Talk:British Isles

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)

A while ago it was argued that Cornish could not be included because nobody could find a reference for "Enesow Bretennek". I have since found one: <ref>{{cite book |title=Gerlyver Sawsnek-Kernowek |last=Williams |first=Nicholas |authorlink=Nicholas Williams |publisher=Agan Tavas/Evertype |page=44 |year=2006 |isbn=978-1-904808-06-0}}</ref>, however it seems that the inclusion criteria have been changed, from languages of the British Isles to official languages of selected political divisions. So I'll just keep a note of it here for future reference. In response to some concerns here, regardless of whether or not the term "British Isles" was used in the 17th Century, the word "enesow" for islands is well attested in the traditional texts, and so is the adjective "bretennek" for British. That is the term it was/would have been then, and that is the term it is now. "Enesow Bretennek" is in the standard form used by the Council. --Joowwww (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not meaning to burst your bubble Joowwww, but the reference provided specifically states "[the] dictionary...utilizes Unified Cornish Revised orthography". That reference is fine for suggesting the translation as is the case in UCR, but not for suggesting the Council's preferred translation. The SWF may indeed use the translation as found in Williams dictionary, but we would need to back that up too. It might not be a bad idea to contact the Cornish Language Partnership itself and ask them if they have any references to it in any published material or online. --MacTire02 (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But the reference isn't there to prove what the council uses, it's there to just prove what Cornish uses. The original issue was that nobody could find a reference for the Cornish for "British Isles". The current inclusion criteria (to which Cornish is not eligible) is official language, not official orthography. I doubt the CLP could help, since an SWF dictionary hasn't been published yet, and both the SWF glossary and the SWF specification don't have "British Isles" in them. --Joowwww (talk) 20:34, 11 September 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): [1]. 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)

Feel better now? :) BritishWatcher (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

DG, I can't stress too strongly that the word British has two separate meanings. The meaning associated with colonial misrule of Ireland and subsequently with the British Empire is comparatively modern and no longer in fashion. The original meaning, which is still in use, refers to the tribes who inhabited Hibernia and Albion in Greek and Roman times, and this is the proper sense (used in various languages for two millennia) of the phrase British Isles. AJRG (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A couple of issues there, AJRG. First, the term "British Isles" only appears in the English language when the modern concept of Britishness began to emerge, specifically to the work of the English imperialist John Dee in 1577 (interestingly, there were several references from academia describing John Dee and his writing as 'imperialist' but they, too, have been removed from this article). The term, therefore, is bound up with this modern imperialist sense and has nothing to do with the ancient 'P'/'B' Celts of Britain (the Irish were obviously not 'P'/British Celts but rather 'Q'/Goidelic Celts). Second, even if the term "British Isles" had some non-political geographical origin millenia ago to say that it still holds the same meaning after centuries of British rule in Ireland is simply untrue. Language use and meaning changes. To say the term "British Isles" means the same thing now as it would have a millenia ago is akin to saying that the Swastika is merely still a Hindu flag of peace. Dunlavin Green (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

DG, the Cruthin (Cruithne) in Ireland were apparently originally P-Celtic speakers. The term Brytish Iles appears as English begins to re-establish itself as a language of publication alongside Latin and is a direct translation of Insulae Britannicae. The Tudors didn't invent misrule in Ireland, though they did continue it, but as a new Welsh dynasty they felt the need to stress the antiquity of their claim to the islands. AJRG (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This term may be less used than it once was but it is still used often and the idea it stopped being used or should have stopped being used after 1922 is nonsense. it is a geographical term used by many sources still today and that is all that matters :) BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Irish name

