British Isles was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
The term British Isles is a contentious issue. In order to better facilitate discussion of this issue, without swamping other matters, there is a specific talk page for matters relating to the name of this article. Your cooperation with keeping name-related matters on that page would be appreciated by other editors.
Also, please remember that article talk pages are provided only to facilitate improvements to the article. Editors uncertain about the use of talk pages should read WP:TALK and WP:NOT#FORUM. Inflammatory messages, personal attacks, and debate and discussion not specifically targetted to specific ways of improving the article may be removed and, in extreme cases, warnings issued to the editor who inserted them.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
The term British Isles is a contentious issue. Academic and other references concerning this controversy can be read here.
Pantomine, Dead & Joke Languages: not spoken in British Isles as native
Why are so many arcane languages which are not even significant alive/used today as native featured in the intro? It looks a total mess. The purpose of non-English language translations are supposed to be languages which are actually spoken to a significant extent today by the natives, to help the reader. Not to try push obscure mythical ethno-nationalist causes. For example on the aticle Vienna, it simply has the translation Wien, because they all speak the German language. Languages actually in significant use in the British Isles;
English
Scots
Irish
Welsh (at a push).
While sepratists such as the Salmond Nationalist Party would like Scotland to speak Gaelic, after he saw how much tourism the movie Braveheart brought, this is not represenative of reality on the ground. The language actually spoken by people as native in Scotland is the Gemanic based language Scots. Cornish? dead language, barely a pub table could be filled with people who learn it for fun as a third language (after their native English and school taught French or Spanish). Manx? dead since 1974.
Shall we include other arcane dead languages, just for fun? A huge amount of the educated classes used to speak Latin (as did the Church) and Ancient Greek, lets throw some of that in there. The entire noblity used to speak only French in part of the Middle Ages. The Danes were around for a couple of weeks, what did they call it? Does anybody know the Pictish language name for the British Isles? Cumbric language? How about Beaker culture language? In the British Isles there are more native Urdu and Polish speakers than there are Manx, Cornish, Scottish Gaelic third language, "for fun", speakers combined, should we make the intro more of a mess and include those instead? Island Feverr (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're forgetting Guernsey French and Jersey French, both of which are still spoken by natives (albeit not very many of them), not "for fun" but because that's the mother tongue of the people who speak them. Although I do agree, many of the other languages are certainly not the first language of the people who speak them. The problem with this, along with many of the other issues around this article, is that it's very hard to verify actual usage. For example, when the last person who's first language is Guernsey French dies, I doubt there'll be significant news coverage etc. alerting us to the fact. waggers (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase " Welsh (at a push" indicates a failure to any basic research before sounding off. All the languages listed have native speakers. --SnowdedTALK17:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent addition of the "Scots language" version, Breetish Isles, in the lead! It makes a brilliant mockery of this pov-pushers' paradise of an article (the pov pushers being those who object to the term, in case you had any doubt). I vote we leave it in. MidnightBlue(Talk)19:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scots is a language recognised by the EU, the UK government and the Irish government dating back hundreds of years and the former language of the royal court of Scotland. In fact as many people on this page attribute the term British Isles to James VI & I, who spoke Scots, Breetish Isles is probably one of the most important ones to have, being presumably the pronunciation originally used. As such it deserves to be included along with the other native languages of the British Isles. Having immigrant language names listed would not be particularly useful and not what people would expect to see in the lead. Scroggie (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. (1) Could we please get some sources for all these translations? While I don't dispute its accuracy, "Breetish Isles" could look a tad makey-uppy to readers who don't know that Scots even exists.. (2) Could we please use the same font for the various phrases? It looks really messy now. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - it's useful information for the article. However, the introduction is now really rather clumsy - it's the third line before we say what the article's actually about. Can we split it off to a separate section à la Bratislava or Vienna; this will also allow including more information - on the different shades between the three Irish translations, for example. Knepflerle (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples differ in that the alternatives are those used not by 'natives' of the places themselves, but by 'foreigners', for want of a better description. If the opening paragraph tends towards being "messsy"/"clumsy", I remain of the opinion that overall it doesn't detract too much from the article itself. The list of tongues native to these isles is finite and the list is complete as it stands. There will be no further additions and for the sake of the whole picture and avoiding disputes over who stays and who doesn't I for one can live with it as is. EndrickShellycoat01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not so - in the case of Bratislava, just shy of 4% of the population of Bratislava are ethnic Hungarians; a higher proportion of speakers than any of these language communities within the British Isles. That the list is finite and the situation won't worsen doesn't mean it is a good situation now. Knepflerle (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - apparently 1 exception to my previous assertion. IMHO what we have now isn't a bad situation either; the facts are there for all to see and if the reader is surprised by the number of native languages other than English which variously describe the term "British Isles" then what can possibly be wrong with that? EndrickShellycoat02:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC) PS If you recon it'll make things better, why not place these in the info-box, given the islands infobox can include "native" names.[reply]
Causing surprise is neither a problem nor our aim - it's just that we take three lines before we even begin to say what we're talking about. The priorities are wrong here. The lead is to set out what the article is about, at a glance; information about what it is called in other languages is interesting and relevant but not of such primary importance that it should dominate the lead to the extent it currently does. As before, I don't think this material should be removed from the article - I just believe to a separate section (with a link from the lead) will keep the lead focused and give more room for expansion for explanation on the origins, meanings and uses of the terms. Anyway, I think I've made it quite clear what my opinion on the matter is - let's see if anyone else has any thoughts. I'm not planning on changing anything without consensus. Knepflerle (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Including the names in the infobox is a fine idea; this need not exclude the possibility of having a dedicated section in the text as well, to further explore the topic. Knepflerle (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, the fonts are still different and the source supposedly for "Breetish Isles" doesn't seem to be any such thing. As far as I can see it's a source for "Breetain" and "Breetish" and describes them as "obsolete", doesn't it? Wotapalaver (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fonts are "different" because that is how the templates are set up. The same applies to the term "Native name" as used in the info box. If you're not happy with either, I can only suggest you take this up on the talk pages of the templates themselves. I have inserted that which seems to have been required to alter the font. I trust that is now satisfactory. (Have also included new map - see discussion next section).
As for "obsolete", the source indeed describes the term "Breetain", not "Breetish", as "now obsol." Indeed, if you go to The Online Scots Dictionary and enter "British" in the "Translate" box you'll find the same translation there, however there is no similar translation for "Britain", which would tend to support the DSL/SNDS assertion that "Breetain" is now obsolete, unlike "Breetish".
It is indeed worrying that we can't find a single Google Books or Google Scholar hit for the term, and not even any Google hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. We might well be into the realms of original research or synthesis with this term. Remember the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth as such. Knepflerle (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from entry in following section entitled "Undue weight to this list": ""Breetish isles" does have a reference: Scots Language Centre - select the "Show content as Scots" tab and scroll down to the section on "Romany" or "Standard English", (or just use the 'Find (on this page)' function)... EndrickShellycoat10:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC) "[reply]
One isolated use on one site and no documented scholarly, referenced, peer-reviewed or even mainstream journalistic use doesn't make a "reference". It's still a long way short of fulfilling our verifiability and no original research policies. Knepflerle (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Please feel free to write to the board of the Dictionary of the Scots Language, Scottish Arts Council, Perth and Kinross Council and the board of the Scots Language Resource Centre Association Ltd., and ask them if the use on the website of the Scots Language Centre of the term "Breetish Isles" is "scholarly, referenced, peer-reviewed or even mainstream journalistic", and if not why not. You've now been provided with references for the both the term "Breetish" and its use in "Breetish Isles". Please keep your own POV in check. EndrickShellycoat16:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How has knowing that the site is funded from public bodies helped you answer any of the following: Who wrote the article? What is their academic training? What sources did they use? Was the article checked and critically reviewed? How come this article using a form that is unused anywhere else? Note also that "British Isles" is used in the Scots translations on the same site here and here for example, so we don't even have self-consistency in our single source. Extrapolating a single, unnamed, inconsistent writer on one website to make a definitive declaration that this is the way of writing British Isles is not justified.
