no "invented" languages represented on this page at the moment anyway. I assume James you are referring to Cornish here, in which case I would suggest you learn about the history of the language - the spelling systems in that language may be "invented" but the language is by no means invented. Revived and modernised yes, but not invented. Invented languages include Esperanto, Quenya, Sindarin, Klingon etc. And if we are to exclude Cornish because of certain editors' perceived lack of importance of it, why would we exclude Manx - this is NOT an invented language in any shape or form, it has official status in the Isle of Man, is spoken by a larger percentage of that jurisdiction's population (1.3%) than Scots Gaelic is within its own jurisdiction (1%), and is taught in most schools across the island. The Manx name for the British Isles is certainly not a term that has to be invented - indeed the Manx name for the isles "ny h-Ellanyn Goaldagh" has been around for centuries, although newly coined terms such as "Ellanyn yn Eear" and "Bretyn Vooar as Nerin" (meaning respectively "Islands of the West" and "(Great) Britain and Ireland") can be seen in print nowadays, albeit used by a small percentage of Manx-speakers. --MacTire02 (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a helpful summary and survey of the issue MacTire02, thanks. I think it is fair to have these language versions in the infobox - I don't mind personally where in the infobox they go. As for "invention", sorry, I shouldn't have used that word about Cornish - I really meant "modern supposition where original evidence is lacking or disputed" - and yes, I was aware of the spelling issue with Cornish. I don't know how many modern speakers of Cornish there are - the Cornish language article suggests 2,000 fluent - quite a small language, but nevertheless indigenous and known, at least in various possible spelt forms. I wouldn't object to it being in, but I suppose you might get debates from others about the spelling, from what you say. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Some points

1. We can argue all we want about minor-language names for the British Isles however we are missing out on one important thing with all this talk - sources. We aren't allowed to perform original research so if we construct a term out of a language by ourselves its not viable for inclusion as its original research pure and simple. Any Cornish (or other language) additions must be backed up by verifiable sources. I can back up the Norman for British Isles thanks to the Norman Wikipedians over at the Norman Wikipedia.
2. Is there actually any need for the native languages anyways? The Caribbean islands don't have the different languages that exist there stated. North America just lists English, Spanish, and French in the articles lede and just plain English in the infobox - this covers only the main languages and ignores the many minor languages in North America including the native Americans.
3. If one editor thinks its "hiding" by having an infobox footnote for the minor languages, why can't we just create a sub-section of the Etymology section or a new section that deals with the verified and sourced regional names for the British Isles rather than clutter up the infobox and keep it plain and simple in the primary language of both countries in the islands - English? I'd assume English is still the primary common used language in the RoI.

The entire native names bit looks like the inside of my UK passport with all those different names... Mabuska ^(talk) 16:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll deal with your three points here. 1) Obviously this wiki is about verifiability, so therefore we must have sources. But Manx has a source already indicated in the infobox. I can provide many more if you so wish. If there is no source to be found for Cornish, or any other language, then we can't include it, obviously. I agree with that policy. 2) Regarding the need for native languages..I think you're missing the point here. The fact is the names are here now. Why should we remove them if they are backed up by sources? If we do remove them altogether then we are indeed hiding, or deleting, information. 3) I never argued about the location of the native names. We can have them in the infobox, in a subsection under etymology or naming, or as a footnote at the end of the infobox or indeed at the end of the article. What I did not like was the intimation that they be removed entirely. --MacTire02 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I took it as read that it would be supported by sources but thanks for reminding us Mabuska. On the US infobox, I personally find it disappointing but predictable that Native American language names for the entity are not listed, although I suppose it would be a big list. Perhaps that has been debated at some point? As for the other languages in the British Isles, I do find it interesting - why is it such a problem to you to list them? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the problem here that the list would be too long and end up looking ungainly? If so, why not just list English at the top, and create a new section with a green header for other languages? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Who said i had such a problem or wanted their removal from the article? I was just raising and including a point already mentioned on native names by someone else. Find me a single statement where i said lets just get rid of them and don't mention them at all. I've proposed footnotes for the minor languages to tidy the infobox up and even a section dedicated to regional names - hardly the actions of a person who wants their removal. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have two concerns, first that it would be a very long list (if we did all the potential languages) which is not needed in the infobox and the second problem is the Cornish issue. The accuracy of the term in Cornish and if it should be in line with others when it is a term agreed by a few individuals in recent years as they revive (or yes invent) the language. The whole Cornish issue is troubling, Labours formal recognition of the language has created a lot of problems.