Alright! Too much fluffing around. Reading everything, it seems Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa seems to be the best Irish translation, if not the most literal. Thoughts? (Vote?) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. AJRG (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well when you actually think about it - the section does state "native names", and well if that is proven native name in the Republic of Ireland for the British Isles then i suppose so - even if it leaves off many other islands of western Europe... however this is about language not what a state calls it. If it can be proven that Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa is common usage amongst Irish speakers (after all the state doesn't control the language) then by all means stick it in. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa = "British Isles". oileáin iarthar na hEorpa = western islands of Europe or western European islands in the context of any western European islands or island groupings. Is ionann Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa agus "British Isles" an Bhéarla, ach is é is brí le oileáin iarthar na hEorpa ná oileán nó oileáin ar bith atá suite amach ó chósta iarthar na hEorpa, Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa san iomlán. In otherwords, to speakers of Irish there is a difference between the two terms. The first term may be used for the British Isles exclusively, whereas the second term may be used for any island or island grouping in Western Europe. References have already been provided previously about usage. --MacTire02 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A bit late as a further reply to Mabuska, but in relation to what you describe as "what a state calls it": Official state term for the British Isles, and a term used as a collective name by native Irish speakers (albeit viewing the group as two groups of islands) = Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór. Common term used by speakers of Irish when viewing the British Isles as a collective group = Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa. --MacTire02 (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, that seems to be a consensus against Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction needs fixing

Following a conversation on Republic of Ireland, one editor said [2]

"Britain and Ireland is one of the accepted forms for British Isles, like it or lump it its fact, take your protests to the people over on the British Isles article if you don't like it,and see if you can persuade them to change their minds."

Now i have raised this matter before stating exactly this potential problem. The current wording in the introduction states.

As a result, Britain and Ireland is becoming a preferred description,[10][13][14] and Atlantic Archipelago is increasingly favoured in academia,[15][16][17][18] although British Isles is still commonly employed.

This sentence makes people think that Britain and Ireland is an alternative name for the British Isles. This is totally incorrect, the point that sentence is meant to be making is "instead of talking about the British Isles people just talk of Britain and Ireland" which is not the same area. This matter clearly needs to be addressed to avoid confusion. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI.The editor mentioned above was me, to understand the context in which I said that I suggest looking at the talk page BritishWatcher mentioned.Sheodred (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement in the lead is supported explicitly by quoted references. It used to be supported by more references. Some of these were removed on the basis that the number of references being used to support it was excessive.

This page is to be used to discuss improvements to this article. It is not a venue to discuss exchanges between editors on other pages. Those kinds of discussions belong on the relevant editors' talk pages. --RA (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is directly about the introduction on this article. Sheodred has been misled by this introduction. He thinks that "Britain and Ireland" is an accepted way of talking about the area that is the British Isles. That is clearly incorrect. The sources are suggesting instead of talking about the British Isles, people just talk of Britain and Ireland instead. They are not saying the British Isles is also described as Britain and Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just ignore him RA.You can't compromise with him, I tried, despite everything you do, you can't if he does not have his way.Sheodred (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think he has been misled. I think that you are misled about what they say.

They do not say to "just talk of Britain and Ireland instead." They say, "In response to [difficulties with 'British Isles'], 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming preferred usage." And, "Nowadays, however, 'Britain and Ireland' is the more favoured expression [compare to 'British Isles']" That is what we say also.

In any event, we include relatively lengthy quotes so readers of all perspectives can see exactly that the sources say. --RA (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Write up the intro in anyway ya please folks. Just keep away from the article title (as it's atleast historic). GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Does "Britain and Ireland" include the isle of man and Channel Islands? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay. Besides, I am reading William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and he constantly uses the term British Isles. Britain and Ireland does leave out Isle of Man and the Channel Isles. I am not taking sides just trying to place things in their proper historical position.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's (yet) another ref equating "Britain and Ireland" with "British Isles":

• Guelke, Adrian (2006), Global Disorder: Political Violence in the Contemporary World, London: I.B.Taurus, p. 238, ISBN 9781850438038, European integration has made it possible to consider the question of sovereignty in other than zero-sum terms, in which a grain for one community automatically constitutes a loss for the other. That is reflected in the Good Friday Agreement's promotion of both closer ties within the British Isles (or Britain and Ireland, in nationalist language) and between the two parts of Ireland.