This paucity of good-quality evidence should also be compared to the ease with which we can reliably verify other Scots names in reliable sources: Glesca on Google Scholar, Embra on Google Books, Aiberdeen on Google Books - it makes you wonder why this doesn't get anywhere close.
Seeing the source has been questioned by myself, User:Wotapalaver and User:83.147.185.241 as your only answer to reasonable questioning the source is baseless accusation of "POV", I think it should be made clear to our readers that there is not a full consensus for this material's verifiability. If nothing else, I'd like to see evidence of any other editors prepared to put as much faith in this single source. Knepflerle (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my "LOL" and "POV" comments which have resulted in your appearing to blow a gasket - my intention was not to elicit such a response. Your points are fair and your points listed as "Who wrote the article? What is their academic training? What sources did they use? Was the article checked and critically reviewed? How come this article using a form that is unused anywhere else? Note also that "British Isles" is used in the Scots translations on the same site here and here for example, so we don't even have self-consistency in our single source." are unfortunately not ones which I can answer personally. However, I intend to communicate with those bodies named in my previous response to establish the facts and will get back to you ASAP.EndrickShellycoat09:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, do you (Knepflerle) accept, (once having read this link), that the DSL meets all your requirements with regard to ""Who wrote the article? What is their academic training? What sources did they use? Was the article checked and critically reviewed?". The DSL includes a reference for "adj. Breetish (Gall. 1893 A. Agnew Hered. Sheriffs Gall. II. 340; Fif., Lth. 1926 Wilson Cent. Scot. 100; ‡Abd. 1975)." I await a response from the Scots Language Centre as to the use of "Breetish" or indeed "British" when coupled with "Isles". EndrickShellycoat20:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undue weight to this list
As I see it, there is an issue of WP:UNDUE in the way these "native names" are shown in the infobox. For one thing, the main "native name" of the "British Isles" is .... British Isles. That's not a trivial point - there will be international readers of this page who will see the list and think that the "native names" listed are those most widely spoken across these islands, which they are not. I don't like the term "native names" at all - it can be seen as pejorative ("indigenous" might be better) - but, even if it is used, it should include "English" English. And the prominence given to the list is too great - at the very least, it should be below the map. I'm not in any way suggesting that the list shouldn't be there - simply that it is poorly labelled, and over-prominent in the context of the article as a whole. If the template is wrong, then in my view either it should be changed, or it shouldn't be used in this article at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. The description "native name" is awful. Similarly, putting all this stuff above the map itself is silly. Also, as far as I can see, there's still no reference for "Breetish Isles". Please someone produce a reference or out it goes. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast there, Google is not the "be-all and end-all", however "Breetish isles" does have a reference: Scots Language Centre - select the "Show content as Scots" tab and scroll down to the section on "Romany" or "Standard English", (or just use the 'Find (on this page)' function). The template format dictates that "Native name" is the term that is used and that these appear above the map. Not much can be done unless the template itself is changed. Personally, I don't have a problem with "Native name" or how the information appears, just so long as it is there for all to see. EndrickShellycoat09:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One single source (a website of unproven quality) for "Breetish Isles" is hardly robust on verifiability. The dictionary of the Scots language online shows neither "Breetish" nor "Breetish Isles". Wotapalaver (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However it may be all that exists. When you ask for written references for a language which, in its modern phase, mostly exists in spoken form among ordinary people and does not attract a great deal of scholarly attention, you are asking for a lot. Note as well that Scots is pretty fluid in its spelling. "British" and "Breetish" are both acceptable variants. If you read the Para Handy books, you'll find that "Bruttish" is too. Scots spelling conventions are far more fluid than English ones and depending on which convention you choose there may be several spelling choices for a word that only has one spelling in English. The spelling chosen depends on how phonetic the author wishes to be in depicting different Scots dialects. -- Derek Ross | Talk06:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"When you ask for written references ... you are asking for a lot." - but unfortunately that's the rules of the game here. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth - this is a bedrock of how Wikipedia works. As I point out above, verifiability isn't always a problem for Scots (Glesca, Embra and Aiberdeen are well-attested), but that doesn't mean we can ignore a dearth of sources here.
Putting that aside for a moment (which we shouldn't, as it is a key point), does it really have any true meaning to say the spelling of British Isles in Scots is "X", where the spelling "X" is seen in only one source and isn't standard anyway? The reader at the very least might be misled into thinking this has some attested written use - but won't see this spelling anywhere, and won't be able to use it for searching for material. Are we really going to promote quasi-hypothetical namings - saying that although we can't find any sources, we're sure that if they existed then this is the spelling they'd use?
The best we can say is that "X" is a spelling used in one source - to say it's "the Scots spelling" requires more evidence. If you read above, we have a similar problem with the Cornish too. Knepflerle (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested, Dr David Horsburgh was kind enough to reply to me. In his words, (which I'm sure he will not object to my repeating here), "The mak 'Breetish' is a valid, weel-attestit pairt o the leid shawin a wey o pronooncin Latinate words that's parteeclar tae Scots fowk". He also explains that it is the increasing influence of English over the past century which accounts for the appearance of "British" alongside "Breetish", reflecting the reality of variations in the language today on the part of the individual speaker/writer. He was also able to point a few references my way, including those works by Sir James Wilson 'The Dialects of Central Scotland' (Oxford, 1926. ASIN: B0006AK91E), (Google), and William Donaldson 'The Language of the People: Scots prose From the Victorian Revival' (Mercat Press, 2002. ISBN: 978-0080377308), (Google), plus the Lallans journal. I trust that these, together with the links provided earlier and the additional references provided by Bill Reid will suffice. EndrickShellycoat12:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact that person-to-person emails are not verifiable sources, the references are all for "Breetish", not for "Breetish Isles". As such, they're insufficient for this article. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, there are Citation Needed tags on some other languages where the reference isn't enough or where there's just no reference. For instance the Welsh reference, like the Scots one discussed here, points to an online one-word-at-a-time translator. It's not enough for the phrase "British Isles". Given the passionate nature of the contributors to this article, I'll give it a couple of days, then pull the content down off the article and onto this discussion page until solid refs are produced. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I'll give it a couple of days, then pull the content down off the article"... I don't think so. The references are listed above. The SLC references refer to "Breetish Isles". Your claim that the reference "isn't enough" is your POV. You'll pull no content for the time being until you convince others that the refs don't stand. The SLC is a perfectly legitimate source for which you have established no grounds whatsoever for its being discounted. Wikipedia is chock full of other refs from similar sources which stand and have stood unchallenged for months, if not years, and are regarded, and rightly so, as being perfectly legitimate. The terms are in use. You've asked for an on-line example. You were provided with one. You may not like it, but it does exist. EndrickShellycoat18:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I'll add the SLC to the DSL reference, so not only will there be a source for the term "Breetish", (of which there are several - see above), but also an example of its use in the term "Breetish Isles", as per the SLC source. (There being no need to reference "Isles" seperately, given the word has the same root, use and spelling in Scots as in English). For those with issues as to the SLC being appropriate, I can only venture to suggest that for an organisation:
