User talk:Iolar Iontach

Welcome!

Hello, Iolar Iontach, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Robdurbar 12:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

Utter nonsense to refer to Ireland as a part of Great Britain. Referring to it as being a part of the British Isles is one thing, referring to it as a constituent of Great Britain is majorly ill-informed and makes your whole exegesis invalid.

What on earth are you talking about? This is what I said:

The best that can be said for your position is that the term British Isles is going (or has gone) out of fashion amongst the Irish. It is still in common usage among the much larger population of Great Britain (to mean both Great Britain and Ireland), not to mention English speakers all over the world. You are therefore arguing for a minority dialectical variant.

I never said that Ireland is part of Great Britain, because it isn't. It is, however, part of the British Isles. TharkunColl 12:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who are pushing a political agenda, not I. And to say that a word can't have more than one meaning is patently absurd. This is proved by the very case in point, because British Isles does indeed include Ireland. Did those Roman authors who used it have the UK in mind? As for the Northern Ireland peace process, so what? You cannot legislate for language, and I think they had the good sense not to try. TharkunColl 05:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to tell me, for example, that a word like "American" only has one meaning? It has a geographical meaning that long predated the USA, and describes a considerably larger area. This is exactly analagous to the term "British" in "British Isles". TharkunColl 12:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations from Classical authors are on that very page! They unambiguously include Ireland within the term. TharkunColl 12:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that words can and do change their meaning over time (but not, incidentally, through legislation). In this case, however, the vast majority of English speakers - let alone the vast majority of speakers in the British Isles - still use the term in its long-established and original meaning. If it's true that certain Irish people choose not to, then they are only a tiny minority. TharkunColl 12:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My agenda, as you call it, is merely for factual accuracy. You keep citing legislation all the time, but surely you must realise that legislation cannot affect the way people actually speak and use the language. As for respecting minority opinion, the article points out in no uncertain terms that some Irish people onject to the term - I think that's being fair. You also keep saying that "British" only has one precise meaning. On its own, without a following noun, I tend to agree. But the noun makes all the difference. Not only in the phrase "British Isles", but also, just off the top of my head, "British Columbia". And how about the phrase "best of British luck" - which I once heard used in an Australian soap opera. Language is not a mathematical equation, and some set phrases mean things that appear, on the surface, to be contradictory. There are perfectly good historical reasons why the terms "British Isles" and "British Columbia" exist, and neither of those are conncted with the British state as such. TharkunColl 13:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you appeal to statute to argue your case. In contrast, my position is based on how the language is actually used. However, you appear to have accepted (at least with regard to British Columbia) that there are indeed occasions when the word "British" is used that are not in reference to the UK. "British Isles" is one such term, which moreover predates the foundation of the British state (1707) by nearly two millennia. You have said that words can change their meaning over time - but this has not happened with the phrase "British Isles" - at least, not for the vast majority of English speakers. Would it be okay, in your opinion, to use the phrase "British Isles" when talking about, say, the Roman period? Or the medieval period? TharkunColl 17:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your changes to British Isles. My intention was solely to balance the article out and make it a bit more geographical. The way you've reworded the sovereign state issue without a straightforward reversion of what I wrote is fine by me. I can live with the version as it stands. Cheers. --kingboyk 17:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing talk pages

Hi, welcome to wikipedia! I just wanted to note that long strings of minor edits to comments on talk pages makes it quite difficult to follow a complex discussion. It'd be much easier if you wrote each comment in one go, perhaps using the preview button. Cheers! --Khendon 16:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message to User:Iolar Iontach and User:TharkunColl

Please remember the point of the Talk:British Isles page, and talk pages in general. It is as a forum for improving an aritcle. You two have spent many months debating various arguments over the accuracy/inacurracy of the term British Isles. You clearly disagree with each other and clearly have strong views on the subject. But talk pages are not forums for discussing these, as you have been warned previously. I have archived the current talk page and left a note at the top of the new one to warn all users in future to follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

If you want to improve or alter the article, then suggest changes, discuss its content. But do not discuss the concept in general, or maintain pointless bickering about the term 'British Isles'. --Robdurbar 12:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think any reasonable person can see that the following discourse does not mention the article ONCE and does not serve any purpose other than to debate the issue. I've created a subpage for it here so it doesnt clog up your talk page. Bear in mind, please, that this is just the latest after months of endless disucssion:

/British Isles Discussion

With no mention of the article, with no justification, this cannot be accpeted as anything other than discussion. Now if you want to move the artilce, re-jig its content, hell, eniterly rewrite it under the principle that the nomenclature is incorrect then suggest so. Under that circumstance, such a discussion may be relevant. Otherwise, it is a blatant violation of the guidelines, especially where such discussion has taken place repeatedly on numerous occaisions. I do not want to censor talk, but to assure that it only takes place when/where required. --Robdurbar 20:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, if you want to object to someone changing the definition of British, then bring your arguments up in that context. Do not continue for the sake of continuing them. --Robdurbar 20:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OED

Look, I do not know what version you are looking at of the OED, but I am using the complete (i.e. in paper contained by a large number of fine type volumes, most definitely not large format) OED. Definition 1 of "British" refers to the pre-Roman inhabitants, definition 2 refers to the modern identity. You may not like it, but it is definitive. Lots of examples for these usages (some given in the article), so please leave it alone. More information Talk:British_Isles/Archive_5#Meaning of British. MAG1 15:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It actually isn't esoteric and continues to be used as a adjective for the ancient Britons whenever pre-Norman cultures are discussed in the press- saw it recently (it's somewhere on the terrible British Isles talk pages) in The Sunday Times when discussing genetic evidence for the extent of Anglo-Saxon immigration; for other examples see here [1] or here [2], and David Crystal and Michael Wood are widely published. This is not POV pushing: it's use dates from well before the modern British entity, and I think is the origin of the term British Isles. Certainly it is why British Isles is a neutral term in the UK, and the use of British in its sense of referring to pre-Saxon people is met by large numbers of people in the UK when they 'do' the Romans at school. I would not usually push such a nice distinction, but in this case it is at the nub of the disagreements and its inclusion provides enlightenment rather than obscurity. MAG1 13:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]