Talk:British Isles

Suggestion from an outsider across the pond

Close per WP:NOTAFORUM and Godwin's law
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please excuse my ignorance if I have blundered anywhere in this post. If you exclude those with opinions at the most extreme ends of the spectrum, it seems most would acknowledge that the term is mostly historic, but has a small amount of current usefulness and usage as a description of isles in a certain geographic area, with some common roots. So, folks who would want to wipe the term off of the face of the earth (or erase it from Wikipedia) are not correct. But, for example, trying to "cover" all of current Ireland in an article about the "British Isles" would be like trying to "Cover" the current USA in an article about the 1750's British Empire. And to me it appears that the "British Isles" article somewhat tries to do this for the included territories. (This analogy is only useful regarding coverage, due to huge differences in elapsed time, the situation is very psychologically different.) So, besides such coverage being out of place, it would tend to imply much more current relevancy of the term, and somewhat imply that all of Ireland is "British", which would get many folks justifiably angry. Why not change the "British Isles" article to about a one page article which gives it's historical definition, has a map and that nice venn diagram, acknowledges that it is largely a historical term, but has a small amount of current usage & usefulness. Move all of the other coverage to the articles on the countries (or other most-relevant current divisions)and include links or references in this article to those articles to learn more about the places included in this term. Sincerely, 75.24.138.102 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC) You appear to believe that "British Isles" is a political term, analogous to "British Empire". In fact it's a geographical term dating back to the Ancient Greeks, so Ireland is still very much part of the definition, despite the attempts of a handful of people to politicise the issue. In the phrase "British Isles", "British" does not refer to the state (UK), and predates it by some two millennia (indeed, the state was named after the geographical entity, and not the other way round). It would be like the people of Canada or Brazil, say, objecting to being described as being part of "America", since that term is nowadays very often used for the state (USA). ðarkuncoll 18:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I specifically understood and understand that it is not a political term. I think that you mistakenly thinking that my analogy was claiming to be analagous in that respect, which it is not. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC) "the "British Isles" would be like trying to "Cover" the current USA in an article about the 1750's British Empire." - that sounds pretty political IP-user. It sounds as if it is your view that the term "British Isles" is a historic imperialistic term. It may be, but that is certainly a political view, with all due respect. It's not for example the view of many people internationally, who treat the phrase neutrally to mean these islands. Like many such phrases, I don't doubt that it is loaded with historic, cultural and political meanings and values. Surely the article should just explain those, which it does seem to do a fairly good job of doing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I really don't have an opinion in this. I just happened to look into the article because a friend of mine in the US was getting beat up by someone from Ireland for using the term "British Isles". And, even though I'm the best at Geography of anybody I know, I really didn't even know what is specifically included in British Isles , Great Britain, the British Islands, or the UK until I read this article (much less have a political opinion on those terms) But it just seemed to me that somebody from outside the war might be able to make a helpful suggestion / perspective regardign the Wikipedia article. I have neither the expertise nor the standing to participate in the debate about the terms. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I occassionally used the term British Isles when I lived in Dublin, and nobody even so much as blinked, let alone beat me up! I find it utterly bizarre that someone from Ireland would go to the US and attack an American citizen for using a geographic term which is taught in all American schools. It would be like a visting Texan in Ireland attacking someone for using the word Yank.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC) I think you are seeing a peculiarly Wikipedian phenomenon, the tendancy for the most extreme ends of opinion on a given subject to be endlessly over-represented and fought over in the article and talk page. See the archives for this article for a fine example of the genre! I spent some of yesterday wading through it. If you took half the stuff on there as a reflection of reality, these islands are a morass of bitter historical hatreds and half-recalled grevious insults, brewed up daily by vengeful thoughts and a burning desire to re-launch open warfare immediately - but with typos and lots of minor mistakes of interpretative historical theory! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC) @Jeanne - I'm not getting involved in the argument about British Isles. I just thought I'd point out a little subtlety in language. In the US, to "get beat up" has a different meaning to "be beat up". The former means being "put down", "argued against", "ridiculed", etc. The latter is a physical expression of violence. I seriously doubt the guy in question was physically attacked. I read it that the guy just got a hard time over it. That's all. --MacTire02 (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC) When I lived in California, to get beaten up (to be grammatically correct) meant to be physically assaulted. I never knew the language had altered so drastically since I left the New World to take up permanent residence in the Old Continent. Oh well, one learns something new everyday at Wikipedia. Guess my street credibilty is now in a shambles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC) As a resident from across the pond, I can confirm that MacTire02's take on this is accurate. But to JeanneBoley, not to worry, in this case, we haven't changed the language so radically to where the term has a new linguistic definition,75.... was just using it as a (commonly used) metaphor. North8000 (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC) No problem. I can dig it. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC) What is the ancient Greek source? I know Strabo used something like Prettans or Brettans (c. AD 10), although I don't think he directly calls them "Islands of the Brettans" or some such (in Latin or Greek presumably) - this leaves us with Pliny, Naturalis Historia, 4.103, "Albion was its own name, when all [the islands] were called the Britannias; I will speak of them in a moment"... and perhaps Ptolemy, Geographia, 2.1 "Hibernia, Island of Britannia" (c. AD 150). It's not really an ancient name as such, the term dates from somewhere in the early Modern, probably 16th Century, at least in it's "modern" format. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC) The "British Isles" is a "political term"? Lord no, it is sheer accident that the term's first usage can only be dated to a period when the British monarch was attempting to claim ownership of Ireland (John Dee in 1577, to be precise). There is nothing political about it; not even the part where Ireland has been under British colonial occupation for centuries. Nice people are these British colonialists. Harmless. Just trying to help the poor Irish by invading their country, ethnically cleansing and dispossessing the people, transferring all the land of Ireland into the hands of British Protestant settlers and holding the entire native Irish Catholic population under the racist and sectarian Penal Laws for centuries. Oh yes, in this context how on earth could asserting that Ireland is part of something British nationalists term the "British Isles" be political? It's a nice, innocuous little "geographical" term, just as harmless and apolitical as British rule in Ireland. And so the myth from the ideological descendants of profoundly racist and anti-Irish people such as Edmund Spenser and Rudyard Kipling goes on. Pathetic. Every single thing about what the British have done here is political. All the sand in all the world covering your head could not transform the sheer viciousness, utter savagery and abject inhumanity of those people in Ireland against the Irish people into mere "geography". Patronising. Insulting. Self-serving. And offensive. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Which British monarch was claiming ownership of Ireland in 1577? There was no such thing as a British monarch until 1707. Queen Elizabeth I was an English monarch. The British did not invade Ireland in 1169, it was a Cambric-Norman invasion led by Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, supported by the Pope, and instigated by the King of Leinster, Dermot MacMurrough. This was long before the birth of Martin Luther and Henry VIII, therefore no Protestants were involved. And in 1169, I would very much doubt that there was an English Saxon amongst the group of Normans and their Welsh and Flemish mercenaries.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Aside from the basic fact that she was a monarch from Britain, her first cousin was James V of Scotland. She was deeply involved in Scottish politics from at least the Treaty of Edinburgh in 1560 when she began undermining her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, there through her support for, and finance of, pro-English Protestants. With these pre-1577 connections it is disingenuous to claim she was not a British monarch, especially given the Welsh origin of the Tudors. I haven't a clue what you are doing going on about the Norman Invasion of Ireland and introducing some strawman argument about it being/not being British. Stick with the topic, please. Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC) And you are being factually incorrect when you call her a British monarch as there was no such thing as a British monarchy until 1707. As for the Tudors Welsh origin; well yes, the dynasty was indeed Welsh; however due to intermarriage with the French and Norman-English, Queen Elizabeth I was roughly just about 1/16th Welsh, which still doesn't make her a British monarch as Wales was not the kingdom of Britain. The Tudor involvement in Scottish politics pre-dates Elizabeth as it was her father Henry VIII who began the wars of the Rough Wooing to capture Mary,Queen of Scots and forcibly wed her to his son, Edward. Mary, Queen of Scots was an intrigant who was largely responsible for her headlong fall into disaster, the first being when she claimed the English throne and bore the royal arms of England. I'm not personally anti-Marian, but one has to view Mary Stuart realistically, without the patina of glamour historians and Hollywood has bestowed upon her.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Perhaps Ptolemy was being "profoundly racist and anti-Irish" when he called Hibernia an island of Britannia back in Roman times? It was essentially a neutral term originally of course, simply a reference to the "Prettans" or "Brettans" that classical Mediterranean peoples believed inhabited these islands, but as pointed out above has become imbued with colonialist, racist and imperialist overtones towards Ireland in more recent centuries. The article does reflect that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC) And the Swastika is, using your specious Ptolemy analogy, still a flag of peace? Or maybe something has happened which has profoundly changed the meaning of both and thus the meaning of the words? It is preposterous to propose that the term "British Isles" means the same thing now as 'Pretanic' did two thousand years ago. But this is the level of argument used by the very people who are politically motivated to use the same term which they claim is merely geographical. But what can you expect from a cultural world where under the entry 'Irish' in their dictionaries we have definitions ranging from 'contradictory' to 'illogical' to, ironically, 'ironical'. Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Of course the swastika is no longer a flag of peace and of course I didn't propose that British Isles doesn't still mean the same as did Bretanic or Brettans in Roman times. As I said at the end of my comment. And you won't find definitions of Irish or Irishness like that in Wikipedia, thank goodness. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Well, next time please don't bother trying to be sarcastic in an attempt to belittle my points. And I checked the OED online, as well as other English dictionaries, and they still have such definitions of 'Irish'. I agree with the other parts of your post, except about the article reflecting the Irish objections. It doesn't; at least it does not do so anything like adequately Dunlavin Green (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Oh dear, Dunlavin, you've just fallen foul of Godwin's law. If you wish to cultivate a long memory for past conflicts, then how about this: the Irish were raiding the coasts of Britain, taking slaves (e.g. St Patrick), settling and setting up petty kingdoms from at least the 4th century onwards, long before the British intervened in Ireland. Indeed, that intervention was designed to stop such raids by pacifying the place, and was sanctioned by the Catholic Church. ðarkuncoll 11:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC) As long as British Isles is in usage, it covers the entire island of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha.. I was was about to revert Dunlavin Green, almost as a matter of course, but his restoring of this section is entirely proper, so I won't, even though I disagree 100% with what he says. Mister Flash (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protect?

