User talk:Censura

Welcome

Hello, Censura, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers, and some key policies and guidelines:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

..dave souza, talk 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British Isles question..

Hi Censura, welcome to Wikipedia! I assue that you are 81.158.157.116, thanks for getting a name, its always easier to discuss with named users.

"British Isles" as you probably know is a conentious name for the archipelago in Ireland (not just recently, in fact it has pretty much always been so, regardless of the colour of one's politics). The consensus is to avoid it and use local names on Ireland-related articles. I hope you won't see this as "censorship", but rather as a pragmatic way to avoiding edit-warring and to reflecting local descriptions, while still keeping the information there.

Regards, --sony-youth^pléigh 09:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! That hilarious! Well done! The flip side is that it causes vexation on both sides - one bunch is vexed if its not in, one bunch is vexed if it is. Here's a scenario for you to think about:

We include it. Why? Because "its a fact" and we need "consistancy."
Someone adds a rider along the lines that "although this term is widely rejected in Ireland." Why? Because "its a fact." Do you deny it? --sony-youth^pléigh 11:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone then changes the Great Britain page to read "Great Britain is the largest island of the British Isles, although this term is widely rejected in Ireland." Why? Because "its a fact" and we need "consistancy."

Is it really worth it?

The letter in the Spectator sounds like someone with a very particular axe to grind. The "facts" are true, but I'd take the interpretation with a pinch of salt. I don't know anyone editing here that's "anti-all-things-British", no more than I'd believe anyone to be a "British imperialists jingo", though these kind of accusation bounce around quite often. Antagonism between the two camps over "facts" can get nasty sometimes and "British Isles" consistently pops up as a flash-point.

Over on the British Isles article we've had months of long, protracted and viscious negeotiations over how and where to mention the "dispute." Whether the term is rejected by "many" or "some" people in Ireland or if it's better to say "often", "sometimes", "frequestly" or something else. Mention of the "despite' was spun out as a seperate page, even though it didn't need to be, so as to keep the main article "clean" of it. The latest is that any other turn-of-phrase except for "British Isles" will be reverted. The "jealously guarded preserves" are not just those of the "politically correct."

I'd ask you, if it is such a neutral and meagre geographic term, why is it so necessary to include it? Why does it arouse such passions on either side? And why would not including it be "anti-all-things-British"? --sony-youth^pléigh 11:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another hello! Hope you don't mind me adding the info box – the policies listed in the right hand column go to the heart of the issue. We aim to give fair and proportionate coverage to all viewpoints, and as you'll appreciate from British Isles naming dispute this is one issue that stirs passions. While the Spectator can be expected to take a political stance, our aim is to show the stances in a neutral way, and a respect for the sensitivities of other readers and editors is part of achieving that balance. It's not always easy!. .. dave souza, talk 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave. The Spectator did not take a stance on Wiki - it was someone who wrote a letter to them. it was a mischievous letter - but I agreed with it 100% ! Wiki looks really silly on things like this and it was a great example of silliness. On the British Isles page the island of Ireland is shown (rightly) as one of the British Isles. On the Ireland page it is apparently not permissible to have a similar statement. There is a hard-working group of Wiki editors who find the use of the word “British” in any connection with Ireland as offensive. Every reference book and Wiki itself acknowledges that Ireland is geographically one of the British Isles. It is mind-blowingly prejudiced to find anything offensive in this. Clearly if we said that Ireland is “British” then those from the ROI would be rightly aggrieved. But this is about geography not politics! I could cite thousands of justifications for my point of view – here’s just one [1] Censura 17:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was once going to cite that map as an example of the non-use of the term. Click on the map for a detailed view - despite clearly showing the "British Isles" (e.g. including the Channel Islands, described as a "British Isles Political Map" by the shop) the legend of the map itself describes it as "Britain and Ireland." In fact, one might say that, "Nowhere in this entry does it say that the island of Ireland is one of the ‘British Isles’ — notwithstanding the fact that this is self-evidently true." By implication, are National Geographic "anti-all-things-British"? --sony-youth^pléigh 17:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er.... The Map is called the "British Isles Political Map" which translated means "A Geographical map of the Britsh Isles" and on which you will find the geographical entities of (1) Great Britain and (2) Ireland. Look further and you will see the political entities of (1) Great Britain (2) Northern Ireland (part of the UK) and (3) Ireland. Some problem with this - proves my point doesn't it? Or you could, of course, look at the Wiki entry for the Britsh Isles which makes the same clear statement. Censura 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]