So, yes, if the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are included in "British Isles" then they are included in "Britain and Ireland". The two terms are interchangable. Choice of one over another is merely personal preference. --RA (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source that says Britain and Ireland = Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands? That source does not clearly state Britain and Ireland means the same area as the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The source, as with the ones already on the page, equate the two terms. --RA (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading through this it seems that one thing is apparent. Britain and Ireland is a colloquial synonym for British Isles. This is irrespective of whether that is "correct" or not. Maybe the article can just be altered to say that? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This is silly. The Isle of Man is an afterthought, and the Channel Islands aren't geographically part of the British Isles, anyway. john k (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland

We clearly need to figure this matter out one way or another and ensure it is clear in the article and terminology article and in other places too perhaps.

Is Britain and Ireland a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland and over six thousand smaller islands. Including the Channel Islands and Isle of Man?

Or

Is Britain and Ireland just a term to completely avoid use of British Isles. A term that either refers to Great Britain and Ireland or United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Both of which do not include the Isle of Man and Channel Islands.

I have always believed it is the second and continue to. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Terminology of the British Isles looks like it requires an expansion on this term. It simply states that it is used as an alternative to British Isles. Information (even the source provided by HighKing) seems to point out that it is used by "nationalists". So it is, I suppose, a common alternative, if incorrect. Maybe just scrap the alternative from this article and link to the Terminology article? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What source? Remind me please. BTW, I'm totally against using "Britain and Ireland" as a shorthand for "British Isles" and I agree with BW that it's not synonymous. --HighKing (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there is a traditional geographic term in Irish which translates roughly as Islands west of Europe, Britain and Ireland is a different term. It clearly excludes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and arguably the Orkney and Shetland Islands as well. There are many contexts in which the term Britain and Ireland is entirely appropriate, but it is not a geographical equivalent for British Isles. AJRG (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Britain and Ireland" is really just shorthand for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland". It's an easy way of linking two countries which are geographically adjacent and have much in common. That's how most people use it anyway. You might struggle to find a reference for this becuase it's really only on Wikipedia that anyone is that bothered about a precise definition. In fact, slowly but surely its definition is being created here! There's something not quite right with that. LevenBoy (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fear not, Laven. One of the reference currently in this article testifies that "'Britain and Ireland' is becoming preferred usage" a year before Wikipedia was launched (2000). --RA (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

But does it define what "Britain and Ireland" actually is, notwithstanding its use as a synonym? I bet it doesn't. LevenBoy (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using the term "Britain and Ireland" is geographical in that it does not include IOM or the Channel Islands. However the Irish government has decided that that is the term that should be preferred in its official terminology. My personal belief is that that is partially based on ignorance. Many in Ireland who do not know any better consider the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands as mere parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in a manner similar to the way Shetland and Orkney are parts of Britain (like how foreigners contend that Wales and Scotland are part of England). What is happening is the usurpation of a colloquial (Irish) term to offically label the British Isles as Britain and Ireland. So technically speaking IOM and Channel Islands are not part of Britain and Ireland, but colloquially speaking, and now politically speaking (in Ireland at least), they are included. --MacTire02 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Up to a point, but note that the comparison between counting "Wales as part of England" as a foreigner's misaprehension is not the same as counting "Orkney/Shetland as part of Britain" - the latter is technically, constitutionally and legally correct, regardless of the views of Orkey and Shetland people or political opinion. The former is not. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it's usage. Though I don't see evidence for it being merely a "colloquial" or "Irish" term. The references we use, for example, are UK-based and academic but you will find it in publications, including maps, of all sorts. It is not perfect a perfect term either. As we are aware, problems exist with "British" Isles also.

@Laven, I've never seen it defined except that it is an equivalent to British Isles. I have seen examples that came tantalisingly close to it, but never quite. There are also plenty of cryptic references such as National Geographic Style-guide: "The plate in the National Geographic Atlas of the World once titled 'British Isles' now reads 'Britain and Ireland'." It would appear, as the sources in the text support, to be part of a trend from one (inaccurate) term to another.