There seems to have been a resurgence again in the anon related POV vandalism on the article again. Do people think it's a good idea to semi-protect the article? I know it's been discussed before, but the results where inconclusive. Historically it has seemed that some people where socking on IP addresses to get around editing restrictions but that isn't happening here (that I can see), just some of the same IP ranges cropping up and doing the term and controversial thing again. So thoughts? Canterbury Tail talk 17:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This article definitely needs semi-protecting. There has been too much edit-warring here and, personally, I don't feel that that has contributed positively to the article. We need a quality NPOV article. Anonymous IP sockpuppeting/editing/moving etc. is only detrimental to the improvement of the article. Any issues regarding naming etc. should be raised on the talk page as per wiki guidelines and not on the article itself. --MacTire02 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This article will always be prone to POVish IP edits (just as much as it is prone to POVish edits by registered users). What has been positive about the recent spate is that they have not led to edit warring. There has only been one or two incidents of actual vandalism (example).

We should not lock down the article just because a random readers adds that the term is controversial. We know that it is and we should expect that some readers will feel that that is not expressed strongly enough in the article. This article get 500-1000 readers per day. Some of those will edit it. That's a part of the wiki process. If the edit falls short of NPOV, we revert, cite the talk page and move on. We don't lock the article down because of it. This is a wiki and it needs to be editable. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And this is why I opened up for a discussion. It has been suggested before. I'll leave it to the community to decide. Canterbury Tail talk 21:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

? - Indeed. That was my 2 euro cents. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO in each case where a Wikipedia article is merely a battleground for a larger "war" that is occurring elsewhere, the article is always an unstable contentious mess. Usually via the combatants using Wikipedia rules to fight the war. I don't think that current Wikipedia processes and rules are up to the challenge of handling those situations. As a result, what you see in this article is the inevitable result of the combatants being merely human under this set of rules (or lack thereof) rather than some unusually "bad behavior" that needs locking out. North8000 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, permanent semi-protection is required. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Still trashing NPOV here?

"Are you sure you're really one of the Wild Geese or have you just been reading too much wikipedia? No self-respecting Irish person I have ever met has referred to Ireland as being part of the "British Isles" - a Victorian term which is avoided by the British and Irish governments as well as the dear old Guardian (although it is still much enjoyed by various Times-reading toffs, Tories in "empire denial" and the lesser-spotted West Briton)."

The Guardian makes the correct call. While Wiki remains in the grip of British editorial control. Sarah777 (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And since when is Godwin's Law reason enough for a British editor to close a discussion about British pov in this article title? Sarah777 (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I wondered about this, but I didn't comment as I lack experience. I have searched and can't find anything about Godwin's Law justifying closing a debate in the Wikipedia policies. However, the discussion was closed on other grounds that do connect to a policy, so I suppose the Godwin's Law thing is not really a relevant remark. Sarah777, can you please put the correct Guardian reference in, your link doesn't seem to go to a Guardian article? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Done! (If you search 'lesser-spotted' you'll find the quote). It appears the Guardian is conducting a debate on Irish Unity, oddly enough. Sarah777 (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Godwin's law" is no reason to close a debate. Presumably, the closing editor though it was a clever remark. The substantive reason to close that discussion was that Wikipedia is not a forum.

