Talk:British Isles

---

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Note to all users

This is a talk page for the British Isles article. When using this page please remember Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. In particular, a number of users have broken the following two guidelines on this page in the past; please make sure that you understand them:

• Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.
• Talk pages are not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral.

This was originally included by Robdurbar 12:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC) and then archived (9). Reinstated, with minor edit, by Abtract 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Languages

I've commented out the Channel Islands languages. A great deal of debate has hammered out an acceptance that the term "British Isles" has geographic and geolical value. We've said that the CIs are normally not included, except in specifically political contexts. So the text can't stand and the Venn diagram needs to be changed. --Red King 19:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary specifically includes them. Other dictionaries use the ambiguous Great Britain, Ireland "and other adjacent islands" formulae, which would also have them in ("adjacent: next to or adjoining"). The people there include themselves, see the Jersey government site. The Guernsey one is less unequivical (except for Alderney) but a look at the government website shows that they clearly see themselves as being "within" the British Isles, as opposed to "outside" of the British Isles.

Every time I come across people on WP saying that they are not within the British Isles, they always refer back to this article and the terminology one as "proof." It only seems here that they are. Where did that consensus come from and on what basis? We are not here to come up with a definition for the British Isles. Definitions include them. They include themselves. On what grounds are they excluded from it here? --sony-youth^talk 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As further evidience, a quick look on the Google (web, scholar or books) should prodive plenty of evidience that they normally are included. Encarta inclueds them. Even the Comlete Idiots Guide to Geography includes them! More appropriate for the subject of this edit, the book Language in the British Isles includes them. Excluding them is purely a WP thing, and an absolute falasy. --sony-youth^talk 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We have spades of competing evidence in the naming article. But specifically if they are included it is because they are politically British then inevitably the Republic of Ireland should be omitted because it is not politically British. We can't have it both ways. --Red King 22:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh ... god, no - not back to this! First the "evidence" that they are not in is because some definitions do not explicitly mention them - just as some definitions do not explicitly mention the Isles of Man - but all definitions include Ireland, explicitly. Yes, including them throws a spanner in the works of "its just a geographic term" argument - but what people mean by that is "geological", there is no such thing as a "purely" geographic term. Anyway, move on - we're not here to debate its rights or wrongs, just report the facts as reported by others. --sony-youth^talk 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If they even had some shared linguistic inheritance, I could accept it. It really seems like they've be dragged in to make some kind of strange point. --Red King 22:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Common linguistic heritage? That would be English, bud.

Something to remember is that when people look for the bad guys in the British Isles, their eyes usually rest on England - ain't those the dastardly types who caused so much havoc? But its just that poor old England has been the butt of so many invasions and conquered so often that its unrecognizable to its "original" Celtic self. Other areas were able to contain these incursions to a greater extent forming the national "borders" we see today in Britain. But when our eyes fall on the Tower of London what we are really looking at are those Normans who punched a hole through the boundaries of Wales, then Scotland, then Ireland (then later Man, the Orkneys and Shetland) starting the trend of English-based (not English per se) domination over the rest of the Isles. We were all conquered by them in turn, only England, as ever, most comprehensively. To see these guys today, our eyes need to drift a little further south. Ah, those dastardly Channel Islanders, the last vestige of those Normans who would bind us together whether we wanted it or not!

Getting back to the linguistic heritage, this is the central to understanding that they really are our linguistic cousins. The English spoken before the Norman invasion and the English spoken after are unrecognizable from each other. Today English vocabulary is 1/3 Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) and 1/3 Latin (Roman), both of which predate those Normans who entrenchedly hung on to Jersey, Guernsey, Alderly and Sark when squeezed out of France (well that's not quite how it happened, but give me some freedom with history, if you will), but the 1/3 French that you and I speak does not. One word out of every three we type in this encyclopedia can be attributed to those little fellas, hanging on by their finger nails and looking back at the far greater islands they conquered and made one. For more reasons that just one, they are the reason why we spend so much time on this page debating the meaning of the British Isles, or whether it even exists at all. A case can be put that they are where it all began.

... but anyway, that’s all just rambling pub talk. Fact is, the simple answer is that they are always included in the British Isles – despite whatever reasons we have for wanting to keep them in or out. I'm not trying to drag them in "to make some kind of strange point", they simply are in, the strageness would be if this basic fact was deliberately ingnored, for one "strange point" or another. --sony-youth^talk 08:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact is, they aren't always included. It depends on the context. If it is about taxation, no. If is about student fees, no. If it about the EU, no. If it is about geography or geology, no. If is about the late lamented British Empire, yes. One out of seven - so that's alright then. --Red King 19:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"If it is about taxation, no. If is about student fees, no. If it about the EU, no ..." - ditto for the Isle of Man, not part of the UK or Ireland. "If it is about geography ... no" - always included - "... or geology, no" - depends what you mean. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

History Section

Hi, I'd like to trim the history - but am not sure where to start, any ideas or would people be opposed to this idea? --sony-youth^talk 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've created a timeline template of the History of the British Isles. My plan is to put it into that article, like the timelines of Irish State in the Irish states since 1171 article.

