Talk:Names of the British Isles

User Bastun's edits.

So let's get into it.

On March 18th user Bastun edited this article 3 times without prior discussion or consensus, changing the nature of several paragraphs to imply lack of unanimity in Ireland on the position of the naming dispute. That position - that Ireland objects to the term "British Isles" is unanimous by any nature. Poll after poll reflects that Irish people see themselves as Irish, not British, and the official position of the sovereign government of Ireland is that they object to the term "British Isles" when used to include Ireland and her isles. As the government speaks for the people of Ireland, the position is unanimous. Where then does user Bastun receive the mandate to unilaterally insert the implication that this is only "some" Irishmen and women holding this opinion? That it is perhaps and somehow a niche position in this sovereign country not to be labeled as a possession of another? Would you call the Dutch German possessions? Would you call Portugal the Spanish Coast? Where does this come from?

For convencience, user Bastun's changes are listed below in bold:

16:55, 18 March 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+8)‎ . . British Isles naming dispute ‎ (Per source) ((Note: no source listed or referenced)

For this reason, the name British Isles is avoided by some in Hiberno-English as such usage could be construed to imply continued territorial claims or political overlordship of the Republic of Ireland by the United Kingdom

17:03, 18 March 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+11)‎ . . British Isles naming dispute ‎ (→‎Republic of Ireland: more accurate) (Note: blatant POV)

Use of the name "British Isles" is often rejected in the Republic of Ireland, because some claim its use implies a primacy of British identity over all the islands outside the United Kingdom,

17:00, 18 March 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-392)‎ . . British Isles naming dispute ‎ (→‎Republic of Ireland: ce, remove personal opinion with confusing wording) (Note: Bastun's removal of an entire paragraph without discussion)

From the Irish perspective, it is considered as a political term and does not constitute a geographical naming for the archipelago. The British isles includes the Channel Islands, which is British territory off the coast of France and not in the Atlantic archipelago, while it also excludes the Danish territory of the Faroe Islands, which are a part of the European Atlantic archipelago. The phrase British isles is deemed to constitute a collection of British territorial claims, which Ireland has long been for Britain.

This user has a clear agenda to insinuate that the unified and official national stance of the Irish people and government of Ireland is somehow niche and fragmented. I would be grateful to hear his reasoning before he makes any more such reversions.198.103.152.51 (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I would say: start with giving sources for your edits. The Banner talk 18:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

As my edits are simply reverting his, which he made a few days ago, which flew against the narrative of the article without any evidence provided by him, I am going to ask that user Bastun substantiate himself first. If he is not able to, then we can all agree his edits should be removed for being false and NPOV. If he can substantiate himself, which I doubt, I will refute it. I would also appreciate if The Banner could be a little bit more impartial and show a little less obvious bias, seeing as he's deflected this question twice now.198.103.152.51 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm absolutely with you here. Bastun seems to be clearly violating NPOV by inserting weasel-words and removing whole tracts of text simply because he disagrees with it, and his entire defence seems to be hoping that nobody would catch him. His edits clearly need to be reverted.135.23.153.86 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I am the previously anonymous user 135.23.153.86.Hibarnacle (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we know which sock? Apollo again, or someone else? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I took the wrong article to hat. Apollo was active on "Irish people", not here.The Banner talk 21:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I guess that means I'm supposed to refute the assertion that because the government says something, it must be true, and automatically overrides the free will of every citizen? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

So Bastun's entire arguement is "I disagree with the government of Ireland's position on this matter"? No, sorry, that's not an arguement. You're clearly violating NPOV and should have your edits removed. Either do better or admit your fault, Bastun.135.23.153.86 (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I am still waiting on your evidence that Bastun is wrong. The Banner talk 20:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, it's me you're looking for. You're asking for evidence for what exactly? Please be precise. I'm operating under the good faith assumption that if you were to actually LOOK at Bastun's original NPOV edits you'd see them for what they are, rather than this knee-jerk defense you are mounting where you are requesting evidence that the government of a country speaks for that country.Hibarnacle (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You are claiming that Bastuns stance is incorrect. Now I am waiting for evidence that proves that Bastun is wrong. The Banner talk 21:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