I would support us moving the whole list to a section, or to a note in the infobox or if possible one of those show/hide features in the infobox, so if people want to look at the other native names they can, without it taking up half the infobox for the rest of us. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it the inclusion of Cornish as an ethnic group there in this infobox is also deeply troubling. I do not know why we include that. Labour may have recognised the language as a minority language, they never recognised them as an ethnic group. Some people filled in Cornish as their ethnic group on the census 10 years ago and it got given a computer code. Lots of people filled in Jedi as a religion, it does not make it an official or recognised religion. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If we are to remove the native names from the infobox, that's fine by me, as long as we include them somewhere else in the article. I'm not for or against the inclusion of these names from a nationalist/Celticist/whatever standpoint (though I do have my own feelings on those issues). What I am basically stating is that, as they are already there, we should continue to include them (location is not important to me) in an appropriate setting. Ideas surrounding tidyness or neatness are just plain silly. If someone decides to clean their car it does not mean they throw away the footmats. Are they necessary in the car - no, but they do add to it. Similarly the continued inclusion of verfiably sourced native names adds to the article but is not necessary. Simply find a method to make it tidy by using as mentioned hide/show features, or inputting them in a separate section/subsection/footnote. Regarding BW's point about Cornish/Jedi..That's a bit of a foolish comment. People who wrote Jedi in the census form simply did so as an act of juvenile rebellion against the authorities. Ask them face-to-face and I can guarantee they would simply state they have no religion, or are anti-religion. Considering oneself as Cornish from an ethnic point of view is something else entirely. These people, many of whom I have met, do not consider themselves British or English, and feel closer to Welsh, Irish, Bretons, etc. than they do to people in Bristol, Plymouth, Southampton, and London in particular. They look to their own history distinct from overall English history. They focus on local Cornish mythology, language, traditions, sports, cuisine, rather than on the English variations. Before you insult those who consider themselves Cornish rather than English or British, perhaps you could ask them why they do so, rather than simply equate them with those who insert rubbish about religion on census forms.--MacTire02 (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In Brighton (the highest figures), the 2001 census recorded 6,480 people claiming to be Jedi - 2.6% of the population and more than the average total Sunday Anglican church attendance (about 5,000). Those I have met elsewhere were religious in an unconventional way. If people self-identify as something in sufficient numbers, be that Welsh or Jedi or Cornish, Wikipedia usually regards that as notable. AJRG (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If we get into an argument about the existence or non-existence (no matter how well sourced) of Cornish, we will be here for some time! I think maybe we should agree to leave it out unless a good source is available with the correctly spelt name for British Isles in Cornish in it - that will probably be very difficult anyway - as for the others, it really doesn't matter where they appear, but it would worry me if there is some POV reason for moving them from their current position - such as a feeling that they in some way validate the historical existence of the BI in non-English cultures? They do, so let's call a shovel a shovel if that's what's bugging people. If not, then no worries. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if the list is to remain in the infobox (or if it is to be moved) i support the inclusion of Scots language and Ulster Scots, but i will always oppose the inclusion of Cornish which has very questionable status and will create more disruption that leaving it off would. If an original source is found (from before the language died and was revived) then there would be the potential problem that it may not match the newly agreed written form. And if the source is simply a modern written form agreed a couple of years ago, i think its wrong to label it under "Native names" in line with more recognised and accepted languages. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that is just blatantly ignorant of you BW. You will "always" oppose the inclusion of Cornish, even if sources are found and there is concensus found within their community regarding spelling? There is a language called Shelta here in Ireland. It is uncodified, with no spelling system. Yet the language has been around for hundreds of years. If they were to create a standard codified spelling system tomorrow, and create a spelling for the British Isles in their language, would you also be opposed? The Scots language is also not without challengers to its spelling systems, so you may also argue about its inclusion. And there is certainly argument about whether or not Ulster-Scots is a language at all, or rather just a dialect of Scots proper. To follow your criteria regarding Cornish, then logically we should also not include Scots or Ulster-Scots. After all Cornish is far more recognised and accepted as an independent language within the linguistic community than Scots or Ulster-Scots are. --MacTire02 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I stated the reason why i would oppose the inclusion of Cornish, there is potential for a difference between the former language which died and the revived language which a group of people in recent years have been making up as they go along. If no reliable sources for ulster scots or scots language can be found then clearly they can not be added to the list either, but as far as im aware Cornish is the only "revived" language, which makes its status questionable in my eyes, if other editors are comfortable with its inclusion and very accurate sources can be found on it then so be it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

We have someone trying to add the Wessex Language now. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, ... it is Irish Gaelic not Irish, it is Scottish Gaelic not Scottish, it is Manx Gaelic not Manx. The linguist terms of <blah> Gaelic is the standard reference terminology used by English language Linguists (not Irish, Scottish and Manx).

Secondly,... the Cornish language is extinct. The Celtic language branch has two sub-divisions,

(i). Goidelic Group

Irish Gaelic

Scottish Gaelic

Manx Gaelic (extinct 1973, recently being re-taught)

(ii). Brythonic Group

Cumbrian (extinct)

Welsh

Cornish (extinct c. 1800)

Breton (exists only in the Continent now)

Welsh is the only non-interrupted Brythonic language (and Breton is only spoken in the Peninsula of Brittany).