I'm sure there plenty of mistakes, although I've deliberately left out some states/people for simplicity's sake. The "events" I've added are also obviously "Hiberno-centric", so would like the imput of other's to settle what other events should to be added.

General comments are also welcome. Since the table is fairly complicated, if people want leave suggestions for events and things they would like changed on the templates talk page, I'll add them. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I've made a start on trimming out some early naming info duplicating stuff in Pretanic Islands and Britanniae. The template looks fine to me, perhaps I'm missing something that will show up in detailed use, but it seems very reasonable. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 09:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

move name debate

I have moved the naming discussion to talk:British Isles/name debate so that this page can be used for other dicussions rather than being swamped by just one. This in no way is meant to diminish the name debate or to assume that all parties are satisfied or indeed to suggest that the debate is or should be at an end. Abtract 00:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Britain & Ireland, edit

Is the article about the "the British Isles" or about "those islands off north western Europe"? Well, if it's about the latter, then the intro is very narrow indeed. My preferred edit would be, as fallows,
The British Isles, also widely known as Britain and Ireland, is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands. The term is somewhat controversial in the Republic of Ireland and with nationalists in Northern Ireland.

Then the paragraph would more informative. As it stands, it seems to be somewhat stiff in itself! Anyone agree? Gold♣heart 18:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I made the change. It lasted almost 2 minutes, and it was reverted. From reading over the article a few times, somehow the idea is coming through, that the article is more about the concept of the "British Isles", rather than about the islands themselves. Really it needs a change, and I'm very surprised that it survives on WP in its present form. Gold♣heart 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I reverted it is "widely known as Britain and Ireland" is not correct. Britain and Ireland is not the same as the British Isles, they aren't the same area. Also the "widely known", by whom and how widely? Widely implies a lot which I don't see is true as they don't mean the same thing. It's nothing to do with them being British, as they aren't, it's just a name. Ben W Bell talk 20:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Really, I'm not intent in getting into debate. But this article is protected and watched, like a mad dog guarding his bone. And quite frankly, I can't see the harm in mentioning "Britain and Ireland" in the opening para. Why didn't you just remove widely. Britain and Ireland, is well used. I fear that the article is more about "the Term BI", rather than about the islands. More about Empire than about Umpire. Gold♣heart 20:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of the reason for not using "Britain and Ireland" is that "Britain" is itself ambiguous. Bazza 11:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So is "Ireland". Naomhain 12:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland are already mentioned, in the very first sentence, where it explains what the islands consist of. There is no need to mention them twice. TharkunColl 14:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not half as ambiguous as the term "British Isles" is. 'Britain and Ireland' IS widely used in Ireland. Fact. Certainly more widely used than "The British Isles". This really shows the utter futility of various Brits trying to ignore the naming the issue in the article and ban discussion of it from the talk page. (And please note Ben, I did not start this; but I could argue that you did by making an unnecessary edit which you must have realised would be provocative). (Sarah777 19:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

I know you didn't start this. I removed the edit as stated above for the reasons stated above. "Britain and Ireland" is not synonymous with "British Isles", they don't mean the same thing and not all uses of the term "Britain and Ireland" are used to mean the same thing as "British Isles". They may be similar in some ways, but they are not the same. Ben W Bell talk 12:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

'The British Isles' IS widely used in the United Kingdom. Fact. Certainly more widely used than "Britain and Ireland". Please, no more. Bazza 12:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats the whole problem those isint it,It is used in once place when discriminated by the other when not used by everyone else. (Mikel-Fikel 82 04:49 13 may 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there are TWO sovereign political entities on these islands. In one of them, Britain, the islands are usually called the "British Isles". In the other, which is not British, they are NOT usually called "The British Isles" and many people find calling an archipelago which includes Ireland "British" deeply offensive; especially given the historically racist imperialist genocidal activities of the British State in Ireland. The fact that Wiki endorses such strong POV is due to the relative numbers on the British Island compared to Ireland. FACT. (Sarah777 23:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