A government speaks for it's country. That is the literal definition of sovreignty. Bastun's insertion of weasel-words and removal of entire tracts of texts is a clear NPOV meant to reflect his personal interpretation that this is a niche position, when it is the unified and official position of the national government. Hibarnacle (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

A nice slogan but no evidence. The Banner talk 07:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be confused The Banner; Reddit is THAT way. Please take your nonsense there. I'm going to assume you can't defend your actions from now on.Hibarnacle (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

A government may speak for its country, well that's true to an extent but one can hardly say everyone in Britain agrees with Brexit for example. Personally I don't mind them being called the British Isles though I know others object and the Irish government has no power over me to coerce me to think otherwise. Dmcq (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

A government does speak for it's country; this isn't open to interpretation. That's the literal point of the government on the international stage. Nobody is talking about affecting Dmcq's ability to make his own decisions; we're talking about the opinion of the naming dispute specifically among Irish people, where the position has never been proven to be anything but unanimously opposed to it.Hibarnacle (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If it is the government saying something then say 'the Irish government' not Irish people. Substituting one for the other is not a reasonable thing to do. It verges on saying 'the American people say' every time Trump tweets. And the government says only when the government says through an official spokesman and it isn't denied afterwards, otherwise it is some specific member of the government. Dmcq (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure whether you're trolling; or just, I dunno, maybe a schoolkid, or something? Your argument is really that a government speaks for its entire population? That nobody is allowed to have their own opinion that differs from the government's position? This isn't even the case in North Korea... Nope, I'm afraid it simply isn't the case that the Irish government speak for everyone, with no dissent; it isn't the case that everyone believes use of the term "implies a primacy of British identity over all the islands outside the United Kingdom"; and it most certainly isn't the case that the Irish government endorses the position that "The phrase British isles is deemed to constitute a collection of British territorial claims, which Ireland has long been for Britain." (Their grammar is generally better, for a start.) The most that can be claimed is that "some" hold those positions. (Though usually also expressed with better phrasing and grammar). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You are literally admitting that your entire arguement is based upon your opinion instead of the official position of the Irish state. That is the very definition of NPOV. I'm not interested in dealing with a British person who doesn't respect the views of the Irish people and state; either substantiate your views through something more than your own opinion or this page is getting reverted.Hibarnacle (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hibarnacle, while a government speaks 'on behalf of a nation, its official views may or may not represent a majority or super majority opnion. Also, please to do not threaten or imply an edit war.

Bastun as the changes were introduced by you, you bear the burden of supporting them. Can you provide any evidence that a significant number of inhabitants of Ireland approve of the term "British Isles" for the group of islands including Ireland? Or is this a minority or even hypothetical view? Hibarnacle, can you provide evidence to the contrary, perhaps a reliable poll, to show what the actual views of the Irish are? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources, not on editors assumptions and extrapolations. Dmcq (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

DESiegel, I could argue the opposite, that I was not introducing changes but removing the biased and patently untrue statements already introduced by someone else. In any case, the phraseology I changed implied unanimity. Indeed, Hibarnacle states above that this is literally what the text was supposed to mean. As I and other Irish citizens, living in Ireland, and indeed, commenting on this page now and in the past, have no particular objection to the use of the term "British Isles" when used in the correct geographical context, then, well... Q.E.D.. (Use of Latin should not be taken to imply that I support any claims that the Holy Roman Empire may have over the territory of Ireland. (Likewise for any claims originating from the Holy See of Rome)). With respect, a lot, if not all, of what you're looking for has already been demonstrated multiple times and is present in the archives. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

But sure no harm in having recent examples to hand, I suppose. I'll bite:

• Hits confined to the .gov.ie domain: 176 (N.B. most government websites don't actually use .gov.ie, just .ie).

• Hits confined to the oireachtas.ie domain: 183 (those radical unionists, the Irish parliament.)

• Hits confined to .rte.ie: 262. The official state broadcaster.

• Hits confined to the irishtimes.com domain: 540 (from the paper of record. (Or as one editor had it recently, the organ for the British government in Ireland, I kid you not...))

• Hits confined to independent.ie: 410 (guess it's not just the West Brit newspaper, so...)

• Hits confined to .ie: 228,000. Caveat: those 228,000 results subsume the 1,031 results already captured above, so really that's only just under 227,000 results.)