whose representatives are held in sufficiently high regard to not only be invited to participate fully in, but also to act as "Secretary" to, a Scottish Parliamentary Cross Party Group
which can meet the strict criteria necessary for obtaining funding from public bodies
whose academic staff include those who are held in sufficiently high regard in their field of expertise to act as Honorary Research Fellow at one of Scotland's leading Universities
whose Director is sought out by the national press in order to comment upon matters pertinent
which is variously described on a multitude of other reputable sites as having being principally "founded to promote the Scots language, giving people who speak Scots the chance to learn more about their own language", (source)
(reduce indent) Yes, if there are no sources I'll pull unreferenced content. In the meantime the DSL reference is not for "Breetish Isles" and the other reference now stands as the ONLY example of use of the term in Scots - apparently - in the whole world ever. In addition it's on a website. I'm not particularly impressed with the involvement of the SLC in government activities. The BBC has often had incorrect things on its website. So, some better references please. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So glad to see that we agree "unreferenced content" should be, as you put it, pulled. However, not wishing to reduce this to the level of the armchair academic/keyboard warrior, and following useful and constructive discussions on this subject elsewhere, I have altered the info box to what I would consider to be a compromise position, where the referenced facts are that although the Scots word "Breetish" and Scots term "Breetish Isles" may indeed be used elsewhere, (a fact supported by references), they may not be the spelling of the word "British" and the term "British Isles" which are universally adopted in all Scots language texts. However, readers may come across these Scots words and terms and, with the help of this article, will know that they are not typographical errors or similar, but actual alternative spellings of the word "British" and the term "British Isles" as may be employed by authors, publishers and others, using the Scots language. EndrickShellycoat00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All that beautiful verbiage doesn't hide the fact that there is so far evidence of the term "Breetish Isles" being used once, ever. Authors may decide to use the term "Breetish Isles", but they may decide to use the term "Wheeee Splash" to describe the British Isles too. The question at issue is whether there is verifiable evidence of what they actually do. So far there is fantastically little evidence that "Breetish Isles" is used. Wotapalaver (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Little evidence" isn't quite the same thing as no evidence, though, is it? And as for "used once, ever", that particular claim falls into the category marked 'Unsubstantiated nonsense'. Where is your evidence for that being the case? The SLC reference appears nowhere on Google, (which is what I assume you are using to support such a ridiculous assertion), yet funnily enough it exists in black and white for all to see, if you know where to look!
You've made your feelings clear on this matter, and if you want to reduce the discussion to the level to which I sense you're heading, go ahead; I'm not in the mood to feed trolls. IMHO the use has been demonstrated, the online references are sound, the info box has been modified. If the groundswell of opinion of the editors of this article is against, then so be it. However, forgive me if I don't leave the deciding vote to you, and you alone. EndrickShellycoat01:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My feelings are simple. Content should be supported by reference. I have nothing for or against Scots. As for the suggestion that I am trolling, please withdraw the suggestion. I am asking for references. This article has long been plagued by people with strong opinions and no references. Again, there is ONE case of this term EVER having been used. It is insufficient. Please provide some published evidence that "Breetish Isles" is the accepted version of "British Isles" in Scots. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I for one think the compromise is excellent and both the infobox and introduction are looking, and reading, the best they have for years. Informative, concise, balanced, referenced. Good going everyone! waggers (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd prefer it if (a) the reference that seems to be there on Ref 1 was actually there instead of being broken and (b) there was sufficient evidence of "Breetish Isles" actually being the correct translation in Scots, which ONE website isn't. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Isles" is derived from "Middle English" (see here)
Prior to its becoming "recognisably distinct", Scots was the "northernmost dialect of Middle English" (see here).
It follows therefore, does it not, that Isles, Isle, Island and Islands are the same in Scots as in English, (see here, here and see 54. here).
Online Scots/English dictionaries do not offer a translation of the word Isles, for it's spelling and meaning are the same. (try here).
There are multiple examples where "British" appears in Scots as "Breetish", (see pg 340), and also as as "British". (see 40.)
One online example of "Breetish Isles", which Google won't show, (the site being bi-lingual), can be found here. (be sure to "show content as Scots"). However, the same site also shows (in Scots) the appearance of "British Isles". (see here). (again, be sure to "show content as Scots").
All of the above confirms that "British" may appear in Scots as "Breetish", which, together with references, is exactly what Footnote 1 of the Info box states with regard to "Breetish Isles".
Whilst remembering that Wikipedia is not a democracy, if you are content with the infobox as it appears now, then you will find yourself in the company of yours truly, waggers, and Knepflerle. If not, then all I can suggest is that you make a case for an alternative and hope that your reasoned argument persuades others. As I have stated previously, if there is a groundswell for any such alternative, I'll be only too happy to oblige and remove the footnote in the Infobox, myself. I do not propose to spend any more of my time on this subject. EndrickShellycoat22:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have no problem with "Breetish" being a translation (or version) of "British" in Scots. That's entirely irrelevant, as are all the assumptions and synthesis above. The requirement is to show reputable verifiable references that "Breetish Isles" is the correct translation in Scots of "British Isles" in English. One website with an option to "Show content in Scots" does not qualify. There may be other translations that are more correct and more common. Irish appears to have several different translations, not all of which use any translation of "British" at all. So, can we please have a proper reputable verifiable source that "Breetish Isles" is the correct translation in Scots of "British Isles"? What we have now is one example of use. One. A dictionary translation is required. I have nothing against Scots and learned to understand several versions of it in my time. This article still needs a proper reference. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just occurred to me (sorry if this has been discussed before, but I'm not trailing through 20+ pages of archives to check) that the map in the infobox is potentially misleading, because of the fact that state (country) boundaries are shown on the mainland of Europe. This might lead to the unwary reader making the false inference that the areas shown in green are also a single country or state - the boundary shown in Ireland is quite short, not prominent, and not explained in the caption. Given that this article is about a physical geographical archipelago, not a country or two countries, would it not be better if the islands were highlighted on a topographical base map, without any political boundaries being shown at all? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The view which states that the words British Isles are offensive etc.