'The British Isles' IS widely used in the United Kingdom. Fact.'- Is it, now? Care to provide us with a statistic? I for one still can't hear that jingoistic term-ever- on the public voice of the British people as represented by BBC, ITN, Channel 4, Sky News or any other very British channel when it comes to the weather forecast. What a strange anomaly indeed, especially given the rightwing nationalist tabloid culture of ITN and Sky News in particular. 89.100.195.42 23:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point 8910019542. Reading the Irish Times the past few days one was struck by the fact that every commentator, from Garret Fitzgerald to Ian Paisley, seem to have used the term "these Islands" or "Britain and Ireland" to describe the archipelago. Maybe it is editorial policy in the IT not to use the term? Even so, that would tell a tale? Wiki as the Last Stand of the British Empire?!!! (Sarah777 00:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

My apologies for not making my comment clear - I was merely comparing Sarah777's argument on how things are perceived in the (Republic of) Ireland with how things are perceived in the United Kingdom (not Britain, as erroneously stated by her above). For geomorphological and geological purposes, it is a precise recognised term for the whole group of islands: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]. As for statistics requested by 89.100.194.42: I use the term, as do others I know in the UK, including [[5]]. Incidentally, my English ancestors also suffered poverty and hardship as a result of the practices of certain parts of the British State, of which Ireland and some Irish people were a part. Bazza 10:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The true facts of the matter are, that they are not called the British Isles. The other true fact is that some people call them the British Isles. These are only facts, they are not pov. WP should reflect on these truths. Gold♣heart 13:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>An attempt at facts:

An archipelago consists of two large islands and several smaller ones. The islands have a long, recent history of rule from the largest island. Today, the only common name we know of for the archipelago is the XXX Islands. XXX is the adjectival form of the largest island's name. It was not always such, in ancient times, the area was known as XXX and the larger island by a different name.

A part of the second-largest island is independent from the largest island, and calls itself by the name of its island. The remaining part of the second-largest island is in conflict about whether to be independent from the largest island.

A number of people call them the XXX Islands. A number of those people see no issue with the name. A number of people resent that name. A number of those do not call them such. A number of people see an issue with that name, but do not resent it. A number of those avoid calling them such. Whether one resents calling the archipelago, the XXX Islands, is corollary to whether one comes form and believes in the political independence of the second-largest island.

--sony-youth^pléigh 14:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks so much better right now, like a real encyclopedia article, SqueakBox 00:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

15 to 1

No, I'm not referring to the popular quiz show presented by William G. Stewart. 15 to 1 is the amount by which the population of the UK outnumbers that of the ROI. If an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of a place call it by a certain name, then that is its name. I suggest we remove all reference to the controversy from the first paragraph, and move it a much less prominent position, on the grounds that those who object to the name British Isles are only a tiny minority of its population. TharkunColl 11:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Did a nice job in 1846 of ensuring that. Kind of misses the point, though. Until 1999, the majority of the population of Ireland said that Ireland covered the etire island. Wasn't true. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We who are alive today are not responsible for past atrocities, any more than the modern Irish are responsible for their ancestors' conquests of Wales and Scotland during the Dark Ages. We merely inherit the situation as it exists, and try to do our best with it. As for Ireland covering the whole of Ireland, of course it does - but you have directed the link to the Republic of Ireland, which is a gerrymandered state created to have a massive Catholic majority. The partition of Ireland was, in my opinion, a reprehensible act, perpetrated by a weakened, demoralised British government still reeling from the effects of the First World War. But we can't go back and change it now. If Ian Paisley can sit down with a former head of the IRA and talk peace, then we here can surely reach some sort of agreement in this pathetic little squabble. TharkunColl 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So, please, no more talk of "15:1" - it has a ring of conquest about it. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(Incidentally, the partition of Ireland preceeded WW1, see Third Home Rule Act. Gerrymandering is also not usually applied to the Republic. Expansive areas of Northern Ireland had/still have nationalist majorities, not so in the Republic, see this map. {Sorry for directing to a RSF site, but the map is good.} --sony-youth^pléigh 12:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