Thirdly, West-Saxon? Why not ... if the Celtic stuff gets splashed hither-and-yarn everywhere ... then why not Old Norse, Old English (West-Saxon, East-Anglian, Kentish)?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia generally uses standard ISO names for languages rather than specialist terminology, except in explicitly specialist contexts. So Irish and Manx, not Irish Gaelic and Manx Gaelic.

Secondly, Cornish is classed as a living language, not an extinct one.

Thirdly, any properly sourced collective name for the islands in extinct languages can of course be added to the appropriate section. AJRG (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

To AJRG,

http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/europe_report.html

Ahem, Irish Gaelic (not Irish), Manx Gaelic (not Manx),

Welsh (alive and well), .... Cornish (extinct) done-like-toast.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Compiled with a couple of weeks' notice in December, 1993. Wikipedia generally uses the ISO names - see Irish language and Manx language. ISO recognises Cornish as a living language because there are children who are native speakers. AJRG (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

To AJRG,

Firstly,

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Irish+Gaelic%22+%22Manx+Gaelic%22+%22Scottish+Gaelic%22+Goidelic&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Secondly, Manx Gaelic narrowly ... I mean narrowly missed going into oblivion. It went extinct c. 1973 and was resurrected c. 2000. That is within one generation (i.e., c. 40 years). Thus the Manx Gaelic that the children on the Isle of Man today, is very likely that of c. 1973. Whereas, Cornish went extinct c. 1800. Are there any humans with a c. 240 year lifespan? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for inserting here, but this needs to be said. Don you need to learn your facts before contributing inaccurate comments like that above. Manx "died" in 1974 with the death of Ned Madrell, however there were people speaking Manx before he died that continued to speak Manx long after he died. The ressurection, or revitalisation, of Manx started in the 1950s (and possible beforehand), not the year 2000 as you have asserted, and continued more sure-footedly in the 70s, 80s, with a slight dip in the 90s, before regaining a foothold in the 2000s. Likwise, Cornish does not have any speaker with a 240 year lifespan. No language does. But then using your logic would require that all speakers of all languages are newborn. Henry Jenner was speaking Cornish in the 1880s (although his Grammar was not published until 1904). Not counting anyone else that speaks or spoke the language, and considering the traditional date for the death of Cornish is held as being 1777, that leaves a 103 year gap, not 240. And bear in mind that there are referenced reports of native Cornish speakers surviving into the early 19th century and beyond. --MacTire02 (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to be accessible to the non-specialist reader, so only uses technical jargon when necessary. The Manx that children speak today is not the same as that of the last speakers, but much closer to the form their grandparents spoke before the language degenerated. AJRG (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Anything added will have to have a convincing and verifiable source. The reality of Cornish is one of those debates that is hardly worth having - it's exponents will be committed to it existing whilst the sceptics see no basis. If it's verifiable it can be in, but seeing as even the exponents will be unable to come up with an agreed spelling, I suspect it will take a while. :-) As regards Old Wessex-ian, Ogham, Jutish and Elvish, I think we will leave all those to history. We're looking for continuously existing modern languages with verifiable sourcing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. How about two criteria for inclusion?

• 1) A WP:RS can be found proving its common use in the British Isles (including channel islands)
• 2) a WP:RS with its translation can be found

We dont need to source the common use on the article, maybe just on a hidden note for editors Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

agree --Snowded ^TALK 10:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A black-and-white opinion of this, why not include them? Does it hurt the value of the article? --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree on reliable sources, however what about their actual placement? There doesn't seem to be any disagreement about moving them all (except English as this is the English Wikipedia after all) into their own specific section or whatever as long as they remain in the article - and they are interesting and notable and deserve to remain. Moving them into their own section will allow a better explaination of the names as well as unclutter the infobox..

One other question though - why does the Irish Gaelic have three different versions listed? Why does it not simply follow the style of common name for the islands? For example Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa translating as "islands of western Europe" is hardly the Irish Gaelic for British Isles. If we follow that style then we must include all the different uncommonly used terms in English as well as no doubt others will want to add them in for the otehr languages if they can find sources for them. Such names provide further need for a seperate section for this all where they can be expanded upon. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"It is "Irish Gaelic" not Irish. Bull. The common and widely used term for the language is Irish. It doesn't matter a twat on Wiki what some tiny sub-group of linguists call it. Common usage uber alles - that is the Wiki-rule. (Albeit common usage in England when it comes to Irish-related names). Sarah777 (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx Gaelic for English language linguists. Those three terms are the norm. The term Goidelic was specifically coined the indicate this. As per me being a twat as you put it.... well I guess that means I am a twat .

