Talk:Names of the British Isles/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Some redundancy

In copy-editing this article, I agree with the tag; therefore, I've moved the original text here and attempted to summarize it in the article:

Good job and thank you. --HighKing (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternative terms

There are several terms that are used as alternatives for the term British Isles.

These Islands

These Islands or these Isles are purposely vague terms recognising that ‘the British Isles’, has proved increasingly irksome to the Irish.[1] They have been used since the end of the 20th century [1] using the same logic that denotes the Persian Gulf as the Gulf. These Islands was used in Strand Three of the Good Friday Agreement to establish the British-Irish Council, and has been described as the favoured term of Irish politicians.[2] The term These Islands is also used frequently by the current SNP Scottish Government, both in official and unofficial contexts. Clearly these terms are only useful when context has been established beforehand or when used within 'these islands'.

(Great) Britain and Ireland

Probably the most common alternative term in modern usage is "Great Britain and Ireland", or more simply, "Britain and Ireland".[citation needed] This is very common[citation needed] and almost entirely uncontroversial[citation needed], made up of the geographical names of the two major islands. However, it is very similar to the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the state which preceded the modern UK, until the secession of what would become the state of Ireland.

British Isles and Ireland

Another term that is sometimes used is British Isles and Ireland. Similar to "Great Britain and Ireland", this has been used in a variety of contexts — among others religion,[3] nursing,[4] zoological publications,[5] academia,[6] and other sources. This form of title is also used in some book titles[7] and legal publications.[8] This usage, however, implies that Northern Ireland is not part of the British Isles, which causes problems in itself.

United Kingdom (or UK) and (Republic of) Ireland (or ROI)

Sometimes the term "UK & Ireland" is used to refer to the archipelago, however this excludes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which except for some specific legal purposes (e.g. Nationality Law) are not part of the UK. This term is also a more precise way of referring specifically to the two countries alone in cases where the more inclusive term "British Isles" would be incorrect.

Islands of the North Atlantic (or IONA)

In the context of the Northern Ireland peace process the term Islands of the North Atlantic, and its acronym IONA, was a term created by then Conservative Party MP Sir John Biggs-Davison.[9] It has been used as a neutral term to mean the British Isles or the two main islands, without referring to the two states.

IONA has been used by, among others, the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Bertie Ahern:


Others have interpreted the term more narrowly to mean the Council of the Isles or British-Irish Council. Peter Luff MP told the British House of Commons in 1998 that


His interpretation is not widely held, particularly in Ireland. In 1997 the leader of the Irish Green Party, Trevor Sargent, discussing the Strand Three (or East–West) talks between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, commented in Dáil Éireann (the Irish House of Representatives):


His comments were echoed by Proinsias De Rossa, then leader of Democratic Left and later President of the Irish Labour Party, who told the Dáil, "The acronym IONA is a useful way of addressing the coming together of these two islands."[13]

This name is not without ambiguity because of the other islands in the North Atlantic, that have never been considered as part of the British Isles.[14]

Anglo-Celtic Isles

Anglo-Celtic Isles has been used in academia for the isles.[15][16] This reflects the supposed ethnic make up of the islands of Celtic peoples — the Irish, Manx, Scottish, Cornish and Welsh — and the Anglic people — the English, but ignoring the Danes, Normans and later immigrants.

Northwest European Archipelago

Some academics in the 1990s and early 2000s also used the term Northwest European archipelago.[17] Usage however appears sporadic in historiography and rarely repeated outside it, to date.

West European Isles

The name the West European Isles is one translation of the islands' name in the Gaelic languages of Irish[18] and Manx,[19] alongside equivalent terms to British Isle[20] and Manx.[21] In Irish, Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór, literally Ireland and Great Britain, is the more common term.[22]

A somewhat similar usage exists in Iceland. Westman is the Icelandic name for a person from Gaelic areas of Britain and Ireland (Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man), and the Western Lands is the translation of the name for the islands in Icelandic.[23]

Pretanic Isles

A return to the Greek term Pretan(n)ic Isles has been suggested and has seen some usage in academic contexts, particularly in reference to the islands in a pre-Roman context.[24]

Insular

Insular art and Insular script are uncontroversial terms in art history and paleography for the early medieval art and script of all the islands. Insular Celtic is a similar term in linguistics. However this adjective is used only in relation to contexts originating over a thousand years ago.