15:1 is a mere fact, and has nothing to do with conquest. If half a million people in London decided to call it "Londres" or whatever, 15:1 would still call it London, so that would be its name. Also, whoever thought of it first, partition was only applied after WW1, and was a sign of weakness on behalf of the government. The partition was gerrymandered to create two sectarian states in Ireland, and Ireland has suffered ever since. If Ireland had been given a unified polity, having to take into account the interests of its significant Protestant minority, it would have developed in a very different direction than that of the current republic. I am no supporter of what the British government did in Ireland in previous centuries, but times have definitely changed, as is evidenced by Scotland. If the Scots voted for independence, they would get it. But back then, in the era of WW1, the British state was trying to protect its territorial integrity against German financed fifth columnists in Ireland. TharkunColl 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it's interesting to note the way Ireland (Republic of) history is being re-written in wikipedia, for example in History of Ireland where the second world war involvement of Ireland is explained thusly Though nominally neutral, recent studies have suggested a far greater level of involvement by the South with the Allies than was realised, with D Day's date set on the basis of secret weather information on Atlantic storms supplied by Éire. Yet most books on the subject mention the tacit complicity of De Valera with German Nazism, the huge German embassy in Dublin crawling with SS agents and bristling with huge antenna to listen in to the UK, etc. It seems that some (but by no means all) Irish just cannot handle too much truth about their own past and prefer instead to slag off "ours". Knocking the Brits is always so much more pleasant than self-reflection. MarkThomas 17:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the American planes, when they crash landed in Ireland on their way over to the war effort, were quickly put onto lorries and transported to Northern Ireland for fixing etc. No American or British soldiers were detained for compromising Irish territory, but many Germans were. And then, Poland, whom Britain went to war to save, was handed to Stalin, as big a villain than Hitler. Don't believe everything you read, and if you see anything that needs fixing in the history pages, then go ahead, fix it. 86.42.191.14 17:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the phrase was "neutral on the Allies side". Irish_neutrality#World_War_II has quite a bit, and there was a recently unveiled memorial to the Donegal Corridor. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tark, I'll reply on your talk page. This is not the place to discuss the date of the partition of Ireland. However, describing the Republic as "sectarian state" is clear POV and offensive to (an attack on?) many of your fellow editors here. Remember that "the policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages." If you're going to make such clearly provocative comments, please back them up.

Mark, I recently added an article on this topic. Since "most books on the subject" demonstrate the "complicity of De Valera with German Nazism" you should have no problem adding a well referenced section on Irish complicity with the Germans - but its hardly a reflection on Irish neutrality that the Germans (be they military or diplomatic personnel) would spy on their enemies during time of war. You might start by picking sections of the Cranborne report, but you'll have to do something about the 42,000-70,000 (1.4%-2.4%) citizens of a "neutral" country that volunteered to fight in the British Army (compared to the 7.3% conscripted in the belligerent UK). I remember reading something about two Irish generals being awarded US medals for their role during the war, but having to quietly return them reminding the US that Irish was neutral. I'll see if i can dig it up. Maybe its not Irish history that being rewritten, but British? --sony-youth^pléigh 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your 15-1 annalogy is analogy is fundametally you base it on the assumption that everyone in the UK uses the term British Isles I live in the UK and never use the term. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 00:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is a simplification, because it also assumes that everyone in the Republic does not use the term - and we already know this to be false. TharkunColl 00:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I really get teed off at Irish folk trying to claim that we were not "really neutral" in WW2. We had absolutely no reason to support the British Empire in it's murderous clash with the wannabe German Empire. The British Empire was responsible for genocide on a scale that dwarfed Hitlers efforts. The Brutish Empire was responsible for the Great Genocide of the 1840's. Dev's greatest achievement was keeping us out of that war between two Evil Empires, despite the threats from the British side. So cut out the bull folks - as for "not being responsible for the crimes of the past" - it is the SAME British State that has the blood of a million dead Iraqis on its hands, TODAY.

The "15:1 = the name" is garbage; the inhabitants of some islands off the South American coast call them "The Falklands" - they are still, in reality, the Malvinas outside the Anglophone world. And Ireland is not part of any place called the British anything. Hope that sorted that out. (Sarah777 13:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

So presumably you don't agree with the right to self-determination of the Falkland Islanders? The vast majority of the inhabitants of those islands call them the Falklands, so that's their name. Just like British Isles, though perhaps the majority is even more overwhelming in the case of the Falklands. As for the so-called "Great Genocide" (I presume you mean the potato famine), then I think you ought to check up on your history. The British government did indeed attempt to help, according to its lights, and the prevailing economic theory (too little, too late perhaps - but there was no "genocide"). Still, why bother arguing? Your anti-British rants make your motivation very clear. TharkunColl 14:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"We had absolutely no reason to support the British Empire in it's murderous clash with the wannabe German Empire." Yet many of us did, but, hey! I guess they weren't "really Irish."