Rude Britain (Gotta love the Home Islands, us Colonials just can't keep up).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Get real folks. "British" Isles is a political invention dating from circa 300 years ago; not surprising it doesn't exist in languages that were nearing extinction at the time. If we are going to use minority language terms for the "British" Isles where there is a "reliable source" then we must highlight the fact that no such term exists in most of those languages. It being a political term of recent coinage. Sarah777 (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A bit earlier than that (see here and here). Gerard Mercator's 1578 edition of the (Greek) Geographia by Claudius Ptolemy (c. AD 90 – c. 168) has EVROPAE TABVLA.I. In qua Insulae Britannicae duae, Hibernia & Albion cum minoribus adiacentibus descri- buntur. - "Europe, Table 1, in which the two British Isles of Hibernia and Albion together with smaller adjacent {islands} are described." AJRG (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Just an FYI, there have been long debates in the past (and in some cases learned ones) as to whether Ptolemy use is the same. The sources say that the first use was in 1577 --Snowded ^TALK 09:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ptolemy's Greek is here (p 64). βρετανικη still means British in Greek. AJRG (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes we all know that one, but have a look at the prior debate and also the etymological reference. --Snowded ^TALK 10:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to minimise the 1577 Dee reference - if anything, Mercator's 1578 atlas supports it. Dee published books in Latin, since this was an age when educated men spoke fluent Latin as well as their native tongue, and Brytish Iles is simply a translation of Insulae Britannicae. AJRG (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I will remove any WP:OR regarding the translation of the term "British" Isles into minority or dead languages with extreme prejudice. And I expect support from the Admin Community on this. Sarah777 (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is earlier than 300 years ago. As for "dead languages", that has already been agreed to be absurd. What do you mean by "minority" languages - Welsh for example? Are you really trying to claim that it's original research to include the phrase from Welsh? And that the "admin community" would support you in removing it? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am struggling to believe you would ever do anything with "extreme prejudice" Sarah! :) BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a warning BritishWatcher, I'd tone down everything if I was you. I can see the humour in your comments, but I'm sure others don't. Just a friendly notice from someone who understands where you are coming from!Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This was also needless and provocative. Would be best struck --Snowded ^TALK 10:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand

Seeing as this has gone away from topic i'll reiterate what i said and asked above which everyone seems to have glossed over in attempts to war about what languages are called or exist, to quote myself:

“ Agree on reliable sources, however what about their actual placement? There doesn't seem to be any disagreement about moving them all (except English as this is the English Wikipedia after all) into their own specific section or whatever as long as they remain in the article - and they are interesting and notable and deserve to remain. Moving them into their own section will allow a better explaination of the names as well as unclutter the infobox.

One other question though - why does the Irish Gaelic have three different versions listed? Why does it not simply follow the style of common name for the islands? For example Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa translating as "islands of western Europe" is hardly the Irish Gaelic for British Isles. If we follow that style then we must include all the different uncommonly used terms in English as well as no doubt others will want to add them in for the otehr languages if they can find sources for them. Such names provide further need for a seperate section for this all where they can be expanded upon. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

”

Mabuska ^(talk) 10:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's my opinion on what reliable sources should be used.

• 1) A WP:RS can be found proving its common use in the British Isles (including channel islands)
• 2) a WP:RS with its translation can be found

As for Irish Gaelic, I'm unsure what the common one is, but agree only one is needed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That is because there is no proper translation for "British Isles" in Irish, other than "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" which is seldom, if ever, used by native speakers. Irish speakers tend to prefer either "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" or more often "Éire agus an Bhreatain (Mhóir)". --MacTire02 (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's politically provocative. Maybe "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" should be used, with a note attached which contains the others and explains what you've just said. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats a pretty bold claim MacTire02 that there is no "proper" translation - of course there is, not all Irish speakers are anti-British nationalists. Article is called British Isles, so the Irish for British Isles should be used, so that means na hOileáin Bhriotanacha. The other two can be cited in a section dedicated to native names and other sourced versions - that way everything gets included and detailed and nothing gets left out. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A differing view (in Irish) here. AJRG (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The same page translated by Google (though grammer is a bit off in places): [2]. Hmm British Isles very commonly used on continental Europe to refer to the islands? Many Europeans see Ireland and Britain as being almost the same in character? Get the flame-retardent out i can see a firestorm coming! Mabuska ^(talk) 15:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Google translate did give a general gist of the argument, although a bit weird. It seemed to be just a complaint about how the continent viewed the Irish as almost the same people as the British. Notably it did not give a solution to the lack of a suitable replacement (as far as I could tell) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