Wi2g 15:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

pro-British NPOV

"The Great Irish Famine, the Land War and the failure of William Ewart Gladstone and Charles Stuart Parnell to get partial independence (a Bill for Home Rule) through the Westminster Parliament led to the secession of most of Ireland from the United Kingdom. This meant the end of British rule in most of Ireland."

A couple of elections, a Home Rule Bill, the 1916 Rising and the Irish War of Independence apparently deserve no mention to some fans of the late empire... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.152.206 (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

British-Irish archipelago

is another alternative term. in use for example here: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198183846.do --Severino (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Names section

I think an oddity has occurred where in spite of more common names like "Britain and Ireland" or "these isles" being mentioned in the lead, they receive much less attention in the article than the less common ones cited in this section. When the section lead mentions "those [names] cited above", I had to scroll up to realize it was referring to the article lead. It lends itself to a bit of WP:UNDUE, I think, having something like Insular out there in big, bold letters with it's own section and explanation while the most common alternative names are barely mentioned in the article. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Real problem with sources

This edit [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Isles_naming_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=283614271 ] by a blocked sockpuppet is presumably copied from somewhere, as it uses Harvard referencing without providing the full sources, eg it says Cunliffe 2002 but doesn't actually give the name of the book. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's referring to this but I don't know for sure. --HighKing (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This is stupid

Why do people care so much about this? I'm Irish and I've always called the islands the British Isles, as has everyone I've even known. It's just basic geography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.220.122 (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it makes as much sense as complaining that calling the Irish Sea the Irish Sea implies a claim to ownership by Ireland. 46.226.191.181 (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Enough people care to make it notable. Very true about the Irish Sea though. Bevo74 (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The term "Irish Sea" is clearly offensive to the Manx. :)--feline1 (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The Irish sea is also an Anglo-centric term. It is named the Irish sea because its proximity to Ireland is what distinguished that sea for inhabitants of the larger nation. Ireland is surrounded on all sides by seas, why would they name that sea in particular the Irish Sea?
Another reason why it is relatively uncontroversial is because nobody lives in the sea so the monikerdoes not have the same cultural or political associations.

"I've always called the islands the British Isles, as has everyone I've even known." Since I am also Irish, I can confirm that thsi is not true. A host of relevant geographic, political and academic organisations from National Geographic, the Guardian, the Irish government, the UK government have specifically decided not to use the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.188 (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

discussion on use of term in 'Unionism' category

Hi, there is a discussion on the appropriateness of the use of the term 'British isles' for a category renaming discussion about Unionism in the British isles category:Unionism --> discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_17#Category:Unionism. Your inputs to the discussion appreciated. --KarlB (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Image