"Dev's greatest achievement was keeping us out of that war ..." Agreed. The greatest error is not whether Ireland was "neutral" or not "really neutral", but that Ireland lived in the shadows during the Emergency. Civil wars normally define countries, and Ireland's did too, but it is the Emergency that is Ireland's baptism of fire, without the fire (or at least only the threat of it, albeit however real). Coming right after the Economic War, what's significant is the balance struck as it defined the relationship between Britain and Ireland afterwards. Whether neutrality was breached or held is practically unimportant. It meant that Britain could not assume that Ireland would automatically be at its beck-and-call - for anything, anymore - but the relationship would be one of normal relations between soverign states, neither dysfunctional nor former-colonial. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what "many of us" you are talking about Sony. The democratically elected Government remained relentlessly neutral to the point of Dev's famous condolences on the death of Hitler; reflecting the democratic wishes of the people. The fact that some idiots went and got dismembered fighting for Britain (as others did under colonial occupation in WWI) is of absolutely no concern to me. The practice of using "Gurkhas" from conquered lands is as old as history, just as collaborators are). If Hitler had invaded England the SS would have been stampeded in the rush of young "English Aryans" joining up; that doesn't make Hitler any less obnoxious. Or the "Young Aryans". TharkunColl; it was GENOCIDE; one of a series. Since at least the early 1600's there was a long, concerted campaign of cultural and physical genocide (read your Edmund Spenser). The cultural bit succeeded; fortunately for us Gas Chamber technology didn't exist at the time. The only serious effort the British State made was to ensure food exports continued under armed guard while the natives starved. Regarding the "Falklands" - so you reckon the majority living on the island decides the name - even if all of Latin America calls it "Malvinas"? Bang goes your 15 - 1 reasoning. Ireland IS NOT part of the British anything. To repeat a simple FACT. (Sarah777 20:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Allowing one's citizens to serve in a billigerent army is not a breach of neutality, conspiring to aid their war effort is. As for the "democratic wish of the people", these were different times, only twenty years after independence, the British monarch was still the head of state, and we were still in the Commonwealth and a dominion of the British Empire. This isn't the place for discussion of it though, here is. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Writing something in capitals does not make it so. 15:1 refers to the actual inhabitants of a place, not outsiders. That's why I mentioned it. TharkunColl 23:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tharkun that the name dispute has no place in the opening and especially no place in the second sentence. I've NPOV tagged the article till this gets sorted, SqueakBox 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Anyone watching Bertie's (pretty crappy) speech to the British Houses of Parliament yesterday would have been struck at Tony's introduction - a veritbly "these islands" fest. I accept that to most the term is "purely geogrpahic" and absolutely unproblematic, but when politicians go out of their way not to use it (in geographic terms or otherwise), it's noteworthy.

It doesn't need to be made a big deal of, but it is noteworthy that politicians (and historians) from both islands acknowledge the problems with the term and deliberately do not use it in dialogue with each other. It may be a common term, but we need to warn our readers that it is a political faux-pas. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a resident of the UK. I am British and I certainly would not use a term that needlessly offends others. I strongly object to TharkunColl lumping me into his Weasel ‘overwhelming majority’ . I have done my own poll here and the ‘overwhelming majority’ do not give a sh*t what it is called. Aatomic1 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good move moving the history of name to the history section. Makes sense. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC) (Just noticed that that move was Abtract, not Aatomic. Well done Abtract!) --sony-youth^pléigh 16:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sony, having given you a dig-out on the Ireland/BI issue do you think I could usefully contribute to the La Manche Islands row below? (Sarah777 00:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Channel Isles

There's no source for this idea that the Channel Isles might not be a part of the British Isles - all the sources that attempt to name more than GB and Ireland specifically include the Channel Isles. As far as I can tell their exclusion is just a Wikipedia thing - although I'm willing to be proven wrong. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

110% agree. See my comments on the Euler diagram talk page. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I saw them - I thought you'd probably grown tired of the whole thing - and I wouldn't blame you given the length of the above. It seems strange to me though for articles to invent controversies that don't exist. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Plese read the citations before changing the CI section ... it seems clear to me that some sources do not include the CI and we ought to reflect this is in the article. Abtract 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the references in the article, I see that the sources that don't mention the Channel Islands also don't mention the Isle of Man. Does this mean that the Isle of Man is only "sometimes" included as well? Hhmmm ... so, either "Britain and Ireland" is cognate to the "British Isles" - or (low!) the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are just not explicitly mentioned in those definitions i.e. they're sundered in with the "and adjacent smaller islands etc."

Just because they're not mentioned by name in every single definition, doesn't mean they're not included. Those definitions that go to the trouble of naming islands apart from Britain and Ireland do include them. I really don't see what the problem is. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The IoM is clearly an island surrounding GB whereas the CI are clearly not (they are offshore France) so it comes as no surprise to me that the CI are sometimes included in the BI and sometimes not. This has been discussed at length before and I think the correct decision was reached; I don't have timer to debate it at great length again.Abtract 21:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What debate? You're reading things that simply are not there. Dictionaries explicitly includes them, atlases, geography books, sociology texts, history journals, English-grammar glossaries, parliamentary reports, ... and on, and on, and on ... The only place that insists that the Channel Islands are not in the British Isles (or maybe, ... only sometimes) is Wikipedia. What is the POV driving this nonsense?