A question for you pundits; Is the view that the term British Isles is offensive a minority view? I ask the question after having read WP:UNDUE. My view, for what it's worth, is yes, it is a minority view. MidnightBlue(Talk)18:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of asking people outside of Ireland this question, after all, the offence that people refer to is the inclusion of Ireland. Why would the international community be offended, why would they care? Titch Tucker (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the term is offensive, objectionable or whatever to only a minority then this article contravenes the NPOV principle of Wikipedia. Unfortunately the WP:UNDUE guidelines say nothing of scope. MidnightBlue(Talk)20:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the sentence I think you refer to in the article it says "The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable". It's not saying many people throughout the world find it objectionabe, it's saying many people in Ireland do. Titch Tucker (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than just the one sentence. The issue of objection to the term is mentioned repeatedly in the article with many highlighted references. I think this probably counts as giving it undue weight. MidnightBlue(Talk)20:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you, like, nuts? Telling the Irish that they are British and live in what British rightwing nutjobs term the "British Isles" is about as obtuse as the British can get. That British viewpoint is clearly the minority viewpoint, a term which reflects the inability of a certain British underclass to get over the rapid decline of British power and prestige in the past 80 years. And if you are so sure that it is a "minority viewpoint" in Ireland, then perhaps you'll find this term plastered all over the place by Irish politicians and media, not to mention official government statements supporting its use and the incorporation of this term in international treaties between the government of Ireland and your own government? Oh, guess what! It's nowhere to be seen. Wow, I wonder why. 86.42.71.111 (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The irony in all of this is that the original British were the Britons, a Celtic people. The name England comes from the Anglo-Saxons. British Isles really shouldn't be that offensive (though I know many Irish find it so). Now if the archipelago was called The Anglo Isles, that would be highly offensive and a calculated insult to the Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Manx, as well as the Irish.--jeanne (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeanne, it's a point that has been made before, but I would think that the term "British" today has been overtaken by a more modern meaning, almost exclusively relating to the UK, the empire, etc. It's not as if the term "British" is seen as being inclusive of the "Irish", by the Irish. The Irish are fiercely protective of the idea that Irishness is different and separate than Britishness (whether or not there is too much depth of truth to that or not is a different debate). --HighKing (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeanne, do you think the contoversy and the objection to the term, mainly by some people in Ireland, is given undue weight in this article? That's the issue I'm trying to address. There is no doubt that some people do object to the term, but so far as I can see there's never been any scientific study to determine the degree of objection. Regarding the undue weight, apart from the several mentions the controversy gets in the body of the article, if you scroll down to the references you'll see that numerous statements objecting to the term have been highlighted and that really puts it "in your face" to an uncalled for extent. MidnightBlue(Talk)12:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@MidnightBlueMan, there are numerous cited sources that state it is objectionable. There are pages and pages of debates and discussions explaining why it is objectionable. While you and other editors may not like this fact, your opinion, and my opinion, are given relatively little weight compared to referencable sources. While it's fine to ask the question, it will just end up with a revisit to the sources once more - it's just not possible to ignore the large amount of references and sources that has been gathered on this topic. Given that, I do agree that perhaps the article could be cleaned up a lot. There *is* a taskforce that will hopefully help to formulate a policy on usage, and I would suggest that this discussion would more appropriately he held after the task force finishes it's work. The task force WP:BRIT is on hold until the Ireland taskforce has finished, but there's nothing to stop some background work to continue over there if you wish. --HighKing (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listen lads, the last time I gave my opinion here, I received a verbal mauling, from IPs and registered users alike, so I think I'll just graciously decline to make a comment.Thanks all the same--jeanne (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will say this to High King, namely that yes, I do know about the Irish not wanting to assume a British identity as I had an Irish father, husband, boyfriends, workmates, flatmates, friends, neighbours, and I also have two Irish sons. Of course, in the North of Ireland we all know it's another story entirely! I am a legal Irish resident although I live in Italy and hold a US passport.--jeanne (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok folks, I don't seem to be eliciting many hard views on this matter, so how about this proposal: I believe this article is skewed towards the view that there is a problem with the term British Isles. That there is a problem is not in doubt, but it is the scale of the problem that is the issue, and I believe this article exaggerates it. Therefore to help level the playing field I propose to un-bold all the references that cite the problem. As I said above, having parts of them in bold really is "in your face" and to all intents and purposes shouts it at you; it is not necessary. Please add your comments before I do (or don't do) this. Thanks. MidnightBlue(Talk)21:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the bold text in the footnotes? My preference is to avoid any editing on this article along these lines until the task force finishes. It will avoid disruption, and this article has seen enough of that in the past. --HighKing (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the bold in the footnotes that I'm concerned about. As to the involvement of the task force, I don't think there should be a moratorium on editing this, or any other, article while we await their pronouncements. In any case it's unlikely they will address low level issues such as this. MidnightBlue(Talk)21:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the tone of the article as a whole - the problem is that the questions you are asking are unaswerable. Even a survey of every person in Ireland would not really provide an answer; surveys are flawed tools at best. Terms such as 'many' or 'some' are and should be used in the article to reflect this, rather than 'most' etc. At the moment I'd say the article is in as good a state as it ever has been, with one exception - the intro is a bit skewed. Previously this contained some general information on geography and climate. I would support the reintroduction of such a paragraph, recognising that this term is now used mainly as a geographical/climatological term; it would reflect the needs of people wanting a quick overview of the topic if the are not familiar with the word. --Pretty Green (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole then, can I propose that any editing that results in an objection is reverted with the article being left stable (as it is now). If that is agreed in principal, I see no reason to fire ahead and edit away. Personally I have no problems with MidnightBlue's proposal - I believe the bolding is unnecessary. Similarly with Petty Green's proposal. --HighKing (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(reduce indent)It's apparent that the bolding is entirely necessary to reinforce the point that there are many references that the term is offensive/objectionable. If there are references that suggest otherwise, let's see them - otherwise this is just another lap of denial stadium. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the citations on objectionable (which are a minority in world terms but then they would be.) the term in effect is becoming out of date. A lot of people would assume it excludes Ireland anyway. Given the prior grief over this article I suggest that we leave it as is. --SnowdedTALK12:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discusiion is about whether a minority or majority find the term offensive, not about the usage of the term in general - let's not confuse those two. But I agree, we've been through all this before and the article has been stable for a while after the last bout, so I think the best plan is to leave it be.waggers (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the emboldening counters Wikipedia's Manual of Style (see link above). If the emphasis must be retained, then it should be changed to italics. --Pretty Green (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's at all relevant that this article is "stable". All articles are subject to change at any time; no article is frozen (unless temporarily protected). To assert stability as a reason for not developing or modifying an article is bizarre. As to the point about bolding selected parts of footnotes, consider WP:NPOV. How does bolding a statement within a reference (or in this case bolding numerous of them) stand up to this? The footnotes in question proclaim a point-of-view - nothing wrong with that, although I think the view is given undue weight. However, bolding specific parts of a statement is, in reality, saying here's a point-of-view and we are going to push that point-of-view by emphasising key parts of it. In other words, bolding parts of those footnotes (or even having them in italics) is POV pushing. Just try quickly scrolling through the entire article and what do you see? You see highlighted phrases proclaiming how bad it is to use the term British Isles. Explicit POV pushing, implicit POV pushing, subliminal POV pushing, whatever; it flies in the face of the fundamental Wikipedia principle of NPOV. MidnightBlue(Talk)21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there has been a discussion and concensus on the sentence "The British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable, and we do seem to have references to back it up, would it be a good idea to do something similar to the Wales talk page, where the template includes the fact that a long debate with good refs confirm they are a country. If we included the fact that the objectionable term is well referenced on the template and link to those refs from there, we could perhaps cut down on the amount of footnotes in the article, thus the article would not appear to be POV pushing to those who believe it is overstated. It would also prevent the same debate recurring time and again. Titch Tucker (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have read a bit more carefully - my "stable" comment was really about the wording in the text itself. There's absolutely no reason for the bold text in the footnotes, it should be removed. waggers (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the issue is about using the bold font in a quotation in a footnote. If so, then what I say now is relevant; if not, then my apologies: The issue is simple. Is the text in a bold font in the original source from which this is a quote? If the answer is "no", then it should be removed, or else we no longer have a quote, but a POV mangling of the quote by altering its emphasis. I and others think it is a matter of accuracy and integrity for the encyclopaedia that quotes should not be mangled in such a way. To give an illustration of this principle actually at work, in a related matter on another article (I can dig it out if required), some editors were linking some text which was the name of a person and which was part of a quote. This was asked about on a MoS discussion page, and the answer came back that no alteration of a quote was really acceptable: not even something as simple as linking text within the quote. So, a link to the person had to be made by adding some text after the quote which also included the person's name. The basic issues are the same here. So, if the original text uses a bold font, keep it in; if it doesn't, remove it; or, if it emphasizes the text in a different way (such as by using italics), then also use italics. The essence is to duplicate as closely as possible the text without any substantive alteration of it, otherwise it no longer is a quote. DDStretch (talk)13:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, why does somebody keep correcting the spelling "useage" as given in the Times quotation of Irish