So. Yeah. It's not used a huge amount, but I think you can conclude that yes, the term "British Isles" is in somewhat widespread use in Ireland. Despite the best efforts of the Irish government's sekrit unanimity mind control project. Can we put this to bed now? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You've simply googled the term "British Isles" in Irish domains and linked, as evidence, among other things, an article referencing how disputed the term is and an article referring to "the British and Irish Isles." I dare say this should be obvious enough of the wafer-thin nature of this arguement by now.Hibarnacle (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

In plain original research (the opinion of friends here in Co. Clare) it is clear that most people just do not care about the term. No support, no offence, just acceptance, like the acceptance of the rain. But a few of them (all strong SF and/or IRA-supporters) take offence of the term. The Banner talk 10:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Even as a political term rather than a geographical one I think live and let live is best. Lots of unionists call themselves British, who am I to say otherwise if they wish to do that? On the other hand I have no problems with the Irish government avoiding use of the term. Going an telling other countries the term should not be used though is I think just making trouble. Their saying 'not official' in their capacity as a political organisation is about right I think. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Bastun, I am afraid that as an editor who changed article languages that had been stable for some time, WP:BURDEN applies to your edit. There it says: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The previous text implies that an overwhelming majority, of the Irish, if not all of them, object to the use of the term "the British Isles". I cant regard the list of google hits from searches you cite as a reliable source to the contrary, because they show that the term has been used, but not how it has been used, whether with acceptance or with scorn, or what. They also do not show who wrote the documents thus searched, nor when. The Banner, your informal OR would seem to support the use of "some", but of course is not anything that could be cited in the article. Dmcq, your personal opinion may be sensible, but tells us nothing about how widely it is shared. This has been a vexed point for a long time -- surely someone reliable has done some sort of opinion research, a poll or set of interviews or some such, to determine just how widespread such objections are? Failing this, we could point to published opinion pieces, I suppose, to document how widely the objections are shared. While Bastun's edit has been challenged and needs to be sourced or removed, this discussion seems to have also challenged the previous wording, which was also not supported by any cited source. Can any of you suggest a reliable source or sources that would be usable in the article on this issue?