I think anyone would be mad to suggest, for example, that this page be moved to "Britain and Ireland" or to say that we should switch our prefered usage to it; but you would be on unsound footing to deny its existence or to say that it is not a common synonym for British Isles. Regardless of our opinion of it (inaccurate etc.), it evidently exists and is verifiably used as an synonym/equivalent/replacement for British Isles. --RA (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Yes, it does exist, and yes, "Britain and Ireland" is often used in some contexts instead of "British Isles". But it's not synonymous - i.e. to use "British Isles" when the subject matter is limited to UK&I or GB&I. --HighKing (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to note that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands aren't equivalent here. The Isle of Man is indisputably part of the British Isles; the Channel Islands are sometimes included, but are geographically distinct. john k (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Tectonically distinct but still considered part of the geographic region known as the British Isles? --HighKing (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm, didn't we have this conversation already? I distinctly remember arguing this point (about 'Britain and Ireland' not being synonymous with 'British Isles') in some detail to no effect and now you all come out and agree... sigh. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

After several years of trying to improve Wikipedia in questions of Chemistry, History, and grammar, I have just done something I've never done before. I undid my four improvements to an article. After reading these pages of discussions, it became clear to me that this article is written in the POV of a larger population with only passing reference to the feelings of an unwilling minority. The accounting of the historical, natural, and political interactions between the British and Irish is really rather well done in the article and should stay. Now, find another name and respect neutrality. Speaking of which, did you notice that the English names for almost all Flemish cities were changed to the Flemish spellings? Even the Battle of the Dyle has become the Battle of the Dijle.Laburke (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that Laburke. On the Flemish stuff, if its still commonly known as Dyle in English usage it should remain as Dyle rather than Dijle unless it is now the accepted version. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In English, the ij vowel-semivowel combination was replaced by the letter y in the circa 15th century.Laburke (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Now, find another name and respect neutrality." - We do not change names of things simply because a few people have a problem with it. So no. The silly concerns about the term are addressed within the introduction, in the body of the article and there is a whole article on the naming dispute. This article is neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, BW, the usual practice is to put quotations in italics, not boldface, which would connote a much more vehement tone than I took. So no, you say. Well, I say language evolves. There are many terms that are no longer used because they are painful reminders to a few people of their subjection, conquest, and in some cases slavery. There are some in my country who call the dropping of painful terms, Political Correctness. I call it common decency and respect for others. When a neutral name can be found, I would like to contribute towards correcting the grammatical, chronological, and historical inaccuracies that I found in it.Laburke (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Going back to BW's original question above, I don't think it's really as clear-cut as those two alternatives you put forwards, BW. As we can see from the subsequent discussion, the precise meaning of the phrase "Britain and Ireland" is unagreed, poorly defined and shifts in complex ways, depending on who uses is, where, etc. So we can't obtain a defitive meaning here in WP by discussion as there will continue to be conflicting sources and real-world usages. The best we can hope for is generalism. If this is part of an MoS discussion then, it won't get very far. Personally I think precision matters more in most articles. There are lots of places where BI or B&I are being used as shorthands for things that would be better explaining more exactly. Just saying "BI" or "B&I" when you actually mean "parts of western Ireland, northern Scotland, but not the CI or Cornwall" for example. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a simple yes / no issue though. Is the isle of man in "Great Britain and Ireland"? The answer to that question is no, there for it is impossible for Great Britain and Ireland to accurately mean the area that the British Isles refers to. It is a completely different alternative term, not another way of describing the British Isles. and the intro needs to make this clear, the whole reason this debate started up was because someone said otherwise citing this article. Going into more detail is fine in some cases, although there is no reason not to state something like "Within the British Isles, particularly Cornwall and Wales...." BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If Britain and Ireland has no clear definition should we really be using it? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well as far as im aware there are just two meanings, which both cover the same area anyway. United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland or Great Britain and Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The two wordings mentioned just then cover different areas. UK and ROI includes other islands such as the Shetlands and Orkneys. GB and I doesn't. Losing your touch on islands inclusion arguments BW? ;) {no offense intended} Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Although the term "Britain and Ireland" may appear to some to exclude the smaller islands, in my view that is not how the term is generally used. It is a convenient shorthand term used for the whole island group, including Orkney, Shetland, Hebrides and, in my view, the Isle of Man. Because those smaller islands are relatively small in terms of area and population, they are generally capable of being ignored by most users of the term. The fact that the term is not precisely accurate is not the only relevant factor - the encyclopedia clearly needs to explain that it is not accurate terminology, while also recognising that it is a widely used term. Most users of the term are not as careful with words as many WP editors on this page. So, I agree with Jamesinderbyshire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Britain and Ireland" is, in fact, used as a synonym for "British Isles". That some here think this is not technically correct while claiming Ireland is a "British" isle is, quite frankly, laughable. 'Anything but the "British Isles"' is, in reality, abided by for by the majority of Ireland's population. Is anybody here, who lives in Ireland, claiming the term "British Isles" is commonly used in Ireland? 86.42.16.189 (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The intro [edit] Disambiguation Links [/edit] should to refer to the naming dispute [page]