government policy? ðarkuncoll00:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "minority"? I would suggest that a majority in the non-British part of the Isles find it offensive, which is why the term is little used. If you are trying to tell us that the British population on the islands is much greater than the non-British population I think one can assume we already know that. Sarah777 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(response to Tharkuncoll, since Sarah777's message has now made it difficult to see that my message was a response to his) If this is happening within a clearly explicit quote, revert them; inform them of their error on their talk page; and if they continue to make the correction, which they should not be doing, report them to an appropriate uninvolved administrator. DDStretch (talk)00:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know a lot of work has been done to shorten the article, and browsing through it now I don't get the feeling that it's too long. Any objections to removing the banner from the top of the page? waggers (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link no longer works & I couldn't find a backup copy at archive.org. I have found it located in a forum but I am unaware if that is a viable source or not. What should we do with the template & link? -- Phoenix (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question I think the template & (updated) link should be at the top of the page with the other boxes, not down here. Sarah777 (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have access to the statements or text that back up the above assertion? It seems that neither of the references (11 and 12) are available online. I'd be interested to see what they actually say. Failing that, I would support removal of the phrase, pending some hard evidence to support it. MidnightBlue(Talk)21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[3]6,700,000. That's 70% that don't mention Ireland. I'm dealing with facts, and not make-believe, and the hard facts are there for all to see. "British Isles" is a political term from the time the joint kingdom. PurpleA (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how you came by that figure. And you're wrong about the origin of the term - it dates back to Ancient Greek times. ðarkuncoll18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes many of those hits don't mention Ireland, but link to pages mentioning Ireland or in some way do contain Ireland (maps of Dublin, discussion of Loch Neagh and various others.) Doing a search for British Isles and just a -Ireland doesn't prove anything. Just because the search result doesn't explicitly mention Ireland doesn't mean they don't mean the term to include Ireland. People don't use a phrase, and then continue to explain what it means otherwise what's the point of the phrase? So it's quite valid to get lots of returns for British Isles and not have mention of Ireland on the page. For instance a page with the simple line "The River Shannon is the largest river in the British Isles" doesn't contain Ireland, but is including Ireland in its definition. Canterbury Tailtalk19:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[4]Here it is again, 'British Isles' gets about 10,000,000. What have the Greeks to do with it? The Britons and Gaels were here long before them, they're east European. Anyway, I don't want to get into ever-circling debates as they are inconclusive. The only remedy is in the wording of the article. PurpleA (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What have the Greeks to do with it? They invented the term - or haven't you read the article? And the Celts invaded around 500 BC (or infiltrated - whatever the current archaeological opinion), by which time the Greeks had been settled in their homeland about 700 years. ðarkuncoll01:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And using "British Isles" -England also returns millions of results. Does this mean England isn't in the British Isles? Of course not. Same with "British Isles" -Britain. Canterbury Tailtalk19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches obviously can't be used as references but their results are usually indicative. A quick glance at the first page of image results for "The British Isles" comes up only with images of Great Britain and Ireland. 1. That's just my two pence worth. ;) Best, --Cameron*17:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(reduce indent) Yes, they are available in Google Books. The fact that you don't know how to get to them is a different issue. In any case, you can go to a library and find them. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a perfectly reasonable answer. I could quote the relevant passages here. I could explain how you can access them online. You did say that the sentence was OR, to be gotten rid of. These are somehow mutually incompatible. So, what basis did you have for saying it was OR? Can you explain that? Wotapalaver (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, if I could see the quotations, I might be proved wrong. For some reason, however, you appear unwilling to help me access them. ðarkuncoll19:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict 3!)It seems to me that the statement cannot be backed up with adequate references. I suggest we remove it until verifiable references are available. MidnightBlue(Talk)19:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(conflict)Wotapalaver, could you please put the requested material on this page so that we all might assess it. Failing that, I'lll remove the sentence from the article. The texts are not available online. MidnightBlue(Talk)19:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will put how to access the material online. The texts are most certainly available online. Your inability to get to them is not Wikipedia's problem. The references fully support the text. The bias and POV of you and TharkunColl is also completely obvious. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(reduce indent) OK. Hereby Wotapalaver offers TharkunColl and MidnightBlueMan a basic POV warrior's guide to finding references that they wished didn't exist. This Guide involves simple use of google book search.
(i) Enter name of book in google book search
(ii) find desired book preview in list of results
(iii) select desired book
(iv) enter desired search term within book, e.g. "British Isles"
(v) go to list of results that miraculously include pages that are not supposed to be available
(v_b) think "sh**, why didn't I think of that?" and feel a bit stupid
(vi) match list of results with reference from Wikipedia article
(vii) go to appropriate page
(viii) read text
(ix) understand that the text of the Wikipedia article was not OR, that the text of the referenced book is available online, and that apologies are now due to the helpful editor who showed the road to enlightenment.
Steps (i) through (viii) are easy. Step (ix) may require some effort. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text of references should not be reproduced on Wikipedia, in many cases such references are copyrighted, plus Wikipedia is not a repository of such reference material. The references can be made, and as long as their accurate that should be enough. Not all references have to be material that can be found using a Google search. Canterbury Tailtalk19:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So every reference should include the quoted section of what it is referring to? That's not how references work. A reference provided the source of something, it doesn't reproduce that information. Canterbury Tailtalk19:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(conflict)::Quite. I've just tried it. This is what you get (first reference) - "Page 9, You have reached your viewing limit for this book". Other pages are available, but not page 9. I haven't bothered with the second reference. Wotapalaver, if you have access to the statements please save us all a lot of time and put them here, paraphrased if you can't recall the exact words. I've no problem with leaving the sentence in the article if the text of the references is good. 82.14.86.102 (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's not my problem if you can't read the book online. Any decent library will be able to get a copy if you order it. Since you say you have no problem with leaving the sentence in the article if the reference is good then I suggest you leave it there, because the reference is good. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(conflict)If the text from the references stands up to the claim then fine. Let's include the text in the reference itself. It is not very helpful having a reference to a statement in a book when that book is relatively inaccessible. Wotapalaver, if you have access to the text, please either include it in the references, or put it here for review. MidnightBlue(Talk)20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have detailed instructions on how to access the material yourself. Make an effort. Either use Google Book search or go to a library. The references are there, the text is accurate, the sources are good. Why do you say it's OR? Anyway, I'm off. Nightynight. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm removing the sentence pending an expansion of the references with the requested texts, or an acknowledgement that they don't stand up to scrutiny. MidnightBlue(Talk)20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may be confused (its always possible), my link points to page 9 and it has the text saying that Britain and Ireland is becoming a preferred usage. Titch Tucker (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Please post the precise text here, including enough of it to gauge the context. When I access the book it defaults to page 36, and page 9 is inaccessible. Does anyone have an explanation as to why this might be - some quirk of Google Books, or something? Thanks. MidnightBlue(Talk)20:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can read it on PurpleA's link (page 9), but on Titch's link I go to page 36 and page 9 is inaccessible. Anyway, having carefully read the section it is apparent the author is not claiming that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming preferred to "British Isles". He mentions British Isles, UK, England etc. He seems to be saying that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred term to any description, but to use his words to make the claim specifically about the British Isles is synthesis. MidnightBlue(Talk)21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page-in-question mentions that Britain and Ireland and Archepalego are becoming prefferd alternatives usages to British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to the naming of the "British Isles" the text is as follows. "It is difficult to find neutral desciptions even of territory. Many of the Irish dislike the 'British' in 'British Isles'. In response to these difficulties, 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming a preferred usage although there is also a growing trend amongst some critics to refer to Britain and Ireland as the archipelago.Titch Tucker (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was copying what I thought was the relevent passages. Even taking the whole page in context you can't deny the sentence beginning "In response to.." is affirmation from this author that Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred usage.It's there in black and white, and it's a solid reference in my opinion Titch Tucker (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who is not too bothered what its called, I have to say the text does back up the assertion that Britain and Ireland is becoming preferred over British Isles. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a better reference, albeit one riddled with weasel words. It does not constitute evidence, but rather the view of the author. Nevertheless, it could be good enough to reinstate the sentence, but I would suggest an appropriate re-wording to remove the word "evidence". I await other views. MidnightBlue(Talk)22:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted back to consensus. How are some editors allowed to remove citated data from the article, and not others. Admins please? PurpleA (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've no opinion on what the article should say, but it seems that certain editors are going out of their way to be unhelpful about what the reference to page 9 of British Culture of the Postwar: An Introduction to Literature and Society, 1945-1999 actually says. It is transcribed below:
In my reading of the Irish, Scottish and Welsh writing of the postwar period, I place emphasis on the tension, awkwardness and embarrassment that Irish, Scottish and Welsh people experience with the English language: as they use it, as they are described by it and as they transform it. Amongst other features of this tension there is a history of controversy over naming people, territories, languages and literatures that may or may not be obvious to readers from elsewhere.