Hi, there are some edits back and forth around removing the euler diagram. There doesn't seem to be any clear reason why this is removed; the first edit suggested that the map didn't help; further edits suggested it was a disputed term. In any case, it is a diagram developed by consensus here at wikipedia, and is accurate as far as the current understanding of the terms. This page is *not* about whether Ireland is part of the British Isles; it is whether it is appropriate to use the term British Isles, so removing the diagram seems like a form of WP:CENSORSHIP. Someone coming to this page may not understand all of the terminology used, and the euler diagram does a great job of making those terms clear in a graphic fashion. Can someone please tell me why we should *not* have that image here? --KarlB (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Karl, clear reasons were given in each of the edit summary. The diagrams were developed with consensus, but for the for the article on terminology of the British Isles. Not here.
It is inappropriate in an article on a disputed term to present a diagram illustrating that disputed term in definitive terms. It gives the impression that we are advocating one understanding in the dispute, over another. The only way the diagram relates to the substance of the article (i.e. that there is a dispute over what to call the archipelago) is to contradict one view in that dispute. Consequently, it introduces bias. You write, "[the diagram] is accurate as far as the current understanding of the terms." (Your emphasis.) Is it? Whose "understanding" are you referring to? Because this article deals with dispute over the term. The diagram presents what is "accurate" according to one perspective. It pushes a POV, rather than keeping a NPOV.
Aside from that, it adds nothing to the article. A separate article exists for Terminology of the British Isles in which the diagram is appropriate. It appears also in the main British Isles article.
(And, please don't cry WP:CENSORSHIP every time someone removes content that you want to push. There are many reasons to remove content — such as WP:NPOV — that are not censorship. No-one is removing any content for reasons of "censorship".) --RA (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Are you trying to say that British Isles is not commonly understood to include Ireland? I've read over the debate page, and previous votes etc; the task force agreed that British Isles included ireland: Wikipedia:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force/Manual_of_Style#Scope_of_the_British_Isles. I really don't think the scope of the term is under debate; it has been used for a very long time, by a great number of sources, so whether people are offended by it or not does not change the *scope* of the term, and it is not POV to present that as a fact. The page is about whether the term should be used; in the same way one might have a debate over the name of some other geographical place (e.g. the Persian gulf or the Arabian gulf) But for someone who is not versed in the complexities of naming in the isles, presenting a single consensus diagram is in no way prejudicial to their understanding of the debate - especially when they see that graphically 'British Isles' is simply British islands + Republic of Ireland, and may help them understand the reasons for the debate. But your claim that on the naming dispute page, readers are better served by *not* having a political maps doesn't seem to hold much water. Look at this one Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute - it has dozens of maps! I think it would be fine to put in other maps as well, for example old maps showing British Isles, or newer ones showing 'atlantic archipelago' or whatever new terms are being used today - but deleting this highly useful and clear image? No logic there.--KarlB (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
"Are you trying to say that British Isles is not commonly understood to include Ireland?" — I'm saying that this page deals with disagreement over whether the name of the archipelago is British isles and/or if that the Republic of Ireland is included in that term. Planting a (self-created) diagram on this page that calls the archipelago by that term and includes the Republic of Ireland under that term introduces a degree of bias with respect to the topic of this article.
I'm not interested in how poorly the authors of other articles deal with similar or dissimilar disputes. --RA (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
??? That is about the most makey-uppey thing I've ever heard. There is broad consensus as to the meaning of the term, just like there is broad consensus as to the meaning of many racial epithets. What the debate is over is not the scope of the term (except perhaps by a fringe), but rather whether the term should be used at all. It's not about the "name" - places have many "names" - the Persian gulf is one name, the arabian gulf is another name, a name is simply what people happen to call something, it is not intrinsic to the object. how can a consensus-developed diagram be neutral on one page and biased on another?? --KarlB (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Because of context, Karl. Context. The subject of this article is, British Isles naming dispute. Clearly a diagram that purportedly gives a definitive answer to the name of the archipelago and whether the Republic of Ireland is included under the term British Isles is going to be problematic on an article covering disagreement over exactly that question, if we are to approach the topic from a neutral point of view. --RA (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstand the article. It is *not* about the 'definitive name' for those isles. It is about the term British isles and whether it should be used or not because it may cause offence, so a diagram explaining the consensus view on what British Isles means is totally reasonable and helps the user.--KarlB (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with RA, in an article about a naming dispute, one cannot present an image as the de-facto name for the islands. It's biased. Snappy (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but these arguments don't hold water. All over wikipedia, British Isles is the accepted term for Ireland + UK + Isle of Man + Channel islands (+, by the way, all over the world - look at a recent google books search for "British isles", people are still publishing books with this in the title, in spite of Govt. of Ireland complaining. There is a whole task force devoted to ensuring that this usage is properly applied in the wiki. Then, in this *one* article, all of a sudden showing a picture of what the consensus definition of the british isles is has become biased? You've got to be kidding me. Again, the article is not about whether the British isles includes Ireland - that is not up for debate, or if it is those debating it are a massive minority. What is under debate is whether the term itself should be phased out. But in that case, it is still useful to explain to readers what the term means and especially how it compares with other terms, like GB, UK, Ireland, British Islands, etc., which that diagram does nicely.--KarlB (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Karl, you say that "British Isles" is the accepted term for "Ireland + UK + IoM + CI". It isn't. On the other hand, it is the accepted term for "Ireland + GB + IoM + CI". --HighKing (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
It is the way you use the term "British Isles" that doesn't hold water. It is a common geographical term for the group of islands, but slowly on its way out (that can take another 100-150 year). As a political entity, the way you are using the term, it is not common. Looking at the Google Books you have mentioned I noticed that the first 30 books can be classified as books about history or about geography. No one even slightly related to politics and the likes. Taking the books (re)published between january 2010 and December 2011, I see a bigger variety in subject, but the only two about politics (taken from the first five pages) are plain history, while the other one gives an overview of all the states on the (geographical) British Isles], from ancient times to present. If you can prove that the "British Isles" have any status as a political entity, like diplomatic relationships, you are welcome to present that proof. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Surely the point is that the dispute is (wholly or partly) a political one? In terms of geographic location, it is obvious and trivial that the island of Ireland is part of a group of islands of which the largest is Great Britain; hence, collectively, British Isles. This is analogous to the UK (etc) being part of Europe: trivially true in terms of land masses within the continental shelf, but seen by some as politically contentious. Hence, the political aspect is a key part of the British Isles naming dispute. Also, when the UK included (all of) Ireland, the British Isles (or, formally, the British Islands) could be used to label the UK and its Crown Dependencies: a politically-defined area.
Incidentally (@HighKing), the Channel Islands (unlike Ireland and the Isle of Man) are not part of the British Isles in a strictly geographical sense, since they are clearly much more closely connected to the land mass of continental France/Europe. Whether they are treated as being included in the term will depend on the context and historical conservatism of the author; or will be ambiguous or irrelevant in some contexts, because of the Channel Islands' physical unimportance relative to Great Britain and the island of Ireland (or, in political terms, because of their economic unimportance relative the UK and the Republic of Ireland).
— Richardguk (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Observation