Sarah, the quote above is from the comments section, not The Guardian. The comments section on that page is a forum. Wikipedia (still) is not. -- RA (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite, that "correct call" is actually made by forum contributor malefeminist, a self-described "Irish Republican." As erudite as I'm sure malefeminist is (I find online forums to feature some serious heavyweight intellectuals, don't you?), I don't think he qualifies as a reliable source. Rockpocket 20:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And this segment is related to improving the article how? Should probably be closed under the not a forum rules. Canterbury Tail talk 02:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess that Agressive Archiving is a part of the warfare occurring in this Article

Now I see that someone has a robot removing / archiving items for being over 14 days old. And previously someone removed / archived / closed a discussion citing "Goodwin's Law" which is a general (non-Wikipedia) comment, not a Wikipedia policy. 99.141.252.19 (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the last time I suggested that comparing the British Empire to the Third Reich was unfair to the Germans I got in trouble. So I won't say it again. Sarah777 (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarah777, the British Empire in no-way, shape, or fashion, compares to the Greater German Reich under the leadership of the Furher. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your quite right, Don, and Sarah should know better than to make such a silly comparison. The Third Reich lasted only 12 years, whereas British rule in Ireland has continued for over 800 years. Those flakey, fly-by-night Germans were a mere blip in history: they just don't have anything near the persistence required to get anywhere close to the same repress-your-neighbours-league as the British. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Brownhairedgirl.

If the (English-Welsh-Scottish) had wanted to "death-camp" the Roman-Catholic Irish out of existance, there would be none left. Simply put, the extermination of the German Jews does not compare to the treatment of the Roman-Catholic Irish. If we (i.e, the non Roman Catholic Irish) had wanted you (i.e., the Roman-Catholic Irish) gone ... you'd all be dead. And you-all are still there. Please do the "mental-math", eh. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are comments like that helping to improve the article in any way, shape or form? (Rhetorical question in case it wasn't blindingly obvious) waggers (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The archive bot has been in operation for some time now and is nothing new, certainly nothing "aggressive". waggers (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been accepted for a long time that one week inactivity is enough to end any discussion for a long time but when the bot is coming along to delete everyting every month you do feel it to be fast. Though Wikipedia means fast encyclopaedia. I have been trying to suggest to the arbitration committee that runaway train-size arguements should be given their own project space where they can be worked on without clouding over the projects and articles they weigh down on usually. And also that those involved in such debates should be encouraged to produce an article in Wikipedia space detailing all the facts about the dispute for easy reference and input from impartial editors. I don't know how good an idea that is or if I have explained it to the very well but I put it at [[1]]. The Arbitrators do not seem to have understood it anyway. ~ R.T.G 13:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are right that when you have huge or difficult debates that something with more structure and longevity would be useful for resolving them. But I'm not sure that it would help in this case. I think that the nastiest of the stuff I see in this discussion is not aimed at influencing the content of the article. It's more like Wikipedia's role in that respect is just providing a meeting place for opponents in a larger "war" to do battle. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It occurs more and more, why do they not call them something like "The Three Great Northern Islands of Europe". Maybe one of these days. ~ R.T.G 13:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What you see here in the talk page of British Isles and some other places appears to be the usual case of people in contentious articles who hold the most extreme views (generally a very small minority in the real world debate) seeking to tilt the article in their direction, whilst a number of less partial editors and admins attempt repeatedly to sooth the argument and keep the article impartial. In most of these articles I've observed, the end result is a rather shallow article, fluctuating content between one end and the other and lots of hard-working people getting more and more fed up and eventually throwing their hands up and quitting. It's a basic, basic weakness in the Wikipedia model that the persistent nature of the dogmatic will tend to win out over the well-meaning and sensible: result: a deceased article with little fizz or depth. Personally I don't believe this can ever be resolved in the Wikipedia model, no matter how much bureacracy is thrown at it. Clearly some other model will eventually emerge but it won't be the same as this one. In the meantime, editing or attempting to edit highly controversial articles appears to be a hobby for the time-rich! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How absolutely right and well said! Articles on acrimonious topics everywhere in Wikipedia are in a low quality eternal mess, and the best quality contributors give up and leave. But the Wikipedia model works well on the other 95% of articles. And so I think that smarter-written policies are in order rather than waiting for the whole Wikipedia to die and be replaced. But the method for policy changes itself needs to change, with a need for consensusing a bigger picture rather than just editing sentences. 99.141.252.19 (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)