1) The title for this page is appropriate I believe as "British Isles". As others have stated - the page is about defining the term as it is used. (Therefore I post here and not on the "specific talk page for matters relating to the name of this article")

2) On the other hand, I quote: The Government of Ireland does not use the term[11] and its embassy in London discourages its use.[12]

Currently: in the British Isles page the term "British Isles" is defined in the first paragraph. Then come two paragraphs busy with very ancient geology and ancient history, and then (and only then) comes comes a paragraph about objections to the term including Nr.2 above. The naming dispute page is linked to with no comment in the start of the Etymology section and there are a couple of sentences on the subject at the end of that section.

The reason the Irish government takes this stance (Nr.2 above) is because they are reflecting the general lack of use of the term amongst the Irish population, and they know it's a popular stance to take.

Now, if there is dissent with this term at that level - from a government whose land is included in the term - I believe this should be referred to (indirectly at least) in the intro, specifically by including a link to the naming dispute page British Isles naming dispute
Adding a reference to the naming dispute page would:
a) make the situation clear, and
b) be respectful to the people who do object to use of the term

Two proposed changes:

• Intro (changes are in square brackets - I lifted the text from the intro to the naming dispute page):
  

This article is about the archipelago in north-western Europe. For the group of territories with constitutional links to the United Kingdom, see "British Islands". [For information about the disagreement and different views on using the term "British Isles", particularly in relation to Ireland, see "British Isles naming dispute"]

• Paragraph four, (starting: The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland...) would be moved up to become the second paragraph (i.e. after the defining of the term and before the Geological & Historical paragraphs)
  

Tomosullivan (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. This has been discussed before and there in no concensus for change to suit biased PoV's. The Wikipedia convention on ledes put controversies at the end of a list of what should be in a lede and the controversy is at the end of the lede in this article. This article is about the British Isles a world-wide commonly used term. The naming dispute is also linked too in the lede (all those four paragraphs is the lede) - but if you read and checked through the lede you'd have seen that. Also the "Etymology" section clearly links to the dispute articles. Your porposed changes add nothing and only will cause more crap to be stirred and sputed out again as if we haven;t heard it all before. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm learning the terminology on the fly here - what I described as the Intro above, should, I believe (from link below), be called the Disambiguation Links (correct me if I'm wrong?). I edited the title of this section to hopefully clarify.

Thanks for your responses. I'm replying to all here as I presume the others agree with Mabuska's reasons for disagreeing as they didnt give any other. Mabuska, You use the term POV and the word 'biased' - in my post above I have stuck clearly to the facts mentioned in the article. There is far too much crap as you say involved in the naming debate, which is why I don't want to get involved in it - but it exists. As it has it's own Wikipedia page, I dont understand why it should not be included in the Disambiguation Links ?? It's illogical that it is not included there. Being worried about more crap being stirred up is a very subjective reason against, and really is an irrelevant (if understandable) reason. Personally I think if this got the recognition it deserved (here) there might actually be less off-topic posts flying around on these dicussion pages...
If anyone can refer me to where this suggestion (of including the link to naming dispute page in the Disambiguation Links) is discussed here, I'd be happy to read it - I couldn't find it but may have used the wrong search terms.
RE the lede, I didn't know wikipedia's convention's re that. I found this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Elements_of_the_lead and it does not confirm (that I could find) what you say about controversies coming at the end.