The United Kingdom is a name that attempts to encompass two kingdoms, Scotland and England; a principality, Wales; and a province, Northern Ireland, (which incorporates most of the old Irish province of Ulster), partitioned since 1920 from the rest of Ireland. Many people in Ireland, Scotland and Wales regard the terms 'kingdom', 'principality' and 'province' with unease and there is a continuing dispute over whom to include in the adjectives 'Irish', 'Scottish' and 'Welsh'. It is difficult to find neutral descriptions even of territory. Many Irish dislike the 'British' in 'British Isles', while the Welsh and Scottish are not keen on 'Great Britain'. As the Scottish poet Douglas Dunn (b. 1942) puts it:
At certain points the cultures of Wales, Ireland, Scotland and England overlap. But there's too much resistance from each of them — and, quite rightly so, from England too, for these tentatively shared concerns to make a 'Britain'. (Crawford 1992: 290)
In response to these difficulties, 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming a preferred usage although there is a growing trend amongst some critics to refer to Britain and Ireland as 'the archipelago'.
Interpret that as you will. Quoting this is on the talk page is unlikely to involve any copyright issues as it is almost certainly both 'fair use' per US law and 'fair dealing' per English & Welsh law: specifically it is not quoting an 'unreasonable proportion' of the work, and its quotation is for the purpose of review. —ras52 (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to ask. How do you iterpret it? It would be good to hear an opinion from someone who, like myself, has no strong opinion either way, but will just stick to references. Titch Tucker (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the term Britain and Ireland is that it makes no reference to the fact that they are both islands. The term Archipelago of Britain and Ireland is a bit cumbersome as is Islands of Britain and Ireland, although the latter is preferable to the former. Celtic Isles would be my personal choice as tests have shown that the English have quite a bit of Celtic mtDNA, and of course, the people of Cornwall are Celtic not Saxon.--jeanne (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the sentence in question to emphasize that its not a generally held opinion that "Britain and Ireland" is preferred. The first reference is unclear on the matter and I propose we delete it. The second reference merely gives the opinion of the author on the matter. MidnightBlue(Talk)09:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to make clear, with citations, the fact that the term "British Isles" has historically been used, and is now still used by most people in Great Britain (and, perhaps, most other parts of the world) to describe the archipelago. It also needs to make clear, with citations, the fact that the term "has caused offence" (not "is offensive", or "may cause offence", which are POV and weaselly) to some, especially in Ireland; and that, to some, especially in Ireland, terms such as "Britain and Ireland" are increasingly suggested and used as alternatives. We need to set out referenced facts not our personal opinions (which are utterly, completely, totally irrelevant to making a decent article here), and certainly should not be promoting terms that are not widely used or are invented on this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references don't say Britain and Ireland is the preferred usage. I interpret it as saying the term is becoming more popular, particulary in Ireland. How popular is impossible to say (I don't live in Ireland), we can't speculate on that. I agree with Ghymyrtle in that we should not promote terms that are not widely used, but then if we stick to what the references say we won't be doing that. We certainly shouldn't dismiss references because we either don't agree with them or don't like them. Titch Tucker (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ｉhadn't intended to comment further on this, and I've certainly no desire to get dragged into this argument. However, since Titch Tucker asks, I'll attempt to interpret that source. First, can I note that I have not read more of the work than the passage I quote above and later sections of the book may qualify this further. The key issue appears to be how to interpret 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming a preferred usage. Microanalysing that clause and the surrounding text, I draw five conclusions:
'Britain and Ireland' is not yet the preferred usage (because the author of that chapter, Siobhán Kilfeather, uses becoming rather than has become);
'Britain and Ireland' is not becoming the sole preferred usage, rather one of several (evidence: the author's use of a rather than the);
there already exists one or more current preferred usage(s) (from context, 'British Isles' would appear to be one, despite the problems she acknowledges with that term);
'Britain and Ireland' is probably of sufficiently widespread use and/or appeal for the author to mention it; and
the author considers 'British and Ireland' to be synonymous with (though lacking certain of the connotations associated with) the term 'British Isles' (i.e. irrespective of whether she thinks that use of the term 'British Isles' is appropriate, she considers it widely enough understood as including Ireland that she does not feel it necessary to explain that).