People on "The Continent" seeing British and the Irish people as very similiar? Same thing happens with English-Speaking Canadians and Americans. Get used to it! ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol. WP:OR anyone? --HighKing (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not politically provocative, nor is it anti-British - unless of course you want it to be. The simple fact is it's a differing view on the world. The British, from Britain, look out on the world from the largest of a group of islands in North West Europe. They look left and see Ireland and look right and see Europe. The English language in Britain has evolved to include the use of the term "British Isles" as a result - perfectly natural. The Europeans see a large group of islands, and, having identified the largest of these islands as Britain, have named them, in their own vernaculars, as "British Isles" - again perfectly natural. The Irish however have a different view. There is no land to the left (west) - the only land is to the right (east). In Irish there were always three units identified - Ireland and the islands surrounding it, (Great) Britain and her islands, and the Continent. We never saw ourselves as being of the same unit as Britain, and it is for that reason there was no "proper term" used for the British Isles - in Irish that concept never existed until recently. Even to this day in English, we refer to Ireland as "home", the island of Britain as "Britain", and everywhere else as "foreign" - i.e. Britain is not foreign in Irish eyes - simply part one of the three units in the system that is part of the Irish viewpoint on this part of the world. Remember not every language has to agree like a dictionary with English. Take Manx as another example. Most countries in Europe have had large-scale ties with the continent at some stage and as a result have developed varying terms to describe the Atlantic - but all use words similar - An tAtlantach (Irish), L'Atlantique (French), Atlantic (English) to describe it. Manx didn't have that and retained the ancient term for it - The Western Sea/Ocean or "Y Keayn Sheear" - would you consider that anti-Atlantic?? Certainly not - it is simply an aspect of how that language developed. Personally speaking, I don't care how the islands are called in English - I personally do use the term British Isles, and I'm Irish. However in Irish Gaelic "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" is seldom used. That link you provided AJRG is by a Czech author and only talks about the debate regarding terminology. From my own experiences in the Donegal Gaeltacht, in the Conamara gaeltacht and in the Meath Gaeltacht indicates that the common term is "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór". --MacTire02 (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well its just a pity MacTire02 that the term "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór" translates essentially as Ireland and Great Britain - thats just the name of two of the many islands that compose the British Isles. Thus the name is inaccurate as it doesn't cover the entirety of the islands which is what this article is about. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget all those claims of "seldom used" need verifiable sources to back them up. Wiki doesn't do original research. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a pity, but that's how the language is spoken. However, to use the term "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", in Irish, insinuates that the islands are British, along with everything associated with them, including peoples, languages, cultures, geography, history, economics, society, etc. This term is translated as "the British Islands", but British in this context is a descriptive word, not a geographic word, which is why it is not used in Irish. In a quick Google search of the term "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", there are 1,560 results, including 6 machine translations in the first page alone (allowing for -maighdean as that yields results for the British Virgin Islands). A search on Éire agus an Bhreatain yields 19,400 results, although this may not be entirely accurate due to the fact that Wales is rendered as An Bhreatain Bheag in Irish, or Little Britain. This term is also the term favoured by the Irish Terminology Board at focal.ie. An "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" search yielded 1,810 results, and this term is preferred by Patrick Dineen in his authoritative dictionary on the Irish language. I understand that Google is not exactly the most accurate tool at analysing the usage, or lack, of words or terminology, but I feel that there may not be many sources out there to verify any Irish translation other than Dineen's or that of focal.ie (with the exception of possible the Collins Pocket Irish Dictionary) --MacTire02 (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I came across a most enlightening explanation here.

"Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" would be the closest, but it's a non-starter as a term for your inclusive purposes: "Pretonic/Prythonic" was "Breatnach" in Irish, a word which now refers solely to the Welsh; "Briotanach" is a less ancient word which was needed to express the relatively modern political notion of Britishness (it's sometimes used in translating things like "British Virgin Islands", etc.

To an English speaker, the word British includes both the ancient sense of "Pretonic/Prythonic" and also the (controversial) modern political meaning. But to an Irish speaker the word only carries the modern meaning, because in Irish the older word has come to mean something different. Nevertheless, Na hOileáin Bhreatnacha is the intended sense, even if it now means Welsh Isles - a thought Snowded might enjoy... AJRG (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not that we're known to be imperialists, but we'll be collecting all due taxes and tributes later :- D Daicaregos (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

AJRG do you have sources to verify that English speakers see the term "British" as a modern political term and not just a geological term they have grown up with and have adopted? I don't see it in any political sense but purely geographical as i'm sure many atlas' do as well.

I do like how people find the name British (and Briton) offensive and Anglocentric when it is true that the real Britons are the Welsh and Cornish forced west by the Saxons and i suppose the Bretons who migrated to Brittany.

At MacTire02;

“ It is a pity, but that's how the language is spoken. However, to use the term "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", in Irish, insinuates that the islands are British, along with everything associated with them, including peoples, languages, cultures, geography, history, economics, society, etc. This term is translated as "the British Islands", but British in this context is a descriptive word, not a geographic word, which is why it is not used in Irish. ”

Its very selective POV on who feels the term British insinuates a political meaning of domination and who feels it serves as a simple geographical name with no hint of domination. I believe only those prejudiced against the British state feel its a name of pure political meaning rather than geographical. Most Europeans know that Eire and the UK are both seperate states but as the article above shows - they don't seem to attach a political meaning with it, especially as the islands have been known as British Isles for centuries and various other similar forms before that.