We have two kinds of definitions. One kind which explicitly includes the Channel Islands. And a second kind that say that (an unstated number of) smaller "adjacent" or "surrounding" islands are also included. The Channel Islands are "adjacent" Great Britain. They are also a "surrounding" island of Great Britain. These two definition are not in conflict with each other. And the fact that authoritative sources, that explicitly list islands to be included, explicitly include them should really start to rings bells in your head. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sony. I was composing a reply too. I've said something similar to you but far less concisely :-) : Abstract, as far as I can see not one of the sources from that page asserts that the Channel Isles are not part of the British Isles, or even attempts to imply that. As you well know, the sources can't list all of the hundreds of islands that make up the British Isles and the absence of certain islands, particularly from the sources that you quote, which only make specific ref to the two largest islands, doesn't mean they're not included. Mentioning a controversy without showing that it exists, or basing a discussion on your personal beliefs is original research. Something may seem "clear" to you but that's compeletely beside the point - if being off the coast of France is part of the criteria you're using, I would suggest that excludes Britain. At risk of repeating myself, you need to show that some reliable source believes the Channel Isles are not a part of the British Isles and you just haven't done that. I'm happy to admit I may be wrong: it's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that there's a body of opinion that asserts that the Channel Isles are a completely separate island group and that it's wrong to include them - but where's your evidence? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at a map recently? adjacent and surrounding are not words that I would use to describe the CI relationship to Britain ... it is included in the BI because of its political links not due to geography and that's why it is only included "sometimes". I didn't use the word controversy I simply mentioned that it had been debated before (in an encyclopedic way I seem to remember) and a consensus was reached on the wording.Abtract 22:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No - the article implies there's a controversy, that's all. The islands are closer to France than to Britain, you're right. However there's nothing to say that a definition that talks about islands off the coast of Britain couldn't include the Channel Islands. Take this from the NOAD:

"a group of islands lying off the coast of northwestern Europe, from which they are seperated by the North Sea and the English Channel. They include Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Isle of Wright, the Hebrides, the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Isles, the Scilly Isles, and the Channel Islands."

There are no objective criteria for deciding how close something has to be to be in order to be "adjacent" or "off the coast" - but they are pretty close. The fact is that every source either states explicitly or does not exclude the possibility that the Channel Isles may be included. If the article suggests the Channel Isles are sometimes excluded, then it's a piece of original research unless the statement is backed up - I really can't see any way around that.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just in passing and referring to the NOAD quote - the CI can hardly be said to be separated from France by the north sea or the english channel ... :) Abtract 16:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

NOAD explicity includes them. The Channel Islands are surrounded by the English Channel. If there is water between them and France, that name of that water is the English Channel. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, still no response so here's what I propose:

"A few sources [5][6] include the Channel Isles in the British Isles although geographically they are an offshore French island group."
The phrase "French island group" is a neologism coined by Wikipedia editors. It should be removed. There is a lack of sources saying explicitly that the Channel Isles are not part of the British Isles and a large number of good sources saying they are. The emphasis ought to reflect this. If the sources existed this should read:
"A few sources exclude the Channel Isles from the British Isles."
But even that conclusion can't be drawn from the evidence provided so I would like to remove the sentence entirely.

"Dictionaries, encyclopedias and atlases that use the term British Isles define it as Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man and their islands, with some sources also including the Channel Islands."
A misleading summary of what the sources actually say - no source lists those three islands in particular. I propose revising the definition to include Britain, Ireland and neighbouring islands, listing those other larger islands that are commonly named by the sources (the Hebrides, Shetland, IoM, and, yes, the Channel Isles) - there's no reason to give Channel Isles a special treatment - and I would point out that, while they are only 50 miles away, Shetland is 100 miles from the British mainland.

"Geographically the Channel Islands are part of France, but politically they are strongly connected to the United Kingdom. The Channel Islands regard themselves as part of the British Isles and state such in official literature."
France is a political unit - the assertion that the Channel Isles are in any sense part of France needs major sourcing as I'm not even sure it's possible to be merely "geographically part of France". Given the fact that the status of the Channel Isles isn't doubted by any of the sources it hardly seems worth pointing out that they regard themselves as part of the British Isles, although I won't object if someone really wants to keep it in.

"Many major road and rail maps and atlases use the term "Great Britain and Ireland" to describe the islands, although this can be ambiguous regarding the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands."
A novel use of the word "ambiguous". I must confess I have no idea what the sentence is supposed to mean - are we claiming the atlases include these islands and shouldn't, because they're separate islands and cannot be called Great Britain or Ireland? That sounds fair enough to me but there's nothing ambiguous about it - this is just the misuse of a word.