Obviously, this is just one source amongst many. I am not well enough acquainted with the other sources to know how mainstream Kilfeather's opinions are. —ras52 (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously don't know what a weasel word is. The "some" are the authors of the referenced texts, given as examples. "Some" is not a weasel word here because we can resolve who "some" is. MidnightBlue(Talk)14:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(reduce indent) Again, your bias clouds your reading. The authors don't say they prefer it. They says it is becoming preferred usage. There is no evidence as to whether the authors themselves prefer it or not. Therefore there is no grounds or support for any text like "preferred by some commentators". Wotapalaver (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone suggests that it is becoming the preferred usage, do they? We have one source that states it is becoming a preferred usage. That is significantly different IMHO. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had no intention of returning here, but I feel I have to point out that the sentence "Great Britain and Ireland is preferred by some commentators" has no relation whatsoever to the reference. The author makes no claim that he prefers it. When he says it is becoming preferred usage, where does it say he prefers it? We must stick with what it says in the ref, not draw our own conclusions from something he never wrote. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion. If this continues to be reverted then reverted again perhaps a neutral admin could be asked to come in and give an opinion on it. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make a suggestion here - the argument appears to arise from Wikipedia making a statement that may or may not be factual based on limited references. May I suggest, as a compromise, the current sentence As a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description. is changed to Some commentators say that because of these issues, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description.? This sentence is undoubtedly true: it doesn't say that the term is preferred by the commentators, nor does it claim the preference to be true, just that someone says it is true. 2p, don't shoot me :) Stephenb(Talk)23:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was the obvious solution that sprang to my mind too - I wondered if anyone else would think likewise. Would endorse such a wording as both precise and accurate. Knepflerle (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BBC Style Guide
The use of the BBC Style Guide (actually the BBC News Style Guide) to justify the so-called confusing nature of the term British Isles is inappropriate. The guide in question can be seen here [8]. Please refer to page 39 and you will see that the term "confusion" does not relate to the British Isles at all; it relates to devolution. I've removed the sentence that uses the style guide text as a reference. MidnightBlue(Talk)12:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, we also have this statement in the article; "The Economic History Society style guide suggests that the term should be avoided.". Yes, they do suggest the term should be avoided in their style guide, but they would, wouldn't they? The question is why do they? Almost certainly the answer is not because they dislike the term, or because they consider it controversial, it is because economic matters should not be considered from the point-of-view of the BI, they should be considered from the point-of-view of individual nations. The text from the style guide, if read beyond the selected statement, implies this. Yet again we have a quote being taken out of context and used to push POV. MidnightBlue(Talk)12:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC style guide statement does relate to the British Isles as can easily be seen by reading it. Only AFTER the rhetorical question "Confused Already?" relating to the description of the British Isles does it start to talk about devolution by saying "Devolution has made a complicated system even more complicated." As for the Economic History Society, the society DOES suggest that the term be avoided. This whole idea of "they would, wouldn't they?" put forward by MidnightBlueMan is where the POV is coming from. The article here accurately said that the Society's style guide suggests avoiding use of the term British Isles. MidnightBlue's speculation as to why is merely speculation. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. The whole page is about devolution. Look at the banner at top left of the page. The question "confused already?" clearly refers to devolution and not to British Isles usage. Anyone can see it. Not rebutted at all! MidnightBlue(Talk)14:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(reduce indent) Right. Sure. OK. And yesterday two other verifiable reputable references, where you are now putting in "preferred by some commentators" as weasel words to try to avoid what they say, were references that didn't exist at all. Problem for you is that they do exist and they're uncomfortably unambigous for you so now you're off trying to attack other refs that you don't like either. Excuse me if I don't take your opinion very seriously. Your bias is all too clear. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well get this: I'm going to check out every single reference in this article, and those that don't stand up, or where there's doubt, are going to get removed. So far, the four I've looked at are either ambiguous or used out of context. MidnightBlue(Talk)14:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English language wikipedia. The term is British Isles and rightfully titled as such. I dont care who is offended, there are 1000s of articles with offensive titles, racist names for a start. On the issue of the statement questioned above, everything without sources and not in the correct context should be removed.. that seems fair. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)The text comes at the start of a chapter on Devolution, and follows two paragraphs that discuss the various terms in use regarding various areas. It describes/defines/explains the United Kingdom, Great Britain, Crown Dependencies, and the British Isles. It then uses the text "Confused already? Keep going" to make a lighthearted point that there are a lot of terms to describe different areas and this can be confusing. I agree that the reference does not specifically state that the term "British Isles" is confusing, but rather is meant to refer to confusing nature of the multiplicity of names for similar-yet-different regions/areas. On the other hand, it does make the point that due to the multiplicity of terms, it is one of the terms that may lead to confusion. Perhaps the wording in the article should be changed to reflect this broader point? --HighKing (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If - according to the BBC - the term United Kingdom is also confusing then that should also be mentioned in the article on the UK. The BBC document clearly indicates that the term British Isles is confusing. Devolution is relevant to the discussion here in that - according to the BBC document - devolution has made the issue even more complicated. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the point being made isn't that any individual term is confusing, but rather that it is easy to become confused as to which term is the correct term due to the multiplicity of terms for similar regions. So the term United Kingdom might be used incorrectly to refer to Great Britain, etc. It doesn't state that "British Isles", specifically, is confusing - rather it's a slightly bigger point in that it can be confusing referring to any of the areas/regions with accuracy. --HighKing (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Because the referenced material does not apply specifically to the term British Isles then it should not be used as a reference. It is clearly being used out of context here. MidnightBlue(Talk)20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't go that far. The referenced material does make a good point - that being that the area known as the British Isles has several other terms for different bits, and it is confusing for most people as to which is the correct term for the correct area, etc. A rewording/rephrasing is probably the best action to take in order to clarify. --HighKing (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for "The Economic History Society Style Guide" there is absolutely no explanation given as to why the term should be avoided, altough as I said above, it's highly likely to be in connection with its inappropriateness in economic matters. As such, this ambiguous citation should not be used. MidnightBlue(Talk)20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(reduce indent) No explanation of the Economic History Society's style guide is required. The text in the article matches a verifiable and reputable reference. A speculative interpretation of why they recommend "British Isles" be avoided is neither here nor there. Similarly the convoluted reasoning which tries to work around the clear meaning of the BBC document and the accuracy with which the article referenced the BBC document is obviously driven by the same POV as insisted that the other two reputable references didn't exist. Of course, they did and do exist. It's just that IDONTLIKEIT has again raised its ugly head. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Protection
I can see this page headed towards protection again. Please make decisions on the talk page, and don't keep reverting the article or it will be protected again due to edit warring. Canterbury Tailtalk15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just issued a load of 3RR warnings on this article, please stop reverting and engaging in edit wars or the article will be protected. Please discuss the issues, and stop reverting even while engaged in discussions. Canterbury Tailtalk16:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have a trace on some likely culprits and compare them to the anonymous user 212.2.183.202 who popped up out of nowhere to revert my last edit, please? It seems highly suspicious to me. ðarkuncoll16:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suspicious of the IP (nor do I favour either edit), but I recommend the IPs edit be reverted. An IPs very first edit, in the middle of this dispute, isn't helping things. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I am also suspicious, reverting an edit for no reason other than it's an IP might set a very dangerous precedent... Goes against policy too. --HighKing (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is a general IP used by BT Ireland. I find it amusing that someone in Ireland who may (may) have an anti-British slant uses BT for their internet :) Canterbury Tailtalk18:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very old-fashioned view with some bigotry peeping over your shoulder. I suppose you don't fly with Ryanair and shop in Primark if you're living in the UK and have an anti-Irish view. Don't be ridiculous... --18:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