Its funny how the first usage of the term "British Isles" (as in British rather than its older forms of Britannia etc.) was in Middle English (roughly), which used the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) translation of Brython (Briton); Brittisc, which itself is derived from Bryttas, which referred to the ancient Brythons as the name for the islands. Britannia derives from Pretannia (derived from Pretani). The suffix Pretani is a Greek/Latin form. In Old English that suffix would be isc, or in Middle/Modern English ish hence British. There is no difference in what the three terms (Brython, Pretani and British) actually meant just how they are seen to mean today. Suppose we shouldn't impose the name British Isles as that might insinuate domination by the modern-day Welsh and Cornish people.

But thats all original research so discount it and blame Wikitionary and Wikipedia for providing that information... Mabuska ^(talk) 00:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe only those prejudiced against the British state feel its a name of pure political meaning rather than geographical. Most Europeans know that Eire and the UK are both seperate states... - I disagree, and as has been pointed out, in the Irish language, we have a word that translates as "possession of the British", Nothing to do with prejudice or politics, simply liguistics. But - shoe on the other foot - I believe that those British who call this state Eire and not use the correct name in English, Ireland, are prejudiced against the Irish state. --HighKing (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The modern, colonial, sense of British (Irish Briotanach) can still be seen in British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory and British Virgin Islands, and was used historically in British Commonwealth, British Empire, British Central Africa, British East Africa, British Somaliland, British Guiana, British Honduras and British New Guinea. AJRG (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes the main problem is the as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland the country of the UK controlled the entire British Isles, and thus they were the British. Arguably this had begun before, when it was the Kingdom of Great Britain, but it became cemented once the isles were united and it was at this time that imperialism really took off. Thus territories conquered by the UK were conquered by the British, leaving the name. The problem is that no other denonym exists for people from the UK, leading to the issues today. Similar to American (word). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a problem for English speakers, because since the end of empire they don't see the term as expressing a claim to ownership. The issue is that Irish speakers understand British as Briotanach, which does exactly that. What is needed is not so much a new demonym in English, but a term in Irish that encompasses all the ancient inhabitants of the islands. AJRG (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate it when politics and linguistics gets intertwined. I would like to note that most, almost all, people in Ireland speak English. The problem is not the word, but rather the connotations they attach to the word. That may well be because of what you said. Anyway, bringing it back to the article, if they do not have another term that encompasses the islands, we will have to use the 'offensive' one I guess. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Like any powerful nation-state-empire, Britain laid claim to it's territories via naming, just as the French, Germans, Americans and others did. These names are "modern" (eg, mostly 18th and 19th century inventions) imperial inventions. This is obvious in the examples AJRG raises above. It isn't nearly so clear-cut in the case of British Isles, since as is pretty regularly pointed out, that's a name with a much longer ancestry. British Isles is also a name in wide use. So the responsibility in Wikipedia is to explain, reference and describe this situation from all angles and in detail. It is not our job to delete stuff that exists in reality because it has a history we don't like for any reason. My POV in saying this is also irrelevant, as is all of ours. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Does this not backup my claims that we need to remove the information on "native names" from the infobox and into an actual section in the article where it can all be better described and detailed without cluttering the infobox. I don't think anyone has disagreed with the idea of a section. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a section on etymology would be very useful. Maybe just have English in the infobox, with a link to the language section in small text under it Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? What's the problem with the way it is? First you try to shoe-horn the incorrect Irish term into the infobox, and now when you have an explanation as to why it's not appropriate, you want to delete it? Is it as simple as that in terms of motivation, or am I missing something? There were no calls to delete it before now. --HighKing (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Only a few people here speak Irish, so most of us didn't understand that Briotanach carries very specific (and unwanted) colonial connotations that British only recently acquired and is in the process of losing again. People who are bilingual draw word boundaries in slightly different places from people who are monolingual (one of my friends got a PhD proving that for Welsh and English speakers in respect of colour names). So anyone bilingual in English and Irish will tend to blend the meaning of related words in the two languages, even before the dead weight of history is added to the mix. In this case the translation is etymologically too recent, because the older word Breatnach (in its original meaning) is the sense intended. AJRG (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There already is a much debated section on etymology in the article --Snowded ^TALK 12:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant addition to, although probably under a separate subtitle. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

HighKing who says anything about deleting it? Where does this keep coming from! Moving something from the infobox into a section where it can be better detailed is hardly deleting it from the article. No-one so far has disagreed with the idea of a section instead as long as the various names (all sourced) remain in the article. Do you have a problem with that HighKing? Either that or we just use the actual Irish for British Isles in the infobox as the other two currently there don't translate as British Isles and thus are redundant unless we give them a proper explaination which a section can do. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The terms aren't there as "translations" in your sense of the word, but are there as the names used in Irish. I see no reason to remove them from the infobox and I welcome a more detailed explanation in a new section. --HighKing (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Since we've established that Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha implies a territorial claim, and that Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór only refers to two of the six thousand islands, perhaps we could just leave Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa (which is solidly referenced from an Irish-English dictionary) in the Infobox? The others belong in a context where they can be adequately explained. AJRG (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the essence of the problem,

The classical writer, Ptolemy, had also referred the island as Great Britain (Megale Britannia) and to Ireland as Little Britain (Mikra Brettania) in his work, Almagest (147–148 AD). In his later work, Geography (circa 150 AD), he gives these islands the names Albion, Iwernia and Mona (the Isle of Man), suggesting these may have been native names of the individual islands not known to him at the time of writing Almagest.