The following text, " ... subsequent Cromwellian activities in Ireland ... " highlights for me some of the denialism that lies at the root of the Irish-English problems. I would not refer to IRA bombings as "Republican activites", and I find it (pause) objectionable, I suppose, to refer to the war, famine, and plague that Cromwell brought to Ireland as "activites". I'm not sure how - or whether - this observation figures in this article or its editing, but it should give editors pause when considering the various etymologies. TreacherousWays (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What word or phrase would you use instead? WaggersTALK 07:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
What Cromwell did to the Irish was a directed assault and oppression of the Irish people. Because language matters - as demonstrated by the existence of this article - the correct words ought to be used here. "Cromwellian oppression" or "Cromwellian repression" or "Cromwellian subjugation". Any of these would be more accurate, as would "persecution" or "abuse". TreacherousWays (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Irish Sea

I was wondering if here a similar dispute the other way about the naming of the Irish Sea. I know on the Isle of Man, they call it the Manx sea, but is it anything more than that? Ezza1995 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well when they thought there might be gas or oil under it somehow the Celtic Sea grew bigger at the expense of the Irish Sea in British reporting ;-) But no there hasn't been any real dispute. Dmcq (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in British Isles naming dispute

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of British Isles naming dispute's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "snyder":

  • From Great Britain: Snyder, Christopher A. (2003). The Britons. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-22260-X.
  • From Terminology of the British Isles: Snyder, Christopher A. (2003). The Britons. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-22260-X.
  • From British Isles: Snyder, p. 12.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Isles naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on British Isles naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Isles naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Childish "Dispute"

Is there REALLY a page required on this generally unheard of "dispute"? It is already mentioned in the "British Isles" page. The island group has been known by this term for centuries, it's name derived from the fact that Britons (aka "Pretani") lived on both the main islands.I suspect that any "dispute" is the work of political dinosaurs. An encyclopedia is not the place for furthering mischievous politics. Acorn897 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

One more page documenting the infinitude of the human silliness and stupidity.Mcremp (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there is a need for this page. Despite what you claim, this dispute is not completly over Ebelular (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Pritani redirects to Cruthin but the idea they were the same is disputed there, and nowadays we have the P-Celtic/Q-Celtic difference which indicates the difference must be pretty far back in time, Celts occupied a large part of Europe and need not have got that difference where they ended up. But anyway any naming of the islands doesn't really depend on anything like that! The basic problem is that most of Ireland only got its independence last century and they don't want to be called British. In Northern Ireland it is part of the agreement there that stopped twenty five years of war that they can claim whether are Irish or British as they like. It is a notable topic and that's the basic criterion for an article on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Article titles. Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I think what is important here is whether the debate on Wikipedia as to what to name this debate (or even whether to host the article on the debate) has been discussed in the media sufficiently to justify an article on the Wikipedia debate itself, "Wikipedia British Isles naming dispute", or (wait for it) "Wikipedia British Isles naming dispute in popular culture". By the way, i support Airstrip One, sure to unify all residents of the isles. PS, what kind of dinosaur is the original poster referring to. Perhaps, a Brontosaurus? :)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Isles naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on British Isles naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on British Isles naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Isles naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

British Isles introduced as a political term

In the historical section of the article, we currently have the sentence:

"The term "British Isles" entered the English language in the 16th century to refer to Great Britain, Ireland and the surrounding islands; it was introduced in Elizabethan times as a political term [79]and did not enter common usage until the first half of the 19th century [80]"

I would like to propose deleting the latter two claims. In the case of the claim that "it was introduced in Elizabethan times as a political term" the reference is no good. Not only is it a dead link but it is a reference to a whole book that does not take account of the fact that it is a collection of essays, and any reference would, thus, need to be attributed to a specific author and his essay. In addition, there is no page reference given, so the reference cannot serve its purpose. I have searched both google books and google scholar and have been unable to find anything substantiating the claim, in this book or any other (not helped by the fact that, if there is a reference in this book it is unavailable due to the lack of a preview on google books). It's a shame we can't use original research, though, as the text of Dee's work itself might arguably substantiate such a claim:

"Moreover, (Sayd he) if it should not be taken in worse parte, of Our Sovereign, than of the Emperour of Constantinople, Emanuel, the syncere intent and faythfull advise, of Georgius Gemistus Pletho, was, I could (proportionally, for the occasion of tyme and place) frame and shape very much of Gemistus those his two Greek Orations, (the first to the Emperor and the second to his sonne, Prince Theodore) for our Brytish Isles, and in better and more allowable manner, at this Day, for our People, than that his Plat (for Reformation of the State at those Dayes) could be found, for Peloponnesus available."

Dee is clearly using the term here to denote the 'Brytish Isles' as a political unit, although it is still highly dubious to say it was introduced for such a purpose. Regardless of the primary source, though, "it was introduced in Elizabethan times as a political term" is too strong to appear without a reference.

"did not enter common usage until the first half of the 19th century"

This is even more problematic as the footnote in support of it does not say at all what the text in the article says. The quotation in the note only says that 'British Isles' was not commonly used in political discourse in the time of King James and King Charles. It has nothing to say about geographical usage and nor does it say anything about entering 'common usage' in the 19th century. Perhaps this is elsewhere in the book but, if so, someone with access to it needs to make this clear as, at the moment, the supporting quote fails entirely to support the text of the article.

So, unless some references can be provided I propose removing these two claims.

On a separate note, the introduction to the section makes no mention of the paragraph about the use of the Latin version of the term by European Geographers in the fifty years prior to Dee's writing. We have a paragraph on this but no summary, so I propose that a short two sentence summary be included amongst the other summaries at the start of the section. 78.145.35.155 (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

So long as your references hold up and the text you introduce is balanced. You are correct in that a number of statements are made that don't appear to have proper citations. I always had a problem with the statement "The Latin version of "British Isles" came to be used again in Europe with the rediscovery of Ptolemy's Geographica in the 14th Century" since it is always dodgy translating from one language to another and into a different context. -- HighKing++ 11:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
We can always just use the Latin instead (Britannicae Insulae) in the summary (although there are some inconsistencies in spelling on some maps) or find another way of rendering the translatability of the term in English. 78.145.35.155 (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure but the context of "who rules", "land", "territory" and "ownership" was very different in Ptolemy's time and a translation would need to also take account of this fact. For example, it could be argued extremely well that "Britannicae Insulae" referred to the fact that the Britons were the inhabitants of (or lived in) the islands but how would that translate into a neat term today? However well it translates and however close the translation is to "British Isles", the two terms had almost nothing in common due to their context in time. -- HighKing++ 19:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to leave out "Latin version" if that's contentious. However, when the Latin was readopted by European geographers in the 1500s the context in which they were using the term moves into the same period of time as the first recorded us of 'British Isles'. The issue might actually be more complex, though. It turns out that Dee was one of the sources for Mercator's map some twenty years before his first recorded use of "Brytish Illes Google Book Link and he had a lively correspondence with many other cartographers at the time so it could be the case that it was his preferred term that was influencing the European usage of the Latin on maps. But that possibility is just speculation.78.145.35.155 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
More a case of "unreferenced" but you'll find a lot of stuff on this topic is scantily referenced but heavily interpreted :-) I hope you don't mind but I changed the reference to a link - references aren't used on Talk pages. Is there any possibility that you create an account? It will make it easier to communicate. You don't have to of course but some editors feel more comfortable with user IDs and not IP addresses (which can change). -- HighKing++ 13:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Britannias/Britanniae

The article alternates between "the Britannias" (English) and "the Britanniae" (Latin) as a plural form. Confusingly, however, "Britanniae" is more often used here as the genitive singular ("of Britain", as in "principes Britanniae", "chiefs of Britain"), and there is no clear explanation of why the plural was ever used. It would surely be simpler if the English and Latin plural forms were replaced in both languages by the singular "Britannia", as elsewhere in the article - the situation is complicated enough as it is!213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

OR

Just wondering. Is this article the worst example of persisting OR on the whole of Wikipedia? I think it's a strong contender. If you want to find out about this so-called naming dispute you can only come to WP to find out about it. That says it all, doesn't it? PowderBlack (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that attitude is for. If you disagree with the naming dispute because of your personal beliefs that doesn't invalidate the views of millions of other people.Hibarnacle (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b These islands Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (17th ed)
  2. ^ in Linnean, Hugh; "The Islands in the Stream", Irish Times; July 15, 2006
  3. ^ Prayer Association of British Isles and Ireland
  4. ^ Macey & Morgan, Learning on the road: nursing in the British Isles and Ireland (Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, 1988)
  5. ^ Badham, M., and Richards, V. (1991). Gibbon Regional Studbook: British Isles and Ireland, 13th Edition, Twycross Zoo, East Midland Zoological Society, Twycross.
  6. ^ FOLK 547 640: Folklore of the British Isles and Ireland, a course in the University of Pennsylvania; British archaeology
  7. ^ For example, P. North, The Private International Law of Matrimonial Causes in the British Isles and the Republic of Ireland (1977).
  8. ^ See Law Society Gazette, Law Society of Ireland, July 2001.<!
  9. ^ Open Republic. Retrieved 5 July 2006. [dead link]
  10. ^ Statement by the Taoiseach and Leader of Fianna Fáil, Mr Bertie Ahern, TD on "Northern Ireland: Political Situation and Developments" at the Forty-Second Plenary Session of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, Dublin Castle, 5 December 1997
  11. ^ House of Commons. Vol.304. Col.663. 16 January 1998.
  12. ^ Dáil Debates. Vol.484. Col.466. 9 December 1997.
  13. ^ Dáil Debates. Vol 484. Col.466. 9 December 1997.
  14. ^ http://www.northatlantic-islands.com/
  15. ^ Dolley, Michael). R A Hall ed. The Anglo-Danish and Anglo-Norse coinages of York. Viking Age York and the North; CBA Research Report No 27, pp. 26–31, Council for British Archaeology.
  16. ^ "The British-Irish Council is a ... potential shift of the geopolitical centre of gravity of the Anglo-Celtic isles". Harvey, David C.; Rhys Jones, Neil Mcinroy, Christine Milligan (2001). Celtic Geographies: Old Culture, New Times. New York: Routledge, p241.
  17. ^ David Armitage, "Greater Britain: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis?" in American Historical Review, Vol. 104, No. 2 (Apr., 1999) p.427.
  18. ^ Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa seems rather appropriate, in Patrick Dinneen. 1927. Irish–English Dictionary. Dublin: Irish Texts Society
  19. ^ [Ellanyn Sheear ny hOarpey] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) in Douglas C. Fargher. 1979. Fargher's English-Manx dictionary. Douglas: Shearwater Press.
  20. ^ Na hOileáin Bhreatanacha, in T. J. Dunne, tr. Toirdhealbhach Ó Raithbheartaigh. 1937. Tír-Eóluíocht na h-Éireann. Baile Átha Cliath: Oifig Díolta Foillseacháin Rialtais
  21. ^ [Ny hEllanyn Goaldagh] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) s.v. British-Isles, in Douglas C. Fargher. 1979. Fargher's English-Manx dictionary. Douglas: Shearwater Press.
  22. ^ Focal.ie
  23. ^ "Vest-madr", "Vestr-lond" R Cleasby & G. Vigfusson Icelandic–English Dictionary Oxford 1874
  24. ^ Google search for term Pretanic Isles and Pretannic Isles
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Names_of_the_British_Isles/Archive_5&oldid=1193359226"