What makes you think the IP is anti-British? Editing this article should have nothing to do with being anti-Irish, or anti-British, or anti-anything. All that's called for is a neutral article that "says it as it is", no more no less. PurpleA (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I apologise for the joke. And there was no bigotry involved. Apparently a qualification and a smiley face wasn't enough to put forward that it was a joke. They always say humour doesn't travel across the pond. Canterbury Tailtalk19:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People need to read the references, which clearly say what was in the previous consensus version and do not support the weaselly garbage "preferred by some commentators" that the POV warriors are putting in. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon guy's. I knew this was going to happen. We need some outside views here. Has anyone asked for an outside view? Or a request for comment? Titch Tucker (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been going on for years. There are people (and you see some of them now) who'll wait for months until things seem quiet, then jump in and start deleting sections they don't like, insisting that a reference doesn't exist, that the reference says something which it doesn't say, etc., etc., etc. You see here a classic case of it, with the junky "some commentators" as a classic example of what to try with references they really don't like. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then there has to be a way to solve this. Is a request for comment one of those? I'm willing to ask for it. Or is there a better way to solve this problem? Titch Tucker (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Some commentators" are the authors of the references - just to be clear. You would not deny that the authors of the references are commentators on this matter, in the normally understood meaning of the word commentator. Further, they are clearly expressing a preference for the use of the term, they say so, and they use the term. It is completely irrelevant that the word commentator is not used in the references. As to the references themselves, I would personally eliminate the first one, it being too ambiguous. The second one is not a "quality" reference, being as it is, shot through with weasel words, but as a reference it probably stands up - just. I don't really see what you problem is. MidnightBlue(Talk)10:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(reduce) Except that they don't say that they themselves prefer it. They say that it is preferred. The "some commentators prefer" text is simply inaccurate, unsupported, and garbage. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other references
Would some other editors care to comment of the BBC Style Guide reference, and its use here, and also similarly on the Economic History Society reference. Also, I'm trying to evaluate reference 9 but can't find what this reference is supposed to say in support of "many people find the term objectionable". Does anyone have the actual text, and if so, it should be included in the footnote text. Failing that, I can't see how the statement about "many people" can presently be justified. MidnightBlue(Talk)13:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People did comment on the BBC style guide, to the effect that "confusing" followed a description of the British Isles, but I don't think you liked the answer. I sometimes thing that some editors have a bring forward diary note which means they return to the same subject time and time again in the hope that other editors will just get tired and give up. I can see no new evidence or challenge being made above, its tedious to keep coming back to these shibboleths --SnowdedTALK13:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I knew what a shibboleths was. Anyway, I can't be bothered to look it up. The vast majority of comments did not address the point in question. I would like some impartial assessments if possible (that would probably rule you out). MidnightBlue(Talk)13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I can't be bothered to look it up is the exact issue I have with the failure to take accout of previous material and discussions. I did look at the sources in the last debate and concluded that British Isles should be maintained as a term but it needed some qualification. That consensus took some time and required good faith to be assumed. I commend it to you (and yes that is an ambiguous statement). --SnowdedTALK14:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How should the references be included in the article to fairly represent what they actualy say. The authors of the refs say Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term. Should we quote that directly or say that some commentators ie: the authors, prefer it? I include here both refs.[9][10] —Titch Tucker (via posting script) 01:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can we iterpret the references as saying "Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term for some commentators"? The commentators/authors of those refs do not at any point say that they prefer that term. What they do say is that Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term, two entirely different things. If people are happy to use these refs then we must represent them properly, not include wording which does not exist. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Britain & Ireland" would cover all of the islands of both Britain and Ireland, or Great Britain if you like. We don't say "Iceland Isles" instead of Island. Or "America and its isles" for fear of the exclusion of Hawaii from America. Britain and Ireland is a very well used alternate term, and it's not for Wikipedia to finesse the term, otherwise it's OR. PurpleA (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iceland is only one island, Britain and Ireland comprise two sovereign states on separate islands, so they cannot be compared. British and Irish Isles would solve the polemical problem, but that would be OR on my part.--jeanne (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone considered, merely pointing out Britain and Ireland as an alternative name, without mentioning it's being used more or used less then British Isles? GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the archive, it has been pointed out before, and a "great debate" has almost always followed. "Britain & Ireland" is probably more used than 'British Isles', but merely saying that might cause another "great debate". PurpleA (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support including "X, y, and z report that Britain and Ireland is becoming..." - the problem with the "It has been reported that..." version is that someone will then use that as justification for a page move, and we end up with an edit war and page protection. BastunBaStun not BaTsun07:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is (as usual) madness. If we put this kind of nonsense verbiage in around these references, why not around every other reference on Wikipedia? Can you imagine if every reference had to be included by name? It's ludicrous! A list of hundreds of names to support that fact that the EU has more than one member state. Thousands of names to support the fact that London is in the South East of England. Either references are good, which these are, or they are not. If they are good, then unless there's verifiable reputable reference that somehow contradicts what they say (which there isn't) they can be used in Wikipedia as verifiable fact. If you start down this road to placate loopers I can only wish you luck on every other article on Wikipedia. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Example of where this loopiness goes. "Encyclopedia Britannica, The Times Atlas of the World, National Geographic [insert another thousand names of verifiable reputable sources} report that London is in the South East of England. " Right, this is a BAD suggestion. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also support DDDstretch's second version, except that we don't need to name x, y and z. Their identities are clear from the references (the first reference is a poor one as I mentioned above and I suggest it is removed), so all that needs to be said is "Some commentators [authors of the reference(s)] report that ....". MidnightBlue(Talk)13:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article will ultimately have to be sent to an arbitration committee in the next couple of years or so, when indeed Wikipedia becomes a more serious encyclopedia. In the meantime, it should be stated in the article, (as per editor GoodDay), that the islands are also know as Britain & Ireland, and that should be said. It may take some time for this debate to resolve, but it's surely on the horizon. PurpleA (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion from MidnightBlue would require that all referenced text in every article be so prefixed with the name of the sources. It's a lunatic suggestion driven by his IDONTLIKEIT response to what the references say. I note he has no such proposal for other references, but what happens when other editors do? Wotapalaver (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for a solution devised for a particular circumstance to be copied elsewhere. In this context given the controversy it works. Now please stop using words like "lunatic" its not helpful. --SnowdedTALK12:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There might be no "requirement", but how do you propose to separate references that do need to be so tagged from those that don't? There is no way. WP requires that references be verifiable and reputable. The references that MidnightBlue proposes to tag because he doesn't like them are reputable and verifiable. It is therefore of no interest to WP whether he doesn't like them and his proposal does not represent any justifiable controversy, it represents IDONTLIKEIT. I could as well start a controversy over other references on the page and no-one would be able to argue that the other references should not also be tagged in this crazy manner. Therefore, his suggestion does NOT work. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading Siobhán Kilfeather's essay (currently reference #11) as far as Google Books allows, that is, I find it peppered with inaccuracies, misleading weasel worded statements and bias. If it was a WP article it would be NPOV tagged; it doesn't really provide confidence in it as a good source. -Bill Reid | Talk19:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTo change the name of a distinct geographical region takes more than a couple of books. The British Isles has been known by that name for centuries. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
British Isles means "Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland"
This debate is absurd.
The British Isles means the Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland.
Plus of course hundreds of smaller islands and, depending on the definition used, the Channel Islands. But yes you're right, that meaning has not changed - but as far as I'm aware nobody was arguing that it has... waggers (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we find a definition that excludes the Channel Islands? No. The British Isles includes the Channel Islands. If the Channel Islands are not included the correct description is Britain and Ireland, or Great Britain and Ireland, or Ireland and Great Britain, etc. Great Britain includes Skye, Wight, etc. and Ireland includes Achill, Clear, etc. (btw, I use OED as my reference) Wotapalaver (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally speaking (of course) I think the British should just give up the ghost, get over their loss of empire, and start living side-by-side with the Irish without feeling the need for such jingoistic terms like "British Isles". After Germany and France, Ireland remains Britain's third largest market in absolute terms, a quite surprising reality which is often overlooked (http://www.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=ib3Article&article_id=114081196&pubtypeid=1122462497&country_id=1460000146&category_id=775133077&rf=0). That's a lot of jobs in Britain depending on just being respectful neighbours to the Irish. Economic sanity, not to mention neighbourliness, is on the side of avoiding this term. 86.42.99.141 (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha from CollinsHapper Pocket Irish Dictionary (ISBN 0-00-470765-6). Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa meaning Islands of Western Europe from Patrick S. Dineen, Foclóir Gaeilge Béarla, Irish-English Dictionary, Dublin, 1927. Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór, meaning Ireland and Great Britain (from focail.ie, "The British Isles", Foras na Gaeilge, 2006)
Done (2) Lang Templates themselves dictate the font. Endrick Shellycoat 01:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