I am neither Irish nor British, I hold no particular views on the issue. I merely want to uphold Wikipedia policy and improve the article. I came here because of the Teahouse post -- I often respond to questions there. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I know that what I know is not usable as a source but it is my experience. And no, I am not Irish or British either. The Banner talk 13:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The sources that are already cited say some or often or many, none of them support having a blanket "For this reason, the name British Isles is avoided in Hiberno-English as such usage could be construed to imply continued territorial claims or political overlordship of the Republic of Ireland by the United Kingdom" without a by some or by many. I would have put it as by many as that goes with often as well which is in the cites of the statement, but some is supported by the sources. Reliable citations take precedence over stable for some time. 13:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Teahouse post. No, there is no official poll, because - aside from a tiny minority of diehard republicans and schoolkids getting their "800 years!" lectures from Christian Brothers - nobody really cares that much whether the term British Isles is used, or who by. Unless some moron like Richard Suchet comes out with an idiotic statement, in which case yes, obviously, there's some righteous indignation. I think what you're asking me, DESiegel, though, is to prove a negative, which obviously I can't do. Look at the changes I made, though, please. They are neutral and balanced - some might even say blatantly obvious. The article previously stated "From the Irish perspective, it is considered as a political term and does not constitute a geographical naming for the archipelago." Who considers it thus? It's a universal opinion? Does nobody dissent from this opinion?! Citation (currently entirely absent!) very much needed if it were to remain or be re-inserted. The article previously stated "The phrase British isles is deemed to constitute a collection of British territorial claims, which Ireland has long been for Britain." Who, exactly, deems it such? Both the UK and Ireland are signatories to the Good Friday Agreement and aren't in any way confused about their respective borders (Brexit aside). So, again, citation needed - especially for where the British are making territorial claims over Irish territory! (And again, that sentence really does look like it was written by a secondary school student). The article previously stated "Use of the name "British Isles" is often rejected in the Republic of Ireland, because its use implies a primacy of British identity over all the islands outside the United Kingdom" so was already qualified before I amended it to "because some claim its use implies a primacy..." The anon IP with the chip on their shoulder hasn't been around in five days, so I'm not going to waste more time here on the talk page. I'll continue to keep an eye on the article, but if people are going to make outlandish claims such as Ireland's government imposing unanimity on its population's views, then I'll be looking for reliable sources to back those claims. Per policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"No, there is no official poll, because - aside from a tiny minority of diehard republicans and schoolkids getting their "800 years!" lectures from Christian Brothers - nobody really cares that much whether the term British Isles is used, or who by." Enough of this, already. Users outside of Ireland and the UK may not recognize political language when they see it but I certainly do. You are constantly employing personal opinion in face of fact and have failed to provide evidence for your original removals to the text AT ALL. Worse, this is the sectarian language of an Ulster Loyalist trying to ridicule 800 years of British occupation in Ireland and attacking Catholic schooling systems. That's not something that can be permitted when editing a public article. As you yourself have admitted you can't prove your own arguement to substantiate your removal of text that was validated by links IN THIS ARTICLE, I'll give you one last chance to substantiate yourself. If you provide claims to back yourself up then we'll call it at that. If you don't, we can all agree your NPOV is getting reverted. End of.Hibarnacle (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is baseless and just proof by assertion. I am not an Ulster Loyalist - far from it. "I'll give you one last chance" - excuse me?! Good luck with that. "We can all agree" - previously you tried to imply that the government speaks for every citizen in the state; at least now you're only trying to speak for every other Wikipedia article on this article. That's progress, I guess? You are threatening to edit disruptively - that will get you blocked. But please, first, have a read of WP:CONSENSUS - it's an actual policy you need to follow. Also please read and try to understand WP:V and WP:NPOV. Yes, the "BI" term is contentious to some, avoided by some and disliked by many in Ireland. But that isn't unanimous. Far from it. As demonstrated by the links above. That's reflected in the article. Most of us, genuinely, don't GAF what term is used because we've overcome our inferiority complex about Britain and no longer have a well-balanced chip on both shoulders... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"I'll admit there's no source for my arguments and then attack everyone who notes that" is the sign of a flawed argument, Bastun. You've failed to satisfy WP:BURDEN, proceeded to link several articles which appear to defeat your own claim, and then attacked the very concept of people disagreeing with you as "diehard republicans and schoolkids." No, thanks. You've had more than enough time now, your edits should be reverted. 198.103.152.51 (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

And once again the sectarian, prejudicial language comes out from you. You've been given ample time to substantiate your sources for your removals and have utterly failed to do so. Your original removal of text and insertion of weasel-words to support your personal viewpoint lacked any kind of consensus and served only to push your personal views. Your prejudice should and will not be reflected in the article. If there are no further complaints I will be reverting user Bastun's NPOV edits.Hibarnacle (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

There are citations in the lead supporting what Bastun says. Personal attacks on editors are not welcome, see WP:NPA, please stick to the topic. You seem to feel passionately that you are right, have you considered that you might only have friends that think the same way as you and so you think it is general? That is one of the reasons that having reliable sources are so important rather than just depending on ones own observations. And personally my observations differ from yours. Dmcq (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks, Bastun intentionally inserted weasel-words. I can see why you'd view that as a personal attack if you weren't familiar with the term weasel-words itself; perhaps look up the article regarding them? Regardless it's not up to me to prove a negative; it's up to Bastun to validate his removals. Which he hasn't done, in fact linking an article complaining about the use of the term British Isles in his quick Googling of sources. Additionally neither of our opinions matter - what matters is what's provable, that's the entire problem - Bastun's edits are NPOV and he's acknowledged that they AREN'T provable, stating there was no data he could draw on. If you've got evidence that firmly establishes him as correct, by all means correct me. Hibarnacle (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to this Teahouse thread, Bastun.

You do have a point, and a source is really needed whichever way the statement is worded, with or without "some", in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and acknowledging my point. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There are citations on the statement in the lead and they say some most and often. It is up to someone who disagrees to provide a citation that would justify removing any qualification like that. I think it would be justified to say that the Irish government does not consider it an official term. Dmcq (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - and that's currently stated in both this article and the main British Isles article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)