Tomosullivan (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with Tom. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Although paragraphs two and three could be significantly shortened as they're not really summaries. --HighKing (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I stopped reading after the first sentence. I am sure i oppose everything in your proposal thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Be careful not to bite, everyone.

With regards to (1), I don't think it is worth discussing it any more, Tom. There's reams of discussion in the archives. The controversy piece has been up-down-and-everywhere in the introduction. Untimately, this article is about he islands and not the controversy. Although it is worth mentioning, it is not the numero uno thing about this topic: geography, history and habitation are central to the topic of the islands than a (relatively) minor spat about what to call them. IMHO, the lead is the best it has been in the years that I have been contributing to this article. Part of the reason for that is because the controversy is left to last so the real focus of this article is allowed to take centre stage.

With regards to (2), it's not a suggestion that hasn't got merit. I wouldn't altogether mind - strictly speaking though it is [edit]not[/edit] what dab links are for, so it might just stir up resentment among editors who already feel that the "controversy" is over-stated.

All that said though, none were altogether really bad ideas and don't let reaction here put you off suggesting more or from further contributing to the 'pedia. --RA (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ehh, I used to get bitten alot at the Scotland article. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The article already has an entire paragraph in the introduction about the subject, so it doesn't need to raise notability of the topic any further. A different, but related issue is the use of atlantic archipelago - this is certainly not notable enough to be in there, as it's an abstract, academic phrasing and not in wide usage. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed about the Atlantic archipelago term. Im still concerned about the wording Britain and Ireland in that paragraph too. I still think it needs to be more clear it is a completely separate term, and not an alternative name for the exact area of the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The wording with respect to "Britain and Ireland" is almost verbatim what appears in the supporting sources. WRT "Atlantic Archipelago" ... meh! These are alternative terms. It does no great harm to give even a fairly off-beat one such as "Atlantic Archipelago" as an example. --RA (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit misleading as to notability putting it in the intro. It deserves a mention, but lower down in the main text. I had literally never heard the phrase before glancing at this article and I've been about a bit in these sacred islands of ours. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@RA, so you are open to the idea of including the link to naming dispute page in the top of the page. I'm confused when you say: strictly speaking though it is what dab links are for. (Did you see/read my response to Mabuska above?). The terminology is not clearly defined (I've read conflicting definitions of terms) so I'm struggling a bit... I would be very happy to see a disambiguation page - is that what you mean?

I know what the article is about & I have no interest in changing that, but for many the term is very offensive. I find it offensive & I am in no way "nationalistic". I think this should be briefly acknowledged by a link either in a disambiguation page or with a link in the top part in italic before the lead. Tomosullivan (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the fact that some find a particular term offensive is insufficient for it to be removed from Wikipedia. Therefore various other strategies for "explaining" it, knocking it, etc, must be deployed. :) This is old ground though Tom, so you will find everyone has been here hundreds of times before and there is very little to be done about the debate; British Isles exists in the real world and is staying put as a Wikipedia article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

James, what are you talking about?!! I didn't request that anything be removed!! And I dont know what you're trying to persuade me of when you say British Isles exists in the real world and is staying put as a Wikipedia article because I agree with that statement and have said similar a couple of times already above, including in the post you replied to.
In my response to Mabuska above I requested a link: If anyone can refer me to where this suggestion (of including the link to naming dispute page in the Disambiguation Links) is discussed here, I'd be happy to read it - I couldn't find it but may have used the wrong search terms.
Again, in my response to Mabuska above , I ask: As [the naming dispute page] has it's own Wikipedia page, I dont understand why it should not be included in the Disambiguation Links ?? It's illogical that it is not included there. Can you answer me either of those questions? Tomosullivan (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If ya wanna put it there, no probs. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation links are for when you reach an article you may not want to reach, say if two places have similar or identical names. Noone is looking for details about controversy over a term when they search for just that term. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about a disambiguation page. Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. There are actually multiple articles about and related to the British Isles -this list taken from Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force page:
Main articles
British Isles Terminology
British Isles
Botanical Society of the British Isles
Great Britain and Ireland
List of the British Isles by area
List of the British Isles by population
British Isles naming dispute
- so this could be a good solution. Tomosullivan (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be more like a list page or something similar. Disambig is for the same phrase or word, not phrases that happen to include the word or words. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is for articles where the search term would be expected to lead. No-one would search "British Isles" and expect to get "British Isles terminology", "Botanical Society of the British Isles", "List of British Isles by area", "British Isles naming dispute", or "List of British Isles by population". "Great Britain and Ireland" is just a disambiguation page, and no-one would search "British Isles" and expect to get that page.