"The Channel Islands are sometimes stated as being in the British Isles, though geographically they are not part of the island group, being close to the coast of France."
And still nobody wants to source this. Does the assertion that the Channel Islands are not part of the British Isles because they're off the coast of France amuse anybody else? This should go per everything above.

"Note that the inclusion of the Channel Islands is disputed"
Remove. What dispute? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 14:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Lo2u. Agree with everything above. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Very bad suggestion Lo2u. We simply CANNOT use one criteria (political) to include the CI and then turn that on its head and use geography to insist the Ireland is included. (Sarah777 00:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

I think you have gone too far but life is too short to bother. I am quite in favour of including the CI (see my comments in archive 10), but I think you miss an opportunity to reflect the fact that geographically it is not part of this island group being so close to france and therefor is sometimes omitted from definitions.Abtract 17:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

However... a great deal of earlier discussion about the status of Ireland declared that the term "British Isles" is a geographic/geologic one and has nothing to do with British rule. Yet the only basis to include the CIs is that they are politically British since by geology and geography the belong to the Cherbourg peninsula. This would seem to require TWO definitions of the BIs, one political, one geographic. (Though they are only barely British politically, being largely beyond the reach of UK law). --Red King 19:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, the Channel Islands are British, SqueakBox 00:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not part of the UK. They're British in the same way the Falklands and Gibraltar are, and none of those are considered part of the British Isles. The inclusion of the Channel Islands as part of the British Isles is a discrepancy and indeed doesn't fit with the geographical definition. Nevertheless it's quite a common occurrence and should be included in the article as such. Waggers 10:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Shetland is 100 miles from the British mainland." - Lo2u. This illustrates the utter confusion in the arguments attempting to group an archipelago and some other islands not geographically part of the archipelago into a single unit given a name that implies they are politically part of the largest polity in the archipelago. The term "Britain and Ireland" to describe the islands if dismissed because it doesn't include Shetland and the Channel Islands as they are not of Britain. Yet their distance from the "British mainland" is then brought into the discussion! (Implying that they ARE commonly regarded as politically part of Britain and that the term Britain and Ireland would thus include them. More QED and closure. (Sarah777 10:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Double Standards; Ireland/Channel Islands

Defenders of the British Isles concept argue that it is absolutely nothing to do with politics; purely a geographical term. Now I see that in the case of the Channel Islands, clearly and indisputably offshore islands of the European mainland (in the form of France), the political history moves centre-stage!!! This is where indulging British Imperial myopia leads; POV uber alles. Time to recognise that the so-called "geographical" rationale for the Imperial name "British Isles", is bunkum. (Sarah777 00:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Err??? you what??? I didnt understand any of that. British Imperial myopia never existed let alone now. Please talk in a way we Brits can understand (I know you are one too it should be easy), SqueakBox 00:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Those arguing that Ireland must be dragged kicking and screaming into a geological/geographic entity called (obnoxiously) the British Isles have completely rubbished their own rationale in their attempts to include the Channel Islands. Do you understand that? (Sarah777 00:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Really there is no problem in writing a very good article about the term British Isles, the origin, the meaning, the politics, the geography. Each side of this great debate, can easily be accommodated. Some editors want it all, or maybe they are just pretending, as one would say, "pulling ones chain". Shalom to everyone, including Squeak! ;) 86.42.149.120 01:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC

The concept of the British Isles has always been a bit fuzzy round the edges when it comes to tiny outlying islands such as the Channel Islands, the Faroes, and Rockall, for example. It's core concept, however, is very precise - it includes the two large islands of Britain and Ireland, plus the surrounding much smaller islands. See the Classical geographer Ptolemy, amongst others. And ironically, it appears that the name "Britain" for the island was actually named after the British Isles, rather than the other way round - the original name for the island being Albion. For those who say that the Channel Islands are only included for political reasons, I say so what? They are tiny and insignificant in the general scheme of things. And in any case, there are political links between Britain and Ireland - what's the big deal about not mentioning them? The name British Isles predates any modern state by many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years. TharkunColl 07:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, it is not Wikipedia's job to take a view either way, we should be neutral. The fact is that the term British Isles is often used to include the Channel Islands and the island of Ireland. It's not for us to take a view on whether that's right or wrong, our role as Wikipedians is merely to report it. The naming of the islands may be inconsistent and controversial, but it would be wrong for us to state in this article that Ireland is not part of the British Isles or that the Channel Islands are not part of the British Isles when, as has been discussed to death, the term is often used to describe the set of islands that includes both entities. Waggers 08:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah. The position of the Channel Islands in the BI's is obviously disputed - see above. The islands are often (and increasingly) referred to as "Britain and Ireland" too, but you seem very reluctant to reflect THAT fact in Wiki.