During Ptolmey's day (i.e., c. 150 AD) the Island of Great Britain (Megale Britannia) and the Island of Little Britain (Mikra Brettania) would have been seen as the "Pair of Islands" off the coast of Europe.

Later on after the Union of the Crowns 1603 AD, a term was needed to apply to the "Pair of Islands" of the coast of Europe and Bob's-Your-Uncle the old Insulae Britanniae made a return engagement!,

Insulae Britanniae

http://www.raremapsandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=11327&zenid=c10ba31a1e3b448b648511d2c5e58951

Now what were the folkes on the ole Island of Ireland (Insula Mikra Britannia) up to in the interrim?

"Imperator Scottorum" or "Emperor of the Irish"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Empire

It would seem they were well on their way to embracing this Imperial Langauge business :::::.... would not you say eh?  :::::ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What a warped interpretation of history. LoL. Made me laugh, thank you. --HighKing (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Armchair, I think you are getting mixed up. Little Britain is normally associated with Brittany and not Ireland.

BJ, that was later by at least half a millennium. We don't know what Claudius Ptolemy meant by Mikra Brettania because he only gives its latitude - the medieval cartographer Abraham Ortelius thought he was referring to Scotland. AJRG (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So we are talking about the name given to these isles by a guy who wasn't quite sure where he was! :-) Bjmullan (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That quote is from Ptolemy's early Almagest. His later Geography describes both iouernia (Hibernia) and alouiwnos (Albion) as a nesos bretanike - a British isle. AJRG (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

@ AJRG - Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa suffers a similar problem as Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór - we know what islands its meant to refer to - the British Isles - however it also excludes the other islands of western Europe such as; Madeira, Iceland, the Azores, Faroe Islands... Mabuska ^(talk) 21:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That's becoming OR. Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa is given as the equivalent to British Isles in a published Irish-English dictionary. AJRG (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What a complete mess. Terms in other languages don't necessarily have to be literal, word for word translations of their equivalent in English. If Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa is the term used in Irish Gaelic then we should use that, even if it is not a literal translation. The French name for the Straits of Dover is the Pas de Calais, which obviously doesn't translate literally. The French name for the English Channel is "La Manche" - no mention of England, and "manche" doesn't mean channel except in the context of the English Channel. We don't make up our own literal translations of geographical terms; we have to use the terms that are actually used in that language. john k (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Insulae Britanniae means the British Isles.

Insula Megale Britannia means the Island of Great Britain.

Insula Mikra Britannia means the Island of Little Britain (i.e., Island of Ireland).

Paeninsula Mikra Britannia means the Peninsula of Little Britain (i.e., Peninsula of Brittany).

Google Search: "Mikra Britannia"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Mikra+Britannia%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

It is pretty clear ...

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

insula, paeninsula and britannia are Latin words. megale, mikra and brettania are Greek.

Richard Bradley (mixing up Latin and Greek) writes Ptolemy’s account distinguishes between Megale Britannia (Great Britain) which refers to the larger island, and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) which describes Ireland. He doesn't say that Ptolemy is referring to Ireland, just that the description could fit. We don't know what Ptolemy actually meant, because in the Almagest he is explaining the variation of day length with latitude and doesn't give the longitude. The confusion arises because Ptolemy's Geography incorrectly places Hibernia at the same latitudes as Scotland. AJRG (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please click this link below for a "picture" of the situation,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Ptolemy-british-isles.jpg/350px-Ptolemy-british-isles.jpg

A 1490 Italian reconstruction of the map of Ptolemy

.

Now, there are two islands ...

(On the Left) the Small Island, the Mikra Nesos, the Minor Insula, ( the Mikra Britannia Insula)

(One the Right) the Big Island, the Megale Nesos, the Major Insula, (the Megale Britannia Insula)

Are you saying that Ptolemy (c. 90 AD -168 AD)

(Greek) Klaúdios Ptolemaîos [Greek-to-Latin Alphabet transliteration]

(Latin) Claudius Ptolemaeus [straight Latin Alphabet]

would not of used the term Mikra Britannia, and Megale Britannia and know what it was? Is this the arguement you are advancing? He invented the Modern-Day science of Cartography ... but alas he was sadly "too-dense" to discern spelling? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In the Almagest, Ptolemy doesn't describe either megale brettania or mikra brettania as an island. Since in Ptolemy's time the Roman province of Britannia had been variously divided as (Britannia Citerior / Britannia Ulterior) and (Britannia Superior / Britannia Inferior), we can't make assumptions about what he means by megale and mikra. AJRG (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Who gave that map the stamp of authenticity? Here's one from 1467. Here's another from 1482.

Anyway what's your point? Are you simply trying to insist, using a book that no longer exists, a term that been translated through 3 languages, using a map with Latin names, that another term was used to refer to an island? Where is this going exactly? And if it's going nowhere, take this discussion somewhere else. And please read WP:INDENT. --HighKing (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Its almost identical to material he has posted before High King, with the same disregard for guidelines on how to format comments. Best to ignore it and get on with agreeing how to move forward. Also worth reading this to get a sense of the issue--Snowded ^TALK 08:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. Best to ignore him. We are here discussing the names of the British Isles in the various indigenous languages and where best to insert them in the article, all while AVDL simply asserts the Latin and Greek names over and over and over again, without trying to help on the project at all. Getting back to the point regarding the languages: the names for the isles in Irish should be represented as "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" and "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór", and not "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha". This last term is a "translation", word for word, of the English term "British Isles", and as has been mentioned, would be analagous to the French wikipedia using "The Pass of Calais" as the English translation for "Pas de Calais" - quite accurate as a translation, but not what the English call that stretch of water. Likewise "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" is an accurate translation in Irish of the "British Isles" but is not what they are called in Irish (no more mentions of Latin, Greek, or Ptolemy please as they are in no way related to how the isles are named in Irish). A slight minor detail regarding the infobox as well - it mentions that the languages represented there are the official languages in the 8 jurisdictions. However Norman is NOT an official language anywhere. The official languages of the Channel Islands are English and Standard French, with regional status afforded to the local variants of Norman, i.e. Jèrriais, Guernésiais, and Sercquiais.--MacTire02 (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again. "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" has a single reference on the entire internet - to a Collins dictionary. It is a neologism. The collective name in Irish given in Dineen's 1927 dictionary is Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa. Furthermore, this latter term occurs, as has been referenced here before, in the sixteenth-century Irish annals. User:Mabuska should familiarise himself with previous discussions and references before making his claims. Once more, as this reference has been removed by the usual British nationalist editors in this article, here is the sixteenth-century reference for Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa: 'M1584.2. Sir Niclas Maulbi gobernóir chóiccidh Connacht d'écc i n-Áth Luain fá initt, fer foglamtha i m-bérlaibh & i t-tengtoibh oilén Iarthair Eorpa [Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa] esidhe, fear crodha cath-bhuadhach seachnon Ereann, Alban, & na Fraingce'(Source: http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G100005E/index.html). Translation: 'M1584.2. Sir Nicholas Malby, Governor of the province of Connaught, died at Athlone, about Shrovetide. He was a man learned in the languages and tongues of the islands of the West of Europe, a brave and victorious man in battles fought throughout Ireland, Scotland, and France'(Source: http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100005E/text009.html). End of "debate".Dunlavin Green (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Collins Pocket Irish Dictionary seems rather a weak source to use as the only support for a contentious translation. Unless a better source can be found, I propose that we remove "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha". AJRG (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

British nationalists? where? GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish Dunlavin Green would stop accusing everyone who disagrees with him/he disagrees with a “British Nationalist”. It’s extremely counter-productive and in violation of Talk Page Rules. So to you sir, cut it out. As Good Day, says, I see none. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Anybody who claims that the term "British Isles" is not political (despite Ireland and the Irish people being under a brutal British colonial occupation for centuries) and is merely "geographical" is most assuredly a British nationalist. Look at the chief culprits - User:BritishWatcher, one of the more vociferous of the British editors here makes his British nationalism clear in his User Page;This guy explicitly believes that the Irish are British, politically and otherwise and should have no say in this article; User:MidnightBlueMan never made a secret about his British nationalist politics; User:Mabuska is dedicated to British unionist work in Wikipedia; while your own page merely says you're 'proud to be English' (we know where that often goes, don't we?). There is a clear, unmistakable British nationalist agenda in this article. So far, the objections of "many" Irish people have been removed (despite being well referenced), an enormous number of references supporting the Irish objections have been removed from this article by British nationalist editors, and now the first information about this term being 'controversial' is in the 19th line. What are you all trying to hide? In the first edition of this article in October 2001 the controversy was mentioned in the first paragraph and alluded to in the first sentence. Let me guess? You don't really know about Ireland and the Irish and just assume that the Irish are happy to be termed "British" and live in what you term the "British Isles"? Why do you think most of Ireland is free from British colonial rule and described as a republic? Could it have been because of a popularly supported War of Independence led by the Irish Republican Army? Play your British jingoism elsewhere. Your British state is rejected by the vast majority of the population of the island of Ireland, whether you like it or not. Your "British Isles" covering Ireland is a delusion, and a typically offensive one at that. But what else can the Irish people expect from the British, seeing what they have been doing to us for centuries. Dunlavin Green (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)