At any rate, going to all those would require a general disambiguation, rather than just a link to the dispute. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

@Tomosullivan - apologies, I left a vital "not" out of that post. Should have read: "...strictly speaking though it is notwhat dab links are for." --RA (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Replying here to Chipmunkdavis & Jamesinderbyshire as well (hope that okay). @RA, Yes, that was rather a vital "not" :-)

Re disambiguation links and pages: points taken. Another approach given on the dabs page is the "Rice" page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice. I quote from the dabs page:
The page at Rice is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Rice (disambiguation) to find the other uses. This would be more appropriate according to what Chipmunkdavis & Jamesinderbyshire say above as a search for British Isles would bring one directly to the British Isles page (as currently). It doesnt help me in terms of what I wanted, but I still think it would be a good idea in general.Tomosullivan (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Tom - you know, I know and all the Irish posters here and around the world know that this term is rejected in Ireland and that fact should have primacy in the article which is currently under this extremely controversial name. The fact that "many" Irish people object to it was removed, even though it was well referenced. The fact that John Dee, the first person credited with using the term (according to the Oxford English Dictionary), was referenced in many reputable places (including by Oxford's DNB) as an imperialist was also removed (they got really agitated about those references as it shows unequivocally the political origins of the term "British Isles"). Indeed, all objections to this title get further and further down this page, despite being in the first sentence of the first version of this article in 2001. Why? Because there is number of British nationalist posters here who have an agenda to remove all opposition to this name from this article. Look at the User Page of many of the people who oppose your idea - e.g. User:BritishWatcher - and you'll see a Union Jack; look at their edit history and you'll see their purpose on Wikipedia is to advance British nationalist articles like this one. The fact the the democratically-elected government of the state of Ireland rejects this term, that this term is avoided in *all* treaties and agreements between the government of Ireland and the United Kingdom, that maps from international publishers such as National Geographic have replaced the term "British Isles" with "British and Irish Isles" or the fact that, at the top of this page, we have a link to a wide variety of academics, Irish and British alike, attesting to the avoidance of this term by a huge number (at least) of Irish people is all neither here nor there. These references have been removed from this article numerous times. A more bigoted, anti-Irish group of editors you will not find in Wikipedia than those individuals who are trying to marginalise Irish objections to this title here on this article. Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh Dunlavin, i always enjoy reading your comments! :) lol. If i did not enjoy reading them id probably report you for your continued attacks on British editors, you are clearly breaking wikipedia rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself: attacks on British nationalist editors. You'd like to think all Brits are as anti-Irish and nationalistically "British" as you. I doubt any editor, other than a flag-waving John Bull one, would have sympathy for any claims you might make for "impartiality" given your User Page and edit history on Irish-related articles. Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

John Dee is directly quoted as the first user of the term a few paras down in the Etymology section - it is unlikely that he invented it, hence the feud over that particular point. It really doesn't help to raise these old issues - they have been very heavily discussed and I would always point people who are new to the debate to the archives as a starter for ten. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying he isn't quoted: what has been said, clearly, is that the fact that many reputable sources refer to him as an imperialist has been removed. It has been removed solely for political reasons: evidence that the earliest known user of the term was an English imperialist undermines the myth perpetrated here that the term is not political in its origin in the English language- and a very important point that is indeed. Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)