"And there's also the British-Irish Council. :TharkunColl" (see below) - I could probably live with the British-Irish Islands; though that is an unusual usage. (Sarah777 09:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

I didn't say the use of the Channel Islands in the British Isles wasn't disputed. I said the Channel Islands are often included as part of the group. "Britain and Ireland" implies the UK + ROI, and excludes the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, micronations etc. As such it belongs in the BI terminology article. The British Isles article should be internally consistent, referring to the islands by their most commonly used name throughout, to avoid confusion. Waggers 10:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So the term Britain and Ireland excludes a few tiny islands that are not politically (or geographically) part of Britain! But the term "British Isles" includes a much larger area that is not politically or geographically part of Britain. Hence Britain and Ireland is the more accurate description of these islands. QED. Case closed. (Sarah777 10:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

The term "British Isles" does not mean "Isles that are part of the UK", which seems to be what you're inferring. Britain and Ireland is not an accurate description of the British Isles by any measure. It's not even a consistent term in itself - "Britain" usually (but not always) refers to the UK, while "Ireland" usually refers to the whole island or Ireland. "Great Britain and Ireland" is more internally consistent but only refers to the largest two of the British Isles, excluding hundreds of other islands that are part of the group. But as I said, the article should reflect popular usage, along with all the ambiguities that come with it. There is no one firm definition since the term is used in a variety of ways to mean a variety of things (but never "Isles that are part of the UK", unless you have a source to prove otherwise?) Waggers 10:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In what way is any of this section relating to improving the article? That's the purpose of this page. It is not a soapbox, blog, webforum or Usenet. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point well made. Waggers 13:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The main way this article can be improved is giving these islands their correct name. Folk clapping one another on the back for their mutual logical inconsistency and general incoherence doesn't change that! We can improve this article by removing politically biased POV. (Sarah777 20:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

I agree totally. The correct name of the islands is British Isles, because it is by far the most common name for them, and is the name used by the vast majority of the inhabitants. As for removing politically biased POV - yes, absolutely. Let's start by removing mention of the politically motivated "controversy" from the first paragraph. TharkunColl 21:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

... but if a notable "politically biased POV" exists in the real world, then the only reason to ignore it here is similarly "politically biased POV." The term is objected to at a political level in relations between the two sovereign states occupying the islands (it is not our place to judge the merits of that) and consequently is deliberately avoided in discourse between them. That is notable and should be noted. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl, I am shocked that you'd deliberately misrepresent what I said! Maybe you could expand on what you mean by "sometimes controversial"? Personally I am ready to dispute the geographical misnomer at ALL times. (Sarah777 07:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

You might be ready to dispute it at all times, but it does not follow that everyone in the RoI would do so. Indeed, we know that it is used by government ministers and in parliamentary reports. As for being a geographical misnomer, you are simply wrong. The word "British" has many meanings, only one of which refers to the modern state of the UK. It can refer, for example, to the Celtic inhabitants of the islands - a good example of this is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which describes the British as the enemies of the English, against whom they fought for control of the land. And, in a different context, there is nothing unusual in a group of islands bearing an adjectival form of the name of the largest island in the group - the Canaries/Gran Canaria spring to mind, which is an exact parallel with the British Isles/Great Britain. In order to object the the term British Isles, you must first redefine it as meaning "UK Isles", but that is not what it means at all, as it predates the UK by about two thousand years. I have often wondered why Celtic nationalists in the various parts of the British Isles do not complain that the UK has appropriated the originally Celtic word "British". I would indeed have a modicum of sympathy with that stance. TharkunColl 07:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to keep the word. it has been irredeemably sullied by the Empire; bit like what the Third Reich did for the ancient symbol, the Swastika. No politician in the RoI would dare use that geo-misnomer today. Just as "nigger" is no longer acceptable usage. Time to move on. They no longer call China "Cathay" or Thailand "Siam". The only constant is change. (Sarah777 08:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Common Travel Area

I have just noticed that this is absolutely identical to the British Isles in extent. So much for the lack of any sort of political ties between the islands! And there's also the British-Irish Council. TharkunColl 08:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

See the section in this article. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies 8642149120 - I thought you were calling me a troll so I ignored you; but you were referring to Squeak obviously. Last night, in the hours before dawn (over Ireland and Britain) Squawk crossed the line from troll and Agent provocateur to outright vandal. I think stern measures are called gor. (Sarah777 10:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC))